Sitting of 24 March 1834

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a third time:—Stafford Borough Disfranchisement.
Petitions presented. By Mr. BOLLING, from the Hand-Loom Weavers of several Places, for a Board of Trade, and for Relief; and from the Retailers of Beer in Bolton-le-Moors, to be placed on a Footing with Licensed Victuallers.—By Mr. TYRELL, from Bury St. Edmund's, &c., for the Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Sir ROBERT PEEL, from the County of Stafford, Mr. T. C. WHITEMORE, from Bridgnorth, and Mr. E. FOLEY, from Bromyard,—for Relief to the Agricultural Interest.—By Mr. HOSKINS, from Upton-Bishop, for Poor Laws to Ireland.—By Lord MORPETH, from Gainsborough, against Children being Employed in (Cleaning Chimneys.—By Lord CAVENDISH, and Captain PAGET, from several Places,—for the Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Sir ROBERT PEEL and Lord CAVENDISH, from four Places,—against any Measures tending to diminish the Efficiency of the Established Church.

DISSENTERS' GRIEVANCES—CAMBRIDGE PETITION.
Mr. Spring Ricerose to address the House upon the Petition of certain Members of the University of Cambridge, presented by him on Friday morning. The petition was entitled to the best, and if he might presume so to say, the most respectful consideration of the House, no less on account of the important subject to which it re-
570
lated, than on account of the learning, high character, and moral worth of the individuals by whom it was signed. The petition had emanated from sixty-three resident members of the Senate of the University of Cambridge, and it prayed, that the advantages of degrees at the University might be extended to all classes of his Majesty's subjects, without any distinction whatever upon the ground of religious opinions. The petition in its prayer, was perfectly consonant to many of those which had already been presented to that House from the different Dissenting bodies of the country; but it was still more gratifying to learn, that the principle of opening the doors of the University to the Dissenters, was laid down and acknowledged by those who might be supposed to have an interest in their exclusion, than when this argument proceeded from the Dissenters themselves. It furnished, not only the best evidence of the justice of their claims, but it furnished, also, the cheering hope, that the prayer of the petition could not be refused. He might be allowed to remark, that it was of the greatest possible importance, that all concessions should thus be made, and that an amicable adjustment should thus be concluded between independent—for he would not say contending—parties; or, in other words, between the Dissenters themselves, and those who had the power of granting or of withholding the advantages which the Dissenters justly claimed. Was it not better and wiser, that those advantages should be freely and liberally conceded by the members of the University, than that they should be extorted from them by importunity and clamour? He thought, that when the right of the Dissenters to be admitted to the privilege of this University was urged by members of the University itself, it came with more force, and would be more gratifying, as well as more salutary in its effects, and more beneficial in eventual consequences, than when it was demanded by the Dissenters only, because in the latter case it proved, that the petitioning members of the Senate admitted the justice of the claims of the Dissenters. It was, however, only just, that he should state, that he was not entitled to present the petition which he held as the petition of the University of Cambridge: it could not be so designated. It was the petition of sixty-three of the resident

571
members of the Senate. He stated that fact, not that it could deprive the petition of the weight which it deserved, for he should presently show, that although it came from only a portion of the members of the University, it was entitled to as much attention and respect, as the petitions which usually came from the general body. The petition, as he had already stated, was signed by sixty-three members of the University—one only of whom being a non-resident member. That gentleman was Professor Babbage, whom it was only necessary to name to the House, to give force to a document which spoke the opinions of men of literature and science. The number of resident members, of the University did not exceed, he believed, 180. No doubt, his right hon. friend (Mr. Goulburn) was better informed upon that point than he could pretend to be; but, as he understood, the resident number of members of the Senate did not amount to more than 180, and the number of members who had voted in the Senate on ordinary occasions, did not exceed 150. Thus, there were sixty-three resident members of the Senate, out of 150, whose names were attached to the petition, praying, that the Dissenters might be admitted to the benefit of academic degrees in the University. Nor did he rely upon their numbers, only; for he was prepared to show, that the petitioners were men, not only distinguished for their moral worth, but for great collegiate usefulness, and for having obtained high University honours. Besides the sixty-three petitioners, there were, he believed, ten or twelve members of the Senate, who fully concurred in the prayer of the petition, but who, from peculiar reasons, declined to sign it; and, therefore, the document might fairly be taken as the petition of more than one-half of the general body of the resident members accustomed to vote in the Senate. He considered, however, that on an occasion of this description, the mere number of signatures to the petition was, after all, of less importance, than the stations and characters of the individuals who had signed it. If he should have the misfortune of encountering the opposition of his right hon. friend, on the prayer of this petition, he was quite sure his right hon. friend would fully concur with him, in bearing his testimony to the academic attainments, high character, and moral
572
worth of the petitioners. However his right hon. friend might differ from him as regarded the prayer and object of the petition, he was sure, at least, that his right hon. friend would agree with him, as to the high characters of those whose respectful prayer he recommended to the consideration of the House. It was hardly necessary to recapitulate the names of the persons whose signatures were attached to the petition, for they have already been stated elsewhere; but when he found among the subscribing professors, the names of Airy, Babbage, Sedgwick, Musgrave, Lee, and others, he was entitled to say, that no petition from the scientific world of Cambridge could be more respectably signed. When, in addition to these eminent and distinguished men, he found the names of eleven tutors, and, among the names those of Peacock and of Thirlwall, he was not, he thought, estimating too highly the importance due to a petition, emanating from men of the highest attainments in literature and science—all of whom were deeply pledged and deeply interested in the welfare of the University, and responsible for the due administration of its affairs. His right hon. friend could but agree, that men more respectable for their high attainments and their private worth could not be found in any country in Europe. They commenced their petition—as they were entitled to commence it—by declaring their honest and sincere attachment both to the Established Church and the University. They were entitled to express this attachment, because no individuals had exerted themselves with greater zeal and effect, in upholding the character both of the Church and the University. In proof of this, he would just mention that Professor Sedgwick, one of the petitioners, who was now so anxious to open the doors of the University to Dissenters, had, within the last year, made the most eloquent, the most triumphant, and unanswerable defence of the character, studies, and pursuits of our University. Nor did he think, that the Professor, in that admirable defence, had given a stronger proof of the honesty and purity of his attachments to the Church and the University, than in lending his name and authority to the subject of this petition. What became of the argument, then, which some persons might urge, that the interests of the University and the Established Church required that the exclusion of the Dissenters

573
should be perpetuated? Here was an avowed and zealous champion of the Church, deeply interested in the welfare of the University, ready—nay, anxious to admit them. Looking at the origin of the disabilities of which the petitioners complained, let the House not suppose, that these exclusions were the work of our early Church, or that they were coeval with the Reformation. They did not originate in the days of Edward 6th or of Elizabeth. They were not the work of the Cranmers, the Ridleys, the Latimers, or of other founders of Protestantism—those who were at once the champions and the martyrs of the Church. No; the exclusion of the Dissenters from the honours and privileges of the University of Cambridge was reserved for later days—for a monarch who, in state affairs, laid down the doctrine of "kingcraft," and whose religious wisdom was exhibited at the conferences of Hampton Court—a monarch who added to the literature of his country, a Treatise on Demonology, and who declared that the service of the Established Church was but a bad mass, and only required the lifting up of hands to make it rank Popery. It certainly was not from such a source that our Church could derive any great blessings: but, how did the exclusion work its way? Prior to the reign of James 1st there had been no exclusion whatever from a University degree, by reason of any religious test. In the year 1507, the Statutes of the Universities were consolidated by Queen Elizabeth; and this was a period, be it remembered, when test oaths were scattered so unsparingly, that even a test was imposed on all midwives, who were prohibited, under certain pains and penalties, from performing the ceremony of baptism with rose water, or any other confections. Yet, at this period, when oaths of office were so extended, no religious test whatever was imposed on Dissenters at the Universities, and there existed no legal impediment to prevent them from enjoying the benefits and privileges of the University. Among the documents in existence to prove the non-existence of any test, there was one which was conclusive. He referred to the Royal Letter written in 1613, and addressed to the University of Cambridge, which had been laid upon the Table of the House; it was in these words:—"Understanding by your private answer made unto our challenge, that there is no established decree or ordi-
574
nance for the denial of degrees to such as refuse to subscribe," &c. Here was a distinct admission from the King himself, made on communication with the University, that no religious tests were at that period demanded. What, then, did his Majesty command? Having taken some dislike, as he stated, to a certain Mr. Burgesse, who had obtained a degree of Doctor of Physic, his Majesty proceeded to do—what? Not to introduce the present system—Oh no! he did not go quite so far; though, in effect, he acted upon the same principle. The letter went on to state:—"In signification of our dislike of the degree of Doctor of Physic, granted without subscription to Mr. Burgesse, who, on a humour of schism or faction apostatizing from his orders, hath taken himself to physic." And then the letter proceeded to direct that a grace should be passed, requiring subscription from Bachelors of Divinity, or Doctors of Law, Physic, or Divinity; and to ordain, that no persons whatsoever should be admitted who had not subscribed to the three articles of the 36th canon. The logic of the decree as applicable to Mr. Burgesse, does not seem to be very accurate. The royal mandate was not justified because it protected the Church from schism, but because it might save an apothecary from heterodoxy. The King did not shrink from the dangers which an heretical physician might entail upon the Church, but he seems to have been alarmed at the dangers which a latitudinarian physician, quitting the Church, might inflict on his patients. What connexion there could be between prescriptions and the Thirty-nine Articles, he could not perceive. It was important, however, to see how his Majesty followed up the spirit of his letter. He directed the University to pass a law or grace to carry that letter into immediate effect; and, accordingly, the University passed a grace, imposing religious tests upon Doctors of Medicine, and Doctors of Law and Divinity. Matters rested thus until the year 1616, when his Majesty visited the races of Newmarket for his amusement; and, thinking that he might blend business with pleasure, he deemed it a fitting occasion to revise the laws and regulations of the University of Cambridge; and he accordingly wrote a second letter to the heads of the University, in which he directed that religious tests should be taken by all per-

575
sons qualified to take degrees in the schools, and ordered that no such degree, should be granted to any person who did not subscribe to the tests required. There was however, one material point connected with that letter, to which he wished particularly to draw the attention of the House. The King did not, in that letter, direct the University to pass a grace, adopting and confirming his instruction. Although he was bound to admit, that this letter was subsequently acted upon, yet it must be recollected that no law was passed by the University to give it effect. It was not very surprising, indeed, that the University should have acted under royal command, for in those days it was well known that his Majesty was in the habit of acting in a somewhat peremptory manner, even with the House of Commons, as its Journals demonstrate. The House of Commons, in those days, did not always display any vehement inclination to resist the King's authority; for although, when his Majesty sent a message to the House, desiring that a conference should forthwith take place with the House of Lords, the House refused to obey the royal mandate; yet, when the King sent a second message, desiring that a conference should take place between the Commons and the Judges of the land, and when there was thus a direct interference on the part of the Crown, with the privileges of the House, the consternation and the astonishment were so great, that none of the Members could, for some time, speak. At length a Member stood up to address the House; but all he ventured to state was, "That the King's command is like a thunderbolt, not to be withstood; or it is like the roaring of a lion, but how and in which manner we are to obey it, is the only question." Now, was it not clear, if to the Commons of England the order of his Majesty was so terrible, that it could only be compared to a thunderbolt, or the roaring of a lion, it was was not at all surprising that the doctors of Cambridge should give a reluctant consent to the orders of such a sovereign? In the year 1641—a period to which he was aware some of his hon. friends opposite would not attach much importance—in that year, 1641, the test was repealed altogether, and it continued a dead letter until the year 1660, when the test was again renewed. He was now merely stating, that which was a matter of history; he
576
did not argue that the test was necessarily improper, because it was repealed in 1641. His argument was this: that the test was improperly imposed in the outset. He was not arguing, because it was set aside in 1641, that it ought to be set aside now; but he maintained, that the time had arrived, when the test of the University of Cambridge should be done away with, whether it was to be effected by legislative enactment, or by the timely concession of the University itself. In 1772, that which before was but an usurpation of the Crown, became, by a new Grace, University law; but in place of calling upon the candidates for certain degrees to subscribe to the three articles of the 36th canon, they were merely required to sign a declaration, to the effect that they were bonâ fide members of the Established Church. That Grace was now acted upon at Cambridge, where the law was, that no person shall proceed to take a degree, whether of Doctor or Bachelor of Divinity, Doctor of Law or Physic, without subscribing to the three articles of the 36th canon; and no Bachelor of Arts could take his degree without declaring that he was, bonâ fide, a member of the Established Church of England. It might be said, if he objected to these tests as invading religious liberty, that he had argued upon abstract principles against these tests; but he was enabled to prove, that, even at the period when these tests were first legally imposed, they worked most injuriously, as regarded the interests of the university itself, and that the ill effects of the test were felt as soon as the grace of 1772 had passed. He begged to draw the special attention of those Gentlemen, who considered that but little practical inconvenience was felt by the existence of the test, to an important case, which clearly illustrated his argument. It was, generally, a painful infliction on the House to be obliged to listen to an extract from a printed book, but he hoped that the importance of the case under discussion would plead his apology. The case was as follows:
In the month of January, 1773, Mr. Thomas Blackburne, student of St. Peter's College, having passed the usual examination in his own society, and who, in the senate-house, had applied for the degree of Bachelor in Arts, was rejected. His testimonials and qualifications were as follow:—at the close of the examination, in his own college, the master signed a paper, importing that Mr. Blackburne, with two other persons; had resided for the major

577
part of such a number of terms as the statute requires. A grace for his degree was then passed in College, which implies an approbation of his moral conduct and proficiency in learning. He appears in the senate-house at the customary hours of examination; and, as he was a youth who had greatly distinguished himself in all the previous exercises, is particularly noticed during the time of trial. He passes through that trial with applause; and, in the judgment of the moderators, and all the examiners, is declared worthy of all the honours which the University is wont to bestow upon approved merit. At the close of this examination, when nothing now retrained but what is too frequently regarded as a mere form and ceremony, the conscientious young man hints to the master and tutor of his college, his objections to the declaration required by the grace of 1771, and delivers into their hands the following declaration:—
"I, Thomas Blackburne, do hereby declare my full persuasion of the truth of the Christian religion, as exhibited in the Scriptures; that I have hitherto communicated with the Established Church, and have no present intention of communicating with any other."
This "supplicat," or petition for his degree, is next presented to the caput; the subscription book is called for, and his name not appearing in its place, the Vice-Chancellor refuses to read his "supplicat," and he is consequently refused his degree.
Was not that example worth all the arguments which could be produced, to show the injustice and cruelty of the so-called "graces." If it were not enough, he could produce many others. Only a few years after this affair of Mr. Blackburne's, a declaration, nearly to the same effect as his, and grounded nearly on the same objections, was signed by many of the under-graduates of the University. These young gentlemen stated, that really they were so occupied with their studies, that they had not sufficient leisure to examine maturely the articles to which they were called upon to subscribe; and they entreated the University, under such circumstances, to consider, that to make them sign a declaration that they were members of a particular faith, was but laying a snare for their consciences; and, therefore, to excuse them from doing so, these under-graduates subsequently petitioned the University for a modification of the law; but the resident senate rejected their prayer. But if the arguments for the abolition of this unjust law had weight at that period, how did they stand now? At that period exclusion was a general principle in our
578
laws. But was he now to be told, that, after repealing the Test and Corporation Acts, this invidious test could still be allowed to remain at the Universities as a barrier against all who were not of the Established Church? The thing was preposterous in principle, and indefensible in practice. It could not be maintained; and if he was called upon to argue this case, he felt that he must almost tight with a shadow. It was not for him to argue that no inconveniences would result from the abolition of those distinctions. The onus lay on the other side. It rested with those who argued in favour of restrictions, to show the dangers that were likely to arise if those restrictions were removed. He hoped it would be understood, that he was confining himself to this petition from the University of Cambridge. He was not arguing the case as regarded the University of Oxford. He was not, from personal experience, acquainted with the practice of that University, but he must say, from all that he had heard and understood, the University of Oxford had at least acted with something like logical consistency. They said, "We hold ourselves a part of the Established Church, and into that Church no Dissenters can enter." But what said the Petitioners from the University of Cambridge to the Dissenters? "We have found you, by experience, as good members of our colleges as ourselves; you are as amenable to college rules and discipline as any of the members who belong to the Established Church." But then, said the University to the Dissenters: "You may go through our studies to a certain extent; but beyond that limit you shall not pass." That exclusion was wrong in principle; let the House only see how it worked; let them look to the practical effect of this exclusion. The University could only exclude Dissenters from degrees, and thereby they protected, not the orthodoxy of the colleges through which these Dissenters had already passed, but the orthodoxy of the Bar and of the College of Physicians! They subjected the Dissenters to a disqualification which could not be of any public benefit to Cambridge. Did the case rest merely upon reasoning?—did it depend upon general principles only?—or had they no experience to justify the admission of Dissenters to University honours and degrees? In his mind, one of the most powerful arguments in favour

579
of the admission of Dissenters to the Universities, was the illustration referred to by the learned member for Dublin, with regard to the admission of Dissenters to the University of that city. If the experiment of admitting Dissenters into Prinity College, Dublin, had been tried without any danger to the Established Church;—if this experiment had been successfully made in a country where civil and religious discord prevailed, and where party-spirit ran high—by what process of reasoning could the Dissenters be justly excluded froth the Universities of another and a more favoured country, where, undoubtedly, and fortunately, more moderate opinions prevailed? Under the ancient Statutes of Elizabeth, Protestant Dissenters were admitted into the University of Dublin, as in Cambridge, without any religious tests, long before the Act of 1793. In that year, however, an Act was introduced for the purpose of admitting Roman Catholics. That Statute was the Act of Mr. Pitt; it was introduced on the authority of the Government of the day, and, by the provisions of that Act, Roman Catholics were admitted to all the honours of the University, and were only excluded from the offices of Provost and Fellow. This Act, passed by a Parliament of which the Provost was a Member, and to which the Representatives of the College were acquiescing parties, met with no opposition; on the contrary, as far as the University was concerned, there was but one objection. He entreated that the consideration of the House might be directed to the nature of that objection, and to the character of the party by whom it was raised. This objection referred not to the admission of Catholics to degrees, but to the exclusion of the Roman Catholics from the offices of Provost and Fellow; and it was contended by the party who urged it, that no Roman Catholic should, in future, be excluded from those offices. By whom was that Amendment proposed? Why, by John Claudius Beresford; a man, he need hardly say, not peculiarly friendly to the claims of the Roman Catholics. It was true that the Act itself was opposed; and he would read to the House an extract from the Speech in which that opposition was expressed:—It was this, 'God 'forbid that I should ever see the pious 'intentions of the royal founders of the 'Universities frustrated by any perversion
580
'of the privileges or revenues thereof to 'support or encourage Popery, or those 'hallowed walls made the residence of 'superstition and tyranny. If, however, 'it be determined to open the Universities 'to Catholics, let the British Minister 'first procure an Act of Parliament to open 'the English Universities, and then the 'bitter potion may be more readily swallowed 'by the infatuated and betrayed Protestants of Ireland.' If the name of "Dissenter" was substituted for "Roman Catholic," and the term "Atheism" for "superstition," and "treason" for "tyranny," they might read in that speech, so altered, some of the arguments which were now urged against the claims of the Dissenters. Such was the only argument made use of;—and by whom? By no other person than Dr. Duigenan. It was, therefore, the torn and worn-out mantle which had dropped from the shoulders of that character, once distinguished in the annals of Irish bigotry, which clothed and covered those who now opposed the just claims of the Dissenters. He had little more to say on this subject; but he could not conclude without explaining the motives which induced the petitioners to submit their views to the consideration of that House. They followed this course, because, under the present constitution of the University of Cambridge, this question could not be discussed or considered within the walls of the University; and, therefore, it was, that the honourable and respected individuals who had signed the petition, could not be fairly charged with having passed over the legitimate and academic mode of attaining their object; on the contrary, they had been compelled, by the constitution of the University, to appeal to Parliament itself. He admitted, that if within the walls of the University this question could have been considered with hopes of ultimate, if not immediate, success;—if the great principles at issue could have received that calm and temperate discussion which would satisfy the minds of reasonable men, so as to persuade them that, however retarded at the outset, truth must, in the end, prove successful;—if the petitioners could entertain such expectations, and they neglected to submit their complaints to the investigation of the authorities of the University, they might, perhaps, be reproached with forgetting that respect which was due to

581
their associates, and the heads of colleges. To those gentlemen who were familiar with the practice of this University, the reasons must be obvious why the petitioners had not adopted the course thus suggested. But as many hon. Members were altogether unconnected with the University, and consequently were ignorant of the principles by which its proceedings were regulated, it might be necessary to advert to the peculiar circumstances which induced the petitioners to lay their petition before the House. There was, at the University, an authority called the "caput," composed of the Vice-Chancellor, the Heads of Faculties, and two Masters of Arts, to whom all propositions whatever must be submitted before they could even be discussed in the Senate; and the veto of any one member of the caput prevented any question proposed from being considered or discussed by the senate. Mr. Hume, in his "Essay on the Peculiar Customs of Certain Nations," had alluded to the liberum veto of the Polish Diet, as inconsistent with the functins of any deliberative assembly; and yet such a liberum veto existed in the caput of Cambridge, and was used and extended in later times to prevent any proposition which was objected to from coming under the consideration of the Senate. If he were asked why the caput was not tried, he need only state, that his hon. friend (Mr. Pryme), one of the distinguished members of the University, and one who had uniformly directed his attention to its interests, proposed to the caput that a committee, or syndicate, should be appointed for the purpose of inquiring whether religious tests could or could not be dispensed with; and the proposal was at once negatived by the caput. Dr. Hewitt, also a member of the caput, acknowledging, for argument's sake to his colleagues, that religious tests might have something to do with other things, but denying that they should at all interfere with the grant of a medical degree—proposed that these tests should be dispensed with in regard to degrees in the profession to which he belonged. Both these very moderate and just demands were rejected. It was, therefore, very doubtful whether, without legislative interference, the University of Cambridge was ever likely to release the Dissenters from the disabilities under which they laboured at the University. But they were met by
582
the objection, that Parliament had no right to interfere in the concerns of this University. Had not Parliament already interfered;—aye, and to a far greater extent than was now proposed by the individuals who had signed this petition? Were there not upon the Statute-book interferences infinitely stronger then those which they were now called upon to discuss? He asked the House to recollect, in reference to this part of the question, the Statute of Elizabeth, by which Parliament proportioned the corn rents; and which was framed not merely with the view of protecting the property of the University, but which was passed to regulate the appropriation of the revenues oh the several Colleges; and which stated how much ought to be given for the commons of Colleges, and how much for other uses. Therefore, if the House were referred back to ancient usages—to the wisdom of our ancestors—on historical grounds, it could not be doubted that Parliament had the full power of interfering by a legislative enactment with the practice or regulations of this University. There was likewise the Irish Act of 1793, which was passed, not at the request of or by the consent of the College of Dublin, but by the Irish Parliament on its own authority, and on general grounds of policy and expediency; and which removed the disabilities under which one great class of the King's subjects laboured, in consequence of their religious belief. He begged further to call the attention of the House to another fact: in the year 1771, when it was proposed to excuse persons applying for a Bachelor of Arts degree from subscribing to the tests, the Caput declared, that it had no power to make so material a change, or undertake so great a measure, without a solemn decision of the legislature. He had no positive authority for that statement, farther than that which was derived from contemporaneous writings, and uncontradicted controversies of the day. Now, however, the cry was raised,—"Parliament has no right to interfere—it cannot infringe on the privileges of the Universities:" and those who maintained the cause of the Dissenters were declared to be poachers on the University manors; and were warned off as trespassers after notice. These two statements were not both defensible. Parliament could not be at once the proper tribunal to appeal to, and an authority which had no right to inter-

583
fere. If the House were directed by the principles which governed former Parliaments, the Parliament had the right, if it chose to exert it, to remove those exclusions to which the Dissenters of this kingdom were subject; and the example of the northern part of the island proved that it could be done without danger or inconvenience. Surrounded by gentlemen from Scotland, he asked them whether the Universities of that country imposed any religious test whatever? They had, he believed, no exclusive tests of any description. Were the honourable Members from Scotland, however, less influenced by religious principle, than the English and the Irish? Or were they not, on the contrary, as strenuously prepared to resist as fervently, any encroachment upon the confession of Westminster, as the members of the Church of England would be to oppose the abolition of any one of the Thirty-nine Articles? Had the members of the Scotch Universities found any inconveniences, either in respect to discipline, or on the ground of religion, result from their admission of all persuasions of Christianity? They had, therefore, the examples of Scotland and of Ireland: at the Universities of both countries there were no religious tests required; and could it be said, that the University of Cambridge ought any longer to exercise a privilege founded upon a system of exclusion, so unjust and harassing? It had been said, with regard to the civil grievances under which the Dissenters laboured, that some regulations should be adopted with respect to admissions to the professions of law and physic, rather than to alter the constitution of the Universities; and it was maintained that the University was a Corporation which could not be fairly interfered with. He really thought it was now rather too late to introduce any argument of that description. Let it be stated, that the cause of the Dissenters was either just or unjust, reasonable or unreasonable, and he was prepared to argue the case; but it could not surely be urged that if the claim were reasonable, it ought not to be granted, because it interfered with a Corporation? It could not be stated, that though a measure was right, and would, it carried into execution, be generally beneficial, yet that it must not be effected, because it might trench upon the supposed privileges of an institution. Such arguments, appeared to him, exceedingly weak
584
and unsubstantial, and most contradictory, when the House was called on in the same breath not to interfere with one Corporation because it was a University, and was invited to interfere with another Corporation because it was called the College of Physicians. He was sure his right hon. friend (Mr. Goulburn) would not speak with unkindness or disregard of the religious or conscientious scruples of the Dissenters. Whatever faults his right hon. friend might impute to them, he was convinced, that the want of sincerity, and earnestness in religious opinions was not one which could be fairly urged against them. Of one thing he was sure, that his right hon. friend, amongst the various grounds upon which he might rest his objections to the petition, would not express any belief that among the Dissenters could he discovered a sect of Atheists. However his right hon. friend might lament their differences on ecclesiastical points, he could not but feel, that these differences, coupled, as they often were, with great temporal sacrifices, were the result of sincere and honest conviction on their part. He was sure, too, that his right hon. friend would not state what he had seen in print in reference to the petition,—namely, that there were not attached to it the signatures of the eightieth part of the members of the University; his right hon. friend would not confound the under-graduates with the members of the Senate. If they did not grant the petitioners their prayer—if they did not allow the Dissenters to enjoy that privilege to which they were entitled, and the concession of which would only be a recurrence to the old principles of the constitution of the University of Cambridge—if they did not remove the disabilities of which the Dissenters now complained—how could they be prepared to meet those difficulties which such an obstinate course of policy must inevitably occasion? Would it not be the grossest of all acts of injustice, if they both refused the admission to the Dissenters within the present Universities, and refused them the means to establish Universities of their own? Were they not bound to remove all the difficulties which stood in the way of the Dissenters' founding Universities for themselves? They must, and would have education. It was not in the power of the senate of the University—it was not in the power of the caput—it was not in the power of the House, if it were so disposed—to deprive

585
the Dissenters of the means of education, and of acquiring knowledge. When the mind was intent upon that object, they might try every means to check its expansion—then might follow the example once set in Ireland—they might prohibit home-education, and render penal all foreign education—they might use every effort to exclude the hallowed light of knowledge from the mind;—but, despite all such exertions, there was a Power (and they ought to be grateful to Providence that it was so)—there was a Power above them which proclaimed that, for "the heart of man to be without knowledge, it is not good." If they excluded the Dissenters from the national Universities, they must not only tolerate, but encourage the formation of institutions for the education of the Dissenters. What would be the consequence? Had they not read an instructive lesson on this subject in the history of Ireland? Instead of imbibing those principles of tolerance, and those feelings of Christian charity which a joint system of education would necessarily produce, the Dissenters would, if their reasonable requests were not complied with, be justified in forming themselves into distinct classes, and a spirit of hostility would be engendered, by the influence of which they would become more and more estranged from the doctrines and the authority of the Established Church. He owned, that he was not so fearful for the integrity or permanency of the Church, of which he was a sincere member, as to suppose that the tendency of the admission of the Dissenters into the Universities, would be to seduce the members of the Established Church from their faith and opinions; on the contrary, as one most anxious for the stability of the Church, he affirmed, that such a measure, as far as he could form an opinion on the subject, would have a tendency in the opposite direction. He did not advance that supposition as an argument in favour of the petition—he did not rest his recommendations of the claims of the Dissenters on the ground of proselytism; but he could not help expressing his conviction, that the prevalence of the doctrines of the Church, and the stability of the Church, would be increased and confirmed by the adoption of that combined system or University education, which the respectable and intelligent petitioners had called upon this House to sanction. He ought to apologize to the House for having trespassed
586
so long upon its attention; but the importance of the subject, and the high honour conferred upon him in having had this petition intrusted to his charge—an honour, coming as it did, from the University to which he belonged—which he could not overstate;—had induced him to dwell upon the subject at such length. To the advocates for an adherence to the practices of ancient institutions, he would say, "Seek your model during the best period of our Church history;—take your principles from the reign of Edward and of Elizabeth, rather than from that of James 1st, and regulate the establishments of the University by the rules laid down and acted on at Cambridge in better times." To those solicitous for the advancement of literature and science, but who wisely connected with literature and science the great interests of religion and morality, he would say, "Look at the names attached to this petition—the names of men eminent for piety, distinguished in every branch of human learning,—and then ask yourselves how can you justify any hostility to the claims of the Dissenters, when those claims come recommended to your notice by this petition." On what reasonable grounds did they venture to differ from those great and eminent men? To those whose peculiar anxiety was for the preservation of order and of sound collegiate discipline, he would merely say, "Cast your eyes over the list of the College tutors subscribed to this petition, and you will find that those of the greatest experience and authority are favourable to it." In whatever light the question was regarded, it must be considered one of the highest importance—an importance which was, if possible, augmented to a still greater extent, by the fact that this petition in favour of the claims of the Dissenters, was signed not merely by members of the Established Church, but by those who were connected with its ministry; and if, with this fact before them, there should be any of the Dissenters so unjust or unwise as to raise an outcry against the Established Church, it could be shown them, not only that they injured their best means of final success, but they would prove their ingratitude to the sixty-three members of the Established Church, who had prayed the Legislature that the monopoly which they themselves enjoyed should cease, and justice be done to the Dissenters. Sooner or later the subject must be discussed with a

587
view practically to remove the grievances of which the Dissenters complained; and in the mean time he would entreat the House to prepare their minds for a calm, deliberate, and dispassionate view of the subject, by taking the petition into their serious consideration.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that being connected with the learned body in whose name the petition had been presented, be felt that it was not requisite to solicit the indulgence of the House whilst he entered into the subject of the petition, and whilst he endeavoured to state fairly and candidly what was the origin of the petition itself, what was the real object of it, and what were the sentiments which he entertained upon the views of the petitioners. Although his right hon. friend had expressed an opinion, that his petition would not meet with a favourable reception, he must have done so inadvertently. His right hon. friend surely could not have meant to do such an injustice to the House as to state that a petition upon a most important subject, signed by sixty-two respectable and even eminent individuals, and couched in language perfectly decorous and respectful, could be presented in its proper manner, and be opposed by any Member of the House. As far as he (Mr. Goulburn) was concerned, he could only say, that such an idea had never entered into his contemplation. He would, at once say, that he entirely agreed with his right hon. friend, that the petition which he had been intrusted to present was signed by Gentlemen in every respect as unexceptionable as any in the University of Cambridge. He agreed with him, that amongst the signatures were to be found the names of men distinguished in every branch of scientific and literary attainment; of men whose characters were not to be raised by any observations made in that House, because they were already eminent by their acquirements, and by their great and successful exertions in the cause of science, and by their general endeavours to advance the interests of all that came within their sphere. He might add, that he was proud to number some of them amongst his personal friends; but though he respected them much, he must canvass, their opinions freely. His right hon. friend had told the House, that this petition was very numerously signed by resident members of the University. His
588
right hon. friend had told them, that the petition had been signed by two heads of colleges, by ten professors, and by eleven Gentlemen connected with the University. He admitted, that it was signed by two out of seventeen heads of Colleges, by ten out of twenty-five Professors; and it was signed by eleven out of seventy-four gentlemen who were engaged in tuition in the different Colleges. The House, therefore, would see that out of 116 persons composing the classes referred to, the petition had been signed by twenty-three. Let not the House think that he said this to undervalue the Gentlemen who signed the petition; quite to the contrary; but when the right hon. Gentleman told the House, that it was bound to give implicit deference to the opinion expressed in the petition on account of the numbers, rank, and situation of those who signed it, it was incumbent upon the House to bear in mind the greater number of those whose signatures had been denied to it. Those signatures had not been denied to the petition for want of solicitations, but purely out of difference of opinion formed after the most careful examination and most attentive consideration of the subject. He meant to cast no slight on those who had signed the petition, when he said, that amongst those who had refused to sign it, were many who would not be ashamed to stand in comparison with them in point science and importance. No man could be more respectable than Mr. Peacock; but he himself would be the first to allow that there were others in the College of which he was an ornament, men of the greatest respectability, whose names were not appended to the petition. This petition certainly came to the House recommended by the high respectability and attainments or the names appended to it; but still it did not come with the weight which the House had been accustomed to give to the petitions of the University itself, for it was, in fact, signed but by a minority, a small minority, of those classes to which the right hon. Gentleman had particularly adverted; a small minority of resident members, and a still smaller minority of the whole body corporate. But it was more important that the House should refer to the prayer of the petition itself, than that he should enter into any further discussion as to the persons by whom it was signed. It seemed

589
to him that the prayer of the petition in some instances had been misunderstood. The Noble Lord, the Chancellor of the I Exchequer, who had first intimated that such a petition was ready for presentation. had represented it as a petition which prayed the House to accede to the prayer of the Dissenters. Now, those who signed the petition, so far from going to the length of acceding in the claims which had been preferred in the petitions of the Dissenters, had taken a course at utter variance to them. They had, at the very threshold of the discussion, announced that they were amongst those who would not consent to accede to the claims of the Dissenters, but would give them the most determined resistance and opposition. The petitioners had told the House, that they most distinctly disclaimed all intention of interfering directly or indirectly with the private statutes and regulations of individual Colleges. What were the claims which the Dissenters set up? They unanimously claimed to be admitted to all the full privileges, benefits, and advantages and emoluments of the University. They claimed with respect to these to stand on the same footing as members of the Church of England, and as these benefits included the endowments of Professorships and Fellowships, the protection which the petitioners would still give to the private statutes of the Colleges, was a decided bar to the claims advanced by the Dissenters. Let it not be thought, then, that the Gentlemen who had signed the present petition were advocates for the claims which had been urged by the Dissenters. If the Dissenters should urge their claims to participate in the emoluments, honours, and privileges or the University, he believed that the petitioners would be as firm in opposing those claims as any members of the University whatever. The real prayer of the present petition was, not what the Dissenters demanded, but that they should be admitted to take the degrees of Bachelors, Masters, or Doctors in Arts, Law, and Physic; and he begged the House to remember the limited extent to which the petition carried these concessions. He particularly begged the House to do so, because the right hon. Gentleman had stated, not intentionally, he was sure, but inadvertently, that the petitioners had recommended that the Dissenters should be admitted to all the
590
degrees of the Senate; but this was not the petition which was strictly confined to arts, law, and physic. He however had no hesitation in saying, that it appeared to him, that, even to this limited petition the great body of the University was most decidedly opposed. He was not one who was bigoted to the principle of resistance to the just claims of the Dissenters, nor was he for excluding them from the advantages which the Churchmen could with safety to their own consciences allow them; but he was opposed to the present petition upon the principle, that the Universities of the country were places for the education, not only of Members of the Church, but for the education of all those who came to them for any instruction in the doctrine of the Church. If it were impracticable, consistently with the discipline of the University, to grant the concessions which it was the desire of the petitioners to make, it would be perfectly a waste of time to enter now into a discussion of general principles, which it would be impossible to carry into effect. His right hon. friend had justly stated, that the University of Cambridge was at the present moment open to the education of Dissenters from the Church of England. There was no bar whatever in the University of Cambridge to the Dissenters having every advantage which the education there could possibly confer on them—to their having access to every branch of knowledge, to their having their education superintended by the most distinguished characters which the country could afford—there was no bar to their haying every assistance in the prosecution of their studies, and to their reaping those mathematical distinctions which sent a man forth with the stamp of abilities and the reputation of knowledge, and which proclaimed him to the world as a man distinguished by his attainments. The acquisition of such honours gave weight to men in their subsequent struggles through life. The letters A.B. or M.D. added to their names were of comparatively little value, and did not make them known as men of superior acquirements. The system followed at Cambridge University gave the Dissenters every advantage which it afforded to the members of the Church of England. That University was a Church of England Establishment, with all the

591
toleration and liberality which had ever distinguished that Church, and it was willing to extend to every man, whatever might be his faith, all the benefits which could be derived from its institutions, Consistently with the safety of the original principles upon which it was founded. The University permitted Dissenters to come within its walls to accept of its education; but it also attached to this privilege the condition that they conformed to the existing system of discipline, which was based on the doctrines and principles of the Church of England. Of that they could have no reason to complain, because they came voluntarily to an establishment with a full knowledge of its principles, and of the terms on which its advantages were to be obtained. If it should be determined, that the Dissenters were not only to have their present advantages, but that they were to be admitted to take degrees, and by taking degrees to become a portion of the governing body of the University, such a change could only be effected by the forcible interference of Parliament, for that change never would be effected by any act of the University itself. Such a change would alter the whole character of the institution. Such a change would proclaim that the institution had not been formed by members of the Established Church; that it was not intended to direct the education of the members of that Church; that it was not confined to the provisions of its members, whether lay or ecclesiastical; but it would proclaim, that it was an establishment formed for general education. Yes, he said, for general education, without any reference whatever to religion, in all, all had a right to participate. When once the House had laid down that. principle, he would beg leave to ask any man—and he appealed to the hon. Gentleman opposite as one conversant with the education pursued there, (Mr. Pryme), if the object of the petition were to be gained, how would it be possible to carry on the education of the University? Would they, when the change was made, continue to educate on the present system, or adapt the system to the change which would take place in the governing body of the University? At present the University was a seminary of sound learning and of religious distinctions. Yes, a seminary of religious distinctions; and most unfortunate would it
592
be if the character of the University were, in this respect, to be in the least degree altered—woeful would it be if the body to which was intrusted the education of so large a portion of the youth of the country were ever to set the example of separating education from religion—woeful would it be, if it were to confine instruction exclusively to the propagation of what was vulgarly called knowledge, which was knowledge without religion, and was not the sound instruction which the University now dispensed. If it taught science and excluded that which alone was a saving religion—which fitted a man for the ultimate object of his being—if it were to frame the course of study with a view to meet every varying doctrine which fanaticism or superstition from time to time might originate, not only of every Christian sect, but of the Unitarians and all others which could not come within the line of Christianity;—if it were to forsake the rules of the Church,—how could any man answer for any one principle which might be taught? The experiment had already been tried in this country of setting on foot a liberal University, a University of which the object was to admit all persons indiscriminately, without reference to the religions tenets of those who were willing to share in the education of the place. What had been the effect? Why this liberal University, as it was called, had been obliged to exclude religions instruction altogether. Did the House mean then to adopt the prayer of the petition, and with it to adopt the course of this liberal University? Would the House, he asked, thus take upon itself to unchristianize the country? At the present moment the University of Cambridge was labouring most anxiously to get rid of that objection which had been made against its system in the year 1777. His right hon. friend had told the House the story of a young man in 1777 who had been so ardent in the study of the abstract sciences that he had not had time to inform himself as to the religious doctrines to which he was called upon to subscribe before he could take his degree. He admitted, that the system which had been pursued showed a really enormous defect; but the University, from that time to the present had been constantly improving in its course of studies. It no longer required a subscription to that which no man had an opportunity to study. At the moment at

593
which he had the honour of addressing the House, all who were called upon to study any branch of knowledge had to share in the study of the doctrine of the Established Church, and to attend with regularity to its rites and ceremonies. Would the House wish the University to abandon this? If they meant to do this, he could tell them, that those who had signed the present petition meant nothing of the sort. The petitioners were members of the Established Church; and he could only express his regret that they had not told the House how they intended to conduct the education of the University, if their plans were pursued. Was the House prepared to abandon the religious instruction of the Universities, and make them the seats exclusively of profane learning? He, at least, would protest against such a doctrine as a Member of that House. He protested against it as a Representative of the University; he protested against it as a member of society; and, above all, he protested against it as a father, for never would he intrust a son, at a time of life peculiarly sensitive to impressions, to be educated at any institution which did not accompany the scientific studies with instruction in the principles and doctrines of religion. In that University, where general principles of indiscriminate admission were adopted,—in that University where prevailed that indiscriminate system of education, without any reference to religious principles whatever,—what, he asked, had been the consequences? In order to get over all difficulties, the students were made to reside, not in the University itself, but under their parental roof, where the deficiency could be supplied. It was not thus at the University of which he had the honour to be a member. There the students were separated from their family connections; they were separated from all who had previously the charge of their religious education, and they were left, at the most critical period of their lives, without parental instruction in any sound principles to guide them in the most critical period of their lives. Was not the University bound to supply this want, and to afford the religious instruction to the youth? Could it be supposed that the harmony of the University would be increased. Was it to be supposed that the consciences of men would be much relieved, by avoiding all religious instruction as the consequence of discarding all religious distinctions? Did
594
the House suppose that, if it admitted Dissenters into the University, and told them that they were to become a part of the governing body, but that they should attend the worship of a religion in which they did not believe, that this would increase the harmony of the general body? If they were to tell the student, "Of whatever faith von may be, yon must attend the worship of a religion you do not believe; you must be instructed by men best calculated to instruct you in the doctrines of the Church of England; you shall have the canons expounded, and the Scriptures explained according to the Church of England; the religion of this Church shall be explained, to you; you must not be absent from lectures;"—was this, he asked, likely to benefit the conscientious scruples of men admitted indiscriminately to the University, or was it calculated to promote harmony within its walls? His right hon. friend had referred to the case of Ireland, and yet he was well aware of the disputes that had arisen in that country, as to whether the Roman Catholics could conscientiously attend with Protestants to hear the Gospel read according to the Douay version. Notwithstanding this, his right hon. friend proposed that all sects should read indiscriminately at the University, but, he asked, how were they to read? Were they to read according to the established version, and were they not to have the instructions of a master to point out the fallacies of the Church of Rome, or of any other Church to which some of the parties might belong? Were members of different sects to have these errors exposed to them, with all the weight of age, over the young mind; with all the weight which Church of England men would have the power to enforce? When he was told, that the University was to adopt the system proposed in the petition, he was bound to confess, that he did not see his way clear; and he wanted to hear from some of the Gentlemen who were anxious to be admitted to the privileges of the University, and to form a part of the governing body of that great institution, while they did not profess its creed, how they proposed afterwards to carry on the discipline of the University without involving themselves in difficulties ten times greater than any which existed at present, and without creating dissensions, which, at the present moment, were unknown. Having stated the substance of

595
the principal difficulties which stood in the way, he wished to say a word with respect to the disadvantages under which Gentlemen might labour in the world in consequence of the tests or disqualifications which existed at the Universities. These disadvantages, he took it, related to the two professions of law and medicine. The Gentleman who had taken a degree at the University was entitled to the advantage of two years of time, if he entered into the profession of an attorney or barrister, or on becoming a licentiate of the College of Physicians. Other persons were not allowed these abbreviated terms, and, he believed, that this was the extent of the disqualification of which the Dissenters had to complain. He must be allowed to state, that these disqualifications resulted from the acts of the professional bodies, of the members of the Inns of Court and or the College or Physicians, and were totally distinct from, and independent of, the Universities. The profession of attorneys was to give an additional advantage to educated men, and had pronounced that two years less attention to professional studies would be required of all gentlemen who had studied at one of the Universities. The Benchers of the Inns of Court and the College of Physicians had done the same. The taking of a degree was the test of an advancement in education which these learned professions required. If any difficulty existed on this score, it might be remedied by a mere announcement that a certain residence at the University, with a testimony of studies, should be deemed a qualification by the two learned professions. If either of these bodies were to admit only so small a change in their respective regulations as to make a residence at the University an evidence of qualification, instead of a degree, they might ransack the world, and not be able to find a single evil of which the Dissenters could complain in the Statutes of the Universities. Notwithstanding this, the House was called upon to change the system of those bodies—a system which could not be changed without overthrowing the whole education of the Established Church. If they looked to the probable result, it would not benefit the Dissenters, but it would injure the Universities. The small minority which had signed the petition, complained too that single member of the governing body had the power to negative any proposition;
596
but, he would ask, if this were not the case, would not the governing body be perpetually agitated by religions disputes? Would not Gentlemen bring forward Motions for Graces, and perpetually disturb the University on the subject of shades of difference in religion. He would not advert to the time at which the University regulations with respect to the subscription to articles were adopted, for this he deemed altogether unnecessary. He supposed, that his right hon. friend had not urged this topic with any view to throw a doubt upon the legality of the proceedings of the University; for, if his right hon. friend doubted the legality, he knew of other and better means than those he had pursued to bring the question to issue. If, in the year 1834, they were to discover a certain flaw in an instrument, because, in 1613, the then King, going to Newmarket for amusement, thought fit to send a missive to the University, this would establish a doctrine which would go far to invalidate the security and tenure of all property. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to give weight to the present petition from this circumstance. He knew no title to property or to privileges, or to any species of honour which might not be invalidated, and overthrown, if men were to go back two centuries and a-half, in order to scrutinize the forms, motives, or reasons which led to the adoption or the grant of the matter inquired into. He would not trespass upon that House with any discussion upon the constitution of that learned body of which he was proud to say he had the honour of being a member. It was exceedingly desirable, in his view, to prevent perpetual agitation in the University, and the veto of the Caput had that effect. If any man had good reason to complain of the Caput, it was the individual who was then addressing them. He would take upon himself to say, that many occasions had occurred on which the constitution of that body had given to the public an impression that the University was acquiescent on particular public questions, when, but for the veto enjoyed by one member of the Caput, the members of the University would have petitioned the House in favour of the views which he advocated. He had said nothing, he hoped, to intimate that the present petitioners had been actuated by any other motive than that of a desire to submit to Parliament the views they took of the question. In

597
giving to those who were opposed to him full credit for sincerity, he hoped the House would not give to the petition a greater weight than was its due. The numbers of those who had signed it, compared to the numbers who had not—of men no less eminent or sincere—would, he trusted, have its due weight with that House, and obtain for the petition only that credit which was due to a small, but respectable minority of the members of the University.
Mr. Prymesaid, that having been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, he felt himself called upon to offer a few observations to the House upon the present occasion. In the first place, he begged to state, that religious instruction was at the present period much more extended in the University of Cambridge than formerly, but it was confined to instruction of a general rather than a controversial character. To the course of examination on religious topics now pursued, no man, whatever might be his tenets, could object, for it was so general as almost to be interesting as matter of history. All matters of controversy were carefully abstained from under the present system; which had been adopted about fifteen years ago. At that period a revision of the course took place, and several plans were submitted for adoption, and amongst others was a course in which Bishop Jewell's Apology for the Church of England was included, but was considered as being of too controversial a character; but after some years it was adopted partially, the books which had a controversial tendency being struck out of the course of examination. He could not conceive that any Dissenter could object to go through an inquiry into points of faith, or to receive instruction in the Gospels from which he professed to take his doctrine; so that religious education would not necessarily be neglected by the change which the petitioners proposed. It could not be denied, that it was most unjust, after allowing the Dissenters to study and go through the usual course of instruction, to deny them the certificate which their attainments entitled them to. It was absurd to suppose that any change could be effected in the Constitution of the University by admitting Dissenters to places in the Senate.
The Speakerintimated, that the approach of the hour at which, pursuant to the Resolution of the House, he should leave the
598
Chair, made it necessary to adjourn the debate.
The right hon. Gentleman left the Chair, and the debate stood adjourned.

DEANERY OF DOWN.
Mr. Littletonbrought up a Memorial from the reverend T. Plunkett to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. In moving, that it be laid upon the Table, he wished to submit a few observations to the House. He was quite sure that the House would bear in mind what had passed a few nights ago on the subject of the appointment of the reverend T. Plunkett to the deanery of Down, and would not think it unfair if he begged its indulgence for a short time. He was desirous of taking this course, solely because remarks had been made on the conduct of his noble friend, Lord Plunkett, which no man would think ought to be passed over without an answer. He should not have delayed the explanation so long, had he not daily expected to receive the memorial, a copy of which he now presented, and the presentation of which seemed to afford the fittest and most becoming opportunity for making the desired explanation. His right hon. friend, in the Motion he had submitted the other night, did not in express terms speak of Lord Plunkett as having recommended his son to the deanery of Down, nor did he in express terms advert to the details of the Report to which the signature of Lord Plunkett was undoubtedly attached; but nobody who had heard him could receive any other impression from what he said than this—that Lord Plunkett, having been thoroughly apprised of the alteration as to the deanery of Down, recommended by the Report of the Commissioners, had, notwithstanding, recommended his son to the Government as a fit person to be appointed to that deanery. The right hon. Gentleman would not deny that such was the natural inference from his observations. There were two points in the case; first, the statement, or rather the implied statement, that Lord Plunkett had recommended his son to the deanery of Down. This was the first point; and as what took place in the House of Commons was almost immediately known through the ordinary channels elsewhere, it no sooner reached Lord Grey than he (Mr. Littleton) was informed by his Lordship that Lord Plunkett had made no application to him for the deanery—that

599
the appointment was the unsolicited and c gratuitous act of Lord Grey and of the English Government. He had afterwards had an opportunity of perusing a letter from Lord Plunkett, which appeared to be written on the first intimation he had received of the intention to appoint his son, and that it came from Lord Grey, who stated his desire to confer the deanery upon the reverend T. Plunkett, to which he had been stimulated by his respect for his friend Lord Plunkett, and by the excellent character he had heard of his son. Lord Grey seemed to think it not too much, that the son of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland should be honoured with such an appointment. This statement a would probably be sufficient to satisfy every hon. Member that Lord Plunkett had had nothing to do with the nomination of his son to the deanery of Down. It might then not unnaturally be asked why Lord Plunkett, knowing the contents of the Report of the Commissioners had allowed his son to accept the deanery? On that point, he (Mr. Littleton) begged to call the attention of the House to this brief statement. The Commission, consisting of six Bishops, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, ex-officio, and two or three other persons, passed the Great Seal in the month of July. Early in December following, Lord Plunkett was appointed Lord Chancellor of Ireland. The Commissioners did not immediately set to work, and Lord Plunkett never attended any of the preliminary meetings; he had very serious and onerous duties to discharge elsewhere; while in Ireland his Court required his daily presence, and during a great part of the year he was in this country discharging his parliamentary duties. He had, therefore, never in a single instance attended any of the sittings of the Commissioners; he was totally and entirely unacquainted with their proceedings, further than that he knew they were acting in complete accordance with the principle which led to their appointment by his Majesty. Of the evidence taken by them, and of the results to which that evidence had led, he knew nothing. It might not unnaturally be asked, why Lord Plunkett signed the Report of the Commissioners? He had been very averse from signing it; but on its being earnestly represented to him that his refusal to append his name would, considering the situation he held, throw suspicion on the
600
character of the whole proceeding, and lessen the weight of the recommendation in the Report, and understanding also distinctly from the Commissioners that he should not be pledged to more than the general principle, being ignorant of the details, he did consent to sign it. Whether in so doing Lord Plunkett acted wisely or not, was not the question he (Mr. Littleton) had now to argue. It was simply necessary for him, in presenting Lord Plunkett's case, to state that from the first he had made no application for the nomination of his son—that it came upon him as a matter of great surprise—and that, at the time he permitted him to accept it, he was uninformed of the recommendation of the Commissioners, respecting the disappropriation of the tithes of the deanery of Down. Lord Plunkett was not apprised that any difficulty had occurred in the appointment of his son until the Midsummer following, when the then Chief Secretary (Mr. Stanley) informed him of the embarrassment of the Government, and of the impossibility of making an unconditional appointment in the face of a Report recommending the disappropriation of the greater part of the revenues of the deanery of Down. Upon this, what did Lord Plunkett do? He instantly, and without a moment's hesitation, while he expressed his surprise that he was unacquainted with the fact, admitted it was necessary that his son should consent that Government and Parliament should be at liberty to treat the deanery as vacant, and he did consent that a clause should be inserted in the Bill then in contemplation to enable the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and the Privy Council so to treat it. What, then, were the simple facts? Lord Plunkett knew nothing of the appointment of his son—he was unfortunately ignorant of the proceedings of the Commissioners, and the recommendation of their Report; but the moment he was informed of the real state of the case, he consented that the deanery should be considered vacant, and a clause was introduced into an Act of Parliament accordingly. But it would be seen that some delay had taken place—two years had been allowed to elapse, during which nothing was done. It was material for the House to ascertain whether there was no cause for this delay. First, an Act of Parliament was necessary, and this of it-

601
self would require some time; but this was not all; for the Commissioners themselves, on the 15th page of their Report, stated that more local information was requisite before any final decision could be had. It was very important that he should read this passage to the House for its information, since it would fully justify the Privy Council in looking further into the subject, with a view to the conclusive settlement of the question. "At the same time the Commissioners begged to state to his Majesty that though they had not been sparing of their time and labour in collecting and arranging information, &c. still, supposing his Majesty to grant his approval to the principle, the want of minute local information in some particular places as to the value, &c. of several of the smaller parishes may afford reasons for not applying the principle. They, therefore, requested that more local information might be obtained before a final determination was formed." The result was, that what the Commissioners had recommended, as far as the principle was concerned, was found, for a time at least impracticable. He would take the liberty of reading to the House a letter from the reverend Dr. Ratcliffe, one of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and a Member of the Privy Council, which he addressed to the Lord Chancellor. It ran thus:—
March 19 th, 1834.
My dear Lord—I perfectly recollect that you for some time, at the last meeting of the Board of Ecclesiastical Inquiry, refused to sign the draft, but were persuaded by the Committee present to sign the draft of the Report, on their suggesting that by so doing you were not committed to the details of the schedules, but only to the body and principles of the report, your disapprobation whereof would be implied by your refusal. You were not, as I can recollect, present at framing any of the schedules respecting the Deanery of Down, and, I think, I may with certainty say that you were not.
To pursue still further the reasons for delay. He would observe that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners sat for the first time on the 22nd of September, under the Church Temporalities Act, and were necessarily employed for a considerable time in the appointment of officers and other preliminary business, and it was not till now that they found themselves in a situation to call for Returns. He, for one, on his own responsibility, had taken measures to expedite this inquiry, and a Board of
602
Privy Council had, in consequence, been summoned for the earliest possible day—the 18th of next month—for this purpose. He would now proceed to read two extracts from a letter written by Lord Plunkett:—
Now first I shall think it right to state that I have bounded my tour to the Deanery of Down—that previous to the month of September, 1831, there was no vacancy of the Deanery expected—that in consequence of the death of the late Bishop of Derry, and the promotion of Bishop Ponsonby to that see, the Bishoprick of Kildare became vacant. That the opinion of Lord Grey, and of the other members of the Government, was, that the see of Kildare should be filled by Mr. Knox, the then Dean of Down, and that Doctor Grey, without any application on my part, was so good as to send to me, and to state his wish to appoint my son to the Deanery of Down. I felt the kindness of the offer, and accepted it gratefully. The Deanery was stated by Mr. Knox to be of the annual value of 2,000 l. and upwards, and the living of Dromore, which my son resigned, was of the value of 1,200 l. Neither then, nor at any time until long after my son was in possession of the Deanery, I think in July 1832, did I hear a hint that there was any objection to the filling up the vacancy absolutely and unconditionally. Complaints had been made by the House of Commons and Lords, as to the undue exercise of patronage towards my family, and great numbers of gross falsehoods were asserted. Amongst others, that my son had continued to hold the living of Dromore along with the Deanery, but not a surmise that there was any objection to the appointment being made without condition.
At this time the duties of Chancellor of Ireland had devolved on me. I had been arduously engaged in clearing off heavy arrears, and discharging the duties of my office; and I had, in addition, full occupation to my mind from my Parliamentary duties, which I could not put aside. Under all these circumstances, I hope I do not draw too largely on the confidence of any fair mind, when I declare, on my honour as a gentleman, that when the Deanery of Down was offered to me for my son, by Lord Grey, I had not the most distant recollection, nor do I believe I ever had the slightest knowledge, of any arrangement having been proposed by the Commissioners in respect to it. I now come to what took place in July, 1832, when the objection was started. Mr. Stanley sent for me. He showed me the Report of the Commissioners, and stated the embarrassment in which he felt the Government placed by the unconditional appointment. He will inform you that I instantly declared my acquiescence, and that, on the part of my son, I authorized him to state to the House that the Deanery

603
should be liable to be dealt with in the same way as if it were actually vacant. He did declare so, and this declaration was received as perfectly satisfactory.
It any censure could arise out of the transaction, of course the other members of the Government must bear their share of it. He must declare, after the closest attention to the explanation of the noble Lord, that he did not believe any one could imagine that he had either applied for the appointment for his son, or that he was acquainted with the details of the Report, which he was led to sign by the representations made to him. But there were hon. Members who took a different view of the subject, he trusted they would abstain from the expressions till they had perused that evidence, which would now very shortly be laid before them.
Mr. Cobbettwould, under this injunction, say nothing further, than that to his mind the matter was a great deal worse after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, than it was before.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, if he wished to urge the House to anything like animadversion, he could not have taken a better course than by entering into the statement which had just been made by the right hon. Secretary. The noble Lord, the Chancellor of Ireland, had been called on to advise the Crown on various matters connected with the Church of Ireland, and being so called, he actually signed a report without being aware of its contents. The noble Lord was called on to guide the Crown—to point out the right path for future conduct: he signed a report, however, allowed that report to come before the House of Commons, backed by the full weight of his authority—of his, the Lord Chancellor's high sanction and recommendation, and then he sent the right hon. Secretary down to tell the House that of the contents of such report, he, the Lord Chancellor, knew nothing whatever. [Mr. Littleton: I did not say "Knows nothing."] "But you said the noble Lord had not read the report which he signed, which is pretty nearly the same thing." His (Mr. Goulburn's) object was to see these livings separated; but he should now only say, that he reserved to himself the power, when an arrangement should have been entered into, to enter fully into the merits of the question, being contented to leave it for the present, as far at least as Lord Plunkett was con-
604
cerned, to the explanations of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
Major Beauclerksaid, that the church of one of these six parishes happened to be upon some property of his, and had been built by his grandfather. The clergyman who had been appointed to this parish, had been most cruelly wetted under this commission. His salary was 100 l a-year, and in consequence of the representation made by them he had left the parish and gone to one with a salary of 80 l. a-year, of which 80 l. he had to pay 40 l. towards the expenses of valuation under the Tithe Act. Now he was informed, that the recommendation of the Commissioners was not to be followed. Another powerful interest had stepped in and prevented his just expectations from being realized. He had been led to expect that his living would be 200 l. a-year, as in other parishes, instead of which he was likely to starve.
Mr. Littletonsaid, that from some inquiries which he had made, he was inclined to think that the situation of the individual alluded to was not so bad as he had represented it to be. At the same time the conduct which the hon. Gentleman complained of, was warranted by the Act of Parliament.
Mr. Robinsonthought the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, as to the conduct of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, not at all satisfactory. Of what worth was any public document which derived its chief value from the name of an eminent individual, if a friend of that individual could afterwards come down to the House and say that at the time he signed the document he was utterly ignorant of its contents? He would not attribute any thing like incorrectness to the statement contained in the letter of the noble Lord, but he either knew the contents of the report, or he did not. If he did know the contents of the report, his son should not have accepted of the appointment; and if he did not know anything of its contents, his signature to it was highly improper. This was a dilemma from which the noble Lord could not escape—and he thought the noble Lord's statement very unsatisfactory, although it placed him in somewhat a different light as to the first acceptance of the appointment.
Mr. Secretary Stanleysaid, that it was no unfrequent thing for individuals to attach their names to reports which laid

605
down the law, and the principles upon which the Commissioners acted, without pledging themselves to the details, which depended, as in this case, upon local information as to each separate union. Thus his noble friend had sited this report, without thereby rendering himself responsible for that which altogether depended upon local information.
Mr. Ruthvensaid, that however suspicious tine conduct of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland might have appeared on a former occasion as to this appointment, that suspicion was now removed, and he was glad that the saddle was placed on the right horse. It was not very creditable to the Irish Church that this appointment should have been given to the son of the Chancellor, merely because he was such, and without any reference to his qualifications for the office. Since Dean Plunkett had held the office, he was in the receipt of 1,400 l. a-year, which, if the recommendation of the Commissioners had been adopted, would have been appropriated to other unions. Nothing could be more improper than the conduct which had been pursued upon this occasion. Was the high office of an individual to be made the means of sheltering his friends from the consequences of an act which might consign a young man innocent in the transaction, and ignorant as to the consequences, to possible ruin.
The Memorial to lie on the Table and be printed.

ORDNANCE ESTIMATES—COLONIAL FORTIFICATION.
Colonel Maberlybrought up the report of the Ordnance Estimates. On the question that 29,743 l be granted for Ordnance Expenses in the Colonies,
Major Beauclerksaid that, after the House had heard the admissions of the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, and other hon. Members from different parts of the country, that the agricultural body throughout the kingdom was suffering severely from distress and depreciation in the price of produce, he thought it was not too much to ask his Majesty's Government to pause before they sanctioned a vote for adding to a sum of 200,000 l. already expended on these objects, another to the extent of 29,000 l. for making forts in Canada, and in the Island of Mauritius, which he thought were strong enough already,
606
without any fresh estimates being made to their defences. He thought that the sum of 10,000 l. for improving the fortress of Kingston, in Canada—8,000 l. for strengthening the harbour of the Mauritius—and 10,000 l. for that of Halifax, in Nova Scotia, might be deducted from the amount of these estimates; and he should move that the sum of 1743 l. be inserted instead of 29,743 l.
Mr. Huttseconded the Motion. After the repeated complaints he had heard, of many small taxes, which were only defended on the score of necessity, he felt it his duty whenever, the reduction of any sum was proposed, which could be spared, to support that proposition. Here was a large sum wasted, the people wanted relief, and therefore, he would second the Motion.
Mr. Secretary Stanleywould state, that so far back as 1828 he proposed an Amendment which had for its object the saving of the public money. 30,000 l. was then demanded for works in the line of fortification, and it conceded that no works should be undertaken without the express sanction of Parliament. The works of Halifax and Kingston were accordingly permitted to proceed, and the hon. member for Taunton, than whom there could be no one more desirous to husband the resources of the country and protect it from anything bordering on unprofitable expenditure, gave his full approval to the grant. Parliament then had sanctioned the works; it had had the full amount of the outlay laid before it; it had declared the expense should be met by annual instalments; 50,000 l. had been already expended; the entire cost would not be much more than 80,000 l.; and was that, he would ask, the period for them to pause? Would such be pursuing the most economical course? The works going on at Halifax were necessary for the defence of the harbour, were essential for the protection of the shipping, and called for by the wish to respect the great and rising importance of its commerce. They would be finished in 1837, if no interruption similar to that then proposed was permitted to take place. 300,000 l. had been employed, and would be wasted, if the works which hon. Members were desirous to stop were not completed. The economy proposed was bad economy; it was an economy that had not reason to plead for its justification, and certainly not usefulness for

607
its end. With respect to Kingston, the works there were of the utmost moment for the protection of the Rideau Canal, as the town was accessible to attack on that side. Next to Quebec, the station was the most important of all our possessions in North America. The possession of the Mauritius gave England an influence and a protection for its commerce in the eastern part of the globe, the advantages of which it was unnecessary for him at the moment, to dilate on. The losses during the war, in consequence of our being without due accommodation for shipping, in the eastern seas, were immense; the works then in progress were required, if the reports of the most able and scientific officers were to be relied upon, they were going forward rapidly and most successfully; and he would again say it would be the worst species of economy to interrupt them. In fine, the House was not called upon to vote away money for the undertaking of new works, but for the completion of those already commenced under the authority and express directions of Parliament.
Mr. Sinclairapproved of continuing the works after they were begun but he was anxious to learn the whole expense to which the country would be further put.
Mr. Stanley: With the exception of Halifax, the sums required would not be greater than those originally sought for and even in respect to the capital of Nova Scotia, they would not be found to have much increased.
Mr. Cobbett:The money then called for to be voted away was not for the purpose of being spent in fortifying the harbour of Halifax, but for an outlay on the citadel of that town. To be sure, thirty-four years ago that fortress was thought to be as perfect as it could be well made. He had seen it. The Duke of Kent and his two aides-de-camp were constant in inspecting it, and had been incessant in their attendance during the progress of its improvements. They saw it rise to completion with evident satisfaction, but at a most enormous charge to the country. It had, indeed, been called the Duke of Kent's folly. Half a million of money had been expended on a little island in the harbour of Halifax. [Colonel Maberly: No, no.] Well, a peninsula; that did not much alter the case; and 124,000 l. was now asked for to lay
608
out on Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia! What was Nova Scotia? A bundle of rocks, worth nothing. If the whole province was put up by auction, he questioned whether it would bring 100,000 l. in any, even the most speculative market. What did they want with fortifications? and while it was under the direction of the right hon. Baronet opposite, they had nothing to fear. The fleet would be a bridle on America and the West Indies, and not the paltry citadels and fortifications. Could Halifax be attacked when this triumphant fleet was cruizing in its roads? No, it could not; and without, such a fleet Halifax would be but of little benefit to England. But Gentlemen thought otherwise from reading books, who had never been there, and who knew nothing of war except on paper. England had been called a great country, and truly so, for great indeed she must have been to have borne the enormous sums thus yearly dragged from her; but let it ever be remembered, taken from her when numbers of her people were in a state of deep and deplorable misery.
Colonel Maberlysaid, the situation of his Majesty's Ministers stood thus:—When they came into office, they found such and such works proceeding, and proceeding, too, under the sanction of the House. Considerable sums of money had been disbursed; and the question which they solemnly put to themselves was, were these sums to be thrown away? They considered they ought not; and that the works which had been commenced ought to be completed. The hon. member for Oldham was of a different opinion, and would have Parliament rescind its former Resolutions. Halifax had undergone many changes since the period when that hon. Member visited it. He had been there, but at a more recent period, than the hon. Member and was surprised at the hon Member's remarks. The hon. Member was ignorant of the great and fertile sources of wealth possessed by this Colony. The soil was rich, and the most valuable mines abounded in the province. The harbour was a very good one, and the citadel very necessary for its protection on the land side. The hon. and gallant Member next proceeded to advert to Kingston; and with respect to the Mauritius, from the Ordnance surveys, it was clearly ascertained that if the citadel were finished, the garrison might be de-

609
creased, which would be a great saving of the public expenditure.
Mr. George F. Youngsaid, unless the works were unnecessary, the House would completely stultify itself by voting contrary to its former Resolutions.
Mr. Tennysonshould detain the House only a few moments in stating the reasons for his present vote. The citadel of Halifax had already cost 84,000 l.; and he agreed with the right hon. the Colonial Secretary, that it would he the worst economy to lose that sum, by not following up the original grant. When he had held the office which the hon. and gallant Member then filled, he had given much of his attention to the subject, and was convinced,—always having borne in mind that a collision with the United States of America was possible—that if they were anxious to retain their provinces, they should put them in the best possible state of defence. In that view he was borne out by the concurrent opinion of the most experienced officers in the service. Having said this much, he should, before he sat down, put it to the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, whether some plan ought not to be adopted, by which the Colonies would be made to maintain themselves? When he (Mr. Tennyson) had the honour of filling an official situation, some of the Colonies were anxious to contribute; but, with the exception of the Mauritius, which alone gave 5,000 l. a-year, no other of our possessions furnished a contingent towards the general charge. It was full time something should be done.
Lord John Russellsaid, that in the year 1828, during the Administration of the Duke of Wellington, 2,000,000 l. were demanded to be expended in the fortifications of Canada. Those with whom he then acted successfully opposed voting away so large a sum. A new Committee was appointed; and it was intimated, that if those who opposed the former proposition would consent to the then works going on, the vote for the 2,000,000 l. would not be pressed. Fifty thousand pounds had been already laid out on Kingston, and it was then proposed that to that sum 10,000 l. should be added for the next three years, which, it was considered, would be sufficient.
The House divided on Major Beauclerk's motion. Ayes 22; Noes 76: Majority 54.
The Report was agreed to.

List of the AYES.

ENGLAND.

Potter, Rd.

Aglionby, H. A.

Scholefield, J.

Attwood, Thomas

Trelawney, Sir W. S.

Cobbett, Wm.

Wason, Rigby

Evans, Colonel

IRELAND.

Ewart, Wm.

O'Connell, D.

Faithful, George

Roche, Wm.

Fielden, John

Ruthven, E. S.

Humphrey, John

Vigors, N. A.

Hutt, Wm.

Walker, C. A.

Kennedy, Jas.

TELLERS.

Morrison, J.

Beauclerk, Major

Pease, J.

Buller, Charles

Philips, Mark

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS BILL.
On the Motion of Lord John Russell, the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Bribery at Elections Bill.
On the second Clause being read,
Mr. Wynnstrongly objected to that part of the Bill which proposed that the decision of the Committee should be final. He thought it would be the bounden duty of the House to read the evidence given before the Committee before confirming its decision. Besides, the words final and conclusive, precluded the jurisdiction of the House of Lords which could hardly be intended.
Lord John Russellsaid, the great object was, to obtain such a tribunal as might give a final Report, upon oath, such as the House of Commons might receive and approve of, and such as might prevent the House of Lords from feeling it necessary, if the evidence were taken on oath, to occasion additional trouble and expense, by seeking for Further evidence.
Mr. Wynnthought the principle a good one. The details, however, in his opinion, required much consideration, and he must object. to the words "final and conclusive."
Mr. Hardywished that the functions of a Committee which was to try the validity of the return of Members, and the functions of a Committee to try the general question of bribery and corruption, should be separate. He thought it would be well to have two Committees, and to have them differently constituted.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he altogether approved of the arrangement by which the reduction of the list of names should be left to the Speaker. If put in practice, he was quite sure it would prove satisfactory to all parties.
Mr. Halcombesuggested—1st, that the

611
House should agree upon the definition of what bribery and corruption was, otherwise they might have various and conflicting decisions on the subject from different Committees; 2ndly, that when any petition complaining of bribery or undue election, should be presented, it should in the first instance be referred to a preliminary Committee, who should examine and report whether there was a primâ facie case to go upon; and 3rdly that when such primâ facie case was reported, the matter should be sent for inquiry, not to a Committee of that House, but to a commission consisting of three barristers, with a judge of the land at their head. If something of this kind were not done, the House could never get through election matters so as to attend to the other business of the country.
Mr. Roeobjected to the clause which referred the examination of any petition complaining of bribery and corruption to a Committee already sitting to try the merits of a petition against a return. This clause was inconsistent with another clause in the Bill; for by the one clause any Member for a borough against which a petition was presented might sit on a Committee to try the qualification of a Member on his due return, and eleven such borough Members might compose one Committee; but another clause said, that no member for a borough against which a petition complaining of general bribery and corruption was presented, could sit as Member of a Committee to try the question of bribery as to any other borough. Now, by the clause (the second) before the Committee, a petition complaining of general bribery and corruption in a borough might be referred at any time to a Committee sitting to try the qualification or due return of a Member, and the same Committee was to report on both; but, by the 10th clause, the authority of the whole eleven borough Members would be at an end, as by that clause, being Members of boroughs petitioned against for bribery and corruption, they could not decide on a question of bribery in any other case.
Mr. Hardythought, that the offence of bribery ought to be tried before a regular tribunal in the same way as any other crime, whether felony or misdemeanour. In a case formerly brought before that House of an hon. and gallant Member who had been convicted by a Court
612
Martial of having improperly withheld some supplies from the regiment to which he belonged, the House took the result of that judicial proceeding as sufficient, and proceeded accordingly, without going through the evidence de novo. At least the House did not think it necessary to examine the witnesses. They acted on the facts already established, and expelled him. So, in case of bribery, it would be much better for the House to found its decision on some facts proved before a competent tribunal. But if it were to act on complaints of general bribery—and by the way it was no easy matter to bring bribery, though generally practised, home to particular cases—then they would have to go through a most tedious and expensive, and often unsuccessful, process of overhauling the whole inquiry, and sifting the alleged charge all through. The House should enact that, if a certain number of electors were convicted of bribery before a Judge and Jury, then they would act on that conviction. That course would save much investigation, time, and expense. If a Member of that House were charged with felony, the House would not appoint a Committee to try him, but would leave the investigation to a Court of Law, and then act on the evidence adduced before that Court, and expel him. Such would be the proper course for the House to pursue in a case of bribery, which was a very heinous offence.
Lord John Russellsaid, that the Courts of Law were at present open to receive charges of bribery, and men might be, as they sometimes were, convicted of that offence. Indeed 800 electors of one borough might be convicted. But he thought it would be hopeless, all things considered, to bring home such evidence as would ensure the disfranchisement of a corrupt borough if they went to a Court of Law.
Clause agreed to, as were the clauses to the 8th. On the 9th clause being read,
Mr. Pryme Mr. Pryme moved the omission of the words "after thirty-three Members shall have been chosen by lot, according to the provision of the said Act, 9 Geo. 4th., c. 22, they shall, in lieu of being reduced to eleven in the manner directed by the Act, be reduced to eleven by the Speaker." He thought it would be imposing an invidious duty on the Speaker to authorise him to reduce the number of Members; and it was desirable that he should be in-

613
vested with no power that would be likely to excite odium or jealousy. It would be much better that the number should be reduced, as in the case of a Jury, by the parties striking off each a given number.
Mr. Wynnwas of opinion that it would be far better that the Speaker should, out of the 658 Members of the House, select the original thirty-three, as he must be supposed the best judge of their fitness, and that, out of those, the eleven should be taken by lot.
Lord John Russellhad considered the clause, and he saw an objection not to leave the Speaker the power of naming those who would constitute the Committee, though he would admit, that it was not desirable to give him an invidious power. It he chose the thirty-three, then, when they came to the eleven chosen by lot, it might be found that the inquiry would be conducted by inexperienced and inefficient Members. On a question such as that of investigating corruption, where public justice and the public interest were concerned, it was desirable to have men whose decision, from a knowledge of the law and the practice of Parliament, would inspire the House and the country with confidence. It was better to have the thirty-three taken by lot; and let the Speaker select eleven.
Mr. Wynnwas surprised at hearing the remark of the noble Lord. He could not believe, that in a Reformed Parliament, which the noble Lord had said was to contain so much intelligence, experience, integrity and talent, that the Speaker would find any difficulty in selecting thirty-three efficient Members for Judges from whom there could be any risk of drawing eleven bad ones. He was of opinion, that it the thirty-three were left to chance, the Speaker could not, perhaps, select eleven who were not sufficiently acquainted with the law.
Lord John Russelldoubted whether it would be competent to the Speaker to select thirty three. Many would wish to avoid the appointment, and make interest to be excused. He thought it an invidious power to give him the appointment of the thirty-three.
Mr. Tennysonsaid, it was very necessary to shield the honour of the Speaker from imputation. He thought, however, the proposal of the right hon. Member (Mr. Wynn) the least objectionable.
The Committee divided on the Amendment: Ayes 34; Noes 43—Majority 9.
On the question, that the clause be agreed to,
Mr. Aglionby Mr. Aglionby moved, to leave out that part of the clause which provided for the appointment of nominees. He disapproved of Members being converted into advocates.
Lord John Russellsaid, the nominees would not have the right of voting; but he thought a Committee would be benefited by having two Members present familiar with the case.
Mr. Wynnthought the plan of the noble Lord would place Members named as nominees in a most difficult and unfit situation. In his opinion, no Member of that House ought to be named a party to an inquiry under the express or implied understanding, that he would contend for a particular side.
Mr. Spring Riceadmitted, that the clause, as it stood, contained somewhat of an anomaly; but, at the same time, contended, that the alteration suggested by the hon. Member (Mr. Aglionby) would, if introduced, weaken its general effect. The object, in proposing the appointment of nominees was, to have the case brought fairly before the Committee.
Mr. Wynninstanced a case, in which Mr. Fox and another hon. Member, having been appointed nominees, were, with the single exception of the Chairman, the only persons who voted in opposition to the decision finally come to.
Mr. Mark Philipswas unfavourable to the appointment of Bribery Committees, and thought it would be much batter to leave the inquiry to the ordinary tribunals of justice. He likewise objected to the appointment of nominees, as being likely to place Members in an extremely invidious position. He had himself been appointed it nominee in the case of the Liverpool inquiry, last Session; and, from experience, was able to assure the House, that they were altogether unnecessary, and might, with perfect safety, be abolished.
Mr. Wasonsaid, that the Liverpool inquiry would have been gone through in half the time, and with half the expense, had it not been for the nominees. He, therefore, quite concurred in the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Cockermouth.
The Committee divided on the Amendment: Ayes 19; Noes 35—Majority 16.
Clause agreed to. The House resumed, Committee to sit again.

List of the AYES.

Attwood, T.

Hayes, Sir E.

Blackstone, W. S.

Philips, M.

Briggs, R.

Romilly, J.

Brotherton, J.

Sinclair, G.

Bruce, Lord Ernest

Torrens, Col.

Chetwynd, Capt.

Walter, J.

Evans, W.

Wason, R.

Ewart, W.

Wynn, Rt. Hon. W.

Gaskell, J. M.

Halcombe, J.

TELLER.

Hardy, J.

Aglionby, H. A.

List of the NOES.

Baines, E.

Plumptre, J. P.

Bish, T.

Pryme, G.

Brocklehurst, J.

Rolfe, R.

Browne, D.

Ross, C.

Buller, C.

Russell, Rt. Hn. Lord J.

Burrell, Sir C.

Smith, R. V.

Elliott, Hon. Capt.

Stanley, Hon. H. T.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Strickland, Sir G.

Gordon, R.

Tancred, H. W.

Hawes, B.

Tennent, J. E.

Inglis, Sir R.

Tennyson, Rt. Hn. C.

Jeffrey, Rt. Hon. F.

Tower, C. T.

Macleod, R.

Tracy, C. H.

Martin, J.

Verney, Sir H.

Murray, J. A.

Walker, C. A.

O'Reilly, W.

Palmer, C. F.

TELLER.

Peter, W.

Rice, Rt. Hn. T. S.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Consolidated Fund Indemnity; Pensions' Duties, &c.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of HAMILTON, from the Medical &c., Association at Greenock, for an Inquiry into the State of the Profession; from Dunse, &c., for a Better System of Church Patronage in Scotland; from the
564
Hand-Loom Weavers and others of Airdrie, Lanark, &c., for a Board of Trade, and for Relief.—By Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from the Mayor, &c., of Liverpool, to be heard by Counsel against the Liverpool Freemen's Disfranchisement Bill.—By the Duke of RICHMOND, from Fleet, for the Renewal and Extension of the Labour-Rate Act,—By the Marquess, CAMDEN, from the Grand Jury of Carmarthen, for the Abolition of certain Local Taxes on Agriculturists; and from two Places in Wales, against Tithes, and for the Repeal of the Malt Tax.—By the Duke of RICHMOND, from Brighton, against being Incorporated with any other Places.—By the Dukes of RICHNMOND and SOMERSET, and Earls of UXBRIDGE, CAWDOR, SEFTON, and GREY, from a Number of Places and Dissenting Congregations.—for Relief to the Dissenters.—By the Duke of RICHMOND, Marquess of CHOLMONDELEY, Earl CAWDOR, Lord BEXLEY, and the Bishops of BATH and WELLS, LICHFIELD, and St. ASAPH, from several Places,—for the Better Observance of the Lord's Day.

LAW OF ENTAIL (SCOTLAND).
The Earl of Roseberyrose to submit to the consideration of the House two Bills for altering and amending the Law of Entail in Scotland. He should confine himself, on this occasion, to stating what was the present condition of the law in this respect, what were the provisions of these Bills, and wherein they essentially differed from those which had twice before been brought into the House of Commons. The law then, as it now stood, gave permission to any owner of property to entail it for an unlimited period, and to an indefinite series of heirs, and the actual practice, in consequence of this power, founded on the Scotch Act of 1685, was, that a vast mass of land had been thus entailed in perpetuity in Scotland. To provide against the obvious evils of this system, was the object of the Bills he now introduced. By the first, no entail of land in future could be made beyond heirs in being at the execution of it, and for twenty-one years afterwards, following the principle of the Law of Entail in England, which long experience proved to unite all the advantages, without any of the injurious effects, belonging to entails. The second Bill related to entails now in existence, and provided various remedies for the many evils resulting from them, some of which are of a national description, and others more immediately affecting individual interests. By this Bill, proprietors would be empowered to grant improving leases to few, that is to leave in perpetuity for building, and to exchange to a much larger extent than at present. It would also confer the right of raising money on heritable bond, or mortgage for such charges as might be legally incurred under the tenth Geo. 3rd., called the Montgomery Act, or under fifth Geo. 4th., termed the Aberdeen Act, or under any other regular authority, with

565
the option of dis-entailing and selling, not exceeding a fourth of the estate, in order to discharge these incumbrances. The main difference between these Bills, and those which were in the House or Commons was, that the exchange of a whole estate would not by them be permitted; that in no case would it be allowed to the heir in possession to break the entail, leaving the Act of 1685 untouched with regard to entails now in being; that neither the Montgomery Act, nor Lord Aberdeen's Act would be repealed, as far as they referred to old entails, and that no charges for improvements would be recognised as coming within the limits of relief pointed out by the Bill, excepting those which had been recorded according to the present law. He thought, however, that it would be highly desirable to frame another law as a substitute for the tenth Geo. 3rd., more comprehensive, and simple, and free from the difficulties and pressure with which that act was encumbered; and he hoped that the second Bill he now presented, would obviate most Of the objections to which the Aberdeen Act was found liable. Such were the principal purposes of those Bills, founded, he conceived, on just and safe principles, calculated to avert the evils which must ensue were the present power of entailing left unrestrained, and to diminish to a great degree the pressure which the exercise of it had produced on individuals, and so shaped as, he trusted, would secure the sanction of the House, and be satisfactory to the people of Scotland.
The Lord Chancellorassured the noble Earl, that he would give all the attention in his power to the noble Earl's measure. Some change in the Laws of Entail for Scotland was highly necessary. There must, undoubtedly, be a great difficulty in making that change in such a manner as to concilitate all the various interests involved; but he rejoiced that his noble friend had undertaken the subject, and had brought it before their Lordships in a shape convenient and advantageous for consideration, by proposing a specific measure. Whether it would be more expedient to refer the measure to a Committee, for the purpose of having the whole subject more narrowly investigated than it could be in a general discussion in their Lordships' House, was a point for consideration; but he could assure his noble friend, he would certainly give his best attention to the subject. Without going into any general explanation he might state, that his opinion inclined to-
566
wards assimilating the Scotch Law of Entail as nearly as possible to the law of England. He would venture to say, that the Law of Perpetuity in no country was founded upon a more rational, a more consistent, or a more just foundation than the Law of Perpetuity in England. By that law a man was prevented, on the one hand, from tying up property beyond a limited time; while, on the other hand, he was enabled to preserve it to a succession of heirs, and against the risk of alienation for a reasonable period. The English Law of Perpetuity had been greatly improved of late years—and even within the last year a measure had been passed for preventing the evasions which previously took place under Lord Loughborough's Act. It would be proper to look at the question with a view to assimilate the law or the two countries as much as possible, Without breaking in on any of the present established principles of the Scotch law. All he could then say was, that the plan of the noble Earl should receive his best consideration, and he would endeavour to give to the noble Earl all the assistance which was in his power.
Lord Wynfordthought, that the power of entailing an estate on an indefinite number of families, and rendering it in-alienable as long as any descendant of any of those families should remain, was much too large. All the objects of the entailer's regard might be provided for by a much more limited settlement. The power of making such entails was only calculated to gratify the foolish vanity of the owners of lands, by enabling them to direct the course of descent of those estates, and to call the lands after their names for centuries after their deaths. But he was not prepared to say that it might be proper to extend the English Law of Entail to Scotland. There was a great difference between the state of England and Scotland; and a law very good for England, might not be proper for Scotland. He trusted their Lordships would send the Bills of the noble Earl to a Committee up-stairs. The interests of an immense number of persons would be affected by these alterations in the law. Such a Committee would ascertain what alteration was desired by the people of Scotland—it might collect the observations of men learned in the laws of Scotland, and who had had opportunities of observing the effects of the existing system—and it might ascertain what alteration would make the laws bear a just relation to the interests of all persons

567
possessing, or having as creditors, or otherwise, any claims on landed property. As their Lordships were asked to alter the law of Entail, which, however faulty, had at least been found to prevent the Members of the Upper House of Parliament from becoming poor and dependent. Before the system was broken up, some provision should be made for rendering a part of the property of Peers inalienable as long as Peerages, in connection with such property existed. He did not mean that the whole of the estates of a Peer should be tied up, but such a majorat, to use a term familiar to another country, as should be thought sufficient to maintain the dignity and independence of the Peer to whom they belonged. Neither the present law, nor any that could be made could guard against the effects of the imprudence of Peers during their own lives; but it prevented the follies and extravagance of Peers from disabling their descendants from supporting their dignity, and so rendering them dependent on the crown. It was proposed to make provision for younger children, out of entailed estates, and to allow the exchange of such estates for other estates. He did not object to the giving of such powers, but the exercise of them ought to be strictly controlled, or parents might neglect to take care of their younger children by proper economy; and remove the burthen of maintaining them from themselves, to whom it properly belonged, to their heirs, who might have children of their own to provide for. He should never consent to allow a sale of part of the estates for the raising a portion for younger children, for, in a few generations, the whole of the entailed estate would be thus entirely spent. By charging the estate with money borrowed, and obliging the successive possessors to repay it at certain specified rates per annum, the younger children might be maintained, and the estate preserved entire, Powers of exchange, if not strictly guarded, had been found to enable life-tenants to diminish the value of the inheritance. If he should have the honour to be on the Committee, he should give his best attention to these circumstances, and to every other connected with this most important branch of the law of Scotland.
The Duke of Hamiltonsaid, he would not enter into any general examination of the measure which the noble Earl had proposed for the consideration of the House. Indeed, he almost regretted that his noble
568
friend had said so much on the subject before the Bill was brought into the House, for it embraced so many matters of such great and vital importance, that it was very possible noble Lords might be reasoning on different points which they imagine would be introduced into the Bill, but which, when the Bill should have been finally drawn up, might not be included in it. After what had fallen from his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, he would make one or two remarks, because he perceived, from the line of argument adopted by the noble and learned Lord, that he had an inclination to assimilate the Law of Entail in Scotland, to the Law of Entail as it at present existed in England. In the first place the House must consider that it was not enacting laws for a new country—that Scotland had a system of laws peculiar to herself—and that it ought to look most carefully into the subject, in order to ascertain whether it would be desirable to change those laws, and assimilate them to the laws of England in reference to this subject. It had frequently been said that the Law of Entail in Scotland was, in fact, an interminable inheritance. It was no such thing; but if the extent of the entail was to be limited, where were they to stop. The House had a better right to take away the property of the third generation, than to take away that of the first. In his opinion it was trenching on the rights of individuals, and destroying vested property, which ought to be religiously preserved, especially at a moment when the subject of Scotch entails was one of extremely difficult consideration. He was not pleading the case of the rich against time poor, but the case of the poor against the rich. The proprietors and possessors of these entails ought not to be allowed to dissipate them—nor should they be destroyed. If there was a thirtieth poor relation, who had not a sixpence in the world, the rights of that individual ought to be preserved, and the House ought not to consent to any measure which would have the effect of depriving him of those rights. When he considered the state in which entailed property in Scotland was now placed, with about half a dozen different Bills relating to its alteration before the Houses of Parliament, he might freely say, that if the present course of proceeding were persevered in, their Lordships would not only cut off the entail, but would alienate, root and branch, the whole property.
The Earl of Roseberysaid, it had not been his wish to go into any general statement of the merits of the question, and he hoped their Lordships would acquit him of having entered into any argument on the subject. The suggestion thrown out by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, was precisely the course which he had intended to propose to their Lordships—that these Bills should be printed, and circulated among those individuals who were most conversant with the subject to which they related; and that ample time having been given for their consideration, his intention had been, immediately after the recess, to name a day for the second reading; and if he should be able to convince their Lordships that the Bills ought to be read a second time, then he should move that they be referred to a Select Committee above-stairs.
The Earl of Rosslynexpressed his satisfaction at what had been said by the noble Earl, with reference to the course of proceeding that he intended to adopt, because he (the Earl of Rosslyn) and several of his noble friends around him, understood that it had been intended to propose the second reading of these Bills immediately after the recess.
The Bills were read a first time.