Sitting of 1 July 1835

MINUTUES.
Bill. Read a second time:—Property in Infants (Ireland), Marriage Act Amendment; Linen Trade (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By Mr. O'CONNELL, from several Places, against Tithes in Ireland; from Dublin, against any Alteration in the Timber Duties; from King's County, for Altering the Laws regulating the Registration of Voters; from Chichester, in favour of the Municipal Corporations' Bill; from the Letter-Press Printers of Dublin, for Better Payment of Government Work.—By Sir ROBERT BATESON, from the Presbyterians of Aghadowry, for giving to all Ministers of the Synod of Ulster, an equal Share of the Regium Donum;from the Linen Merchants and Bleachers of Londonderry, for Renewing the Linen Trade (Ireland} Act.—By Mr. HINDLEY, from Rochdale, for Amending the Factories' Regulation Act.—By Mr. JAMES OSWALD, from Glasgow, against the Registration of Births' (Scotland) Act.—By Mr. FORBES, from a great Number of Places, for Protection to the Church of Scotland.

CORPORATION OF DUBLIN.
Mr. O'Connellpresented a Petition from inhabitants of Dublin, praying for an immediate Municipal Reform in Ireland. The hon. Member stated that the Report

131
of the Commissioners showed that the judicial duties of the Mayor of Dublin were farmed—that the Presidency of the Court of Conscience was farmed, and that the Sub-Sheriffs farmed their officers by paying from 1,200 l. to 1,500 l. a-year. He likewise asserted that although the Corporation had denied any right to freemen, they had lately registered more than 100 persons on that ground.
Mr. Shawdid not believe that the Mayor's judicial duties were farmed, and he was sure that the arrangement of the Sheriffs could not be fairly termed farming. The Corporation had indeed admitted persons to their freedom on the grounds of birth and servitude, but they claimed the exercise of discretion in conferring the right. He also took the opportunity of informing the House, in opposition to what had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin on a former night, that his (Mr. Shaw's) father was not foreman of the Grand Jury which had ignored certain bills for bribery—Mr. Stubbs was the foreman of that Grand Jury, his father had nothing to do with it.
Mr. O'Connellasserted positively that he was correct. He would tell the House how the hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong. The Bill of which he had spoken was not sent to the usual Grand Jury, but to the Grand Jury of the county of Dublin. He had a certified copy of the panel of the jurors. The Bill had been found under the statute called Lord Plunket's Act, and this certified copy of the panel contained the name of Sir Robert Shaw, and he certainly was on the jury.
Mr. Shaw: He certainly was not.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the obstinacy of the hon. and learned Gentleman was no proof. He had the document he referred to, and would produce it tomorrow. The hon. and learned Gentleman then proceeded to read some papers, proving that the office of Mayor, the Chairman of the Court of Conscience, and the offices of Sub-Sheriffs in Dublin were farmed out, and that freemen were admitted, not of right, but of the special grace of the Corporation.
Colonel Percevalrose, to call attention to the case alluded to the other night, respecting Mr. Hudson. The fact was, that there were two gentlemen employed as counsel by the hon. and learned Gentleman. (Mr. O'Connell), Mr. Hulton, and Mr. Hudson. He had received a letter
132
that morning from a Mr. Edward Maguire, in Dublin, and to whose respectability he had no doubt the hon. and learned Member himself would bear ample testimony. That letter would show the House the nature of the quibble between the names of Hulton and Hudson. The hon. and gallant Gentleman then proceeded to read the letter, which stated that Mr. Hulton was followed by Mr. Hudson, as counsel for Mr. O'Connell, on more occasions than one.
Mr. O'Connellrepeated that Mr. Hudson had refused to act as his counsel, but he had lately heard that after that refusal he did act as a matter of courtesy for a day and a half, until Mr. Hulton was retained. He was not aware until lately that Mr. Hudson had even so far relaxed his positive refusal to be professionally engaged for him (Mr. O'Connell).
Petition to lie on the Table.

WOLVERHAMPTON INQUIRY.
Lord John Russellpresented copies of the minutes taken before Sir F. Roe, at Wolverhampton.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid—having previously communicated to the noble Lord my intention of putting a question to him on this subject, I shall take the opportunity of doing so at once. It will be in the recollection of the House that when the matter was last before it, certain reflections were cast upon the military in reference to their conduct at Wolverhampton, and that the noble Lord was induced by these reflections to change his original intention of having no inquiry, and to institute an inquiry, of which the papers he has just laid on the Table are the result. I shall not press the noble Lord to give an immediate answer to the question which I am about to put; but I must express my opinion that it is desirable for the maintenance of due discipline in the army that men who have been made to labour under disadvantages such as those under which the military engaged at Wolverhampton are now labouring, should be allowed to remain exposed to them for as short a time as possible. I would also say that I think it incumbent on the executive Government of the country not to allow the House of Commons to usurp their functions, but to give an opinion of their own upon a matter such as this. I trust, therefore, that the noble Lord will at some period give me an opinion on the part of

133
the Government as to whether the Government are satisfied or dissatisfied with the conduct of the military at Wolverhampton.
Lord John Russell: In moving that the minutes of evidence which I have just laid on the Table be printed, I shall answer the question which the right hon. Gentleman has put to me. It is quite true that this inquiry was instituted in consequence of a wish, and what appeared to me to be a very general wish, expressed on the part of the House. I stated at the time that the inquiry was an unusual one, and that objections might be urged to such a course of proceeding, but that at the same time the wish of the House appeared to me so manifest, that I thought it my duty to agree to it. The inquiry accordingly was instituted; Sir Frederick Roe proceeded to Wolverhampton, and with that knowledge of evidence, and with that judgment in points such as those which were likely to be brought before him, for which he is so remarkable, he conducted it, I believe, to the satisfaction of the inhabitants of that town. On his return to London he informed me that there was one part of the inquiry into which he had not gone fully—namely, that respecting the conduct of Captain Manning in dividing his troop, amounting to about thirty men, into small bodies for the purpose of patrolling. He informed me that he considered that to be a military matter, and one on which it was not competent for him to enter. In consequence of that communication, in order that Captain Manning might not want the means of stating every thing which he desired to state in reference to the part which he had performed at Wolverhampton, I wrote to the Commander-in-Chief, requesting that I might obtain information on those points which Sir F. Roe had not thought it his duty to investigate. I received an answer from Lord Hill on the following day, containing the replies of Captain Manning to the questions put to him on the execution of his duty as a military man. I consider that this inquiry has been undertaken at the wish of the House of Commons, and I now merely lay both the whole of the evidence taken before Sir Frederick Roe, and the answers of Captain Manning, before the House; but if it be thought necessary by any Member of the House to raise any further question upon the subject, I shall then be prepared to give the reasons on which I ground the decided opinion which I enter-
134
tain, and which I now express, that the conduct of the military at Wolverhampton was marked by a most commendable forbearance and a most correct judgment. I will not pretend to say (for there is a quantity of contradictory testimony in this vast mass of evidence) that among the thirty men there may not have been one or two who did not act with that complete control which was observable in the body generally; but that is simply matter of doubt, and as such alone I mention it. It may possibly, I repeat, be the case, that one or two men may not have acted with that complete self-control which is desirable on all such occasions; but with regard to the conduct of the troops in general, and with regard to the conduct of the commanding officer, I think that those who read this evidence will be of opinion, that being called on to perform a most painful and difficult duty—a duty which the military would not on any occasion seek, but which they are called on to perform for the support of the civil power and the tranquillity of the country—they did perform that duty in such a manner as at once to obtain the result of preventing the peace of the town from being seriously disturbed, and of preventing the occurrence of injury to property and life, and at the same time to exhibit the utmost forbearance towards those whom they were directed to disperse. I move now that these papers be printed.
Sir H. Hardinge: I am sure that the House and the public, and the profession to which I have the honour to belong, will entertain the universal feeling that nothing can be more satisfactory, more manly, and more straight-forward than the explanation of the noble Lord.
Mr. Villierssaid, he could not help thinking that, before so confident an opinion had been expressed by the noble Lord with respect to the evidence which had just been laid upon the Table, and before the hon. Baronet had complimented him for so doing, that it would have been more satisfactory to the House if time had been allowed for Members to have read the evidence themselves. He (Mr.Villiers) was not in a situation now, more than upon the last occasion when he addressed the House, to say whether the noble Lord was justified in the opinion that he had expressed respecting the conduct of the soldiers, and therefore he could merely say that, judging from the only evidence

135
that had as yet been before the public, he did not think the terms "commendable forbearance" did entirely apply to the conduct of the soldiers during the late disturbance.
An Hon. Member,as a personal friend of Captain Manning, could state it to be the wish of that Gentleman that the evidence should be as soon as possible in the hands of hon. Members, in order that a decision might be formed upon his military conduct.
Mr. Walterobserved, that having the honour of Captain Manning's acquaintance he would venture to assert that a more humane, considerate, and prudent man did not exist.
Motion agreed to.

IPSWICH ELECTION.
Mr. Sergeant Jacksonsaid, that Dr. Farr and another medical gentleman were in attendance to give evidence upon the state of Mr. O'Malley's health. It had been endeavoured to obtain the attendance of Sir Astley Cooper, but that had been found impossible. The learned Sergeant then moved that Dr. Farr be called in.
The Motion was agreed to, and Dr. Farr appearing at the Bar, stated, in answer to a question put to him, that he had attended Mr. O'Malley professionally since 1831; that the constitution of that gentleman was then remarkably feeble; that he had lost one eye by disease, and was in danger of losing the other; being under the influence of an idiopathic disease, which was dangerous to the constitution; that he had seen him that day, and found him suffering evidently from confinement, and was of opinion that he would continue to suffer, and that his life would be brought into danger if further confined; that in 1832 he had found it absolutely necessary to order him to leave the atmosphere of London, and had recommended him to go to Madeira or Italy; and that, in short, his constitution was very fragile.
[The witness withdrew; and amid cries of "Move!"]
Mr. Sergeant Jacksonrose, and asked if it were the wish of the House that any other medical gentleman should attend? He would then at once move that Mr. O'Malley be called to the Bar, and discharged on payment of his fees.
Motion agreed to.

CHURCH—(SCOTLAND). ADJOURNED DEBATE.
The Order of the Day for the Adjourned Debate on this subject having been read,
Lord John Russellrose for the purpose of moving an Amendment to the Motion which had been made on a former occasion. I shall not (said the noble Lord) enter into the consideration of the various arguments which may be adduced on one side or on the other of the Question involved in it; but I wish to address the House, in consequence of communications which I have had with various parties to whom the question is one of the greatest importance—both those who urged the propriety of this grant to the Church of Scotland, and those who have felt the strongest objections to its being made. I have the satisfaction of stating, that both parties appeared to me to be perfectly willing to have a full and fair inquiry into the subject, and quite ready to abide by the result of facts accurately ascertained, and that they were both willing that this inquiry should be conducted by a Commission,—the one party seeming to think it better than a Committee, and the other seeming to think it quite as good and effectual. A difference appeared to arise between the two parties on this point—those who were seceders from the Church of Scotland said, that they had been unjustly and unfairly omitted from the accounts which had been made of the population now able to attend divine worship. Whether such may be the case or not, those who appear on the part of the Church of Scotland in this metropolis, and who lately presented an Address to his Majesty on the throne, are perfectly willing that an account should be taken of all the means and opportunities of public worship which are afforded; so that in this material point there does not seem to be any difference between the two parties. There is, however, a question—partly of fact and partly of principle—which still remains to be decided. Those who are in favour of this grant urge, that when you have taken into account all those means of accommodation which the Established Church of Scotland is able to afford, and when you have added to them those means of worship and means of instruction which are now afforded by the seceding or dissenting ministry, there remains still a large mass of the population to whom no sufficient

137
religious instruction is afforded, and by whom the means of religious worship, if they are to be at all obtained, are to be obtained only at a price—at a sacrifice of money which the poorer classes are unable to make. The statement of opinion which, no doubt, will always be made by those who dissent from the Church, and who disapprove of any establishment, is, that religion will never flourish so well as when left to the voluntary support of those who may be inclined to attend divine worship. On that question of principle, I do not wish to enter; for I can give but one opinion—I can hold but one doctrine on that subject—namely, that a Church Establishment affords the best means of diffusing and promoting religious instruction. I think it our duty, as a Government, to maintain that principle, and to uphold the Church Establishment which is founded on it. There is, then, another question remaining, the issue of which depends, however, on certain facts, which should be correctly ascertained before Parliament comes to a final decision upon it. If it be true—and I will not now pretend to dispute the point with those who are acquainted with the state of circumstances so much better than myself,—if it be proved that there is a large mass of the population to whom the means of religious instruction are not afforded, either by the Church or by those who dissent from it, there remains, then, the question, whether you are obliged to supply that deficiency by an immediate grant from the public funds, or whether there exist the necessary means which are now by law, or which may become by law, available for the purpose of the Established Church. I think that it is impossible for us, as Ministers, to come to Parliament and propose any grant of money until the facts upon which the decision of that question ought to depend shall be clearly settled; and therefore, in my opinion, the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, which was supported by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for the county of Edinburgh (Sir George Clerk), is defective in this—that it does not propose the means Of entering into an inquiry with the view to effect that settlement. That right hon. Baronet stated, that the inquiry would be short and easy; that it would be sufficient to have the Committee for a week or ten days; that a Report might then be made, which would satisfactorily prove the case
138
of the petitioners who had asked for the grant. I must fairly tell the right hon. Baronet that I do not think an inquiry of that kind would be satisfactory; I think that if the inquiry were to be conducted for a week or ten days, and only the partial case of those who ask for the grant were heard, and if we then proceeded to yield that grant, we should act against the wishes of a great part of the people of Scotland, who would say that the evidence which they were prepared to adduce not being heard, we had come to a decision partially and unfairly, and after considering only one side of the question. It is for reasons of this kind, I believe, that those who are most earnest for this inquiry are, at the same time, desirous that it should be conducted in such a manner as may satisfy all parties; and that object will, in my opinion, be best attained by the appointment of a Commission, to whom the conduct of it shall be intrusted. It may be urged as an objection, that the Commission might extend its labours to an inconvenient length; but that will be obviated by arranging that they shall report from time to time; that their Reports shall be laid before Parliament, and that as soon as Parliament and the Government shall have considered them, and ascertained that a remedy is required, and settled the nature of that remedy, they shall proceed at once to act upon them. I shall therefore propose to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Rae) to withdraw his Motion, and my right hon. Friend (the Lord Advocate) that he withdraw his Amendment, and that the following proposition be substituted in its stead:—"That a humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that his Majesty will be graciously pleased to appoint a Commission to inquire into the opportunities of religious worship, and means of religious instruction, and the pastoral superintendence afforded to the people of Scotland, and how far these are of avail for the religious and moral improvement of the poor and of the working classes, and with this view to obtain information respecting their stated attendance at places of worship, and their actual connexion with any religious denomination; to inquire what funds are now, or may hereafter be, available for the purpose of the Established Church of Scotland; and to report, from time to time, in order that such remedies may be applied to any ex-

139
isting evils as Parliament may think fit." I have communicated this Motion, in the terms in which I have drawn it up, to some persons of great eminence in the Church of Scotland, who have been most anxious that the grant should be procured, and they have expressed their concurrence in it. I think that if they concur in it—if there be no objection made to it on their part who belong to that religious denomination which composes the Established Church—there ought to be an equal concurrence on the part of others, the object of all being the same. I trust, therefore, that there will not arise on it much debate, and that the House will not be pressed to a division on it. He proposed that the Amendment of his learned Friend, the Lord Advocate, should be withdrawn.
Amendment withdrawn, and Lord John Russell's Motion as an Amendment on the original Motion put from the Chair.
Mr. Cumming Brucewas not sure that he could agree to the Amendment which the noble Lord proposed to substitute, though the spirit in which it was introduced was much less objectionable than that which breathed in the speech of the Lord Advocate, in introducing his proposal for a Commission. There was no distinct mention of the Established Church. He disapproved also of the reference to present or future means which are or may be applicable to the support of religion. This was an attempt to throw a firebrand in between the landlords and the Church. It would not succeed. But he disapproved of the attempt. He must say that after the speech on Friday last, of the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, he felt less disposed to place confidence in any proposal of the Government which professed to proceed on the ground of attachment to the Established Church. He had admired the tone, and cheered the beautiful periods of that noble Lord's speech, in which so strong an attachment was declared for the principle of an Establishment, that it should be extended so that the wayfaring man might hear of it and rejoice. But what was the fulfilment of this magnificent promise? What the miserable superstructure raised on this grandiloquent foundation? Why a 5l. stipend, paid to a minister, perhaps distant and inaccessible. The word of promise given to the ear was broken to the sense. Then he could not altogether separate this new proposal from that of
140
the Lord Advocate, and the spirit in which the learned Lord introduced it—a spirit which seemed to declare war to the knife against all establishments in religion; therefore, he should much prefer the original Motion of his right hon. Friend, the Member for Bute. He regretted the length of the Adjournment that had taken place, by which the powerful effect of the very able speech of his right hon. Friend, in introducing his Motion, had been in some degree lost, and he feared he had not the power necessary to restore it. The Church and people of Scotland had reason to rejoice that the Question had been taken up by one so able and so qualified to do it justice, as the right hon. Member for Bute. After the statements he had made, and the facts he had adduced in support of them the other night, he had hoped that the Motion with which he concluded would have obtained the unanimous concurrence of the House. In that he had been disappointed. Undeserved imputations—a factious, and to him an unintelligible, clamour, out of doors, had conjured up round the great and good object which this Committee had sought to promote, the mists of party and sectarian animosity; and he regretted to find that, even in that House, there were some unable, through such a medium, to see the objects presented to them in their true colours. The hon. Member for Falkirk, said it was a Tory job, for it was promoted by the Tory Clergy of the Church of Scotland; and he called for its entire rejection. His right hon. Friend appealed to the number of petitions in its favour, signed by persons of all shades of political opinions.—The learned Lord, with some sly insinuations of the efforts used by that same Tory Clergy to obtain signatures those petitions, wondered we had not had more of them; he thought we might have expected one at least from every parish— he cited with exultation the number of petitioners on the other side, and he concluded with his extinguisher of a Commission— an extinguisher which certainly the speech to night of the noble Lord, the Member for Stroud, had done something to remove. Now, the opposition of both those hon. Members originated in the same profitless spirit of party, He preferred the unscrupulous, straightforward, and irrational opposition of the hon. Member for Falkirk, to the measured and in-

141
sidious Commission of the learned Lord. But he deprecated altogether the introduction of party spirit into this discussion—because he knew its power in disturbing the accuracy of our perceptions. Hon. Gentlemen, under its influence, had been known to lose the power of distinguishing a nobler and more powerful spirit—the spirit of colours, and to vote that black was white, and white black. But he implored the House to call to the consideration of this Question Christian benevolence—that for once they might discuss a great national interest impartially. They would then consider it in the same spirit in which the right hon. Baronet, the late head of the Government, had advised his Majesty to call their attention to the subject—that spirit of disinterested and wise patriotism which had shed its halo round every proceeding of his short, but splendid administration. Now, if he thought that the connexion between Religion and the State was injurious to both—or that the voluntary principle was sufficient for the religious instruction of the people, he should be the last person to advocate the claims of these petitioners; but the reverse was the fact. He would not now enter into the scriptural argument, for which this House was not, perhaps, the fittest tribunal, and which was not necessarily raised by this Motion. Whenever such a Question was fairly brought forward, he should be prepared to contend, that on every ground of scripture, and reason, and experience—of every age and all countries the State which neglected to support the cause of religion, neglected its first duty to its subjects, and, above all, to that Almighty Being on whose favour alone the prosperity of nations rested. It was not, therefore, from any disrespect to those who opposed the Motion on those more general grounds, as to save the time of the House, that he should confine himself to those who opposed it on much narrower, though less consistent, grounds. They professed to be favorable to the principle of an Establishment; but held that in Scotland it was sufficiently extended. The Question then between them was resolved into an issue of facts. Now, all his right hon. Friend sought was, an inquiry into the facts. The allegation of these petitioners was, that the Church was not sufficient for the religious instruction of the people, and it puzzled him to understand with what consistency, in the face of such
142
an allegation, so vouched, those who professed friendliness to the Establishment could refuse the inquiry. But the House could never disregard allegations of those petitioners which were of a nature to force themselves on their immediate attention. They asserted that the population of Scotland had far outgrown the means which, sufficient, perhaps, at an earlier period, the State had provided for the religious instruction of the people:—that in our towns, rising every day into increased importance, large numbers were growing up in utter ignorance and disregard of divine truth. They assumed that without a knowledge of that truth there could be no efficient restraint on the bad and selfish passions of man—and they announced the fearful fact, that a great class of the community—a class below the reach of the voluntary system—a class in which this want of religious instruction was least likely to be counteracted by the habits of society, or by a purely intellectual education—was fast lapsing into a state of absolute heathenism. Now it was said, the Dissenters and the voluntary principle had done much to remedy the evil; but if this were sufficient, how had this state of things, so dangerous to the very existence of well-ordered society, been allowed to gain its present strength and proportions? He was as willing as any one to acknowledge that much had been done by the voluntary zeal both of Churchmen and Dissenters, to arrest the torrent of reckless infidelity which threatened, if not arrested, to sweep them from their hold. But, in itself, the method of leaving the religious instruction of the humbler classes to the voluntary zeal of individuals, or to their own zeal, could not but fail, because it rested on the basis of a voluntary contribution from each individual; and such contribution the humbler classes, even if they were willing, were unable to make. But they were not willing. The natural man was enmity against God; and precisely in proportion to a man's ignorance of religion would be his disinclination to make any sacrifice to obtain a knowledge of it. The State, then, which recognized the aid which the cause of order and the restraints of law derived from the sanctions of religion, was doubly bound to interfere: first, in aid of the want of ability in the well-disposed, and, next, in resistance of the disinclination of those—the great majority—who, till their reason and their

143
conscience were awakened, cared for none of those things; and especially it was bound to remove out of the way the stumbling block of a preliminary demand for money before a poor man could enter the church. It was bound to remove this in the mere interests of peace and order and submission to Government, and obedience to law. To say that such interests were involved, was at once an answer to that absurd clamour about the injustice of taxing Dissenters for the support of the Church. If the object to be attained—the religious instruction of the people—was of general benefit to the community, and if in no other way it could be attained, then that objection had no ground on which to stand. The system of paying all sects, adopted in France, was far less available for the promotion of truth, than the system which obtained in this country, and it was evident from the example of America, that the voluntary system had utterly failed. If the population went on in that country increasing at its present ratio, if no more effectual means were devised for the propagation of Christianity than at present, such was the spread of infidelity, that in less than fifty years the federated republic would contain upwards of 20,000,000 of infidels within its territory. But the hon. Member for Falkirk asserted, that in Scotland there was already an excess of churches. Why, if true, which he doubted, it only proved what the Clergy of the Church of Scotland asserted, that the mere existence of churches was not sufficient for the purpose, unless they were endowed so that they might be applied to the neglected localities of the town and country parishes on the only system by which churches could be rendered extensively useful for the civilization and benefit of society—the system of parochial subdivision, by which the labours of the clergyman should be confined to a particular district, out of which it should be his duty to gather his congregation. The Church of Scotland came to the House, not as a suppliant, but in the high attitude of a national benefactor, offering a large voluntary subscription in aid of a national object. She gave this substantial proof of the reality of her convictions, that increased means of religious instruction were required; and such an offer, proceeding from such a party, would warrant an immediate grant to the extent sought for. He was
144
unwilling to say any thing unfavourable of any class of his countrymen; but there had, in recent instances, been exhibitions of reckless irreligion in large assemblages of Scotchmen, which no rightly constituted mind could contemplate without feelings of the deepest regret. Now, that recklessness, that irreligion, was not a peculiar element in the character of his countrymen; it was a natural element in human nature, but it was sufficient for him to know that it existed, to make him anxious, above all things, to apply to it that corrective power which he knew to be within his reach. That power existed in the proper application of the parochial system. At present the population of our larger parishes was beyond the limit of efficient moral cultivation, and the disheartening conviction that it was so, paralyzed the exertions of those who on a more practicable field would efficiently discharge their duties. The ill effects of this excess of population over the means of instruction were not confined to the individuals composing that excess, for every one of them was as a centre from which the principles and practices of infidelity radiated to corrupt and poison the mass of Christianity around them—thus adding incalculably to the labours of the minister—so that by every individual whom the State knowingly left uninstructed, it was, in fact, undoing with one hand what it professed to be endeavouring, by its limited Establishment, to effect with the other. This was not only inconsistent and absurd, but in the highest degree unjust, especially to the clergy; for you charged their want of success in christianizing the people as proof of the selfishness and inefficiency of the Establishments, while you rendered success impossible by your parsimony or neglect. He said then, let those large parishes be divided—let the charge of the clergyman be limited to a practicable district—let him, having made himself known to his parishioners by the faithfulness of his pulpit ministrations, superadd to these the pastoral duties of week-day visitations,—constituting himself the friend, the instructor, the adviser of his parishioners, wherever distress might call for relief, or sorrow invite consolation. Let him avail himself of all those opportunities, never long wanting, when in the dispensation of a merciful Providence the heart is softened to receive the impressions of divine truth—let him

145
not be discouraged by a sense of hopelessness and impossibility—and the Legislature would soon restore the moral tone of society, and would soon see the churches filled with those who would need no new Sabbath legislation to induce them to prefer the Church to the alehouse—the high and elevating enjoyments of holding intercourse with their God, to the low and debasing pursuits by which they were now degraded. The House could effect this in no other way—in no other way could it confer a benefit of similar extent on society. Looking even to mere considerations of police, any appropriation of the public revenue, as was proved by his right hon. Friend, the Member for Bute, would be an economical appropriation. The whole sum sought would not amount to a third of a farthing on each individual of the population. The House had shown a willingness to give a million to Ireland—to make an advance to relieve the Churchrate payers of England—it never would seriously object to the small grant sought for his country. He, therefore, implored them to act in the wise spirit of a great living poet, when he exhorted the State
"To shape new channels which the flood
Of sacred truth may enter, till it brood
O'er the wide realm, as o'er the Egyptian plain
The all-sustaining Nile."
It was by such a course alone they could restore the moral verdure of society.—The neglect of opening such channels was the cause that the sands of the desert were every day encroaching more and more on those fields which, in the days of our fathers, were smiling with fertility and beauty; and that the strip of narrowing cultivation was menaced here, as in the states on the Mississipi, with the curse of absolute barrenness. Doubtless we knew that the desert would bud and blossom as the rose. The inspiration of prophecy, the announcements of angels, alike assured us of that result; but the days of miracles were past, and in our times Heaven works by human agencies. We must not, therefore, sit still, like the waggoner in the fable, and pray to Jupiter for assistance. We must exert the energies which Heaven had vouchsafed to us; and seeing that the voluntary system had utterly failed to effect the good which we desired, or to avert the evil which we deprecated, we must revert to the calm, and constant, and uniform energies of a sufficiently extended Establishment supported by the State, if
146
we really desired to accelerate the period which should give realization to the prophecy and confirmation to the angelic announcements. The hon. Member declared, that, though he really believed the noble Lord was sincere in his friendly declaration towards the Church, yet, thinking the Committee preferable, and most likely to lead to an immediate grant, and since it might, if it thought fit, recommend a Commission, he should support the Motion, if it went to a division, of his right hon. Friend, while, in conclusion, he sincerely thanked the House for the great indulgence with which it had listened to him.
Sir Robert Peel: If the Motion of my right hon. Friend had been brought before the House at an earlier period of the Session, considering his high authority, I should have had no difficulty whatever in expressing my preference of it to the Amendment which has been moved. But I cannot omit from my consideration the time in which we are to decide upon it. On the 1st of July it is that we are called upon to go into an inquiry, and at this late period I feel that it is impossible to come to any conclusion which will lead to a vote of the public money. Two months ago I should not have hesitated to prefer the original Motion, but at this advanced period I cannot but think that the inquiry byCommission will be more satisfactory than the appointment of a Committee for the same purpose. I am afraid that the appointment of a Committee would lead to a double inquiry, that, at the termination of their labours, the Committee would find it expedient to recommend that a Commission of Inquiry should be instituted. In short, the result would be the same as that of the Corporation Committee. After spending much time in fruitless investigation, the Committee would find themselves unable to come to any satisfactory conclusion—a Committee of Local Investigation would, from its expense, be out of the question—and the only course left would be to appoint that Commission of Inquiry, which, if it is to be ultimately recommended, had better be appointed at once. I find it impossible to throw the present time out of consideration, and, therefore, I am inclined to prefer the full investigation of the matter by a Commission to its consideration by a Committee. There is a slight difference in opinion—slight in terms, but important

147
in principle—between the noble Lord and myself. Last night I took the liberty of referring to that passage in the Address which was carried nemine contradicente. His Majesty, in his address to the two Houses, called their attention to the two Church Establishments, in the two parts of the United Kingdom, England and Scotland; and informed them that he had already appointed a Commission for the purpose of inquiring into the condition of the Established Church in this country. In the answer which the House returned to that portion of the Speech we expressed our acknowledgements to his Majesty for informing us that the special object of the appointment of the Commission was, to extend more widely the means of religious instruction, according to the doctrines of the Established Church, and to confirm its hold upon the affections of the people. We then assured his Majesty that we should take into consideration the condition of the Church of Scotland, and the means of religious worship which were afforded to the poorer classes in that part of the United Kingdom. All that I propose is, that the House of Commons should confirm and realize the assurance which they gave at a time not remarkable for the good agreement of the Members, but at a time when party spirit ran high, and when other parts of that Address were amended, in opposition to the Government. Notwithstanding the then bitterness of party spirit, the House of Commons unanimously assured the Crown that they would take into consideration the condition of the Scotch Church Establishment. Now, I do not hesitate to say, that though I am not a member of the Church of Scotland, yet I look at it, as an Establishment, in the same point of view as I look at that of which I am a member. There is, I apprehend, no one point which we are bound to uphold in the case of the Church Establishment in this country that we are not equally bound to uphold in the case of the Church Establishment of Scotland. This opinion I give not on dry and technical grounds—but I do state that the obligation which I feel as a subject of the King, is confirmed by my respect and attachment to that Church, arising from the opportunities I have had of witnessing the virtues and services of her Ministers, and their effect in improving the moral and social condition of the people. All that I ask is, that we should place the Church of
148
Scotland, in our inquiries into its condition, in the same situation in which we have placed the Church of England, and that we should recognise its claims as an Establishment precisely to the same extent. To recognise the equal claims which the Church of Scotland has, will, I apprehend, give universal satisfaction to its members, and to all those who regard it in the light in which I regard it. The noble Lord opposite has moved that an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that his Majesty may be graciously pleased to appoint a Commission to inquire into the opportunities of religious worship, and the means of religious instruction and pastoral superintendance afforded to the people of Scotland, &c. All that I propose is, to insert, after "pastoral superintendence," the words, "by the Church of Scotland." If I am asked, whether I would exclude other inquiries, I must say most certainly not. I do not, indeed, think that the object of the Commission could be completed if we excluded other inquiries—as, for instance, into the moral and social condition of the working classes, their actual attendance at divine worship, and their connexion with any religious sect. After the Commission appointed by the Crown to inquire into the means of religious worship according to the doctrines of the Established Church in England, and after the assurance of the House of Commons that the condition of the Church of Scotland shall be investigated, I do contend, however unimportant the point may be as to the inquiry, though it certainly is not in principle, that we should put the Church of Scotland on precisely the same footing as the Church of England, to which it has just claims according to law, and according to the Constitution. And this we may do without at all prejudicing the inquiry into the means of religious instruction afforded by other religious denominations. This, be it observed, is a delicate point, and I hope the noble Lord will consult, not the possibility of objection, but the importance of my suggestion, and accordingly will consent to the introduction of words recognising the principle of the Established Church in Scotland, as equal to the Establishment in England. That is the whole of my suggestion. But the discussion of the main Question I shall not enter upon, as I wish no hostility to be provoked between the Established Church and those who

149
have seceded from it. What I feel is this, that there is between the Dissenters and the Established Church an enormous neutral ground of infidelity, which by an union of exertion and perseverance, it is possible to reclaim. Of the Dissenters I should be far from speaking with disrespect. Their voluntary exertions in support of religion I honour, and, therefore, while I support the principle of an Ecclesiastical Establishment, and the extension of its means of affording religious instruction, I should never grudge the applause to which the labours of those who have seceded from it are entitled. The Established Church and the Dissenters are, I say, equally interested in reclaiming from infidelity the thousands and tens of thousands who have never heard the name of their God—and for whose benefit it is proposed to extend the means of moral and religious instruction in Scotland. The only remaining point to which I shall allude is the expediency of his Majesty's Government considering the policy of making any alteration in the law rather than devolving that duty upon a Commission. Shall we authorise the Commission to inquire what funds are, or may be, available for the establishment of the Church of Scotland, and whether any funds are available without an alteration of the law, or shall we not rather reserve to ourselves that question? To the Commissioners ascertaining any important fact I have no objection; but certainly I think that the policy of altering the law ought to be ascertained by his Majesty's Government and the House of Commons. I doubt the expediency of transferring the power of considering such a point to the Commission, and withdrawing from the Government its proper responsibility. What may be the effect of this vague and indefinite direction? May you not cause those who are prejudiced against religious inquiries to entertain apprehensions which, however groundless, are not the less forcible with those who have not immediate access to the best sources of information. Besides, I would suggest that those who are well qualified for making religious inquiries are not always equally qualified for carrying on political investigations. I trust that the noble Lord will agree to my suggestion, and, if so, I hope that the discussion will be left in that state which is least likely to induce any irritated feeling or promote any asperity, which, in a question
150
involving religious interests it is so desirable to avoid.
Lord John Russellwas happy to find that there really was no difference between the right hon. Baronet's object and his own. The right hon. Baronet approved of the reference of the subject to a Commission, rather than to a Committee of that House. As to recognising the claims of the Church of Scotland, he was as ready to recognise them as the right hon. Baronet; and, on the other hand, he was happy to find that the right hon. Baronet was as sensible of the valuable assistance rendered to the cause of religion by the Dissenters as he (Lord John Russell) was. It was a fact which ought never to be lost sight of, either in England or in Scotland, that where the State Establishment did not furnish sufficient means of religious worship for the people, it was exceedingly desirable that the deficiency should be supplied by other bodies. He did not, therefore, lament to see the growth of dissent in large towns, where the means of religious worship under the Establishment were insufficient; or that the ground which the Church was unable to occupy should be taken up by others. With respect to the manner and the nature of the inquiry, there was no difference between the right hon. Baronet and himself. As to the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Baronet, a similar one had been recommended to him since he came down to the House, which he had declined adopting, because the Motion which he had offered to the House had been drawn up in the words of high authorities in the Church of Scotland. He had no positive objection to the words proposed by the right hon. Baronet; but, for the reason which he had already stated, he must decline consenting to their introduction.
Sir Robert Peelobserved, that all he wished for was, that the Church of Scotland should be placed on the same footing as the Church of England.
Viscount Howickwas rather at a loss to understand the right hon. Baronet's precise object. His noble Friend's Motion, as it at present stood, comprehended both the Church of Scotland and the Dissenters from that Church. Why introduce words which might be construed into a limitation of the inquiry in a manner in which the right hon. Baronet himself, according to his statement, did not wish to see it limited? Being all agreed on the principle of the

151
measure, it would surely be impolitic to risk any angry feeling by the introduction of words which might be misinterpreted. He was sure that his noble Friend's object and the object of the right hon. Baronet were the same; and it was of the greatest importance that on an occasion like the present there should be a general concurrence of opinion. He hoped and trusted that when the result of the inquiry appeared, they would be able to prevail on both the Church and the Dissenters in Scotland to agree on the measure necessary for the desirable object in view.
Sir George Clerkexpressed his gratitude to the noble Lord for the tone and temper in which he had treated the Question. The noble Lord had, however, omitted, in the early part of his Motion, after the words "pastoral superintendence," some expressions suggested by the high authorities to which the noble Lord had alluded, recommending that an inquiry should also be instituted into the situation of chapels of ease and unendowed churches in Scotland.
Mr. Patrick M. Stewarthoped that, as it was not practically important, the right hon. Baronet would withdraw his Amendment. It was at the request of persons concerned in the matter, and who were fully competent to judge of it, that the address before the House was adopted by his Majesty's Government. Though the words proposed to be left out were agreed to, it would cause no great alteration as to the leading objects for which the Commission was about to be appointed. It appeared to him, from the speech of the noble Lord, that the people of Scotland would be completely satisfied with what was proposed to be done by Government. The object of the proposed inquiry was, not to trench on the rights of the Dissenters of Scotland—not to interfere with their usefulness—and he felt confident that they would have no objection to it. What was intended was, to provide religious instruction and places of worship for that moral wilderness of population who came neither under the influence of the Dissenters nor of the Established Church. He thought this Commission would provide the very best means that could be devised for that purpose. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet that the period of the Session was too late to have recourse to a Committee. He begged to thank the Government and the House for the kind
152
spirit and manner in which they had met the case, and the friends of the Established Church in Scotland ought to be thankful for the turn the discussion had taken that night. All that was proposed was to overtake and reclaim those increasing masses in Scotland who were now buried in darkness, without receiving the light of the Gospel either from the Ministers of the Established Church or from the Dissenters.
Sir Robert Peel,being unwilling to disturb the tone and temper which had hitherto prevailed on this occasion, and understanding that the Motion was admitted to contain a recognition of the principle for which he had contended, felt that he should best perform his public duty by not pressing his Amendment to a division.
The Attorney-Generalrejoiced in the right hon. Baronet's determination. He rose, however, to correct a statement made the other evening by the hon. Baronet, to the effect that such had been the rapid growth of infidelity in the city which he(the Attorney General) had the honour to represent, that not an eighth part of the population at present received religious instruction. So far was that from being the case, that he believed there never was a period at which piety and religion more extensively prevailed in the metropolis of Scotland than at the present moment.
Mr. Sinclaircordially approved of the Motion and hoped the inquiry would be carried to the fullest extent.
Mr. Stewart Mackenziesupported the Motion, and could but express his great satisfaction at the conciliating tone adopted in the debate.
Sir William, Raewas not willing to obstruct the general feelings of the House. The facts he had stated were not submitted to the House without sufficient authority. The period of the Session was certainly late at which the Question was brought forward, but he trusted that the fault of delay would not be attributed to him. As the Government had agreed to that part of the Address to the Crown which related to the Church of Scotland, he thought it but fit to wait and see whether the Government meant to bring forward any Measure on the subject. They had not done so, and on account of the numerous petitions he had received on the subject he felt himself bound to bring the matter, though

153
late in the Session, under the consideration of the House. He hoped the House considering these circumstances, would acquit him of being guilty of undue delay. The Question had been greatly altered by the manner in which the noble Lord had just spoken, and by the way in which the noble Lord expressed his determination to support the Church of Scotland. The matter had been fully and fairly discussed, and he trusted to the satisfaction of all parties concerned. Much, however, would depend on the instructions that the Government should give to the Commissioners; those would much tend to make the noble Lord's statement satisfactory. He regretted that the words proposed to be inserted in the address, by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, had not been adopted, as he thought their adoption would make the address more satisfactory to the people of Scotland He considered that no information would be obtained from an inquiry into the funds of the Church of Scotland. He would move, therefore, that the words in the address which referred to this point be omitted, as their insertion would leave a bad impression on the minds of the landowners of Scotland, and bear against the interests of the Established Church. He should have been glad if the words of the right hon. Member for Tamworth had been inserted in the Motion, but as his right hon. Friend had yielded, he would not detain the House any longer.
Dr. Bowringsaid, that he would cheerfully consent to the nomination of the Commission; but he hoped that the Dissenters of Scotland would not be annoyed by the use of language offensive to them.
The original Motion was negatived and the address moved by Lord John Russell carried.

IPSWICH ELECTION.
Mr. Sergeant Jacksoninformed the House that Mr. O'Malley was in attendance. He moved that he be called to the Bar to be reprimanded and discharged.
Mr. O'Malleywas accordingly called to the Bar.
The Speakeraddressed him to the following effect:—"William Frederick O'Malley, this House has found that you have been guilty of aiding and abetting a witness in absconding to avoid giving his testimony before a
154
Committee of this House. In weighing the guilt of those persons who have violated the privileges of this House in connexion with the proceedings of the Committee to whom the petition on the merits of the return of the writ from Ipswich was referred, the House has had no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that those who so aided and abetted witnesses in absconding are those who, in the judgment of this House, are deserving of the severest reprobation. It is with peculiar pain that I am called upon to state this to a gentleman of the profession to which I myself have the honour to belong; and I hope that, in discharging the duty now imposed upon me, the House will excuse me if I dwell with less severity, than perhaps in strictness I ought, on the observations arising on the petition first presented by you to this House, and the other circumstances connected with this case. Saying that in aiding and abetting an individual to absent himself, to avoid giving evidence which it was his duty to give, you were ignorant you were violating the privileges of this House, is an excuse this House can receive from no man, and least of all from a person in your station. You, who attended the Committee as counsel, must be well aware of the obstruction which has been thrown in the way of the administration of justice by the absence of the witness whom you aided to abscond. This is a transaction upon which I am sure you will never hereafter reflect but with regret. Relying upon this, upon the assurances you have given, and deeply impressed by the statement made in your behalf with respect to the condition of your health, the House has been induced in its lenity to discharge you more speedily than others who committed the same offence with yourself; and trusting you will bear in mind, and always reflect with gratitude on the kindness and indulgence of the House, I have now to acquaint you that you are discharged on payment of your fees.
On the motion of Lord John Russell, the reprimand was ordered to be entered on the Journals.

CORPORATION REFORM COMMITTEE.
On the Motion of Lord John Russell, the House went into Committee on the above Bill.
Clause 22 was agreed to with verbal Amendments.
Clause 23, providing that one-third part of the council should go out of office annually, having been read,
Mr. Charles Bullerrose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice. He said, that there was no one more inclined than he was to aid the progress of the Bill. He wished to place no obstruction in its way, nor did he wish to place the Government in an unpopular predicament. After the discussion that had taken place last night, he must briefly offer his objections to the mode of election of the Town-Council as proposed by the Bill. He objected to the partial renewal annually of the Council. Partial elections, whether for Parliamentary or Municipal purposes, were bad in practice, and contrary to the rights of the people. He was much pleased with the liberal observations that had fallen on the preceding evening from the right hon. Baronet the Member for Nottingham, who was for giving the people full power over elections. He hoped that that power would not be permitted to be neutralized by the present Clause, and he was of opinion that frequent elections would not lead to any dangerous excitement. By the present plan of election, the people would, after all, have only a triennial control over their representatives in the Council, and there would be an additional disadvantage, namely, the annual excitement that would follow a partial election of the Council. The system of partial election had been tried by the Act for parochial government, of which the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Hobhouse) was the author. From accounts he had received, that Act caused a worse effect than even he had anticipated from it. It caused greater excitement every year than if the whole body of the vestry were elected at once. It took three years to turn them all out, and during that time all the excitement prevailed that might be disposed of in one year. A person belonging to the parish of St. Pancras had furnished him with highly valuable information as to the working of the plan of partial annual election. That person stated that the first objection to such a plan was, that it placed too much power in the hands of those who were already elected. With respect to the vestry alluded to, there was a house-list always handed about, and the weight of the two-thirds of the members that remained in was always sufficient to secure the re-election of the one-third
156
that annually were obliged to go out. Another objection of the party alluded to was, that in his parish persons had got into the vestry who were designated by the uncourteous appellation of "rats," from the fact that they were elected as Reformers, but as soon as they got into the vestry, they forgot their promises and disappointed those who voted for them. The effect of this was, that for two years the parish was kept in constant agitation from the efforts to turn them out. A three years' canvass was carried on to produce what an annual election would bring about. Even a bonâd fide three years' election would be preferable to this partial annual one, since it would save all the excitement that prevailed during the whole interval of the three years. But why have recourse to the proposed alteration in the mode of election at all? Why not return to the old system, namely, that of annual elections? It would be found that the practice was, where officers were not appointed for life, that the elections were annual; and this system had hitherto worked well. The Report of the Municipal Commissioners gave as an instance in favour of annual elections those of the Common Council of the city of London. That mode was approved of by the Commissioners, and they stated that the result was, that the same persons were annually re-elected, with very few exceptions or changes. The same Report spoke of another Corporation, and stated that it governed with the greatest impartiality, and that its revenues were managed with the greatest economy and integrity. The Report also stated, that the Corporation in question was an exceedingly popular one, and that it administered the funds of the different charities of which it had the management with the strictest fairness. The Corporation alluded to in the Report was that of Wisbeach, and the period of electing its officers was annual, and the mode of election by ballot. When such was the fact, he thought that Gentlemen need not be alarmed at the excitement annual elections would produce. They produced no inconvenient excitement in London, and very few changes in the persons elected, though the people had the power of making changes. He was of opinion that the people ought to have this power continued to them. They would use it discreetly, and for their own benefit, and when they made changes in the persons elected, it would be on account of

157
misconduct on the part of those persons. The proposed duration of Municipal Councils would be just as objectionable as that of Parliament. It would lead to the introduction of pledges, and the consequence would be, that in a short time the Councillors of the different boroughs would be so fettered with pledges as to be incapable of exercising their discretion. Another objection was, that continuing the services of those Councillors for a period of three years was likely to have the effect of bringing the penal clauses of the Bill into operation; and for this, and the other reasons which he had stated, he now begged leave to submit to the consideration of the Committee the Motion of which he had given notice. He must add, that he wished some one period to be fixed for the general election of Municipal Officers; and although he would not object to the time appointed for this purpose, he still was of opinion that annual elections were the means by which the least risk would be incurred to the peace and tranquillity of those towns. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, that the words "one-third part of" be left out of the Clause.
Lord John Russellsaid, that the objections of the hon. Member for Liskeard to the Clause as it stood were inconsistent with each other. One of his objections was, that as the Clause stood, there would be great agitation and excitement to get the office of Town-Councilman; whilst another was, that its duties would be so onerous, that it was a hardship upon individuals to be obliged to serve for three years against their will. Another objection of the hon. Member was, that the two-thirds who remained in office would elect the one-third to be elected by a kind of house-list; but this objection was also answered by the assumption of the hon. Member, that there would be great anxiety out of doors to become members of the Council. He had not heard any thing, therefore, to make him doubt that the system proposed to be established by the Bill would work well in practice.
Mr. Grotesaid, that the periods during which the Common Councilmen of London held their seats afforded a striking refutation of the argument against annual elections, founded on the inconvenience of having every year a large number of new and unpractised members. The Common Council of London consisted of 140
158
members, and the average length of time which the present members had held their seats was nine years and three-quarters. Assuming that the average expectancy of continuance in office of the present Common Council was another nine years and three-quarters, it would give an average, length of service to each member of nineteen years and a-half. This was a complete refutation of the supposition that annual elections would produce a continual influx of new and inexperienced men. With respect to the argument that by annual elections, a particular man would be displaced by a temporary excitement; although that might happen in one year, the member would be re-chosen the next, when the excitement subsided. That the members, however, who would fall victims even to temporary excitements would be small, might be judged of from the fact that there were only nine members in the Common Council of London who had so suffered. They must not forget that a body chosen annually was much more likely to have their attention constantly directed to their duty to their constituents than one elected at longer intervals. The feeling of constant accountability to their constituents, which, after all, must be the great source from which the disposition to do their duty must emanate, could not be too deeply rooted in the minds of representatives, as was proved in the cases both of London and Wisbeach.
The Attorney-Generalallowed that if the elections were annual, there was every probability the old members would be re-elected; but still there was a possibility for which they must legislate, he meant sudden convulsions in the political world, that might cause the whole body of the Common Council to be changed. This would not be a trifling evil, when it was recollected how much more severe their labours would be under the new than they had been under the old system. They would have to manage all the local affairs of their respective towns, they would have to administer their property, to direct the paving, lighting, watering, and watching of their streets, all of them functions of a complicated and onerous nature, requiring experience in those who discharged them. The proposition contained in the Bill, on the other hand, was not a speculative experiment; for it had been tried in Scotland, and, as far as it had been tried, had succeeded to admiration.
Mr. Williamsmentioned the case of the Common Council of the city of London, as an illustration that no possible inconvenience or practical objection could arise from the adoption of the proposed Amendment. That body was elected annually, and had the management of funds to the amount of 400,000 l. a-year, and yet no consequences had resulted from it prejudicial to the interests of the citizens of London.
Amendment negatived without a division.
Colonel Sibthorpmoved an Amendment, the object of which was to give the burgesses the power of choosing what Councilmen should retire, and to prevent those who retired from being re-elected for three years.
Lord John Russellopposed the Amendment, and it was negatived without a division.
The Clause to stand part of the Bill.
The 24th Clause; "Elections to be held before mayor. Mode of voting."
Mr. Barlow Hoymoved, as an Amendment, "That the votes at elections for the Council be taken openly, in the manner now usual at elections for Members to serve in Parliament."
The Amendment eventually negatived.
Mr. Groterose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice, and in doing so, he assured the noble Lord that he was ready to do him ample justice for many of the provisions, and for what he anticipated would be the admirable effect, of this Bill. He could not, however, but express his sincere regret that the principle of the Vote by Ballot was not recognised by the Bill. Considering, as he did, that secret suffrage was the only way to ensure entire freedom from coercion to the honest elector, and as the best method also of debarring the dishonest voter from getting so high a price for his vote as he otherwise might do, he much regretted that it was not introduced into this Bill. He said this, however, more in the way of regret than in the way of complaint. The Amendment which he now proposed to lay upon the Table, did not in the least touch or infringe upon the general principle of the Bill. If his Amendment were adopted, the method of voting which the House had lately sanctioned by its decision would be still open to these Municipal Corporations. There would, however be an option given to the Town Council of those Corporations, if they
160
thought the adoption of the Vote by Ballot to be preferable, to adopt that mode. He was fortified in making this proposition by the course pursued by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Nottingham (Sir John C. Hobhouse), on the Bill introduced by him respecting Select Vestries. Indeed he had copied the greater part of his Amendment from that Bill, and had taken no greater precaution for securing secrecy than that Bill prescribed. There was but one difference of any importance to notice between that Bill and his Amendment. The right hon. Baronet's Bill enacted that every parish, containing 800 rate-payers and above, should be entitled to declare its option to adopt, by a majority of the ratepayers, that mode of voting for the representatives of the vestry which he proposed should be adopted (at the option of the Town Council) for the election of the Municipal (or Town) Council of the Boroughs. He only differed from the right hon. Baronet in this respect, that instead of lodging the option in a majority of the rate-payers he (Mr. Grote) proposed to lodge it in the absolute majority of the Town Council. There were some minor differences as to the appointment of inspectors which he would not more particularly advert to. To lay a ground for this proposition, it was not necessary for gentlemen to agree with him on the subject of the Vote by Ballot. It was sufficient for them to admit that in some of these two hundred Municipal Corporations there might be political and acrimonious feelings, which majority of the Town Council might think it best to avoid by adopting the mode of election for which he was now contending. The adoption of the Ballotwas infinitely more necessary in Municipal elections than even in the exercise of the Parliamentary franchise; for as a lower class of persons were entitled to vote at the former, it was but reasonable to suppose that they were more open to undue influence. He begged to move that there be added at the end of Clause 24 the following proviso:—"Provided always, that it shall be competent to the Council of any borough, if an absolute majority of the whole number thereof shall so think fit, to direct that at elections for members of the Council or of auditors for the said borough, the votes of the burgesses shall be taken in the following manner: that is to say, that the poll shall be taken by Ballot, each burgess delivering to the mayor as aforesaid, or to such clerk as may

161
be appointed to take the poll, and in manner hereinafter mentioned, a folded paper, containing the names of the persons for whom such burgess may vote, as fit and proper to be councillors or auditors; and that the said Mayor or Clerk shall deposit the said folded paper, without previously opening the same, in a balloting glass or box, which shall be closed and sealed up at the time fixed for the termination of the voting, as hereinafter declared:—That after the close of the said Ballot, the Mayor as aforesaid, with four or more inspectors appointed by the said Council, and in the presence of such number of the Council as shall think fit to attend, shall proceed to unseal the box or glass and examine the voting papers so delivered as aforesaid, for the purpose of ascertaining which of the several persons voted for are elected; and so many of such persons being equal to the number of the Councillors then to be chosen, as shall have the greatest number of votes, shall be deemed to be elected; and in case of an equality in the number of votes for any two or more persons, the Mayor shall name from amongst those persons for whom the number of votes shall be equal, so many as shall be necessary to complete the requisite number of Councillors to be chosen: and the Mayor shall publish a list of the names of the persons so elected Councillors within three days (exclusive of Sunday) from the closing of the poll."
Mr. Barlow Hoyexpressed his surprise that any proposition should be made for the introduction of a secret mode of voting into a Bill the professed object of which was to do away with secret and close practices.
Lord Francis Egertonthought that the adoption of the Ballot in Municipal Elections would occasion considerable turbulence and confusion. He preferred trusting to the prophecies of his Majesty's Ministers relative to the peaceable and admirable manner in which they would be conducted under the arrangement proposed by them. He feared the persons elected to the Council would be required to pledge themselves to the adoption of the Ballot.
Mr. Warburtonwondered the noble Lord could entertain any such fear when they were told that the system was un-English and opposed to the habits of the people. The fact, however, was, that the Ballot had been adopted with great success in many parishes.
Sir John Hobhousebelieved that it had not been adopted in any one instance.
Mr. Warburtonrepeated that if he had been correctly informed, it had been adopted with great success in several metropolitan parishes. He would propose that if any voter should subscribe his name to the list as having voted for a particular party, his vote should be void.
Sir John Hobhouseagain stated, that no one parish had availed itself of the provision in his Bill which gave them the power of adopting the Ballot.
An Hon. Membersaid, that he himself had been elected to a parochial office by Ballot.
Sir John Hobhousesaid, that in preparing a great measure like the present, and in endeavouring to attain the best mode of carrying it into execution, it was perfectly impossible that they could fall in with all the modes proposed by every individual Member. He entreated the cordial co-operation of the House, and he made no complaint of the reception the Bill had received, because it certainly had met with a very fair share of support; but if Gentlemen whom they had the pleasure of seeing on those (the Ministerial) benches really meant well to the Bill, he implored them to merge their own minor differences of opinion, to stand by the Government, and support the great principles of the Bill.
Mr. Wardmeant to impute no dereliction of principle to the Government when he said that if the Amendment were pressed to a division he should support it. After the observations of the right hon. Baronet, however, he hoped the hon. Member for London would consent to withdraw his Motion.
Mr. Aglionbymade the same suggestion, and observed that the mere fact of the metropolitan parishes not having adopted the Ballot proved how safely the alternative might be left to them.
Mr. Groteunder existing circumstances would consent, though with considerable reluctance, to withdraw his Motion. He hoped he had done his duty to a principle which he considered of paramount importance. With regard to the adoption of the Ballot in parochial elections, he could state, on the authority of one of the Churchwardens, that it was adopted in Mary-le-bonne.
The Amendment was withdrawn, and the Clause was agreed to.
On Clause 27 being read,
An Hon. Membermoved as an Amendment, that in case of an equality of votes between any two or more of the candidates for the office of Councillor, the Mayor shall draw by lot the requisite number, instead of nominating the successful candidate.
The Committee divided.
Ayes 142; Noes 190; Majority 48.
On the question, that the Clause stand part of the Bill,
Mr. Hughes Hughessaid, that he had given notice of his intention to move alterations in this Clause, to the effect that the Mayor should appoint scrutineers for each parish in the Borough to assist him in examining the voting papers, for the purpose of ascertaining which of the several persons voted for were elected. He had been restrained from so doing by the introduction into the Clause of two Assessors to assist the Mayor. He could not however, suffer the Clause to pass the Committee without suggesting to the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that the time allowed for examining the voting papers and declaring the numbers was far too limited. By way of illustrating this point, he would state that in Oxford the number of electors under the Bill was estimated at 3,000, so that, even if the number of thirty-three Councillors allotted to that City in the schedule should not be increased, no fewer than 99,000 votes might be recorded. Every one of the 3,000 electors would have it in his power to put upon his voting paper the names of any thirty-three persons whom he pleased to select, whether candidates for the office or not, and therefore 200 or 300 different names would very probably appear on the voting papers. Now he would put it to the noble Lord whether, taking these circumstances into consideration, and that the poll, under a former Clause, was not to close till four o'clock on the day of Election, the declaration of the numbers should be required to be made so soon as two o'clock on the next day. It would be next to impossible to classify the names and cast up the votes, so as to make the declaration of the result with accuracy at two o'clock of the succeeding day, even though the Mayor and his two Assessors should sit up for the purpose the whole of the intervening night. But he had not by any means put an extreme case. The inconvenience would operate still more forcibly in larger towns, where both the number
164
of the Electors and of the Councillors to be chosen was much greater than in Oxford. He did not make this suggestion in any vexatious manner, but merely threw it out for the consideration of the noble Lord.
Lord John Russellobserved that the hon. Member had put an extreme case when he talked of 200 or 300 names appearing in the voting papers. He thought that less than 100 names would probably be inserted, but, admitting that some practical inconvenience might arise, he promised that the point should receive his attention.
Mr. Goulburnthought the difficulty started by his hon. Friend was very likely to occur, and would recommend the subject to the serious consideration of the noble Lord.
The Clause agreed to.
On Clause 29,
Sir M. W. Ridleysaid, that he had an Amendment to propose, to the effect that all persons now holding offices in Corporations should continue to hold them until persons were elected under the provisions of this Act to succeed them. He did not think that provision had been made in the Bill for this purpose.
Lord John Russellobserved that he had a proviso to propose at the end of this Clause, which he thought would meet the objection of his hon. Friend.
Sir M. W. Ridleysaid, that he had prepared a Clause on the subject, but was willing to leave the matter in the hands of his noble Friend and his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who no doubt would frame a Clause much better than he could do.
The Clause agreed to.
On Clause 30 being put (certain boroughs to be divided into wards),
Lord Stanleysaid, that he intended to call the attention of the Committee to a most important point, namely, the principle on which the Government intended to act in proposing that his Majesty in Council should have the power of dividing a borough into wards. This point involved three important principles—first, whether it was intended to propose that any borough should be divided into any number of wards which his Majesty in Council thought proper; secondly, on what principles his Majesty's advisers intended to propose to fix the boundaries of these wards; and thirdly, whether it was intended for the

165
future to give his Majesty, or rather his advisers, the power of fixing the number of constituents in each individual ward. If the first point was conceded, it would be almost unnecessary for him to submit to the Committee the Amendment which he intended to propose. He trusted, however, with reference to the last two points, his noble Friend would give to the House some explanation, and would state what course he and his colleagues intended to advise the Crown to pursue with respect to the limits of these wards. Did his noble Friend intend to propose that the number of wards should be governed by the local circumstances of the place, or by the boundaries of the parishes in a borough? He did not believe that they intended to propose, that a borough should be divided into wards solely with reference to the population. Surely his noble Friend did not mean to say, that because a ward contained a certain population, that it should return a certain number of Councilmen, without reference to the wealth of the different wards, or the portion each contributed to the common burthens of the place. If his hon. Friend did so he would depart from the principle he had laid down in the Reform Bill, and would give more power and influence to the mere population of certain wards than to those in other wards who might contribute mainly towards defraying the exigent expenses of the borough. If this point was to be acted upon, it was only right and proper that Parliament should be made acquainted with it. His Amendment, however, only went to the extent that certain towns, not divided into wards by the Bill, should be divided into them. To a certain degree his Majesty's Government agreed with him, but did not go to the extent which he proposed. If his Amendment, or something founded on the same principle, was not carried, he was satisfied that in several comparatively large towns, an important minority would not be represented in the Council, and a combination of a certain portion of persons might exclude a great portion of the wealth of the place from the, slightest influence or control. Another, and a stronger objection was, that in those towns not proposed to be divided into wards, the number of Councillors would be so large, that the electors would not exercise their choice from a knowledge of the parties,
166
but would be guided by popular prejudices. There would be one or two lists, for instance the Yellow and the Blue-lists; the electors would not be guided by their opinion or knowledge of the persons they had to elect, but by political prejudices. If they divided a borough into wards, he thought that there was the best chance of the voters of a town only electing such persons as they were well acquainted with, and whom they thought best able to represent them. He thought that the mode proposed in the Bill of dividing boroughs into wards was too arbitrary. The Amendment he intended to propose was, that it should be left to the Crown to fix certain bounds to the wards, but that some rule should be laid down as to the principle by which they should be guided in dividing a place into wards. His Majesty's Government proposed, that only towns containing 25,000 inhabitants should be divided into wards—it appeared that they took this as the basis of the population and wealth of a place; but places also might be divided into any number of wards at the pleasure of the Crown. Now there were several places of great importance, which it was desirable to divide into wards, which contained a population of less than 25,000 persons; for instance, Leicester, Chester, Cambridge, Derby, Ipswich, Carlisle, Oxford, Wigan, and other places he could mention. In these towns, the rule laid down, was, that they should return the whole number of thirty-six Councillors. There would be almost necessarily two parties, and a most powerful minority might be entirely excluded from any share in the representation in the Council. What he intended to propose, was, that towns with less than 25,000 inhabitants should be divided into wards. He did not propose this vexatiously, but he thought that the adoption of his suggestion, would improve the measure. He intended to propose in the preamble of the Clause, that the words, "Whereas by reason of the great number of the inhabitants of boroughs, named in the schedule annexed to the Act, it is desirable that sush boroughs should be divided into wards," &c, should be struck out, and that they should adopt some principle with reference to the number of wards a town should be divided into, containing a certain population. What he intended to propose to be inserted, was to this effect, "That it was expedient, if it should appear to his Majesty in Council, that the

167
population of a borough, according to the last Parliamentary census, exceeded the number of 10,000, that it should be divided into a certain number of wards, not exceeding three, if the population of a borough exceeded 18,000, that it should not be divided into more than six wards, and if it should exceed 25,000, that it might be divided into a number of wards which his Majesty might think fit." He did not wish to adhere very closely to what he had laid down, but was willing to leave the matter to his Majesty's Government, if his noble Friend would promise to carry out the principle which he had partially acted upon, and divide towns containing 10,000 inhabitants into wards. If the principle was adopted, he would leave the details to his noble Friend.
Lord John Russellobserved, that there was no doubt that the principle was of great practical importance on the working of the Bill. It was a question of practical detail, rather than one involving a principle. He was disposed to go to the extent of stating, that he was willing to consider whether the plan of dividing towns into wards containing a less population than 25,000 inhabitants could be adopted. His noble Friend asked, what principle his Majesty's Government intended to adopt with reference to dividing a borough into wards? In the first place, it would depend on the wealth and population of a place. Undoubtedly they would to a considerable extent adopt the principle of population in making a ward —that was, they would not do so unless it contained a certain extent of population. The course, however, they would adopt would depend to a great degree on the circumstances of different classes. For instance, if a place were now divided into three or four parishes, it would depend upon the circumstances of the case, whether that division would be continued. If this arrangement could be continued advantageously, there could be no reason why this should not be done. He should be sorry to divide a borough into wards, when the number of voters were so few that they were likely to be influenced. If this were the case, it would produce a jealous feeling which would be most pernicious. As the case now stood, his Majesty's Ministers would be guided by the circumstances of each town, and the wealth and population of it. He was not
168
now prepared to adopt the suggestion of his noble Friend; but if his noble Friend would postpone his Amendment, he (Lord John Russell) would propose to take it into his consideration, and the decision of the Question might be taken on the Report.
Mr. Barlow Hoyhad intended to propose an Amendment, that all towns containing 15,000 inhabitants, should be divided into wards; but the Amendment of the noble Lord fully met his views on the subject.
Mr. Humehoped, that the noble Lord would not agree to the proposition that had been made.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the principle of the Clause being a division of the popular boroughs into wards, he did not see that there could be any reasonable objection to the proposition being taken into consideration.
Mr. Kearsleyhoped the noble Lord would not for one moment listen to the hon. Member for Middlesex, or to any hon. Member on that (the Ministerial) bench; he trusted, that he would rather allow himself to be led by the good sense of the noble Lord who had moved the Amendment, having in view the good of the country. He feared, however, that if the noble Lord relied on the noble Secretary of State, he would depend upon a broken reed; he had no hesitation in saying, that he believed the noble Lord would find that the noble Secretary of State for the Home Department was weak in his knees.
The Amendment was postponed, and the Clause was agreed to.
On Clause 33rd being put,
Mr. Goulburnmoved an Amendment, to give to individuals in the different wards the power of voting for any property they might have in any of such wards.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that the adoption of such a principle would cause the Bill to become exceedingly unpopular.
It was withdrawn. Clause agreed to.
The Clauses to the 36th were agreed to, the House resumed, the Committee to sit again.

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a third time:—Dominica Relief.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of VERULAM, from several Parishes in Hertfordshire, against being united with Hitchen under the Poor-Law Amendment Act.—By Lord YARBOROUGH, from Bendbridge, for an Alteration in the Smuggling Law.

WRIT OF CERTIORARI—BAIL.
The Duke of Richmondwished to ask his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, whether it was not desirable that the law should be amended with respect to the removal of indictments from inferior Courts into the Court of King's Bench, so far as related to the taking of bail on such removals. When a man was indicted at the Quarter-sessions, and the Magistrates took bail for his appearance, they might, according to the rank in life of the offender, and according to the nature of the offence, require bail from him to the amount of 300 l. or 500 l. If that very indictment was removed by Certiorari, he believed that it was the practice of the Court of King's Bench—and, as he understood, the practice was regulated by Statute—to call on him to give bail for only 20 l. or 30 l. It seemed to him that that practice was most objectionable; for it gave a great advantage to the rich man, and afforded him the opportunity of leaving the country; for though the Magistrates might have bound him by a sum sufficient to secure his appearance, he might, by going to the small expense of removing the case by Certiorari, get his bail diminished in amount to a very small sum, and might then afford to go off, and pay his sureties for the loss they had incurred. He wished to ask his noble and learned Friend whether this law did not require alteration, and if so, whether it would not be proper to insert the alteration in the Bill relating to prisons, now before their Lordships.
Lord Denmansaid, that in his judgment, the alteration suggested by the noble Duke would be a great improvement. Under the present law there had been great evasion of public justice on account of the smallness of the sum required for bail on the removal of an indictment by Certiorari, since in such a case it was obvious that a person charged with any heavy offence, and who felt a consciousness of guilt, being aware of so light a penalty beingattached to hisevasion, would be almost sure to incur that forfeiture and fly the country; and in late years there

129
had been one or two examples of heinous offenders adopting such a course. With respect to cases to be tried at the assizes, the Magistrates, in the first instance, usually required 50 l. bail, and the Judges of the Court of King's Bench afterwards exercised their discretion, and increased the amount as they deemed it necessary. They ought to have the same power in cases of indictments removed by Certiorari from the Sessions, so as to proportion the amount of the bail to the nature of the offence and the probability of the conviction. They had not, however, any such power. He approved of the proposed alteration, and he did not think that the Prison Discipline Bill would be an improper occasion to introduce a matter so much connected with the administration of the justice of the country. Perhaps, however, this matter might not be fully considered on this hasty discussion, and other points of view relating to it might be presented to their Lordships. He did not think that that was likely to be the case in the present instance, but if the noble Duke inserted the Clause in the Bill, he would do all in his power to make it fully known to those noble Lords who were likely to take part in such a discussion.
Lord Broughamquite agreed that the proposed alteration, or something like it, should be made. The Question was, how far in cases of motions for Certiorari the Court should have the discretion to refuse or to grant them. A prosecutor might now remove an indictment as a matter of right, but the defendant could not do so without showing that he had good grounds for making the application. He did not see why the Court should not be able to grant or refuse a Certiorari to either party under peculiar circumstances, and with the view of enabling the Court to impose terms on the party.
Lord Denmansaid, that the matter just referred to by his noble and learned Friend showed how many points might arise on a discussion of this sort, and how much the subject required to be treated with due consideration. It was true that a prosecutor might remove an indictment as a matter of course. He thought that that practice should be altered, for, as it now existed, great injustice might be committed, for a defendant might have his witnesses ready at the Sessions, and just as he was going to trial, the prosecutor might lay a Certiorari on the Table, and
130
put off the trial for an indefinite period, and at great expense and inconvenience to the other side. Perhaps the two matters together were sufficiently important to form the subject of a separate Bill. The Judges of the Court of King's Bench had lately been considering whether they could not make a rule on the subject, but they had some doubt how the purpose they had in view could be fully effected by a rule. It could be fully effected by an Act of Parliament.
Lord Broughamsaid, that the Court of King's Bench was not wholly deprived of discretion in those cases, for even after a Certiorari had been granted if the Court saw reason to believe that it had been obtained for the purpose of oppression it might stay the proceedings, and so defeat the object of the party obtaining it.
The Duke of Richmondobserved, that his intention had been limited to drawing the attention of the law Lords to this important subject. He believed that the present practice was productive of much injustice, for he knew a case where a defendant charged with an indecent exposure had, by the order of the Magistrate, found security for 500 l., but he removed by Certiorari, and in the Court of King's Bench he gave only the statutable security of 20 l.,whereupon he fled the country and avoided justice.
The Subject dropped.