Sitting of 25 March 1834

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. HUTT, from Kingston-upon-Hull; and by Sir GEORGE STAUNTON, from Hawkhurst, against the Employment of Children in Cleaning Chimneys.—By Lord ARTHUR LENNOX,
616
from Chichester, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Mr. A. JOHNSTON, from Dunse, &c., for an Alteration in the present System of Lay Patronage in Scotland.—By Mr. PLUMPTRE, from Canterbury, &c., for Relief to the Agricultural Interest.—By Colonel EVANS, from two Parishes in Westminster, for the Repeal of the Assessed Taxes,—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from Dublin, &c., for the Repeal of the Union.—By Admiral ADAM, from Kincardine, against the present System of the Church Patronage in Scotland.—By Mr. W. EVANS, from Leicester, for the Establishment of Local Courts to Recover more easily Small Debts.—By Lord CHARLES FITZROY, Sir JAMES GRAHAM, Sir JOHN SEBRIGHT, and Messrs. BLACKSTONE, SANFORD, SINCLAIR, W. EVANS, TOWNLEY, WALTER, DAVENPORT, J. ROMILLY, T. ATTWOOD, C. RUSSELL, WILKS, MORRISON, ETTWALL, CANLEY, and Sir WILLIAM INGILBY, from a Number of Dissenting Congregations,—for Relief to the Dissenters.—By Mr. KEMEYS TYNTE, Mr. SANFORD, and an HON. MEMBER, from several Places,—for Relief to the Agricultural Interest.—By Mr. LITTLETON, from Dudley, for a Scientific Board to Examine all Lamps offered as Safety Lamps.

CHAIRMAN OF THE MIDDLESEX MAGISTRATES.
Sir Samuel Whalleybegged to call the attention of the House to a Petition from the vestry of St. Pancras, remonstrating against giving a large salary to the holder of what had been hitherto an honorary office. The county-rates of Middlesex had, in the course of the last few years increased from 35,000 l. to 75,000 l. The county was also burthened with a debt of a quarter of a million; and, therefore, seeing the large increase of the county-rates, the Petitioners had the very laudable desire to economise the expenditure of that fund, and they were opposed to so large a salary. The Bill had been approved of by a majority of six Magistrates, only seventeen having voted for it, and eleven against it. Six Magistrates, from motives of delicacy towards the hon. and learned Chairman, declined to vote at all, and, therefore, he (Sir Samuel Whalley) was justified in inferring, that had they voted, it would have been against the Bill, and it would then have been left solely to the vote of the hon. and learned Chairman in support of his own salary. The office of Chairman to the Middlesex sessions was formerly an honorary one. No gentleman who had hitherto held that office had required any emolument for discharging those duties which all were desirous to fill. The large amount of salary proposed was objected to; because the duty which devolved upon the Chairman of the Middlesex Magistrates compared to the duties performed by the Magistrates of the police offices, was trifling, and the latter received only 800 l. per annum, while it was proposed to give the gentleman to whom the petition referred 1,200 l. He hoped, that the House would not sanction such a monstrous proposition, the sole reason assigned for which

617
was, that the duty devolving upon the Chairman of the Middlesex sessions had very greatly increased of late years. But the House should be aware that that increase had been the act of the Magistrates themselves, and would continue only a short time, as an arrangement was in contemplation by which those duties would be considerably lessened, and the Chairman of the Middlesex sessions would have no greater duty to perform than the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions of any other county. When no salary was attached to the office of Chairman to any other county, he thought no distinction should be made in the case of the county of Middlesex. If the Chairman were to receive a salary, that salary ought to come out of the Consolidated Fund, instead of the county-rates. He had the pleasure of seeing many hon. Members of that House who discharged the very important duties of Magistrates in their respective counties, and he would leave the matter in their hands. He moved, that the petition do lie on the Table.
Mr. Byngsaid, he applied for the introduction of this Bill, not that he thought it might be useful for the county of Middlesex to have a Chairman with a salary, but because he found the Magistrates were divided into four different parties as to who should be the fittest person to fill the office.
Mr. Hughes Hughessaid, that as he had appeared to be the party introducing this Bill, whereas he was known uniformly to have opposed its introduction at the meetings of the magistracy, he was anxious to state, that it was matter of accident, and owing to his having, in the absence, and at the request of the hon. member for Middlesex, brought up the report of the Committee to which the Petition for the Bill was referred. He held himself, nevertheless, at full liberty to oppose the Bill in its future stages.
Mr. Rotchsaid, this Petition was merely a Petition against giving the present Chairman of the Middlesex Sessions 1,200 l. a-year, and as far as that went, and the observations upon that point, he should have been willing to let them pass sub silentio. But when he found the hon. Member for Mary-le-bone making observations which were entirely at variance with facts, he was bound to make some reply to them. The Bill before the House was not a Bill to give the Chairman of the Middlesex Sessions any salary at all, but merely to
618
enable the Magistrates to do so at any future time if they thought proper. He was sorry to say many similar statements had been propagated to deceive the people of Mary-le-bone. The hon. Gentleman conceived the office of Chairman of the Sessions to be so honourable, and requiring so little attention and labour, that he was really quite astonished, that after it had been held by gentlemen of independent fortune, who performed the duties gratuitously, any one should come forward and claim a salary. Why, up to the very period when he (Mr. Rotch) was elected Chairman, a salary was paid Mr. Const of 750 l. a-year, and that gentleman only tried 200 cases in a year. What was the difference? He (Mr. Rotch) had tried no less than 1,570 cases, disposed of 100 appeals, and sat 125 days in court, besides county days. If hon. Members would look at the return laid before the House, they would find that the Manchester Sessions occupied only fifty-seven days, and the Surrey Sessions but fifty-five days, and at Manchester there were no appeals heard. There were gentlemen who, for the purpose of deceiving others, or through ignorance, affirmed that the business was multiplied for the express purpose of claiming a salary. The fact was, all the orders for the new arrangement were passed before the death of Mr. Marriott, who immediately preceded him; for the moment the office was given up by Mr. Const, it was discovered that twice as much was paid for trying prisoners at the Old Bailey as at Clerkenwell, and an order was issued by the Secretary of State for an alteration. Now, what was the result, of which this parish complained? There had been an actual saving of 2,116 l. to the county in the space of nine months; and if all the cases had been tried at Clerkenwell, which had been ordered, he did not hesitate to say, that there would have been a saving of 4,000 l. He could net then conceive what reason the parish of Mary-le-bone had to complain. It had been said, that the Middlesex Sessions house was a rendezvous for Magistrates; but he assured the House he had sat there the whole day with only one Magistrate at his elbow. The hon. Member had stated, that the vote in favour of the Bill was carried by a majority of six Magistrates only, and that he knew six others who were not present, but who would have voted against it. He came into the county of Middlesex an utter stranger, and did not know three Magis-

619
trates in the commission of the peace, and the general body only knew him as Chairman of the Sessions, so that personal favour was quite out of the question, and was it to be supposed that at meetings where thousands of the public money were voted away, there would be anything like a trifling attendance? On the contrary, there were generally from thirty to forty Magistrates present. It was his (Mr. Rotch's) opinion, that the Bill should not be pressed upon the House. He was asked for his vote, and gave one to the effect, that as his Majesty's Government had been preparing some measure, the Bill should not be urged before the House. A majority was against that opinion, however, and it was accordingly brought forward. As regarded his exertions in his situation of Chairman, he consulted nothing but the good of the county—he sacrificed his profession, but he could not be expected to do so without remuneration. During the last twelve months he had saved that county such a sum as 5,731 l. The county-rates were lightened, and were more easily collected. He could tell the inhabitants of St. Pancras, and Mary-le-bone, that the courts of the City of London rendered their taxes heavy. Let the expenses be considered in both courts in particular, the fees of Mr. Pope, and all the fees that were levied at the Old Bailey. He would state one example. One particular fee was 3l. 5s. at the Old Bailey, while the same fee was 1l. 12 s. in Middlesex. The Chairman of Middlesex should in his opinion, be remunerated for his time and trouble.
Colonel Wooddid not think, that the Chairman of the Middlesex Sessions was entitled to a salary; at least if a salary were given, let it be given by Government, and let Government have the nomination also of that Chairman. There was a great number of police Magistrates who could take the Chair, who already received payment from the public, and could do the duty. The number of cases was greatly augmented at the Middlesex Sessions. In 1832, there were but 213 cases, and in 1833, there were 1,281. Above 1,000 cases were taken from the Old Bailey, where there was a Judge to try them. There was no reason for sending such an additional number of cases to the Sessions from the Old Bailey, but that they could be tried at less expense at the former than at the latter.
Colonel Evansshould feel it his duty to
620
give the Bill all the opposition in his power. He, for one, did not complain that the Magistrates did not try enough of cases, but that they tried too many. Capital punishments were now very much diminished, and the maximum of punishment most generally awarded in the superior Criminal Courts was fourteen years' transportation. Now the hon. Gentleman could not deny that that punishment had been frequently given at Clerkenwell. The hon. and learned Gentleman took great credit to himself for the 1,500 trials which had taken place under his direction during the last year; but he would beg to ask him, did he include in that number the 100 persons who were illegally convicted at what was called the "Mistake Sessions." Ten of those persons were even now in prison, suffering, as he would fearlessly call it, false imprisonment. He was sorry he did not see the Under-Secretary for the Home Department in his place, for it was absolutely necessary that those persons should be tried anew or discharged. One case that exemplified the absurdity of the present plan more than enough was that of a person named Palmer, who was tried for receiving stolen goods, well knowing them to have been stolen. He was convicted, and sentenced to fourteen years' transportation. The principal concerned in the transaction was tried before a Judge of the land, and it was there decided that he was "not guilty;" so that there was the strange anomaly of the receiver of the goods found guilty at the Sessions, while it was decided, in a Superior Court, that the principal was not guilty, and, of course, that the goods had not been stolen. Those were strong facts against the Bill, and were also strong in favour of the whole business being taken before the regular tribunals. The hon. Gentleman had candidly stated, that his predecessor, who had filled the chair with much ability, and was greatly respected, had a salary of 750 l. a-year, but he did not give any reason why that salary should be raised to 1,200 l. He was of opinion, that the Government ought to have the appointment of the Chairman, and also be saddled with the paying of his salary.
Mr. Estcourtsaid, that the House ought to be on its guard, and not be led away by the fact of that being a private Bill. He always understood, that the duties of the Magistracy were performed gratuitously, and that with great advantage to the country. Though that was the first time the question had been broached in that House,

621
he had seen many publications upon the subject of paying a salary to the Chairman of these Sessions, who was to be elected by his brother Magistrates. But in his opinion that would be the worst plan the House could adopt, for even now they did not meet to elect the Chairman without feelings of party which would be greatly strengthened if a salary were attached to the office. In point of principle the objected to it, as he considered it would he attended with great danger if established. The petitioners should be heard by Counsel at the Bar against the Bill, for the case was one of very great importance. There was now an inquiry going on into the County-rates generally, and, in the very teeth of that, let them not add to the burthens of one county such a large sum, without giving the parties interested an opportunity of being heard against it.
Mr. Cobbettexpressed his astonishment that any Gentleman would propose that the whole country should be taxed to pay a Magistrate for the county of Middlesex. What right had the county of Wilts or the county of Dorset to pay the salary of a Middlesex Magistrate? He was against the payment of even police Magistrates. The county of Middlesex drew towards it all the wealth of every other country, and then taxed every other county to keep it in a state of peace. He should certainly give his opposition to the Bill.
Mr. Wilkssaid, that the sentiments contained in the petition were the sentiments of the county generally. The hon. member of Oldham stated, that Middlesex collected all the wealth of the country, but it should be recollected also what a vast quantity of pauperism and crime resorted to it. The operation of the County-rates in that county was most ruinous; in Bethnal-green, and many other districts, the rates could not be collected, notwithstanding all the efforts that were made. It would excite no surprise when it was proposed to add 1,200 l. a-year to that which was already so overwhelming, that the people should interpose, and resist a measure like that.
Mr. O'Connell, as belonging to the profession of the law said, there was no principle more clear than this, viz., that no Magistrate should be paid a salary by those under whose control he was; the use of a Barrister as Chairman was, that this opinion and assistance might be taken and respected, but that respect would be much lessened if he was subject to the control of his bro-
622
ther Magistrates. If the proposition to elect a Chairmen every six months were adopted, it might happen that, from partizanship, or any other motive, they would refuse to re-elect the former Chairman. He was of opinion, that the judicial system ought to be supported by Government, and that Government should be mode responsible for the proper administration of justice. He hoped this discussion would have another tendency—namely, that it would lead to the appointment of Courts of Local Jurisdiction, and thereby afford to the public immediate, summary, and cheap justice. He did not wish for such a scheme as that which was proposed last year by the Lord Chancellor, because it was composed of such complicated machinery that it could not work, and it would require half a century before an opinion could be formed upon the operation of its details. He would advise a return to the common-law practice of County Courts, which should be perpetually sitting tool disposing of business. He hoped the Government would take up the system of local jurisdiction, and put down the system by which the local Magistrates had the power to appoint a Chairman, and withdrawing that appointment when they thought proper. He hoped that the Bill would be withdrawn. He was sorry, that the hon. Member (Mr. Rotch) had thought it necessary to advocate the Bill at all, as it went to give himself a salary.
Mr. Rotchwished to reply to some observations which had fallen from the hon. and gallant member for Westminster (Colonel Evans). That hon. and gallant Member had asked if he (Mr. Rotch) hall included in his 1,500 cases the 100 and odd that had been illegally tried. In reply, he had to state, that he included only thirty-six in that number—those being the only ones tried by him, and only twenty-five of them were left in custody after their illegal trial. He was left solely to his own discretion respecting them, and he discharged them. With the other eleven that had been left session after session, he had nothing whatever to do after the sentence of transportation, for they were handed over to the Secretary of State. As to the trials, they were illegal from the adoption of a practice which he tried to do away with, but was out-voted, and, therefore, he entirely wiped his hands of them. That practice was introduced by his predecessor, Mr. Const, and he had nothing to do with it. With regard to the case of Palmer, he

623
knew that a great deal of ridicule had been heaped upon him respecting it. He was on that occasion assisted by a learned Serjeant, who had often been and was now sitting on the Circuit for one of the Judges of the land, and trying cases of the greatest importance. He (Mr. Rotch) had been of opinion that no case was made out against Palmer, but that learned Serjeant was of a contrary opinion, and won him over to that opinion.
Mr. Hughes Hughesbegged to assure the House that, although he had introduced the Bill by accident, he would not move its Second Reading by accident.
The Petition to lie on the Table.

ADMISSION TO THE UNIVERSITIES—AUJOURNED DEBATE.
Mr. Prymesaid, that having been cut short in his address to the House yesterday, by that inflexible monitor—time, he should now conclude the observations he was about to offer to the House, in the same spirit that he commenced them—namely, by strictly confining himself to the subject-matter contained in the petition. Whatever opinions he might entertain with regard to the principle and extent of the concessions which ought to be made to the Dissenters, it was not his intention to obtrude them on the House on the present occasion, but to reserve them until some specific Motion should be brought before them on the subject. He repeated his opinion, that there was nothing of a controversial character in the examinations of the Universities, that could be at all repugnant to the feelings of the Dissenters. Although the concession prayed for would give the Dissenters a vote in the Senate, and in the administration of the general affairs of the University, yet the details of education, and matters of minor consideration, were entirely under the direction and control of the different colleges, and were not governed by the senate of the University. The concession would not, therefore, interfere in the least degree, with the course of academical instruction and discipline of the University. When a candidate for honours came up to receive his degree, he was not asked whether he bad attended the chapel, or performed other requisites. That was left entirely to the college to which he belonged; and it was their duty to attend to the regular performance of them, and give him his testimonials, which were never questioned by the University. The colleges had it in their power to grant dispensations
624
from attendance at chapel and at the sacrament, if it was contrary to the conscience of any individual; and this had been the case in Trinity College, Dublin, for a long period of time; where, from national liberality, they had admitted Roman Catholics and Dissenters to degrees ever since the year 1793; and he was informed they were not required either to reside in the college or to attend the chapels. It had been said, that such a concession would change the whole character of the English Universities. For whose advantage, he would ask, were the Universities formed? For that body exclusively to whom they belonged? Certainly not. As it had been remarked by his hon. colleague, in the time of Elizabeth and Edward 6th, there was no exclusion of any class, and there had been no want of heresy and schism; there were religious discords, on account of which men were imprisoned, persecuted, and beheaded; and yet, during those dark and disturbed times, when polemical feeling ran high, and when persecutions existed, down to the year 1613, there had been no exclusion from the Universities. He denied, therefore, that these advantages were exclusively intended for the Church of England. With regard to the claims to emolument, they were the result of the foundations of particular colleges, and were or might be limited to the will of the founders, or by the statutes of the college. It was said the prayer of the petition was limited, and that theological degrees were not included. The reason was, that if his hon. friend opposite, orthodox as he was, or himself, desired to take the degree of Doctor of Divinity, there was an insuperable impediment in the way, for in the course of the exercises to be performed, they would be required to preach a Latin Sermon at St. Mary's Church. Therefore, the petitioners would have stultified themselves if they had asked to grant the Dissenters degrees in theology. The hon. Member passed a high encomium upon the character and talent of the professors and tutors whose signatures were attached to the petition, and expressed his surprise, under all the circumstances, that the number was so large, and hailed it as a demonstration of the growing feelings of liberality and spirit of candour in the University. Having stated, at the commencement of his speech, his intention to reserve his observations on the general question, he should conclude by giving his support to the petition.
Mr. Cobbettsaid, the House had witnessed yesterday, in the course of the discussion, what no Member could have expected, a Minister of the Crown trying to get that House to consent to what a former monarch was driven from the Throne for attempting, and the present Royal Family put upon the Throne to prevent. The right hon. Gentleman had entertained them with a tough story. He gave them a long account of the exclusions from the Universities; but he had left a chasm, and that chasm was not to be filled up by such an authority as had been relied upon by the right hon. Gentleman,—namely, Dr. John Jebb, who was the most determined, bitter, persevering, and implacable enemy of the Church of England, from the day he first took up his pen, to the hour of his death. He was surprised that such an authority should have been relied upon by a Minister of the Crown. He would take another authority, which could not err, because it related to facts which unquestionable document would fully substantiate. He alluded to Hume's history of this country, and especially during the reign of King James 2nd. That monarch had attempted the very same thing that was sought by the present petitioners; and he must beg the attention of the House to one very short passage from Hume, which, as the hon. Gentleman opposite had read passages from Dr. John Jebb's writings, he (Mr. Cobbett) must read. The passage was as follows:—"Father Francis, a Benedictine, was recommended by the King's mandate to the University of Cambridge, for the degree of Master of Arts; and as it was usual for the University to confer that degree on persons eminent for their learning, without regard to their religion, and as they had even lately admitted the Secretary to the Ambassador of Morocco, the King on that account thought himself the batter entitled to compliance." Thus it would seem, that the King entertained the notion, that, as the liberal University of Cambridge had not hesitated to admit the Secretary to the Ambassador of Morocco, he should be excused if he recommended a Roman Catholic monk for the degree of Master of Arts. But what course was followed on this occasion by the University? Did that body accede to the Royal mandate? It was important to look at the conduct of the University in this instance, because hon. Gentlemen had been told, that the University had always been ready to admit them, and that the Church had entertained no objec-
626
tions, but that it had been the Kings who had interfered. Now, though it was not permitted to speak of dead kings of the present line, yet he could speak of dead kings of the Stuart family, and he would therefore do justice to the dead king James 2nd. He it was, that thus solicited the admission of a Dissenter from the Church to a degree—precisely that which was asked in the prayer of the petition before the House. Hon. Members should now hear the determination of the University upon the Royal mandate to which he had referred. Hume said: "But the University considered that there was a great difference between a compliment bestowed on foreigners, and degrees which gave a title to vote in all the elections and statutes of the University, and which, if conferred on the Catholics, would infallibly in time render that sect entirely superior." No doubt such would be the case; and though he should not object to the proposed measure, and that it should be determined by the House that Dissenters and Roman Catholics should be admitted to degrees, and thus acquire a right of voting, the Legislature at the same time must not disguise from itself the fact, that in a very short time, they would become the masters of the University, and of the property of the colleges therein. To proceed, however, with the extract—"They therefore refused to obey the King's mandate, and were cited to appear before the Court of Ecclesiastical Commission. The Vice-Chancellor was suspended by that court; but as the University chose a man of spirit to succeed him, the King thought proper for the present to drop his pretensions." The subject, however, did not rest upon what the University had done in this instance. It could not be forgotten by hon. Members what had occurred shortly subsequent to the transaction to which he had alluded in the case of the seven bishops, whose petition had been drawn forth by the renewed attempt on the part of the King to open the Universities to every description of Dissenters, not confined to Roman Catholics, as in the former instance, but to put all classes on the same level with churchmen. The bishops had been called upon to read a proclamation of toleration in all their churches after divine service. They refused, and petitioned the King against being compelled to do so, stating that such a course would not only lead to the destruction of the Church, but would be a degradation, not only to the bishops themselves, but to all the clergy of the establishment. The bishops

627
who thus remonstrated it was well known were sent to the Tower, brought to trial for a sedition alleged to be contained in their memorial, and were acquitted. This transaction ended in the King being driven from his throne. Notwithstanding this example, a similar proposition to that attempted by King James 2nd had been yesterday recommended by a Minister of the Crown. He really must remonstrate with the right hon. Gentleman for adopting as an authority for the proposition he had made the writing of Dr. John Jebb. He was surprised the right hon. Gentleman had not been able to muster some better authority. He (Mr. Cobbett) had referred to a French work, the Dictionnairedes Grandes Hommes, and therein had found the character given to Dr. John Jebb was, that he was a clever man, but a most inflammatory, politician, going in every attach against royalty, and upon the established institutions of the country. He therefore could not sit with patience, and hear Dr. Jebb cited as an authority; and he trusted never to see his books again upon the Table of the House. He thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Rice) had not dealt fairly with the House by confining himself to the prayer of the petition with which he had been intrusted. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have told the House what the Dissenters themselves prayed for, in the numerous petitions they were forwarding to both branches of the Legislature. When he (Mr. Cobbett) remembered the prayers of those petitions of the Dissenters themselves, he was surprised that so many members of the Established Church and of an English University, had signed a petition of the character or the one now under the consideration of the House. He could not imagine how those who signed that petition conceived that the Church and the Universities could be upheld if their prayer were conceded. It would have been much more candid in the right hon. Gentleman to have told the House that it was impossible longer to uphold the Church establishment, and that it must give way. The only real grievance which the right hon. Gentleman, the member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) could discover was, that Dissenters, not having access to degrees, were compelled to serve two additional years before they could attain either the profession of an attorney or a barrister, or could attain a certain rank in the College of Physicians. This grievance was not confined to Dissenters, but extended also to
628
such members of the Church as had not attained a degree. It was well known, that a young man who had not obtained a degree was two years longer in eating his terms—that was, in gnawing his way to the bar, like rats gnawing their way into a cornbin. The real question was, whether or not the House was prepared to grant all that the Dissenters claimed,—viz. a full and free participation in every benefit and advantage that the University afforded; and he was satisfied that nothing short of this would content them, at least if they were sincere in the expressions contained in their petitions. For himself, he must say, that he would rather the Government had declared its views with regard to the Dissenters' claims, than to have degraded themselves and deluded the House and the country by the course pursued upon this occasion. The real question with him was, whether or not the Church establishment was to be demolished.
Mr. Bainesconsidered, that the same argument which the hon. Member had used might have been put forward when the House were discussing the Test and Corporation Acts and the question of Catholic Emancipation. He denied, that the Dissenters were keeping back anything, and he took upon himself to state, that it was not the wish of the Dissenters in the smallest degree to interfere with those institutions which were devoted to the support of the established religion of the country. In these institutions they did not ask to participate; all that they wanted was to be admitted to the general institutions of the country. If there were a college instituted for the purpose of giving instructions to the members of the Church of England, they did not wish to partake of those instructions. With respect to the other objections made by the hon. Member relating to the removal of the tests, he believed, that that removal and the argument upon that subject would have applied to the Test and Corporation Acts and the Catholic question. He would ask the House, whether that House had been made the worse by the admission of Catholic Members? Certainly not; and that being so, the question with him was, would the University be made a whit the worse for the admission of Catholics and Dissenters than the House had been? With respect to the question whether the subject was open to the consideration of Parliament, he thought that if it were in the power of king James 1st to impose those restrictions, it was equally

629
in the power of Parliament to remove them. Under what circumstances, he would ask, was the test complained of imposed? Not at a time when the subject could receive a grave and deliberate consideration, but at a period when the King was enjoying the sports of the turf, and not very likely to judge deliberately whether those impositions were calculated to produce good effects or not. The petitioners only wished to participate in the benefits of the University as far as they were general, and did not wish to derive any advantage from them as far as they were intended to serve the purpose, exclusively, of the Church of England.
Mr. Lennardsaid, he had had a good deal of communication with the Dissenters of this country of late, and he verily believed that they did not for a moment contemplate anything but what was just and reasonable. The hon. member for Oldham did not see that they were deprived of any advantages that were worth speaking of; but they were of a different way of thinking, as was proved by the immense number of petitions which had been presented upon the subject. The hon. Member said, it was nothing that the Dissenters were excluded from the professions both of physic and law; for, as the case stood at present, except as a matter of very special favour, a Dissenter could never get to the highest situation in the College of Physicians. True, they might practise, but under restrictions which were degrading. In his opinion, if they considered the obtaining of those degrees as a mere feather in their cap, they ought to be granted a participation in them. Nothing, in his opinion, could be more absurd than in these days, when Dissenters were admitted into that House, when they might become Ministers of State and Privy Councillors—when they might even be elevated to the bench,—to say they were not eligible to become Bachelors and Masters of Arts. It was most absurd to reason upon the letter of James 1st in these days of enlightenment and freedom, for it was written in times when freedom was unknown—and when even speaking of liberty rendered a man liable to all the pains of an inquisition. It was to him extraordinary, that arguments for the exclusion of Dissenters should now be drawn exclusively from the time of the Stuarts. When the Universities were first established, they were national institutions, and comprised the whole body of the people. The object of those who now opposed the claims of the Dissenters would be to make
630
them sectarian establishments. The Dissenters amounted to one-third of the whole population; and was it right that such a large proportion of the country should be deprived of the advantages of science and literature? The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goulburn) had contended, that it was improper to admit Dissenters to the Universities, because those establishments were to be considered, in some way or other, as closely connected with the Established Church. He (Mr. Lennard) knew of no statute—certainly not the Statute of Elizabeth—which excluded any class of society. The Universities were established for the spread of literature and science, godly literature being of course included; therefore the argument raised by the right hon. Gentleman was an unjust one. That right hon. Gentleman, however, had used one plausible line of argument, viz. that if the House gave the Universities the power of admitting Dissenters to particular colleges, the heads of those colleges would refuse to receive them, and therefore it would be, in fact, giving the Dissenters nothing. The first answer to that was, that some colleges did now receive Dissenters. He recollected when he was at Cambridge, twenty years ago, a Roman Catholic student and a Roman Catholic tutor were admitted to Jesus College: since then the same liberality was practised. But would it be contended, that the colleges would be less disposed now, if the House gave them the power, than they were twenty years ago, to admit Dissenters? He felt great gratification at seeing such a petition from Cambridge—for it was a proof that the members of the University understood the temper of the times, and were disposed to accede to the wishes of their Dissenting brethren, which was equally demanded by justice and expediency.
Mr. Wilkssaid that, connected as he had the honour to be with the Dissenters, it would be heedless and unthankful in him to allow that petition to lie on the table without saying a few words upon the liberal and enlightened body from whom it had emanated. The characters of the hon. members of the University who had signed that petition were eminent, not only in this country, but abroad, where their names were connected with the science and literature of the age. It was doubly acceptable to the Dissenters that these eminent individuals had come forward unsolicited and unsought, which must reflect strong lustre upon their benevolence and liberality, and

631
which would be most gratefully acknowledged by the Dissenters. They had come forward to ask, that the Dissenters should not be excluded from the honours of the University, and he (Mr. Wilks) would venture to say, that if the Dissenters were few in number and comparatively unknown—if their wealth, information, industry, and political power did not entitle them to the attention of the House—even then the prayer of the petition would be just, and the principle upon which it was founded was such as every reflecting statesman must hail with satisfaction, and every liberal heart must approve. The principle was one of intellectual liberty and liberty of conscience; and he trusted that the House would be inclined to admit that principle. If that principle held good on the supposition that the Dissenters were few in number, how much more so must it be when it appeared that they constituted one-third of the population, and in some places seven, and in Wales nine-tenths of the population? When it appeared that in the manufacturing and agricultural districts the great majority of the population were Dissenters—[An Hon. Member asked, Could he prove that?] He would not enter into the details; but he was prepared to prove, that not only in the manufacturing and mining, but even in the agricultural districts, the great bulk of the land belonged, not to those who were connected with the Established Church, but to the Dissenters. If there was no positive advantage to be obtained by the Dissenters from admission to the Universities, still they should not submit to any political or civil degradation. How would the members of the Church in that House feel, if they were excluded from any political rights because of their particular mode of religious worship? If it were but a feather, as the hon. member for Bolton said, without which a man could not walk through the world without being debased and degraded in some respects, he ought to demand it, and it ought to be granted him. Whatever tended to the degradation of Protestant Dissenters created civil prejudices, and did much injury to society in general. It was not the mere degradation of the Dissenters, but of the country, that men like Watts and Doddridge had received from Aberdeen or America those very honours which ought to have been given to them by the Universities of their own country. Such men as Dr. Pye Smith, Dr. Carey, Dr. Morrison, and others, to whom we were indebted for German and
632
Chinese literature, were excluded from our Universities on no other account but that of not agreeing to the same form of worship. A right hon. Member said, that if the Petition were acceded to, he could not send his son with satisfaction to the University; but what was the case in regard to Scotland, where there were no tests, and where the parents never felt any such solicitude as that, and yet where there was a general devotedness to the interests of religion and to the Established Church of the country? Much had been said in condemnation of the language of Dissenters in their Petitions; but what said the subscribers to this Petition? "That they regarded the exclusion of Dissenters from the Universities as an unrighteous proscription." If they were still to be excluded, our Universities would be no longer national establishments, but sectarian institutions. He felt grateful to his Majesty's Ministers that they had come forward, as far as they had done, upon this occasion, especially after that unfortunate Bill which had excited so much suspicion and dissatisfaction among the Dissenters of the country. He thanked his Majesty's Ministers, in the name of the Protestant Dissenters at large, and would conclude in the words of Locke, in the Preface to his Essay on Toleration:—"What we want is liberty; absolute liberty; just and true liberty; equal and impartial liberty." More than that the Dissenters need not ask; with less than that they would never be contented.
Mr. Secretary Stanleyrose and said, that, as he was not a member of the University from which the petition had emanated, he ought, perhaps, to refrain from offering any observations upon it to the House; but, as the subject was of great importance, and of considerable novelty, and as the petition came before the House with the high recommendation of the important names attached to it, not only from the weight of the personal character of the petitioners themselves but also their situation in the University to which they belonged, and in the country, he might perhaps be pardoned if he deviated from the general rule he had laid down for himself, namely, not to comment upon petitions presented to the Legislature. He trusted, however, that he should be excused if he now, as a member of the Government, and as a member most anxious to consult and support what he felt to be the true mid best interests of the Established Church and of religion, ex-

633
pressed shortly his most entire, unequivocal, and unhesitating concurrence in the prayer of the petition which had been presented by his right hon. friend, the member for Cambridge. He could not but regard it as rather a singular fact, that, to a petition presented from gentlemen who held so high a character for learning, for distinction, and attachment to the national religion of the land, as the distinguished individuals whose names were appended to it, one objection—and only one objection—should be taken by two hon. Gentlemen holding opposite,—and extremely opposite,—opinions, on almost every subject. The single objection of both those Gentlemen was the moderation of the demand, and of the language in which that demand was couched in the petition. The ground—and only ground—of the objections, both of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goulburn) and of the hon. member for Oldham was, that the petition was too moderate in its prayer. ["No," from Mr. Goulburn.] He was well aware, that the reasons for objecting to the moderation of the petition were different; but still the fact of the moderation was the basis of the objection of both the right hon. and the hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman, the member for the University of Cambridge had said (certainly much at variance with the conclusion to be drawn from the rest of his speech), that he objected to the petition because, from its own showing, the grievances from which the Dissenters sought to be relieved were so trifling as to amount to almost next to nothing. The hon. member for Oldham had objected to the petition, because its demand was so moderate as not to meet his views,—because it did not go far enough to meet the objects sought to be attained by the Dissenters of this country, and because it did not go boldly to the subversion and demolition of the Church Establishment. Now, in his opinion, the moderation of the petition was its principal recommendation; and, coupled with the soundness of the arguments it contained, would, he believed, be its main recommendation to the country at large. The right hon. Gentleman had said, in the course of the observations which he had made to the House yesterday, that, in point of fact, the Dissenters had no grievances to complain of in respect to the University of Cambridge; or, if they had, the grievance amounted to this, and to this only,—that, being unable to take the degree of Master of Arts in consequence of not sub-
634
scribing (pursuant to the laws of the University) the 39 articles, the Dissenters were required, before they could advance in the learned professions, to serve an apprenticeship two years longer in its duration than those who had obtained degrees; and the right hon. Gentleman had added, that this being the only grievance, the Dissenters should rather apply for a remedy and redress to the Inns of Court and to the Medical Societies, than to the University. He was, however, ready to contend, even if this were all, that it amounted to a real and substantial grievance; if this were not the only grievance, then he must say, that the whole course of argument pursued by the right hon. Gentleman was overthrown, and went for nothing. If, under the present system, there was a restriction without a substantial reason, why should that restriction be continued as a degradation upon any class of the subjects of the realm? The right hon. Gentleman had also said, that, as a father, he objected to any alteration in the present plan, and that he never could accede to the admission of Dissenters into the University, lest the morals of his sons should suffer and be contaminated by mixing and associating with them.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, he must interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the Colonies, who had so entirely misrepresented what he (Mr. Goulburn) had stated, that he could not permit it to pass without observation. In explanation, he begged to say, that his argument had been this,—he had first complained, that the parties who had brought forward this petition had not shown that, if the claim were granted, the course of religious instruction and education would be followed; and, in the second place, he, as a father, should object, in the absence of such a course of religious instruction, to intrust his son to the University. He had also urged, that, if a forced system of religious education, it could not be satisfactory to the Dissenters, but he had never said, that, because the Dissenters were admitted, he would not intrust his sons in such an association.
Mr. Secretary Stanleyconceived the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman left his argument in the same situation. The first point was, that the grievance of the Dissenters was so small as to afford no grounds of complaint as against the University. If the grievance was small, the remedy was the more simple. With regard to the first point, he would revert to the argument that had been advanced by

635
the hon. member for Oldham, who had stated, that he thought it was quite right that a person, not possessing an academic degree, should undergo an additional two years' apprenticeship. [Mr. Cobbett had said no such thing.] He had understood the hon. Member to have endeavoured to convince the House, that those who were not at the University at all, were placed precisely in the same situation as the Dissenters, in respect to their claims for advancement in the learned professions, and that therefore the Dissenters had no right to complain. The two cases were, however, very different. In some of the professions it had been thought right, that the individual who possessed the University education should have two years taken off his period of probation, in consideration of his presumed greater advancement in learning over another individual who had not enjoyed the same advantages; but in this case the Dissenter might have all the advantages of University education; and yet he was deprived of the shortened duration of his apprenticeship, not because he was an unlearned person, but because as he could not conscientiously sign the articles of the Established Church, the rule was not to be relaxed. This was a practical grievance; but if that were denied, he must insist that it was a practical degradation. He (Mr. Stanley) was most anxious to afford the Established Church every protection, consistent with doing justice, however, to all classes of the subjects of the realm; and he was confident, that the Church would not be best supported by keeping up and maintaining the present system of exclusion. If he might be permitted to express an opinion upon the subject, he would say, that the spread of dissent from the tenets of the Established Church was to be attributed, in respect to the poorer classes, to the insufficiency of religious instruction; and with regard to the higher classes, he would say, that the dissent amongst them arose from the strictness with which the system of exclusion was drawn round the Church. To induce the Dissenters to attach themselves to the Church Establishment, no better course could be suggested than to admit them to full and free intercourse with the members of that Church. The question of exclusion, he regretted to say, affected the Universities generally, but was elsewhere carried to a much greater extent than in Cambridge. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) had asked, what
636
would be the system of education pursued in the University of Cambridge, in the event of the Dissenters being admitted to take degrees there? If the right hon. Gentleman had been speaking as an Oxford man, then he could have understood the object of that inquiry; but, in the system of education adopted at Cambridge at present, the proposed relaxation in the regulations would not make any change whatever in that establishment, because even now, Protestant Dissenters and Roman Catholics were admitted within its walls, and were mixed up in the discipline and practice of the colleges; so that the admission of these parties to degrees could not interfere with the course of education at present practised. In Oxford, however, the case would be different, and, as a member of the Church of England, he most deeply lamented the system in that University. He must say, that young men of sixteen or seventeen years of age, ought not on their entrance to be called upon to subscribe the thirty-nine articles, which, in all probability, in nine cases out of ten, had never been read or considered. Such a system, he must contend, was most injurious to the real interests of religion. He would go further with regard to the discipline of the University, and most unhesitatingly express his entire dissent from the compulsory attendance of the students, morning and evening, in the chapels of their respective Colleges. He complained, that day after day, and week after week, young men were called from their wine, at five or six o'clock in the evening, to attend divine service in the chapel, from which they returned to their wine again. This system was most injurious to the morals of the youth of the country, and was calculated more to deaden all feelings for religion, than if all the Dissenters of England were admitted to the honours of the University. He would not now enter into the details as to how far, and in what manner it might be expedient to modify the admission to degrees of Dissenters—whether to all the honours, all the civil privileges, and whether there should be any restrictions with regard to the internal government of the University. The prayer of the petition, it was true, excluded any interference with the separate Colleges. The time to which the sitting of the House was limited having already expired, he would not say more, than to request the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Line

637
(Colonel Williams) to postpone his motion having reference to this subject, which stood for this evening. The subject was new to the House, but the discussion upon the petition would do much to bring men's minds acquainted with all the bearings of this subject. It was, however, very evident, that the House was not at present competent (at least he himself felt incompetent) to say, to what extent the relaxation of the restrictions ought to go, or in what mode that relaxation would be best effected. By a postponement of the question, the House would be enabled to consider these points, and be better prepared to discuss the general and particular question. For the same reason, he should urge a similar request on the hon. member for South Lancashire (Mr. G. W. Wood) who had a Motion bearing on the question, which he hoped the hon. Member would postpone.
Colonel Williamssaid, that the tone in which the subject had been taken up by the Government was sufficient to induce him to accede to the request of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
The Speaker left the Chair, and the debate was further adjourned.

SOUTH SEA COMPANY.
Mr. Brocklehurstrose, in pursuance of a notice he had given of his intention to move for a Select Committee, "To inquire into the constitution of the South-Sea Company, with a view to pay off or transfer the funds of the said Company to the Consolidated Fund, and to provide for the payment of the dividends thereon by the Bank of England." The hon. Member said, that in bringing this Motion under the consideration of the House, a very slight glance only at the origin of the South-Sea Company, and its progress to the present time, might be requisite, as we had to deal with it as we found it, rather than in reference to what might be its course of proceeding in times gone by. Its origin took place in the reign of Queen Anne, for during the long war with France in that reign, the payment of the sailors of the royal navy being neglected, they received tickets instead of money, and were frequently obliged to sell those tickets at a discount of forty or fifty per cent. By this and other means the debts of the nation unprovided for by Parliament, amounting to 9,000,000 l. and upwards, fell into the hands of money-lenders; on which Mr. Harley, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, proposed
638
to allow the proprietors of these debts and deficiencies six per cent. per annum, and to incorporate them for the purpose of carrying on trade to the South Seas, under the title of "The Governor and Company of Merchants of Great Britain, trading to the South Seas and to other ports of America and for the encouraging the fishery, &c." Various acts subsequent to the Act of Incorporation had been passed for the regulation of the affairs of the Company; some of the acts to enable them to increase their capital, others requiring a reduction, and among them a singular one, the 8th of George 1st, enabling them to dispose of effects in their hands by way of lottery. Above thirty acts connected with the Company he had examined into. The year 1720 was the period of the bubble speculations, the history of which was just now worthy the consideration of the speculative portion of the public. In 1748, the Company had virtually ceased to be a trading Company, and were merely a convenient channel through which the Minister of the time managed the public monies, and from that period to 1806, their affairs remained comparatively undisturbed, when the growing state of the trade of the country called for some changes as to the monopoly possessed by the South-Sea Company, and, by the 47th of George 3rd, some of their exclusive privileges of trading and granting licenses were repealed. The most important act affecting the company was the 55th of George 3rd, c. 57, which repealed the provisions of all former acts, granting exclusive privileges of trade to the South-Sea Company, and this Act indemnified them for the loss of such privileges, by raising the interest on their capital from three up to three and a-half per cent; and to secure this increase of interest, the Act established a guarantee fund, to be raised out of certain duties on blubber and other merchandise imported from within the limits of their exclusive trade. A clause of this Act empowered the Government, on completion of the Guarantee Fund, to pay the amount over to the stock-holders and to dissolve the Company. These were the features in the extraordinary history of the Company that appeared to him worthy of detailing to the House. He now begged to call the attention of the House to some facts as to the present affairs and management of the Company. On turning to the returns of our na-

639
tional expenditure, the sum of 5,900 l. 9l s. 8½d. appeared to be annually paid for the management of their capital; and on going further, he observed this remarkable item of 10,174 l. 18 s. 1d. to make good the annual deficiency of profits. At first sight, it occurred to him that many other interests, both commercial and agricultural, might at times find their way to the Treasury with similar claims for indemnity for loss of profit, and it led him to take pains, so long ago as last Session, to trace out the origin, progress, and present circumstances of the Company, and it soon became evident to him that this Company was not only a cumbrous piece of machinery, but also a channel of unnecessary expenditure of the public money. The capital of the Company now consisted of 3,662,784 l. 8s. 6d. stock, which was originally lent to Government at three per cent., and when, by the 55th of George 3rd, the Company gave up the privileges of trade, though they had long ceased to exercise them, the interest on their stock was raised to three and a-half per cent., until such time that the Guarantee Fund should accumulate to 610,464 l. 1s. 6d., when it should be in the power of the Government, on paying over this sum to the proprietary, to annul the charter and to dissolve the Company. By the balance-sheet of the South-Sea Company it appeared they had the charge of paying the dividends on three small portions of the National Debt,—namely, 3,497,870 l. 2s. 7d. Old South-Sea three per cent. Annuities, 2,460,830 l. 2s. 10 d. New-South Sea three per cent. Annuities, 523,100 l. three per cent Annuities of 1751. Now, he must here call the attention of the House to the broad distinction that existed bewixt the proprietors of South-Sea stock and the receivers of these annuities; these latter had nothing to do with the Company beyond receiving at their hands the dividends as they became due from the Government, the interest, three per cent., being the same as on three per cent. Consols and three per cent. reduced, and the dividends were paid at the same periods of January and July, and April and October, and to these annuitants it was the same thing whether they received their dividends at the counter of the South-Sea House, or at the counter of the Bank of England; but, by consolidating these small annuities with the Consols and Re-
640
duced, a great advantage would be conferred on the annuitants, for owing to these stocks being in the hands of the South-Sea Company, and being of small amount, they were not often inquired after by the public, and generally sold for one and a-half to two per cent. less in the market, although the dividends were the same, and also the periods of payment the same. But the Government might, he believed, save the public the 5,900 l. paid for management, as he had good reason to suppose, that the Bank of England, for the advantage of the balance of dividends lying in their hands, would consent to manage these small sums free of charge to the public, as no extra charge clerk would be required to their present establishment, and his reason for saying so was, that he understood the Bank was now arranging to manage the Exchequer-bills gratuitously for the same consideration—that of the balances it would leave in their hands. He would now briefly refer to the interests of the real proprietors of the South-Sea Company, and he must in limine state, that he was not one who would sacrifice individual interests at the shrine of public good; the protection of these interests formed with him a primary object of solicitude, and he was happy to say, that whatever anxiety he felt on this point, had within these few days been entirely dissipated by a letter which he had received from some of the principal and most respectable proprietors in and around London; and although their letter went to confirm his previous views, it would be only an act of justice towards those gentlemen if, with the permission of the House, he should read their letter, in which they candidly set forth the advantages that would result to themselves and the country by the extinction of the South-Sea Company. The hon. Member was proceeding to read the letter referred to, when
Mr. Cobbettsaid, that the hon. Member had no right to read his speech.
The Speakersaid, that it was undoubtedly out of order for a Member to read his speech, but to read documents and refer to details was not only not out of order, but a general adoption of the course would lead to the avoidance of many mistakes.
Mr. Brocklehurstsaid, that his reasons for going into this detail were, that the country might know what he was doing.
The hon. Member then read the letter referred to, which was as follows:—
To John Brocklehurst, Esq. M.P., &c.,
March, 1834.
Sir—We, the undersigned holders of South Sea stock, beg leave to make known to you our unqualified approval of the Motion you are about to submit to Parliament for an inquiry into the state and affairs of the South Sea Company.
Should this inquiry be granted, we feel quite confident that it will be found equally advantageous to all parties to put an immediate end to the present unsatisfactory state of that Company.
It may be well to recollect, that when the tonnage duties were originally appropriated to the establishment of the guarantee fund, they were very productive, and continued so for some years, but Government having remitted part of those duties they rapidly decreased, and for the last eight or nine years have only produced the insignificant sum of 3,000 l. or 4,000 l. per annum, consequently the completion of that fund must be protracted to a period far more remote than was ever contemplated by either party. This is felt as a severe hardship by the proprietors of South Sea stock, who only wait that event in order to make a division of the surplus balance in the hands of the Company, amounting, as per the half-yearly statement, to the sum of 193,000 l. But this is not the only injurious effect that will result to them from this unexpected delay, for until some favourable change takes place in the affairs of this dormant company, the proprietors must continue to suffer from the greatly depreciated price their stock invariably bears in the stock market.
We trust, Sir, you will not consider it presumption in us, if we venture to suggest, that a prompt and effectual mode to remedy these evils would be for Government to annul the charter and dissolve the company. This may at once be effected by Government's anticipating the completion of the guarantee fund, and making over the amount to the Company; this operation to be followed by converting the capital of the Company into 3 per cent consols, and incorporating the same into the great mass of the 3 per cent Consolidated Bank annuities. This process would be found productive of the following beneficial results to Government:—
1st. The extremely complicated accounts now subsisting, and which, without this, must continue to subsist to a very distant period, would instantly be done away with.
2nd. An annual saving of several thousands would also be effected.
3rd. A large amount of arrears, consisting of unclaimed dividends, now in the hands of the Company, would be transferred over to Government, and thus become available for the public service.
4th. The Capital of the Company, amount-
642
ing to about 3,660,000 l., is at present a bona fide money debt on the part of Government, but by converting that amount into a like sum of 3 per cent consols, Government would actually redeem that portion of the national debt at the rate of somewhere about 90 per cent, instead of paying it off at the par of 100, thus securing to the public an eventual saving of no less a sum than 300,000 l. to 350,000 l. sterling.
It may at first sight appear incompatible that an operation of this description should prove equally beneficial to both the contracting parties, but it need only be kept in mind, that on the dissolution of the Company the heavy charge of 11,000 l. sterling per annum, now expended for the maintenance of the establishment, would instantly cease. A considerable sum would also be produced by the sale of those valuable and extensive premises now occupied by the Company in Thread-needle-street.
From all these considerations, we are induced to hope, that no trifling obstacle or legal technicality will be allowed to interfere with the adoption of a measure that undeniably will prove profitable both to the Government and the Company, more particularly as, on reference to the records of Parliament, it will be seen that several chartered companies have at various times been dissolved when found to have become, like our own, totally inefficient and useless.
We have only to add our conviction, that the general body of proprietors will readily unite with ourselves, who have a large interest in the funds of the Company, in assenting to any equitable arrangement Government may think proper to propose for effecting the desirable object herein suggested.
Be assured, Sir, by persevering in your patriotic efforts to promote a measure so manifestly conducive to the general good, you will not only insure the gratitude of the individuals who now address you, but that of the public at large.
Believe us to remain, with the greatest respect, &c.,

J. CAPEL.

R. WILLIAMS, (for the Hope Assurance Company.)

G. PATON.

M. M. DE COSTA.

J. LINTON.

M. LINDO. JUN.

J. CLELAN.

W. HAMMOND.

J. RAYLEY.

J. PULLEY

A. MOCATTA.

J. DE HAGUE.

M. MOCATTA.

C. SMITH.

A. L. MOCATTA.

The subject had long been pursued by a very extensive and very respectable proprietor, Mr. Mocatta, who had done him the favour to place in his hands a few very important memoranda, concisely elucidating the advantages to be derived from the change; which, with the permission of the House, he would read. The hon. Member accordingly read,
A further elucidation of the consequences resulting from the dissolution of the South Sea Company.
The complex machinery which now connects it with Government will be at once removed, whereby the Government financial statements will be simplified and freed from the obscurity in which that branch of their accounts is at present involved.
The Company possess the right of issuing their bonds or notes, and should they at any future day avail themselves of that privilege (an event highly probable), it must greatly interfere with the interests of the Bank of England, and by creating a redundant paper currency prove equally detrimental to the country at large.—Annul the charter, and this evil is averted.
The operation of the guarantee fund at its present rate of accumulation will on an accurate calculation occupy a period of 23¾ years, but its duration may be greatly prolonged from the undermentioned circumstances—viz:
By a rise in the price of the Government funds.
By a remission or diminution in the product of the South Sea duties.
By any property or income-tax attaching to the public funds.
By a reduction of interest on the Government funds.
Either of these events would essentially diminish the means of accumulation, and in that case the completion of the guarantee fund could not be effected in a less period than 25 or 26 years.
The dissolution of the Company by the Legislature would clearly be conferring a great boon on the proprietary, to whom the results would be sufficiently advantageous without requiring from Government any bonus whatever for the surrender of their charter.
The pecuniary results to Government will appear by the following statements.
The charge now annually paid by Government is as follows:—

For managing the South Sea annuities and 3 per cent 1751

5,900

The Company's deficiency, as per half-yearly statements.

9,374

15,274

On dissolving the Company, Government must immediately complete the amount of stock now intended to be produced by the slow operation of the guarantee fund—namely,

3 per Cts. 610,464

Deduct the amount already accumulated,

223,920

So that the Government must at once give the holders of South Sea stock credit for

386,544

The money value of which, taking consols at 88 is

Sterling 340,159

But if Government were to adopt

644

Per Annum

this course, they would be relieved from all future payments of the above mentioned charges, amounting to

15,274

(which, for the reasons before assigned, it is assumed they will otherwise he chargeable with for a period of 25 years);

And they would receive for their own use and benefit, during the 25 years, the South Sea duties, estimated at

3,200

Government would then, also, have the advantage of holding for the 25 years arrears of dividends, as shown in the half-yearly statements of the Company's accounts amounting to,

£116,361

And a further sum of

38,000

Being arrears of the Company's trading and bond debts, making, together

£154,361

This sum invested at an interest of:3½ per cent per annum, will produce

5,400

Gross annual gain for 25 years

£23,874

From this, however, must be deducted the Bank charge for managing the Government funds, now managed by the Company—say about 10,500,000 l., at 300 l. per million

3,160

Leaving Government in possession of an annuity for 25 years

£20,714

The worth of which annuity, calculated at the present market price, is

346,968

Deduct the present value of the 386,544 l. 3 per cents to be advanced to the South Sea proprietary

340,159

So that there would be an actual gain to Government by the projected operation of

£6,908

Besides Government would recover into its own hands the sum of 116,000 l., being the amount of arrears on the public funds, and which appeared by the Company's statements to be the usual balance in hand, with very little variation, for many years past; and Government would also be put into immediate possession of the sum of 38,000 l. being the amount of the unclaimed bond and trading debts of the Company. These debts have been outstanding during a period of eighty to 100 years; it may be fairly presumed that no claimant will ever appear, consequently this sum of 38,000 l. must absolutely devolve to Government.
He should add only another reason or two why this Company should be extinguished; they negociated in vain for the dead weight, and the Bank undertook it on better terms; and in 1832 and 1833, when the Government were driving a bargain with the Bank, this South-Sea Company, if it had possessed any talent for business, might have come forward with a proposal to take a good slice of the management of the debt on better terms; but it slumbered at its post, and evinced a total inability to serve the public; the golden opportunity for twenty years had been allowed to pass away. The South-Sea House might be applied to the use of some of the projected establishments for national registry, poor-law commission, &c.; and if a fair price were given for it, raise the means for a retiring fund for the clerks. The Sub-governor and Deputy-governor, and twenty-one Directors, could have no cause to complain, as they were elected for three years, two and a-half of which were expired, and by the time the affairs were wound up, they would be entitled to the remainder of their sinecure pay, and could set up no objection on the plea of injured vested rights. He had entertained a hope that the Government would have had an opportunity before the recess to have taken up the subject; but as this was not the case, he should, with permission of the House, for the present, withdraw his Motion for a Committee, and take as early an opportunity as possible after the recess to move for it; and, as a ground-work for this future proceeding, he should beg to move that the returns he held in his hand be laid on the table. They related to the state of the affairs of the South-Sea Company up to the 5th of April, 1834, and also to the transfers of stock made by the Company up to the same period.
Motion agreed to.

EMPLOYMENT OF LABOURERS' BILL.
Sir C. Burrell Sir C. Burrell moved for leave to bring in a Bill to explain and amend the Act of 2nd and 3rd of William 4th, for the better employment of labourers in agricultural parishes. The Bill which he wished to introduce was similar to one which, he regretted to say, was rejected by the House last Session. He was then satisfied of the necessity of some measure of the kind, and all that he had since heard had increased his conviction of the necessity of some arrangement like that
646
in the Bill he intended to propose. There were several hon. Gentlemen present who knew that the best arrangement for the employment of agricultural labourers, so as to prevent their becoming chargeable to the parishes, were often set at nought by the obstinacy of one or two individuals, and, therefore, it became necessary to apply to Parliament for a legislative enactment. It often happened, in consequence of the obstinacy of some or the rate-payers, a number of the labourers were thrown on the parish, and were employed, at a low rate, in repairing the roads and bye-lanes, or in stone-pits, to the demoralization of the labouring classes, and to the great increase of the Poor-laws. He did not think that, under such circumstances, it was surprising that insubordination prevailed in many places. He would venture to assert, that when such a system prevailed as he proposed in his Bill, there would be order and satisfaction on the part of the labouring classes. He was aware that many persons were opposed to the principle of his measure, but, he believed, that most of such opposition was founded on theoretic views. He was convinced that, however the plan might be objected to in theory, it would be found good in practice. He could speak, from experience, as to his part of the country, where the plan he proposed had been productive of the greatest good. It might be said, that the Commissioners of the Poor-laws objected to his proposition, and that the general measure to be brought forward by the Government, which was founded on the Report of the Commissioners, would supersede the necessity of this Bill. He, however, thought that the House should have laid before it different views of legislation on the subject, so that they might be the better able to arrive at a sound conclusion on the subject. He hoped, under the circumstances of the case, there would be no objection to introducing the Bill and allowing it to be printed. He had no wish to carry the measure hastily through the House, and I should be happy to adopt any suggestion likely to improve it.
Mr. Secretary Stanleyhoped, that the House would allow the Bill to be introduced without entering into any discussion on the subject. The Report of the Poor Law Commissioners was under the anxious consideration of his Majesty's Government, and a general measure would be submitted

647
to the House founded on it. He trusted, that the House would consent, without the expression of an opinion either of approbation or disapprobation, that the Bill should be laid on the Table.
Mr. Cobbettknew of many parishes in which the adoption of the plan proposed by the hon. Baronet had been productive of the greatest benefits. In the parish of Farnham, with which he was connected some years ago, there were several hundred families on the poor-rates; but since the adoption of this plan he believed, that the number of paupers was very inconsiderable. With respect to the Poor-Law Commissioners he would only observe, that they had put many gross falsehoods into circulation. It had been proved in petitions presented to that House, that many statements in their Report were utterly and entirely without foundation. He knew, that the passing of the Bill of the hon. Baronet would be productive of the greatest benefit to the country. He, therefore, gave it his hearty support, and trusted, that it would be proceeded with before any of the projects of the Poor-Law Commissioners could be carried into effect.
The Motion agreed to, and the Bill ordered to be introduced.

CHANNEL FISHERIES—SEIZURE OF ENGLISH BOATS.
Sir John Tyrellwas anxious to put a question to the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs on a matter of great interest and importance. The subject he alluded to related to the seizure of four British vessels engaged in the fishing trade so far back as July last. Great anxiety was felt on the subject by many persons engaged in the fisheries; and they entertained hopes, that they should obtain some redress through the agency of the noble Lord. He had no wish to prejudice a question which might not be yet decided; but he hoped the noble Lord was in a situation to inform him what had been the result of the negotiation on the subject. The anxiety that was felt by persons engaged in the fishily, trade had been much increased in consequence of the aggression on the part of an armed French ship on some English fishing-vessels. In that case, a person had been killed, and the Coroner's Jury had returned a verdict of "Wilful Murder."
Viscount Palmerstonwas well aware, that the question had for some time past
648
produced a great deal of excitement among the maritime population on the southern and eastern coasts. The matter had been brought under his attention, and a communication had been made to the English Ambassador at Paris by the French government. Some correspondence had taken place on the subject, but he was not prepared to say what was the result, as the matter was not yet settled. He need not say, that his Majesty's Government was fully aware of the importance of the subject, and every care would be taken to bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion. He could not go into the other subject which had been alluded to by the hon. Baronet at present.
Mr. Goulburnwished to know whether any steps had been taken to secure the rights of British fishermen. In the case alluded to, the fishermen were acting in strict conformity to the provisions of the Treaty, and yet they were seized and carried into a French port by armed vessels. In the recent aggression an English fisherman had been killed.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that there was one fact connected with the last case which had escaped attention, namely, that the English fishing-boat was within two miles of the prescribed limits. Whenever the agreement existing between the two Governments respecting the fisheries was not violated every care should be taken to protect the fishermen.
Mr. Halcombewished to know whether the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty had been directed to the Report of the Committee of last year on the state of the fisheries? The Report alluded to the want of protection to the fisheries on the English coast, and stated, that the French vessels were much larger than our own, and, from their mode of fishing, they were likely, in the course of a few years, to destroy the fisheries. At present he believed, that more than half the supply of herrings and other fish to the London market was brought by French vessels. The French government prevented the English boats going within nine miles of the coast, but the English Admiralty never interfered in the matter.
Viscount Palmerstonwould only observe, that the subject was one of considerable difficulty, and was under the attention of the Government; he, therefore, did not think, that it was desirable to go on with the discussion.
The subject was dropped.

EXCHEQUER RECEIPT BILL.
Sir James Graham, in moving the further consideration of the Report of the Exchequer Receipt Bill, said, that he intended to propose that two alterations should be made in the Bill. The first alteration he intended to propose was in consequence of a suggestion made by the right hon. member for Harwich (Mr. Herries). He (Sir James Graham) had proposed, that the Comptroller should only be removable from his office in case of the Address of one or both Houses of Parliament; but the right hon. Gentleman suggested, that in case of such removal the Comptroller might consider himself entitled to compensation. He, (Sir James Graham) therefore, proposed an Amendment, that in such case the Comptroller should not be entitled to compensation, but that the office should be subject to alteration and under the control of Parliament. He had also proposed that no person holding the office of Comptroller should be able to hold any office in the appointment of the Crown during pleasure. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herries) had objected that the Clause was not sufficiently comprehensive, as there were persons holding office during pleasure connected with the Government, and yet not directly appointed by the Crown—namely, such as the Secretary of the Treasury and the Under-Secretary of State. He (Sir James Graham) had felt the force of the objection, and intended, therefore, to propose that the Clause should be amended, so that it would run that no person holding the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer should hold any office during the pleasure of the Crown, or any appointment under the Crown. Some objection had been made to Lord Auckland being appointed to the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer as he held the office of Treasurer of Greenwich Hospital. He (Sir James Graham) did not consider, that there would be any serious objection to the appointment of Lord Auckland; but, to remove all doubt, he would propose a Clause to meet the case of Lord Auckland, which stated that that noble Lord should be allowed to hold both offices. If this arrangement was effected, the noble Lord (Lord Auckland) would give up two pensions he then held—namely, one of 400 l. and the other of 300 l. a-year. He need
650
not say, that the arrangement he proposed would be of an economical nature. In conclusion, he would only add, that from the manner in which Lord Auckland had performed the duties of the office over which he presided, and from his experience and habits of business, he was more competent to fill the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer than any other person whom he (Sir James Graham) knew. The right hon. Baronet concluded by proposing his Amendments to the above effect.
Mr. Goulburnadmitted, that the two former Amendments had removed some of the objections that he had entertained. He was extremely loath to enter upon a discussion in which there was any thing like a personal matter; but he felt bound in duty to object to the appointment of Lord Auckland. He would much rather that Mr. Ellis, the Clerk of the Pells, should be appointed to the office of Comptroller than the noble Lord. The very principle of the measure of the right hon. Baronet was, that no person holding any office under the Crown should be the Comptroller of the Exchequer. That officer had some check and control over the expenditure of the public money; and it was most desirable that he should be perfectly independent of the Treasury. He approved of the Clause establishing that principle; but, in proposing to make an exception of Lord Auckland, the right hon. Baronet was, in point of fact, destroying his own principle. What was there to prevent future Governments from claiming similar exceptions? It was most objectionable that the first appointment should be a violation of the principle laid down in the Bill.
Mr. Tennysonsaid, that the office which Lord Auckland now held in Greenwich Hospital being held at the pleasure of the Crown rendered it impossible for him, without contravening the principle of this Bill, at the same time to hold the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer. He did not mean to cast the slightest reflection on the character of Lord Auckland; but he could not help saying, that making the noble Lord an exception to a general rule applicable to all persons who should come after him was, to say the least of it, inconsistent. Without some further explanation, therefore, he could not consent to vote for the proposition of the right hon. Baronet.
Mr. Herriesagreed with his right hon.

651
friend (Mr. Goulburn) that it was incompatible, according to the principle intended to be established by the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), that the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer, and another office held at the pleasure of the Crown should be filled by one and the same person. Although he approved of other parts of the measure, he could not give his assent to such a proposition as that.
Mr. Warburtonobserved, that the proposition which the right hon. Baronet had made for rendering the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer independent was in conformity with a proposition which had been thrown out by his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex. Nominating any person to the office who held another situation during good behaviour would be such a violation of the principle of this proposition that he should certainly resist it.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that after what had passed he did not think he should be justified in pressing for a division on the Clause relating to the appointment of his noble friend to this office. He should, however, persist in introducing the clause establishing the principle which had been adverted to, although he would not undertake the responsibility of bringing forward the other clause.
The Clause relating to the appointment of Lord Auckland was withdrawn, and the other Clauses were agreed to, and Report received.

THE POLISH EXILES.
Colonel Evanssaid, he had to present a petition from certain noblemen and gentlemen in favour of the Polish Refugees, to which he was anxious to call the serious attention of the House; but before he did so he must express his regret at the great impediments which were thrown (he did not say intentionally) in the way of those who had petitions to present in that House. He had had several, and had come to the House fourteen or fifteen days without being able to get an opportunity of presenting them. This was a serious inconvenience to many Members, and was attended by this additional mischief—that it was often difficult to explain to parties from whom the petitions came, that the delay did not originate with those to whom they had been confided. He mentioned this in the hope that some measure might be adopted in relation to the busi-
652
ness of the House in the morning sittings, by which, if possible, such delays might be avoided. The petition which he held in his hand was agreed to at a public meeting held some time ago to consider the state of the unfortunate Polish exiles now resident in this country. A society had been formed a considerable time back for the relief of those unhappy victims of despotism, and by its means relief had been afforded to an extent which went to alleviate the sufferings of many of them; but the funds of that society were now completely exhausted, and there was no resource left to the friends of those exiles but to come forward, as the petitioners now did, to entreat the sympathy and consideration of that House to their case. The petitioners stated, that it was a duty incumbent on nations as well as on individuals to afford relief to those whose sufferings gave them a claim on their sympathy. When one individual suffered from the oppression of another, there was generally some tribunal from which the sufferer could obtain redress; but when one nation was suffering from the oppression of another, the sufferers had no remedy but in the general sympathy and compassion of those amongst their fellow men of all nations, who abhorred such oppression. The number of Polish exiles now in England was but small—probably not more than 100; but their numbers had of late been increased by the fact that many had recently been driven from other countries in Europe, in which they had sought an asylum, by the powerful influence of the Russian court. They, therefore, sought our shores, where they believed they would be more free, and less exposed to any danger from Russian influence. As they had come amongst us, he did think, that the peculiarity of their circumstances gave them a strong claim on the compassion and benevolence of the nation. The French government had fully recognized the principle of giving relief from the public purse to those Polish exiles who had sought a refuge in that country, though it could not be said, that France was better able, financially or politically, to grant such relief. The Government or this country had on many occasions established the principle of giving aid to foreigners who were driven by political causes to seek an asylum amongst us. Without going back to the instances in which protection and relief had been given

653
to the Hugonots and the Flemings who had sought refuge here, he might mention that, in the early part of the French war, we received and pensioned a large number of refugees who were driven from France, and in 1823 we received and relieved by public money a large body of the Spaniards who sought refuge here. It was true those Spaniards had a very strong claim upon us, as they had been engaged along with us in the contest which we had been carrying on against the ruler of France; but in his opinion the Polish exiles at present amongst us had almost as strong a claim. As contracting parties to the Treaty of Vienna, we were guarantees of the government which was at that time established in Poland. No doubt, a war had followed, which for a time put an end to that government; but he believed that though the Polish nation could not send envoys to the Courts of Europe, or that, as she was circumstanced, any such envoys distinct from the Russian government in Poland could be received in any of the European Courts, yet that the Polish nation had found means to make to several of the European Courts strong complaints of the tyranny under which they groaned, before they had attempted by open force to shake off that tyranny. Under these circumstances, he thought that those members of the Polish nation who had sought an asylum amongst us had very strong claims upon us as a nation. It was too well known, that the dominating influence of Russia in the Courts of Europe was every day becoming more serious; and though he would not say, that we had yielded to that influence, yet he must assert that the present Government, and still more their predecessors in office, had deferred more to it than was becoming in the Government of these kingdoms. The Poles had a strong claim upon this country, and we were bound to assist them, if it were only to show to the rest of Europe that we were not under the influence of the Cabinet of St. Petersburgh.
The Petition was read.
On the Question, that it lie on the Table.
Sir Harry Verneywas glad to find, that the situation of the unfortunate Poles could never be mentioned in that House without calling forth the strongest sympathy for those victims of Russian oppression. He hoped, that his Majesty's Ministers would take care that no greater accession of strength should be permitted to
654
a power which was already too strong for Europe. It had been said, that the late discussions in that House had excited great anger in the Court of St. Petersburgh. He was not surprised that it should. Russia would, no doubt, if she could, endeavour to stifle the voice of freedom in every country; but he trusted, as had been once said by an hon. and learned Member of that House who now presided over the other House of Parliament, that that House would ever continue a free and open tribunal, to which the distressed and oppressed of every nation might apply, and not apply in vain, no matter how high and powerful were their oppressors. That was said on a discussion relating to Poland, and as that noble and learned Lord was now in a station which justly gave him great influence in the councils of his Sovereign, he trusted that he would now exert his influence in doing something to alleviate the distress which had been brought upon so many distinguished natives of ill-fated Poland. Anything which we could do in the way of pecuniary aid would be some, though but a slight, alleviation of the misery of men who once moved in the highest ranks, and enjoyed the highest dignities in their own country, but were now driven by Russian despotism to come to us as beggars for the means of subsistence. This country was looked upon as the natural, he might say the constitutional, head of freedom in Europe. We had given shelter and protection and pecuniary relief to the Spaniards and to the French, and he did not see on what principle we should now withhold it from the brave and patriotic Poles who were in misery amongst us.
Mr. Sinclairgave the prayer of the petition his most cordial support. The feeling in favour of the Poles was very strong, and had been very generally expressed in Scotland. In that country considerable sums had been raised to assist the distressed Poles in Great Britain.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that every person of a feeling and humane disposition must spontaneously respond to the sentiments of sympathy which had that evening been expressed in favour of the Poles; but the feelings which himself and colleagues might entertain on the subject, as individuals, were a matter very different from voting away the public money in their capacity of responsible Ministers

655
of the Crown. He (Lord Palmerston) was not at liberty to hold out any hope to the gallant Colonel, that Government would sanction any grant of money to the Polish exiles now in this country. The gallant Colonel had referred to the case of the Spanish refugees and French emigrants; and contended, that because a former Government had afforded them pecuniary relief, the present Government ought to extend pecuniary assistance to the petitioners. The cases were quite different. The Spanish refugees who received assistance from this country, were men who acted in concert with the armies of Great Britain during the Peninsular War; and it was because of their active co-operation with our troops, that they were expelled their own country. With respect, again, to the French emigrants, they were entitled to assistance from this country, because it was in obedience to the advice of England that they had rebelled. Our shores were open to the distressed of all countries, and our laws afforded protection to the afflicted of all kinds; but it would be unfair to expect, that the unfortunate of all countries should receive pecuniary support from the Government. The sum which the gallant Colonel wished to be bestowed on the refugee Poles might not be great; but it was not the mere amount of money, but the precedent which the grant would establish, that the House ought to take into consideration. If the principle were once established, that foreign refugees were entitled to pecuniary relief, it would be found afterwards to be a very difficult matter to draw the line of distinction between those individuals and other foreigners, who, at a future time, might present their alleged claims for similar aid. He did not see on what principle they could give the assistance which the petitioners desired, and refuse relief to those Poles who might afterwards come over to this country in great numbers, and whose claims to pecuniary relief might be greater. The gallant Colonel had grounded the claims of the petitioners to relief on the circumstance of an infraction by Russia of the Treaty of Vienna, to which treaty this country was a party; and had stated, that England, in consequence of such infraction, would have had a right to rescue the Poles from the grasp of Russia by force of arms. He (Lord Palmerston) admitted, that England would have had a right to go to war with Russia if she
656
thought proper; but Government did not think that, under all the circumstances of the case, it would have been expedient for England to go to war with the emperor of Russia. The mere fact of this country being a party to the Treaty of Vienna, was not as synonymous with our guaranteeing that there would be no infraction of that treaty by Russia. He must repeat, that while there must be a feeling of sympathy in every heart in favour of the unfortunate Poles, Government could not hold out any hope of extending pecuniary relief to them.
Mr. O'Connellhad heard the speech of the noble Lord with surprise and regret. The noble Lord had said, that to grant relief to the Poles would be against precedent. It would not be against precedent, but the contrary. The vials of his wrath were, in so far as words were conceived, poured out on the head of Russia; but, in God's name, why did not our actions correspond with our words? Every man ought to feel it a degradation of his country, that Poland had been suffered to become the victim of the contemptible and brutal despot of Russia. He (Mr. O'Connell) trusted that justice to the national feeling on the subject of the wrongs of Poland would yet be done, and such a strong expression of the public will, pronounced, as would drive the barbarians and ruffians of Russia out of the pale of society. The noble Lord had said, that the Spanish refugees received pecuniary assistance from this country, because they had been our active allies in the Peninsular War; that was not the ground on which that relief was extended to them. They were relieved in the year 1823, not because of any sufferings they endured as our allies, but merely as an act of benevolence. The noble Lord, in speaking of the relief which had been extended by a former Government to the French emigrants, had stated the reason why such relief was granted, to be, the circumstance of this country having encouraged them to revolt. That was the case with a small fraction of those emigrants, but not with the majority. The grant, as in the case of the Spanish refugees, was principally to be regarded as an act of benevolence. He was an advocate for national economy, and he wished it were more attended to in that House than it generally was; but he was not for carrying his notions of national economy so far as to refuse assist-

657
ance to poor distressed creatures, whose claims to our sympathy and aid were so strong. He would like to see a sum of money given by the Government to the Poles, and would have it called Russian blood-money. The ambition of Russia was dangerous to the peace and well-being of Europe. He (Mr. O'Connell) would like to see a cordial alliance between England and France, to oppose the ambition of the Court of St. Petersburgh; but, if he did not greatly mistake the signs of the times, the traitorous Louis Phillippe did not, in reality, wish to keep up a good understanding with us, but was disposed to enter into an alliance with Russia, and that the two Powers were meditating a joint-crusade against European liberty. He thought it was high time for England to speak out in favour of Poland, and against Russian ambition. Russia, in defiance of treaties of the most solemn and binding nature, had blotted out Poland from the map of Europe—had extinguished its language—and had banished its youth. The gallant people of that country were now trampled under the hoof of the brutal and sanguinary despot of St. Petersburgh.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodthought there could be no sense of shame left in the British Government after what had already passed. England had disgracefully deserted Poland. The people of England had already, in a great measure, taken the domestic Government of the country out of the hands of Ministers; and they would soon see the necessity of taking the foreign Government out of their hands also. The noble Lord had said, that the mere circumstance of this country signing the Treaty of Vienna, was not to be understood as guaranteeing the observance of that treaty. No honest man, in the private transactions of life would say so. Lord Castlereagh had expressly said, both verbally in that House, and in subsequent treaties, that this country, in signing the Treaty of Vienna, guaranteed the integrity of Poland; and Lord Castlereagh was, in his opinion, a far better man than the noble Viscount. Lord Castlereagh, before he died, demanded, in the name of England, the restoration of ancient Poland. Little did Lord Castlereagh think that, in the short space of ten years after his death, England would seek to hide herself in mean and paltry subterfuges, in attempting to justify her desertion of Poland. The noble Viscount admitted, that
658
England had a right to go to war with Russia, because of her infraction of the Treaty of Vienna, but said it was not prudent or expedient. Never did a coward think it prudent to go to war; never was it prudent for a base mind to avenge such wrongs as those which the despot of St. Petersburgh had inflicted on Poland. The noble Lord had apologised, as it was foretold a-year ago he would, to the brute that kicked his country. Public opinion was growing strong on the subject of Poland, and the power of that opinion would, ere long, sweep away both the noble Lord and his paltry subterfuges. The noble Lord had said, as one reason why the petitioners should not have pecuniary relief afforded to them, that he could not afford the money. The sum of 10,000 l. would not hurt the noble Lord and his party. Would it, then, hurt the country? Members had last year found they could afford to give away 20,000,000 l. to the owners of the negroes in the West Indies, and yet they could not afford 10,000 l. to the distressed Poles. He thought the noble Lord was under an evil star—that he was labouring under a species of fatuity to-night. He hoped he would be under a better star to-morrow; and he would then do an act of justice to the suffering Poles. Russia was rapidly extending her power on all hands. If the Ministers had taken his advice last year, and sent six or seven line-of-battle-ships to assist the Sultan, when he applied to this country for aid, we should not only have arrested the progress of Russian dominion in Turkey, but had the command of the Dardanelles, and the surveillance of Turkey, and, by that means, had a hook in the nose of Russia. In addition to the other gross insults and injurious impositions which the miserable inertness and vacillation of our Government of late had encouraged foreign Powers to put upon us, we were shortly about to have the Baltic closed against our vessels; he knew, as a matter of fact, that it was to be shut by a treaty on the point of being signed between Russia and Sweden. It was well known, that with a view to this end, Sweden, for the last six weeks, had been busily engaged in fortifying the Swedish side of the Sound. It was true, that Sweden had long been a close ally of England; but it was equally true, that disgusted with the criminal inertness, vacillation, and want of courage, so eminently displayed in our foreign policy

659
of late, Sweden was now about to sign a treaty most injurious to us, with a Power which at least dared to countenance her friends. He wished to know whether, in this critical position, Ministers would throw off their inertness, and by the demonstrations which England was so well able to make, if its Government would give the word, deter Sweden from uniting with the Russian tyrant against us. He wished to know, too, whether Ministers were going to allow Russia and the Germanic Confederation to continue their unhallowed and fiendish persecution of the exiled Poles? Whether they would sanction the tyrants in drawing their threatened cordon round Switzerland, the laud which had so nobly opened its arms to the sufferers? The power of England was competent to vindicate the rights, not only of the Poles, but of all the oppressed nations of Europe; why then not exercise that power in so just a cause? The monster Nicholas—the monster Nicholas—for he was a monster, and no Gentleman in the House, he was sure, could call him by a milder epithet; that tyrant of Europe was a mere image of brass and clay, which the power of this Empire could shiver to atoms, and ought to do so, if she wished well for the liberty and happiness of Europe. The force of Russia, which its bribed newspapers here had paragraphed into 900,000 men, was in reality but 300,000; and its other resources had been overstated to an equal extent. England could at one blow crush the bully to dust.
Sir Samuel Whalleyhoped, that England would soon be in a condition to give that succour and relief to the emigrant Poles which she had already been known to afford to other loss imperative, if not less worthy claims. He thought, that the Poles had a better claim upon our bounty than the Spanish or French, who were now receiving liberal allowances from this country.
Lord Dudley Stuartregretted the tone and manner which had been displayed in the address of the hon. member for Birmingham on the present occasion. This was not a question to be treated with levity. Never was a more just cause than that of the patriotic Polish exiles; and never was there a cause more seriously deserving the attention of all good men. When that cause was brought before the House last Session, men of all parties and feelings were found united in one common
660
opinion of detestation and abhorrence of the oppressive cruelties of the Court of Russia, and of admiration at the patriotic resistance of the brave Poles. Yet Ministers had thought proper to oppose the Motion on that occasion; and those who supported it were told that it could have no effect. They were tauntingly asked, if they wished the Government to launch a mere brutum fulmen against Russia? He entreated Ministers to accede to the present petition, in order to prove to Nicholas and to the world, the sentiments entertained by the British Government and nation upon this subject. Not many years ago, the Government, much as they seemed now to be guided by notions of economy, granted a sum of 100,000 l. to foreigners from Germany; and afterwards another similar sum to the Spanish refugees. The Government then was not guided by one fixed principle. Would the British Government tell the Polish sufferers, that there was no sympathy for them? He hoped they would not be guilty of so ungenerous and ungracious, ay, unjust, an act. But, no matter what might have been the expediency motives of the Government, he was sure there would be found one unanimous feeling of sympathy for them within that House. For himself, he would avow, that he was willing to labour zealously for them; he laboured to stir up the sympathy of the British public in favour of that suffering, harassed, and gallant people. He did not imagine, that the Government would have received the proposition with cold indifference. They said, that they had no funds available for the relief of the Poles, and that Parliament would not grant the required aid. But why would they not come down and ask Parliament for a grant? If they promoted a free discussion on the merits of the Polish question, and allowed a petition to be entertained, and the grounds and nature of its complaints to be canvassed—he did not believe that Parliament would reject the acknowledged justice of the claims of the Poles. It was not necessary for Ministers to have a phalanx of supporters to influence Parliament. Let them only appeal to Parliament, and Parliament would support them. The thing was not without precedent. The British Government had itself furnished examples of the sufferers of other countries being furnished with

661
that aid that was due to the friends of freedom in a free country. The present petition emanated from a voluntary Society formed to assist the champions of Polish freedom. That Society spared neither time nor money to promote the cause they embarked in. Their funds were now exhausted. They could do no more, and they now appealed to the generosity and justice of the Parliament. It might be said, that the Poles might have supported themselves like other refugees. But it should be recollected, that when the emigrants came from France here, many years ago, they had resources which the present Polish emigrants had not. Many of them had connexions in the country; they could teach the French and other languages; they could besides, many of them, engage in works of handicraft. Now the Poles, who were almost all of them men who had drawn their swords in defence of their country, had not, in general, similar resources. They came to free and generous England, looking for that protection which she had so often before extended to men who had suffered in a less honourable cause, and to which they had good grounds for looking up, from their heroism, their unstained honour, and their sufferings. He would, if necessary, and should any exception be taken to the justice of their demands and to the expediency of granting them, on the ground that there was no evidence of their pure propriety of conduct, rest their whole claim to support on their manifestation of honourable principle, and on their meritorious conduct. There never was a class of emigrants who maintained, under all their difficulties, a higher bearing, and who were more exempt from reproach—nay, even from discreditable suspicion—than the Poles. They maintained here, as at home, the same lofty character for independence under all their privations. He would just state one fact in corroboration of his assertion. A friend of his, who knew of his exertions in favour of the Poles, said to him, that he was sure he (Lord Dudley Stuart) must have been exposed to great inconvenience from the multiplicity of applications for personal relief made to him. His answer was, and he would repeat it to the House, and in the face of the country, that he never had an application from any one Pole for assistance. In asking the House to aid the champions of Polish heroism
662
and Polish liberty, and, he would add, the victims of Russian barbarity and despotism, he hoped he did not ask a boon that was abhorrent to the feelings of that House or of the country. Would the House or the country grudge the poor relief now solicited by those noble defenders of the freedom of their country? The sum required was so small, that it could not be opposed on the ground of national economy; and the ground on which it was asked could not be resisted on any principle of national or Parliamentary justice or generosity. If a large sum were demanded, then it would be excusable, if not fair, to refuse it, on the simple ground, that the Treasury had not funds applicable to that object, no matter what the object might be, though the object, sanctioned by a previous discussion of the question in Parliament, and approved of by the general voice of the country, was undoubtedly one that enlisted on its side the whole sympathies of the nation. He was not the advocate of reckless expenditure, as was, he hoped, well known. He would not advocate the expenditure of money when it was not required for some useful purpose. Yet, at the same time, he would not refuse a grant when it could be well applied. He would briefly call the attention of the House to a fact which, if it were not, should, at all events, be well known, namely, that England sanctioned, indeed granted, the submission of Poland to Russia. But he would ask, had England a right thus to barter the rights of a free nation? Poland was de facto, not merely de jure, free; she had achieved her own independence; and could that independence be swindled from her? It might be said, that Russia only took on herself the protection of Poland under certain conditions. Well, what of that? She did subscribe to stipulations, and it was the duty of England to see that those stipulations were fulfilled. If they were not, then England was bound to see they were; and if the Poles, who were the victims of that violation on the part of Russia, threw themselves on the protection of England, which had guaranteed to them full independence, consistently with the exercise of the fair monarchical rule of Russia, England was bound, by virtue of her own treaties, and on every principle of justice, to grant the remnants of that nation protection and support. England was bound to see the conditions accepted

663
of by Russia fulfilled. But he had no distrust in the sympathetic feeling of England for the Poles. No matter what the Government might feel, he felt, that if the people of England had the power—he should rather say courage, for England did not want power—to demand the restoration of the Poles, they would not have been thus oppressed. It was truly incredible, that the small sum asked for should have been met in the way the prayer of the petition seemed to have been met, especially when England was bound to Poland by so many ties, and when she had made herself on so many occasions before, an asylum for the victims of despotism through Europe.
Mr. Spring Riceobserved, that the Government had not been deficient in sympathy for the Poles. While he gave full credit to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and to the noble Lord, for the zeal they exhibited in the cause of the Poles, he would take the liberty to caution the hon. member for Birmingham against being too ready to make a plunge into war without reference to the consequences. When it was fairly proved, that Government could interfere with propriety, assistance was afforded. He was not called upon to state the peculiar circumstances which would justify a vote of money; but he would suggest, that amongst the inconveniences that would arise from giving too freely the bounty of the Crown, it would tempt foreigners to be careless in their proceedings, because they would suppose they might find a shelter and settlement here. He wished it to be clearly understood, that when a case was made out for the bestowal of the bounty of the Crown—when it appeared that such a grant would not be liable to objection in point of principle, as in the instance of a grant being permanent—then his Majesty's Government would not shrink from administering the relief that they were now stigmatised for refusing.
The Petition was ordered to lie on the Table.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Indemnity; Consolidated Fund; Pensions Duties.—Read a first time:—Burning Lands (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By the Archbishop of YORK, from the Clergy of the Deanery of Craven, for Protection to the Established Church; and from three Places, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Earl GREY, from the Proprietors of Bishop-held-land, in Pickering Lythe, for an Alteration of the System followed concerning such Property.—By the Duke of RICHMOND, from York, for Relief to the Agricultural Interest.—By the Earl of RADNOR, from Kingston-Magna-cum-Ryland, for the Abolition of Tithes; and from Belfast, for the same in Ireland; also from Cupar, for a Bill disqualifying Church Functionaries from taking Part in the Legislative functions of that House.—By the Earl of ROSEBERY, from the Hand-Loom Weavers of Crieff and Muthill, for a Board of Trade, and for Relief.—By the same, from Keiss, and by Lord MELBOURNE, from Week, for Abolishing the present System of Church Patronage in Scotland.—By the Duke of RICHMOND, the Marquess of LANSDOWNE, the Earl of RADNOR, and Lords DACRE, DUNDAS, and HOLLAND, from a Number of Dissenting Congregations, for Relief to the Dissenters.—By Sir WILLIAM INGILBY, from Tantield, against Tithes.—By Admiral ADAM, from Kincardine, against the present System of Church Patronage in Scotland.