Sitting of 22 May 1834

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Major BEAUCLERK, from two Places, for Remitting the Sentence passed on the Ten Agricultural Labourers at Dorchester; from St. Mary, Newington; and by Mr. GREENE, from Lancaster,—against

1193
the Poor Law Amendment Bill.—By Mr. C. BULLER, and Mr. WALTER, from two Places, for Inquiry into the Causes of Drunkenness.—By Mr. BAINES, Mr. WILKS, and Mr. ADAMS, from several Places,—against the proposed Measure of Church Rates.—By Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR, Sir RONALD FERGUSON, Mr. O'CONNELL, Mr. BUCKINGHAM, Mr. G. F. YOUNG, Mr. HALFORD, Mr. OSWALD, Lord CASTLEREAGH, Lord DALMENY, Messrs. HAWES, PHILIPS, LEFROY, PENDARVES, CLIVE, CAYLEY, Sir ANDREW AGNEW, Colonel FOX, Colonel CONOLLY, Mr. SINCLAIR, and Mr. DUNLOP, from several Places,—for an Inquiry into the Causes of Drunkenness—By Mr. GROTE, from Perth, for Vote by Ballot, and Triennial Parliaments.—By Sir ROBERT INGLIS and Mr. HALFORD, from several Places,—against the Universities' Admission Bill.—By Mr. Hawes, from Clerks in Government Offices, against the Pensions (Civil Offices) Bill.—By Mr. OSWALD, from Cumnock, for the Repeal of the Corn Laws; from several Places, for the Separation of Church and State.—By Mr. F. YOUNG, from the Merchant Seamen of North Shields, against the Contribution of Sixpence to Greenwich Hospital; from Shipowners and others in London, for an Alteration in the London Port Acts.—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from the Debtors in Gloucester Gaol, for the Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt; from Crossmolina, for the Repeal of the Union; from Carlteel, against Tithes and Poor Laws in Ireland; from several Places, against Tithes, from the Dairymen of Dublin, against the Tax on Carts used in their Business; from the Shipowners of the Port of Dublin against the Reciprocity of Duties Act.—By Colonel ANSON and Mr. GEORGE FREDERICK YOUNG, from two Places,—in favour of the Leith Harbour Bill.—By Mr. CAYLEY, from Middlesbrough-upon-Tees, for the Repeal of the Export Duty of Coals.—By Mr. OLIPHANT, from Perth, for the Dissolution of the Convention of Royal Burghs; and for the Abolition of the Abjuration Oath.—By Mr. ROEBUCK, from Lower Canada, for a Reform in the Governance and Laws of the Province.—By Mr. MANGLES and Mr. DUNCOMBE, from several Places,—against the Claims of the Dissenters.—By Sir ROBERT INGLIS, from several Places, for Protection to the Church of England; and by Mr. HEATHCOTE, from Boston,—for Amending the Sale of Beer Act; from several Places, for the Better Observance of the Lord's Day; from Charlbury, against the proposed Measure of Church Rates—By Lord SANDON, Sir CHARLES LENNOX, and Messrs. DUNCOMBE, G. F. YOUNG, DUFFIELD, GREENE, BIGNEY, GROTE, and CLIVE, from a Number of Places,—against the Poor Law Amendment Bill—By Lord NORRYES, Lord SANDON, Mr. DUNCOMBE, and Mr. MILLS, from a Number of Places,—against the University Admission Bill.—By Lord CASTLEREAGH, from Killough, for Relief to the Irish Fisheries.—By Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, from several Places, for the Repeal of the Malt Tax.—By Messrs. GROTE and OSWALD, from two Places,—against the Taxes on Knowledge.—By Mr. GROTE, from Perth.—By Mr. BUCKINGHAM, from the Handloom Weavers of Lochwinnoch, for a Board of Trade.—By Mr. OSWALD, from Perth, for Universal Suffrage, and the Repeal of the Septennial Act; from Salcoats (Ayrshire), against the Sabbath Observance Bill; and by Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE and Lord SANDON, from two Places,—in favour of the same.—By Mr. OLIPHANT and Mr. OSWALD, from several Places, against the present System of Church Patronage in Scotland.

STAMPS ON NEWSPAPERS.
Mr. Edward Lytton Bulwersaid, that the great pressure of business in the last Session, and a variety of those incidents which so often and so unexpectedly started up in the way of any independent Member bringing forward a Motion in that House, had obliged him to defer the question now before them from time to time until this evening; he was at length enabled
1194
to fulfil a pledge which he gave to the country, and a duty which he owed to himself; he was not sorry for the delay—truth never lost by delay. The question was not now what it was when he first introduced it to that House—a new question, coldly agitated without, supported only by the inquiring and speculative few, and screened from the eyes of the people by a variety of other objects, more clamorous and more exciting; since then it had been taken up throughout the country; it had been made a test of principle at the general election; and if hon. Members remembered that evening the wishes of their constituents and their own pledges, he should not fear the result of the decision to which they were about to come. Let them consider, then, the small amount of the tax; listen patiently to the statements and the facts he should adduce as to the substitute he proposed; remember the importance attached to the subject in the last election; count the number of petitions that had been presented to the House from every large town throughout the kingdom; and then, as an additional argument in favour of the Motion, recollect, that it had obtained favour and support throughout the country without any encouragement from the newspapers (the greater part of which naturally inclined to a tax which conferred the monopoly and the market upon themselves), without the excitement of tumultuous meetings or inflammatory harangues. It was from the quiet and deep heart of the people themselves that had come forth the prayer that he now supported, for the free circulation of opinion—for the enlarged and the untaxed diffusion of knowledge, not of politics alone, but of the debates of that Assembly—of the proceedings of the Courts of Law—of the affairs of foreign states, and of that vast miscellany of information connected with a thousand branches of utility and morals which newspapers furnished to the world. And when the people themselves came forward, even amidst the pressure of financial distress, with this generous and hearty desire for their own intellectual improvement, he knew of no popular request which was more worthy the character of a great nation—which ought to be more gladly welcomed by a Representative Assembly, or more frankly acceded to by an enlightened Government. When the noble Lord,

1195
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, brought forward his budget last year, be was surprised to hear no less a person than the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, observe, in excuse for the noble Lord in repealing the Stamp-duty upon newspapers, that he believed the newspapers were not loudly complaining of the burthen they endured—that they seemed tolerably contented with the imposition, and would probably be acquiescent in its continuance; the right hon. Baronet was cheered in that remark, and, therefore, there must be hon. Members in that House who supposed, what he could scarcely believe the right hon. Baronet unaffectedly supposed, that the Stamp-duty was a tax of which only the existing newspapers had a right to complain. Why, did any one ever hear of any monopolists complaining of a monopoly? When the House opened the trade of India, was it the East-India Company that insisted upon a repeal of their charter? This tax was a charter to the existing newspapers—it was not they who suffered from it—it was the public—it was the Government—it was order—it was society that suffered! Just let the House consider—the Stamp and Paper-duties, with the price of printing and the news-agency, amounted to 5½d. for every 7d. copy of a newspaper. The consequence of this heavy taxation was this, the capital required to set up a newspaper (what with the expense of reporting, of acquiring foreign intelligence, &c.) was so enormous as to be estimated for a morning paper at from 30,000 l. to 40,000 l.; this extravagant demand frightened away new competitors, and thus the papers already established enjoyed a monopoly. They were quite contented to pay a heavy tax which secured to themselves the public market, and naturally eager to resist a repeal of the burthen which would immediately surround them with a crowd of rivals. The existing papers, therefore, did not suffer by the tax, but he would tell them who did—the people suffered, and that to an extent which few men had sufficiently considered. In the first place, the high price of the legal papers prevented, in a great measure, their reaching the poor—he meant the operative and the mechanic. What was the consequence? why this, it was an axiom in our excise legislation, that whenever a commodity was taxed above fifteen per cent, smuggling necessarily ensued;
1196
but you tax the newspaper more than 100 per cent; and the result was, the enormous circulation of all manner of contraband publications; the writers in these papers could scarcely be well affected to the law, for they broke the law; they could scarcely be reasonable advisers, for they saw before them the penalty and the prison, and wrote under the angry sense of injustice; they could scarcely be safe teachers, for they were excited by their own passions, and it was to the passions of a half-educated and distressed population that they appealed; in fact, he had seen many of these publications—nothing could be more inflammatory or dangerous. One paper took a particular fancy to the estates of the Duke of Bedford—another paper had been remarkably anxious for the assassination of the Duke of Wellington. [a laugh.] Gentlemen might laugh at these notions; they were contemptible enough to them, but it was not to them that they were addressed; they were addressed, week after week, to men who had not received any education, and whom poverty naturally attached to the prospect of any violent change. These notions might be easily controverted; they might be scattered to the wind, for the English operative would listen to reason, or he would not ask you to repeal this tax; but the Legislature would not allow them to be controverted—would not allow them a reply—they never were replied to—the legal newspapers (addressing a higher class of readers) did not condescend to notice them; even if they did, the cheap newspaper was read where the dear one did not penetrate. You either forbid to the poor by this tax, in a great measure, all political knowledge, or else you give to them, unanswered and unpurified, doctrines the most dangerous—you put the medicine under lock and key, and you leave the poison on the shelf; you do not create one monopoly only, you create two monopolies—one monopoly of dear newspapers, and another monopoly of smuggled newspapers; you create two publics; to the one public of educated men, in the upper and middle ranks, whom no newspaper could, on moral points, very dangerously mislead, you give the safe and rational papers; to the other public, the public of men far more easily influenced—poor, ignorant, distressed—men from whom all the convulsions and disorders of society arise, (for the crimes of the poor

1197
are the punishment of the rich,)—to the other public, whom you ought to be most careful to soothe, to guide, and to enlighten, you give the heated invectives of demagogues and fanatics. He might stop here and say, that he had made out his case. What more need be said, to prove, that this was a tax that ought to be repealed? What greater curse could a Government bring upon itself than that which it must experience if it permitted the circulation of the most dangerous opinions and suppressed the reply to them? Of what greater crime could a Government be guilty than that of allowing the minds of the poor to be poisoned?—than that of pandering to their demoralization?—and, if demoralization led to guilt, and guilt to punishment, of encouraging the wanton sacrifice of human life itself? When it was said, that if we opened the market to cheap papers, all kinds of trash would be poured in, those who said it were not aware of the trash that now existed, that was now circulated in defiance of laws, of fines, and of gaols. During the present Administration, from 300 to 400 persons had been imprisoned for merely selling unstamped publications in the streets—had been punished with the utmost rigour—sent to herd with felons and the basest outcasts of society; and what had been the consequence? Had they put down the publications themselves? No! They had only raised their authors into importance among that part of the population they addressed; and, instead of silencing fanaticism, they had exalted the fanatic into the martyr. If there was one true axiom in the world, it was this—that opinion only can put down opinion; and if bad doctrines were afloat, they could only refute them by the propagation of good doctrines, and, therefore, it was wisely said the other day by a noble Lord, (the Secretary of State for the Home Department) in answer to Lord Winchilsea, who urged him to prosecute the unstamped publications, "that prosecution might only give them a double publicity." But in what a condition, then, were the Government placed? They left a law on their Statute-book to which they dared not apply—a law which, when dormant, gave a monopoly to the disaffected; and when exerted, only fed still more the disaffection. If they did not use it, they were injured; if they did use it, they were injured doubly. They were like a
1198
man who kept a bull-dog so fierce that it was good for nothing; it worried both friend and foe; when chained, the robber escaped; when let loose, it turned upon its master. And a worthy task it was for the Minister of England to be waging this petty war with bill-stickers and hawkers! To let the paper itself go free, to pounce upon the man who sold it—to level the thunders of the law upon some ragged itinerant, some pedlar of the Press, and then skulk behind the Stamp-office Commissioners, and say, "They did the deed—it is not we who prosecute—it is our agents at the Stamp-office." Miserable subterfuge! pitiful excuse! The Ministers had the law in their own hands; and they were answerable for every prosecution instituted in the name of the law; but how much worse was it, how much more indefensible, if they who attacked cheap knowledge were themselves the members of a society for the diffusion of cheap knowledge! If it was with a penny magazine in one hand that they attempted to strike down the penny newspapers with the other, it was carrying into the State the jealousies of trade; it was saying, "We will give you information; but whoever else gives it to you, him we will punish and destroy; we will tell you about animals and insects, and give you pictures of ruins and churches, with all such infantine trumpery—the hobbyhorse and rattle of education; but whoever unfolds to you the secrets of your laws, the machinery of your State, the mighty events that inspire the age and animate the world, him we have the Stamp Commissioners to prosecute, and the laws of our Reformed Parliament to condemn." But then came an important question—if newspapers were allowed to be cheap, would they have good doctrines propagated in answer to the bad? He had every authority for saying they would. [Here the hon. Member quoted a speech of Dr. Birkbeck, in which he mentioned that Dr. Arnold of Rugby, Dr. Whately of Oxford, and other men of high eminence, were willing to instruct the poor on matters of trade and political economy, &c., if the Stamp-duty were removed.] In fact, they might peceive by the sale of the Penny Magazine, and of Chambers's excellent Edinburgh Journal, that the poor had a disposition to instruct, themselves, if the instruction were only placed within their reach. Nay, what to

1199
others seemed most dry was often to them most interesting, for the poor lived by labour and by trade, and all that enlightened them as to the direction of labour and of trade had a charm, and even an amusement, which the Gentlemen of that House were scarcely able to comprehend. In looking to France, where newspapers were so cheap in comparison to ours, and yet where a much smaller proportion of the poor were educated, they could not but observe, 1st, that a much larger number of the eminent men of that country were engaged in instructing the people through the medium of the Press; and, 2nd, the difference in the number of journals in the two countries devoted to solid instruction upon useful points. Besides its political papers, Paris had ten journals devoted to advertisements, judicial notices, and commercial announcements; twenty journals devoted to jurisprudence, eight to education, twenty-one to science, and twenty-two to medicine. Who could doubt, that these were of the most eminent advantage to the people? Who could assert, that this country, embracing a much larger reading public, would not have, at least, an equal number, if newspapers were equally cheap, and it were permitted, by the intermixture of news, to attract the poor to the graver portions of the journal? But the advantage of cheap newspapers was not only in giving to the poor such instruction as the newspapers might contain; but it was even greater in habituating the minds of the poor to read and to apply themselves to information generally. It was a remarkable fact, that nearly all the popular reading societies in the kingdom were first formed by the desire to read the newspapers. In a part of the evidence on the late Poor-law Commission, one very intelligent witness being asked, if he did not think the Penny Magazine had been useful in giving an intellectual bias to the poor, answered, "Undoubtedly; but I think cheap newspapers would do much more good, in training their minds to the desire of reading, and paving the way for general information." Thus, then, the advantages of cheap legal newspapers were, first, that to every bad opinion a good opinion (the natural effect of competition) was opposed—that the poor obtained all the instruction that newspapers contained—that they were thereby stimulated to seek other information of a
1200
more solid cast; and he might add, that by newspapers alone, they learned the nature of the laws, and the punishments of crime. This, then, was a tax operating in favour of bad opinion and against good opinion—operating against information, not of politics only, but of laws; not against knowledge, but virtue; it gave perquisites to the gaoler, and fees to the hangman; sowing the seed in ignorance, that they might reap the harvest in crime! The noble Lord allowed it to be a bad tax, yet he did nothing to repeal it! Shame on the Reformed Parliament, if it sanctioned these laws any longer! When he looked round that House, and observed the apathy with which they listened to this subject, he could not withstand drawing this parallel. In the worst times of modern France, with a Bourbon on the throne, with a Villèle in the administration, when it was proposed by a despotic Government to a servile Chamber to tax the press in France as it was now taxed in England, in order to prevent the circulation of knowledge, and to put down by the tax-gatherer the enlightenment they dared not assail by the soldier, the whole Chamber, subservient as it was, rose against the proposal! They would not war upon knowledge! Were Englishmen less free or less enlightened, that they should support, with patience, that which in the French Chamber had been rejected with indignation and scorn? In the remarks he addressed to the House in the Session before last, he had proved, he thought, to the satisfaction of the noble Lord, that, both by the evidence in this country, and that through Europe generally, they found, that ignorance and crime universally went together; and that, on examining the education of felons committed to gaol and sentenced to transportation or death, the vast majority of criminals possessed not even the elementary knowledge of reading or writing. This fact had been universally borne out by the evidence on secondary punishments—on the Poor-laws Commission—on the Sabbath Committee; and if this, then, were true, he told the noble Lord, that it was not enough to improve the laws, to amend the representation, if he continued taxes, which he himself acknowledged were a premium to ignorance, and through ignorance the avenue to death. It was said, that the schoolmaster was abroad; he saw his rod, but not his books. They

1201
seemed to reverse the old story of Dionysius; the tyrant had not become a schoolmaster, but the schoolmaster had become a tyrant. When Louis 16th was condemned to the scaffold, his defenders besought the judges to recollect by how small a majority that unfortunate monarch was condemned. "True," replied the judges, "but it is by a small majority, that the most important decrees are enacted." "Yes," said one solitary voice in that assembly; "but decrees, if unjust, can be repealed; but the life of a man can never be restored." So he said to the noble Lord: if, in his high capacity of Minister of State, he committed some error in mere legislation, the error could be retrieved; but if, after being duly warned, he suffered one peasant's mind to be misled, and one peasant's life lost, by the darkness and demoralization of these laws, he committed a fault which could not be atoned—a bad law might be repealed, but the life of a man could never be restored. He would say no more of this tax itself, but would come at once to the substitute he proposed for it; he proposed to repeal the Stamp-duty on newspapers altogether; and, in the first place, he suggested the propriety of laying a cheap postage, not upon newspapers only, but upon all tracts, periodicals, and works of every description under a certain weight: he proposed, that this postage should be equal, whatever might be the distance, so that the remote parts of the country should possess the same advantage in obtaining knowledge, as those immediately in the vicinity of the metropolis; and, therefore, requiring information less. He did not know, that on this point, he could add much to the calculations that he had the honour to submit to the House in the Session before last. He begged leave to say, that those calculations had never been to his knowledge contradicted or impugned. The debate was very widely published, several thousand copies were circulated; it was submitted to many practical men; despite this publicity, despite the notice it received generally from the Press, no contradiction was given to the facts he urged. He had, therefore, a right to assume, until such contradiction was made and proved, that his calculations were correct. In America, owing to the absence of that tax, newspapers were so numerous, that there was one weekly paper to every fourth
1202
person. He would only take half that proportion for this country. He would suppose, that if they abolished this tax, there would be a weekly newspaper only to every eighth person. The result would be, for the population of Great Britain and Ireland, 150,000,000 sheets of weekly newspapers throughout the year. Now, two-thirds of the London papers (it appeared by the Returns) were sent at present through the post. Suppose, for one moment, that this ratio continued with the increased numbers, what would be the amount at 1d. postage? Why, the amount would stand thus:—Postage of weekly papers 416,666 l. But this was for weekly papers only. Now, calculate the daily papers, those published two or three times a-week; calculate also the tracts, the prospectuses, the pamphlets, sent through the post, and only at as much again; be 833,332 l.—that was to say, the produce would be just double the amount of the tax he now asked them to repeal, and this calculation was formed upon the supposition, that the newspapers in this country, if as cheap as those in America, would yet be only, in proportion to the population, one-half of the number of the American papers; and this must be allowed to be a moderate calculation, when it was considered that capital was greater in this country, that printers' labour was cheaper, and that everywhere the appetite for knowledge, even among the poorest part of the people, was on the daily increase. But the noble Lord made, on a former occasion, one objection to this plan: he argued, that since the newspapers would be sold without the charge of postage in London, the effect of the plan would be to tax the provinces for the benefit of the metropolis. With all due submission to him, he thought he had here suffered himself to be led away by a common-place fallacy. In the first place, a postage was not a tax upon newspapers, it was the price of carriage; it was the necessary result of living at a distance from town, that the carriage of anything must be paid for, not newspapers only, but books, luggage, parcels of all descriptions. This was the unavoidable consequence of situation; and you might just as well call it a tax to charge a man for the carriage of coals from Newcastle to London, as to call it a tax to charge a man for the carriage of a newspaper from London to Newcastle, In the second

1203
place, if they thought it a hardship to pay a penny for a newspaper in the shape of postage, how much greater was the hardship to pay 4d. in the shape of duty! If they disliked to tax the provinces a penny, ought they not to dislike much more to tax them 4d.? or did they fancy, that when the cost was one-fourth part of what it was at present, that the people would acquire an additional right to complain? Besides, it would, in effect, weigh pretty evenly on both the metropolis and the large provincial towns, for, at present, not one large manufacturing town could afford a daily paper. Take away the tax, and every large town would have its paper—that, at all events, the town would enjoy without the burthen of postage; and in the large towns, many papers would be devoted to particular branches of commerce or trade, which would be important to those who lived in the metropolis, so that if many papers were sent from London, many also would be sent to it. Thus, then, by the postage alone, and according to a moderate calculation, he had attempted to prove, that they would receive double the amount of that trumpery tax; he had endeavoured to prove also, that the only objection against it was fallacious. But that he might not seem wedded to any particular plan, he would now, if the noble Lord wished it, concede to him all he could desire; he would suppose that the postage of newspapers would not bring in what was expected; he would suppose that it brought in nothing, but merely covered its expenses—nay, he would throw the whole scheme aside altogether. Well, he should be on equally strong ground, for by the mere removal of this tax, three other sources of revenue suddenly arose; the first, indeed, depended also upon the plan of postage—he meant the profits arising from the postage, not of newspapers, but of all light works under a certain weight, all tracts, circulars, &c. He did not think the noble Lord was aware of what an immense source of revenue this might become. In the first place, look at all the religious tracts that would be circulated if they might be sent to every part of the country at one-penny each! Look at the number of societies of every description, scientific, trading, moral, religious, that would correspond by such circulars! observe at public sales alone the expenses sustained in advertising!
1204
Every auctioneer, every Robins of the rostrum, would send forth circulars announcing the treasure he was about to dispose of. Take the prospectuses of booksellers alone. In a very able Letter which had been addressed to the noble Lord by Mr. Whiting, head of a respectable printing establishment, in the support of postage for light works, he calculated that of publishers' prospectuses (if they came within the weight admissible) 2,000 postages would be created daily. Another source of revenue by simply repealing that tax, would arise from the great increase of advertisements. Most of the newspapers set up would obtain some advertisements, more or less—some of them would probably be devoted to peculiar trades and callings, and into such papers a vast increase of advertisements connected with those trades and callings would be poured. At present the reduction of the advertisement duty was not so profitable to the public as it ought to be, because the monopoly of the London papers enabled them to keep up a disproportionably high price on advertisements; the effect of a vast competition would be, to lower the proprietor's profit on advertisements, to make advertisements considerably cheaper, considerably more plentiful, and, therefore, while most advantageous to the public, most profitable also to the revenue. But the principal source of profit that would arise to the Exchequer from the mere repeal of this tax was in the increase of the paper duty alone, and this, he was persuaded, would be so enormous, as of itself to do more than compensate to the revenue. Just let them compute what the increase of the paper duty would be. He supposed, that they abolished the tax, and made papers as cheap as they were in the United States; they would have—should he say—as many?—newspapers in proportion to the population. No, only half as many as there were in the United States. But there, to every 10,000 in habitants, there was a daily paper, selling at least, 2,000 copies. He supposed, that in Great Britain and Ireland, there was a daily paper to every 20,000 inhabitants, selling at the same proportion. What would be the result? Why, for a population of 24,000,000 you would have 720,000,000 sheets of paper published yearly. Now, then, papers pay a duty of 22 s. per 1,000 copies—let him say 20 s.—that was 1,000 l. for every 1,000,000

1205
papers; the produce, then, would be 720,000 l. for the paper duty of the 720,000,000 papers; but at present there were only 30,000,000 papers published throughout the year—that was, the profit they yielded to the paper duty was only 30,000 l.; deduct that 30,000 l. from 720,000 l., and there remained for the extra paper duty, for the new profit to the revenue, 690,000 l., or about 150,000 l. more than the whole profit of the tax he asked them to repeal. So that he could now say to the noble Lord, "Throw aside, if you please, the plan of the postage; believe, if you like it, that not a paper would be sent to the post; believe, that not a pamphlet, a tract, or a circular, but what would be sent by the coach at the charge of 1s., rather than by the post at the charge of 1d. Suppose, too, that not a single advertisement would be obtained by any of the newspapers, and that the advertisement duty remained the same, and yet, by the increase of the paper duty alone, you would gain 150,000 l. more than the present tax, which you allow to be a barrier to knowledge and a premium to immorality." Had he made out his case?—was it necessary to say anything further? One or two observations alone remained; in the first place, he should propose his resolutions in the most moderate and general terms possible; he should merely propose to repeal the stamp duty on newspapers at the earliest possible opportunity; he should say nothing about the postage (he had merely thrown that out as a suggestion); the certain substitute to the revenue was the repeal of the tax itself in the increased amount of paper duty, and he was unwilling that any man objecting to a postage should pretend thereby to excuse himself from voting against the tax upon knowledge itself. If the resolution were carried, the noble Lord would not be put to any immediate inconvenience; it would only establish the principle, which the next Session would suffice to carry into effect. When the hon. member for Bath last Session brought forward his Motion for National Education, what was the reply made by the noble Lord to his hon. friend? "I doubt," said he, "if a Government should establish education; its duty ought to be not to enforce knowledge, but to give every facility to knowledge." He now called upon the noble Lord to discharge that duty upon the principle which
1206
the noble Lord himself had then laid down,—he called upon the noble Lord to give every facility to knowledge,—he called upon the noble Lord to remove the tax; because it was the great national obstacle to knowledge. He was no alarmist, he did not behold a storm in every cloud, or a revolution in every change. A great nation was not easily made, and a great people were not easily undone. But oppressed as they were with financial difficulties—old and new principles at war—the elements of their legislative constitution almost at open discord with each other—it was above all things necessary that whatever changes might be forced by the multitude upon their rulers, should emanate from their enlightenment and not from their passion or their blindness. If there were a spectacle which all true patriots, all statesmen of large views, beheld with exultation or delight, it was the gradual rise of a great people into power by the necessary and safe consequence of knowledge alone. But if, on the other hand, there was one prospect from which all honest men recoiled with dread, it was in times of difficulty and trouble, the advance of the giant force of a democracy from whom the opportunities of knowledge had been carefully excluded; who, therefore, had only the stimulus of want, without the perception of relief, and who were exactly calculated to frustrate the objects of liberty, because they were impatient of restraint. He called upon the noble Lord to preserve them from that danger—he called upon the noble Lord to fulfil the pledge which his public character, for nearly thirty years, had given to the country in favour of his attachment to the diffusion of knowledge—he called upon the noble Lord to be alive to the high ambition worthy his principles and his name—to open the prison-house of the mind—to remove the fiscal chains that now fettered and cramped opinion—and finding knowledge the monopoly of the rich, to leave it the inheritance of the poor. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the following resolution:—"That it is expedient to repeal the Stamp-duty on newspapers at the earliest possible period."
Mr. Roebuckseconded the Motion. He did not think this proposition could be resisted by those who, for the last twenty years, and before they had attained office, advocated the principle contained

1207
in it. He did not intend to rake up the carcasses of buried speeches; it was sufficiently known without such quotations, that Ministers had maintained the principle. They were the advocates of every plan for the diffusion of knowledge, and it was for them, not for him, to reconcile to themselves and to that House, their settled and determined hostility to the measure now proposed to facilitate the diffusion of intelligence. They would not say, as in other instances, in which they turned their backs upon the principles which they formerly countenanced, that the measure of Reform had done away with the necessity for that now proposed. Reform made no difference; and if Ministers were really inclined to advance the progress of knowledge, and aid the circulation of intelligence amongst the people, they would, at least, agree to the removal of the Stamp-duties from newspapers. They had exhibited much eloquence upon this subject when they sat on the Opposition side of the House; but what would be thought, if, when now in place, they retired from the field, and said, they could not do that, which, before they so earnestly urged on others,—if, seated warmly on the Ministerial Benches, they denied the validity of their former arguments and exertions? If any words in the language were adequate to express, or rather, if the fitting and appropriate language would come at his call, none would be sufficient to express the deep indignation he felt at the conduct of that class of men who could use the subterfuge of such expressions to creep into power, and then, when in place, did not dare to go on with the measures of which they had previously been such ardent advocates. The times were now more favourable to the proposed measure, than at the period when the speeches were made. There was not now the same spirit abroad as in 1819, the existence of which was urged as an apology for the Laws then passed against the liberty of the Press; and those who could advocate the principle of the proposed measure then, could not, surely, shrink from its maintenance now. The population at present, were tranquil and knowledge-seeking, and if, in their search after knowledge, the food furnished them was bad and deleterious, the cause of the evil was to be found in the Stamp-duties. They talked of Cobbett's Two-penny-trash, but what was it compared to those? [Here
1208
the hon. Member produced some copies of the unstamped weekly papers which at present so abound.] Did hon. Members know, that 130,000 of these circulated every week?—and what was the doctrine inculcated by them?—inculcated, too, without any opportunity of reply being afforded, and in a manner in which no efforts of the Stamp-office could succeed in putting them down. The hon. Gentleman then proceeded to read extracts from one of the unstamped publications, the object of which was, to show that the people were stronger than the authorities, and, if driven to the necessity, possessed a power of resistance with which the latter could not cope. The writer called the soldiery "man-butchers," denominated the capitalists and men of property the "cannibalocracy," and the upper classes the "scoundrelocracy." The articles went on to controvert the position, that the discipline of the police and the money at the disposal of the authorities would render them too powerful for the people, and, in reply, urged the advantage of position which the narrow streets would afford to the latter—that with huge paving-stones they could from the house-tops completely pulverize a couple of military ruffians at a single blow—that they could with cabs, stage-coaches, and gentlemen's carriages, in a very short period erect such barricades as would astonish the sharers in the feat of the memorable July; and if fire-arms were necessary, there were plenty lying in the hands of the gun-makers which could be easily procured. Such was the nature of the publications which were disseminated in such numbers. Such was the poison, the administration of any antidote to which was prevented by these duties—for who, having a good object in view, would venture to begin by breaking the law? It should be remembered, that to put down the present unstamped newspapers was impossible; and that they would still continue to circulate, in spite of any law. What then was to be done? His answer was, circulate cheap knowledge of a better description, and depend on the inherent good sense of the people to receive what was good and reject what was bad. The hon. and learned Gentleman alluded to the ignorance of the laws which prevailed, and to the recent case of the Dorsetshire labourers, a case, which, if good and cheap publications had existed, would, probably never have occurred,

1209
Cheap newspapers would be made the means of promulgating the law, and prevent those daily violations which too often took place through sheer ignorance. This question was one which more particularly demanded attention at the present juncture. There was arising a new and singular feeling amongst the people; a feeling which affected not the forms of government, but the very frame of society; a feeling which made it a question, not between aristocracy or democracy, but between labour and capital. What were the Trades' Unions?—what the constant cries about the minimum of wages, but manifestations of this spirit? These doctrines had gone forth—the people had considered them—and if they went wrong, it would not be their fault, but the fault of those, who, having the power, refused to give them instruction. The best mode of giving them instruction was—by cheap newspapers. The class of persons whom it was desirable to enlighten, were not those who would seek pure literature or pure instruction. It must come to them with the ordinary incidents of the day. To instruct them, it was first necessary to interest them, otherwise, the best intended efforts would fail. The Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, though composed of most enlightened and benevolent men, and sending forth to the world most useful publications, had not succeeded in putting their works into the hands of the mass of the people. They were prevented from touching upon such subjects as would at once interest and instruct the poor man, by the Act which forbade them to treat of matters on Church and State, without first obtaining a stamp. They had indeed, shaved pretty close to the law. The poor man would not trouble himself about what interested the rich. He did not care for literary pleasures. His life was at stake—his life depended on his wages, and this was the subject he was anxious to be instructed on. If the duty were repealed, then he might be instructed on what wages depended—he might be taught, that strikes and Unions availed nothing—he might be taught how gradually and steadily he might succeed in procuring a just reward for his labour. What had been the object of these Trades' Unions, and the publications connected with them? He knew, that one thing they attempted was, to effect a simultaneous suspension of work all over the king-
1210
dom for three weeks. If that had been accomplished, the evils of those three weeks might have taken more than three years to remedy. But if they thought that these Unions were evil, they should remember that instruction, and not the strong arm of the law, was the only effectual instrument to put them down. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by calling on his Majesty's Government not to be inconsistent with their professions when out of office, and no longer to maintain these pernicious duties.
Lord Althorpsaid, the hon. Member who opened the debate complained of the apathy with which the House had listened to him, and the hon. and learned Gentleman who followed him did all he could to produce excitement by making a personal attack on him. If such, however, had been the hon. and learned Member's object, his attempt must be considered a failure. He would give a further proof that it was, by passing over every observation directed against himself. He thought that the opinion of the majority of that House was decidedly against the Motion then before them, and the apathy of which the hon. Member complained was one of his strongest reasons for opposing the Motion. The House would recollect, that last year he admitted, that it was his intention to take into consideration the propriety of repealing this tax; but, upon further consideration he had resolved not to do so. That announcement was received with approbation by the House, and one great reason why he would not consent to the Motion was the manner in which his former intimation was received. He believed, that many persons in that House and in the country generally were inclined to go further than himself in reduction of taxation. To this he did not object; but he believed that, in the present state of the demands of the country for repeal of taxation, he should not do wisely in selecting this impost as one to be abolished. It had indeed been contended that, by the plans proposed, not only the whole amount of the present tax would be made up, but that a great increase even might be fairly anticipated. This conclusion, however, appeared to him to be founded on erroneous calculations; for if a postage were charged upon newspapers, it was quite clear, that a large amount of newspapers would no longer be sent by the post, as they could

1211
be sent in quantities cheaper by many other modes of conveyance. He did not therefore, think he could calculate on a very great increase in the postage revenue. With regard to the supposed increase of newspapers themselves, and the consequent increase in the consumption of paper, he was convinced, that both the hon. Gentlemen had miscalculated, and had greatly exaggerated, the probable amount. There would be an increase no doubt; but not to such an amount as to make any sensible increase in the receipts on the duty on paper. In fact, he doubted not, if the duty on newspapers were taken off, that there would be a considerable reduction in the revenue, though probably not to the full extent of the tax. During the last Session it would be remembered, that the duty on advertisements was considerably diminished; and what had been the effect of that diminution on the number of advertisements? Had it increased them to any great amount? No, it had not. An increase certainly had taken place, but it was a slight one. He was aware, however, that this fact was by no means conclusive, for so long as the private charges on newspapers continued to be high, so long they could not fairly expect any great increase. But still it could not be said on consideration of this circumstance, that the argument by analogy arising from a comparison of the number of advertisements in America, with England was fairly applicable. He had hitherto argued this as a fiscal point only. The other point on which the hon. member for Bath had laid great stress—viz., that the operation of the tax on newspapers was to give a monopoly of circulation amongst the poorer classes to cheap publications of an evil tendency, and to prevent the counteraction of those pernicious doctrines—was one of much greater force, and one which he admitted had always great weight in his mind. But he thought the very statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman had shown, that as the law at present stood, the mischief alluded to might be obviated to a much greater extent than the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to imagine. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated, that the labouring classes did not care for disquisitions about pictures, insects, and literature; what they desired was the discussion of questions relative to their wages. Now, he did not see what there was in the
1212
law as it at present stood to prevent any explanations in the most popular form from being given on this head. This argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and his assertion, that the labouring classes would read no disquisitions which were not combined with the news of the day, seemed somewhat contradictory, and was also contradicted by the fact that a very large number of cheap publications not having this intelligence were sold weekly. He was indeed aware, from private communication with the hon. member for Bath, and from other sources, that the amount of pernicious and mischievous publications was great indeed; but he was not quite so sure that the effect of repealing the Stamp-duties would tend very materially to diminish such publications. He was not quite so sure, that well intentioned would supersede the sale of bad-intentioned publications. Had not the claims for reduction of taxation been so great, he might perhaps have taken a different view of the question. But when there were so many different claims, especially from the labouring classes, who as the hon. and learned Gentleman truly said, looked more to substantial relief from physical evils than to the pleasures of reading or the improvement of their minds, he felt that so long as such claims continued to be made on the Government he should have extreme difficulty in bringing forward a proposition to reduce so large an amount of revenue, and which proposition, moreover, did not appear likely to give any great satisfaction either to the House or to the country. If, indeed, the House were inclined and anxious to make the experiment, he would not object. No doubt it might, under such circumstances, be an experiment worth trying; but he was not yet satisfied that the effect would be such as both the hon. Gentlemen seemed to anticipate. At present therefore, he could not venture to propose to the House such a reduction. Then came the question, whether he should agree to pledge the House by the Resolution proposed? He did not think it desirable to pledge the House by the Resolution as to the course they would adopt in a future Session, especially in a matter of revenue. For these reasons, without wishing to deny the force of many of the arguments which had been brought forward, but feeling great doubts as to some of the conclu-

1213
sions to which the hon. Gentleman had come, he was sorry to say, that he felt it his duty in the situation in which he was placed, to oppose the Motion. He had been accused by the hon. and learned member for Bath of inconsistency with respect to this question. He felt that he was frequently liable to be attacked on the score of inconsistency; at any rate, he frequently was attacked, much more frequently than he thought he deserved. He had, however, felt it his duty to state the grounds on which, at the present time, he felt it his duty to oppose the Motion. He did not think on this question he could be fairly accused of inconsistency; for he was not aware that he ever had advocated in that House the Repeal of the duty on newspapers; though it was certainly known that his private opinion was in favour of its Repeal, if it could be made consistent with his public duty, in regard to the revenue of the country. As a public man, however, he had not, he believed, expressed any opinion on the subject. Under present circumstances he must vote against the Resolution.
Mr. Hillwas happy to find, that the noble Lord regarded this question merely as a fiscal one, and had given the House to understand, that if it could be shown that the revenue would not suffer by the repeal of the duty on newspapers, his objections to that measure would be greatly removed. Now, he was confident, if the duty were repealed, that the revenue derived from newspapers would be as large as before, if not larger: for the natural consequence of reducing the price of an article greatly in demand was to increase its sale. He was convinced by the calculation of Mr. Maclaren, on which he could place reliance, that the consumption of newspapers in America as compared with their consumption in England, was as five to one; the population of the two countries being taken into account; and it was calculated, that supposing the population of both countries equally dense, the consumption in America compared with that in England, would be as much as ten to one. Comparing New York and England together, it would be found that, in point of fact, the consumption of newspapers in the first-mentioned place was in the proportion of eight to one. Coming nearer home, he ascertained that in the islands of Jersey and Guernsey, where no newspaper duty
1214
existed, there were thirteen different newspapers, two of which appeared twice a-week, making in the whole fifteen publications in the week for the small population of those two islands; yet from the inquiries which he had made, he understood that in this country it took on the average 60,000 persons to support a weekly publication. If the duty on newspapers were repealed, he might safely say, that their circulation would be increased in the proportion of six to one; and he believed also, that the number of advertisements would be increased, for at present the newspaper duty operated as a bar against the reduction of the price of advertisements. In America the rate of charge for advertisements was 1½d. per line; in Jersey and Guernsey 1d. per line, while in this country it was as high as 9d. per line, after deducting the duty. The number of newspaper advertisements in America was twenty to one as compared with the number in England; and if the newspaper duty was repealed, the increase of advertisements consequent thereon might be calculated at three times their present amount. Another source of revenue had been already suggested—he alluded to the postage on newspapers. In the year 1830, 13,000,000 of newspapers passed through the London Post-office, and if 7,000,000 more were added, as the number carried by post in the country, it would appear that 20,000,000 newspapers, or two-thirds of the whole number published, had passed through the different post-offices in that year. Now, supposing that 1d. be paid for every paper sent by post that would yield a considerable sum; and, to put an end to any objections that might be made as to the difficulty of collecting the money, he would adopt the suggestion of a person well qualified to give an opinion on the subject—he alluded to Mr. Knight, the publisher. That gentleman recommended that a stamped wrapper should be prepared for such newspapers as it was desired to send by post, and that each wrapper should be sold at the rate of 1d. by the distributors of stamps, in the same way as receipt-stamps. He had already stated, that he expected from the repeal of the Stamp-duty an increase in the sale of the newspapers in the proportion of six to one, and he really believed that, taking into account the increased amount, of paper duty, of the advertisement duty, and the money raised

1215
by the proposed charge for postage, the revenue derivable from 600 unstamped newspapers would be equal to what was at present drawn from 100 newspapers. The following was an account of the money now received by the Exchequer on account of 100 newspapers:—Stamp-duty 1l. 6s. 8d.; duty on paper, 2s.; duty on advertisements, 8s., making 1l. 16 s. 8d. Now supposing that by the repeal of the Stamp-duty the sale of newspapers increased six-fold, but that the number sent by post, which in 1830 was equal to two-thirds of the whole number published, remained as before, it followed that the number transmitted by post would only be one-ninth of the increased number of newspapers. Then, out of 600 papers, sixty-six only would pass through the Post-office, and the amount of revenue derived from the sale of stamped wrappers for them would, after making an allowance of twenty per cent, be 4s. 5d., the duty on paper would be six times what it was before, or 12 s., and the duty on the increased number of advertisements would amount to 1l. Thus, while at present the Exchequer received 1l. 16 s. 8d. from 100 newspapers, it would, under the plan he proposed, receive as much as 1l. 16 s. 5d. from 600 newspapers. But it was not merely on fiscal grounds that he was disposed to argue this question. Did the noble Lord recollect how important it was to a commercial community to encourage the diffusion of intelligence through the medium of advertisements and news in the daily papers? He for one should be glad to see the duty on paper and on advertisements repealed, for it did appear a practical absurdity for the noble Lord to be granting money for the support of schools and colleges with one hand, and with the other laying a tax on those who were willing to purchase education for themselves. In disseminating public education, much of the seed would doubtless take root, while some fell upon the rock, and some were lost by the wayside; but the education which a man procured, and paid for himself, would stick to him and be valued by him, and would be exercised as well for his individual advantages as for the benefit of the State. Let it be recollected, too, that the existing law was too impotent to put down the unstamped publications, and that consequently it gave a bounty to the contraband trader. From information which he had received,
1216
he was induced to believe that the unstamped newspapers had increased to a frightful extent. He did not blame Ministers for not having put down this evil; but he thought that their attempts to do it by individual punishments was only inflicting private pain without producing any public benefit. Let the House recollect the effect which the use of one of these unstamped publications had upon the poor man—they taught him to violate the law. A poor man, in taking in any one of these publications, felt that he was setting the law at defiance. And let them look at the awful results which attended these incipient violations of the law. The offences which took place in agricultural districts gave melancholy proof of the effect of thus teaching men that the law could be set at defiance. And who were those who wrote in these illegal publications? Persons of desperate fortunes, reckless of what might happen to them, and ready at all times to go to gaol or suffer persecution. Could such individuals be safely intrusted with the teaching of the people in this country? Were their honest opinions likely to be in favour of order, of the institutions on which the particular form of Government in this country was founded, or of the institutions on which society itself depended? Yet the existing law gave a bounty to this class of writers, whilst it imposed a tax on the publications of men of respectability, station, and education, whose honest opinions were likely to be in favour of the institutions of the country. An hon. Member had alluded to certain cheap publications, and among the number to the Penny Magazine, which he characterized as trumpery. He should be sorry to think that the Penny Magazine was a trumpery publication; but if it were, he could not hold himself free from blame, for that publication was a project of his own. He wished that he could admit that the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge had penetrated deeply into the masses of the people. It had not, nor would the exertions of that or of any other society be able to do so, unless their works carried with them the stimulants of news and politics. He, however, thought that the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge was entitled to credit for what it had done. It had gone deeper into the mass of the people than any other society whatever, and its publications were more generally read than any other of a

1217
similar character. But it had done this by honest means. If he thought, that the law was kept in any particular state to favour that society, he would not continue a member of it. The Society taking the law as it was, had availed itself of all the advantages it could command, to as great an extent as possible, and it was disposed to avail itself of any new state of the law by carrying out the principle on which it acted to as great an extent as the law permitted. But he would refer to the Penny Magazine for another purpose distinct from the attack of his bon. friend. It had been found that, of the unstamped publications, from which news and politics were excluded, the good outnumbered the bad in an immense proportion. For while The Penny Magazine, The Saturday Magazine, Chambers' Journal, The Mirror, and others of the same class, together with the tracts of various societies, circulated at least 500,000 copies per week; those which were tainted with obscene or irreligious matter, or had nothing but frivolity to recommend them, scarcely reached a combined sale of 30,000. That was his answer to the question, whether the people might be trusted with the power of selecting for themselves—give them a choice upon any approach to equal terms, and they would reject the bad, and adopt the good. Repeal the tax, and sound political journals would soon reduce the sale of all others to insignificance. There had been, he was aware, and he supposed that there were still, in the country, those who thought that it was not good to give increased means of knowledge to the mass of the people, and that they could be more easily governed by being kept in ignorance. The day, however, for the assertion of such a principle was now gone by. There might have been some colour of an argument for that before the passing of the Reform Act, but that Act had altered the case. The people had now political power, and would any man attempt to say, that the will of the people was not law in this country? In saying this he did not speak of the impulses of the people directing them—he said nothing about their passions being their guide; but this he would say, that henceforth it would be impossible for this House, or for any Government, to set at nought the sober, just, and considerate will of the people. Ignorance might make them the enemies of the Government, why
1218
not take such steps as would make them its friends? Let them have the means of information, of correct information and correct reasoning on all matters connected with their interests—that was, with the interests of the country. No more fit education in a knowledge on these subjects could be given than that which newspapers well conducted could afford. They contained the details of the debates in that House, which embraced a number of subjects of foreign and domestic interest, and were developed with talent and ability. Would it be said, that everything stated in this House should be thrown away? He, for one, would not pass such a censure upon this House. He would say, let every cottager in the country have the means of knowing what was said here; and he would add that, taking newspapers generally, they would afford one of the best lessons which should be given to the poor man, as at once his guide and his mentor. He should like to know if all the knowledge of Members in this House was gathered from Locke, and Paley, and Bentham? He would fearlessly say it was not. Much miscellaneous information, and that of a valuable description, was to be gleaned from the newspapers. Many hon. Members in the House knew the fact to be so, and if hon. Members had gleaned information from such a source, why should not the poor man have a similar opportunity of information? If this House felt any apathy in this case, he was persuaded it was not in reference to the question before them, but to the feebleness of the individual who was advocating it. He could assure the House that no subject more nearly touched the feelings of the thinking people of this country than that which was now under consideration; and he as firmly believed that no boon would be received with more gratitude than that which was sought for by the present Motion.
Mr. Buckinghamwould detain the House only with a very few observations. The noble Lord opposite appeared to think that there was a great indifference throughout the country upon this subject, and that any excitement that existed respecting it was confined to the metropolis alone; but he could assure the noble Lord that he was mistaken in this view of the question. He had good reason to know that there was a very general feeling throughout the country against those

1219
duties, which prevented the circulation of publications of useful knowledge and instruction amongst the people. In a tour which he had made through different parts of the country, there was not a town he went to in which there was a population of 20,000 persons that had not three or four cheap publications of the description that were now in circulation, to the great injury, he was sorry to say, of the morals and good feeling of the people; but these disgraceful publications were purchased with avidity and obtained a ready sale, because the people had no opportunity of procuring better vehicles of information at a price which they could afford. For his own part he was shocked and disgusted with the violent language used in those publications, and lamented to see them circulating amongst the people; but he could not blame the people for purchasing them when they had access to no other. These infamous publications it was, that caused the wide breach and separation that at present existed between the higher and lower classes of the people of this country, the consequences of which must be most baneful. The noble Lord had dealt with this question as a financial one; but even in that view of it he would contend that the noble Lord's calculations were erroneous. A proposition had been put forth some time ago in the Edinburgh Review, which was attributed to the late Lord Advocate, which he thought had a most clear and just bearing upon this point. The proposition there submitted was, that all periodicals, of whatever description, or treating on whatever subjects, should pay an ad valorem duty of twenty-five per cent on the selling price of the publication; and it was asserted that, by the increased circulation which this would cause to publications of that nature, a much larger amount of revenue would be thus derived than was produced by the present system of Stamp-duties. He would appeal to the good feeling, and the sense and justice of the noble Lord to give his aid towards the suppression of those injurious cheap publications which were now daily sent amongst the people, and that could only be done by giving encouragement to a better and a more wholesome food for the mind of the people. The sort of publications that now found their way into the hands of the lower classes were of the most demoralizing kind. They were calculated to destroy all respect for the Go-
1220
vernment, and for all law and order, and were particularly directed to bring the higher classes of society into disrepute and disrespect amongst the lower classes; for these mischievous works attacked without mercy not only the public but the private characters of men, not by reason or arguments, but they cut and hacked away with the hatchet and the tomahawk, dealing about blows indifferently amongst friends and foes. He considered it a very imprudent thing in any Government to encourage a system like this, so injuriously calculated to separate the higher from the lower classes of the people. The way to counteract this evil would be to afford facilities for sending amongst the people works of instruction, conducted by men of education and talent, and this could only be done by a total alteration in the present system of Stamp-duties.
Mr. Ewartdid not consider, that the noble Lord had been at all successful in his defence of the present system. The ground taken by the noble Lord, who, indeed, seemed to be the only opponent of the Motion on the opposite side, was, in fact, a very weak one. It was, that cheapening the newspapers would not do away the mischief of those cheap publications which were now complained of. This was assuming the whole question. When it was admitted, that the public newspapers were generally conducted with ability, and might be read with advantage by the mass of the people, was it not an injustice to put such an advantage out of their reach by the high Stamp-duties which were placed on them? It was just as if the people were in want of a copper coinage, and that, to relieve that want, there was made an issue of small promissory notes. To say, that the diffusion of useful knowledge would be a great benefit to the community, and, at the same time, to tax such knowledge, so as to put it out of the reach of those to whom it was so necessary, would be just as reasonable as the attempt to make a commercial community rich without giving them a circulating medium. As the representative of a large provincial town, he felt himself called upon to resist all restraints placed on the provincial press. It was well known, that the newspapers published in the country towns were not only the means of conveying political intelligence, but of affording also much scientific and literary instruction. He

1221
much regretted, that taxes on knowledge generally had not been long since removed by the Government. There was one publication, that it was particularly desirous should be relieved from the operation of the Stamp-duties; he alluded to the yearly-Almanacks. The Stamp-duties on these publications only produced 27,000 l. annually, so that no great fiscal evil could arise from the abolition of this duty. The consequence of it, however, was, that a vast number of most erroneous and mischievous publications of a similar character were smuggled into circulation without any stamp. In the course of the last year, he believed there were as many as 200 calendars of this description published. He did not think, that this was a subject beneath the consideration of his Majesty's Government. That eminent writer, Bcccaria, who had dwelt so ably on the importance of educating the people, had asked, "How could a government think of punishing the people for the commission of crimes, if it refused to afford them instruction as the best guide to avoid those crimes? If a government did not encourage virtue, how could it punish vice?" He hoped the time was not far distant, when the present Government would pay the necessary attention to this subject. He hoped, that in the approaching Session of Parliament, the noble Lord would prove to the country, that he was not indifferent to the instruction of the people; and that some pledge would, even now, be given, that the subject should not be neglected by the Government, for of all reforms, none was more needed or useful than this.
Mr. Grotesaid, that he should not detain the House long; nor should he have troubled it all had he not been intrusted with a petition praying for the repeal of the duties that were now the subject of discussion. He certainly entertained very strong feelings on the subject, for he attributed a great deal of the bad feeling that was at present abroad amongst the labouring classes, on the subject of wages, to the want of proper instruction, and correct information as to their real interests. From the absence of this useful knowledge, which could never be conveyed to the people while the present system of Stamp-duties prevailed, arose all the evils of the Unions that now disturbed that proper harmony that ought to subsist amongst the labouring classes in the relations of
1222
masters and workmen; and, he was sorry to say, that he feared those Unions were likely to increase and spread wider, rather than to subside. If there were proper channels through which the real interests of those men and the position in which they stood, could be fairly and candidly stated to them, they might very soon have their minds disabused of the erroneous notions as to wages which they now entertained and acted upon, but this could never be accomplished so long as the present Stamp-laws continued. He looked upon this as one of the most important subjects that could be brought under the consideration of the Government, not much less so than that very important measure respecting the Poor-laws which the noble Lord had introduced to the House. Nothing could be more important than instructing the people, and opening their minds to a proper view of their own and the country's interests. He should not prolong the discussion further than to observe, that he was sure, if the noble Lord would only exercise a little of that ingenuity which was supposed to belong to all Chancellors of the Exchequer—he would be able very readily to find the means of supplying any deficiency in the Revenue, arising from the repeal of the Stamp-duties, to which the present Motion applied.
Mr. Edward Lytton Bulwer, in reply, said, that no tax pressed more directly upon the people than the one which prevented their acquiring knowledge; and it was his determination to divide the House upon his Motion.
The House divided: Ayes 58; Noes 90—Majority 32.

List of the AYES.

Abercromby, Rt. Hn. J.

Fryer, R.

Aglionby, H. A.

Gaskell, D.

Attwood, T.

Grote, G.

Baines, E.

Handley, Major

Barnard, E. G.

Hawes, B.

Barry, G. S.

Hill, M. D.

Beauclerk, Major

James, W.

Blake, M.

Jephson, O.

Bowes, J.

Lister, E. C

Brocklehurst, J.

Marsland, T.

Brotherton, J.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Buckingham, J. S.

Mullins, F. W.

Butler, Hon. Colonel

O'Brien, C.

Chapman, M. L.

O'Connor, F.

Ellis, W.

Ord, W. H.

Ewart, W.

Parrott, J.

Faithfull, G.

Potter, R.

Fielden, J.

Richards, J.

Finn, W. F.

Robinson, G. R.

1223

Roche, W.

Wedgwood, J.

Romilly, J.

Wilks, J.

Romilly, E.

Whalley, Sir S.

Ruthven, E.

Winnington, H. J

Scholefield, J.

TELLERS.

Scrope, P.

Bulwer, E. L.

Staveley, T. K.

Roebuck, J. A.

Stewart, Sir M. S.

PAIRED OFF.

Strutt, E.

Bulwer, H. L.

Tooke, W.

Clay, W.

Vigors, N. A.

Hall, B.

Vincent, Sir F.

Hawkins, J. H.

Wallace, T.

Hutt, W.

Wallace, R.

Maxwell, J.

Ward, H. G.

Oswald, R. A.

Wason, R.

Oswald, J.

ARREST ON MESNE PROCESS.
Mr. Pollockrose to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the Abolition of Arrest for Debt on Mesne Process. The House must be aware, that some time ago there was a report presented upon the subject by the Common-law Commissioners, in which many statements were made, and many interesting details given, with which it was not his intention to trouble the House on the present occasion. He believed that there was not any man acquainted with the Constitution of this country, who would deny that, as the law originally stood, arrest of the person was only permitted in cases where the plaintiff complained of injuries that had been perpetrated upon him by the defendant by force, and that arrest of the person for simple contract debts was, comparatively speaking, a modern practice. Though the avowed object of the practice was to compel the defendant to give security for his personal appearance in Court at the suit of the plaintiff, it was well known that, in ninety-nine cases out of 100, that was not the real object. The real object was to compel the immediate payment of the debt, or, by the menace of imprisoning the defendant, to compel his relations to discharge it for him, and thus it happened that the apparent seldom, if ever, coincided with the real object. He did not expect to hear any man assert, that the present state of the Law of Debtor and Creditor did not require amendment. He had the honour to be one of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the necessity of its Amendment, and he was bound in fairness to admit, that the Report of those Commissioners had not been unanimous. One of the Commissioners had differed from his colleagues; but the majority had concurred in the propriety
1224
of bringing forward a measure of a much more extensive nature than that which he was now about to propose to the consideration of the House. Indeed, the recommendation, which the Commissioners had incorporated with their report, went much further than he intended to go that evening. Whilst there was any prospect of any Member of the Government coming forward to take up this measure on a broad scale, and with that extensive machinery which none but the Government could properly supply, he had declined to interpose in any way by bringing forward a motion of his own; and it was only now, when nothing but a faint chance existed of its being brought forward in this Session by one of the legal advisers of the Crown, that he came forward to propose a measure which he must admit to be partial and inadequate, but which, nevertheless, would give some relief in the case of debts which never ought to be made the subject of arrest. In order to remedy all the evils of the present system, it would be necessary to introduce a machinery much more extensive than he, as a private individual, could hope to induce the Government to adopt. What he proposed to do was this,—and it was in perfect accordance with the special enactments of many modern Acts of Parliament:—The House was well aware that, upon many simple contract debts, forms in writing were now necessary, where formerly a verbal agreement was quite sufficient. It was upon this ground that he proposed to make a distinction between verbal contracts and bills of exchange, promissory notes, bonds, and other instruments under seal, for the payment of money. At the same time he thought it only fair to state, that if a majority of the House should be of opinion that the provisions of this Bill ought to be carried further, and that arrest upon mesne process should be abolished, except in cases of fraud which he would hereafter specify, he, for one, should not object to such an extension of its provisions. It was necessary, however, to guard against the indulgence which this alteration would give to debtors, and therefore he proposed that the Courts of Westminster-hall, or one of the Judges, in cases of emergency, should have the power by rule or order to cause a party to be arrested in case it should be made appear to the Court or to the Judge, that the party against whom the application

1225
was made, either intended to run away from the justice of the country, or to transfer his goods to some other party, or by fraud to deprive his creditors of their just claims upon them. He candidly confessed, that though he was now bringing in this Bill, he confidently looked forward to the period when imprisonment for debt would be abolished in all cases where the failure of payment arose from the misfortune of the debtor, and when it would never be enforced except in cases of fraud. To him, it appeared, that imprisonment for debt was a most clumsy contrivance, even for the object which it was intended to promote, and which, in most cases, it was most effectual in defeating. As that system made no distinction between the unfortunate and the guilty, and as it placed it in the power of any creditor to help himself to the goods of his debtor, he did think that it required the early attention and consideration of the House. Having made these observations, he would only add, that the object of his Bill was, to abolish arrest for debt, except in the cases which he had already mentioned. He hoped that he had now stated sufficient to induce the House to receive this Bill. If there should be any gentleman anxious to carry the details of the measure further, or to state exceptions, which he had not already noticed, he should be most happy to take them into the fullest consideration. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in "a Bill, to abolish arrest for debt, as to all debts contracted after the 1st of January, 1835, unless the debt be founded upon or secured by a bill of exchange, a promissory note, bond, or other security in writing."
Mr. Baringhoped this would not be treated like some other measures of proposed improvement in the law which were introduced at late periods of the Session, and suffered to pass without sufficient consideration of their consequences, and after very little discussion. Highly as he thought of the gentlemen of the learned profession, and of their theoretical knowledge, he must say they did not always prove themselves to be good judges of what was best in practice. He had much experience in such matters, and that experience led him to doubt whether the experiment would be a successful one. He anticipated quite a different result, and, in his opinion, the effect
1226
of the Bill, if carried, would be to encourage frauds, and to let loose swindlers upon society. Such, he was convinced, was the opinion of nine out of ten of the commercial men of this country. He never himself had a man arrested for debt. Indeed, men engaged extensively in commerce, seldom had recourse to such a means of recovering debts. It was said, a man's property should be answerable, not his person; but how, in many cases, could his property be got at without arrest? His hon. and learned friend said, the object, in nine out of ten cases, was to induce relations, from feeling or some other motive, to come forward and satisfy the creditor. And what evil was there in that? Was it not desirable that the honest creditor should be paid his just demand in this or any other fair way? The misfortune at present was, that all the sympathy was against the execution of the law, and not in favour of the honest creditor. He would only exempt the innocent debtor from imprisonment, and to that extent a change of the law would be salutary. It was said, in favour of such a measure as this, that it would put an end to the system of contracting debts. It was impossible that trade could be carried on without credit. Even persons with the largest capital could not do it. What was to be done with the young spendthrift, who contracted a debt with his tailor or any other tradesman, who had no means of payment, and who, by the appearance he was thus enabled to make, placed himself in the way of defrauding other honest men? By this Bill he would be protected, and the honest creditor defrauded. It would be very difficult to say, that a debt was not justly contracted for; it might be in the power of the party contracting it to say, that he had expectations. He would, however, defer the remainder of his objections to the second reading of the Bill; but in reply to his hon. and learned friend, he would ask in what manner could a creditor avouch his debt except upon his oath. He did not know any part of Europe in which there was an exemption from arrest for debt—no, not in America itself, unless it were by a very recent enactment.
Mr. Richardsrose amid loud cries of oh! and said he was most anxious to record his disapprobation of the measure then before the House. His opposition was founded on a knowledge of the trade

1227
of the country—sufficient, he would hope, to warrant him in the course he felt it his duty to pursue. The hon. and learned Gentleman who had introduced the Bill, might dilate with great pathos and force on the hardships inflicted on the unfortunate debtor; but did he think al all of the deceived and disappointed creditor? It might do well for Gentlemen of the hon. and learned Member's profession to exclaim against imprisonment for debt; but it should be recollected, that members of the Bar gave no credit; they were paid in ready money. Far—far different was it with men in trade. He (Mr. Richards) had lost more by bad debts than he would like to name to the House. The present Bill, if carried, would be productive of the most serious evils. It would deprive the creditor of his just means of redress. It would, in fact, annihilate the business of the country. He begged pardon, it would increase the business of lawyers, and, therefore, they would be found among its most prominent supporters. He would appeal to any man of commercial knowledge who heard him, whether he was not correct in what he said. In fact, the Bill was introduced by those who were lamentably ignorant of the trade of the country, or were actuated by a pseudo-liberality, which might for a moment excite popular favour, but which would be found neither just in principle, nor correct in practice.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, that the two hon. Gentlemen who had preceded him seemed to contemplate that there could be no debtors but swindlers. When it was said, that trade could not be conducted without the power of arrest on mesne process for debt, he was obliged to ask, had hon. Gentlemen ever cast their eyes upon such a country as Scotland? Did they recollect that there were such places as Dundee and Glasgow? For his own part, if he had any objection to the present Bill, it was, that it was partial, that it was not sufficiently extensive, that it did not go far enough. He could not see any reason why the holder of a bill of exchange or promissory note, or a bond, should have a right to seize the body of a debtor in preference to a creditor of any other description. He thought that fraud or the absconding of a debtor from the jurisdiction of a Court was the only justifiable cause for arresting the person of a debtor, and that simply because it endan-
1228
gered the prospect of the creditor's recovering his just demand. He was sorry, very sorry, to hear, that the hon. member for Knaresborough had lost so much money by bad debts; but the hon. Member ought to recollect that he had lost it under the present system of coercion, and that he could not be worse off even under the proposed system which he so much deprecated, and that, under either, he could not lose more than all.
Mr. Tookegave the Bill his cordial concurrence. He wished to set the hon. member for Knaresborough right upon one point. So far from excessive legal costs arising out of this measure, the contrary would be the case. The main expense was now occasioned by proving book debts, which would be done away with by the present measure. Tradesmen would, in future, take written acknowledgments, and the cost of proving the delivery of goods would be avoided.
Mr. Serjeant Spankiewas of opinion, that if we put an end to arrest for debt we should destroy the present system of credit, without which business could not go on in this country. The object of arrest was to compel the summary payment of debts which in many instances, could not be collected without such a process. The apprehension of arrest caused men to calculate before contracting debts, and its effect was to prevent litigation. He believed, that if the law passed it would let loose a spirit of adventure which nothing could restrain.
Mr. Alderman Copelandwould be delighted to see the Law of Arrest for mesne process ameliorated, but entreated the House to pause before adopting a measure the effect of which would be to give one class of creditors a preference over others.
Mr.Rotchwas opposed to the Law of Arrest as it stood at present, but apprehended that in small transactions it afforded the only security to creditors. On the whole, he thought that it would be well for the House to pause before legislating on the subject.
Leave was given to bring in a bill.

REPORTS OF THE DEBATES.
Mr. Tookerose to move, pursuant to notice, that it be an instruction to the Select Committee on the business of the House, to consider and report on the expediency of establishing or encouraging the publi-

1229
cation of an authentic report of the debates arising in the House relating to public and private business, and of the proceedings connected therewith. The hon. Member said, that it was well known, that however admirably the proceedings of the House were reported, for the information of the public, on questions of general interest and importance, still much of what was considered by the press of minor importance was omitted, while the private business which came before the House was altogether neglected. He thought in the present state of the country when that House was responsible to its constituents, that it was desirable that the fullest knowledge of what passed in Parliament should be communicated to the public, and while he would guard with jealous care the privileges of the House, he nevertheless conceived that, under the direction of the Committee, a plan might be adopted for recording their proceedings in such a way as would be attended with infinite advantage to the community at large. It was obvious that the publication of private business could not repay any individual, and that the object could not be effected unless the aid of the House were afforded for that purpose, or such advantages were given as should enable the channel which gave that description of business, to establish itself in the public favour. He did not wish to throw any responsibility on the House, nor to promote the interests of individuals, but he desired to obtain such information as the Committee could afford on the subject. He was conscious that the matter seemed to invade the privileges of the House, but he thought that objection might be obviated; and, further, he was of opinion that we had arrived at a period when whatever passed in Parliament ought to be communicated to the public. He put it to the House to consider the expediency of referring the question to the Select Committee on the business of the House, in doing which he did not think that they would compromise the dignity or privileges of Parliament. His object was, to examine into the best mode of ensuring the accuracy of reports of the proceedings of the House, and of extending a full publication of them. Having stated the nature of his Motion, he contented himself with presenting it to the House in the terms contained in the orders, and left it in the
1230
hands of hon. Members to deal with the matter as they thought fit.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the House should not agree to the proposed instruction to the Select Committee unless it thought the object of that instruction one which ought to be adopted. The question for the House to consider was, whether the proposed object was desirable. The subject had been discussed on former occasions when the general feeling appeared to be, that what was now proposed with respect to the debates would be more inconvenient than otherwise, if carried into effect. With respect to public business, he did not think that the public felt any great loss in consequence of the manner in which the reports in the newspapers were now given, for certainly, to the extent to which those reports could go, their fidelity and accuracy were such as created surprise rather than disappointment. If the report of the debates were to be further extended, and every word was to be taken down in short-hand as it should be spoken, they must reach an enormous extent in the first place, and in the second, he was afraid that the record would not do any great credit to the character of Members for the purity of the English which was sometimes spoken. In fact, the debates would be so voluminous that the public would never wade through them. He had spoken of the reports of public business; and with respect to private business, he must add that he did not think when any matter of importance to the public in that way came before the House, that there was any deficiency in the reports even of that description of business. Certainly in ordinary cases of private business, where no opposition occurred, in which there was no contest or debate of much importance, but little notice was taken of those proceedings in the newspapers; he could not, however, think, that upon this ground alone it was desirable to concur in the hon. Member's motion. Having heard Gentlemen at different times moot the same question, he was not now convinced of the expediency any more than he had before been of recording every syllable that was uttered in that House. The record would be so voluminous that it would not find readers; it must be in a great measure perfectly uninteresting to the public. Under such circumstances he did not think it desirable to introduce

1231
any change in the existing system. With respect to referring the question to a Committee already sitting on the business of the House, he anticipated no advantage from laying fresh matter before it. They had already had other instances of reports from Committees on the business of the House, which were not likely to be adopted; he referred to the report on the subject of taking divisions, and he saw no prospect of any advantage from an inquiry or recommendation as to attempting a verbatim report of their proceedings. He was convinced that great difficulties must arise in the course of any such attempt.
Sir Samuel Whalleyobserved, that he could well understand why members of an Administration might be reluctant to have their speeches reported at length, particularly if they had recently sat on the Opposition side of the House—lest by-gone speeches should be disinterred from their graves and quoted against their authors at a future opportunity. But there were other parties whose interests it was the duty of the House to consult—he meant the interests of their constituents, by whom Members had been sent to Parliament. It was right, that their constituents should be acquainted with the speeches and acts of Members. If Members wished to discharge their duty conscientiously, they would desire those whom they represented to be fully apprised of their proceedings. He was sure, that from one end of the country to the other there was no individual who would grudge the expense of an accurate report of all the proceedings of Parliament—none but would desire a faithful mirror of all that passed in the House, provided that the mirror were not so scrupulously accurate as to reflect in the strongest colours their occasional defects. He did not wish to interfere with the privileges of the House, the Committee would consider that subject. He might observe, that it would be possible to circulate the debates among Members themselves, without touching the question of privilege. He was of opinion, that it would be a national shame and a public loss, if the very able publication which he had in view in these remarks should be suffered to drop for want of funds. The debates in Parliament went to every nation in the world, and were commented on in every court in Europe [Laughter.] Gentlemen oppo-
1232
site might laugh, but it would be recollected that the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs had formerly observed that the sentiments expressed by Members in that House would reach the autocrat of Russia, and read him an useful lesson. On that ground he was entitled to the noble Lord's support in the present attempt to procure a full account of speeches in Parliament, or if the noble Lord declined to support the Motion, he could never again make use of the argument before referred to. In conclusion, he should merely observe that he did not wish to prejudice or impair the privileges of Parliament—his only object in supporting the Motion was, to promote the public interest.
Mr. Stanleysaid: I cannot understand why any person who ever did fill the office of a public Minister in this country, or who does fill the office of a Minister, or whom anybody thinks should at any future time fill the office as a Minister—I cannot conceive on what ground such an individual should take the least interest whatsoever in the consideration of this question, or why he should imagine it to be one in the most remote degree personally interesting to himself. For with regard to the possibility of raking up long-departed speeches to which the hon. Member who last addressed the House has alluded—I say with regard to any speech that a Minister of the Crown may have delivered within the last eighty or 100 years, there are at present ample means for reviving it, and I would add, there are also persons quite willing and fully prepared to rake up such speeches—nay, half sentences extracted from them, whether so quoted and garbled as to disagree with the context and spirit of the body of which they form imperfect members it matters not—and this, it may be, for the purpose of putting a different interpretation on the extracts from that which they will fairly bear, and in order to contrast in the strongest light and most unfavourable manner the past and present sentiments of the individual, whether a Minister of the Crown or in some other public situation. But every man who aspires to any public situation in the service of his country must appreciate at its due weight—that is, he must utterly condemn—all such attacks upon an apparent want of consistency in public men as are brought forward merely as claptraps, and for the purpose of producing a

1233
momentary impression against the sentiments now expressed in a present speech, but not as sound and valid arguments against the principles which it involves. So much on the subject of the sentiment with which the hon. Gentleman commenced his speech—a sentiment which, as applied to public men or Ministers, I cannot understand. But I can very well understand, that there is a class of persons who may have seats in this House, and whose speeches, with all the pains they can take, and notwithstanding their great merits, may not be so widely promulgated by means of the public press as the speakers wish. I can very well understand that there may be persons who having risen from being prime orators in a parish vestry, do nevertheless find themselves very inferior in the House of Commons. I can very well understand that there may be reasons why such individuals should repine that their speeches are not reported at length in the newspapers, and complain that their fame is not extensive enough. I can very well understand the grounds on which those Gentlemen may think the Press wrong in taking a different view of their weight and merits from that which they themselves entertain. I can also understand why, though the speeches of those individuals would be considered entitled to great respect and ample dimensions in a parish meeting or a country paper—I say I can understand, or at least imagine, why they form but a small part of the printed records of the debates in this House, and are rather underrated by newspapers, whose object it is to publish matters generally interesting to the country at large. Such being the case, I can very well understand why the plenipotentiary of the kingdom of Marylebone calls upon his brother Minister (the Secretary of State for the Foreign Department) to support a Motion the object of which is to circulate widely his important ideas, and give currency throughout all the courts of Europe to his powerful and comprehensive views. I can very well understand, that the dignity of the kingdom of Marylebone ought to be properly sustained by its plenipotentiary and representative, that he ought not to yield to the Foreign Secretary; and I can as readily believe, if the autocrat of all the Russias should happen to hear that the hon. Gentleman had denounced him in the House of Commons—I can easily be-
1234
lieve, that in such an event, the Czar would think his empire gone for ever. The hon. Gentleman calls me to order, and cries "question." I am not aware in what respect I am out of order, and I always supposed, that it was not over civil to call "question" when a gentleman was speaking, especially if he happened to be speaking directly to the question. If the hon. Gentleman means to say, that I am not speaking to the point in debate, I maintain, and am ready to prove, the contrary. I am answering the hon. Gentleman's speech; and my object is to show, that those mighty interests in the country, which, according to the hon. Member, exercise so great an influence on the empire at large, and the whole of Europe, do now receive sufficient scope and currency,—that the feelings and sentiments of what is most important in the country, in the constituent and representative body, are carried all over Europe, and have due weight with every Power. But it appears, that some of those Gentlemen to whom I have before alluded, whose sentiments do not carry equal weight along with them, complain, that their speeches are not diffused so widely as they might desire. I am instancing the case which the hon. Gentleman himself puts. The hon. Gentleman says,—"I, the Representative of Marylebone, call upon you, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, to join me in this Motion for the publication of an authentic report of the debates of the House." [Sir Samuel Whalley: No, not so.] Not so? Then I do not wonder, that the public Press should be occasionally mistaken. I think the authorized reporter of the hon. Gentleman will have a hard task. Certainly, if I were his authorized reporter, I should have put down, with the utmost confidence, that the hon. Gentleman called on my noble friend, the Foreign Secretary, to support the Motion. And why should I have done so? Because the hon. Gentleman stated: on the noble Lord's own admission, everything that falls from hon. Members in this House is circulated all over Europe, and must necessarily influence foreign powers; and, therefore, I, the Representative of the kingdom of Marylebone, call upon you, my noble colleague and Secretary for Foreign Affairs, to join me in this Motion for the communication of our joint sentiments in an authentic and influential shape to all the courts of Europe. Such were not exactly the hon.

1235
Gentleman's words, but such was the spirit of his statement. [Sir Samuel Whalley: You have a very bad case.] "A very bad case," does the hon. Gentleman say? That remains to be proved. The question is, as to the advantage or disadvantage of the present method of publishing the debates as opposed to the system which the hon. Gentleman proposes. How does the present plan work? I have very often occasion to trouble the House; it is true I have little time to read the reports that appear in the newspapers of my speeches, or those of other Members;—perhaps the hon. Gentleman has more time, and devotes it to the perusal of his own speeches. [Sir Samuel Whalley: I do not read yours.] The hon. Gentleman says, he does not waste his time in reading my speeches, whatever time he may devote to his own. Well, I do not complain of my speeches being mis-reported; and neither will the hon. Gentleman, for he does not read them. But the hon. Gentleman complains, that there is not sufficient space devoted to the speeches of the Representative of Marylebone in the newspapers, the writers of which have an awkward trick of being guided by their own judgments, or, better still, their own interests, in the admission of matter which they give or withhold, in proportion to their belief of its importance, or the reverse. Is it surprising, that the newspapers should contain what the readers of newspapers desire to read, rather than what nobody could be found to read? Is not this reasonable? The hon. Gentleman says, "No, give us not a selection of readable and interesting matter, but the whole debate; every word that is spoken in Parliament; everything without misrepresentation or omission, no matter how full of repetitions, or how devoid of interest." Now, suppose the hon. Gentleman gets his authorized reporter to take down every word spoken within those walls, and the whole is published,—what will be the consequence? I will tell the hon. Gentleman:—the public won't read a word of it. What is the state of things at present? Are not the proceedings of the House published and circulated? They are, and that by authority. Every petition is stated, every stage of every bill, and all the proceedings on every Bill, public and private, are recorded. This by authority; and further, so far as the newspapers think the matter important or in-
1236
teresting to their readers, the details of proceedings go forth to the public. But the full debates, all long and tiresome speeches, repetitions, and inanities, do not go forth, because all of a considerable number of individuals connected with the papers, but not acting in concert, agree, that, in those debates, there is a great deal of needless and worthless matter, which nobody cares for, unless it be the particular speakers, and which the public would not read. The hon. Gentleman proposes, not to leave it any longer to the good sense, or, better than the good sense, to the interests of the writers of the newspaper press to decide what they will publish upon a consideration of what the community—their customers—will or will not buy. The hon. Gentleman proposes, that every thing done or spoken in the House shall be circulated by authority in future. [Sir Samuel Whalley: I proposed no change in what is now done; I merely said, that it would be a shame and a national loss if the only accurate report of our proceedings were allowed to drop for want of support.] Very well, the hon. Gentleman wants no change: he merely says, that it would be a national loss if the only accurate report of the proceedings of the House were allowed to fall for want of support. I presume the hon. Gentleman refers to the Mirror of Parliament? [Sir Samuel Whalley: Yes.] If so, all I can say is, that, as far as I have had an opportunity of judging, that publication has been conducted with great enterprise, skill, and ability. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to say, that the question whether that publication must drop or not was one for the public to decide. If the hon. Gentleman was so anxious that full and complete reports of his speeches—such, no doubt, as appeared in the Mirror of Parliament—should be given to his constituents, why, the hon. Gentleman might distribute a number of Mirrors of Parliament amongst his constituents for that purpose. His constituents, of course, would be obliged to him for them; those who chose would read them, and those who did not would not; but it was rather too much to call on the public to pay for such a thing. He (Mr. Stanley) believed, that, in all matters of importance—in all debates of interest—the public Press, at the present moment, gave of what passed in that House as long, as full, and as correct accounts as the public wanted, as the

1237
public wished for; and that the publication of the debates, as now given in the daily papers, viewed as the means of conveying information to the public of what was done there, and as thereby the means of affording the check of public opinion on the proceedings of that House, and on the Members of it,—he repeated, that the publication of all important debates was, regarded in such a light, given in the daily Press to as large an extent as the public themselves thought desirable. Besides, it should be considered, that, even were any plan of this kind desirable, it must be attended with considerable expense to the public. During the last fortnight they had imposed 1,000,000 l. on the Consolidated Fund. They had, during the last fortnight, placed upon it votes for 120,000 l., for 140,000 l., and for 520,000 l. They had, in fact, placed to the charge of the Consolidated Fund during that period, a sum amounting to no less than 1,000,000 l. sterling. Now, what was, in reality, the proposition of the hon. and learned Member? It amounted, in truth, to this,—that, as nobody read their speeches when given at full length, as the public did not think it worth their while to read the debates in such an enlarged form, and as the Members were anxious that their constituents should know all that they did and said in that House, therefore that the Consolidated Fund should have a charge imposed upon it for the purpose, the public paying for the publication of speeches, which the public, which nobody, would think it worth their while to read. He would again repeat that he would, if there was no other reason, object to this proposition, on the ground of the total absence of any necessity for it. The debates were given, as he had already said, in the public papers at present as fully upon all important questions as the public required; making the public acquainted, as fully as was necessary, with what every man said in that House. But, above all, he objected to the proposition, because it would go to establish a monopoly in the publication of the debates in that House, in opposition to the newspapers, which published sufficiently full reports at the present moment. He objected to the establishment of a monopoly for an authenticated authorized publication of the speeches delivered in that House. The present system of reporting the proceedings of Parliament in the daily
1238
papers afforded to the public as full an account of them as they wanted, and afforded as complete a check upon the proceedings of that House as the public could desire to possess; and he, therefore, objected to the establishment of an authorized monopoly in the publication of speeches, which no one would ever read when they were published.
Colonel Daviessaid, that they should adhere to the real question before them, and not wander into matters that had nothing to do with it. The right hon. Gentleman, in attacking the hon. member for Marylebone, had followed the example which he had condemned on the part of that hon. Member, and had indulged in sarcasm instead of employing argument. The question was, not whether the speeches of Ministers or of any other Members of that House were or were not fully reported; but the simple question was, whether, or not, there should be an authorized and authenticated publication of the speeches delivered in that House. All that was urged by his hon. friend on the subject was, that it should be an instruction to the Committee to take that question into consideration. The Committee might report, after doing so, that there was no necessity for any authorised report of the proceedings of that House, or they might report the contrary way. At all events, the question was one well worthy of being sent to a Committee for consideration. He was of opinion, that an authenticated publication of the proceedings of that House would be productive of great benefit. The right hon. Gentleman objected to the proposition on the ground of expense; but he would venture to say, that if they referred the matter to a Select Committee, it could be shown that they might have an authorized account of what passed in that House without costing the public a single shilling of expense. There was no one more ready than he was to admit the extraordinary accuracy with which the public papers gave the debates in that House; but it was perfectly impossible, that the daily papers could give all that occurred there at full length. The question, then, was,—whether they should not entertain the proposition for an authenticated publication of their debates, and send it to a Committee up-stairs for consideration. He supported the proposition, considering that it would be of great public benefit.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, that he would not support the Motion, if the object of it was to establish a monopoly in opposition to the daily public Press. He, for one, would say, that the manner in which the public Press was conducted with regard to the debates in that House was such as hon. Members had no right to complain of. If hon. Gentlemen would only refer to the Reports of their speeches in the public papers, they would generally find, that when they were not reported at great length it did not arise from the fault of the reporters; but, that it was the fault of hon. Members themselves, who had not on such occasions spoken sufficiently well to entitle them to a detailed report. He (Mr. Cutlar Fergusson) believed, that, generally speaking, he was as shortly reported as any hon. Member in that House; but of that he did not complain. He thought, that if hon. Members would look to those speeches that were shortly reported, they would find, that in most instances it arose from such speeches being more deficient in point than those that had been given at greater length. The reporters were generally exceedingly happy in giving the points of a speech, and if an hon. Member should be happy in making points in his speech, he would have no reason to complain when he found those points preserved while the unnecessary verbiage was rejected. He would support the Motion, but he would repeat, that he would not do so if he at all thought that it would go to establish a monopoly against the public Press. He supported it because he thought, that it would be of great public advantage to establish an authentic record of all the proceedings in that House. It was not the interest of the public Press to give debates upon many questions, however important those questions might be to certain parts of the empire, at any length; and, indeed, it was often impossible for the daily papers, even upon questions of the highest public interest, to give the reports, owing to the time at which the debates occurred, at any length, if they would give them at all. Every one who attended that House was aware, that important debates often occurred at such late hours, that it was impossible for the reporters to do any justice to them. He had himself often heard good speeches delivered at two and three o'clock in the morning, when it was obvious to every
1240
one, that it was impossible that they could be reported at such a late hour at any length in the daily papers. It might be observed upon important debates, that while the speeches delivered early in the evening were given at great length, those delivered at a later hour, though perhaps more eloquent and important, were necessarily abridged in the daily papers. He himself could state several instances when subjects of the greatest importance were brought on at a late hour in the House, and where, without any blame attaching to those who conducted the daily Press, such discussions were greatly abridged, if not almost altogether omitted. It was obviously impossible, that anything like justice could be done to discussions that occurred after midnight, as important debates very frequently did in that House. There were also instances where the daily papers, it being their interest he supposed to do so, abridged to a very great extent discussions upon important subjects in that House. He could instance the discussions that occurred in Committee upon the East-India Charter. He had known a debate of five or six hours in that Committee despatched in seven or eight lines. He had known discussions upon the Scotch Reform Bill given with equal brevity; and he understood, indeed, that it was a general complaint throughout Scotland, that they could not tell what their Representatives said in the House of Commons. It was a general complaint throughout Scotland, that subjects relating to that country were not reported sufficiently fully. It appeared to him, indeed, that the discussions relating to Scotland might certainly be given at greater length than they usually were in the daily Press, the more particularly as Irish subjects occupied such a space in their columns; and the speeches of the Representatives from that country were given at such enormous length, while those hon. Members who had no right at all to complain on the subject actually complained, that their speeches were not reported. He thought, that more than justice was done to the speeches of those hon. Members, while there were no reports at all of several most important discussions relating to Scotland. It therefore appeared to him a great object to have a full and authenticated report published of the proceedings that took place in that House; any persons whose opin-

1241
ions were of consequence—any persons like Ministers of the Crown, filling high official situations; and who might have their opinions hereafter quoted in debates—it was of great importance to all such persons, that their opinions should be quoted correctly. No Members were so interested in that object as the hon. Members who sat upon the Treasury Benches. Though there were many things that passed in that House, that the daily newspapers might not think it worth their while to report; yet there was no doubt, that they were of importance to some portion or other of the people of England; and it would be, therefore, most desirable to have a full and authentic report of what passed there published. His right hon. friend said, that the public would not read such report when published. Those constituents who were interested in the subject would read the report of the debate upon it; and it was but right, that each part of the empire should know the part which their Representatives took in questions, to them, of great importance. He would therefore support the Motion, on the ground, that the people should have a full and authentic report of what occurred in that House. But it was said by his right hon. friend, that such an object would not be attained without great expense to the public. If it could not be otherwise done, he for one would abandon it till some future opportunity. But the hon. member for Worcester had stated, that it could be effected without one shilling of expense to the public. The question then was, whether they should not have a full and authentic report of what passed in that House. That was the question, and not whether they should establish the Mirror of Parliament. He thought, that such an authentic record of their proceedings might be established without any injury to the daily Press. He would therefore give his support to the Motion.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that he could scarcely comprehend what was exactly the proposition before the House. It was, as he understood it, for an authorized and authentic report of their debates, and then it was stated that they should be published without any restriction save the discretion of the authorized reporters. There was no medium—no alternative to choose between those two propositions. Either it must, after all, be left to the judgment and discretion
1242
of the reporter to determine what shall be given, and what shall be omitted, or they must have every word that was uttered given. Now, in attempting to report fully all that occurred, it would be impossible for the reporters to avoid numerous mistakes, owing to the noise and confusion which so often prevailed in the House. Was it intended to report at full length every word that was uttered, whether the question regarded a rail-road, which, though totally devoid of national or general, might be possessed of great local importance, or whether the question was one that affected and interested equally all the parts of the empire? Let them but for a moment reflect upon the immense length to which the publication of their debates would reach, if every word that was uttered in that House upon every possible subject should be reported. They usually extended their debates in the evening sittings to eight hours. They had to add to that the debates which took place at the morning sittings. They generally sat for that time four or five days in the week. They must therefore see what an enormous extent of space the debates of thirty or forty hours' duration would, if fully reported, occupy in any publication, and what an immense time it would take to read through such a mass of matter. It was perfectly impossible that there could be any demand for such a publication. It could only be published at the public expense; and it would be impossible to find persons to read it. It was impossible, as he had said already, seeing the noise which so often took place in the House, that a reporter could take down accurately everything that occurred. It would therefore be necessary, if there was an authentic report of their speeches, for which Members would consider themselves responsible, that they should themselves correct their speeches, to see whether there was anything in them that they had not uttered. Now, it would be utterly impossible for Ministers, and for Members connected with the law, frequently to address the House, if they should be obliged to correct the report of every speech that they delivered. That they would be obliged to do so was manifest, if they established an authorized publication of their proceedings, as all Members would be responsible for their speeches inserted in such publication. Where was the utility of

1243
referring such a proposition to a Committee? What advantage would a Committee have in discussing it, that was not attainable by the House at large? The question was, whether the proposition would be fraught with any public benefit, and whether it would not be attended with great public expense. He had not heard any plan proposed by which it could be carried into effect without expense to the public. If it could be done so, it was fit that the House should be made acquainted with such plan; and then, if the House thought that the plan was a good one; and that it would be advantageous to adopt it, the House might refer it for consideration to a Select Committee. He believed, that the best security for the proper and impartial publication of the debates of that House in the public Press was to be found in the competition of that Press. At present, he was of opinion, that upon all important subjects, the debates were correctly given, and as fully given, as the public desired. He recollected, however, that some years ago a different system was adopted, and that a complete misrepresentation of the speeches of particular Members appeared in the daily papers. He remembered, that in one instance, the late Mr. Tierney having given some offence to the Press, his speeches were for a long period altogether omitted. With respect to the debates in the Committee on the East-India charter, to which allusion had been made, it did strike him, that though the matters which were discussed in that Committee were of great importance, yet, that the speeches made upon them had been so often repeated, that if they had been published in the daily papers, no one would be found to read a word of them. It was either intended by the present proposition that a full report of all that occurred in the House should be given, or that selections should be made of the most material and interesting points in each discussion. That selection should be made upon the responsibility of an editor appointed for the purpose by the House; but if that editor should happen to curtail the speech of an hon. Member shorter than he thought it should be given, that Member might say to him, "I have as good a right to have my sentiments reported fully, and they are of as great importance to my constituents, as those, for
1244
instance, of the hon. member for Dublin, or of any other hon. Member; and why should not I be reported as fully?" A great portion of time would, therefore, if the system of selection should be adopted, be taken up in answering and satisfying the complaints of Members who would complain, that they were not as fully reported, or at as great length, as they wished and deserved. He would certainly oppose the Motion.
Mr. Buckinghamsaid, that he did not think that any one had ever advocated the proposition, that everything that was uttered in that House should be reported; but, at the same time, it was plain that an authentic record of their proceedings was much wanted. Every one who attended to their debates, and who read the reports of them in the public papers, must have been struck with the inequality of their execution. Now, he would just inform the House how that difference in the merits of the Reports occurred. There were some reporters so extremely skilful that they could give most correctly every part of a discussion; after them would come a second class of reporters who were not so skilful, and in their portion of the reporting the discussion, a commensurate degree of inaccuracy would be observable; and lastly, they would be followed by third-rate reporters, mere students in the profession, who, with the best intentions to report accurately, would report everything wrong. Such was the cause of the different degrees of accuracy that might be observed in the different stages of the Report of a discussion in that House, as published in the daily papers. Nothing, besides, was more common than to find it stated in the reports in the papers, that the reporters regretted that they could not hear some observations; for instance, of the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, owing to the low tone in which they were delivered, or to the noise that prevailed in the House. There was no intention not to give the observations, whatever they were, on such occasions, for regret was uniformly expressed at their not having heard them. He himself recollected an instance where the hon. Baronet, the member for Hampshire, delivered an important speech on the China trade, which was dismissed in five lines in the daily papers, though the hon. Baronet afterwards published it in a pamphlet. It was, therefore, desirable

1245
that they should have an authentic publication for preserving such important discussions, and he thought that such a publication might be established without a single shilling of expense to the public. He (Mr. Buckingham) had had some experience in those matters; and he would undertake to show to the Committee, that it was quite possible to establish such a publication without its costing the country or the House a single shilling. He would undertake to show how that could be done, and how they could have all their discussions reported in the best possible manner. His plan was this—let four or six of the most skilful reporters that London could supply be employed for the purpose of taking down all the proceedings of the House, and let their remuneration be regulated according to the scale which the newspapers paid for the slips sent round to them. Something of the kind it was most desirable to effect. Of course, in giving the speeches in the various debates, all the surplusage would be removed out of them. He pledged himself, if the matter should be referred to a Committee, to lay before them a plan for carrying the object into effect.
Mr. Moretonsaid, that the question was whether they should refer a question relating to one of the grand privileges of that House to a Committee appointed for quite a different object. If it were necessary to refer it to a Committee at all, they should appoint a Committee for the special purpose of considering it alone. He did not think that the principle of reporting their proceedings as it at present existed called for any alteration. The present proposition involved a great privilege of the House, not only as regarded reporting, but as regarded the seeing strangers in the House.
Mr. Shawsaid, that, as an Irish Member, he did not rise to complain that the debates upon Irish subjects were not given at quite sufficient length in the daily papers for all public and general purposes. The question was not, whether the system of reporting their proceedings in the daily Press could not be better, for he believed that for all public purposes a sufficient quantity of their Debates was given in the papers; but the question was, whether it would not be advisable to establish a publication in the nature of a standard, for the purpose of affording an authentic record of their votes and pro-
1246
ceedings. He thought, that the establishment of such a publication would be productive of benefit, and he would therefore support the Motion.
Mr. Wilkssaid, that all the world was interested in having a complete, accurate, and detailed account of the proceedings that took place in that House; and it was of the utmost consequence to the country that such an authentic record should be established. If this subject should be referred to the Committee, they would be enabled to collect information as to what had been done by Legislatures in other countries on the subject. They would find that in the American legislature, a regular system of ample and accurate reports of their proceedings had been carried into effect. In France, too, it was perfectly well known, that certain funds were appropriated by the Legislature for the purpose; that a reporting newspaper called the Stenographe was established for the purpose; and that it was supported at the expense of the Government and of the Chambers. In that paper the speeches of the Members were given in full, as they had been spoken. The Committee might, in this way, obtain information as to what had been done in other countries, so as to establish what he conceived would be a great improvement here. He would therefore vote for referring the subject to a Committee.
Colonel Evanssaid, that he could not support the proposition of the hon. and learned Member. He thought that the plan was impossible in the first place, and, if possible, objectionable in the next. He quite concurred with those who thought, that the best security for the proper publication of the proceedings of that House in the daily papers was to be found in their competition. If the proposition was for providing better seats for the reporters in the House, and if, on the part of the reporters, it was shown, that they desired and wanted better accommodation he would be most anxious to support any proposition for providing them with it. But he agreed in the statements which the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the Colonies, had made in opposition to this Motion. He agreed with him, that the public papers were the best channels for communicating to the public the proceedings of that House; and he agreed with him that no Minister, pastor present, could feel any peculiar interest in such a ques-

1247
tion. He did not, however, consider that all the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman were quite consistent with the right hon. Gentleman's dignity.
Mr. Sheilsaid, he wished the right hon. Baronet the member for Tamworth had been in the House, for, upon the occasion of a complaint made by the hon. and gallant member for Devonport (Admiral Codrington) last Session, he occupied the House two hours and a-half, and very properly occupied it, with his vindication, and he brought down the Mirror of Parliament, and upon the Mirror of Parliament the right hon. Baronet founded his defence. ["No, no"] He appealed to the recollection of every Member in the House at the time. [Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Baronet referred to the Morning Chronicle.] He (Mr. Sheil) had a distinct, it might not be an accurate, recollection, that it was to the Mirror of Parliament he appealed. He did not say, that the right hon. Baronet did not refer to the Morning Chronicle for confirmation. Then here was an ex-Minister, on a question of importance to himself and also to the country, having recourse to this publication as a standard work, and a parliamentary record of his speech. His (Mr. Sheil's) reason for rising was, to call the attention of the House to this fact, as showing the importance of having some work which should be an authentic record of what was said in that House; and no persons were more interested in this than the King's Ministers, in order that the country might have an accurate record of their speeches.
Mr.Stanleysaid, that, according to his recollection, it was the gallant Admiral who brought down the Mirror of Parliament; and the right hon. Baronet stated, that he had never read his speech from the time it was delivered, but that his recollection was so and so; and he brought down, next day, The Times, the Morning Chronicle, and Hansard, which he quoted against the Mirror of Parliament.
Mr. Sheil: At all events, the Mirror of Parliament was quoted. He spoke in explanation, if the House thought this matter of fact deserved to be explained. It was plain, that there was a reference to the Mirror of Parliament. With all respect for the right hon. Secretary, he (Mr. Sheil) did assert, that it was to the Mirror of Parliament the right hon. Baronet appealed. The case then stood thus.—
1248
He (Mr. Sheil) brought the authority of the right hon. Baronet—an authority to which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley) would be willing to pay deference. All he wanted to say was, that the Mirror of Parliament was quoted either by one side or the other. If it was appealed to by the hon. and gallant Admiral, the member for Devonport, was not his case made out.
Mr. Cayleysaid, that the vote he should give in favour of the Motion was not for the purpose of having daily reports, but to have an historical record. He wanted to refer to them as to Johnson's Dictionary or an Encyclopœdia.
Sir Edward Codringtonsaid, that it was he who referred to the Mirror of Parliament as the document upon which he relied, as he was abroad at the time the speech of the right hon. Baronet was delivered. He admitted, that the The Times and Morning Chronicle and Hansard were produced against him, not, however, as contradicting, but as not confirming, the speech in the Mirror of Parliament professing to give the whole of the speech.
Mr. Tooke, in reply, observed, that he did not wish to have verbatim reports, but an authentic record. The expense would be very trifling, and he hoped the House would not refuse to avail itself of such a mode of ascertaining and recording its sentiments.
The House divided: Ayes 99; Noes 117—Majority against the Motion 18.

BARON DE BODE'S CLAIMS.
Mr. Lloydrose to move an instruction to the Committee on the Baron de Bode's claim, with a view of enabling certain claimants under the conventions entered into between Great Britain and France to be heard by counsel before the Committee in opposition to that claim. The claimants whose case he brought before the House rested upon such real and demonstrable grounds of justice, that he could not conceive there would be any opposition to his Motion. The claims of these parties had been recognized by the Lords of the Treasury in 1830 and 1832. The claim of the Baron de Bode was less grounded than their claims; but if he were allowed an ex-parte hearing before a Committee, and was to have an ex-parte report from the Committee, the funds would perhaps be appropriated, and the just claims of

1249
the present petitioners might be put off to an indefinite period. He merely asked, on their part, that they might be heard by counsel before that Committee. The instruction he moved was, that the Committee should take the matter into consideration, so far as to ascertain if the petitioners were interested in the fund, and in opposing the Baron de Bode's claim; and if so, that they might be allowed to be heard in opposition to it.
Lord Althorpsaid, that if the Baron de Bode should succeed in establishing his claim, the amount of the fund would pro tanto be diminished. The question, then, was, whether other claimants on the fund ought not to be allowed to be heard by counsel against the baron's claim? He thought that, in justice, the House was bound to allow them that privilege.
Mr. Baringsaid, that these discussions showed the inconvenience which must always result from yielding to personal solicitations, and making committees of that House courts of appeal for the purpose of administering justice. It appeared to him, that the necessary consequence of appointing the Committee to inquire into the case of the Baron de Bode was, to give a right to every other person whose claim had been rejected by the commissioners to be heard before the Committee. He wished the House and the Committee well out of the affair.
Motion agreed to.

MINUTES.
The Royal Consent was given by Commission to the following Bills:—Exchequer Receipts; Smuggling Act Amendment; Hemp and Flax Bounties; Clerk of the
1180
Pipe (Scotland); Warwick Witnesses' Indemnity; Liverpool Witnesses Indemnity; and a large Number of Private Bills.
Bills. Read a third time:—Law of Escheats: Exchange of Land in Common Fields.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of MALMESBURY, from Bloxham, against the Statute Duty and County Rates.—By the Earl of HAREWOOD, from Leeds, for Amending the Reform Act.—By the LORD CHANCELLOR and Lord YARBOROUGH, from several Places, and Dissenting Congregations,—for Relief to the Dissenters.—By the Earl of CAWDOR, from Cawdor and Auldearn, against the present. System of Church Patronage in Scotland.—By Earl DEGREY and Lord YARBOROUGH, from a Number of Places,—against the Corn Laws.—By Earl DEGREY, the Duke Of GLOUCESTER, and Lord KENYON, from several Places,—against Admitting Dissenters to the Universities,—By the Duke of WELLINGTON, Earls DE GREY and SHAFTESBURY, and the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, from several Places,—against all the Claims of the Dissenters.—By Earl FITZWILLIAM, from the Handloom Weavers of Kinross and Irvine, for a Board of Trade, and for Relief.—By the Duke of WELLINGTON, and Lords REDESDALE and ELLENBOROUGH, from several Places, for Protection to the Established Church.—By the Earl of WINCHILSEA, from Nottingham, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.

TITHE SUITS.
Lord Sondes, in presenting a petition from a parish in Kent on the subject of tithes, took occasion to inquire whether it was intended to introduce any measure for the purpose of restricting protracted litigation with reference to the recovery of tithes and moduses.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that a Bill of that nature had been brought into Parliament last Session, but it had not been adopted. The difficulties which attended legislation on this subject were very great, as respected tithe-owners, lay-impropriators, and those on whom they might have claims. Unquestionably, liberty had been given to the former to commence suits for their claims, and, if they pleased, they had a right to do so. Now, if a measure had been passed, allowing them to prosecute suits, it would be very hard to turn round on them with a Bill, and to say, "You shall not proceed." The difficulty on every side was very great, and he believed that much evil had been caused by the Bill that had formerly passed, restricting individuals from instituting suits after a certain time. In all such cases, whenever they legislated prospectively, and gave time for adopting certain proceedings, which time having expired, no such proceedings could be adopted, the consequence was, that all who were concerned rushed into court, and actions were instituted which, but for this circumstance, would perhaps never have been brought. The remote and prospective operation of such an act would be to put an end ultimately to actions; but, in the intermediate period before the time of restriction arrived, ac-

1181
tions would be multiplied. Lord Tenterden's Bill originally provided for the bringing of actions within three years, but that term was reduced to one year. This had the effect of bringing a vast number of tithe holders into the field who otherwise would not have appeared there, and this he considered to be a very great misfortune. He had had occasion, however, to make inquiry since the matter was last brought before him, and he was led to believe, from the information which he had received, that a great number of those suits had not been proceeded in, although there certainly were some exceptions. The great disapprobation which had been expressed throughout the country would perhaps prevent even these from going on.

GRIEVANCES OF DISSENTERS.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he held in his hand several petitions, coming from a large number of Dissenting bodies of the highest respectability. They emanated from Dissenting congregations meeting at Liverpool, at Silver-street London, at Halifax, at Newmarket, at Aldborough, and several other places, and all of them were very much to the same purpose. The petitioners complained of the civil disabilities under which they laboured, and they prayed their Lordships to lose no time in removing and redressing their grievances. They strongly complained of the want of a legal registration of births, marriages, and deaths. This, it might be observed, was not a grievance peculiarly affecting Dissenters, but still it was to them a very great grievance; and the more they succeeded in acquiring landed property, precisely in that proportion did they feel this grievance in a greater degree than others. The Bill connected with this subject, which it gave him great satisfaction to find had been introduced to the House of Commons by an hon. and learned Gentleman, had, it seemed, so far as it went, conciliated the feelings of that House. With respect to the right of graduating at the Universities, the refusal of which also afforded ground of complaint to the Dissenters, he should at present say nothing. With respect to the solemnization of marriage, they complained that they could not go through that which many of them considered a civil process, without conforming to religious rights of which they did not approve. This he agreed with them in considering a very great grievance. Whether marriage was considered as a religious
1182
or a civil contract, or whether it was viewed as a contract of a mixed nature, was quite immaterial to the question. They complained that they could not be married without undergoing certain ceremonies, which they looked on, from conscientious motives, with very great repugnance. Some points which he had stated on a former occasion when he addressed himself to this subject, had, he knew, the effect of setting at rest the unpleasant feelings of several respectable Dissenting bodies in Lancashire and elsewhere—feelings which arose from their not understanding thoroughly the measure of relief which it was meant to extend to them; and he should now say a word or two to correct the mistake which they laboured under with reference to the important measure which was intended for their benefit. That measure would relieve all Dissenters of all denominations whatever—Presbyterians, Unitarians, Catholics, in short, Dissenters of every denomination and description, from the only grievance that affected their feelings as professors of any particular religion, by enabling them to contract valid marriages—valid for themselves and for their issue, without going to Church of appealing to any ecclesiastical authority or submitting to any religious ceremony of which they did not approve. By the measure to which he referred, they need not go into Church at all to be married; each of them would be as much at liberty as any individual then present was, to have the ceremony performed in his own dwelling. They might have the ceremony performed in their own meeting-house or place of religious worship; just as those who professed the doctrines of the Established Church, chose to have the ceremony performed in their Church. But those who objected said they were unwilling to have their names published by bans. Now, he would ask, what was the object of publishing bans; and he would pray those who objected to such a proceeding to consider what was the nature of the publication of bans in church? It was a secular, it was a civil notification, and had no more to do with religion of any kind or sort—no, it had no more to do with religion, than the proclamation of the King in the market-place, had to do with the selling of meat. The proclamation was made in the market-place to give due publicity to the King's lawful commands; not simply because the spot was the market-place, but because, being the market place, it was

1183
much frequented. The publication of bans, in like manner, was not made in the Church merely because it was the Church, but because many people were in the habit of frequenting the Church. It was clear, that the reason of publishing the bans was not because it involved a religious ceremony, but because it gave due publicity to the fact of a marriage being contemplated between certain parties. Now, the Statute of George 2nd said, whether rightly or wrongly it was not necessary for him to inquire, "that before a person under age shall contract marriage, the consent of the parent or guardian must be obtained;" and in order to give notice to the parent or guardian of any such intended marriage—in order to prevent a good-for-nothing man from running away with a young woman of fortune, it was enacted that publicity should be given to the matter by bans. And why was the Church selected for the publication of those bans? The reason was evident—namely, because people were supposed to go, and did go, in large numbers there. But even this precaution might in some cases be inefficient; as, for instance, in the case of a Church at Manchester, where many hundred bans were published on a Sunday. Would those who objected to this risk the total loss of that security which the Statute intended to give to parents? Then it was said, "Why not look to some other mode of publicity? Why not place the names on the Church-door? But as great an objection had been raised against that plan as against the other; the chief opposition to which arose from the mixing up secular matters with matters of a sacred nature. When it was said, "Let the names appear on the Church-wall," that proposition was objected to at once. Such a proceeding would be unpleasant to the feelings of many; and, besides, it would not secure publicity. Individuals who wished to be secretly married might, in the first instance, have their names put up; but they also might, immediately after, employ a friend to take down the names, and thus they might be married without any notice. Again, it was said, "Let the law respecting marriages be placed on the same footing as in Scotland;" and some of the petitions, coming from individuals of great respectability, approved of this suggestion. The petitioners proposed to make marriage at once a civil contract, as it was in Scotland. Now, he very greatly approved of many of the institutions of Scottish law, and he
1184
had often said, that some of them might, with great propriety, he adopted here. One peculiarity of that law—namely, its conciseness—might be adopted with considerable benefit. He believed that his noble friend on the cross-bench, who was deeply versed in that branch of legal knowledge, might carry about him the whole statute law of Scotland in a space not larger than his snuff-box would occupy. Some of the statutes of Scotland were confined to three lines, some even to two and a-half; while, in England, there were goodly statutes that occupied some hundred pages. This brevity he conceived might be adopted with advantage; but if there were any one part of the Scottish law the adoption of which he never would recommend to their Lordships, and which he thought ought to be shunned, it was the Scottish Law of Marriage, which some individuals would fain introduce here. He would ask those who advocated that system to look at the state of the law. A young man in Scotland could not dispose of 1–20th part of an acre of land in any manner whatever till he had attained the age of twenty-one. But what was the case with respect to marriage? A youth, when he was barely fourteen years of age, might, though he were by rank a duke in the land, though his expectations were of the most exalted description—such a youth might, without one moment afforded for the advice of friends—without the means of cool reflection—without the knowledge of his guardians, without the "spatium requiemque," he would not say, "dolori," as it might not be thought by some applicable to the subject, or "germane to the matter,"—that youth might, thus situated, contract a shameful alliance, he might contract a disgraceful marriage, by his saying two words, "Will you accept of me as husband?" and the female answering, "Yes!"—there was as valid a marriage contracted as ever was solemnised by king, priest, pope, or bishop. Such was the Scottish law of marriage. Here was a youth of fourteen; here was a girl, older or younger—"I take you," says the one, "for my wife," and "I take you," replies the other, "for my husband," and, according to the Scottish law, the marriage was good and valid. He should say no more on this subject to the rational portion, and they were by far the largest portion of his dissenting countrymen. He had thus, most respectfully towards them, stated his idea of the introduction of the

1185
Scottish law of marriage. He hoped sincerely, that his argument would open their eyes to the groundlessness of the objections made to that which was proposed for their benefit. He trusted, that they would see the anxiety that was manifested in the plan proposed to conciliate their feelings, and that they would not oppose that part of the measure, the object of which was, to prevent fraudulent or improper marriages. Relieved, as they would be, from every thing that could be considered a real grievance, he hoped, that the Dissenters would not attempt to plunge the country into all the mischiefs which must result from abolishing the Law of Marriage as it now stood, and allowing parties to enter into that solemn obligation without proper guards and checks against artful and insidious devices. He felt greatly obliged to his dissenting countrymen for the approving manner in which they had received his former observations, and he hoped that they would take in kind part—and in kindness most assuredly it was meant—the advice which he had now given to them.
Petitions laid on the Table.
Lord Kenyonhaving presented a petition against allowing Dissenters to graduate at the Universities, observed, that the petitioners stated, that the Universities ought to be, in accordance with their foundations, exclusively appropriated to the support of the Established Church, and in that sentiment he entirely agreed.
Earl Fitzwilliamsaid, that if the noble Baron had laid the petition on the Table without any observation, he should not have made a single remark. The petitioners, it appeared, asserted, that the Universities were established solely for the support of the Church. Now, the greater part of the colleges were founded by individuals, and it did not appear, that those individuals had any particular sect in view. The petitioners could not make out, that the founders had such a feeling, either by reference to the mode in which those Universities were established, or by reference to particular foundations; or, lastly, by reference to the time when they were founded.
Lord Kenyonsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of stating, that the Universities of this country were established for the purpose of promoting the doctrines of the Church of England, because it was well known, that many of them were established before the Reformation; but that they were established for the purpose of promoting religious instruction in connexion
1186
with the State, at the time they were founded, there could be no difficulty in maintaining. He had not made any speech in presenting the petition, because he did not wish to detain their Lordships with any discussion, and therefore he had done nothing more than shortly state to their Lordships what the nature of the petition was. He had another petition to present to the same effect, from the friends of the Established Church at Denbigh, which would give the noble Earl opposite the opportunity, if he wished it, of making any further observations he liked. He begged to have the petition read; it was signed by the clergy, and all the principal persons, as well as all the poorer persons residing in that place.
Earl Fitzwilliamhoped it was quite unnecessary for him to assure the noble Lord, that the Universities were not founded with that sort of connexion with the Church which was alleged in the petition; he had meant merely to state, that they were founded in Roman Catholic times. What he meant was, to call their Lordships attention to the allegation of the petitioners, which had been repeated again in the next petition, and in perhaps still stronger terms, viz. that persons who entered the Universities being bound to subscribe to any particular sect of religion, was not consistent with the original foundation of those Universities. He was satisfied, that the petitioners could not make out that proposition, inasmuch as it was perfectly well known, with respect to at least one of them, that the tests which were now required in that University were, if he might so speak, of modern introduction, and therefore it was quite impossible to substantiate the allegations which the petitioners made, that the object of the Universities was to maintain one particular sect of Christianity.
The Duke of Wellingtonwished to say one word upon the subject to which the noble Earl had adverted. The noble Earl had stated, that the Universities were not founded for the maintenance of any particular doctrine or sect in religion, and that they were not founded for the exclusive support of the Protestant faith. This was perfectly true, inasmuch as many of the colleges were founded before the Reformation; but he defied the noble Earl to prove, that it ever was the intention of the founders, that any religion but the Christian religion should be taught in those colleges. The Roman Catholic religion, which was formerly the religion of the country, was

1187
reformed; and, being reformed, it was introduced, as their Lordships knew, into the Universities. Then it was, that tests of faith were required from the students seeking admission. And what was the nature of those tests? They were simply tests of Christianity, as taught and maintained by the Church of England. This was the nature of the tests which students were required to take; and could it be contended, that such tests were not proper in guarding the admission to Universities founded for the maintenance of the Christian religion. These tests met the concurrence of the noble Earl himself (Earl Fitzwilliam), and of every other noble Lord in that House, so far as concerned their purport. Did the noble Earl mean to say, that these tests against the Catholics, having been necessary at the time of the Reformation, were less necessary now, because of the Catholics having obtained greater power within the last three or four years? He was sure that could not be his argument; but, if it was, he was sure that House would not sanction it. When most of the colleges of the Universities were founded, the belief of the country was different from what it afterwards became. The truth was not discovered until afterwards, and then, of course, those learned bodies were bound to take measures and precautions for the propagation of what was believed to be the true faith. He should like to know from the noble Earl, whether he meant to say, that any thing but the truth was to be taught at the Universities?
Earl Fitzwilliamsaid, the noble Duke had advanced one or two propositions to which, and he hoped the noble Duke would forgive him, he should endeavour to call the attention of the House. The noble Duke said, that the greater part of those colleges were founded in Roman Catholic times. That he (Earl Fitzwilliam) admitted. But the noble Duke also said, that, at the period of the Reformation, those tests which were now complained of had been imposed. They certainly were not then imposed in the University of Cambridge. He would not speak of the University over which the noble Duke presided; but those tests, he was certain, were not introduced into Cambridge until long after the Reformation. Until the noble Duke showed, that the Reformation took place in the time of James 1st and James 2nd, he could not justly contend, that those tests were imposed at the time of the Reformation. But the noble Duke said,
1188
that those persons who were educated at the University, when they took those tests declared, that they fully believed in the reformed religion, as opposed to that which had been superseded. Now, vast numbers of persons in this country held, that the Reformation was but half a reformation, and they would find that opinion very prevalent on the other side of the Tweed. It was perfectly absurd to say, that the Protestant religion, properly so called, was imposed, if he might use the expression, on those who came to the Universities, and were required to take certain tests. It was no renunciation of Popery they were called on to make. They were required to sign thirty-nine articles, containing various propositions, many of them connected with subjects of a deep, subtle, and metaphysical character. So abstruse were they, that he was certain that ninety-nine out of 100 students who entered at Oxford—yes, that ninety-nine out of 100 of those young men who were called on to subscribe those articles, did not comprehend them. Would the noble Baron (Kenyon) tell him, that young men of nineteen years of age, going to enter at Oxford, understood and comprehended the doctrines of free-will, of necessity, of transubstantiation, and a great many other propositions equally difficult? Would the noble Baron get up, and tell him, that very young men, coming from Eton or Westminster, could understand all those subjects, most of them, he might say, embracing points on which many of their Lordships themselves had not perhaps formed a determined and steadfast opinion? It was not possible to suppose, that they should understand them, and yet they were called on to sign those articles.
Lord Kenyonwas enabled, as a member of the University of Oxford, to give a practical denial to the charges of the noble Earl who had just sat down. A right rev. Prelate near the noble Earl would tell him, that his opinions were entirely founded in error. When latterly his own son was entered at the University of Oxford, he was called upon to subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles. The meaning of his so subscribing them, however, was explained to him in a manner very different from the explanation of the noble Earl. The tutor told him distinctly, that he did not call upon him to say, that he understood the Thirty-nine Articles, but simply that he was willing to receive instructions respecting them. He had subsequently, the gratification to hear that his two sons had

1189
attended to the instruction offered to them, and fully comprehended the meaning of all the Articles they had signed. Whether he (Lord Kenyon) had himself understood the meaning of these articles or not, when he entered the University, he would not pretend to say; but he would say, that he was at that time fully as competent to enter into discussion upon them as the noble Earl seemed to be at present; and, at a proper time and place, he should be willing to enter into the controversy with the noble Earl. There was an irregularity in the prayer of the petition he had presented, and he should therefore withdraw it.
The Bishop of Londonbegged to trouble their Lordships with one or two observations, having been alluded to by the noble Lord who had last spoken. The noble Earl (Earl Fitzwilliam) had told their Lordships, that few in that House understood the meaning of the Thirty-nine Articles. He (the Bishop of London) had certainly very distinctly traced the unacquaintance of the noble Earl with those Articles. As he had taken and subscribed them, he was bound now to be acquainted with their meaning.—[Earl Fitzwilliam had not subscribed them.] At all events, the noble Earl was a sincere member of the Church of England, and as the Thirty-Nine Articles contained the doctrines of the Church of England, he ought to be acquainted with them. The noble Earl had said, that the Thirty-nine Articles did not contain a renunciation of the errors of Popery. On the contrary, he begged leave to state, that each of these Articles emphatically denied some one of the erroneous doctrines of the Church of Rome. He wished to make one remark upon the assertion, that the religion of the country had been changed by the Reformation. That, he humbly conceived, was not a proper mode of stating the effect of the Reformation. The national religion upon that occasion was rather purified than changed. It was not denied, that these colleges were bound to teach Christianity. As they were connected with the State, were they not bound to teach it according to the belief of the Church of England? If the Dissenters should be forced, eo nomine, upon the Universities, their character would be completely changed.
Earl Fitzwilliamhad not said, that an assent to the Thirty-nine Articles did not amount to a renunciation of Popery; but it was not necessarily so. He had merely
1190
maintained, that the majority of that House did not fully understand the meaning of those Articles. For one, he had no hesitation in avowing, that he did not understand them; and questions of so much metaphysical abstruseness and subtlety were involved in them, that he doubted if any noble Lord could get up and conscientiously declare, that he felt no difficulty on the subject.
The Bishop of Exeterdid not wish to prolong the discussion; but he could not avoid entering his protest against the noble Earl's statement, that the Thirty-nine Articles would admit of various interpretations. The object of those who drew them up was, to make them as precise and intelligible as possible. As to a young man of sixteen being required to subscribe to them, and not understanding them, the student always placed implicit confidence in his tutor to teach him the meaning of them, and that had been the answer upon all occasions to the objections that had been urged against them. That answer had always been considered as a triumphant one. The objection was a very old one, and it had always been met as he then met it, and in a manner which was considered to be conclusive. Many years ago, in Parliament, the same objection had been brought forward by Sir W. Meredith, who was answered by Lord North. It had really always been laughed down for its absurdity, and as undeserving a single observation in reply. The question had fallen in the way of Dr. Johnson, who encountered it in the conclusive and convincing manner in which he was accustomed to meet every matter of controversy. Nothing more amusing could be imagined than to see the noble Earl stand up in such an argument against Samuel Johnson. In the sense to which he had referred, it had always been declared by tutors at College that the Thirty-nine Articles ought to be received and in none other; and it was unjust and absurd to contend that the contrary was the understanding.
Earl Fitzwilliamwas surprised, that the right reverend Prelate should have advocated and sanctioned such a practice as that which he had stated, which called upon undergraduates to subscribe to one thing, while they professed another, ["No, no."] He (Earl Fitzwilliam) would say, "Yes, yes;" for, if the statements of the right reverend Prelate meant anything, they meant that. He knew not how amusing it might be to the right reverend

1191
Prelate to see him (Earl Fitzwilliam) enter into argument with such a man as Dr. Johnson; but he thought few things could be much more amusing than to see a right reverend Prelate get up and declare that it was right for a young man to subscribe to what he did not pretend to understand or mean. The right reverend Prelate had begged the question from beginning to end, and had made himself quite as amusing upon this as he had upon a former occasion.
The Earl of Winchilseathought the noble Earl had formed extremely erroneous notions of what the right reverend Prelate had stated. What he had said was, that the under-graduates were called upon to subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles, reliance being placed on their tutors to impress upon them their effect. These Articles were chiefly as a test of the willingness of the student to become a proficient in the doctrines of the Church of England. The Roman Catholics had seminaries for the instruction of their priests. Why should not the Church of England have institutions for the instruction of their clergy? If the House were to take from the Established Church those liberties which she now possessed, they would place her in a worse situation than any body of Dissenters in the kingdom. No young man, upon subscribing the Thirty-nine Articles, could be supposed to assert, that he understood all they contained. There were questions in religion beyond the narrow comprehension of man's understanding altogether.
The Archbishop of Canterburywould not have said one word on this subject, but for the harsh and unjust observations of the noble Earl (Earl Fitzwilliam) upon the right reverend Prelate, (the Bishop of Exeter). From the tone of the noble Earl's animadversions, it might be supposed, that the spirit of the Jesuits of old animated the observations of the right reverend Prelate. He (the Archbishop of Canterbury) might probably fall under the same obloquy; but he should feel, that he was a miserable creature if he did not come forward and add his word in a case in which the truth was in jeopardy. He did not know that it was necessary for him to say, that he concurred entirely in all that had fallen from the right reverend Prelate who had just spoken, and he need not tell their Lordships, that the right reverend Prelate's construction of the rules of the University of Oxford was the true one.
1192
The most reverend Prelate then read certain parts of the statutes of the University of Oxford, which required students to subscribe to the Articles of Faith, and to acknowledge the King's supremacy, from which it appeared they were compelled to subscribe to the Articles of Faith and Religion at the age of twelve years, but were not to take the Oath of Supremacy and Fidelity until they arrived at the age of sixteen. It required a great deal of knowledge to comprehend the Articles of the Church, and it was, therefore, not to be supposed that students entering the Universities were required to have a full understanding of their doctrines, but were only declaring a general belief in them as members of the Church of England. So, when children were asked if they were Christians, and to say the Belief, he apprehended that it was not expected of them that they entirely comprehended the declaration of the Creed at that time, but only that they were ready to adopt it as it should be taught them, until their minds acquired the power of examination. The duty of requiring subscription to the Articles from students was imposed upon the tutors of youth at the University in this sense. This was required of the tutors, who were bound to watch over the morals of the students committed to their charge, and to instruct them in their duties, more particularly in their religious duties, and in the Articles of Doctrine agreed to in Council in the year 1562. After looking at these directions, which he was enabled to say were at Oxford most fully and faithfully obeyed, he did not know how any one could say, that the subscription of the Articles by students implied a belief in all their doctrines. It was only a declaration that they were members of the Church of England, and that they were desirous and willing to be instructed in its doctrines. When the subscription was made by persons undertaking the ministry of the Church, then, indeed, he understood that such persons subscribed to the Thirty-nine Articles their full belief in all that they contained, and not as in the case of the child or student.
Petition withdrawn, being irregular.