Sitting of 12 May 1834

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. PHILPOTTS, from the Debtors Confined in the Fleet Prison, for Abolishing Imprisonment for Debt—By Mr. TOWNLEY, from
860
several Places, in favour of the Lord's Day Observance Bill.—By Messrs. FINCH and MAXWELL, from several Places,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Messrs. HALL, SCROPE, and FLEETWOOD, from several Places, for Amending the Sale of Beer Act.—By Messrs. LLOYD and POTTER, from the Retailers of Beer at Stockport and Leigh, to be put on the same footing as Licensed Victuallers.—By Messrs. POTTER and LLOYD, from several Dissenting Congregations, for Relief to the Dissenters.—By Mr. BLACKBURN, from two Places, against Church Rates.—By Messrs. KENNEDY and JERVIS, from Finsbury, &c, for a Clause in the Justices of the Peace Bill.—By Sir D. SANFORD, from the Schoolmasters of several Places in Scotland, for an increased Stipend.—By Messrs. O'BRIEN and TOOKE, from Individuals in Government Offices, against the Pensions Civil Offices Bill.—By Colonel LEITH HAY, from Inverary and Stonehouse, for an Inquiry into the Causes of the increase of Drunkenness.—By Sir D. SANDFORD, from Glasgow, Ayr, and other Places, for an Alteration in the present System of Church Patronage in Scotland.—By Lord BRUDENELL, from several Places, for Protection to the Church of England.—By Mr. GLADSTONE, from the Members of the two Universities, and others, against the Universities Admission Bill.—By Mr. LLOYD, from Stockport, for a Remission of the Sentence passed on the Dorchester Labourers.—By Mr. METHUEN, from Troubridge, against the Poor Laws-Amendment Bill.—By Messrs. PELHAM, P. B. THOMPSON and TOWNLEY, from several Places,—for Relief to the Agricultural Interest.

CHRISTCHURCH (SURREY) RECTORY.
Sir Edward Knatchbull moved the second reading of the Christchurch (Surrey) Rectory Bill.
Mr. Hallopposed it, on the grounds that the Rector had not complied with the condition under which he had stipulated to fulfil the duties of the incumbency. The hon. Member concluded by moving as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
Major Beauclerkseconded the Amendment, and complained of this House being called on to make a rate upon the parishioners of Christchurch for the payment of the Rector, who did no duty in the parish, and who held other livings. He had heard that the rev. Gentleman was a most amiable and good man, but his objection to the rate-payers being obliged to contribute 400 l. a-year to a pluralist was founded upon principle, and he trusted that this House would, upon the principle of right and justice, refuse to sanction this Bill.
Mr. Humebegged to state the ground upon which he objected to this Bill being supported by the House. Two years ago, the Archbishop of Canterbury introduced a Bill into the other House, which sanctioned pluralities. When the Bill came before this House, he (Mr. Hume) moved an Address to the King, praying the numbers and amount of pluralities should be laid before the House. The Returns had

861
he called upon the House, in obedience to its own previous declaration, not to pass a Bill of this kind which sanctioned the principle of plurality. He knew nothing of the rev. gentleman in question. His opposition was to the principle of the Bill.
Lord Darlingtonconsidered pluralities the greatest abuse existing in the Church. He did not think the property of the Church too great if it were properly distributed, and one means of effecting a more proportionate distribution would be, to prevent any gentleman who already held a living or a stall of the value of 500 l., or upwards, to take any other benefice whatever. He opposed the present Bill.
Colonel Daviesopposed the Bill, which, he said, if it were allowed to pass, would constitute a precedent to encourage any Rector, who was not content with his income, to apply to that House for power to compel his parishioners to pay him more, whether they were pleased with him or not.
Mr. William Evansopposed the Bill, but said he was certain the Church property was not more than sufficient for the purposes for which it was intended, if properly distributed; and, if a proper distribution did not soon take place, the destruction of the Established Church would be inevitable.
Mr. Finchbelieved the Bill was not properly understood by the House. All the Rector received, after the payment of his Curate, was about 112 l. per annum, and he submitted to the House whether it was reasonable to suppose that the duties of the clergyman would be properly performed, in a parish containing 13,000 individuals, by only one Rector. He should give the Bill his support.
Mr. Abecrombywas of opinion that nothing could be more injurious to the Church Establishment than compulsory payments to the clergy. The clergyman in the present instance had formerly received a large stipend from the voluntary contributions of the parishioners, so long as he resided in the parish. They had thought proper to discontinue that voluntary support on the ground of non-residence, and the House was now called upon to say whether it was willing to convert that voluntary payment into one that would be compulsory on the parishioners. In justice to the parish and the Church,
862
the House ought to oppose such a measure. If the House should consent to permit a compulsory rate to be raised upon persons of all religious persuasions, it would be creating a source of evil and discontent, which would continue to increase in the minds of all persons who were compelled to pay the rate, and which it would be very difficult to heal.
Sir Edward Knatchbullwished to state what were the circumstances under which this Bill was proposed and objected to. The Rector had formerly received gratuities from the parishioners which were deemed by them necessary to enable him to provide for the discharge of the duties of the parish. The grounds upon which these gratuities had been withheld were, that the rev. gentleman had become a non-resident and a sinecurist. The facts of the first charge were, that the Rector lived six doors out of the boundary of the parish, and only four hundred yards from the parish church, and this was what was called non-residence. He was really surprised that any Gentleman in that House, knowing the facts, could allege non-residence against this clergyman as a ground of refusing the Bill. He was as much opposed as any man to non-residence and pluralities under the ordinary meaning of those terms; but he called upon the House to judge of the opposition to the Bill from this specimen, and he trusted that it would be passed. With regard to the charge of the Rector being a pluralist, he had accepted the living of Mitcham on the express condition that he should hold it only until another gentleman should be old enough to take it, and he resided there only during the three months of the year which the law allowed him to be absent from Christchurch, and when not there himself he provided for the performance of the duty. The friends of the Bill did not wish to interfere with any of the details of the arrangement between the rev. gentleman and his parishioners, but only to provide that a certain sum, which was no more than necessary for his maintenance in his proper station, should be supplied.
Mr. Haweshoped the House would not pass the Bill. The case, he said, was exactly thus:—The parishioners, in an open vestry, where no excitement whatever prevailed, granted the Rector a certain sum per annum, a voluntary rate, to mark their esteem for his character, and their

863
not yet been laid before the House, and appreciation of the manner in which he performed his functions. That grant had been withdrawn. For what reason? He was now an object of aversion to those very individuals who had before been amongst his best friends, and the foremost in granting the annuity. Why was that? There was no change in the parish or in the parishioners; the change which warranted such a revulsion of feeling was in the rev. gentleman himself. His non-residence in this parish was the real cause of it. It was not because he took another house without the bounds of the parish that his flock took umbrage at his conduct; but it was because he accepted another living, and left them to live among his new parishioners. It was said, that he lived three months in the year in Mitcham. Was that residence? The parishioners were wholly averse to enter into any compromise of the kind; they would have their clergyman among them the entire year, or not have him at all. However, he had no doubt that, if that rev. gentleman returned to the parish and lived among his flock in future, a provision equal, at least, to that which had been withheld, would be made for him. But, if the rev. gentleman supposed, as was the intention of the Bill, that he could make the voluntary grant of the inhabitants a compulsory payment, he was much mistaken, and would surely be defeated.
Mr. Estcourtcould not understand why it was, that all this opposition on the part of the parish of Christchurch should exist to this just and proper claim of their Rector. One of the complaints of the parishioners was, that 150 l. a-year was given by the Rector to his Curate. "Why, the greatest complaint made in that House against the Clergy was, that they did not pay their Curates enough. And was this rev. Gentleman to be the subject of censure, because he was more liberal than other Rectors? Taking into account the deductions made from the salary of the rev. Rector of Christchurch, he would only have 290 l. to maintain himself and his large family.
Mr. Hillwas willing to bear testimony to the character of the rev. Gentleman who was concerned in this Bill. But that was not the question. The real question was, whether the House would give the Rector power to compel the parishioners to make up the deficiency of his income,
864
if the legal payment were not sufficient for his maintenance? But he (Mr. Hill) would warn those who stood forward as the friends and supporters of the Church, not to push that principle too far. The main argument used against interference with tithes was, that tithes were property and not a tax. But, if the principle of this Bill was recognised, it would place tithes on the footing of a tax for services done—for the Bill went so far as to say, that if the tithes were not sufficient to pay the services of the Rector, then he should have a power to distrain the goods of one parishioner for the default of another.
Mr. Aglionbywould not go into any calculations of what this Gentleman received from his two livings, and what he paid to his two curates; he objected to the Bill as bad in principle. He had received a letter stating, that this clergyman applied for the Bill for the sake of his family, and to support the Established Church. He should be sorry that his vote should deprive the applicant's family of any advantages they might derive from this Bill; but there were other parties who were entitled to the protection of that House who had also families to support—he meant the rate-payers, from whom it was proposed to take their property.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that the true cause of the refusal to pay the rector the salary of 400 guineas a-year, was the discovery of its illegality; or, at least, that it was not competent to pay such a sum out of the parish rate. The present Bill was to provide a remedy for this. The gentleman had been unfairly dealt with, because, if an Act of Parliament had not unjustly passed, depriving him of the benefit of the provisions of Marshall's will, he would have the remuneration which his services deserved. If the sum legally devoted to the payment of the rector were to be continued, it would not be sufficient to support a gentleman. He, therefore, hoped the House would prevent non-residence by providing adequately for the rector.
Mr. Hughes Hugheswished to state the grounds on which he should support the second reading of the Bill. Having himself succeeded in obtaining the insertion of a clause in the Churches' Building Act of 1831, to prevent the holding of any new district church or chapel with any benefice having cure of souls, he could not be justly charged with being a friend

865
to pluralities. He was equally opposed to non-residence; and it was for these very reasons that he was in favour of the present Bill. The parish had, in this case, compelled non-residence by making it requisite, that the rector, who had a family of eight children, should accept another living to enable him to support them; and he called upon the House to sanction a Bill which would render it unnecessary that the rector should be a pluralist, and by its enactments would make non-residence impossible. If the money bequeathed by the will of John Marshall to purchase lands of the value of 60 l. a-year, with which he directed the church to be endowed, had been so applied by the Trustees, such lands would now be of the annual value of 1,000 l., and the rector would have had no need to apply to that House for relief.—Instead of which, the parishioners and the trustees applied to Parliament in 1738, and obtained powers to apply the trust funds in rebuilding the church, and making an additional church-yard, in consideration of raising for the rector 60 l. a-year in money by a rate on the inhabitants. Sensible of the disadvantage under which the rector laboured in this respect, to meet his exigencies, and in testimony of the high sense entertained of his services in the parish, the vestry, for twenty years together, made him an annual grant, which, if it had been continued, would have rendered an application to Parliament unnecessary. The allowance of 400 guineas was made a serious question at Easter 1830, the year after the rector had accepted the living of Mitcham, but on a poll, it was carried by a majority of 397 against 83. In 1831, a poll took place, whether the allowance should be 300 or 200 guineas, and the larger allowance was carried by 392 against 56; and in 1832, the numbers polled for the allowance were 192 and against it only two. After this, could it be truly said, that the parishioners were hostile to their rector? far from it, and it would be strange indeed if they were so, after receiving twenty-five years of his laborious exertions, in the course of which his health had greatly suffered, he was compelled to resort to Parliament in consequence of its being illegal for the vestry to make the grant, which, in 1832, he was obliged to pay back, after he had received it. He knew no more of the rector than he
866
gathered from the general acknowledgment of his excellence, but, having thus attempted to show the equity of his claim to assistance, and that the parish had recognised and ascertained the proper amount he should receive, he besought the House to allow the Bill to go into Committee, for which it was a most fit subject, and where, he had no doubt, an accommodation might be effected which would be satisfactory to both rector and parishioners.
Mr. Prymecondemned the proposition before the House as one of the most shameless attempts to violate private property by taxation he ever remembered.
The House divided on the second reading:Ayes 33; Noes 74—Majority 41.
Bill put off for six months.

List of the AYES.

Astley, Sir J. D.

Hughes, W. H.

Barnard, E. G.

Irton, S.

Blackstone, W. S.

Lincoln, Earl of

Browne, D.

Loch, J.

Brudenell, Lord

Maxwell, H.

Chapman, A.

Nicholl, J.

Clayton, Sir W.

Palmer, R.

Dunlop, Captain

Reid, Sir J. R.

Finch, G.

Ross, C.

Foley, E.

Scott, Sir E. D.

Freemantle, Sir T.

Sinclair, G.

Gaskell, J. M.

Smith, T. A.

Gladstone, W. E.

Yorke, Captain

Gladstone, T.

PAIRED OFF.

Goulburn, Rt. hon. H.

Chandos, Marq. of

Grimston, Viscount

Miles, W.

Halcombe, J.

TELLERS.

Halford, H.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Hanmer, Colonel

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Hawkes, T.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Fenton, J.

Benett, J.

Fleetwood, H.

Bish, T.

Fort, J.

Blake, Sir F.

Folkes, Sir W.

Blackburn, J.

Goring, H. D.

Briggs, R.

Guest, J. B.

Brotherton, J.

Gully, J.

Childers, J.

Harland, W. C.

Codrington, Sir E.

Hallyburton, Hon. G.

Crawford, W.

Hawes, B.

Curteis, H. B.

Hill, M. D.

Curteis, E. B.

Hodges, J.

Darlington, Lord

Hornby, E. G.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Howard, P. H.

Divett, E.

Humphery, J.

Dobbin, L.

Jervis, J.

Ellis, W.

Kennedy, J.

Elliot, Capt.

Lalor, P.

Evans, Col.

Lister, E. C.

Evans, W.

Lloyd, H.

Evans, G.

Marsland, T.

867

Methuen, P.

Shawe, R. N.

O'Brien, C.

Skipwith, Sir G.

O'Connor, Don

Stanley, Hon. H. T.

O'Dwyer, C.

Stanley, E. J.

Oswald, R. A.

Torrens, Col.

Parrott, J.

Turner, W.

Philips, M.

Tynte, J. K.

Philpotts, John

Wallace, J.

Potter, R.

Warburton, H.

Pryme, G.

Ward, H. G.

Richards, J.

Wason, R.

Rippon, C.

Whalley, Sir S.

Roche, W.

Williams, Col.

Romilly, J.

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Ruthven, E.

Vincent, Sir F.

Ruthven, E. S.

TELLERS.

Sandford, Sir D. K.

Beauclerk, Major

Scholefield, J.

Hall, B.

PENSIONS (CIVIL OFFICES).
The House, on the Motion of Sir James Graham, resolved itself into Committee on the Pensions, Civil Offices, Bill. On the first clause being read,
Colonel Daviessaid, he approved of the general principles of the Bill, but he dissented from some of the clauses. The clause then under consideration entitled certain high officers of State, after two years' service, to a retiring pension of 2,000 l. per year. In his opinion, it would be much better upon the clause in question, to pursue a middle course. The door should not be opened too widely, nor yet should it be completely shut, so as to exclude persons of moderate property. When the former Bill, granting pensions of 3,000 l. a year, was introduced by the late Administration, it was opposed by the members of the present Government. He did not approve of the regulation by which a man possessed of 100 l. a-year was obliged to serve ten years before he became entitled to any pension, whilst one of the Ministers, those mentioned in these clauses, had only to serve two years. He would propose an Amendment which he thought would place this part of the subject upon its proper basis. The hon. Member concluded by moving, as an Amendment to the clause under consideration, that it might be lawful for all persons filling any of the situations, either as First Lord of the Treasury, any of his Majesty's Secretaries of State, First Lord of the Admiralty, or President of the Board of Control, should, after a service of not less than five years, receive a pension of 1,000 l. a year; and after a service of not less than ten years, a pension of 2,000 l, a-year,
Sir James Graham, in opposing the Amendment of the hon. Member, thought it necessary to state the circumstances under which the present measure had originated. The measure on which the Bill under consideration was founded, grew out of the report of a Committee, of which Mr. Banks was chairman. The report of the Committee recommended the abolition of all those sinecures, or the immediate modification of them by which the service of the Minister had formerly been rewarded. In consideration of that sacrifice on the part of the Crown, by which it was deprived of the means of rewarding persons who might have rendered an efficient service, the report recommended that superannuations should, under certain circumstances, be granted. A number of offices were abolished, such as the Auditor of the Exchequer, Clerk of the Pells, &c, the emoluments of which amounted to 100,000 l. In lieu of these means of rewarding persons who might have rendered service to the State, the House recommended, that pensions to the amount of 42,000 l. a-year, should be placed at the disposal of Government. By that measure, then, 58,000 l. a-year was saved. Out of the pensions, the predecessors of the present Government only granted in pensions 16,000 l. a year, although entitled to grant 42,000 l. A reduction of the pensions from 3,000 l. to 2,000 l. was proposed in the Bill before the House, and in his opinion the relative value of money now, compared with 1817, fully justified such a reduction. With respect to the principle of rewarding persons for public services, without reference to their personal circumstances, he (Sir J. Graham) thought it absolutely necessary to invest the Crown with such a power. As to the length of service which entitled any person to receive a pension, he thought the House would agree with him, that a pension ought to be bestowed after two years' service. Suppose a young man, after passing through his collegiate course with honour and academic distinction, and when just about entering upon professional pursuits, accepted a situation under Government. By devoting two years to the service of his country, he injured his professional prospects just as effectually as if he retained the situation for five years, and, in common justice, should be entitled to a pension. He would illustrate the proposition by a reference to the case of Mr. Perceval.

869
Would it be said that, when he left the King's Bench, and gave his services to the Government of his country, he did not, by retaining his situation for two years, blight his professional prospects as completely as though he had remained in office for five years. Upon these considerations, he (Sir James Graham) was disposed to adhere to the clause as it stood in the Bill.
The Committee divided on the Amendment—Ayes 30; Noes 93: Majority 63.
Clause agreed to.

List of the Ayes.

Barnard, E. G.

O'Connell, D.

Bellew, R. M.

O'Connor D.

Brotherton, J.

O'Dwyer, A. C.

Callaghan, D.

Oswald, R. A.

Codrington, Adm.

Parrott, J.

Fenton, J.

Potter, R.

Fergusson, R. C.

Ruthven, E. S.

Fitzgerald, T.

Ruthven, E.

Fort, J.

Tooke, W.

Gaskell, D.

Turner, W.

Gordon, R.

Wason, R.

Guest, J. J.

Whalley, Sir S.

Hudson, T.

Wilbraham, G.

Jervis, J.

Young, G. F.

Lister, B. L.

TELLER.

Lister, E. C.

Davies Colonel

The Clauses to the 10th agreed to.
On the 10th Clause being put, which states the amount of allowance to be on the principle of the Treasury minute of the 21st of June, 1831.
Sir James Grahamstated, that it was to this clause that great objection had been made by the gentlemen employed in the public offices; and he certainly should not have brought it forward, unless he had thought it was consistent with public faith and honour, and with principles of just economy. He was disposed to be provident for the future, and to deal tenderly with the parties who were at present interested. This was a feeling which had been embraced in a subsequent measure of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. A report then made enforced that principle which he held to be good—namely, to effect the greatest possible saving in the public service with the least possible injury to individuals. Acting on this principle, he had been most studious that there should be nothing in this Bill which should have a retrospective view; that those Gentlemen who had entered the service before the year 1829 should be dealt with according to the circumstances
870
under which they entered the service. These were his principles of equity; and though he was a reformer and an economist, he would not wish to act upon any other principle. He was bound to say, that the public business could not have been carried on without the zealous co-operation of the clerks in the public offices; and he was equally bound to say, that since his Majesty's present Government had succeeded to office, they had experienced the most cordial assistance from them. The greater part of those gentlemen who were affected by these measures, were men who owed their appointments to the predecessors and opponents of the present Government. He might speak for himself (and he was satisfied he might also speak for his colleagues), when he said, that the alterations made would have been impossible to have been achieved without the warm, the faithful, and the exemplary co-operation of the clerks in all the public departments. They had never withheld from the Government any assistance which could be given. He was, therefore, anxious (and justice demanded the acknowledgment from him) to declare, that he entertained towards these gentlemen nothing but warm and grateful sentiments. Nothing had been clone to stimulate them to exertion. They worked by day for a stipulated remuneration, and they gave that which money could not give, namely, their honest assistance in the faithful discharge of their duty. He begged to state thus much, as it was painful to him, that any thing should be supposed to induce him to act with injustice towards those gentlemen. There were two points to which those gentlemen objected; first, the clause which had just been put (the 10th clause), because it went to give a permanent effect to the Treasury minute of June 21, 1831; and secondly, to the 26th clause, which attached a per-centage, or reduction from a salary, on the promotion of a party. In an interview with the gentlemen interested, he had attended to all their arguments as applied against the Treasury minute of 1831, and he had introduced some modifications of the clause, though to the fixed principle of the Treasury minute he was disposed to adhere. Referring to the history of superannuations, the right hon. Baronet stated, that from 1782 to 1810, these superannuations were not recognised by Acts of Parliament; but those grants rested wholly on

871
Treasury minutes. In the year 1810, the Finance Committee sat, and reported that it was necessary to restrain the practice; and in 1810, the first Act respecting superannuation was introduced. In the year 1824, a Bill was introduced to repeal the Act of 1810, which had excited considerable dissatisfaction; and, in 1822, a reduction was made in the salaries which had been augmented during the war. Now the clerks argued, that inasmuch as their salaries were reduced by the Act of 1822, it was hard upon them to extend to them the principle of the Treasury minute of 1831. The Treasury minute stated distinctly the maximum of scale which should guide the arrangement. His Majesty's Government, acting upon the Report of the Committee of 1828, had followed out the principle then laid down, and had not attempted to affect persons who had entered the service prior to 1829. The Government had also said, on the principle of the Act of 1810, that, "in future, the maximum shall not be the general rule; but each case shall stand on its own merits." He proposed as an Amendment to this clause to omit the words, "had proved more than ordinarily meritorious, and," as he found they were considered to convey an invidious distinction. An objection was made to the tax on a graduated increase of salary; but he did not think it held good in respect to the case of a person being promoted. He did not see the hardship of paying a small tax of five per cent under such circumstances.
Mr. Fowell Buxtonthought, that this Bill would entail a great hardship upon many old servants of the public. The only argument, or the only shadow of an argument, which had been referred to by the right hon. Baronet, was that in which he referred to the Act of 1810, when it was stated, a maximum was fixed in respect to the superannuations. He had no doubt, that the Act originally intended that persons should have the full benefit of the maximum stated, except in the cases of those who might have been disqualified. The gentlemen who were clerks in public offices had to complain of the constant changes which had been made in their prospects. Prior to 1810 it appeared that no system at all had prevailed. If, however, any had existed, it was, that they who had friends and patronage, got superannuations, and that they
872
who had not, got none. In 1810, a certain scale of salary and superannuation was decided upon. In 1818 it was reversed, and the Act of 1818 was reversed to a considerable extent in 1822. This arrangement was again altered in 1823. In 1828 came out another plan, and then another in 1829, which was supposed to be a permanent Act, similar to that of 1822, except that it was not retrospective. But this was the least complaint made. All the clerks had to complain of injustice. All those who had entered the service after 1810, were under specific engagements to receive certain advantages, partly in the shape of salary, and partly in superannuation. He was told, that six out of seven clerks did not receive any superannuation, and that, of those receiving the superannuation allowance, the average amount was 90 l. a-year. Previous to the Superannuation Act, the clerks in public departments raised a fund of their own, and in the Excise, it amounted to 73,000 l., in the Customs, to 254,000 l. The Government then said, they would pay the money for superannuations. They took these sums of money, and applied them to the public fund. If, then, the Government pursued the course prescribed by this Bill, they ought, at least, to refund this money, which, at compound interest, would amount to nearly 800,000 l. If they did not do this, they ought not to allow this Act to have a retrospective effect. If his right hon. friend did not consent to one of these things, he feared he should be under the necessity of dividing the Committee against him.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that concurring as he did, in all that had fallen from his right hon. friend, respecting the merits and services of these persons, he should be sorry to utter a single expression calculated to militate against their interests, or give a moment's pain to their feelings; but the plain question for the consideration of the House was this, "Is this Bill calculated to injure their just interests?" Before the introduction of this measure, the universal cry on the other side of the House was, the continuance of the dead weight of pensions; but no sooner was the Bill laid before the House than a storm of indignation was raised against it—["No, no."] Hon. Members might cry, "No, no," but such was the fact; nor did he complain of it, he mentioned the matter historically. If the doctrine laid down

873
by the hon. member for Weymouth, with regard to superannuations, were to hold good, so would it hold good with respect to the salaries of the same parties. That doctrine had certainly the merit of novelty to recommend it, for hitherto, if the salaries of public officers were found too high, they were reduced. He contended, that from the date of the Treasury minute of 1831, the course pursued with regard to superannuations had been in conformity to it. How then could they be accused of acting with injustice towards those parties? Had they acted otherwise, the House might call upon them to retrace their steps; but it would now be not only difficult, but unjust, to make a new rule for the year 1834, and to leave those who had been placed under the regulations up to 1831 as they stood. Such a proposal was too absurd to be entertained for a moment.
Mr. Tookesaid, he wished to add to the clause:—"That this measure should have reference to officers and clerks who had entered the public service subsequent to the 4th of August, 1829." He wished this distinction to be drawn, as those persons who had entered this service before that period, were very differently placed from the others; as would be seen by a petition which he had that day presented to the House at its early sitting. From this, it was clear, that those clerks had entered into the public service with the understanding, or, at least, under the impression, that they should receive the then usual retired allowance, but now they found themselves mistaken. He had before said, that Government was bound to deal openly, candidly, and fairly, with those individuals, and not to introduce a retrospective measure affecting their interests. Such a proceeding was manifestly unjust. The parties affected by the proposed regulation, threw themselves upon the protection of the House from, and showed they had reason to complain of, a measure which had never been contemplated when they entered the service.
Colonel Daviestotally differed from the course taken, both by the hon. member for Weymouth (Mr. Buxton), and the hon. member for Truro (Mr. Tooke), as to the construction put upon the Act of Parliament in question. In order to show the principle on which the Act of 1810 was founded, he would refer them to the Act of 1808, which was introduced for
874
the purpose of doing away with abuses which still continued to burthen the country. There had been an annual increase in the amount of superannuations. Some of the allowances were granted most unreasonably and improperly. He found that there was a case where a gentleman of forty-two years of age, who had held the office of Inspector-General, had received a superannuation allowance of 580 l.; another, who was called a retired Treasury Solicitor, received for thirty-one years' service an allowance of 1,200 l. a-year; so that this gentleman must have been a solicitor at sixteen years of age. There were many other instances of the same description. The hon. member for Weymouth had stated, that these clerks had accumulated a large sum by their own contributions, which had been taken from them by Government, who provided the superannuations in lieu of it. But, if this were so, still they must be benefited, inasmuch as they could not obtain as much from the interest of that fund, as they would receive by receiving superannuations.
Mr. Francis Baringsaid, the question for the consideration of the Committee was, whether this Bill was a breach of contract with the parties opposing it?—and if the Committee would attend to him for only a few moments, he would undertake to show that it was not. Much stress was laid upon the words "not exceeding," but it was clear that those words were never meant to convey an impression that superannuations, up to that amount, were to be paid. The Act of 1810 was introduced to limit the discretion of Ministers, but it by no means bore the construction given to it by the hon. member for Weymouth. If they looked to the history of enactments generally, they would find, that no doubt could be entertained on the subject. Before 1810 the Treasury had in itself the full power and discretion of granting superannuated allowances, and it was to limit and confine that power, that the Act of 1810 was passed. The Act said, you shall not, in certain cases, go beyond such and such a sum, but it never said, or meant to say, "You must give that sum." On the contrary, the discretion of Government was left to go as much under it as all circumstances would justify. Before that Bill there had been a looseness in all Treasuries in granting pensions, and no sufficient

875
checks were in existence to limit the discretion of the Treasury. Yet the Treasury did cut down offices where they were found to be too great; and they also curtailed superannuated allowances when it was found, that the parties were receiving similar allowances from other departments. He, therefore, called the attention of the Committee to the good principle, that of having a full inquiry into the merits of the parties of every case, and the circumstances under which the superannuation was allowed. He hoped the Treasury would always hold the right to this reward, as a security for the good conduct of the parties looking forward to it, as well as a check upon their remissness or misconduct. It was right that such parties should be aware that their conduct was watched from the first day of their entering the public service down to the day of their quitting it. Hon. Members acquainted with the nature of public office, would well understand the benefit to be derived to the public from a strict observance of this regulation.
Mr. Aglionbythought, that the hon. member for Weymouth had used two words of very different signification. He stated, that the parties in question depended on the "justice" and the "liberality" of the House. If they depended upon its justice the last speaker had put the question on its right footing; if they depended upon its liberality, then those who were continually calling for economy ought not to stand in its way when it was proposed unless a clear case of injustice were made out.
Mr. Lloydsaid, that if he saw any general desire to carry economy into other departments of the Government, he should be more inclined to give Ministers credit for it in the present instance. But he regretted, that he did not perceive any such anxiety on their parts, He was sure that great injustice had been done to these parties. Their own fund had been seized upon—["No" "no."] Surely it was their own fund, saved out of their own salaries?
Sir James Grahamsaid, that the parties who objected to this Bill had not contributed one farthing to the fund.
Mr. Lloydproceeded: Every person on entering office as a clerk or public officer contributed.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the whole of the money had been repaid.
Mr. Lloydasked whether this was the case in the Customs?
Lord Althorpanswered "Yes."
Mr. Lloydsaid, he had understood differently. At all events, the universal understanding was, that proper superannuated allowances were to be given to these parties. He had himself had to lay before the Treasury a case of severe and unmerited hardship. It was that of a gentleman who had held an office of 600 l. a-year, and who, on being superannuated, was allowed no more than 66 l. a-year, merely because he happened to be just under the stipulated age. If Ministers had supported the Pension-list on the ground of "usage," and "practice," they ought a fortiori to support the cause of the poor clerks on the same ground.
Mr. Vernon Smithdefended the measure, and contended, that no injustice could be sustained by any party from its operation. However highly he valued the service of these clerks, and he would say that their services had been most valuable, still he thought that they were not inadequately paid. They were much better paid than clerks in mercantile establishments.
Major Beauclerkthought, that the clerks were rather hardly dealt with. He saw opposite more than one right hon. Member who might retire upon a pension of 2,000 l. a-year after two years' service: now, if it were proposed to reduce that pension to 1,000 l. a-year, the saving would be worth considering, and he should like to see it made; but the retired allowances of these clerks ought not to be less than they were led to expect in entering the public service.
The 10th Clause with Amendments was agreed to.
Upon Clause 26 being proposed,
Lord Dudley Stuartcould not permit this Clause to pass without a few observations. He gave credit to his right hon. friend (Sir James Graham) for his services in the cause of his country; but he objected to the Clause, as it would have an ex-post-facto and, therefore, an unjust effect. It would be very hard upon persons who had served for many years, that they should now be mulcted to an extent to which they had never been willing parties. He held that an implied contract should never be violated. We should be bound by equity and honour in our conduct to officers appointed before the pass-

877
ing of this Act. He would move that all the words after the words "per cent," in this Clause should be omitted.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that the Amendment would exclude persons who entered office before 1829, as well as since. In fact, the Amendment would go farther than the noble Lord really intended. He could assure the House that great pains were taken by him before he brought forward the system of reduction, and he could also say, that the services of valuable servants had been especially attended to. He would not touch upon either express or implied contracts, indeed, on the contrary, he would religiously observe them. He did not believe, that one of either class was infringed on by the Bill.
Sir Henry Hardingewould be glad to learn what would be the amount of the saving made to the public by the operation of this clause. If it were one which pressed but lightly on the clerks, it could not effect any important saving to the public; but if the saving were of large amount, it might press with severity on the clerks. He thought it would be dealing more fairly with them to alter the Clause, so that it should not have any retrospective effect. He would press this the more urgently on the right hon. Baronet and on the Committee as it was well known that, owing to the great reduction in the number of clerks in most of the public offices, the chances of promotion were greatly diminished. In the office which he had held, there were, during the war, near 170 clerks. They had since been reduced to sixty; and, in the Ordnance department, the reductions had been in the same proportion.
Sir Robert Peeltook the same view of the case as his right hon. and gallant friend near him. It was quite clear that those clerks who had been appointed since 1829 must submit to any minute regulating their salaries which might be made by the Treasury or Admiralty; but the same rule did not, in his opinion, apply to those who had been appointed before that. Suppose a young man of good character, education, and abilities, had been appointed before 1829, at a salary of 95 l. a-year. It might be four or five years before he got a step in his office, and then it made his salary only 105 l. a-year. Now, would it not be hard on such a man to say, that he must contribute as much to the super-
878
annuation fund as one who had come in since 1829 with a certain knowledge that his salary was to be subject to the deduction. In forwarding their own principle, they ought to make their rule apply to those only who entered the service since 1829. There was also another point to which he wished to call the attention of his Majesty's Ministers. Supposing a gentleman to hold an office of 500 l. a-year, and to get another instead of it of 550 l. a-year, that was not so much a promotion as a transfer. They ought therefore to insert the words "or transfer" in this Clause, if they wished to carry their own principle into effect.
Sir James Grahamcontended, that there was no such thing as an absolute right to promotion. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet opposite that the result of the late reductions had practically proved a great stop to promotions; and he likewise concurred in the meed of approbation which he had bestowed upon the excellent spirit and conduct which were displayed by the clerks in the public offices. If anything were to damp their zeal, the injury which would be inflicted thereby on the public service would not be compensated by the gain derived from any pecuniary reduction in their salaries and emoluments. In accordance with the suggestions made by the right hon. Baronet, he should propose an Amendment to this Clause exempting from its operation all persons appointed since the order of the 8th of February, 1822.
Sir Robert Peelwas much gratified by this declaration, as it evinced a desire on the part of the right hon. Baronet to meet the fair claims of those who were engaged in the public service.
The Clause, with Amendments, was agreed to. The remainder of the Bill was agreed to, and the House resumed.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURTS BILL.
The Solicitor-Generalrose, to move the second reading of the Central Criminal Courts' Bill. He did not anticipate there would be any objection to allowing the Bill to be read a second time; and he should content himself by simply stating, that one great object of the Bill was, to increase the number of Sessions held in the year. Formerly, they used to be eight, but henceforward it was proposed there should be twelve; and by this regulation, punishment would almost immedi-

879
ately follow the commission of crime, and the gaols would not be so densely crowded as at present.
Mr. Godsonhad great pleasure in seconding the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman; and he should take the opportunity of observing, that he would move in Committee, that stealing from the person, embezzlement, and a second conviction, be added to the offences contemplated by the Bill.
Mr. Hughes Hughesrose to inquire of the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Solicitor-General), why the Chief Judge and the two other Judges in Bankruptcy were among the Judges of the proposed Court appointed by the Bill? Considerable surprise had been expressed in the City of London on the appearance of those learned persons in the Bill, who seemed to have no natural connexion with a Criminal Court. He would take this opportunity of giving notice of his intention, in the Committee on the Bill, to move, that the parishes of Bromley and Beckenham, in the county of Kent, be comprised within the limits of the proposed Court; and the insertion of words in clause 17th, saving the rights and privileges of the Sheriffs of the City of London, and Sheriff of the county of Middlesex: also a clause to provide, that all and singular the enactments, persons, and authorities, made and given in and by the Act of George 4th, cap. 48, "for enabling Courts to abstain from pronouncing sentence of death on certain capital felonies," shall be deemed to extend, and shall extend, to the proposed Court.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, that the reason why the three Judges in Bankruptcy were named in the Bill was, that in the absence of the Judges on circuit their assistance might be necessary to enable the Court to sit.
The Bill was read a second time.

GRAND JURIES. OATHS (IRELAND).
Colonel Vernersaid, in moving for the second reading of this Bill, he begged to assure the House, that he was actuated by no feeling, but a desire to discharge what he held to be a public duty. He should, therefore, as briefly as possible, state to the House the objections attending the present system of swearing witnesses in Court, and the advantages which would, in his humble judgment, be derived from the change which he proposed to make.
880
Formerly it was the practice, in most counties in Ireland—in itself bad and contrary to law—for Grand Juries to find bills of indictment upon the informations previously taken, and which were usually sent up with the bills—and without a vivâ voce examination. To provide against this practice, an Act was passed in the 56th George 3rd, requiring, that bills should only be found upon the production and examination of the witnesses in person before the Grand Jury. This Act directed, that the witnesses should be sworn in Court, and their names indorsed on the back of the bills, to which the Clerk of the Crown was to attach his signature or initials, and left it discretionary with the Court to send up the informations; but provided that they were not to be evidence in support of the Bill. The object of sending the informations so before the Grand Jury, was to enable the Jurors to compare the evidence of the witness with what he had previously sworn, in order that, should it appear that he was swearing falsely, proceedings might be instituted against him for perjury. The proposed Act would not interfere with the very useful provisions of the Act to which he had alluded. It was merely intended to obviate certain inconveniences, and to bring the obligation, under which the witness deposed, more immediately before his mind. At present the administration of the Oath took place under circumstances disadvantageous to solemnity, and to the furtherance of the ends of justice. The Clerk of the Crown, upon the first day of the Assizes, calls over the names of all prosecutors. In some counties these amount to several hundreds, and many hours are consumed in calling the names. As the Assizes advance, the witnesses are from time to time called, and sworn in batches of five, six, or seven, as the case may be, amidst the noise and confusion consequent upon such a proceeding; the Oath pronounced as rapidly as possible, and the witness understanding imperfectly, if at all, the nature of the obligation he has just taken. The witnesses are then ordered to attend before the Grand Jury; and it often happens, that two or three, and in large counties such as Cork, eight or ten, days elapse between the administration of the Oath, and the evidence given under its sanction. It must be obvious to every person in the habit of attending Assizes in Ireland,

881
either as a Magistrate or a Grand Juror, how great must be the difficulty to impress upon the mind of the witness, that the evidence he is giving before the Jury is under the solemn sanction of the Oath administered to him eight or ten days before in the Court. But there were other considerations of equal, if not greater, importance to the ends of justice. In the interval between swearing the witnesses in Court, and giving their evidence before the Grand Jury, the friends of the prisoners, having ascertained, from their appearing in Court to be sworn, who the persons are who are to give evidence upon the trial, resort to all kinds of threats, intimidation, and bribery, to induce the witnesses not to give direct evidence, and not seldom with effect. Unable to resist, the witness either swears before the Grand Jury in opposition to what he has previously sworn before the Magistrate; or, when he comes upon the table, finds himself unable to identify the person, of whose identity, until that moment, he had never entertained a doubt; and it sometimes happens, that when all their efforts have failed, the witnesses are by force carried off, and the prisoner discharged for want of a prosecution. This Bill may properly be considered as forming a part of the Bill of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, which was now about to come into operation. The fiscal duties being now separated from the other duties which Grand Juries have to discharge, no reasonable complaint can be made of the additional labour imposed upon them. The right hon. Secretary had informed the House, that he had been instructed by the Law Officers of the Crown to oppose this Bill, and that they have assigned as a reason the difficulty which would attend the being able to identify the witnesses in case it should be necessary to proceed against them for perjury. Now, with every respect for the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland (he presumed the right hon. Gentleman meant the Attorney and Solicitor-General), he could not help saying, that without going out of that House, he thought the right hon. Gentleman could have found better authority, because, until appointed to the offices which they now held, neither of these Gentlemen were in the habit of going circuit or attending Assizes. He regretted the absence of the hon. and learned Serjeant, and the member for Monaghan; he regretted it doubly, because it proceeded
882
from indisposition. Were that hon. Member present, he would have explained much more fully and satisfactorily than he (Colonel Verner) was capable of doing, the advantages which would be derived from the change he proposed; being so convinced of its necessity, that he told him (Colonel Verner), he had intended proposing, during the last Session, a clause to be added to the Grand Jury Bill to this effect; and he believed it would be admitted, that that hon. Member's experience on this subject was fully as good, if not better, than that of the Law Officers of the Crown. In reply to the opinions of those Gentlemen, as stated by the right hon. Secretary, with regard to the greater difficulty of proving the identity of the witnesses in case of perjury, he should beg permission to read a few words from a Letter he received within these few days, from as high legal authority as any in Ireland; they were thus:—"Your Bill will greatly facilitate prosecutions for perjury; indeed, under the present system, I know not how such a prosecution can be maintained against a witness who has gone back of, as the phrase is, or, when before the Grand Jury, contradicts his sworn informations. Who is there that can prove that the witness has been sworn to give evidence before the Grand Jury? Is it the Judge? It is not pretended that he can take notice of the individuals who are sworn. Is it the Clerk of the Crown? Quite impossible under the present system when they are sworn in groups, and amidst such confusion, whereas in the method which you propose, it is much more than probable, that the foreman or other Grand Juror, who calmly in the Jury-room administers the Oath to the witnesses one by one, would be able to prove, that he had been sworn." He could assure the House, that he had not undertaken the bringing in of this Bill without consulting those whose knowledge and experience enabled them to form an accurate judgment upon it, and he was happy to say, he had the approbation of every individual to whom he had spoken, from the Bench down. Upon the present occasion, he looked upon Magistrates and Grand Jurors as no incompetent judges, and he believed it would be found, that they were unusually favourable to the adoption of the plan he had recommended. In reply to the observation of the hon. and learned Member (the Solicitor-General), he had only to say,

883
that he did not for a moment doubt that hon. and learned Member's judgment with regard to the best system to be adopted in this country; but with regard to the practice best calculated for Ireland, he could not yield the opinions of those, under whose direction he proposed this Bill, even to those of that hon. and learned Gentleman. When he brought the measure before the House, he did not calculate upon the possibility of its meeting with any opposition; however, after the declaration of the right hon. Secretary, he should not put the House to the inconvenience of a division, but beg leave to withdraw it.
Mr. Shawthought it would be a very ungracious course to pursue, if the Government should throw out the Bill in its present stage. If it were read a second time, the House would have another opportunity of taking the discussion, which it was then too late an hour to enter upon, and of distinctly understanding the nature of its provisions. As at present advised, he was inclined to think that an oath would be administered under circumstances of greater sanctity and solemnity, under the provisions of the Bill, than by the present practice; but still he should be unwilling to make any hasty change in a matter of this important nature against the opinions of those authorities to which the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland, had alluded. He hoped, however, that he would consent to let the question stand over.
Mr. Godsonwas opposed to the introduction of a principle into Ireland, for which there was no precedent in England.
Mr. O'Reillysaid, he entertained a very strong objection to the present system, because it gave Grand Juries in Ireland an opportunity of finding just what bills they pleased. That it had that tendency he must repeat; and if it were not then so late, he would undertake to prove the assertion.
Colonel Percevalsaid, that, the observations of the hon. Member who had just sat down, as well as the tone and manner in which they were uttered, could not be permitted to pass unnoticed. He presumed that these observations came from a gentleman who had been used to sit on Grand Juries. If so, he could only say, that the hon. Member must have belonged to Grand Juries of a description such as he never had the
884
honour of meeting with. He most solemnly declared, in the presence of the House, that he never knew a Grand Jury find bills as their fancy might dictate; nor did he believe, that any Grand Jury in Ireland pursued any but a conscientious, and honourable, and straightforward course. He did not agree in the objection taken by the hon. Member below him, because, in the event of a prosecution for perjury, Grand Jurors are authorized to give evidence in a court of justice of what occurred in a Grand Jury-room, and thus the oath of secrecy which a Grand Juror takes, does not disqualify him from being a witness. There could not be much regard paid to the sanctity of an oath, administered as it was under the present system. A man was sworn in an angle of the court by the Crier, amidst the noise of the Court, when not a single word could be heard. By the Bill of his hon. friend, the Foreman and twelve members of the Grand Jury would, in every case, necessarily be present, one of whom, being a magistrate, would be qualified to swear the witnesses; and he confessed, under these circumstances, he thought the Bill would be an improvement on the present system.
The Solicitor Generalobjected to the principle of the measure, and said, he should oppose its further progress. Much business was done by Grand Juries in England, but it was never impeded by the form of their oath. This measure would introduce another discrepancy into the laws of the two countries, while the object generally contemplated was to assimilate them.
Bill to be read a second time that day six months.

MINUTES.
Read a third time:—Warwick Witnesses Indemnity.—Read a second time:—Conveyance of Fish Amendment; Law of Escheats.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of BUCCLEUGH, from the Schoolmasters of Tedburgh, for an increased Stipend.——By the Earl of DURHAM, from several Dissenting Congregations, for Relief.—By Earl FITZWILLIAM, from Auchtermuchty, for the Repeal of the Statute by which Bishops sit in the Upper House; from Cupar and two other Places, for the Repeal of the Corn Laws.—By Lord FEVERSHAM, from Selby, against any Alteration in the Corn Laws, and for a Commutation of Tithes.—By Lord SUFFIELD), from two Places, for Relief to the Agricultural Interest; from Eynesford, for the Repeal of the Malt Tax; from several Places, against exempting Persons from making the Subscriptions which are now required on Admission to Universities.—By the Earl of ROSEBERY, from the Commissioners of Supply of Renfrewshire, in favour of the Future Entails; and Entails Relief (Scotland) Bill.—By the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, from the Presbytery of Aberdeen, for Protection to Church and State.

DISSENTERS—GLASGOW PETITION.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he held in his hand a Petition, which had been intrusted to his care by a very numerous and respectable body of his fellow-subjects, residing in the city and neighbourhood of Glasgow. The petition proceeded from a meeting assembled in one of the churches or chapels of that city, after long, formal, and public notice, the requisition for that purpose having been signed by 272 respectable housekeepers and inhabitants of Glasgow. The meeting, which was held on the 6th of March, was most numerously and respectably attended, and he signatures affixed to the petition, which was then unanimously agreed to, at and after the meeting, amounted to 48,600. A similar petition, which had been presented in the last Session, or the Session before, from the same neighbourhood, and which emanated from a similar meeting, did not receive, as he was informed, more than one-third of the signatures that were attached to the petition which he was now about to lay before their Lordships; the signatures to the former petition being, he believed, under 15,000—a circumstance which he particularly stated, as undoubtedly showing that the opinion and feeling which had given rise to these petitions had not diminished, had not remained stationary in that part of the country, but, that they had largely, and, he might add, rapidly increased and
844
advanced. He felt, as an individual ought to feel, highly gratified at the great and distinguished honour which so large and enlightened a body had conferred on him by agreeing unanimously to intrust to him a petition so respectably promoted, and so numerously signed—a petition breathing their wishes on a subject which they deemed to be of such paramount importance, which was so dear to their feelings, and which lay so near their hearts. In presenting such a petition on such a subject, and coming to his hands from such a quarter, it would have given him the greatest satisfaction if there had prevailed between the numerous body from whom it emanated and himself such a degree of unanimity of opinion and feeling, as would have enabled him to give that support to the whole of the prayer of this petition, which he was always anxious to give to the prayer of any petition, that it became his duty to present to their Lordships. Undoubtedly he agreed with a large portion of the prayer of the petition; indeed, he might say, that with the greater portion of it he entirely agreed. The prayer of the petition was not in favour of the Dissenters of Scotland, or of England—no, the petitioners, acting upon principles of the greatest liberality and disinterestedness, called the attention of their Lordships, not to the state in which the Dissenting population of England and Scotland were placed, but put forward the claims of the Dissenters all over the United Kingdom, and solicited the redress of those grievances, and the removal of those disabilities which were by them suffered. It was not necessary for him to remind their Lordships, or to inform those petitioners, that there was no individual in either House of Parliament, who had ever manifested, or who had ever expressed, feelings more firm or more zealous in support of the principle of religious toleration in its widest and fullest extent than he had done. He had always expressed this opinion, that no man ought to be prejudiced or injured in the enjoyment of his civil rights on account of his professing particular religious tenets. But although holding this opinion, although imbued with, and acting on these principles, he could not go along with the petitioners in professing sentiments which were to be found in the residue of that prayer—he meant that part of it in which the petitioners prayed their Lord-

845
ships to take measures for the dissolution of what they called the unjust, the unscriptural, and injurious connexion between the Church and State. This was a new form of expression which had lately crept into the language of petitions, and which seemed to have originated in political rather than religious dissensions; perhaps it was a loose form of expression; and he was not sure that he perfectly understood it; but he took it to mean, that the wishes of the petitioners were, that there should no longer be any Established Church, but that religion should look for support to the principle of voluntary contributions. They desired that there should be no annuity, no tax, no compulsory provision whatsoever, for the maintenance of religious establishments; but that all sects and individuals, the ignorant and uninstructed, as well as the better-informed, might be left to provide for themselves that portion of religious instruction, of which they stood in need, so that every man might be a sect and a church to himself. On this point he professed a difference, an irreversible difference, of opinion with the petitioners, and he could not but advert with feelings of alarm, and even of dismay, to the state of things inevitable on the concession of this portion of their prayer. The prayer was, in fact, one for the total abolition and extinction of all hierarchies in Scotland, as well as in England—as well for the suppression of the economical Church of Scotland, as of the less economical establishment of England; but he could not think of leaving 14,000,000, he believed he might say 16,000,000 or 18,000,000 of persons, wholly without any established or enduring means for the maintenance and support of religion. And why did he hold this unalterable, this irreversible differerence of opinion—a difference of opinion which he had not withheld from those who had intrusted him with the petition,—why did he thus dissent from the views entertained by the petitioners? There were some wants which might safely be left to the animal instincts of our nature to be supplied; the cravings of hunger and thirst were sure to meet with attention through the summons of our physical necessities; the more a man felt them, the more he desired to satisfy them; but the case was not so with the more refined and elevated feelings. It was not so in the instance of a common secular education.
846
The less enlightened men were, the less they felt their ignorance, and the less pains they took to advance their own improvement; and surely this argument would apply to religious instruction. This was the first argument he had to urge; but, claiming for himself the same freedom of religious opinion which he asked for the Dissenters, he must say, that he viewed with alarm and consternation the possibility of leaving 16,000,000 or 18,000,000 of men wholly unprovided for in respect of a religious establishment. Another argument, on which however he did not lay so much stress as on that which he had just used, might be found in the fact, that an Established Church, whether in connexion or not with the State did not much matter, he would not argue on a phrase—that an Established Church, or, in other words a recognized clerical body, was the only obstacle that could be opposed, the only safeguard that could be devised against the unbridled licence of fanaticism. His opinion was fixed in favour of some religious establishment, but what kind of religious establishment that ought to be, what defects were to be found in our own, and of what improvements it was susceptible, was a question which, however interesting, was thrown aside by the declaration of the petitioners, who prayed their Lordships to take measures to abolish all religious establishments. The language of the petition went to affirm that an Established Church was not only not enjoined, but expressly prohibited, by the precepts of the Christian religion. Now if the petitioners, looking back only to the primitive times of Christianity, grounded their argument on the posture of affairs which the state of the early Church presented to the historical inquirer—if they did this, he must say, that they took a very short-sighted and imperfect view of a very important question. They had forgotten that the Gospel was propagated by human aid, acting in concert with Divine interposition, and Divine Providence having thus strongly established the principle of acting by second causes, it might reasonably be concluded, that to second causes much was still intrusted. No man who had any acquaintance with that part of the Roman history which comprehended the period referred to could suppose that an Established Church, such as was to be found in our own country at the present

847
day, was not wholly inconsistent with the fabric of society at that time; but it did not follow, that because an establishment was ill adapted to those the early ages of the Church, that a different rule might advantageously be applied to different circumstances. He spoke under correction, in the presence of those who would set him right if he were wrong, and who were better acquainted than he could pretend to be with these controversial points. He had thus endeavoured to show, that the fact of there having been no establishment in the early ages of the Church was no argument against the existence of one now; but if the petitioners could prove, that an establishment was actually prohibited by the positive injunctions of Christianity, "then," said the noble and learned Lord, "cadit quœstio, and my argument is at an end." This point, however, yet remained to be proved. To this extent, and to this extent only, did he differ from the prayer of the petition. He had always thought, and he had never concealed his opinion from their Lordships, that the Dissenters had many practical grievances which ought to be redressed. Whether they were English, Irish, or Scotch, they had never wanted, and never should want, his feeble assistance, which should always be heartily though inefficiently rendered, to remove every iota of a cause for just complaint on their part. But he wished to warn them, as they valued their redemption from civil disabilities—as they regarded the good opinion of their best friends—as they esteemed their own character for good sense and consistency—as they would triumph over those who were opposed to them—not to cease one moment, not to lose one instant of time, in avoiding any foundation, which might otherwise be laid, for a suspicion that they were opposed to any system of religious instruction. He was much concerned that so numerous, so respectable, and so enlightened a body of men as the Protestant Dissenters should have shown themselves on this, as on one or two other points, so difficult to please. Let them look to the nature of the grievance of which they complained, and the means for its redress and removal; but let them accept that redress when it was offered them, and not trouble themselves with trifling, speculative, and unimportant points. They complained, and with rea-
848
son, that they were deprived of the advantages of a legal marriage, which would be good for the Established Church as well as the Dissenters, since the present practice was an inducement to what he would call brawls in the place of worship. The Dissenter was conscientiously bound to enter his protest against the marriage ceremony, as solemnized in conformity with the ritual of the Church of England. Well, this grievance it was proposed to redress altogether; to allow the celebration of marriage in dissenting chapels and meeting houses; but because the Marriage Act required not for religious, but merely secular and civil purposes, that bans should be proclaimed on three successive Sundays, the respectable body for whose benefit the measure was intended, much to his sorrow, thought proper to reject it. Now, the Church had a right to dissent from such a proposition, society had a right, the Legislature had a right to oppose it; they could not give up the publicity which ought to belong to all transactions of this nature, and open the gate wide to youthful imprudence, clandestine connexion, and forcible abduction. This was the only reason for enforcing such a regulation, and he was sorry, that the policy of it was not more clearly seen by the Dissenters. In connexion with this point, he felt bound to mention, that he thought it a great evil, and the greater in a country like this, that the registers of births, deaths, and marriages, should be so incomplete. His noble and learned friend on the cross-bench knew as well as he did of an instance where an estate of 6,000 l. or 7,000 l. a-year was within a hair's breadth of going to the wrong person, in consequence of the defectiveness of the parish register of baptism. All ranks and persuasions might, indeed, justly complain of the evil, but the Baptists were peculiarly subject to its pressure. It gave him pleasure, however, to think that a measure to remove that evil had been introduced into the other House by an hon. and learned relative of his own, and he believed that it stood for discussion that very evening. He had stated his opinions on this question, and had shown how far he agreed with the prayer of the petition he had the honour to present, and he should not have done his duty if he had not stated his opinion, as well as the grounds on which he protested against a portion of that petition.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid, if the petition presented by the noble Lord had confined itself to desiring the removal of the grievances or disabilities under which the Dissenters laboured—if it had merely required at their Lordships' hands toleration to the full extent to which liberty of conscience could be granted, he should have most heartily concurred in its prayer, because it was his earnest wish to see every disability under which any class of his Majesty's subjects unjustly laboured removed as speedily as possible. He could assure their Lordships that he was as solicitous as any Member of that House—as any man in the country—to redress the grievances of the Dissenters, as far as that redress was consistent with the duty which he owed to the Church to which he belonged; but, although he made this statement, he was at the same time bound to declare, that if the demands of the Dissenters were at all directed against the stability of the Establishment it would be a duty imperative on him to give them every opposition in his power. Had the petition gone no further than to claim for the Dissenters reasonable advantages, comforts, privileges, and dignities—had it merely asked that they might be secured in the enjoyment of property—in a word, had they demanded to be put in full possession of all those civil rights to which they were legally and constitutionally entitled, he should not have offered a syllable in opposition to its prayer; but when this was not the case—when, instead of seeking that for which they had a right to look, the petitioners avowed principles which he could not recognise, which were subversive of the Established Church—he felt that he would be wanting in his duty if he allowed the subject to pass over in silence. He must say, that he entirely concurred in the greater part of the sentiments which had been so ably and eloquently expressed by the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down, and that he could not hear such demands as this petition contained, made in that House without standing up in his place to protest against their going any such length as these petitioners would have them go. But really the proposition was altogether so wild, so absurd, and, he would add, so unreasonably extravagant, that he could hardly suppose it to have emanated from persons of the known intelligence and respect-
850
ability of those whose names were affixed to this petition. Surely, in making such a proposition, they could not have kept in view the great object which an Established Church was designed to accomplish, namely, the dissemination of a pure and holy religion, not only in the lanes and alleys of populous towns throughout obscure villages, but, he might say, over the whole surface of the empire. The light of true religion could not possibly be extended to remote and insignificant places without the aid of an Established Church; and it was therefore on the grounds of its vast usefulness that it was to be defended. The noble and learned Lord had most justly, and with that ability for which he was distinguished, explained the particular wants which it was intended to supply; and to those who thought with him, that a religious institution was a blessing, the advantages of an Established Church must be sufficiently obvious, to dispense with the necessity of his taking up the time of their Lordships, by then pointing them out at any length. When he spoke of a religious Establishment of any kind, he merely looked at it as a means for carrying into effect the designs of the Almighty in revealing the Holy Gospels for the benefit of mankind. The Gospels were revealed for the benefit of the poor as much as for the advantage of the rich; and if no Established Church existed, he should like to know how the light of Divine Truth could reach the habitations of the poor? It was no doubt true, that even though no Established Church existed, individual piety, in a rich country like this, would find means for diffusing religious instruction to a certain extent. In the wealthier part of great towns, churches might be found, as convenient and as well adapted for the purposes of Divine Worship as at present; but, although this would do very well so far as the rich were concerned, the poor, who were scattered over the whole face of the country, must be totally neglected, if religious instruction were not provided for them by the State. Without an Established Church, the poor would be left in gross ignorance of the beauty as well as of the moral precepts of religion. They would be strangers to the hopes of the blessed hereafter which it held out; or else, instead of being taught a sound religion, and a pure faith, they would be left at the mercy of ignorant and illiterate

851
fanatics, by whom they might be led into gross and absurd beliefs, which, in his opinion, would be just as bad as the absence of all religion. But there were also other points of view in which a religious establishment was important. It might be considered as holding out the light of pure Christianity—as preserving that true religion which had been really revealed from Heaven. Every man must be aware that a contaminated religion was worse than no religion at all; and, as the object of the Church was, to preserve Christianity pure and undefiled, it was in that point of view most important, not only to the unfortunate people who now existed—the present generation—but to all future ages. Had no Church, he would not say Establishment, existed from the earliest times, how could the doctrines of Christianity be discriminated at the present day from the beliefs of the numerous sects with which the world abounded, and all of whom asserted that the notions which each entertained constituted the only true religion of Christ? Amidst such endless confusion and discord, was it not evident, that without some Establishment the ignorant would be unable to obtain the information requisite to enable them to arrive at truth? Corruptions might have crept into the Church, but, as it had been the means of preserving a pure record of the Divine Truths which could otherwise not have been obtained, in so far was its existence salutary, and, therefore, they should not suffer themselves to be led away by the idle outcry which had of late been raised against it. But, he could not believe, that the respectable and learned clergymen who were said to have signed the petition could have taken into their consideration the whole of the arguments in favour of a religious establishment, or they never would have advocated the proposition now put forward for destroying it. The Dissenters declared, that they were the friends of religion, and, if this were so, they should examine well the voluntary system upon which their churches were supported, before they recommended that system for general adoption. Did they not, he would ask, complain of the inefficiency of the wretched provision, derived from voluntary contributions, made for their ministers, or had they never expressed sorrow for the want of a sufficient number of places of worship to accommodate their congregations? He was misinformed, or else they
852
had, and had he not, therefore, a right to say, that if the whole country were put under the voluntary system, so much extolled by those who were unfriendly to the Church, the result would be, that the wants complained of by the Dissenters themselves would be multiplied in exact proportion to the number of Protestants as compared with the number of Dissenters? The evil would be increased to an incredible extent, but it was not then necessary for him to enter further upon the advantages of a national Church. He could not help expressing his deep concern and regret at the course which the Dissenters had taken, neither was he able to conjecture the cause which had so recently produced such an alteration in their sentiments on this subject. Their objection to the Church Establishment was perfectly new. He believed, that no such notion had ever existed in this country prior to the time of the French Revolution, and, he knew, that before that period, many respectable Dissenters had advocated the necessity of a Church Establishment. Topics of a different kind they had undoubtedly discussed with great warmth, but until now they had not thought, even, of bringing forward a scheme so wild and extravagant as the abolition of the Established Church. He must confess he was wholly at a loss to know to what this change of sentiment was to be attributed. The noble and learned Lord was quite right as to there being no text of Scripture which went to show the inexpediency of an Established religion. It had been stated, at the Dissenters meetings, that the Church Establishment did more harm than good. The parties who made this injurious assertion—and among them were some whom he regretted to see in such a position—declared, that they represented the great body of the Dissenters of this country; but, although that might be the case, he still believed, there were many belonging to these benevolent and distinguished communities, who did not participate in any such principles or feelings, but who, on the contrary, were strongly convinced of the benefits derived by the community at large from the Church Establishment. The silence which such persons had hitherto observed, had been construed into a sanction of the violent language used at the meetings to which he alluded, and, therefore, he hoped they would take

853
an early opportunity of coming forward to avow their real sentiments, and state, whether they regarded the Church of England as a grievance from which they desired to be delivered. The feelings which Churchmen once entertained for Dissenters were completely worn out; and he could now deny, without hesitation, that any—even the least—feeling of hostility existed in the mind of Churchmen against Dissenters. It was, therefore, unfair that the latter should exhibit such hostility against the former. But was that, he would ask, the way to preserve peace; or, was it not rather the way to revive gone-by animosities, which ought not to be re-called into existence? As for himself, he solemnly declared, that he did not entertain the slightest feeling of either animosity or disrespect towards the Dissenters; and he might make a similar statement on behalf, not only of the clergy with whom he had communicated, but of the clergy generally. Whenever the assault that was made upon the Church, became the topic of conversation amongst those of the clergy with whom he had spoken, no expression escaped them that was inconsistent with Christian charity, or that manifested the least animosity towards the Dissenters. On the contrary, they one and all agreed, that all the concessions that could be made with safety, should be granted; and this, he could assure their Lordships, was the common language in which every Address on the subject that he had received was couched. But it had been said, that the clergy felt the danger which surrounded them, and were, therefore, afraid to speak their sentiments freely one to another. That, however, their Lordships would readily believe, was not the case; but, even supposing for the argument sake, that they were in danger, could it for a moment receive credence that they were so wanting in spirit as to fail in self-defence? That defence they were prepared to make, should the necessity arise; but, then, it should always be carried on in a Christian spirit. But before the Dissenters had assumed their present threatening attitude, he would ask, what had been the conduct of Churchmen towards them and their claims? They had opposed the Catholic Emancipation Bill, not from any wish to deprive the Catholics of any advantage to which they were entitled; but, because they conceived the measure to be injurious
854
not only to the Irish Church, but to the Church of England. The records of the speeches delivered in that House would show the grounds upon which they resisted the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, by which Dissenters received such considerable relief. They opposed that measure, not on account or with reference to the Church, but because they found it impossible to reconcile it with the general policy of the country. Without occupying the time of their Lordships longer, he begged, in conclusion, to say, that whatever steps might be taken against the Church—whatever irritating language might be used or aspersions cast upon the clergy—and whatever means might be resorted to for the purpose of destroying or overturning the Church, he yet hoped, that the clergy would never forget that Christian spirit which alone should actuate the ministers of religion. They should uncompromisingly oppose anything that tended to impair or diminish the efficiency of the Church; but then, they should discharge their duty in a Christian spirit, and not endeavour to deprive those by whom they were assailed of any advantages to which they were legally, fairly, and constitutionally entitled.
Earl Fitzwilliamwas understood to express his regret, that the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, than whom there had never existed a more anxious, able, or consistent advocate for religious toleration, had not, in pursuing his argument as to the necessity of a Church Establishment, followed his position up by contending for the equal necessity of revenues applicable to that Establishment. There was another point to which the noble and learned Lord had addressed some observations in which he regretted that he could not concur—namely, that the measure which had been proposed in another place, having for its object the relief of Dissenters from the grievances to which they were exposed on the celebration of their marriages, would be satisfactory to them. They felt the provision for the publication of bans in a Church to the doctrines of which they were opposed, would be only a continuance of one of the grievances of which they complained. He could not agree with the noble and learned Lord, that this provision was necessary, in order to prevent clandestine marriages. With respect to what had fallen from the most reverend Prelate who had just resumed his seat, he

855
must observe, that no person, Dissenter or otherwise, could have heard the most reverend Prelate without being imbued with the highest respect for his character; but the most reverend Prelate, in reverting to past transactions, the history of which still survived in the memory of the Dissenters of this country, had omitted to trace the generation of the jealousy existing from the mere claim of superiority, which was still thought by that body to be found in the continued maintenance of the Church Establishment. Whatever might have been the conduct of the right reverend Prelates of the Church of England on former occasions, when the claims of Dissenters came under consideration, six years had not elapsed since a great fight had been made in another place to continue the exclusion of Dissenters from corporate and other offices. Then it was, that the party who represented, or assumed to represent, the Church of England, and so assuming, took it under their care and protection, told the Dissenters, that they were not fit to fill the office of Alderman, nor even that of Common Councilman, in any corporate body. Could it be supposed, that such a circumstance did not still live in the recollection of Dissenters, and excite their animosity towards the Church Establishment? To that Church he himself belonged: to its Prelates and Ministers he owed, and entertained the highest reverence, but he thought they had not sufficiently studied the government of all classes, and if they were now exposed to the taunts of men who had been partially relieved from grievances, he hoped they would receive a lesson from which they would profit. He denied, that the prayer of the petition just submitted, embodied any new wish on the part of the Dissenters, as had been suggested by the most reverend Prelate who had just addressed their Lordships. The noble Lord concluded by repeating his conviction, that the provision of the Bill elsewhere introduced for regulating the marriage of Dissenters, was most objectionable to the great portion of that numerous and respectable body.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that some provision must be made for giving publicity to marriages contemplated between Dissenters and members of the Church of England. That such a provision was necessary, he thought could not be denied, for nothing could be more easy, if public-
856
ation was only required in a chapel or meeting-house, for the daughter or sister of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Fitzwilliam) or for his (the Lord Chancellor's) daughter to become a Dissenter, in order to effect a clandestine marriage, and to keep its very contemplation a secret from those who ought to be the best informed. He, however, would not deny, that many better modes of publicity than bans in a parish church might be devised; but certainly their publication in a meeting-house was not calculated to give information to all men that their daughters were about to be run away with.
Earl Fitzwilliamrepeated, the objection of the Dissenters was, their being called upon to conform to the customs of a Church to which they did not belong, by the publication of bans of marriage.
The Archbishop of Canterburywas aware, that objections had been made to the present mode of publishing the bans. A different system was acted upon some time since; that was, that the names of the parties were affixed to the doors of the parish church. This was found to create general disgust throughout the country, and led to a diminution of the number of marriages, and it was therefore found necessary to alter it.
The Earl of Haddingtonwished for a moment to call their Lordships' attention to the nature of the Petition from Glasgow, and also to the number of persons whom it had been stated had subscribed their names to it. This petition was said to be signed by 52,000 inhabitants of that great and industrious city; and the object of the petition was to get rid of the unscriptural and injurious alliance subsisting between Church and State. He was astonished at the prayer of the petition, coming as it did from a place celebrated for its attachment to the Church of Scotland. He thought it most surprising, that any number of persons should be found in that place to sign a petition which was to have such an effect on the national Church of that part of the empire. He had been assured, however, by a Gentleman of great respectability, who was well acquainted with Glasgow, that a great number of names had been signed to that petition without the knowledge of the persons who bore them; that some had signed their names over and over again, and that many

857
were sham names; and also, that, boys had, for the purpose of amusement, signed their names to it. He had no doubt, that by such means as many as 100,000 signatures might have been obtained for any petition, however absurd the object of it might be. He had felt called upon to make the observations he had addressed to their Lordships, in order to relieve the people of Glasgow from the imputation of being supposed to desire the adoption of any measure tending to the separation of the Church from the State. It could not be supposed, that all the names affixed to the petition were those of persons qualified to judge of it. The number of the signatures was equal to the whole adult males in Glasgow, and he was sure, that their Lordships would not suppose, that the whole of the population of that great city entertained such opinions as were set forth in the petition. He would venture to assert, that the prayer of the petition was contrary to all the feelings, all the desires, which the great body of the people of that city entertained for the Established Church of Scotland. He believed, that many persons had signed the petition without knowing what they had signed, and also the names of many persons were affixed to it, not members of the Church of Scotland, and not wishing that that Church might be separated from the State, but who wished to promote the ruin of all Churches. He trusted, that their Lordships would bear this in mind, when they came to consider the grievances of which Dissenters complained, and he sincerely hoped, that their Lordships would remove all those which justly could be considered grievances. At the same time, however disposed their Lordships might feel to make such concessions, they should take care not to yield to the clamour of those who declared, that it was their wish and intention to destroy those sacred institutions which it was the duty of their Lordships to support.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that the petition he had presented from Glasgow was signed by 48,600 names. He did not believe, that any great portion of the names affixed to it were of the nature described by his noble friend, although it was very probable, that some of the signatures were those of boys, and some had signed their names more than once to it with a view to give increased weight to it from great numbers. This latter cir-
858
cumstance, however, was incidental to petitions having many signatures. He had reason to believe, that the persons who had signed the requisition for the meeting, had used great care so as to prevent such proceedings as had been alluded to by the noble Earl, as they had gone round with the petition. The persons in question were 252 in number, and were most respectable Gentlemen. But even if he admitted, that such things had been done as were stated by his noble friend, and if he deducted in consequence the 8,600, which was certainly more than could be excepted, against them there would still remain 40,000 signatures. He was given to understand, that the petition did not come merely from Glasgow; but from that city and its vicinity, namely, Glasgow and six or nine miles round, which would give an abundant population, and he need hardly say, that it was a very religious part of the country.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that the city of Glasgow and its vicinity, showed the advantages that those places with an Established Church had over other places where there was no Establishment. The Establishment at Glasgow, however, was very limited in comparison with the population. There was, however, a man at Glasgow connected with the Established Church of Scotland, who had effected greater moral, and he hoped, that he might be able to add political, good in that place than any individual of his day. He need hardly say, that he alluded to Dr. Chalmers. There was in the neighbourhood of that place between 50,000 and 60,000 persons for which the clergy of the Church of Scotland were exerting themselves to provide the means of religious worship; and he would ask, what had the Dissenters done for that purpose? The clergy by their exertions had already raised 12,000 l., and they relied upon raising 40,000 l., with which they intended to endow the churches they were erecting.
The Petition laid on the Table.

WARWICK BOROUGH—CONTEMPT OF THE HOUSE.
Their Lordships proceeded to the examination of witnesses in support of this Bill.
The Messenger of their Lordships' House, who had been sent down to Warwick to serve the witnesses, suspected to be kept out of the way, was examined as

859
to the service of the summonses to appear issued by their Lordships. He again stated, that he called at Mr. Oram's house to serve him, but could not obtain an interview. He called again on him, after making an appointment to meet him, but he was from home. Witness left the summons. He, nearly in the same way, and in the same words, detailed his attempts to serve Lapworth, Trepas, and Dingley, but that they were ineffectual.
The Earl of Durhamsaid, that after what had transpired, he felt authorised to move, that the Lord Chancellor do issue his warrant to apprehend these persons so absenting themselves, as guilty of a contempt. He had no doubt they had voluntarily absented themselves. They had in the same way absconded, when the inquiry was instituted in the Commons upon the Warwick election; at which election it had been proved, they had accepted bribes. With the conviction, that this proceeding would bring forward these defaulters, he moved that they be taken into the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas of opinion, that the cases made out against these parties would not justify, as yet, their being proceeded against for contempt.
The Lord Chancellorremarked, that as to two of these persons, there was no evidence whatever on which to found their apprehension. As to Oram, he should recommend that if Oram did not appear by Thursday or Friday, then he should be considered guilty of a contempt, and taken into custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms. Perhaps the same course might, with safety, be pursued as to another of these parties—Dingley.
The Motion of the Earl of Durham was negatived.
It was suggested by the Lord Chancellor, that notices should be served at the houses of Dingley and Oram, that their presence would be required at the Bar of the House on Friday, and that the service at the houses of Trepas and Lapworth should be good after the expiration of ten days.
This suggestion was adopted.