Sitting of 28 August 1835

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Registration of Voters' (Ireland); Piers (Ireland); Slave Trade Portugal; Slave Trade Denmark.
Petitions presented. By Sir SAMUEL WHALLEY, from St. Pancrass, against passing the Appropriation Act till the

1085
Municipal Corporations' and the Irish Church Bills be passed; from St. Marylebone, and by Mr. RICHARD PHILIPS, from Kidderminster, in favour of the Municipal Corporations' Bill.—By Mr. CHALMERS, from Montrose, to the same effect By Sir SAMUEL WHALLEY, from St. Marylebone, for Remitting the Sentence on the Dorchester Labourers.—By Mr. SINCLAIR, from Bathgate, in favour of the Church of Scotland; from the Provincial Synod of Argyll, against the Glasgow Universities' Bill.—By Mr. WILKS, from Boston, and Mr. STURT, from Derby and Ludlow, for compelling the Lords to pass the Municipal Corporations' Bill—By Mr. HAWES, from the Licensed Victuallers of London and Middlesex, against the Spirit Licences' Bill, for permitting Music and Dancing in Public Houses.

CORPORATION REFORM — PETITION.
Mr. Struttpresented a Petition, numerously signed, from Ludlow, calling upon the House to resist the vile and desperate attempt of the Peers to stop Reform, and praying the House not to agree to the Lords' Amendments to the Corporation Reform Bill.
Mr. Charltonthought it a great pity that this petition had not the addresses of the persons who sent them to the House attached to them. The charge brought against the House of Lords was most unjustifiable [cries of "Oh."] He would repeat, that the conduct of those who had charged the House of Lords with unconstitutional proceedings, was most unjustifiable. What! were a set of pot-house politicians, the tag-rag and bob-tail of the town, to charge the House of Lords with unconstitutional conduct? The House of Lords was of vast importance in counteracting and controlling the democratic tendency of that House, and such an accusation only betrayed the ignorance of the petitioners, and of those who cheered the petition. Was it to be said, that such persons as the petitioners should call upon that House to stop the Supplies? As to the Corporation of Ludlow, and its supposed abuses, he begged to refer the hon. Gentleman to the Report of the Commissioners, who stated, that of late years its conduct had been irreproachable, and that they had not met with any accounts more carefully kept. But he might go farther, and assert, that of late years the Corporation had been influenced by no party motives. He was satisfied that what he had said was participated by—he might almost say—nine-tenths of the respectable population of Ludlow. The same persons had signed their names to the petition three or four times over, and some women were among the subscribers. He believed that this petition was the prototype of many others of the same kind, and that it was not entitled to much attention.
Dr. Baldwinthought it right to say, that though he did not object to the conduct of the House of Lords in altering and amending Bills sent to them, he did object to their invasion of the rights of the people, and to their resistance to the restitution of the rights of the people. They had gone to this extent with regard to the Municipal Reform Bill; and so far the conduct of the House of Lords had been unconstitutional. He hoped that the House of Commons would take proper measures to prevent the mutilation of the Corporation Reform Bill.
Mr. Scarlettbegged to say, in answer to the hon. Member who spoke last, that the offensive parts of the Municipal Corporations' Bill had been carried by a majority of Scotch and Irish Members, and not by a majority of English Members. When that hon. Member talked of an infringement of rights, he (Mr. Scarlett) would ask, when was a more violent attack made upon rights than by this very measure? It amounted to an abolition of all franchises; and were not the franchises of the people the rights of the people? Was it fit, then, to attack the House of Lords for defending the rights and privileges of the people? He contended, that such language ought not to be used.
Mr. Struttcould not help thinking that the hon. Member for Ludlow had displayed an unnecessary degree of warmth, especially in complaining of the attack upon the Corporation of Ludlow. Although the hon. Member now appeared as the defender of the Corporation, if report spoke truly, it was not long since he had been its inveterate opponent, and had been most successful in remedying some of its abuses. He could only say, that he had received the petition, accompanied by a letter from a gentleman worthy of credit, and well known to the hon. Member for Ludlow. The petition before the House had 600 signatures.
Mr. Charltonsaid, that by the letter in his possession, he was informed, that one boy had signed the petition four or five times; he was mistaken, he had read the letter in haste, and on referring to it again he found it asserted, that this boy had signed the petition nine times. The letter containing this fact was from the High Bailiff of Ludlow, and he hoped that the hon. Member was satisfied with this authority. The hon. Member had alluded to him (Mr. Charlton) as appearing in a new character; he appeared in the same character he had

1087
always sustained, and which he never would abandon while he was a public man. When the Corporation of Ludlow did not act according to its charter, he had neither spared pains nor expense to compel them to adhere to it; he had found the law strong enough without resorting to such a despicable Bill as the Municipal Corporations Bill, as it went from this House to the other. That measure was a mere election manœuvre. As he said before, the law as it existed was strong enough for the remedy of abuses in Corporations, and having returned to their Charter the Corporation of Ludlow had secured the good opinion of the Commissioners.
Mr. Pottersaid, that if he were not much mistaken the hon. Member once belonged to the Birmingham Political Union; he had himself been a Member of it, and he had supposed that the hon. Gentleman was one of its most thorough-going Members. Now that the hon. Member had changed sides, he did not seem more moderate in the opposite direction.
Mr. Charltonhad not the least objection that his political sentiments should be brought under discussion. He had done what he could to promote a Reform in Parliament; and he believed that he had been a Member of the Birmingham Union; but he had never been a very zealous Member, and had never been present at any of its meetings. Even if he had attended them, what then? He had belonged to it to promote Reform, and not to produce revolution, and to set up a republic in the country, which seemed to be the object of the promoters of the Municipal Reform Bill. The hon. Member who had attacked him was one of the most prominent of the promoters of that measure; it was good for nothing but to produce a revolution, and to establish a republic, and in spite of the hint of the hon. Member, he would do his utmost to resist it.
Mr. Potterwas not a Republican; he was anxious only for good Government, and he was satisfied that the Municipal Reform Bill would effect that object.
Petition laid on the Table.

IRON TRADE.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonwished to put two questions to the President of the Board of Trade. About six months ago, a memorial had been presented from the iron manufacturers of South Wales, pointing out the serious evils likely to arise to them from the increase of the tariff on iron in the kingdom of Han-
1088
over. They would have had no just ground of complaint if the Hanoverian Government had imposed the same duty on iron from all other countries, but such was not the fact; and as he presumed that a representation had been made from this country on the subject, he wished to know whether any answer had been returned, or what means of redress had been adopted? His other question had relation to the same branch of trade; for some years past, the French Government had imposed a discriminating duty, and iron imported by sea paid double the duty of iron imported by land; the clear object being to favour the iron trade of Belgium, and discourage that of England. He wished to know what was the present position of the matter, as it was important that the French Government should act impartially towards all foreign countries.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonwould endeavour to give the hon. Member an answer. As to the first question, as soon as he had received information that the Hanoverian Government had actually carried into effect what it had threatened some years ago, a remonstrance was made by the Board to which he belonged. He had communicated with the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and the Hanoverian Minister had been informed, that if the discriminating duty were persevered in, Great Britain would feel it necessary to retaliate by means of an Order in Council, which would place the productions of Hanover on the same footing. The Hanoverian Minister left this country immediately afterwards, and the answer of his Government had not yet been received; but he could assure the House that he should feel no hesitation in recommending the course which the Act had placed in the discretion of the Crown. The attempt had been made in this way; the increased duty was laid upon rolled iron, not exactly specifying English iron, but the effect was the same, and the Hanoverian Government had followed the example of America with a slight difference, but clearly bringing the tariff within the terms of a discriminating duty. As to the second question, he regretted much to state that no progress with regard to improving our commercial relations with France had lately been made—certainly not that progress which he (Mr. Poulett Thomson) had had reason to expect would have been made by the French Government. He had had the honour of stating, on a former occasion, that steps had been

1089
taken by the French Government to reduce various duties, and a considerable alteration was carried into effect during the Session of 1833–4; the duties on cotton-twist, on tin, and on a number of other small articles, were lowered, and the whole system was to have been consolidated in a Customs' Bill; but he was sorry to add that, in the session of the French Chamber of 1834, no further measures had been adopted. He regretted it extremely, because he was satisfied that hopes had been raised in the minds of the French people, that the commercial relations of the two nations would be extended; and those hopes, for the present, at least, had been disappointed. He trusted, however, that by the arrival of another Session, the question would be in a different and more satisfactory state, and to accomplish this, no effort that could be made by this Government should be wanting. In the meantime, he was bound to say, that he did not think that the trade of Great Britain had materially suffered by the delay; and official returns produced by the French Ministers themselves showed that the smuggler had introduced an immense quantity of goods, which would, with a liberal system, have found their way into the country through the Custom-house in the natural course of trade. The alteration in the duty upon some commodities proved distinctly that it was the interest of France to remove exorbitant imposts, in order to secure a greater revenue. The hon. Member had alluded to the question of discriminatory duties, and, for one, he was not disposed to admit that these duties did not fall within the class of discriminatory duties, giving a preference to one country over another. The French Government contended that they were not discriminatory, because they did not refer to the country where the goods were produced, but only to the place from which they were introduced. That argument he was not disposed to admit, because the effect might be to compel this country to send iron by land to France through some other country, instead of shipping it directly for a French port. He was aware that the question was a difficult one, and he admitted that time might be necessary for the establishment of a system of perfect equality. He contended, however, and would contend, that Great Britain had a right to the admission of the principle, and ultimately to see it carried into effect. Some time ago the French Government had been informed, that unless the principle was ad-
1090
mitted, it would be the duty of the Ministers of this country to recommend the Crown to impose a discriminatory duty on French commodities, and that course seemed most advisable, if the French Government persevered in the unjust distinction it had established. He was one of those who wished to see trade as free as possible.
The Attorney-Generalcomplained of the high duty imposed on the introduction of Scotch shawls into France, and requested the right hon. Gentleman to interfere on the subject.
Subject dropped.

WOLVERHAMPTON ENQUIRY.
Lord John Russellsaid, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton had given notice of a Motion to the effect that he would direct the attention of the House to the evidence taken in the inquiry into the recent occurrences at Wolverhampton. As the evidence was very voluminous, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would state what was the particular point to which he desired to call the attention of the House.
Mr. Thorneleysaid, that the conclusion to which he came on reading the evidence was, that the Riot Act ought not to have been read, and the military ought not to have been sent as they were, through the streets, for there was no riot except at the Market-place and opposite the Hotel. His object was to prevent interferences of this kind. He believed that this House, and he was sure that the country at large, felt great jealousy on the subject of military interference. The resolution he had intended to move was, "That this House having taken into its consideration the minutes of evidence taken at Wolverhampton, as to the proceedings which occurred at the close of the South Staffordshire election, and the introduction of the military into that borough, on the 27th May last, when several persons were wounded, is of opinion that measures should be immediately adopted to secure the administration of justice and the preservation of the peace in that borough, without resorting to military force." But at present he was inclined to think it would be most advisable not to make such a motion. He would, however, wait to hear the noble Lord's explanation.
Lord John Russellsaid, it appeared from the evidence, that the magistrate acted to the best of his ability. He was as sensible, however, now, as he was when out of office, of the great evil of calling in the military unnecessarily to put down rioting; but if

1091
forbearance were carried too far, instead of its preserving the public peace it had very often the contrary effect. Much must depend on the measures that were taken beforehand. After an event had occurred, it was exceedingly difficult to determine what would have been the result of a different course of proceeding. In this case, some might be of opinion that it was wrong to call the military in; with respect to the Bristol case, on the other hand, it might be contended, that if the military had been called in earlier the rioting would have been sooner suppressed. He would assure the hon. Gentleman that this question had attracted a great deal of his attention; and he would add, that he thought there was wanting in the country a better system of magistracy in the populous districts, and a better system of police. He had already entered into some correspondence with the Lord-lieutenant of Staffordshire on the subject, and he should endeavour to introduce some improvements with as little delay as possible.
Mr. Villierssaid, that what had fallen from the noble Lord respecting the necessity of an improved police and magistracy, had given him great satisfaction, and he was sure that it would give great satisfaction to his constituents. The want of competent magistrates was a great evil throughout the country; but he believed that there was no district of equal extent and population, where the want of efficient local authority was more deeply felt than it was at Wolverhampton. He was glad to hear the opinion now expressed by the noble Lord, as if acted upon, it would go far to remedy the evil for which he should have been anxious to direct his attention to the results of the recent inquiry.
Mr. Thorneleywas understood to intimate that he would decline bringing forward any motion on the subject.

SLAVE TRADE—SARDINIA.
The Chancellor of the Exchequermoved the third reading of a Bill for carrying into effect a measure agreed to with the Government of Sardinia for suppressing the Slave Trade.
Mr. Humetook the opportunity of asking if any measure had been or would be taken to put a stop to the practices at present prevalent in Cuba, where the slave trade was in a very flourishing condition—where, indeed, every vessel sailing to the coast of Africa might be insured for a fixed rate of percentage! The French flag had wholly disappeared in connexion with this traffic,
1092
but still the Spanish flag was to be found covering its continuance. If this state of things were to remain, it was impossible that they could expect in our own West-India islands that improvement in our black population which it was desirable to see effected. He wished to ask whether, under the agreements existing with the Spanish Government—for which agreements we had paid 800,000 l.—we had not the power immediately to enforce the abolition of the trade?—and if not, whether some other agreement could not be entered into?
Mr. Charles Woodadmitted that the statement concerning the prevalence of the traffic in slaves in the island of Cuba was but too true: the best proof of the activity of the Government in endeavouring to repress it was to be found in the several captures which had been lately made. Negotiations were, however, going on at that moment with Spain, for the purpose of effecting a new treaty; and as they were still incomplete, he could not at present enter into them.
Mr. Humesaid, nothing but the declaring of this trade to be piracy would be effectual in suppressing it.
Bill read a third time.

STAMPS AND ASSESSED TAXES.
The Chancellor of the Exchequermoved that the Report of the Stamps and Assessed Taxes' Bill be brought up.
Mr. Humetook the opportunity of suggesting to the right hon. Gentleman, who had declined to repeal the Stamp-duty upon newspapers, on the ground of wanting funds, the propriety of devoting to that purpose the sum of 350,000 l., yet remaining unapplied out of the million which had been advanced to the Irish clergy. It was now understood that the Irish Tithe Bill had been dropped altogether in the other House; and he would submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be well, now that the money in question had been spurned and rejected by that House, for him to amend the present Bill, by at once reducing the amount of the duty to which he alluded to the sum of one penny.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwould never consent to reduce a tax by means of an issue of Exchequer Bills, for the money to which his hon. Friend alluded was but a fund remaining of unissued Exchequer Bills.
Mr. Humeobserved, that when he desired the reduction, he did not contemplate the necessity of providing for any consequent decrease of revenue; on the contrary he

1093
thought a diminution of the duty would lead to an increase.
Mr.O'Connellsaid, that the House might also apply the 750,000 l. which had been advanced out of the million to that purpose. They had, indeed, expressed their willingness to remit their claim to that amount on the Irish clergy who had received it, but elsewhere it had been said, that the Protestant clergy ought to repay it.
Report brought up.

CORPORATION REFORM——LORDS' AMENDMENT.
The Corporation Reform Bill was brought from the Lords.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrose for the purpose of moving, not that the amendments only be printed, according to the usual course, but that the whole Bill, as amended, be printed; and said, that that was the only way in which the measure—a new measure in some respects, and certainly one requiring full consideration—could be discussed. He trusted that that arrangement would be productive of no serious delay, as he expected that copies of the measure would be in the hands of Members by Monday next, when it should, he proposed, be taken into consideration. It was at all events extremely desirable that they should have it before them in a complete state, for the purpose of well-considering a measure which had attracted more attention within that House, and, indeed, had excited more interest out of that House, than any piece of legislation which, since the passing of the Reform Bill, had been propounded. Such being the case, he trusted that he might take the liberty of earnestly recommending hon. Gentlemen not to enter, at the present moment, into a discussion which could not be productive of any possible good, and which could be only in anticipation of that most serious discussion which must take place when the Bill was in their hands after being printed, when they would have not only to express opinions but to come to a decision upon the subject. He trusted, he would again say, the question being one of such interest and magnitude, that the House would not think that he was acting in any shape improperly or unbecomingly, as one of those most friendly to the Bill as it was sent from that House, if he took the liberty of earnestly entreating the House to postpone at present a discussion which could lead to no good result, and which might impede the fair, calm, and deliberate but resolute decision upon the subject. He would, therefore,
1094
move that the Bill, as amended, he printed and taken into consideration on Monday next.
Mr. Humeconcurred with the right hon. Gentleman as to the propriety of considering this, as well as every other measure which came before them, calmly, and with deliberation; but hoped that nothing which had fallen from him would be taken as holding out any idea of a hope that that House could accepting for one moment entertain, the Bill in its existing state. He was against any such hope being for one moment held out—against the supposition that they could for an instant listen to the "amendments," as they were called, which had been made in the measure, or as he should say, the alterations which had altogether ruined it—which had rendered it such that they would be better without than with it. When, however, the copies of the amended Bill should be before them, they would be able to weigh the extent of the evils which the Bill had suffered; for his own part, he believed them to be such as rendered it wholly impossible for the House to agree to it ultimately. He said that with great regret, because they were then, on the 28th August, contemplating the last remnant of the two great measures which had been the result of all their labours during that Session. Time had been lost, excitement had been produced in the minds of the public, and a disappointment bitter in proportion had followed—which could not fail to be productive of the most serious consequences. The right hon. Gentleman had recommended, perhaps, wisely, that there should be no discussion at that period upon the subject. All that he wished was, to enter his protest against being supposed to yield, in the smallest degree, to the propriety of the amendments in question.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the period was now come, in which the public opinion could not be trifled with—in which the wants of this great country could not be looked at slightingly—and in which, if great organic questions affecting the constitution of the country came to be considered, the blame would fall on those who had given rise to such a convulsive discussion—if he might use the expression—and not on those who had endeavoured peaceably to ameliorate its institutions.
Bill to be printed.

MR. BUCKINGHAM'S COMPENSATION.
On the Motion of Mr. Tulk, for the Ad-

1095
journed Debate on the Committal of this Bill to be resumed,
Sir John Hobhousesaid, that he was anxious to know from the Speaker whether this was to be considered a private or a public Bill.
The Speakerwas understood to reply that it was undoubtedly a private Bill.
Sir John Hobhousebegged to read one of the Standing Orders with respect to the reception of private Bills. It was laid down in the standing Order, which he read to the House, that the House would not receive any petition for a private Bill after the 13th of March; that no private Bill should be read a first time after the 13th of April; and that no Report should be received after the 13th of June. He thought, therefore, that this Standing Order of the House precluded their proceeding with this Bill.
The Speakerwas understood to say that the further consideration of this Bill, though a private one, was not shut out by the Standing Order which had been read; for the House had it in its power to dispense with such order if it pleased; and this very day the Royal Assent had been given to several private Bills introduced without compliance with such order.
Mr. Humewas really surprised that the right hon. Baronet, the President of the India Board, should raise a technical objection to a Bill, the principle of which had been admitted by its passing through a second reading. Indeed he must say it was an act of cruelty to Mr. Buckingham to interpose such a technical objection at such a moment as this; for what were the facts of the case? Why these: that the late Cabinet of Lord Grey, composed of very nearly the same members as the present Cabinet of Lord Melbourne, granted a Committee of Inquiry—the Committee reported unanimously that Mr. Buckingham ought to receive compensation—the resolutions being drawn up by the hand of Lord Glenelg, still a Cabinet Minister, and approved by the noble Secretary of State for the Home Department, now the leader of the House of Commons, and yet, in the face of all this, the new President of the India Board, in opposition to his predecessors, as well as to his colleagues, comes forward, after failing to carry the House with him on the merits of the question, to put it aside by a purely technical objection. This conduct of the right hon. Baronet was to him perfectly unaccountable; and he would have done himself more honour if he had come forward manfully, waving all techni-
1096
calities, and put the question on its merits, and its merits alone, for on these only ought it to be decided.
Sir John Hobhousesaid, that the objection he had stated was no technical one, but an objection which had been very properly taken by the Counsel for the East-India Company when they were heard at the Bar. If this Bill were to be proceeded with, contrary to the established rules of the House in the case of private Bills, the East-India Company would not have time to get up their case. Justice could not be done to either party, unless the question were referred to a Committee up stairs, and it would not be possible that a determination could be come to by such a Committee during the present Session.
Mr. O' Connellhoped, that the Bill would be allowed to go forward as it had commenced—as a public Bill. The House had permitted it to be brought in as such, it had been read a second time as such, Counsel had been heard before their Bar instead of before a Committee, which would have been the proper place had the Bill been regarded as a private one; and now when the opponents of the Bill were beaten on its merits, and had not an argument left to stand on, they turned round and met it with a miserable technicality, Really it was high time that such courses as these should be laid aside; they were unworthy the character of a tribunal of justice; and if ever there was a case in which they were unbecoming this was one. It was said, too, that there was no time to consider the subject properly during the present Session. Why should there not be time? The evidence lay in a very small compass, and the House might hear it and determine on the amount of compensation that should be given, in a single sitting. There was always time for justice, if persons were but willing to employ it for that purpose. For himself, he must say, that he thought a clearer case of robbery had never been established than that which had been perpetrated towards Mr. Buckingham. Not even the history of the Colonies—bad as it was—could present another such case of unparalleled wrongs; for after the acquittal by the Government for four of the articles complained of—and acquittal by a jury for the fifth—he is banished for a-sixth article which so far from being an improper one, was a mere anticipation of the very judgment passed by the India Directors themselves. It condemned, in very mild and gentle terms, the appointment of a Scotch

1097
parson to be a Stationer General, and the tenor of the article was to shew, that the two offices were incompatible, that the person holding the two should abandon one and adhere to the other—be either parson or stationer, but not both—as in that case the duties of either would be sure to be neglected. And what really happened? Why this. That as soon as ever this appointment was heard of in England, it was condemned by the Court of Directors—condemned by the Board of Control—and condemned by the General Assembly of Scotland, to whom the parson was amenable, and was annulled by all three, though Mr. Buckingham, who had been the first to call public attention to its impropriety, was made the victim of his public virtue—for really this was an act which did him honour, and for which he should have been thanked and rewarded, instead of being banished and ruined. He trusted, therefore, that the right hon. Baronet would wave these technical obstructions, and let the House deal with the question on its merits, as on those alone it ought to be decided.
Mr. Wilksconcurred in every word that had been uttered by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin; and added his earnest prayer that the House would not suffer justice to be defeated by a mere technicality. He was familiar with the subject from the beginning, and he had watched its progress to the end: and he must say, that he had never entertained but one opinion on it, which was this—that Mr. Buckingham was most unjustly, oppressively, and cruelly deprived of his personal liberty and ruined in his property, not only without having committed any fault, but for conduct which did him the highest honour, and which could never be mentioned but to his praise. The facts were so familiar to the people of England generally, that this was the almost universal sentiment: and his conviction was, that the conduct of the right, hon. Baronet (Sir John Hobhouse) in opposing this just and reasonable claim would excite the greatest astonishment wherever it was known, if even stronger feelings were not engendered by it. Mr. Buckingham, he would contend, had acted with the greatest delicacy in not pressing these claims forward before. He sincerely hoped that the Bill would be allowed to go forward as a public Bill, and secure the sanction of the House at least in the present Session.
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, that Mr. Buckingham had been warned of the consequences of the course which he was pursu-
1098
ing, but that he had nevertheless persevered in that course; another, that it was not in India, as in England, where any Government might laugh the attacks of the Press to scorn, knowing that there was a popular assembly in which those attacks, if unjust, might with case be repelled; a third, that if the claim were granted, it would assume the shape of a tax on the natives of India, who were altogether uninterested in the subject.
Mr. Buckinghamsaid, that it was with great reluctance that he presented himself to the notice of the House on this occasion; but in doing so he was actuated by two powerful motives, each of them, he believed, of sufficient force to satisfy the House that he was justified in the course he was about to take. This first motive was a desire to set himself right with the House as to certain personal imputations that he thought had been most unjustly cast upon him by the right hon. President of the Board of Control; and his second motive was a desire to save the time of the House and shorten the discussion, by putting them in possession of the main facts of the case in as brief and connected a form as the extent over which it was necessarily spread could admit. On these two grounds he in treated the indulgence of the House while he addressed to them the few observations which he thus felt it his duty to offer. The right hon. Baronet had, in his first speech, delivered on the introduction of the Bill now before the House about a week ago, deprecated the presence of any hon. Member during a debate on a question in which he was himself personally interested; and complained of his (Mr. Buckingham's) presence as being unprecedented and embarrassing; and he had next described the measures taken by Mr. Buckingham to put hon. Members in possession of his case, by sending them a printed paper, and to ensure their attendance by issuing a written circular, as wholly inconsistent with the character of a Member of Parliament. Now these were very grave accusations, and such as, if substantiated, would deservedly prejudice him in the eyes of his constituents and the country, and indeed render him unworthy to sit among those by whom he was now surrounded. He therefore felt it his duty now to rise in his place, and give these imputations his most strenuous and most unqualified contradiction. But he would not content himself with this; he would shew to the House that he was acting on well-established precedents, on examples of the

1099
strictest honour, on rules of every-day practice, as well as of reason and common sense. As to example and precedent, he would content himself with quoting two of recent date as sufficient for his purpose. When the hon. and gallant admiral, the Member for Devonport, (Sir Edward Codrington) brought forward the claims of himself and his brother officers and seamen, to the prize-money due for the capture of the Turkish fleet at Navarino, that gallant Admiral, then belonging to a profession, the very soul of which is honour, felt no scruple whatever in being himself the individual to advocate the claim, to make the motion, and to take the lead in carrying it to a close; and not a whisper was breathed on either side of the House in objection to such a course. And if it should be said that the gallant Admiral was claiming for others as well as for himself, (though his own share was by far the largest in the amount that I he claimed for the whole) so also in his, Mr. Buckingham's case, there were others, whose property had been invaded, and to I whom compensation was due, he meant the seventy English gentlemen who were co-proprietors with himself in the Calcutta Journal at the time of its suppression, and whose rights he was bound to defend and advocate as well as his own. But there was a case still more in point, in which the amount was much larger, and the claimants more numerous; he meant the case in which 20,000,000 l. sterling had been voted by that House as compensation to the West-India proprietors for the abolition of slavery. Of these gentlemen there were several who were Members of that House, and he would ask, whether there was any feeling of delicacy which kept these gentlemen away when the case of their compensation was coming on for discussion. On the contrary, was it not notorious, not only that they were uniformly all present, but that the greater number of them spoke in favour of their claims, and that they all voted for the large sum of money of which they were to share in the receipt. Did any one condemn them for this? and was it not the constant practice for hon. Members belonging to the various interests which were represented in that House, agricultural, manufacturing, and shipping, to be present, take part in, and vote on questions affecting, their pecuniary interests, without reproach and without blame? Now as to voting on his own claim, or even on that of his co-proprietors, he (Mr. Buckingham) had abstained from doing this; and he only
1100
wished that other Gentlemen pecuniarily interested in the decision of various questions that came before the House, whether for the adjustment of tithes, the appropriation of corporate property, or the regulation of the corn laws, would only follow his example, and abstain from voting on questions in which their pecuniary interests were at stake. As to the complaint raised by the right hon. Baronet of his (Mr. Buckingham) having forwarded to the Members a printed statement of his case; and a circular desiring their attendance on the debate, to hear and judge for themselves, and give their votes accordingly; this was even more groundless than the preceding. Every one must be aware, that as these transactions took place many years ago, and in a very distant quarter of the globe, it was hardly probable that hon. Members should be familiar with them in all their details; and as the evidence on the subject filled a large folio volume, which it was very unlikely that most Members would read, considering the vast mass of papers presented to them for examination every morning during the Session, he thought he should be consulting their convenience, and advancing the ends of justice, if he placed in the hands of every Member as brief a view of the case as he could possibly compress within the compass of a single sheet of paper. This was done; and the sheet contained only extracts from the large volume of evidence arranged in consecutive order. But the very circumstance which made this document so disagreeable to the right hon. Baronet, was that which made it especially valuable in his (Mr. Buckingham's) eyes. Not a fact in it could be controverted—not an opinion in it could be overturned—and there it still remained, unrefuted and irrefutable, for present conviction, as well as for future reference and use. As to the circulars that were issued to request the attendance of Members, he (Mr. Buckingham) had very high and very unexceptionable authority for such a course:—for almost every morning he himself received a written circular from the Treasury, sometimes respectfully requesting his attendance to put the Speaker in the Chair, or in other words, to assist in making a House, when the Ministers wished this for their own purposes. Sometimes earnestly entreating attendance on some important debate; and sometimes most earnestly and most particularly urging attendance for some certain division expected to come on in the evening,—the

1101
lines being underscored to give the utmost possible importance to the injunction—and these delivered at the public expense, by the public messengers of the Treasury. What therefore it was not unbecoming in the Government to do, it could hardly be wrong in any individual member to follow,—more especially as the invitation was merely to attend, without asking support, or endeavouring, in any way whatever, to influence the decision of the party attending. He would next, with the permission of the House, address himself to the question of the Bill, and the arguments of the learned counsel against it: and in doing this he was happy to say, that besides the general authorities for such a course, before referred to, he was able to cite the particular authority of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Hobhouse) himself. On the occasion of his (Mr. Buckingham's) explaining to that right hon. Gentleman, the reasons which induced him to give circulation to the printed statement of his case—he said that one of his motives was a desire to put hon. Members in possession of its leading facts, which he might not perhaps have an opportunity of stating in his own person, by a speech made from his place in Parliament—as there might be some difficulty, especially if the House should be late, of his obtaining any lengthened hearing—to which the right hon. Baronet replied, that he (Mr. Buckingham) need not be under any apprehension on that account as the House would be bound to hear any Gentleman addressing himself to their attention on a subject so deeply connected with his own interests and character, though it was not easy to reconcile this opinion of the right hon. Baronet with his subsequent declaration, that he (Mr. Buckingham) ought not even to have been present at the debate—for how any Member could address himself to the House, or obtain their hearing, without his being present within its walls, it was rather difficult to understand.
Sir John Hobhouserose and said, he certainly did not recollect having stated what had been described. He had no doubt that he had so stated it, as the hon. Gentleman Mr. Buckingham) asserted it, but it had certainly since escaped his recollection.
Mr. Buckinghamresumed, and said he could repeat, with the greatest confidence, the statement he had just made. His own recollection of the matter was perfectly distinct and clear, however faint might be the recollection of the right hon. Gentle-
1102
man; and considering that the conversation occurred only a few days ago, he was rather surprised at the imperfection of a memory from which it could have so soon escaped. He would next advert to the arguments of the learned Counsel employed by the East-India Company. He should be able to show to the House, that all the counsel taken together, (the learned Solicitor-General included) had made no satisfactory defence for their clients, and left their conduct wholly unjustified, as it was, indeed, wholly unjustifiable. The first learned Gentleman (Mr. Spankie) began, and he was followed in this respect by the learned Gentleman opposite, (Sir R. M. Rolfe) by stating, that on his (Mr. Buckingham's) arrival in India, the press was under severe restrictions, and that he knowing this to be the case, was fairly visited with the punishment he had received for his disregard of its regulations. But this was not the case. On his (Mr. Buckingham's) arrival in Calcutta, in the year 1818, the press appeared to be as free as in England; the previous censorship having been abolished. It was found, however, about three months after his (Mr. Buckingham's) Journal was established, but it was not known to him before, that when the censorship was removed, certain written rules or resolutions of the Council were substituted in their stead; and certainly as a specimen of regulations for the press they were a great curiosity. But these never had the force of law, because the charter enjoined that all regulations before they could become law, should be passed through the Supreme Court, and receive the sanction of the King's Judges in India. These regulations never received such sanction. It was not until after he had been banished from India, without a trial or hearing, for a pretended infringement of these then unlawful resolutions, that these resolutions were passed into a law with the proper formalities, thus giving them an ex post facto application, or rather punishing an individual by banishment and ruin on a mere circular resolution, and then making it a law afterwards, a course never before pursued, perhaps, in any civilized community. The hon. Member then entered into a long argument in reply to the Solicitor-General, to show that there would be no danger from a free press in India, and quoted the opinions of Mr. Warren Hastings and other authorities. But passing away from the theory of the subject, the learned Counsel (Mr. Sergeant Spankie)

1103
came to the practice, and asserted, with more boldness than truth, that the Calcutta Journal teamed with dangerous and inflammatory matter, calculated to excite sedition and rebellion among the troops, and dissatisfaction in all ranks of society. Was it not, however, remarkable that, with all this magazine of dangerous materials before him, he never ventured to select a single specimen so as to allow the House to judge of the nature of its composition. Not a solitary article was cited—not a single line was read: and why? Undoubtedly for the best of all possible reasons—that not a single article, or paragraph, or passage existed, which, taken with the context, could be made to bear out such statement, and therefore assertion was offered in lieu of proof. The hon. Member next showed from several authorities, that the Calcutta Journal did not deserve the character given to it by Mr. Sergeant Spankie. He then continued: the fact had often been mentioned, that a certain Dr. Bryce, a presbyterian clergyman, had been made Clerk for the supply of Stationery, and that the article for which he (Mr. Buckingham) was banished, was one condemning that appointment, but in terms so good humoured and gentle, that no human being, probably, except the Governor-General of India for the time being, would ever think of punishing a man in any way for writing it, much less consigning him to banishment and ruin. This same Dr. Bryce, of whose improper appointment he (Mr. Buckingham) had spoke so mildly, avowed a doctrine so atrocious, that it was scarcely credible it should ever have been publicly proclaimed; the doctrine was this:—that when a public writer could not be refuted in argument, and when his arguments derived strength from the excellence of his character, it was fair to attack that character, and overthrow it if possible, so as by that means, if by no other, to bring the argument into disrepute. And to show how well this half-clergyman, half-stationer, followed up his doctrine in practice, it might be added that he became the editor of the Indian John Bull Newspaper, in which he published a series of libels on his (Mr. Buckingham's) private character, which were prosecuted in the Supreme Court, which were followed by conviction and damages, and which drew from the learned Judge, then presiding on the bench, one of the severest censures probably ever passed on an individual holding that rank in life, and so recently advanced in station by the Indian Government. Yet,
1104
while he (Mr. Buckingham) had been banished without trial and ruined, for having condemned this appointment as improper, on which he had only anticipated the Directors' own views, this same convicted libeller was retained in his office for a full year beyond the receipt of the order for his dismissal from home, and was honoured and rewarded to the fullest extent of the power of the local authorities so to do. The learned Counsel had said, that he (Mr. Buckingham) had been banished by a lawful power, and that, therefore, he was not entitled to ask for any redress; and great stress had evidently been laid on this argument by the small minority by whom this Bill had been opposed. But he (Mr. Buckingham) again contended—first, that there was no infringement of the regulations laid down for the guidance of the press in the article for which he was banished:—next, that those regulations never had the force of law until after he had been punished for the alleged infringement of them:—and, lastly, that though the power of banishment, by withdrawal of licence, was a power given by the law in the last India Charter, it had never been given for such a purpose as this, but for one entirely different. The hon. Member quoted several authorities to confirm this view, and after observing that Lord Hastings and his Council were divided as to the propriety of establishing the liberty of the press in India, concluded by saying, that he fell a victim to his attachment to the liberal principles by which Lord Hastings's Government was characterized, and in the conflict between that Nobleman and his council, he fell a sacrifice. The learned Counsel had said too, that if any wrong had been done, the Governor-General should have been sued for damages or prosecuted for his offence—and this too had been the language held on a former evening by the hon. Secretary to the India Board (Mr. Vernon Smith). But both these hon. Gentlemen knew very well that the Governor-General by whom this great wrong had been perpetrated, had died on his passage to England, so that no proceedings could be followed up against him; and next they knew, or ought to know, that supposing him to be alive, there was no possibility of reaching him through any process of law in this country. The very worst part of the whole affair, had been, strange to say, passed over in entire silence by every one of the speakers who had opposed themselves to the progress of the

1105
Bill; for neither the right hon. President of the India Board (Sir John Hobhouse)—nor his zealous coadjutor and secretary (Mr. V. Smith)—nor their near ally, the learned Solicitor-General (Sir R. M. Rolfe)—nor the hon. proprietor of East-India Stock (Mr. Robinson)—nor either of the learned Counsel, (Mr. Spankie and Mr. Wigram) had said one word about the transfer of the copyright—made valuable by his (Mr. Buckingham's) capital and labour—to Dr. Muston, who had bestowed on it neither the one nor the other; but who, after its transfer by the Indian Government, sold it for his own benefit and realized the profit. The history of the affair was this:—when he quitted India, he left the whole of his Journal and its attendant property under the management of competent persons, who, as the law then stood, could not be punished but by legal process, and could not be arbitrarily banished, as he had been, without trial or conviction of any offence—for this was a distinction reserved for those who were of British blood—no other person could be so tyrannically dealt with. While, however, he (Mr. Buckingham) was thus relying on the security of the property he left behind him, the Government of India were already concocting measures for its destruction. Accordingly, when he (Mr. Buckingham) had embarked, and was fairly out of the way, the Government of Bengal first passed the resolutions for the press,—for the pretended infringement of which he (Mr. Buckingham) had been banished—through the Supreme Court, giving them then for the first time the force and power of law. They next had another law drawn up by Mr. Sergeant Spankie, who was then their Advocate-General, the object of which was to prohibit all books as well as newspapers which the Governor-General chose to prohibit; and to subject persons having them in their possession, whether they were printed in England or elsewhere to severe fines and imprisonment for this heinous offence. When an attempt was made in July 1826, three years subsequent to the transactions at Calcutta, to introduce this same Asiatie piece of legislation into Bombay, the two King's Judges of the Supreme Court there—Sir Edward West, and Sir Charles Chambers rejected it with disdain, as wholly repugnant to the laws of England, and as such, contrary to the Charter of the Supreme Court, and wholly inadmissible as a lawful regulation. Yet it was upon this illegal regulation, and by virtue of this
1106
illegal power, that the Calcutta Journal was, soon after his banishment, wholly suppressed and destroyed. Indeed, it might be said that this regulation was made and passed with no other view or object—and too skilfully it effected its destructive end. The hon. Member went on to explain that this was effected in consequence of his having reprinted Colonel Leicester Stanhope's pamphlet, on the freedom of the Press in India. The Journal thus suppressed, its agents made an effort to get it revived; and the Government of India promised from day to day to grant a new licence. A large establishment of printers and pressmen, with clerks, messengers, and other requisite assistants, was kept up, on full pay, waiting from day to day the pleasure of the Governor-General, and many weeks of time was thus consumed, every day deteriorating greatly the value of the property, besides adding largely to the actual loss. At length a verbal assurance was given that the Journal should be revived, and on the faith of this a new Prospectus was issued; but this Prospectus adverting briefly to the late regulations for the Press, as being in their nature calculated to throw a damp on the freedom of discussion, and make the Journal less interesting than before, which was put forth, indeed, as a sort of apology for its apprehended inferiority in attractiveness; this innocent announcement, written too by a personal friend of one of the Members of Council, and most devoted to the Government, drew down the new displeasure of the Governor-General, or his Secretary, and the revived Journal was put down almost before its appearance, and was literally strangled in its birth by the very hands of the person who had but just given it existence. Still further negotiations and further delays went on, till at length it was resolved by the Government of India, that the Journal should not be revived, but under an editor of their own choosing; and even when that editor was appointed, he being one of their own servants, and son-in-law of one of the Cabinet Ministers, or Member of the Indian Council—they then further resolved that even the editor of their own choice should not be permitted to carry on the Journal, so long as he (Mr. Buckingham) or any of his former co-proprietors had any beneficial interest in the profits accruing from the same—thus making it no longer a war against certain sentiments, but a personal persecution: and assigning as a reason for this proscription, that unless it was made, he might again return

1107
to India, to exercise a control over his own property; though this could not be done without the permission of the Directors in England; so that at length the whole property was transferred to Dr. Muston, the editor of their own choice—and the copyright made his, without any consideration—which copyright he subsequently sold to the proprietors of another paper in India, to whom its subscribers were transferred, and realized to his own private and personal use, the profits of this transaction. If this then were not a robbery perpetrated under the authority and sanction of the Indian Government—though under the due form of law—he knew not what could deserve that name. Indeed one of the strongest proofs that could be offered of this persecution being personal, and not being confined to mere hostility to the liberty of the Press, was this, that on his (Mr. Buckingham's) first hearing of these destructive proceedings towards his property in India after he had left it, he applied to the Court of Directors in England, where he then was, for leave to return to India for ever so short a period, and under any securities that they might require, merely to wind up his affairs, pay his just debts, and receive the various sums of money due to him from persons scattered over the face of the whole country, so that he might wind up his affairs and return home with what he might be able to gather up from the wreck; but even this just and reasonable request was peremptorily refused. The Board of Control was then appealed to for interference, as a case of appeal; but there also redress was equally denied; and as it now appeared for the strongest of all reasons, namely, that the authorities of that Board had been secretly encouraging the India Directors and their servants abroad to the commission of the very acts complained of; a fact only brought to light by the production of the secret documents from the India House confirmatory of this view, so that to grant redress to him (Mr. Buckingham) would be to pass censure on themselves. The hon. Member next adverted to the several periods at which his case had been brought before the House of Commons and the public, and shewed that on all the occasions of submitting his case to the House of Commons, Sir John Hobhouse had supported it. The hon. Member then explained the circumstance which had brought the question to its present state, and which made it necessary for him to appeal to Parliament, and concluded as fol-
1108
lows:—If he were asked why he should object to postpone the consideration of the subject to the next Session, his answer would be—first, that twelve years had already elapsed, during which it had had as much consideration as it was ever likely to receive again; having been so repeatedly before the House and the country, that all those who took any deep interest in the progress of public affairs must be tolerably familiar with the outline of the subject at least;—and next, that he was now past the prime of life, and had children grown up and dependent on him for support; and that having seen during the present Session, two of his personal friends, as young, and to the full as healthy, as himself—he meant the late Members for Hull and Belfast, drop into the grave—he knew not but that he, too, might descend to the tomb before another Session might arrive, and he was not willing that his children should lose the benefit of his advocacy, for it was their property as much as his own, that he wished to have restored to them, while he had yet life and health to persevere in their claims for justice. Those claims he had now presented to the House in the best way that the circumstances of the case would admit, and if he had justified himself to the House in the steps he had taken, and shown that there was nothing inconsistent with his character as a Member of Parliament, in being present at the debate, and taking part in the discussion, though he should not, of course, presume to give a vote on the question, he should sit down with a consciousness of having done his best to discharge a solemn duty; and, for the rest, he had the fullest confidence in the justice and integrity of the independent portion of the House of Commons; in their hands he was willing to leave his case, and to their judgment he should bow with resignation and submission, believing, as he did, that they would consult the ends of justice as paramount to every other consideration.
Mr. Warburtonwas entirely in favour of the principle of the Bill; but viewing it as a private and not a public Bill, he did not know how it could be proceeded with in the present Session. If the House one broke through the broad and plain principle, and chose to regard as a public Bill that which every man must feel and know to be a private Bill, there would be no end to the jobs that would be attempted to be passed through the House; though he did not by any means say that this was one, as it had been clearly conducted with the greatest

1109
fairness and openness, and under the belief on all sides that it was really a public Bill. In whatever light the Bill was regarded, whether as a public or private one, he would recommend the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it for the present.
Mr. Tulkwould be quite prepared to act upon the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton) if it were understood that, on the introduction of the Bill next Session, the first and second reading should not be opposed.
Sir John Hobhousesaid, that having stated distinctly and with earnestness he was opposed to the principle of the Bill, he knew not how such a pledge could be required from him. He begged to observe, that Mr. Buckingham was mistaken when he supposed that his (Sir John Hobhouse's) opposition was merely ex officio. He had more than once told the hon. Gentleman that that was not the case; and he thought he had some reason to complain of the manner in which the supposition was repeated. He confessed he was unwilling to make any sort of bargain upon the subject; and knowing how strongly he was opposed to the principle, and seeing that the greater number of his colleagues were not present, he knew not how the hon. Gentleman could expect him to enter into any arrangement which should affect the course of proceeding next year. After the course which things had taken, it was a little too much to expect that he should give way. He had certainly anticipated that the Chair would have stopped the debate before it had been extended to so great a length.
The Speakerconceived that he had no right whatever to stop the debate. He begged to slate, however—what indeed he had before observed—that he considered the Bill to be a private one, and to repeat that, being a private Bill, if it were to be proceeded with this Session, it was necessary, in compliance with the Standing Orders of the House, that seven clear days' notice should be given between the second reading and the committal, whether to a Committee of the whole House, or to a Committee up stairs. That being the case, he could only put it to the House whether it would be possible to proceed with the Bill at this period of the Session.
Mr. Aglionbyhoped that some understanding might be come to that the Bill should in the next Session be allowed to pass the second reading, as the House was clearly in favour of the principle, and the details could be settled in Committee.
Mr. Praedopposed the Bill, and deprecated the idea of asking the President of the India Board to make any agreement on the subject.
Mr. Robinson, as a proprietor of India Stock, protested against the power of the House to compel the East-India Company to make compensation.
Mr. Bainesapproved entirely of the principle of the Bill, and hoped to have seen it pass into a law. But if the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Hobhouse) insisted on pressing his technical objection, of course the Bill could not be proceeded with any farther during the present Session. Under these circumstances, he should advise his hon. Friend (Mr. Tulk) to withdraw it for the present, and re-introduce it as a private Bill early in the next Session. He could not sit down, however, without saying that stronger or clearer claim to compensation had never in his mind been made out, than had been established by Mr. Buckingham. He (Mr. Baines) had attended all the sittings of the Committee—he had heard all the evidence while it was proceeding, and he had read it all over carefully since, and no conviction was ever deeper on his mind than this—that in all Mr. Buckingham's conduct in India, in the management of his Journal, his moderation had been exemplary in the extreme, there was not an article that could be characterized as inflammatory, intemperate, or unfair; and he doubted whether any journal could be named, in which so uniform a course of mild and temperate argument—and fair and impartial statement of facts could be found. Yet, notwithstanding this, his punishment had been more severe than had ever before been inflicted on any public writer of whom he had ever heard—banishment from all his property and friends, and utter ruin of all his hopes and prospects; these were the rewards heaped upon him for all his careful and honourable exertions to promote the good of his country. If the parties could come to no terms, he did hope that the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Tulk) would persevere in his intention of bringing in the Bill as a private Bill in the earliest part of the next Session, when it should have his most cordial support, as he doubted not it would that of the House at large; for it was impossible that hon. Members could make themselves acquainted with the facts without giving the claims their most cordial support.
Mr. Wilksfeared there was now no course left but to withdraw the Bill for the

1111
present Session, and re-introduce it early in the next, when he felt assured it would receive that general support to which, the more the subject was examined, the more it would be proved entitled to receive.
Mr. Buckinghamsaid, that his hon. Friends, the Members for Leeds and Boston, had anticipated to a great degree what he himself had intended to say. He was sorry that this unexpected obstacle of a technical objection had arisen; though to be defeated thus, by such an obstacle being interposed in the eleventh hour, was less painful than being beaten on the merits of the case, which happily stood untouched. He should concur, therefore, in the propriety of not pressing the Bill further during the present Session; he hoped that in the next Session of Parliament, when the subject would be more generally understood, and more time would be allowed for its discussion, such an impression would be made on the minds of hon. Members, as to ensure for the Bill that favourable reception which would ensure its passing into a law. In the mean time, he should still be open to any fair and honourable compromise; but if that still were refused him, he should persevere, while he had life, until justice was done him.
Bill withdrawn.

THE LORDS' JOURNALS.
The Attorney-Generalrose in pursuance of notice, to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to search the journals of the House of Lords in order to ascertain, if possible, what had become of two very important measures sent from that House (the Commons) to the other. He hoped this Motion would not be deemed disrespectful towards their Lordships, and that it would not be expected, that after passing Bills, and carrying them to the House of Lords, the Commons might not reasonably feel disappointment at hearing no more of them. A very important Bill, as the House was aware, a Bill for the abolition of imprisonment for debt, had been sent from that House up to the Lords, and as to that Bill he was in a condition to tell the House what had become of it. He understood that that very important Bill was not to pass their Lordships' House until they had examined witnesses upon it. Probably, in accordance with precedent, their Lordships would call to their Bar all the bum-bailiffs—all the gaolers—the gentlemen who served the useful purposes of sham bail— and all the attorneys; and from these truth-
1112
speaking and disinterested witnesses their Lordships would no doubt hear that the law of Arrest for Debt was a most excellent law, that it never was in any one instance abused, and that it would give great dissatisfaction to the country if it were abolished, and upon such evidence the Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt Bill would share the fate of other measures sent from that House to the Lords. The Bills for the discovery of which he now moved the appointment of a Select Committee, were two measures of considerable importance. They were—the Bill regulating the law respecting the Execution of Wills, and the Bill for the reform of the law relating to executors and administrators. The Bill regarding the Execution of Wills had long been called for by the public. It was recommended in the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, approved by all the Ecclesiastical judges, and approved also by every one he believed of the judges in Westminster-Hall. The Bill respecting the law of executors and administrators was also one much needed, and had the sanction of the judges and of most legal men. They were introduced early in the Session, and had gone through Committees in which their provisions were most laboriously discussed, with a view to their improvement. They passed on the 3rd. of June, nearly three months ago. What had become of these Bills he did not know. He had seen the learned Masters in Chancery come to their Table day after day, announcing that the Lords had passed this Bill and that, but upon no occasion had he heard any mention of these lost measures. The only mode, therefore, by which they could gratify their curiosity upon the subject was by acceding to the proposal he now made of appointing a Select Committee to search the Journals. Whether upon such search any trace of the Bills would be found, or whether it would be discovered in what manner they had been burked, he could not tell; but the search would at least be satisfactory. Before he sat down he could not help adverting to one circumstance in the business which caused him surprise. He meant the conduct of a learned Lord who lately filled the office of Lord Chancellor. That noble and learned Lord, when in office, wrote to him, communicating his approval of the principle of the measure relating to the Execution of Wills, and expressing a desire himself to introduce it into the House of Lords. He had declined the offer of the noble and learned Lord, being desirous of

1113
introducing the measure in that House in which the subject had originated. He thought, therefore, he had reason to feel surprise that the noble and learned Lord who entertained these favourable sentiments towards the measure, had allowed it to remain unnoticed. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving for the appointment of the Committee.
Colonel Percevalthought the Motion of the learned Gentleman was an un-called for interference with the other House.
Mr. Haweswas sorry their Lordships meant to stop the Bill for abolishing Imprisonment for Debt. If that was the course they meant to pursue to entitle themselves to the respect and confidence of the country, he wished their Lordships joy of their sagacity. That Bill placed the property of the peer and the peasant under the same control of creditors, and that was the reason of their Lordships' hostility to it. This was candidly stated in one of the principal speeches against the measure. For his part he was not disappointed, for he expected such a result. With regard to the two Bills which were the subject of this Motion, he thought that House and the public were under great obligations to the Attorney-General for the pains he had taken in introducing and carrying those measures, and other improvements of the law, through the House.
Mr. Scarlettobjected to the time at which this Motion was brought forward. The object of it seemed to be to cast reflections upon the House of Lords; for, if the hon. and learned Gentleman really wanted information, he could have obtained it by inquiring of any Member of the other House. As to the Imprisonment for Debt Bill, their Lordships had exercised a very proper discretion. It created a complete revolution in the law upon a very important subject, and did not give satisfaction to the country. A relative of his, a Member of the other House, he knew had paid a great deal of attention to the Bill relating to the execution of wills in Committee.
The Speakerobserved that the Motion before the House did not relate to the measure for the Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt, and the discussion therefore of that measure was irregular. The course proposed with regard to the other Bills was the simple and most usual course in such cases.
Question agreed to, and Committee appointed.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Hereditary Revenue (Scotland); Tonnage Admeasurement; Court of Exchequer (Scotland); Dominica Relief.—Read a second time:—Reform Act (Scotland) Amendment; Small Debts (Scotland); Glass Duties.
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of BREADALBANE, from three Places, in favour of the Scotch Church; from the Farmers of Fife and East Lothian, against the Game Laws; from Belfrons, in favour of the Municipal Corporations' Bill.—By the Earl of ALBEMARLE, from Shropham-for Amending the Poor-Law Amendment Act.

COUNSEL FOR PRISONERS—OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON LETTER STEALING—SACRILEGE.
Lord Denmanwished to refer to three Bills which had been brought up from the Commons some time since. The first of these had for its object the giving of persons indicted for felony the power of making a full defence to the jury by counsel. He had not had an opportunity of stating what he thought of the Bill, when it was referred to the

1067
Committee, who had given it their utmost attention. The evidence upon the Bill had not yet been printed, or else had only just been printed, but not delivered. It was, therefore, quite impossible that the Bill could be proceeded with during the present session. It would be more correct, however, to fix a day for the second reading, and it was his intention to move that it should be read a second time that day six months. In the meantime the attention of their Lordships might be beneficially directed to the Bill, as all of them would then become acquainted with the nature of its provisions, and with the evidence for and against it. The Bill contained some provisions to which on no account could he agree. One of them for example was, that a prisoner might require a particular gentleman at the bar to be his counsel, and undertake his defence, and that such gentleman could be compelled by the Court to undertake that office. Such a provision would be most unjust to gentlemen who had entered an expensive profession and depended upon their professional income. The second Bill was for making offences against the person punishable more severely than at present. It was quite clear that that Bill could not pass while the fate of the other was suspended. Besides, there were strong differences of opinion as to the propriety of any new enactment at all. When, therefore, that Bill again came before the House, he should, as in a former instance, move that the consideration of the next stage, be postponed till that day six months. The third Bill to which he alluded was one to take away the capital punishment from the offences of stealing letters, and of sacrilege. To that Bill he believed that no reasonable objection could be made, and he should therefore fix the second reading for Saturday. With respect to the Bill to take away the capital punishment from the offence of sacrilege, he had been asked by a noble Viscount (Melville) whether the Bill was to extend to Scotland; and he had also been asked whether it was to extend to Ireland. He had submitted the matter to the consideration of the Lord Advocate of Scotland, and to the Attorney-General for Ireland, and the Lord Advocate had informed him that the state of the law in Scotland did not require that the proposed act should be extended to it, but the Attorney-General for Ireland thought, most decidedly, that the introduction of such a law into that country would be highly beneficial there. He gave notice, there-
1068
fore, that he should propose a clause extending the Bill to Ireland.
Lord Broughamentirely agreed with what had fallen from his noble and learned Friend. With respect to the Prisoners' Counsel Bill he understood that it had been fully discussed, and evidence taken on it before the Committee, but that the subject had been found to be full of difficulties, not only as to the probable working of the Bill in England, but as to the operation of a law of the same kind in Scotland, where it had long existed. He had introduced the Bill, and had, therefore, a strong feeling in favour of the measure, but he must admit that the weight of evidence against it had pressed strongly on his mind. He had never thought the subject perfectly clear, but he thought so now less than ever. Several witnesses of great professional experience at the Old Bailey had been examined, and their testimony was generally against the Bill. Mr. Phillips, for instance, had given strong evidence against it, than whom a man more in favour of the liberty of the subject was not to be found; so that his evidence against the Bill went far. Then there was his noble Friend, the noble Earl behind him (Earl Radnor), a recorder and a magistrate, whose love of liberal principles were too well known to be doubted. There were, however, other gentlemen whose evidence was of importance upon the other side of the question. It was right that their Lordships should be fully acquainted with this conflicting testimony, and under these circumstances he felt that he should not be discharging his duty if he pressed the measure through this session.
The Earl of Harrowbywished to make one observation on a remark which had fallen from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, with respect to the Bill to take away the capital punishment from the offences of stealing letters and of sacrilege. His observations would not be directed against the Bill, for as he felt at present he was inclined to support it; but what he meant to observe upon was, the remark as to extending the Bill to Ireland. He wished to ask what means any of their Lordships could have of forming a judgment upon that part of the proposition? The Bill had come up to their Lordships without the word, "Ireland." When they went to extend it to Ireland they must go on the statement that in the opinion of the Law-Officers of the Crown in that country, the Bill should be extended to Ireland. A more striking instance of the inconvenience of bringing up

1069
Bills at this period of the year could not be given. Whether they were or were not to include seven millions of people within the operations of the Bill, was to depend solely on the privately expressed opinion of the Attorney-General for Ireland. That opinion had never been stated in the House of Commons, and had never been heard of till now, and yet on that dictum of the learned Gentleman their Lordships were now called on to legislate. He mentioned the matter that their Lordships might see to what a state they were reduced by this practice increasing from year to year of bringing up. Bills from the other House at the end of the session. He thought that the practice should be put an end to.
Lord Denmansaid that the noble Earl was mistaken in supposing that this Bill had only just been brought up, at the end of the session to their Lordships' House. The Bill had been upon their Lordships' Table during the last two or three months. He should have brought it under their notice earlier, but he expected that it would have been done by a noble Viscount, who usually took charge of Bills of this description. It had, however, escaped the noble Viscount's attention, and he took this, the earliest opportunity, of noticing the subject. With regard to what he had said as to the opinion of the Attorney-General of Ireland, he begged to observe that he had not taken that learned Gentleman's opinion as to whether it was proper that the Bill should pass. He had thought the principle of the Bill right, and believing that what was a right principle of legislation for England would be so for Ireland, he had merely asked the hon. and learned Gentleman whether the state of the law in Ireland was such that the introduction of a measure of this kind was required in that country. He had taken that opinion as he did not pretend to be conversant with the whole law and practice of the courts in Ireland. He had not stated the hon. and learned Gentleman's opinion as an authority in favour of the Bill itself, and he did not think that he had laid himself open to censure, as he should have done had he done more than consult the hon. and learned Gentleman as to the state of the law in that country.
Lord Clancurrysaid, that the Irish people would have great reason to complain if a Bill found to be good for England was not extended to Ireland. They ought to legislate for both countries alike; and the Irish had reason to complain when Ireland was
1070
made an exception to that rule at the time that a beneficial measure was passed for this country. A late decision of their Lordships had shown that the true interests of Ireland were not much attended to. Nothing had shocked him so much as their late rejection of the Irish Constabulary Bill. The mode in which the constabulary force was managed, had converted into a partisan force that body on which the peace of the country depended. The rejection of the Bill had been the mere act of a party in that House, with the view to injure the present Ministry; for a measure of the kind had been recommended by every Government that had existed in Ireland for some years past.
The Earl of Limericksaid, that, among the extraordinary things which all of them had lately heard, the most extraordinary was that which the noble Lord had just stated—namely, that the Constabulary Bill had been made an engine for party purposes. He denied the statement altogether. In the debate upon the Bill, every one had agreed on the efficiency of the force, and on its having done effective service in Ireland, where its exertions to preserve the peace of the country were fully relied on.
The Duke of Wellingtonwished to say one word on the subject. The noble Baron opposite had stated that the question decided on a preceding night had been decided on party motives. This imputation of motives was quite out of order. The noble Lord should have abstained from it; and he positively declared (laying his hand on his breast), that he for one had not given his vote upon any such ground.

CORPORATION REFORM.
Viscount Melbournemoved the third reading of the Municipal Corporations' Bill.
The Earl of Winchilseawould not make any observations upon the Measure; but to record his opinion against any measure of this kind, he should take the sense of the House on the Motion that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.
The House divided on the original Motion: Contents 69; Not-Contents 5; Majority 64.
[It was stated that the Ministers and their supporters did not vote on either side, but retired to the foot of the Throne; and thus abstained from expressing any opinion on the Bill in its present state.]
Bill read a third time, and passed. To be sent to the Commons, and their concurrence requested in the Amendments.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

Winchilsea

Roden

Boston

Falmouth

Kenyon

On this stage of the Bill, the following Protests against the Bill were entered:—
Dissentient,—
1. Because we view with the deepest jealousy and alarm the unconstitutional power which, by the advice of the Ministers, has been claimed by the Crown (and which has never before been conceded to it) of issuing a commission of an inquisitorial character, such as that which stamps the commission on which this Bill has been founded.
2. Because, as the constitution of this country consists of King, Lords, and Commons, we will maintain inviolate that sound constitutional doctrine (regarding its maintenance as the best security for our national rights, privileges, and liberties), that no commission conveying such powers as are contained in that now referred to can properly proceed from any one power of the State, but should rest on no less authority than the concurrence and approbation of the other two remaining branches of the Legislature.
WINCHILSEA.
Dissentient—1. Because the Amendments to the Bill alter its whole structure, are altogether inconsistent with its principles, and while they impair its efficiency to any good purpose, present it to the view of the country in a light still more unfavourable than even the Measure thus altered may in itself deserve to be regarded.
2. Because the alleged preservation of the rights of freemen within the corporation is founded upon an entire misapprehension of the nature of corporations, and of the title by which they hold property—it being a principle wholly undeniable, that whatever property is held by any corporate body, it belongs to that body, under whatever form and with whatever modifications the Legislature may be pleased to impress upon it, and that all corporations, as well ecclesiastical as lay, only have a title to the property which they possess upon the ground of the corporation continuing identically the same after its formation has been changed by law.
3. Because the continuing of the Parliamentary franchise to the freemen, or those who would have been entitled to become freemen but for this Bill, is a perpetuation of the very worst evils of the representative system, the freemen being the class of voters among whom all the evils of bribery and corruption have been in all cases found most extensively to prevail.
4. Because the qualification adopted of the sixth part of the rate-payers—those who pay the largest amount of rates—is contrary to the whole principles of our free constitution; establishing for the first time as a rule, that the political rights and privileges of the state shall
1072
belong only to those who have more money than their fellow citizens, not affixing, as our order-laws have done, a certain amount of wealth as the test of the right to mingle in public affairs, but excluding all therefrom except the richest class; so that not merely rich persons, or persons in easy circumstances, are henceforth to be deemed eligible to office, but the richest; the persons who excel their fellow-citizens in wealth are declared to be alone capable of administering the municipal concerns,—a principle absurd in itself, and oppressive and fraught with the mischiefs of oligarchy in its worst and most offensive form—the oligarchy of mere property without any other qualification or modification whatever.
5. Because the introduction of this novel and pernicious principle is rendered still more absurd by the alternative which is added, allowing any person, in some boroughs, of 1,000 l., in others of 500 l. worth of property, to be eligible, inasmuch as this wholly defeats the only purpose for which the new principle objected to is adopted. So that the provision, taken altogether, is wholly inoperative to prevent fraudulent and fictitious qualifications, the sole ground of intruding the new principle, while it sanctions for the first time a doctrine altogether inconsistent with the spirit of all our institutions.
6. Because the election of aldermen for life is the fruitful source of manifold inconveniences and abuses, removing the persons chosen from all salutary control, forcing them into a class set apart from their fellow-citizens, to whom they are wholly unaccountable, sowing the seeds of constant dissension and jealousy between the different classes of councilmen, perpetuating the power of men whom unfitness not originally discovered, incapacity supervening old age, infirmity of any kind, may render wholly or partially unable to discharge the duties of their office.
7. Because the continuance of the existing aldermen or capital burgesses and town-clerks is the certain introduction into the new councils of the worst evils of the old close and self-elective system—making it inevitable that the same kind of influence should continue to prevail in the corporations affected to be reformed, and wholly preventing the change which this Measure professes to effect from producing any substantial benefit in purifying the administration of municipal concerns.
8. Because these alterations of the Bill, and more especially the last, have a direct tendency to exhibit this Measure to our countrymen as a mere mockery, or pretence of reform, as holding out in words the promise of improvement, which it at the same time breaks.
9. Because the converting an office granted during pleasure into an office for life, without the consent of the grantor, is contrary to all principle, without any precedent, and a much more glaring violation of the rights of parties than any which even the adversaries of the Bill have imputed to its provisions.
10. Because the amendments, and those especially relating to retaining persons in their office, proceed upon a supposition that the councils chosen by the people are less fit to be trusted with the administration of the corporate offices, and more likely to do acts of imprudence and of injustice, than the present bodies, which owe their existence and continuance to self-election.
11. Because the requiring that a councilman shall be a member of the Church of England before he can vote for the presentation to a living is utterly repugnant to the whole spirit, and even to the letter, of the law of England, sanctioning the principle of tests long after these had been abrogated, absurdly assuming that corporators are less fit or less likely honestly to exercise rights of church patronage than private individuals, who are by law subject to no such restrictions, and stigmatizing Dissenters with the hateful imputation of being disposed to violate trusts reposed in them, by appointing unfit persons to perform clerical functions, with the view of fraudulently undermining the Established Church—a conduct of which we in our consciences believe the Dissenters to be utterly incapable.
12. Because we believe that the character of these Amendments is to injure the Measure in all its essential principles, leaving only as much of it as could not have been altered without rejecting the Bill altogether; while we are firmly persuaded that the changes effected are calculated to produce in men's minds an opinion of this House being far more hostile to the fundamental principles of the Measure than it really is; and because we thus hold it to be inevitable that far more harm will be wrought by the changes made in the Bill than good can be gained, even according to the views of those who have propounded them.

BROUGHAM.

DENMAN.

CHARLEMONT.

TEYNHAM.

CLONCURRY.

BREADALBANE.

(Except the 2nd Reason).

CHURCH COMMISSION (SCOTLAND).
The Earl of Aberdeencalled the attention of the House to a subject which, in his judgment, was not second in importance to any that could be submitted to their Lordships' consideration—he meant the Commission recently issued respecting the Church of Scotland. He had some suspicion that the noble Viscount himself was not fully aware of the true nature of the course in which he was engaged, and the consequences likely to ensue from it. He thought, if he could only open the noble Viscount's eyes to the facts of the subject, that there might yet be time to arrest the evils which threatened the character and independence, if not the existence, of the Established Church of Scot-
1074
land from the nature and constitution of this Commission. His Majesty's Government had issued a Commission of Inquiry into the means and nature of the religious instruction afforded by the Church of Scotland. This Commission originated in consequence of numerous petitions from Scotland for an extension of the means of religious worship in connexion with the Church of that country. Government thought proper to issue a Commission, he presumed, for the purpose of ascertaining whether public assistance ought to be afforded in aid of the private contributions raised in Scotland for the purpose of supplying additional Church accommodation. He foresaw, at an early period, that this Commission, from its nature, could not fail to excite dissatisfaction in Scotland, and the prediction which he had ventured upon this subject was soon accomplished. The Commission of the General Assembly met on the 13th of August, and came to a resolution that the Commission, as at present constituted, was not entitled to the confidence of the Church of Scotland. It came to this resolution on the ground that among the Commissioners were the names of persons decidedly hostile to any connexion between Church and State—persons who were unfriendly to the Church of Scotland, and did not possess that knowledge and experience of the subject necessary for carrying the professed objects of the inquiry fairly into effect. A division took place on this resolution, when there were ninety in favour of it, and three against it; or, more properly speaking, three individuals were for adjourning the consideration of the subject. This was a very strong proceeding on the part of the General Assembly, which was not a political body, and seldom or never meddled in political matters unless its interests were vitally concerned in them. The majority on this occasion was composed of fifty clergymen and forty laymen of various shapes of political opinion. In fact, the resolution was proposed by a Gentleman of the most liberal opinions, and supported by others of the same sentiments as the noble Viscount. The three individuals who objected to the resolution were three Whig attornies, or, as they were called in Scotland, writers to the signet, but no clergyman could be found to support the Amendment. The Assembly proceeded to adopt this course from their knowledge of the Gentlemen composing this Commission, and doubtless their opinion must have been strengthened

1075
when they learned the terms of the Commission. In looking at the Members of the Commission, he declared that he had not the least objection to individuals belonging to the same political party as the noble Viscount—far from it, provided they entertained friendly feelings towards the Church of Scotland; he had rather there should be persons of such political sentiments on the Commission. He did not even object to the names of Dissenters among the Commissioners, merely on the ground of their being Dissenters, because he hoped the great body of Dissenters was not hostile to the Church of Scotland; but when he saw persons who were opposed to all religious establishments appointed Commissioners, he thought it a mockery to place such individuals on a Commission to inquire into the expediency of extending the efficiency of the Established Church of Scotland. He was no friend to any Church Establishment except so far as it afforded a security for the maintenance of true religion and the extension of religious knowledge; but for the accomplishment of those objects he looked upon Establishments as highly desirable, and it was his firm conviction that the Church of Scotland had fulfilled them. With respect to the opinions of individuals composing the Commission, he might refer to a book published by one of the Members, which he admitted to be very ably written, and to contain the best arguments in favour of the voluntary system that he had ever seen. This production displayed great moderation of language, but was composed in a spirit of decided hostility to every religious establishment, which the writer endeavoured to show must necessarily be unjust and unchristian. [The Earl of Minto: the book was not written against the Church of Scotland.] Be that as it might, persons hostile to any connexion between Church and State, or to any Church Establishment whatsoever, would not, in all probability, be friendly to the Church of Scotland. He believed the majority of the Commissioners to be hostile to the establishment. When he stated his opinion on the subject on a former evening, the noble Viscount appeared impressed with the necessity of giving it further consideration. He understood the noble Viscount to state, that considerable discontent prevailed among the Dissenters, and that they complained of not being adequately represented in the Commission. He thought if the Commission were established to try the merits of the case, as between establishments
1076
and the voluntary principle, that the Dissenters ought to be represented, but he always understood the object of the Commission to be limited to the expediency of the required grant, and he must say, however he might still be disposed to admit Dissenters as Members of the Commission, that the admission of avowed enemies of the Church of Scotland in that capacity was an act of gross injustice, and calculated to defeat the object of the Commission. The dissatisfaction arising from the composition of the Commission would be aggravated by a reference to the terms of the document under which the Commissioners were to act. He objected to the numbering of the Members of the Established Church and of Dissenters as directed by the Commission; for if the assistance to be afforded to the Church of Scotland was made to depend on the doctrine of numbers, that was at once an approach to the voluntary principle. The Voluntary Church Association of Scotland, which met in December, adopted a Report, written, he believed, by the author of the book to which he had already referred, in which Report the issuing of the Commission of Public Instruction in Ireland was hailed as the commencement of a happier era, on the ground that the numbering of the Members of the Established Church of that country, with a view to the regulation of the establishment by that, involved a principle which, though it did not quite come up to the doctrines of the association, was notwithstanding a large advance towards there. No doubt the present Commission must be acceptable to the Members of this Association on the same grounds. He also objected to the Commission, because it threatened to interfere with the independence of Presbyterian Church Government. The functions delegated to the Commissioners belonged exclusively to the Church of Scotland itself. It was of the nature and essence of Presbytery that the whole authority of the establishment should be vested in the Body of the Church composed of ministers and lay elders, and not individuals. The King was not the head or visitor of the Church of Scotland, and by law he had no authority in ecclesiastical matters. It was true the presence of his representative in the capacity of chief Civil Magistrate was recognized in the General Assembly; but the Assembly could meet, and did meet, without his intervention. The King could not delegate to these Commissioners an authority to meddle with the discipline and

1077
government of the Scotch Church, which he did not himself possess. He also objected to the instructions given to the Commissioners to inquire into the funds of the Established Church and the amount or disposition of tithes or teinds. In Scotland the teinds were entirely private property; some being in the hands of capitularies of teinds (persons in the same situation ns lay impropriators in this country), and the greater part being held by landowners who had purchased the tithes of their own land, and had as good a right to them as to the remainder of their estates. The teinds were not the property of the Church of Scotland, which was merely entitled to a competent stipend out of them, to be determined by the Court of Session at Edinburgh. The remainder was private property, and though the amount of teinds might be augmented, it was impossible to appropriate them to the support of an additional church or minister. This species of property was not open to the proposed inquiry. The commission, like another of which their Lordships had lately heard so much, gave very extensive powers on this head; but, whatever might be thought of the legality of the Municipal Corporation Commission, there could be no doubt here, for the King was not even visitor of the Scotch Church, and the whole powers of the Commission were illegal and nugatory. He objected to the appointment of local Commissioners of Inquiry, which was contemplated under the original Commission. If information were all that was really required, it might have been obtained without the appointment of anew Commission, and without the cost of a single farthing, through a Commission, not in existence for building churches in the Highlands, the duties of which Commission had been admirably executed for several years at no expense, with the exception of a small salary to the secretary. It was not with respect to members of the Church of England that the Church of Scotland entertained any apprehensions; on the contrary, to no quarter did she look more confidently for sympathy and support than to the right rev. Bench, and he believed the demand would be responded to. Though himself a member of the Church of Scotland, no one could be more attached to the Established Church of this country, and he felt confident that members of the Church of England looked with like kindly feelings at the establishment in Scotland. He entreated the noble Viscount to consider this import-
1078
ant subject without reference to party, and to take such steps as might be deemed most conducive to the welfare of the Church and to the satisfaction of the people of Scotland. He entreated the noble Viscount to reconsider the matter, and if he could not wholly withdraw the Commission, at least to modify and explain its objects and improve the composition of its members. If the noble Viscount would take this course, the Church of Scotland had every disposition to co-operate with the Government in the accomplishment of the objects which it professed to have in view, and the noble Viscount would find that by adopting this recommendation he would avoid much trouble to himself and his Government, and remove a cause of much discontent in Scotland.
Viscount Melbourneadmitted the great importance of the subject introduced by his noble Friend. His noble Friend seemed to think that he had made some impression on him, and that he was disposed to make concessions in consequence of what fell from his noble Friend on a former evening. Now, his noble Friend's observations always made a considerable impression and had great weight with him; but on the occasion referred to his noble Friend had brought forward the subject without notice, and he was wholly unprepared to discuss it, so that any appearance of yielding or concession was owing to his ignorance of the matter, and to his having placed greater reliance upon his noble Friend's observations than, on further consideration, he found them entitled to. He was aware of the decision of the assembly on this subject—of the dissatisfaction felt by the adherents of the Established Church—and of the discontent of every other religious denomination in Scotland. After universal content and agreement, he did not know whether the next best testimony to the impartiality of a proceeding such as this, was not discoverable in the universal dissatisfaction of all parties, for that feeling showed that the commission was not exclusively or partially constituted. It would be well, in reference to this as to other subjects, if they could find persons to act as Commissioners who stood entirely aloof from prepossession or a suspicion of partiality; but that was absolutely impossible—for if you had an impartial Commission, in other words a Commission composed of persons wholly unacquainted with the subject, you must also have an ignorant Commission, one unacquainted with the subject of inquiry. Fail-

1079
ing an impartial Commission, it became necessary to look for truth from the conflict of adverse opinions, and on this principle he maintained that the Commission was fairly composed. The speech of Dr. Macfarlan in the General Assembly corroborated his view of the case. That Gentleman stated Mr. Dick, to whom his noble Friend had alluded, to be a very respectable man, and that his book was the best on his own side of the question. Now, he did not think that the fact of this Gentleman having put forth the doctrines imputed to him temperately, moderately, and in a philosophical tone and manner (for no bitterness or acrimony was charged against his production) should disqualify him from forming one of the Comsion. Besides, he had always found that the best way of mitigating extreme opinions was to employ the parties holding them in the public service, not that he supposed the modification of sentiment to arise from sordid motives, but because he was aware that when such men came to be practically acquainted with business, they saw the un-wiseness and inexpediency of extreme measures, and as they were persons of vigorous intellect, they became useful public functionaries. With respect to the other Gentlemen on the Commission, as his noble Friend had not gone into particulars, he should abstain from touching on their individual opinions. On the whole, the Commission appeared to him as fairly constituted as such a body could well be, but it was impossible to satisfy conflicting interests. One party, that of the Church, required that every body on the Commission should be favourable to the required grant.—[The Earl of Aberdeen: No: but that they should not be unfavourable to the Church of Scotland.]—Well, he apprehended that was much the same thing; for persons favourable to the Church would be desirous of procuring it the grant. But the other side was equally unreasonable, and required that none should be on the Commission but persons unpledged or hostile to the establishment. The application for a grant of public money originated with the Scotch Church; its friends said there was not sufficient accommodation for its numbers, and its opponents declared that there was more Church room than the present worshippers could fill. Those assertions were made so decidedly by each party, that the Government thought it wise to inquire into the real state of the case before taking any further step. Perhaps the terms of the Commission had been extended somewhat widely
1080
in consequence of a subsequent application. His noble Friend said that the Commission was contrary to the fundamental principles of the Scotch Church, and that it assumed powers which the King himself did not possess; but without pretending to have mastered the whole subject, he declared that he could not see how the Commission violated the rights or privileges of the Scotch Establishment. He did not wish to say anything which could be construed into an attack on the fundamental principles, or on the practice of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland; but did the noble Lord mean to say, that if ever any allegations were made respecting the existence of abuses, or respecting the mode of reforming abuses in that Church, it was not in the power of either King or Parliament to inquire into those allegations? If the noble Lord meant to say that, it was a reductio ad absurdum. It was a higher pretension than had ever been set up by the advocates of the Roman Catholic Church against the principle of he Reformation. It was exactly the objecton which that Church had urged against the proceedings of the early Reformers. They said, "This cannot be done by the laity—the laity cannot reform the Church—the Church must reform itself." That had been the objection made by the Roman Catholics to all the proceedings of Parliament during the progress of the Reformation. The power of Parliament to inquire into the abuses or alleged abuses existing in the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, extended also to examine into the amount of its property. The teinds were a property which belonged to the Church of Scotland—[The Earl of Aberdeen—" No, no,"]—Well, that was a complicated question of Scotch law, and he must confess that he did not exactly understand the statement made upon it by the noble Earl. He was, however, inclined to think that it was a property as liable to be inquired into as any other species of property. His noble friend had complained of the power given under this Commission to the persons named in it to appoint others to carry on this inquiry: but he thought that his noble friend would admit that it was impossible that an inquiry of this extent and character should be carried on without assistance. But the main question was this: the Church of Scotland had demanded a grant of public money. If it meant to establish its right to that grant in order to carry on the spiritual instruction of the people of Scotland, had not his Majesty and had not the

1081
State a right to say to the Church, "Show us what your funds are, and let us see whether your property is or is not sufficient for the purposes to which you would apply it?" These were the grounds on which the Commission was issued. The zeal of other parties had taken advantage of the fact of a Commission being issued, and had required that the inquiry should also be directed to other purposes, which might wisely be inquired into; and for that purpose the inquiry had been made as extensive as possible, and the Commission had been constituted as their Lordships now saw it. His noble Friend had said that the powers granted by this Commission were at once illegal and nugatory. They might be nugatory, for they were not compulsory, but he was quite certain that they were not illegal. He likewise must assert that the Commission was constituted properly and impartially. He was concerned to hear that the appointment of this Commission had excited discontent in Scotland, but he was consoled to find that that discontent was not of a party nature, but that it was extensive and universal. It was one of the strongest proofs that could be given of the impartiality with which the Commissioners had been selected, that no party was pleased with them. It often happened that things which commenced in discontent ended better than was expected, whilst things which commenced in universal satisfaction often terminated in general discontent. He hoped that the discreet and prudent manner in which the Commission would be executed would fulfil its objects without producing any of those disagreeable effects which his noble Friend had anticipated.
The Earl of Haddingtonexpressed his surprise that his noble Friend should have congratulated himself upon the universal dissatisfaction which the appointment of this Commission had created in Scotland. How far the issuing of a Commission, which on its first appearance had produced universal dissatisfaction, was likely to produce hereafter general content and religious reconciliation, he left to his noble Friend's ingenuity to discover. He would not pretend to decide to what extent the authority of Parliament ought to go in inquiring into the condition of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. This, however, he would say without fear of contradiction from any person who knew any thing about the Presbyterian religion, that Parliament had no right to interfere with the religion or
1082
with the religious polity of the Church of Scotland. He would not pretend to set bounds to the practical omnipotence of Parliament; but this he would say, that no wise and prudent legislator would ever interfere with the Scotch church without great and crying necessity for interference. He complained that the issuing of this Commission had put the Scotch church upon its trial, and had placed its enemies in the situation of its judges. He admitted that when the Scotch clergy came forward to ask a grant of public money, Parliament had a right to enter into the statistics of the question, and to call upon them to show that the funds under their control were not sufficient for the purpose of administering proper spiritual instruction to the laity placed under their superintendence. They stated, and they stated with much truth, that there was in Scotland a great deficiency of places of worship for the members of the established Church. There was no doubt that Parliament had a right to examine into the correctness of that allegation; but Parliament had no right to go further. This Commission, however, went a great deal further, and therefore he was sorry that it had been appointed. It was not only a nugatory, but also an illegal commission; and it was illegal, because under the generality of its wording it was competent for the Commissioners, if they so thought fit, to inquire into matters connected with the Scotch Church, into which no lay person had any right to inquire. Again, there was a just ground of complaint in the manner in which the members appointed to act under the Commission had been selected from Gentlemen who were known to entertain opinions hostile to the Established Church. Besides the hon. Gentleman whose pamphlet the noble Earl had quoted, there was on that Commission a Gentleman who from scruples of conscience, had refused, when appointed to act as a member of the General Assembly, and another, who had written a pamphlet to prove that it was expedient to sever the connexion existing at present between the Church and State. That was the very madness of the day in Scotland, and had taken its rise from the general measure which was passed four years ago, and which had added very largely to the number of seceders from the Established Church. Previously to that measure the number of seceders in the country districts—he was not speaking of the large manufacturing towns —had very much diminished, and religious peace was generally prevalent throughout

1083
Scotland; but since that measure dissent had again reared its head; and from the manner in which this commission was worded, and in which the appointments under it had been filled up, he thought that the return of that religious harmony which prevailed some years ago would be postponed to a very distant day. That Commission would awaken a sleeping lion in Scotland, and so far from leading to future harmony and conciliation would leave their Lordships to seek next year, as they were seeking now, for the best means of restoring religious quiet to that country.
The Earl of Mintosaid, that the chief point which their Lordships had to consider was, as to the objects of the inquiry, and to the manner in which that inquiry should be conducted. He knew from his own knowledge that the majority of the Commissioners were favourable to the continuance of the connexion between Church and State; and he knew them to be gentlemen of such temper, moderation, and prudence, that he was sure no fear need be entertained but the inquiry would be conducted in the most proper and impartial manner. They represented no particular class of opinions or feelings, and he was convinced would conduct the inquiry just as it should be conducted. As to the statement which was made by the noble Earl that the number of Dissenters had increased since the passing of the Reform Bill, he gave it an unqualified contradiction, for he was persuaded that the numbers of persons connected with the Church of Scotland was greater now than it was three years ago.
The Duke of Buccleuchobjected to granting such extensive powers, as were given by this Commission, to persons who were totally unknown to the Church. As to the Commissioners, he knew nothing of them, with the exception of one for whom he entertained the highest esteem, and in whom personally he could place the greatest confidence. This, however, was only an individual feeling. He still looked upon this Commission with great distrust. If it were not actually illegal, it went as nearly as possible to infringe those Acts of the Legislature which had been confirmed by the oath of the Sovereign, who had sworn to leave inviolate the Scotch Presbyterian Church as settled by law. This Commission had given great dissatisfaction to every class in Scotland. The General Assembly looked upon it with suspicion, because they apprehended that injury would be done by it to the Established Church of Scotland;
1084
whilst the Seceders were dissatisfied with it because there were not more persons in the Commission who were for the destruction of that Church altogether.
The Marquess of Breadalbaneadmired the constitutional zeal of the noble Duke; but if the Commission were, as it had been said by a noble Earl opposite, completely nugatory, of course nothing could result from it. The dissatisfaction which had been spoken of was grounded upon the individuals composing the Commission, and yet, after all, only one of these individuals had been pointed out as being opposed to the Established Church. With respect to the rest of them, the only objection was, that some of them were very young men. Perhaps it would have been better if men had been appointed who were older and more experienced; at the same time, he had no doubt that though young, they would give a true and faithful Report of the facts they had to inquire into; for they had only to report on facts; they were not called upon, he supposed, to give any opinion on the subject of their inquiry. He thought, therefore, that all that had been stated against the Commission really amounted to very little.
The Marquess of Buteobjected to the Commission not on the narrow ground that it was illegal as applied to the Church of Scotland, but that such a Commission was inconsistent with the principle of an Established Church altogether, and, therefore, with the Established Church of Scotland.
The Earl of Aberdeenexpressed his disappointment at the very little assurance which his noble Friend (Lord Melbourne) had given him as to any alteration being made in the terms of this Commission. Still, however, he did not despair; but trusted the good sense, candour, and good wishes of his noble Friend for the exercise of his authority in so far modifying the Commission, at least in the practical execution of it, as that it should not lead to those consequences which, he could assure his noble Friend, were but too generally apprehended by the people of Scotland would result from it.
Subject dropped.