Sitting of 14 July 1835

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Landed Securities (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By Mr. LEWIS, from Maidstone, against the Municipal Corporations' Bill.—By Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY, from Offlow South, for Amending the Sale of Beer Act.—By Sir WILLIAM BRABAZON, from the Soap-boilers of Westport, for discontinuing the Drawback on Soap into Ireland; from Aghagour, for a Better System of Education in Ireland. By Admiral ADAM and Mr. WILLIAM ROCHE, from Alloa and Limerick, against any Alteration of the Timber Duties.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.
Mr. Peasemoved that this Bill be re-committed. He trusted that the Bill would be suffered to pass, as it was eminently calculated to prevent the dreadful cruelties which were daily practised towards animals. He would be the last man in the world to support the measure, if it tended to abridge the amusements of the poorer classes; but he was persuaded that it would have no such effect.
Colonel Sibthorpedid not rise to oppose the Bill, but merely for the purpose of throwing out a few suggestions for the consideration of the hon. Member for Durham. He would be the last man in the world to throw ridicule upon any measure having humanity for its object; but the hon. Member, though he enumerated bull, and bear, and badger-baiting, and fox-hunting, had entirely forgotten the atrocious and abominable practice of skinning cats alive which had lately been carried on to a great extent. He hoped the hon. Member would include this offence in his Bill.
Sir Matthew White Ridleyconsidered that the Bill gave too much and too arbitrary power to the inspectors to be appointed under it: and also to the mischievous class of informers who had
538
already too much in their power. It appeared to him that the Acts already in existence—3 and 4 George 3rd., were amply sufficient for all the purposes contemplated by the Bill now brought forward. It appeared to him, too, that the Bill, while it left coursing, shooting, fishing, &c, the amusements of the higher classes, untouched, infringed too much on those of the humbler classes. He hoped the hon. Member would not press the Bill this Session, if he did it would be his duty to take the sense of the House on the propriety of postponing it.
Mr. Alderman Woodthought the expense of the inspectors would be found much too high, particularly in the City.
Dr. Bowringsaid, that though legislalation might not be found efficient in accomplishing everything that was to be wished, yet an effort ought to be made to do all that was possible.
Mr. Wilkssaid, the Bill was calculated to do very great service, consolidating, as it did, three or four different Acts on the subject.
Mr. Brothertonhailed the measure as a further step in civilization.
The House divided: Ayes 30; Noes 16; Majority 14.

List of the Noes.

Blackburne, J.

Sharpe, General

Bramston, T. W.

Sheldon, E. R.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Tancred, H. W.

Evans, G.

Turner, W.

Elphinstone, H.

Warburton, H.

Grimston, E. H.

Wrottesley, Sir J.

Hoy, B.

Tellers.

O'Conor, Don

Ridley, Sir M. W.

Roebuck, J. A.

Sibthorp, Colonel

The House went into Committee, several Clauses were agreed to, and the House resumed.

THE POST OFFICE.
Lord Lowtherhoped to be indulged by the attention of the House for a few minutes on a matter personal to himself. He had seen by the publications of this morning, that yesterday, in another place, there had been what he might call a field-day of Postmasters-General. In the outset he would say that while he had acted as Commissioner of inquiry into the Post-office, although his time had been limited to about two months, he in that period had endeavoured, as well as his abilities and his occupations in the House would allow, to serve the public zealously and faith-

539
fully, and to make such suggestions on that important department as he conceived reasonable and practicable. It seems that there had existed a difference of opinion between himself and another Commissioner; and what that other Commissioner had called alacrity and despatch, appeared to him (Lord Lowther) delay, and something very nearly approaching obstruction. He had no difficulty in stating the circumstances on which he grounded his opinion, and he did not wish in any way to moderate or retract the term "obstinacy" which he had employed. When he used it, he certainly had had in his recollection the Report of the Finance Committee of 1797, in which allusion was made to the obstacles at that time thrown in the way of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Post-office. There was so slight a difference between "obstinacy" and "obstacle," that he was willing to take all the responsibility belonging to the employment of the larger term. His late colleague disagreed with him in the application of that term, and he was surprised (yet he was not surprised, because in public life he was surprised at nothing), that his colleague should have forgotten that he (Lord Lowther) had made something like the same complaint in a Report to the Treasury on price currents. At that period there were several questions before the Commissioners, and he was most particularly anxious to investigate the arrangement of steam boats and foreign posts. The noble Commissioner had dissented from the conclusion he had come to regarding the forwarding of price currents at a small charge; and as they were about to quit office they made a Report, as a sort of legacy to their successors, on two or three points with which their inquiries had commenced. On the subject of price currents he would take leave to refer the House to the concluding sentence of that Report. He found that the Commission appointed by the Lords of the Treasury in August last, had furnished the Postmaster-General with a statement of the recommendations of the Commission of Revenue Inquiry, and had requested him to prepare certain documents, showing in what cases those recommendations had been carried into effect, and what had prevented the remainder from being adopted. This paper had not been furnished when the Commission closed its proceedings. The Com-
540
missioners appointed in August last, called for this paper; but as it was not presented when their labours terminated, the order was renewed in February last, and it had not been furnished in the middle of April. He and his colleagues had, therefore, applied for it as soon as they were appointed by the Lords of the Treasury, in order to continue the investigation. This paper had been required, he believed, so long ago as September last; and if he complained, therefore, of dilatoriness, unwillingness, or obstinacy, the House would see that it was not without ground. Colonel Yorke had exerted himself with ability and assiduity, and had devoted a great deal of time to the subject; and if he (Lord Lowther) had wanted any re-compence for the services he rendered, it would have been found in making the acquaintance of an officer of so much talent and intelligence, who was now acting as private secretary to Lord Mulgrave. No explanation had been given why the paper was not sent earlier; and it was important, as it would have facilitated the investigation by showing what had been the suggestions of the Commissioners, and how far they had been carried into effect. He would now refer to another point. He had asked for a detailed account of the steam-boat service, conceiving that the public were great losers by the system of establishment instead of contract. He had not the precise words in which this account was required; but the answer was, that it was impossible to furnish it. That did not satisfy him; and he applied to the Admiralty, sending the same request to his Friend, Mr. Dawson, who in three days returned him a most precise and complete reply. Having been once a Lord of the Admiralty, he (Lord Lowther) knew the accuracy of detail with which the whole of that department was managed; and the discipline had rather been increased than lessened while his right hon. Friend the Member for Cumberland presided over it. He had also applied to the General Steam Company, through a friend, who was a governor, and all the most accurate particulars were instantly furnished. He had therefore summoned the accountant of the Post-office, and going into the accounts with him, they had together abstracted all the items required for the last three years. Another point related to the foreign postage of the country, which he considered

541
essential to be examined; and he had called for an account of all the letters sent from London to Calais, and from Calais to London. What was the answer he had received? That they amounted to 134,0001bs. in the course of the year. What was the answer regarding letters from Calais to London? That they amounted to five millions of draughts. Not being able to understand these returns, he had referred to other authorities, in order that the matter might be rendered intelligible, but he had obtained no satisfaction. Did this show a willingness on the part of the Post-office to furnish information. He would add, that their accounts must be excessively ill-kept if they could not state the amount of postage between England and France, and show whether this country lost or gained by the 12,000 l. paid for interior transit duty. He could enumerate other instances in which no return at all had been made—for instance, as to the number of persons employed as packet agents. The late Postmaster-General had said, that the Commissioners examined all they could examine; but he had not given any reason why more accounts were not produced. There was another matter that seemed to be a great grievance: it was generally reported that the Postmaster of Jamaica received a very large salary, and he had called for an account of his income and allowances; the answer was 400 l. a-year salary, and 160 l. a-year allowances. He was dissatisfied with this return, and when he called for another, the reply was, that no other could be given. He had therefore summoned the clerk of the Post-office, and he very reluctantly admitted, that the situation was estimated at 1,600 l. a-year. He had heard that it was much more, but it was admitted to be worth 1,600 l. a-year, and it was supposed that the Postmaster of Jamaica derived an advantage from the sale of newspapers. As far as his recollection served, evidence to this effect was either at the Treasury or in possession of the Board of Trade. Was this like willingness to give information? It could not be said, that the Post-office did not possess the knowledge, for the son of Sir F. Freeling had been sent out, at heavy expense, to examine into the Post-office of the West-Indies, and could hardly be ignorant of the salary and emoluments of the Postmaster of Jamaica. Then he
542
had required a detailed account of he perquisites and salaries of the clerks; as it was known that there was a clerk in the post-office who was or had been a contactor for lighting the mails, and others were paid for conveying electioneering intelligence to the editors of newspapers. Two or three other instances might be mentioned, but he thought he had said enough to show, that he was justified in reiterating the statement of the Commissioners in 1797, and enough to establish that there existed both unwillingness and obstinacy. In the course of his public life, he had been selected on various occasions to make inquiries into the Excise-office, the Tax-office, and into the Exchequer, and the first step towards the abolition of the last was a report made by himself and the hon. Member for Mon-mouth. In examining into the Excise and Tax-offices, he had formerly met with every facility, and he might add, that the difficulties in the Exchequer did not exceed those he had experienced in his investigations regarding the Post-office. He wished that the noble Lord who had appeared in evidence against him was now present; and he would ask him what paper which had been required, the Post-office had shown alacrity in producing? If the noble Lord could adduce a single instance, he was ready to bear all the obloquy of having made an unfounded attack. He might advert to several minor points; but having made this general statement, which proceeded from a sense of duty, he would refrain from going further. If he had made any rash assertion, he should be ready either to retract it, or to bear the consequences; and this he would say, that there was no man more anxious than he was for the correct despatch of public business in all departments of the State. The noble Lord concluded by moving for a Return to show which of the recommendations of the Commissioners of Revenue Inquiry in regard to the Post-office had been carried into effect.
Mr. Vernon Smithdid not wish to enter into the question between the noble Lord and the Postmaster-General, or to join in any crimination or recrimination on either side; he rose only for the purpose of alluding to one return which the noble Lord complained had not been made. He had had the honour to belong to the Post-office Commission, and he would state that Colonel Yorke had certainly

543
drawn out the paper referred to, and it ought to have been found among the documents which devolved into the hands of the new Commissioners on the change of Government. He coincided in the praise bestowed by the noble Lord upon the talents and assiduity of Colonel Yorke.
Mr. Humeconsidered himself, and he hoped the House would also consider itself under an obligation to the noble Lord for the statement just delivered; the active part the noble Lord had taken in public affairs, and the manner in which he had devoted his time to inquiries into the different departments, rendered his evidence of peculiar value. He was sorry that the noble Lord had not had justice done him for his exertions in the Report on the Exchequer, as he had been the first to take up the subject with a determination to go through with it; if obstacles had not been interposed, a reform of the Exchequer would have been effected at least ten years ago.
Mr. Wallacemerely rose for the vindication of his own conduct, which had been impugned in another place. He adhered to every word he had uttered on the former night, and was prepared to prove his statement if an opportunity were afforded. In answer to the noble Duke, he would only refer to a speech he had delivered on the 6th of August last. With regard to the speeches of the various Postmasters-general, it was perfectly conclusive, from their remarks, that they were very ignorant of the office they administered. The noble Lord the late Postmaster-General, after highly lauding Sir Francis Freeling, had arrived at the strange conclusion of differing from him upon many important points, and reversing his directions. He had praised him as if he were the first person in the country, and must, therefore, have possessed a most extraordinary degree of self-complacency when the noble Lord considered himself competent to decide against the opinion of so able and experienced an officer. He (Mr. Wallace) had complained that opening letters was a common occurrence, and in two several years he had complained that a felony had been committed in opening letters in Scotland. He had moved for some papers upon the subject, namely, the informations lodged for the prosecution of the parties; he had argued that the letters had been opened at the Post-office for the purpose of prosecution, and he had
544
moved for a return which would give the House all the necessary particulars, together with the names of the parties who were to be prosecuted. Part of the order had been complied with, but no places were given where the information was dated, and a most extraordinary fact occurred, which he had noticed last year, and which he would now briefly repeat. A very large number of informations were laid against a stationer in Glasgow, of the name of Read, and the solicitor's letter stated that the letters were put into the Post-office on the 15th of February, 1833; the letters themselves showed that they were not written at that date; and the return on the Table stated, that informations were lodged on the 18th of February, whereas he held in his hand the subpœna to bring the parties to justice, which was dated the 4th of February, or eleven days previous to the time when the letters were said to have been written, and fourteen days before the informations appeared to have been lodged. There was positive proof, therefore, that the letters had been opened, and that a felony had been committed. He would now content himself with repeating his anxiety to verify, in any place, the statement he made to the House on Thursday last. One of the noble Lords had said, that he had an opportunity of repairing to the Post-office yesterday, in order to ascertain how far he could refute the assertions made by himself (Mr. Wallace), and by the noble Lord. In justice to himself, and in order that a Member of one House might not be elevated above a Member of another House, in point of privilege, although he left the House only at two o'clock this morning, at eight he had written to the Postmaster-General, demanding to be allowed to visit the Post-office, that he might enjoy the same advantage as had been granted to the noble Lord. He received from the Postmaster-General a most polite refusal to put him on a footing with the noble Lord. Now, he (Mr. Wallace) contended that he had a right to have all the information which was furnished to the noble Lord. He would not trespass upon the House by arguing the question there, but he was ready to meet the five Postmasters-General in the largest hall in London—["Exeter Hall!"]—ay, with all his heart, in Exeter Hall; and let the public be the umpires.
Mr. Labouchereregretted the manner in which this subject had been brought forward. He had had no recent communication with the noble Lord at the head of the Post-office department, but he understood that an accusation had been preferred against Lord Maryborough, for his conduct when that noble Lord was Postmaster-General. He thought, therefore, that the noble Lord now at the head of the department was justified in allowing Lord Maryborough to go through the Post-office, for the purpose of making those personal inquiries, the answers to which were necessary to his defence. But it was not because, under such circumstances, he allowed the noble Lord that privilege, that he was to allow it to any individual Member of Parliament by whom it might be required. He repeated what he had stated the other night, that he did not stand there as the defender or apologist of any abuse of what kind soever. He trusted that he and the other Commissioners who were appointed to investigate the management of the Post-office, would be found prepared to do justice to the public. In consequence of what had been stated the other evening by another hon. Member, he had thought it his duty to inquire at the Post-office, how it happened that such imperfect returns had been made with respect to the Money-order Office, and other matters; and he could now state that in a few days an amended return, comprehending complete details on the subject, would be ready to be laid before the House.
Dr. Bowringstated, that when he was in Paris four years ago, he had an opportunity of knowing something of the correspondence on the subject of the Post-office, which was going on between the British and French Governments; and he must say, that more unworthy documents than those which proceeded from Sir Francis Freeling he never met with. The conduct of the French Government, on the contrary, was most conciliatory and praiseworthy. They offered, if letters for France were put into the Post-office in England without any postage being paid, to take the trouble of arranging and settling with the British Government afterwards. They were willing to allow that the English Post-office packets should convey the letters both from England to France, and from France to England. These propositions were rejected; and
546
they were rejected in a tone and manner that did the English Post-office no honour. He had then stated, that he was sure the English Government would not approve of the course pursued by the Post-office.
Motion agreed to.

ALLEGED BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
Mr. Charltonobserved that he had yesterday given notice that he would call the attention of the House to a paragraph in The Morning Chronicle newspaper, in relation to his conduct as a Member of the House of Commons, as a breach of privilege. With the permission of the House, he would now say a few words, on condition that he should not be called to order by the hon. and learned Attorney-General, to explain the reasons which induced him to withdraw his notice. It must be perfectly in the recollection of the House, that so long ago as May last, the columns of The Morning Chronicle were filled with the most gross and virulent abuse of his public conduct. Now he was always desirous that the fullest inquiry should be made into every part of his public conduct; but no notice having been taken of the letters which he had addressed to the editor of The Morning Chronicle in justification of that conduct, he had, under such circumstances, felt it to be his duty to bring the matter before the House as a breach of privilege; and had accordingly given a notice to that effect yesterday evening. Since that time, however, the editor of The Morning Chronicle had published a long letter from him in defence of himself from the charges which had been alleged against him. It was far from his wish or intention when he wrote that letter, that the editor of The Morning Chronicle should inflict upon the readers of that paper the perusal of so long an epistle. All that he asked was, a public acknowledgment that the editor had received a letter from him, which was perfectly satisfactory on the points in question. He should have been still less inclined to notice the attacks which had been made upon him by The Morning Chronicle, if he had not ascertained that some evil-disposed persons, had sent copies of the papers in which those attacks appeared, to the town which he had the honour to represent. Having done that, the least they could do was to send copies of the paper in which his justification of himself had appeared. He

547
must likewise take the liberty of saying, that a very important document, which he had sent with his letter to The Morning Chronicle, had been suppressed. He meant an allusion to the fact, he might almost call it a direct charge, that the attacks which had been made upon him in The Morning Chronicle, were not written by the editor of that paper, but by a private individual—the Secretary to the Municipal Commission; one whom the King, in appointing that Commission, had described as his trusty and well-beloved Joseph Parkes. He was the more induced to form that opinion, because that person had previously written to him a very civil letter, the expressions of which were couched in such terms as to give him every reason to believe that the attacks which had been made upon him in The Morning Chronicle were written by that hon. Gentleman, his Majesty's trusty and well-beloved Joseph Parkes. He thanked the House for the kindness with which they had listened to him; and he trusted that they would extend towards him a little morsel more of their patience, while he read a brief extract from the letter which he had written, and which appeared in The Morning Chronicle. After a detailed refutation of all the charges which had been alleged against him, he had thus proceeded: "I have thus gone through every charge; I have evaded none—on all I court inquiry, and feel thankful to you, rather than angry, for having given me an opportunity of vindicating myself. I have hitherto not made use of an unkind expression; and if, in conclusion, I say anything against your friends, the Ministers (in speaking on that remaining charge—namely, that I have voted against them), pray put it down to no party motive, for though I sit 'cheek by jowl with the Clives'"—and here he hoped he should stand excused with the right hon. Baronet to whom he was about to allude; for he was decidedly of opinion, if the right hon. Baronet would allow him to say so, that it was utterly impossible that anything which he (Mr. Charlton) might say of that right hon. Baronet, could raise or lower him in the estimation of that House or of the public. He had thought it necessary to make this apology to the right hon. Baronet, and he would now proceed with his extract. "I only sit there because there is no other place in which I can show my opposition to the Republican measures of the present Mi-
548
nistry. Be assured it is not out of any regard to Sir Robert Peel, who, in admitting the principle of the unjust measure that is called Corporate Reform, appears to me to have thrown overboard all the principles he ever professed." "I am well aware that there is nothing which I can say that can exalt his character or expose him to censure; still as a public Member of Parliament that has been raised into more notoriety by your notice, I am bold to say, that in admitting its principle he has acted in direct contradiction to all the principles of his party, and has lent a hand to that love of change, and that thirst for what is called improvement, that this year demands the sacrifice of Corporations, against whom no criminality is proved. Another year it will demand a similar sacrifice of the local Magistracy; a short time longer, of the House of Peers, and lastly, of the Crown itself. Such a proposition comes with a better grace from the Ministry who have ever advocated democratical principles. Let them, however, understand the distinction between a Whig and a Republican:—let them beware, lest the Democracy do not become too strong for them;—let them remember that there is no checking the torrent, and when once Democracy has its swing, it sweeps all before it. Friend or foe 'tis all the same." The extract was very short. "Nay, it is said, and I believe it, that there is a special interference of Providence against the original propounders of the mischief:—
"Nec lex est justior ulla
Quam necis artifices arte perire sua.'
"To give the Democracy a fair and just power consistent with security to the other estates of the realm has ever been my object, but I will, to the utmost of my power, resist its sway when it is carried to excess. As you have been good enough to conclude your article with a saying of one famous man, I cannot do better than close mine with the saying of another no less famous, which is descriptive too exactly of my own feelings. When Lycurgus was asked why he, who in other respects, appeared so zealous for the equal rights of men, did not make his Government democratical rather than oligarchical, 'Go you,' said the Legislator,' and try a democracy in your own house!'—"P.S. I deny that—"[General cries of "Order, order, order!"]
The Speakerobserved, that the hon.

549
Member for Ludlow must be quite aware that from the time at which he announced that it was not his intention to call the attention of the House by Motion to the subject respecting which he had given notice, everything; that he had said had been said only by the indulgence of the House; and therefore that hon. Gentleman must feel the propriety of abstaining from further pressing that indulgence, he not intending to conclude his observations with any Motion.
Mr. Charltonbegged the Speaker's pardon. He (Mr. Charlton) had stated at the commencement of his speech, that he withdrew his Motion on the condition of being allowed to make a few observations without being interrupted by the Attorney-General. [Cries of "Order, order, order!" amidst which the hon. Member sat down."]

TREATMENT OF ABORIGINES IN BRITISH SETTLEMENTS.
Mr. Fowell Buxton, in bringing forward his motion, respecting the treatment of the Aboriginal inhabitants in the British Colonies, begged to state why that motion had been delayed so long. There were certain papers respecting the Commissioners appointed to determine the frontier line of the Cape of Good Hope, which it was highly important should be produced. He had moved for them in the last Session, and again in the early part of the present Session, but they had not yet been laid upon the Table. The subject was one which deeply interested a large body—he might say many millions—of persons, and was therefore entitled to the most serious consideration of the House. When he had last addressed the House upon the subject, he had adverted to the cruel oppression which had been practised on the unhappy individuals in question by depriving them of their lands and other property. He had on that occasion expressed his hope that a different kind of policy would be adopted towards them, and his conviction that humanity would be found a course not only more consonant to good feeling, but productive of more advantage than severity. He now repeated his firm opinion that kindness would be far preferable—that it would be far safer, far cheaper, and far more profitable, than coercion. He repeated, that the question was one which demanded the most serious consideration; the lives and property of not
550
fewer than four or five millions of human beings being concerned in the proper settlement of it. In the Indian islands and the Cape of Good Hope there were at least a million; in Australia there were from two to three millions; and in New Zealand and other situations a great many; so that he was fully justified in the assertion which he had made, that the lives and property of four or five millions of human beings were implicated in the question. It was a circumstance well worthy the consideration of the House, that wherever the influence of this country extended in any part of the world, there the aboriginal population was rapidly decreasing. He had evidence to prove that fact beyond all contradiction. [The hon. Gentleman read a number of extracts from various works, to prove that position.] The first quotation was from a work on America, in which it was stated that a village near the city of Quebec contained the last of the Huron Indians; famine and gunpowder had done their work amongst them, and aggression and oppression had nearly completed what these had left undone. In another district, as large perhaps as the whole of Europe, the same consequences had ensued. A writer, in whom he (Mr. Buxton) could place the utmost reliance, Dr. Laing, stated that from the habits of intemperance, and from the diseases which the Aborigines of New South Wales had contracted, in consequence of their connexion with the European settlers in that country, their numbers had decreased to an amazing extent, and were still rapidly diminishing. This was especially the case in the neighbourhood of Sydney. At the Cape of Good Hope he could state, upon the authority of Mr. Barrow, that the numbers of the original inhabitants were still more rapidly on the decline; and in Van Diemen's Land, of which we only took possession in 1803, scarcely one of the original inhabitants remained. By a letter which he had recently received from that country, he was informed that all that remained of a tribe formerly 500 strong, were two or three men, as many women, and a few children. These unhappy persons declared themselves to be the last of their race, and complained that the white men had rooted them out of the soil. If the time at which he was addressing the House gave him the least reason to hope that the House was dis-

551
posed to listen to details of that description, he could give a great variety of instances of the same kind; but he thought he should not appeal in vain to the House to take the Report into its serious consideration, when he said that the lives and possessions of many millions of persons had fallen under the influence which had been exerted over them, in consequence of the establishment of British Colonies in the soil of which they were previously the undisputed lords. Of the 120,000 square miles now occupied or claimed by this country at the Cape of Good Hope, only a few acres were originally purchased; and he was enabled to state, upon the authority of a gentleman who had spent some time in that country in 1832, that the native inhabitants of the place had, nearly disappeared before the face of the white intruders. Thus it would appear that British influence, wherever exerted in the colonies, was uniformly injurious to those who, upon every ground of justice and right, were entitled to protection in the possession of their lands. He (Mr. Buxton) required no more than that we should act justly towards these people. Unless some milder and more benevolent policy were adopted, he was sure the time could not be far distant when these unhappy races would become wholly extinct. Was it fit that we should use our mighty power to accomplish such an end? When he brought forward the Report last, he had alluded to the Report of the military expeditions which occasionally took place at the Cape of Good Hope, and had predicted, that unless these incursions upon the territories of the natives were put an end to, some very serious consequences would ensue. Any one who had read the communications from the Gape during the last two or three months, would see how completely his predictions had been fulfilled. Letters recently received from Caffre land informed them that the patrol system (the name given to military expeditions in the Indians' country) still continued, and that the worst consequences resulted from it. One of his correspondents informed him of the cause of the late war between the Caffres and the colonists. It appeared that some horses had been stolen from the colonists, who sent an expedition into the country headed by an ensign, an extremely young officer, who went to the first Indian
552
village and demanded the horses. The Indians replied that they knew nothing about them, but the young officer, without any further investigation, at once proceeded to take possession of their property. This was resisted and a skirmish ensued, in which the young gentleman received a wound. This was considered a great offence. Another expedition was fitted out against them; their cattle was seized, a tumult ensued, and the patrol found some difficulty in escaping. This commenced the hostilities which had since led to so much bloodshed. He did not wish to make a charge against any individual. He complained only of the system. He said it was a system wholly unworthy of this great nation. There was one other fact connected with the recent disturbances at the Cape which he wished to mention before he sat down. No persons in the midst of these disturbances were placed in a situation of greater danger, or were more completely under the power of the barbarian population, than the European Missionaries, who were scattered about the country in various quarters, yet it so happened that not one of those missionaries had been touched in person or in property, and whilst the hostilities continued, they had it in their power to render great assistance to many Europeans who were travelling in those remote districts. Such, indeed, was the influence of these worthy and pious men, that they were employed, and successfully employed, as negotiators between the colonists and the hostile barbarians. He merely mentioned that fact to show that proper behaviour on the part of Europeans produced a corresponding one on the part of the black population. Considering that this question affected the interests of many millions of people, and extended over a vast portion of the globe, he thought it was every way worthy the serious consideration of the House, and he hoped he should not be thought going too far when he moved for a Committee to inquire into the subject. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for the appointment of a Select Committee.
Sir George Greydid not rise to object to the principle of the Motion, or even to oppose it. He thought the question one deeply affecting the character of the nation, and one which, therefore, demanded the attention of the House of Commons. Still, as on the 1st of July last year the hon.

553
Gentleman (Mr. Buxton) would not move for the appointment of a Select Committee, but preferrred the shorter course of moving an Address to his Majesty upon the subject; the question for the hon. Gentlemen now to consider was, whether on the 14th of July, a fortnight later in the Session, he would move for the appointment of a Committee, which could have no prospect of prosecuting its inquiries with success, and which could arrive at no satisfactory conclusion before it would necessarily become extinct by the prorogation of Parliament. At the same time, entertaining a strong feeling upon the subject, he (Sir George Grey) should be content to grant the Motion now, upon condition that the Committee, when appointed, should examine only those witnesses who were about to leave the country, and that they should make no Report until the next Session of Parliament, when, upon a Motion of the hon. Member for Weymouth, the Committee might be immediately re-appointed. He, however, could not suffer it to go forth to the world that nothing but injury had resulted to the Indian tribes from their connexion with our colonies. He thought that our Colonial Government had not been of a character to reflect discredit upon the country; and, as regarded the native Indians, he believed that the greatest blessings had, in many instances, flowed from it.
Mr. Fowell Buxtonagreed with the right hon. Baronet in thinking the present an unseasonable period for the appointment of a Committee upon the subject; but he had felt himself compelled to bring forward the Motion, because the documents for which he had twice moved had not yet been produced. He was perfectly ready to accede to the terms proposed by the right hon. Baronet, namely, that the Committee should be appointed—that it should make no Report this Session, and that it should only take evidence of persons about to quit the country.
Motion agreed to.
Committee to be named on the following day.

ARTS—ROYAL ACADEMY.
Mr. Ewartrose to bring forward the Motion, of which he had long given notice, for the encouragement of the Fine Arts. He would first allude to the evidence of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Dr. Bowring), given before the Committee last Session in support of his views on the subject. That
554
hon. Member had stated, that France had enjoyed the benefit of institutions for the encouragement of the Fine Arts ever since the days of Louis XIV, and their good effects were manifested every day in the reverence that prevailed for the Arts in all classes, and the good taste exhibited in all branches of manufactures. The great features of those institution were the number of the schools—the gratuitous nature of their instruction, and the popular character of their exhibitions. By their means a taste for the Fine Arts was infused into the people of France, and it was in the hope of effecting a similar object for the people of England that he submitted his Motion to the House. He admitted that it might be very much doubted which was the best mode of infusing into the people of this country a reverence and taste for the Fine Arts. He believed that the best mode was the opening of all the means by which a knowledge of the Arts was to be acquired. He was of opinion, that arts, like commerce, ought to be essentially free. However, all those were questions for the consideration of the Committee. It could not be forgotten that a great benefit had been already derived from the labours of Wedgwood and Hamilton, who, by introducing superior models, had been enabled to improve several of our manufactures, which had disseminated among the population a superior taste, and gradually extended itself to the higher branches of arts. It might be a subject of consideration for the Government, whether they should not encourage the higher branches of art, by holding out certain advantages for their professors, and by exhibitions. All these were, however, questions which would come before the Committee, and he should rejoice, he must confess, if the Committee for which he intended to move, were instrumental in extending among the people of this country a taste for the Arts (which they yet much wanted), and, at the same time, raising the character of the artists in this country, which, he was sorry to say, stood in a lower degree than that of almost any other country whatever. He must express his regret that neither literary men nor artists acquired that distinction in this country which their very names bestowed on them in every other country of Europe. He felt the necessity of relieving them from what he must deem an unfounded stigma, and he did hope that the means he should recommend would have the desired effect. As the

555
Motion with which he should conclude had the approbation of his right hon. Friend below him, he did not feel himself justified in trespassing longer upon the House. He had given a tolerably ample scope for his Committee, and his apology for the unusual number was, his wish to have as many practical and professional Gentlemen on the Committee. The Committee, he proposed, should restrict themselves, during the present Session, to preliminary arrangements—such as the examination of witnesses about to leave the country, or the inspection of documentary evidence in the possession of the country, and if their constituents were propitious (in case the House did not survive the present Session), the Committee would resume their labours next Session. He begged leave to move, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the best means of extending a knowledge of the Fine Arts, and of the Principles of Design among the people—especially among the manufacturing population of the country; and also, to inquire into the constitution of the Royal Academy, and the effects produced by it."
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwould not throw any obstruction in the way of the Motion, and he believed the hon. Gentleman would find on the part of the artists every disposition to facilitate his views, and to afford all the information in their power. He would only say, that he did not concur in the observation, that artists were estimated at a lower rate here than in foreign countries. He knew that there were instances of some celebrated men having been neglected, as for example Flax-man, but, in general, that arose from some peculiarity, or negligence, or fault of the artist himself. Generally, however, talents, in this country, obtain a certain and a large reward.
Mr. Wysehad the honour of seconding the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, and could not but express his wonder and regret that a question so nearly allied, not merely to the arts, but the manufactures of the country, should have been so long left untouched. It was true, as the hon. Gentleman had stated, that in the combination of the arts and manufactures, England stood the lowest perhaps in the scale of Europe. It was one of the earliest efforts of the French government to bring forward those two great objects of intellectual culture. It was a remarkable feature in the numerous schools of that country that it was
556
recommended by a great philosopher of that country that the elements of linear design were as necessary subjects of instruction as reading and writing; and it was to the credit of Napoleon that he adopted the suggestion, which had since been carried into effect in every school in France. In the late instructions for public education issued in 1834, it was made an essential article that linear design should be taught in every school. The remarkable effect of this was, that in every canton, however remote they might be from the capital, a taste for the arts was perceptible in the pursuits and the general feeling of the inhabitants themselves. Let any one go to Boulogne, to Calais, or any portion of the South of France, and they would discover that feature in the national character. And it was observable that all these schools of art were carried on for practical purposes, and the designs were connected with the labour of silversmiths, upholsterers, sculptors, &c, including every manufacture that came under the cognizance of taste. The result was, that in France there was a general taste for the antique, a common feeling for the beautiful in the people which the population of this country aimed at in vain. None of our manufacturers could go to Italy, or France, without being made the subject of ridicule. He (Mr. Wyse) had himself witnessed it a thousand times. They had said, "Here is a nation, rich in all the means necessary for the indulgence of their taste, without sufficient education to use them." Another consequence of this want of cultivation in the people at large was the general complaint that the middle classes of this country when they go into a gallery of paintings or sculpture, despised and sometimes destroyed the works of art exhibited, merely because they were not early accustomed to a cultivation of those arts. It had been apprehended, in consequence of evidence given before the Committee on the British Museum, that such would be the result of a free admission, and restrictions were represented as necessary, which would be altogether uncalled for, if they had commenced at an early period in educating the people. He could not understand why, as they put the works of great prose and poetry authors into the hands of the people, they should not have put what was of equal importance before them; viz., the illustrations of their sentiments

557
and feelings in the cultivation of the fine arts. There was another observation of the hon. Member for Liverpool in which he (Mr. Wyse) entirely concurred; viz., that artists in this country were not sufficiently appreciated, and he preserved that opinion notwithstanding the assertion of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was true that some branches of the art of painting received from the public perhaps their fair reward; such as portrait, miniature, or even landscape painting. But it was not the love of art which prompted that encouragement; it was merely vanity in individuals or some other causes equally unconnected with a due appreciation of the arts. The House might judge of that by the encouragement given to historical painting; which every one would admit was strangely deficient as contrasted with that given in other countries. Only look at the case of Flax-man—it was a strange matter of reproach to this nation that that great man, before whose genius the Continent was, as it were, prostrated in adoration, should be almost unknown in his native land. At least he was not appreciated as he justly deserved to be. Prints copied from his admirable works were to be got much cheaper and more abundant on the Continent than in this country, which proved the truth of his observation. It was also to be observed that there was not in England sufficient facilities for preparatory study in the higher branches of art—that the English nation, unlike the French, which had numerous academical schools, was destitute of any means almost for giving its youth the first rudiments of art. At Rome, he (Mr. Wyse) had witnessed the fact, that almost all other nations, the French, and Germans, and Italians had schools there, for studying the great works of art in that capital. The English had not provided any means for the accommodation of the youth of this country who went out for the purpose. He rejoiced with other hon. Members in the House that there was at length a hope held out of a more just appreciation of this important branch of public education. He trusted, that from communications with artists, a feeling of that kind would be brought about, and that a different style of cultivation of the arts would take place. He trusted that the Committee would give them at least the documentary evidence at the end of the Session, that they
558
might judge, in the meantime, what further measures might be adopted. For himself he could only say, that every exertion in his power should be employed to facilitate its inquiries.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, that a great part of the speech of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Wyse) consisted of a depreciation of the manufactures and taste of the people of this country. ["No, no" from Mr. Wyse.] Why, one of the last words of that speech was the "rudeness" and "barbarism" of this country; and the hon. Member had stated that in substance several times. He said he had seen the manufactures of this country ridiculed. He wished to ask the hon. Member how it came to pass if its taste and manufacturing skill were so bad, that those productions were carried all over the world? Was anything, for instance, equal to our pottery? And when the hon. Member talked of this country not rewarding the fine arts, he (Sir Robert Inglis) asked him whether the circumstances of one great artist dying neglected in England, or of another being killed by carrying home some 7s. worth of copper in exchange for one of his best pieces, as in Italy—was sufficient to stamp either the one nation or the other with neglect of talent. He (Sir Robert Inglis) could point out many artists of eminence, who, in addition to the applause of Europe, received in this country those more substantial rewards which their talents deserved; and he felt assured that the inquiries of the Committee would produce many proofs that this country had not so far neglected talent as the hon. Member supposed. With regard to foreign countries, notwithstanding the profession of attachment to art in France, he (Sir Robert Inglis) believed there was at least as much real attachment to it in England. He knew with respect to the works of art at Paris that no applications were made for taking castes of those great works which were taken from the Vatican, till they were in the possession of the Allied army, and about to be removed—proving that they were valued, not as fine works of art, but as trophies of victory. Under those circumstances he trusted that the result of the Committee would be to prove that works of art had been much more encouraged in England than hon. Members had been induced to suppose.
Dr. Bowringthought the opinions of the

559
hon. Baronet and the hon. Member for Waterford, were not irreconcileable. Art was in France more popular, in England more aristocratical. When his attention was first directed to the commercial interests of this country with France, he found there a people acquainted with the works of art, and with the elements of drawing. In the great cities, schools of art were established; the children of the weaver studied botany, the elements of architecture, and even physiology; and the instructions thus communicated to the mind, were brought to bear in the workshops of common life. He (Dr. Bowring) did every justice, and he was bound to do every honour to the manufacturers of this country, he did not think his hon. Friend had quite done justice to them. Their defect was this—that they were wanting in what art could do to instruct them—as to beauty of form, and beauty of coloring. The people of France had become artistical by habit; while the people of England had acquired a capacity which had grown out of their mechanical appetite (if he might use such an expression). The other day, when sitting on the Hand-Loom Weavers' Committee, he (Dr. Bowring) inquired of the Representative of a large manufacturing town in England, how many artists the manufacturers of the town were accustomed to employ for those works of which a very large number was exported? and that Gentleman told him, that there were only two ambulating artists who came into the town from time to time, once or twice a-year, who brought very miserable figures—very wretched models, for which manufacturers paid six or seven guineas each. He would just mention that in the town of Lyons, there were between 200 and 300 professional artistes, acquiring an honourable subsistence by turning their knowledge to the use of manufactures. How could the superiority of France in that particular be denied? France produced 120 millions of francs value of silk goods, of which 100 millions' worth forced their way into foreign countries. This country, in one of its most brilliant manufactures produced eighty millions' worth of cotton goods [Lord Sandon eighty millions sterling?] Certainly eighty millions sterling, of which only one-half were exported. The people of France lived (if he might so speak) in an atmosphere of taste; and the same result might be obtained in England if the Go-
560
vernment here pursued the same course. The hon. Member concluded by saying, he would give his cordial support to the Motion of his hon. Friend, the Member for Liverpool.
Lord Sandonlooked more into the improvement of manufactures than of the arts in the appointment of this Committee. Without a single encouragement being given to the arts by the establishment of a public school our artists exceeded those of other countries who were petted and fostered in national academies. He preferred the landscapes of British artists to the stiff and academic figures and designs of Rome and Milan.
Lord Francis Egertonexpressed his general concurrence with the views entertained by the hon. Gentleman who had introduced this subject, and thought that much advantage might be derived to the manufactures of this country, by the adoption of some of the measures contemplated by that hon. Gentleman. He could not, however, estimate the merits of our professors at a lower degree than those of foreign artists, nor could he admit that there was any want of encouragement of art in this country. This observation applied generally to all branches of art, historical as well as portrait and landscape, although the size of historical pictures generally precluded them from private galleries.
Mr. Ridley Colborneexpressed his satisfaction that this subject was to go before a Committee, although he regretted that the Motion had not been made in an earlier part of the Session. It was true that encouragement was given to the arts in this country, but it was by private individuals. It was a fact, that in England alone not a shilling was given by the Government for the encouragement of art; unless the 5,000 l. which was given by George the 3rd to the school of painting might be regarded as a public gift.
Mr. Pottersupported the Motion, and expressed a wish that the public might be allowed to see the specimens of the fine arts in Westminster Abbey on a Sunday.
Mr. Borthwicksaid, our artists, in the higher departments of the arts, were as much superior to those of France as Italy was superior to England in the fine arts. In confirmation of this remark it was only necessary to mention the names of Wilkie, Martin, Lawrence, and others equally distinguished. He could not think, therefore,

561
that in painting we yielded to any country. And with regard to sculpture, if Gentlemen stepped over the way and looked at the statue of Canning by Chantrey—he meant the statue in Westminster Abbey, not in Palace-yard—they would find it such as would bear comparison with the production of any country. He cordially concurred in the appointment of the proposed Committee. He wished to rescue the character of the lower orders in this country from the charge of barbarism in disfiguring statues and works of art such as were respected in other countries. The difference in this respect arose not so much from any insensibility to the beauties of form and colour in the people of this country as from other circumstances; in Spain and Italy form and colour were rendered sacred by their association with religion, and on that ground the people respected them, but in England the case was different, and this difference accounted for the distinction in the habits and feelings of the people.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the most marked difference between this and foreign countries consisted in this circumstance—that in other countries the poorer classes of the people had habitual opportunities of seeing works of art, by which their taste was refined, whereas in England the opportunity of viewing such works formed only the exception to the general rule of exclusion. The nakedness of Churches in this country as contrasted with the splendid exhibition of works of high art in the churches of the continent was enough to strike the mind with sorrow, especially when it was considered that churches were the only buildings which were capable of holding large pictures; and further, that they were open to the poorest classes. The effect of contemplating works of high art in the continental churches was to raise and soften the public mind, religious enthusiasm becoming mingled with an admiration of art. Who could go into the City and view the exterior of the magnificent pile St. Paul's without admiration? It was to be lamented that the interior was a dreary solitude, with the exception of some banners. Would it not be better if fine paintings replaced those emblems of war, and an opportunity were afforded the people to admire within that splendid building some of the noblest specimens of the art?
Mr. Humesaid, that the inferiority of
562
our workmen to those of France in point of taste must be admitted, as in the case of the silk manufacture. He recommended the conversion of the school at Chelsea into a school of art, with a view to the improvement of our population in the arts of design, &c.
Mr. Warburtonthought that it was necessary to exhibit to the people fine specimens of painting and sculpture, and improve their taste generally, before attempting to apply the fine arts to the improvement of our manufactures.
Motion agreed to, and Committee appointed.

DRUNKENNESS—PUBLIC WALKS AND INSTITUTIONS.
Mr. Buckinghamsaid, the notice which I have given on the Order Book of the House, embraces three measures—which are so nearly allied to each other in their object though separated under different heads for the better arrangement of their details, that I shall save the time of the House, and promote the general convenience, by speaking of them as one. My present purpose is, to ask the leave of the House merely to introduce those measures, so as to admit of their being printed, if the House should so approve, and by deferring their second reading for a sufficient period to admit of ample time to give them general circulation throughout the country, and thus to obtain the expression of public opinion as to their principles and details. As, however, the Bills undoubtedly contemplate great and important changes, I owe it to the House and to the country, no less than to myself, to explain the grounds on which I ask those changes to be made, and to show that evils will result from things being suffered to remain as they are, and benefits be produced by the amendments that I propose. In doing this, I shall confine myself strictly to the subject, and trouble the House with no more than really appears to me essential to the establishment of my case.
Sir, it is no new opinion of mine, but one of nearly forty years' standing—first suggested by an early opportunity which I had in the very outset of my professional life, when a prisoner of war in Spain and Portugal, and subsequently confirmed by a long course of voyages by sea, and journies by land, in all the four quarters of the globe—that notwithstanding the superiority of the British people in arts and arms, in skill and industry, in patriotism and morality, to most of the other nations of the

563
world, there is yet one vice by which they are especially characterized, and to which they are more addicted than the people of any other country, among whom it has been my lot to reside—I mean the habit of drinking to excess, and interweaving this habit so closely with the ordinary customs and occupations of life, as to make it as deeply rooted as it is extensive, and productive, even among the most moderate, of very serious evils to society. If this impression was strongly made upon my mind in early life, when Europe and America were the only portions of the globe that I had visited, it became greatly strengthened in more mature years, when Africa and Asia had been the scene of my observations; and on returning to England after an absence of ten years in the East, the contrast between the sobriety of the people among whom I had lived during that period, and the intemperance of those to whom I had now returned, was so forcible, that no language of mine could adequately describe it. I will mention, however, one fact alone, a fact which I have often mentioned elsewhere, but which deserves to be repeated, and leave the House to judge for itself as to the inference to be deduced from it. During a course of travels in Africa and Asia, which extended over three years of continuous journeying in time, over many thousand miles in space, and which carried me through cities and towns, the united population of which could not be less than three millions of people, I did not witness half-a-dozen cases of visible intoxication; while I had not been landed in England more than a single hour, nor passed over more than a mile in space, nor come in contact with even three hundred persons, before I saw at least thirty drunk, and this in the broad day, in the open street, including women as well as men, and some of them mothers with infants at the breast. What might have been the number drinking in houses, and therefore concealed from public view, I will not venture to imagine; but if there were not one—though the probability is, that the number concealed from sight greatly exceeded those exposed to public view—I felt that I had seen enough to make me resolve, if ever an opportunity should present itself, to bring this subject of our national degradation, in this respect, before the Legislature of the country, for their reprobation at least, and, if possible, for their cure.
Some hon. Gentlemen will perhaps con-
564
ceive that I drew my impressions from too limited a space, and tell me that I ought not to attribute to the country generally, a vice which I had seen carried to such excess only in a seaport town. But I may remove their doubts as to the extensive spread of this evil, by saying that having, subsequently to that period, resided permanently for about six years in London, and having also, at intervals, passed five years in visiting personally every part of England, from Dover to the Land's End, fo m the Thames to the Tweed, the Humber to the Mersey, the sea-coast and the interior, the agricultural and the manufacturing districts,—having extended my excursions from Edinburgh to Aberdeen in Scotland, and from Dublin to Londonderry in Ireland,—I have had as favourable opportunities as could be enjoyed by any man in the kingdom, for seeing with my own eyes, hearing with my own ears, and judging with my own mind, as to the actual state and condition of the British population generally; and I regret to say, but truth demands the avowal, that I found everywhere too many irresistible and incontrovertible proofs of the large mass of the labouring population being addicted to the use of intoxicating drinks, and using them to such excess, as to consume the greater portion of their substance, and to reduce many of their numbers to want and beggary, and their wives and children to nakedness and starvation. I am free to admit, that among the higher orders of society, with whom drunkenness was hardly regarded as a vice some fifty years ago, I found the habits of intoxication to have greatly declined, so that it was now considered vulgar and ungentlemanly to be seen in that state. Even among the middle classes, there has been also a sensible diminution of those habits of excessive drinking. But on the other hand, among the labouring classes I found the practice had become far more general than at any previous period, while one of the worst features of this change is this, that women, and even children, have become infected by the example of their parents, and are to be seen frequently in the dram-shop and the tavern with as little sense of shame as the rest of the multitude. Having, therefore, in addition to the impressions received in early youth, while imprisoned in a foreign land, and confirmed by subsequent voyages and travels to other portions of the globe, witnessed so much of evil clearly resulting from the habits of drinking to excess, in

565
almost every part of England, Scotland, and Ireland, I felt myself justified in giving notice of a Motion, during the last Session of Parliament, for the appointment of a Select Committee, "to inquire into the extent, causes, and consequences of the prevailing vice of intoxication among the labouring classes of the United Kingdom, in order to ascertain whether any legislative measures could he devised to prevent the further spread of so great a national evil." The entry of this notice on the books was the cause of much mirth to some, who little knew of the sorrows and the sufferings of the unhappy victims whose misery it was my object to arrest and relieve, and a perpetual volley of sarcasm was kept up upon me from both sides of the House, from the day of this notice being entered until the day when the discussion was brought on. The object of this was, no doubt, to deter me from my purpose; but if my assailants had known my history better, they would not have been surprised at my taking up this subject: and if they had considered for a moment to what cause it was owing that I have now the honour of a seat in this House, instead of being in India, they would never have entertained so hopeless an attempt as that of seeking to make me abandon any undertaking on which I had entered from principle and conviction, either by blandishment or sarcasms, by raillery or sneers, to all of which I am happily invulnerable, so long as I retain the conviction of my views being founded in justice and truth.
The discussion at length came on; when the statement which I had the honour to make in favour of my Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee, contained so much of undeniable fact and unanswerable argument, that though the Motion was opposed by the noble Lord who then held the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, and his example followed by those to whom his opinion was an authority, and his character a guarantee for the sincerity and honour of his own conduct, and a shield for that of others, yet on a division, the Motion was carried by a majority of sixty-four to forty-seven; the noble Lord had to walk out of the House at the head of the minority, and the Committee was appointed accordingly. That Committee, including as will be seen by a reference to the list, Gentlemen from both sides of the House, Members who had spoken and voted against, as well as those who had advocated its appointment,
566
did me the honour to place me in their Chair, and assisted me with great zeal and assiduity in prosecuting the inquiry which the House had deputed us to make. The Committee sat from the day of its appointment, which was early in June, till nearly the close of the Session; and during that period examined about sixty witnesses. These embraced persons from various parts of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, and included individuals of eminence and talent from the following ranks and professions—namely:—physicians, surgeons, county magistrates, sheriffs, metropolitan magistrates, superintendants of police, of bridewells, and lunatic asylums,—clergymen, overseers of the poor, and parish officers,—land-owners, merchants, manufacturers, and tradesmen,—officers of the navy and army, keepers of spirit shops, taverns, and eating-houses, and artizans and labourers by land and sea: and I think it may be asserted, without fear of contradiction, that the records of Parliaments do not contain, in any single volume at least, such a mass of varied, authentic, and important information respecting the habits and condition of the labouring classes of the population of this kingdom, as is exhibited in the evidence elicited before that Committee.
The period at length arrived for drawing up our Report,—and, after submitting this to the examination and revision of the Committee in the usual manner, it was presented, received, and printed by order of the House, notwithstanding an opposition to this most, essential duty of every Committee to make known to the whole of the representatives of the people the results of their inquiries—without which, indeed, their labours would be incomplete. At the close of that Report, was the following suggestion, which I will venture to read, in the terms in which it was expressed:—
As your Committee are fully aware that one of the most important elements in successful legislation is the obtaining the full sanction and support of public opinion in favour of the laws, and as this is most powerful and most enduring when based on careful investigation and accurate knowledge as the result, they venture still further to recommend the most extensive circulation, during the recess, under the direct sanction of the legislature, of an abstract of the evidence obtained by this inquiry, in a cheap and portable volume, as was done with the Poor-law Report, to which it would form the best auxiliary; the national cost of intoxication and its consequences, being tenfold greater in amount than that of the Poor-rates, and pauperism itself being indeed chiefly caused

567
by habits of intemperance, of which it is but one out of many melancholy and fatal results.
This suggestion not having been favourably received, I was willing to show my readiness to do (myself what I had assisted in recommending others to perform; and accordingly as the Government declined to give the extensive publicity proposed, I undertook to publish, at my own risk, and cost a cheap edition of the Evidence and Report, on terms that could leave no profit, however extensive the sale, but such as would barely cover the actual expense of production. The result has been, that of the Evidence in all its voluminous details, two separate editions of several thousand copies each have been already exhausted; and of the Report—founded on that Evidence and embracing a general abstract of the whole—which was comprised within the compass of a single sheet—more than a million of copies have been circulated in this kingdom alone, besides various re-prints of it in America, from which several editions have already reached this country, with commendations that I will not repeat.
I think, then, Sir, the House will allow—that, in drawing its attention to the remedial measures which I am about to ask it to allow me to lay upon their Table, I have not omitted any of the preliminary stages of due investigation and calm inquiry, by which I can fairly establish my claim to their indulgence, if not to their confidence, in a matter of so much importance to the morals and happiness of the community at large. As those remedial measures are founded, however, on the Report, and the Report is founded on the Evidence, they cannot be considered as the exclusive emanation of my own mind. They embrace the united suggestions of the various witnesses examined, and have had the further advantage of having been most extensively circulated in every quarter of the kingdom, and corrected and revised by suggestions transmitted from thence. I do not, by saying this, desire to escape from the full responsibility under which I feel myself as the introducer of these measures. What was not originally my own in the Bills which I shall ask leave to bring in, I have made mine by adoption; and therefore, whether for good or for evil, I am prepared to stand by the measures, and shall not shrink from any censure they may incur:—while whatever merit they may possess, I shall freely share with those to whom a portion of it will justly belong.
568
With the permission of the House, then, I will beg its attention to some passages of the Report as those most essential to be considered: and which I will read from the volume in which that Report has been made public to the world. The hon. Member accordingly quoted the Report at great length to show the evils of drunkenness.
This catalogue continued the hon. Member will appear to the House, no doubt, a fearful and alarming one; and yet I have mentioned only a portion of the evil. If hon. Members could but prevail on themselves to read the Evidence on which the Report is founded, they would find details which would fill them with sorrow for the sufferers—shame for their country—and virtuous resolution to use their best efforts to arrest the evil, and effect its cure. I wish I could count upon the patience of the House while I turned to some of these details; but I fear to trust myself to make the experiment, knowing as I do, the great reluctance of hon. Members to listen to any thing which they do not deem indispensable to the elucidation of the subject under consideration; and fearing, also, that in the multiplicity of passages which would present themselves for extract, the number would be so great as to make the choice or preference difficult and embarrassing, if not almost interminable; for every page of the Evidence deserves to be read. This, however, I will venture to say, that if any hon. Member feels a disposition to examine the Evidence at his leisure, and has not his own copy by him for the purpose, I will most cheerfully furnish him, without cost or trouble, with a volume of the Evidence, which has been printed at my own expense, and shall consider myself his debtor if he will only read it for himself, for then I shall be certain of his co-operation and support. Let me turn, then, to those parts of the Report, in which we ventured to suggest our remedies to the House, for we were not disposed to content ourselves with merely enumerating the evils, without pointing out the mode by which we thought those evils might be cured. Among those remedies there were some which we considered moral, and others legislative. The former we were content to recommend to private societies, and the agency of individual efforts; the latter we thought might be undertaken by the State. Some of our remedies contemplated restraint and punishment; others offered encouragements and rewards; some were purely financial, such

569
as the reduction of duty on wholesome articles of consumption, especially on tea, sugar, coffee, and other unintoxicating drinks; and the duty on newspapers and books. Some were moral and religious, such as the diffusion of useful information—the extension of education and the inculcation of a sense of shame at the crime of obscuring or destroying by poisonous drink, that faculty of reason, and consciousness of responsibility, which chiefly distinguish man from the brute; and which the Almighty, when he created man in his own image, implanted in him to cultivate, to improve, and to refine; and not to corrupt, to brutalize, and to destroy. Others of the remedies suggested, appeared to us so remote, if ever practicable at all, as to be quite beyond our sphere of action, though in justice to those by whom they were suggested, they were included in our Report, but placed apart, under a separate head, and so clearly distinguished from those we had adopted and approved, as to be impossible to be mistaken for suggestions emanating from ourselves, except indeed by some few honourable Members, who never having read the Report at all, but having heard some very imperfect account of its contents from others, committed the strange mistake of declaring that the only remedy we proposed for the evil we had so strongly denounced, was to prevent, at once, all distillation and importation of spirits, though the fact is, that this was the only remedy that was put aside under a separate head, as the suggestions of witnesses in which we did not concur.
Leaving, then, all the moral and financial, as well as the speculative or doubtful, of the remedies proposed to be dealt with by their respective advocates—the first by private agency and associations for moral ends—the second by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and the third, by controversialists and commentators on either side; and adopting only such of the remedies as came under the head of 'immediate and legislative.' I beg to draw the attention of the House to the following passages of the Report, as those on which my three Bills are actually grounded:—
The remedies which appear to your Committee to be desirable, and practicable to be put into immediate operation, may be thus enumerated:—
The separation of houses in which intoxicating drinks are sold, into four distinct classes:—1. Houses for the sale of beer only, not to be consumed on the premises; 2. Houses for the
570
sale of beer only, to be consumed on the premises, and in which refreshments of food may also be obtained; 3. Houses for the sale of spirits only, not to be consumed on the premises; 4. Houses for the accommodation of strangers and travellers, where bed and board may be obtained, and in which spirits, wine, and beer, may all be sold.
The limiting the number of such houses of each class, in proportion to population in towns, and to distance and population in country districts; the licences for each to be annual, and granted by magistrates and municipal authorities, rather than by the excise; to be chargeable with larger sums annually than are now paid for them, especially for the sale of spirits; and the keepers of such houses to be subject to progressively increasing fines for disorderly conduct, and forfeiture of licence, and closing up of the houses, for repeated offences.
The closing of all such houses at earlier hours in the evening than at present, and uniformly with each other, excepting only in the last class of houses, for travellers, which may be opened at any hour for persons requiring food or beds in the dwelling.
The first and second class of houses, in which beer only is sold, to be closed on the Sabbath-day, except for one hour in the afternoon and one hour in the evening, to admit of families being supplied with beer at those periods; the third class of houses, where spirits only are sold, to be entirely closed during the whole of the Sabbath-day; and the fourth class, as inns or hotels, to be closed to all visitors on that day, excepting only to travellers, and the inmates of the dwelling.
The making all retail spirit shops as open to public view as other shops where wholesale provisions are sold, such as those of the baker, the butcher, and the fishmonger; in order that the interior of such spirit shops may be seen from without, and be constantly exposed to public inspection in every part.
The refusal of retail spirit licences to all but those who would engage to confine themselves exclusively to dealing in that article, and consequently the entire separation, in England, Scotland, and Ireland, of the retail sale of spirits, from groceries, provisions, wine, or beer; excepting only in the fourth class of houses (as inns or hotels), for travellers and inmates, or lodgers, as before described.
The prohibition of the practice of paying the wages of workmen at public houses or any other place where intoxicating drinks are sold:
The prohibition of the meetings of all friendly societies, sick clubs, money clubs, masonic lodges, or any other permanent associations of mutual benefit and relief, at public houses or places where intoxicating drinks are sold; as such institutions, when not formed expressly for the benefit of such public houses, and when they are bona fide associations of mutual help

571
in the time of need, can with far more economy, and much greater efficacy, rent and occupy for their periodical meetings equally appropriate rooms in other places.
The establishment, by the joint aid of the government and the local authorities, and residents on the spot, of public walks and gardens, or open spaces for athletic and healthy exercises in the open air, in the immediate vicinity of every town, of an extent and character adapted to its population, and of district and parish libraries, museums and reading-rooms, accessible at the lowest rate of charge, so as to admit of one or the other being visited in any weather, and at any time, with the rigid exclusion of all intoxicating drinks of every kind from all such places, whether in the open air or closed.
In conformity with these recommendations, I have prepared my Bills, considering them, as in reality I do, but separate parts of one measure, and directed to the same end, though for general convenience divided into three Acts, one of them only, being restrictive, and the other two attractive;—one classifying and regulating existing things, to prevent excess and remove abuse;—the others presenting new combinations of pleasure in other shapes, so that the double experiment may be tried, at the same time, of weaning the population from haunts of intemperance, disease, and crime—and attracting them to occupations of sobriety, health, and innocence—a change which all must desire to see accomplished—a change which cannot be effected without some one taking the pains to attempt it—and a change which, if produced, would do more to improve the health, morals, and happiness of the labouring population of this country, than any other, within the range of legislation to effect, that I can at all conceive or imagine. To fail, even, therefore, in such an attempt, would be no dishonour; to succeed, would, indeed, be a high and noble reward; and with the permission of the House I will briefly run over the heads of both these measures, differing, it is true, in their nature, but devoted to one and the same end, the promotion of temperance health and instruction among the labouring classes of society.
My first object, then, is to draw off, by innocent pleasurable recreation and instruction, all who can be thus weaned from habits of drinking, and in whom those habits may not be so deeply rooted as it resist all attempts at this moral method of cure. But as there will yet remain a large number in whom the vice of drinking
572
to excess is too inveterate to yield to such a mode of treatment, I propose to introduce certain enactments for the better classification and regulation of public houses generally, and for the correction and punishment of disorderly conduct committed in them, as shall even bring the confirmed drunkard within the range of their reforming power.
The first and second of these measures, which I should venture to entitle, "Bills for the promotion of healthy recreation and public instruction among the labouring classes," are such as cannot, I apprehend, excite the slightest opposition, as they proceed upon a principle which leaves the application of their powers in the hands of those only who are to be effected by their exercise, and who may, therefore, be safely intrusted with the management and control of that for which they themselves will alone have to pay the cost. The plan and provisions of these Bills are as follows:—
I propose that in any town in which fifty rate payers may desire to have public walks, gardens, baths, and places of sport and recreation in the open air, it shall be competent for that number to sign a requisition to the Mayor or other chief civil authority of the town, requesting him to call a public meeting of the rate-payers of the town, to whom the question shall be submitted, and if approved by the majority on being put to the vote in the usual way, the ratepayers shall then proceed to elect a Committee of twenty-one persons to whom the execution of the task shall be confided. The Committee would then be empowered to call for plans, designs, and estimates from architects and surveyors, by open competition; and the plan being determined on, and the estimate fixed, they should be empowered to borrow the sum requisite for completing the work,—limiting the amount of capital, however to the ratio of ten shillings for every inhabitant of the town, according to the latest official census of the population, and limiting the assessment on the rental of the town to sixpence in the pound per annum, to provide for the payment of five per cent interest on the capital borrowed, and five per cent for the annual redemption of that amount of capital—so as to pay off the capital in twenty years. The Committee should be chosen after the manner of Councillors under the Municipal Reform Bill, and have full power to make such rules and regulations for the gardens, play-grounds, baths, &c. as might be most conducive to the public

573
accommodation; the check upon them being publicity of proceedings and accounts, and liability to annual re-election of one-third, so as to remove or confirm the whole body every three years.
The machinery I should propose for the second Bill would be exactly the same, on the principle of self-taxation and self-control: though the object would be to provide Public Institutions for the assembling together in the winter—when open air exercises cannot be so well enjoyed—of all classes of the inhabitants who desire social intercourse without the necessity of seeking it at the public house. Such buildings should be erected at the public cost, in the same manner as the gardens, grounds, and baths; and they should contain halls for conversational meetings—rooms for benefit societies, clubs, choral societies and committees of all kinds—a spacious theatre for lectures and scientific experiments—a museum for natural history—another for specimens of manufactures—a gallery of the fine arts for sculpture and paintings—and a library for general use. The building once formed, many of the nobility and neighbouring gentry, as well as the wealthy inhabitants of the town, would, by donation and otherwise, contribute progressively to enrich it in various ways; and a very moderate amount of subscription—when the building was once free—would supply all that could be required. The difficulty of raising funds for a suitable building is the chief reason why such institutions are not more prevalent. The desire exists in many towns, but the means are not forthcoming, and the machinery of this Bill will provide them, so that in the course of a very few years, if these Bills should pass into a law, we shall see as many public walks, gardens, and pleasure grounds in the neighbourhood of all our towns, as are now to be found on the Continent of Europe; and in every place of ten thousand inhabitants, a public institution, embracing a museum, gallery, library, theatre, and places of innocent and instructive enjoyment, accessible to the humblest classes—while in twenty years from their foundation, all will be free of further cost or incumbrance to the funds of the community.
The influence which such changes would produce on the habits, morals, and happiness of the community, may be more easily conceived than described; and for myself, Sir, I think it is hardly possible to overrate the amount of public good
574
which would flow, in a thousand ways, from such fountains of health, and knowledge, and pleasure, as these institutions would prove. For these reasons, therefore, and many more that might be adduced, if time permitted, I can anticipate no possible objection to the introduction of the two measures, which I have thus briefly described.
The third of these measures is intended to classify, regulate and restrict, within certain limits, the number of public houses, generally; to abridge their hours of sale; to close them with certain limitations on the Sabbath; and to subject, all persons found in a state of drunkenness, and the keepers of those disorderly houses in which this drunkenness is chiefly stimulated and encouraged for the sake of gain, to certain punishments proportioned to the frequency and excess of their offences. Even to this Bill I do not, in its present shape, anticipate any very strong objection, because it provides sufficiently for the protection of vested interests, and does not propose to lessen the number of public houses by the suppression of any now actually existing; but rather by suspending the issue of any new licences until the number in each town or district be reduced within a given ratio to population or distance; by which means a gradual extinction will take place of those houses only, the licences of which may fall in by forfeiture for misconduct or other causes; and the numbers thus becoming gradually less and less will make the legitimate business of the remaining houses more extensive as well as respectable, until the beer shop and gin shop shall either wholly disappear, or be merged into the only kind of Establishment necessary for the public convenience, namely, the Licensed Victuallers, at whose houses bed and board may be had by the traveller and inmate who may be absent from their homes.
I shall be prepared at the proper time, whenever the principle of this Bill or its separate details shall come under examination, to shew the grounds upon which every one of the Clauses have been drawn up. But I abstain from doing so at present, as I do not wish to anticipate objections; but will reserve my answers to them till they are actually made. I may say generally, however, that I am as zealous an advocate for the freedom of trade and freedom of action as any hon. Member in this House, and that my only limitation to either is the line beyond which the health, morality,

575
and happiness of the community are endangered or destroyed. I would not permit any man to trade in gunpowder and fire from the same shop, without some limitations and restrictions. I would not allow a maniac to walk the streets unattended, to assault whomsoever he met. I would not sanction the poisoning of brute animals, any more than of human beings,—or the stimulating men, women, and children to crime, and reducing them to beggary and disease; and, therefore, while providing amply for the freest use of all things that persons in possession of their sober faculties could reasonably desire, and furnishing every requisite accommodation for the traveller, the resident, and the labouring man, I would desire only to place such barriers in the way of abuse as could be complained of only by those whose vitiated indulgences were by these means curtailed, and by those whose profits were enhanced in proportion to the immorality which they encouraged.
This, then, is the machinery, simple, practicable, and just, as I believe all will be ready to allow it to be, by which I hope to see a beginning made, at least, in the great work of Temperate Reform:—and when I ask the House to give me leave to introduce those Bills, and lay them on the table, so that they may be printed for general circulation, and the discussion on the second reading deferred till the details shall have been well considered, I hope they will readily accord to me the favour I solicit at their hands; the more especially, as I do not often trespass on their time or patience—that I have never yet done so on any unimportant matter—that I can have no personal or party interests to serve by success—that I have given to the subject all the attention which the most unwearied diligence would permit—that I am willing to respect existing interests and property, and desire no changes but such as carry upon the face of them their own recommendation—that there is nothing in my proposition which trenches on the respect due to constituted authorities, or which will involve either the Government or the people in any increase of expense; and that above all, should my hopes be realized, the majority of the community cannot fail to be benefited themselves. That those who regard the greatest happiness of the greatest number as a sound political maxim will give me their sanction and support I cannot for a moment doubt; and if there be others who, while they ac-
576
knowledge the soundness of this maxim, think there are different modes of arriving at the same ends, I trust they will not deny to me at least the opportunity of having my bills printed, and submitted to the sense of the House after they have been examined in all their details. To all I can offer the most sincere assurance of an earnest desire to advance the happiness of our common country, and improve the condition of our fellow men; and whether I succeed or fail in this attempt so to do, I shall carry with me the consolation of having been animated by no personal motive—of having aimed at no personal end—and, shall await the issue with that calmness and content which a consciousness of rectitude can alone inspire. I now move "for leave to bring in the first Bill, namely, a Bill to facilitate the formation and establishment of public walks, gardens, and places of recreation in the open air in the neighbourhood of all towns, for the use of the population generally."
Mr. Brothertonsaid, that nothing could be more worthy the attention of the Legislature than the introduction of measures having for their object the improvement of the habits and the elevation of the character of the labouring population. Anything that tended to promote the comfort and improve the morals of the lower classes deserved the most favourable consideration on the part of that House, inasmuch as the country owed much of its prosperity to the labouring classes, and it was the duty of the Legislature, therefore, to render their condition as happy as possible. As far as Manchester was concerned he was able to bear testimony to the injury sustained by the inhabitants of that town in consequence of the want of public walks and places of innocent recreation in the open air. The labouring population of Manchester exceeded 20,000. They were confined in factories during the week, and resided for the most part in narrow and crowded streets, so that it was a great privation in their case to be without proper places for the enjoyment of healthful exercise in the open air when leisure permitted them to take it. He fully agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield that the lower classes of this country were degraded by the habit of intoxication, which was but too prevalent amongst them. That habit invariably led, not only to poverty and wretchedness, but to crime; and it was because he thought the measures proposed by his hon. Friend would tend to

577
rescue them from the evils resulting from an undue indulgence in the use of ardent spirits that he stood forward to second his Motion.
Mr. Potterexpressed his cordial concurrence in the Motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield. He begged to refer the House to the following extract from a work lately published by Mr. Bailey, of Sheffield:—"The hostility which has been shown by well-intentioned but mistaken moralists against popular amusements would be pernicious, if it could have any effect. Such amusements are required for the healthy play, both of the moral and of the physical constitution of man; and the propensities which they gratify, if not allowed to take a salutary, will assuredly take a mischievous direction. Amidst the monotonous employments arising out of the extreme division of labour in civilized states, excitement and exhilaration are especially demanded and must be had: if they are not to be got in the active game, the absorbing representation, the animating burst of music, the splendid pageant, the spirit-stirring address, they will be sought and found in the tavern and the gaming-house, or the want of them will people the infirmary and the asylum."
Mr. Wysesupported the Motion. Their object should be to prevent the commission of crime, and as those Bills seemed to have that tendency, he should vote for having them brought in. There was hardly any country in Europe, from the most to the least civilized, in which there were so few public institutions for the diffusion of knowledge as in Great Britain. This was much to be deplored, and he thought that as such institutions tended to the good of the State, the Government should in all cases be bound to make provision for them.
Mr. William Rochesaid, he should also give his support to the Motion, because he knew that the want of public walks and literary and scientific institutions was much felt by the inhabitants of Limerick, the town which he had the honour to represent.
Motion agreed to, and leave was given to bring in the Bill.
Leave was also given to bring in a Bill to authorise the erection of Public Institutions.

PUBLIC HOUSES.
On the question that leave be given to bring in the third Bill, for the classification of Houses of Entertainment.
Mr. Humeintreated the hon. Member not to press the Bill, but to be satisfied with bringing up the other two. The regulations affecting public-houses and coffee-shops were constantly changing, greatly to the injury and loss of their proprietors. He trusted the House would not sanction eternal legislation on this subject. It was beginning at the wrong end. Let the hon. Member educate and improve the people first, find deal with public-houses afterwards. The Bill imposed a variety of new restrictions, whereas he would remove all those which now existed, and render the sale of beer and spirits as free and open as that of tea and sugar.
Dr. Bowringthought that the morals of the people would be more served by enabling them to have wholesome beverage, than by any other means that could be devised.
Mr. Buckinghamsaid, that all he asked was to have the Bill introduced for the purpose of printing and circulation, and if this were conceded he would not press it to a second reading if the sense of the House should be against him.
Colonel Leith Hayconsidered that it was highly inconvenient to allow Bills to be brought in which were not intended to be persevered in.
Mr. Wilksthought that there had been too much petty legislation already on the subject of public-houses. For his part he wished the trade to be thrown open.
Mr. Bagshawhoped the hon. Member for Sheffield would not persist in his Motion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid that as the hon. Member did not mean to press his measure to a second reading, it would be wholly useless to introduce it at all, especially at this advanced period of the session. He could expect to gain nothing by bringing it in, and, therefore, the wiser course would be to withdraw it for the present.
Mr. George F. Youngsaid, that he must, as an independent Member of that House, protest against the course pursued on the present occasion, when it was no later than one o'clock that morning that a Bill was brought in by a Member of the Government, who, at the time, admitted that it was not his intention to proceed with it during the present Session. He, however, could not see the advantage to arise from the introduction of any of the Bills.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwished to assure the hon. Member for Tynemouth

579
and the other Members of the House, who were quite as independent as the hon. Member, that the two Bills were totally different in their nature and circumstances. The one had reference to the consolidation of the existing laws relating to turnpikes, and the other was a Bill which went to affect the rights of property.
Mr. Buckingham: I am bound to show every proper deference to the opinions of the House, even when I cannot adopt those opinions as my own; and therefore I shall be disposed, after the manner in which my first and second Bills have been received, not to press the third against the sense of the House, at least for the present session. But I must, at the same time, say that I cannot agree with my hon. Friend, the Member for Middlesex, in thinking that the cheaper you make spirits, and the more extensively you spread places for their sale, the more sober the population will become. On the contrary, all experience and all evidence proves that the increase of beer-shops and dram-shops, in this country at least, leads to an increase of drunkards; and considering that drunkenness is the most fruitful source of crime, disease, and poverty among the labouring population, it is as much for their benefit as for that of the community generally, that the facilities for drunkenness, and the means of indulging in that vice, should be diminished rather than increased. If the hon. Member would ask any officer of the navy or army whether he thought the granting free access to an unlimited supply of spirits or beer would improve the sobriety of his crew or regiment, the inquiry would be thought an insult to common sense; or if he were to ask the policemen or overseers of any district in town or country, whether open houses for the gratuitous or cheap supply of intoxicating drinks would make the neighbourhood more sober or tranquil, they would think the question proposed in jest. As to the hon. Member's statement, that I am beginning at the wrong end, it is somewhat difficult for me to understand which he would think the right one. I have endeavoured to begin at both ends—the one by the way he recommends, education and healthful pleasure for those who are to be operated upon by these means; the other, by restriction for those to whom neither instruction nor recreation will have the least attraction from their habits being too confirmed to yield to this mode of treatment. If I thought it possible to wean away from habits of drunkenness, all those
580
who are now addicted to this vice, by the operation of the attractive measures, I should be too happy to confine myself to these. But being persuaded that the operation of these inducements would be confined to the younger part of the population, who are not yet so far steeped in degradation as to be incorrigible, and being convinced that an immense number of confirmed and habitual drunkards, male and female, will he wholly beyond the reach of the education proposed, I am satisfied that some restrictions and regulations for the houses of public resort are absolutely necessary; and that without these, our work of reformation will be but half accomplished. Still, as I admit the force of the argument urged by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the lateness of the Session will prevent the possibility of my carrying through a Bill that is likely to be much opposed; and as I am desirous of pressing the two measures which the House has given me leave to bring in, to a completion, if possible, before the Session is over, I will, for the present, content myself with these, and defer the other till the approaching Session. In the mean time, hon. Members will have an opportunity, on returning to the country during the recess, of seeing the large amount of property destroyed, and labour lost, and crime, and disease, and misery created by the operation of excessive drinking in their several counties and towns, and come back to Parliament more fully impressed with the necessity of doing something in the way of restraint, as well as in the way of allurement, to correct this degrading and destroying vice. Let them inquire of the magistrates, coroners, medical practitioners, overseers, and others connected professionally with examinations into the state of crime, disease, and pauperism, as to the chief cause of each, and I know well what their answers will be—that excessive drinking is the most prolific source of all. Without shrinking, therefore, from any opinion I have advanced on this subject, and being satisfied that the meddling legislation, as it is called, for the regulation of public houses, is mainly occasioned by the want of some general, comprehensive, and effectual measure for this purpose, which does not now exist, and in consequence of which, there are now no less than three partial measures of most inadequate reform, already passing through the House during the present Session—namely, the Bill of the hon. Member for Lambeth, (Mr. Hawes) for facilitating the

581
transfer of licenses, and opening all descriptions of public houses after one o'clock on Sundays; the Bill of the hon. Member for Middlesex, for permitting music and dancing in all the public houses of the Metropolis; and the Bill of the hon. Member for Durham, for the better regulation of beer houses; being convinced that one large and extensive Act, embracing every thing relating to public houses, such as the one I have ventured to propose, would be far better than ever so great a number and variety of those piecemeal productions, I shall adhere to my original intention of taking the sense of the House upon the measure in an early period of the next Session, if I should then have the honour of a seat in this House; but for the present, though for the present only, and in consequence of the solicitations made on all sides, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for the third Bill, and content myself, during the present Session, with the two already permitted me to bring in.
Motion withdrawn.

CLAIM OF THE BARON DE BODE.
Mr. Gisbornesaid, that he would not enter into the merits of the case of Baron de Bode, which had so frequently been brought under the consideration of the House, but would confine himself to simply stating his reason for moving for the re-appointment of the Committee which sat last Session to investigate that individual's claim. The Committee stated in their Report that they could not terminate the inquiry before the close of last Session in consequence of it having been necessary for the Baron de Bode to send to the Continent to obtain fresh evidence to establish his claim; but they added that their labours were nearly brought to a close, and recommended the House to consent to the revival of the Committee at an early period of the present Session. During the recess the Baron de Bode had been employed in procuring evidence from the Continent at an expense of 3,000 l., and it would be merely an act of justice on the part of the House to consent to the re-appointment of the Committee, in order to enable him to lay that evidence before it. The hon. Member concluded by moving for the re-appointment of the Select Committee to examine into the facts and circumstances of the claim of the Baron de Bode upon the fund received from the French Government for indemnifying British subjects for the loss of property unduly confiscated by French
582
authority, and to report the same with their observations thereupon to the House.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerfelt bound to oppose the Motion; and he thought that if the House were not prepared to leave out of view the rights of all other parties interested in the claims, they would join him in opposing it. The Baron de Bode's case was not a new one. It had been before the House from time to time, since the year 1816. The Baron de Bode had had opportunities before the Commissioners, before the Lords of the Treasury, before the Privy Council, and before a Committee of the House, yet he failed in making out his case. In every instance he Baron de Bode failed to produce evidence; and now, at this late period of the Session, he came forward to ask for a re-appointment of that Committee before which he was unable to make out his case last Session. It would be an absolute act of injustice to the other parties interested, if the distribution of the fund were delayed any longer. He hoped, for these reasons, that the House would join him in opposing the Motion.
Mr. Sergeant Wildesaid, that nothing had prevented the Baron de Bode from coming forward earlier but his inability to find any Member who had sufficient leisure to take up his case. It was not the fault of the Baron de Bode that it had not been brought forward sooner. He had looked into the case, and he considered it one of great hardship, and he would venture to say that on its merits there never had been any adjudication. It was remarkable that the case was always met on new grounds, which, when examined, had been invariably rebutted. He thought that the re-appointment of the Committee was only an act of justice.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, that this was only an attempt to make the House a tribunal of appeal from the common tribunals of the country. The funds in question were vested in Commissioners for adjudication and distribution among the claimants, and an appeal was given to the Privy Council, but the Act of Parliament under which the appeal was so given expressly declares that the decision of the Privy Council should be final. The claim of the Baron de Bode was, he contended, the most Quixotic that ever came before the House. The whole had been submitted to a competent tribunal, and that tribunal had adjudicated against the claim.
Mr. O'Connellcontended that the great-

583
est injustice had been done to the Baron de Bode in this case, and if the House refused the Committeee they would seal that injustice. If the Baron de Bode had not an honest claim, the Committee would decide against him; but if, as he believed, the Baron de Bode had an honest claim, the Committee ought to decide for him. It was true that his claim had been twice rejected, but, then, it had been rejected on contradictory grounds. He trusted that the House would revive the Committee, and give him a fair trial.
Sir Robert Inglisthought that the case had been decided by a competent tribunal, and that with that decision the House ought not to interfere.
Mr. Ewartdenied that a competent tribunal had ever heard the case; and, therefore, contended that it could not be considered as finally decided. In his opinion, the character of the House and of the State would be compromised, if the present Motion were rejected.
Mr. William Rochedeclared that there never had been a case which experienced a more indulgent consideration from every tribunal before which it had been brought than the case of Baron de Bode.
The House divided—Ayes 97; Noes 79; Majority against the Motion 82.

List of the AYES.

Attwood, Matthew

Gaskell, Daniel

Attwood, Thomas

Gillon, W. D.

Balfour, T.

Grattan, H.

Bailey, J.

Grote, G.

Baring, F. T.

Gully, J.

Barnard, E. G.

Hall, B.

Bellew, Sir P.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Bellew, R. M.

Hawkins, J. H.

Blamire, W.

Heathcote, R. E.

Blackstone, W. S.

Hoy, B.

Blake, M. J.

Howard, P. H.

Blackburne, John

Lewis, D.

Bowes, J.

Long, W.

Brownrigg, J. S.

Longfield, R.

Bridgeman, H.

Lister, E. C.

Bruce, Lord E.

Lynch, D.

Buckingham, J. S.

Marsland, H.

Buller, C.

Maher, John

Butler, Colonel

Marjoribanks, S.

Cayley, E. S.

Marshall, W.

Chichester, A.

Martin, J.

Charlton, E. L.

M'Cance, J.

Clayton, Sir W.

Morrison, James

Crawford, W.

O'Connell, D.

Dennistoun, A.

O'Conor, Don

Elphinstone, Howard

Pattison, J.

Euston, Lord

Parker, J.

Fergusson, Sir R. C.

Pease, J.

Ferguson, Robert

Pendarves, W.

Finn, W.T.

Pigot, R.

584

Ponsonby, Hon. J.

Trelawney, Sir W.

Raphael,—

Tulk, C. A.

Ramsbottom, John

Vigors, N. A.

Richards, J.

Wakley, Thomas

Ronayne, Domk.

Walpole, Lord

Rundle, John

Wallace, R.

Russell, Lord

Walker, C. A.

Scholefield, Jos.

Warburton, H.

Sheil, R. L.

Wilde, Sergeant

Sheldon, E. R.

Williams, W. A.

Strutt, Ed.

Williams, W.

Stuart, Lord D.

Wilks, John

Stuart, Lord Jas.

Wood, Alderman

Talfourd, Sergeant

Tellers.

Thornely, Thomas

Ewart, William

Trench, Colonel

Gisborne, T.

Trevor, Hon. A.

GREAT YARMOUTH ELECTION.
Mr. Rigby Wasonrose to submit the Motion of which he had given notice, "That the Petitions from Great Yarmouth, presented 26th and 30th June, alleging, among other things, that the sum of two guineas had been lately paid to many of the voters at the house of one of the most active partisans in behalf of the sitting Members, and humbly and earnestly praying that the House will cause an inquiry to be made into the circumstances stated in the Petitions, and that they be referred to a Select Committee." In support of the Motion, the hon. Gentleman, in the first place, read the resolution of the House against bribery. He then went on to state, that the Petitions were signed by 1,370 persons, and that the allegations of bribery were set forth in the strongest and most decided terms. The appointment of the Committee would not affect the return of the sitting Members; and, unless the resolution he had read were intended to be regarded merely as a dead letter, he contended that the House could not refuse to accede to his Motion.
Mr. Praedsaid, that having distinctly understood from the hon. Member, at an earlier hour in the evening, that it was not his intention to bring forward his Motion that night—
Mr. Rigby Wasonbegged to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. He had given no such pledge.
Sir Frederick Trenchcould only say, that he had put the question to the hon. Gentleman himself, as to whether he would bring his Motion on that night, and the reply was, "Certainly not."
Mr. Rigby Wasondeclared he had not given a positive answer to the question. His reply was conditional. When the

585
question was put to him, he certainly said he did not much expect to have the opportunity of bringing forward the Motion, because he looked upon the Baron de Bode's question as a Burking question, having, within his own experience, known the House counted out two or three times upon that question.
Sir Frederick Trenchrepeated, that the hon. Member's reply to his question was "Certainly not."
Colonel Lowtherhad, also, understood the hon. Gentleman to state positively that it was not his intention to bring forward the Motion that night.
Mr. Praedwould only suggest to the hon. Gentleman, that if on any other occasion he should have a Motion of this description to bring forward, strongly affecting the character and reputation of individuals, it would be very desirable that he should use no expression whatever calculated to convey to the minds of any who heard him a doubt as to the course he might intend to pursue. Had he (Mr. Praed) been aware that it was the hon. Gentleman's intention to persist in bringing forward his Motion, he should have been prepared to show how the Petition in question had been got up. He could state, however, from his own knowledge, that it was signed by persons not inhabitants of Great Yarmouth—not members of the constituency of that borough; that it was signed, in fact, by a very small minority of the constituency, and principally by persons wholly unconnected with the town. He (Mr. Praed) was extremely sorry that the suggestion of his hon. Colleague for printing the names of the parties whose names were attached to the Petition had not been complied with, because it would have been the means of showing to the world who those petitioners were, and how little connexion the majority of them had with the town of Great Yarmouth. Had his hon. Friend's suggestion been acted upon, he believed that the names of several Members, distinguished on both sides of that House, would have been found amongst the signatures. As the result of the Motion, however it might be determined, was not likely to affect his (Mr. Praed's) seat, he should deal with it as one in which he had no individual concern; and looking upon it in that light, he would beg to ask the House how such a Motion could be entertained? The offences alleged in the Petition, if they had really taken place, were cognizable by the courts of law. With
586
what consistency, then, or with what propriety, could they be brought before a Committee of that House? Was it to be established as a precedent that Committees of that House were to usurp the functions of the courts of law, or was it to be laid down as a principle that, at the suggestion of an individual Member of Parliament, the courts of justice were to be passed by, and an appeal to be made to a Select Committee of the House of Commons? What was the object proposed in appointing the Committee? The hon. Gentleman had declared that it was not to displace the sitting Members—that it was not to affect them in any respect. What, then, was its object? To prove that bribery had been committed at the last election. A fact, of course, that could in no respect affect the sitting Members. It would not cost the sitting Members their seats, but, supposing the allegations to be proved, and in disproof of them the sitting Members were to have no opportunity of appearing either by counsel or witnesses, it was to go forth to the world that they had been guilty of direct and extensive bribery. That was a circumstance which, according to the hon. Member for Ipswich, could in no way affect them. He contended that there was no precedent for such a proceeding; and he said further, that a vote, appointing a Committee under such circumstances, and for such purposes, whatever the merits, or whatever the truth of the case might be, could be dictated by nothing but the feeling of party, which, in a case of judicial investigation like the present, ought to be the last feeling upon which the House should act.
Mr. Prymesaid, that if any doubt upon die subject had previously existed in his mind, the speech of the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Praed) would convince him that the House ought to grant the Committee; inasmuch as that the hon. Gentleman's observations involved no denial of the fact of the distribution of money.
Mr. Praedwould never come forward to state a fact as a witness in that House, upon a point which affected himself personally. The hon. Gentleman would hardly take his silence upon the point as a proof of the guilt of others.
Mr. Williams Wynncontended that if the Motion were acceded to, the House would be giving greater advantages to the Petitioners than under any other circumstances they could have. They would

587
be permitted to proceed without incurring the responsibility of petitioners in an ordinary election case. There was nothing, except the case of Stafford, which could be at all cited as a precedent, for the course they were asked to take. Committees to inquire into bribery had always, in that House, been the consequence of a special report of an election Committee. The hon. Gentleman opposite said, he did not propose to affect the seats of the present Members, but see what the result would be. It was true that this Committee could not declare the seats void, nor could the House, in consequence of the Report; but if it were shown in evidence that the hon. Members had been guilty of bribery, his opinion was, that such a gross violation of the privileges of the House would be a ground for their expulsion. Supposing the Report of the House to state, that plain cases of bribery could be brought home to the sitting Members, what was the House to do? Would not the House be bound to direct the prosecution of the Members? and, then, if they were convicted by a court of justice, would it be possible for the House, with a due regard to its own respectability, to suffer men so convicted to continue to hold their seats? It was clear, then, that the seats of hon. Gentlemen might be affected by the inquiry. He should say, let the petitioners, in the first instance, proceed in the courts of justice. It was impossible, if the bribery took place as described in the petition, that there was not somebody who could be prosecuted. Proceedings at law might be pending at that moment. It was not for the House to grant a Committee to sweep together evidence for these penal prosecutions in the courts of law.
Mr. Aglionbycould not conceal his surprise at the ground upon which the right hon. Gentleman rested his opposition to the Motion. In his (Mr. Aglionby's) view of the subject, the only question to be considered was, whether the House had or had not the power of appointing such a Committee as that moved for. If it had the power, there could be no doubt as to the propriety of exercising it. The course pursued by the House in the cases of Liverpool and Stafford, where Select Committees were appointed to investigate allegations of bribery, afforded, in his opinion, direct and satisfactory precedents for the course now proposed to be pursued in the case of Great Yarmouth.
Mr. Thomas Baringwould not detain
588
the House more than two minutes. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Wason) ad stated that the petition was signed by 1,370 persons. Now, in Great Yarmouth there were 1,040 freemen, of whom only 186 had signed the petition. He presumed that that cheer meant to say, that the freemen were not very likely to sign it. There were 576 ten-pound householders in the borough, and of them only 171 had signed the petition. So that, of 1660 electors, it appeared that only 357 had attached their names to the petition. A great many of the persons said, that they signed the petition without knowing what it was, and others said, that they never signed it at all, and that their names were put to the petition without their knowledge. There were other forgeries—O'Connell's name appeared twice, Robert Peel's twice, Stanley's once, and one name appeared seven times. These were names which none of the inhabitants of Yarmouth knew any thing of. If, therefore, this were taken into consideration as the Petition of Great Yarmouth, the House would act under a serious mistake.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that he should give his vote against the appointment of a Committee upon this ground—that the effect of such an appointment would be gradually to undermine the force of that tribunal which had been founded for the express purpose of securing equality and impartiality in the decisions of that House. The hon. Member who cheered might doubt whether the tribunal had that effect; and if the hon. Member would show him that any other system could be devised, by which the character of the House could be sustained for the impartiality of its decisions on election cases, he should be glad to adopt it. He was not contending that the present tribunal was the best for that purpose, but was simply stating, that the object of it was to do away with the scandal of former times, which was practically found to result from leaving these matters to be decided under the influence of party feeling in this House. If petitions, such as that now before the House were made the subjects of special inquiry, the House would be virtually doing away with the Grenville Act, and taking from the proceedings of election Committees the sanction of an oath, which only Committees under that Act could administer. What was the fact with regard to the Committee on the Liverpool case? They had no power to compel the attendance of Members; and he believed that not three

589
Members regularly attended that Committee. But under the Grenville Act a regular attendance could be enforced. Supposing, however, the Committee to be appointed, what was to be its object. It was not to try the right of a Member to a particular seat, but to decide on the existence of the elective franchise of the borough; and this on the allegations contained in a petition which had been signed twice, and in one case seven times by the same person. Having once sanctioned this Committee, where would the House stop? You cannot draw the line at a petition signed by 1,300 or 1,000. The principle on which you go will just as well, as far as I can see, justify you in taking a similar course with one signed by 100, or even a smaller number. And see who are they on whose allegations you are about to take this step. They are wholly irresponsible, and have not even the risk of incurring any expense if they do not succeed in making good their allegations; and yet, on such grounds as these, you establish a precedent by which the franchise of any city or borough in the country may be put in jeopardy. This was a serious, and in practice a very embarrassing proceeding. In addition to the Grenville Act, the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell) had passed a Resolution which entirely met a case of this kind. For where a petition had been postponed for fourteen days after the return of the writ, the Resolution gave the parties who could allege the fact of bribery having been committed, leave to present a petition to the House within twenty-eight days after the fact alleged was said to have taken place. But in the present case the parties did not come forward within twenty-eight days. Again, as well under the Resolution of the noble Lord asunder the Grenville Act, the parties incurred some responsibility; but they were now about to open a mode of investigation which dispensed with all responsibility. He would venture to say, that if this precedent should be established the two former course would no longer be acted upon, but that parties, taking the choice of destroying the elective franchise without any risk, this would be the only course resorted to. Under these circumstances, and believing that no case existed which could be made a precedent for this Motion—believing that if they once adopted this there would be no limit as to the numbers on whose allegations a similar charge plight be brought, that it might be 1,300
590
or not 100; believing also that this precedent would bring back the most objectionable practice of deciding election matters rather with reference to the interests of political parties than to the intrinsic merits of the case, he must, if this case went to a division, give his vote against the Motion.
Lord John Russellwould shortly state the grounds on which he should give a vote different from that of the right hon. Baronet. He had long been of opinion, and he had stated that opinion many years ago to the House, that the Act called the renville Act, while it provided a tribunal where one, less just certainly, before existed, to decide the question between private parties as to which of two Candidates ought to have the seat, yet it provided an inadequate and insufficient tribunal before which the public when aggrieved by cases of gross bribery and corruption could obtain redress. He remembered when he first mooted this question, quoting the case which was formerly brought before the House, now more than a century ago, by Sir Edward Seymour. On that occasion, gross bribery, in several boroughs, was inquired into, and the parties being proved guilty, were brought to the Bar of the House; and the thanks of the House were given, by the Speaker, to Sir Edward Seymour, who said, that he deserved the thanks of the country for the course he had pursued. The right hon. Baronet had said, that possibly defects did exist in the present system. He begged to say, that he had not been wanting in his endeavours to supply those defects. He had more than twice succeeded in carrying Bills through nearly all their stages to cure those defects. Two Bills had been taken up to the House of Lords, having that for their object: one was rejected on the ground of its being too late in the Session to pass it; and the other came back to the Commons so altered, and containing provisions so entirely new, and so inconsistent with the privileges of this House, that he was unable to obtain the assent of the House to the Amendments. Nor did he think it likely that anything he could devise would be at once acceptable to this, and be sanctioned by the other House of Parliament. Then in the present state of the law, and while they were not capable of obtaining the assent of Parliament to a sufficient remedy, ought the House of Commons; he would ask, to allow gross cases of bribery to be brought before

591
them, and to be permitted to pass unpunished, because the general law was not sufficient to reach them? Undoubtedly a due degree of caution must be used; nor ought they to institute inquiries lightly, and upon petitions brought forward for party purposes. If it had been shown, that this was a petition of such a kind, and that it really did not come from any person entitled to relief from this House, he would admit that it would in that case be neither fair to the House itself, nor to the Representatives of Yarmouth, that they should enter into the inquiry. But the hon. Member for Yarmouth had himself made out a sufficient case in support of the present Motion; for he said that 171 ten-pound householders had signed the petition, and that more than 350 persons having a right to vote for the Members of Great Yarmouth had also signed it. Considering the circumstances, this was a very great number. He could suppose a borough which, by the influence of bribery, might be reduced to that state, that you would not find twenty persons having the right to vote who would venture to sign a petition for inquiry: and yet if there were those twenty, or even if only ten, he thought it might be right, upon their specific allegations, to enter into an inquiry. He did not wish the House to sanction the creation of precedents of this kind. But in the case of Stafford, he thought the House had acted with great propriety. Upon the precedent formed by that case, a Bill had been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Buckingham, and he had not heard any objection made to that Bill on that ground; therefore, if any sanction were required for the present Motion, it was to be found in the precedent established last year. By adopting this Motion, they would be supporting the general privileges and purity of this House. But if they were to set the precedent of last year aside, and establish one of an opposite kind, and determine that no case of bribery which came before them should be treated in any other manner than the mode prescribed by the Grenville Act, it would be imputed to them by the public generally, and with some justice, that while they took especial pains to secure the particular rights of Members, and of candidates for the honour of a seat in the House of Commons, they were exceedingly careless with respect to the general purity of that body upon which the representation of the House itself rested. For I these reasons, he should vote for the Motion.
Mr. Evelyn Denisonsupported the Motion. The petition alleged that a certain sum of money was paid to electors at great Yarmouth, and that was a fact which he thought ought to be inquired into.
Viscount Sandonopposed the Motion. As to the Liverpool Committee, he knew one Member of it who said he never read one word of the defence, and heard but part of the case of the petitioners. What would the country say when such a case as this was to be forced, in opposition to all precedent and justice, by a party who happened to possess a majority? Was a question of this sort to be made a point for party, for majorities or minorities? If so, then no constituency was safe. If the Committee were granted, the parties, whether they were successful or not, would be allowed all their expenses out of the public funds. Was the Chancellor of the Exchequer such an economist as to grant the public money for this purpose? The tribunal was an unfair one. When the noble Lord brought forward his resolution he should have directed the Committee to be a sworn Committee, and the parties to enter into recognizances to maintain their own case at their peril.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the Liverpool Committee had for its object to check corruption, and it did check it, as by the admission of the noble Lord on another occasion there had been no bribery since. If the electors of Yarmouth were so pure and so calumniated why was there not a counter petition? Why no denial of the present petition?—and there was time enough for it. He admired the delicacy of the Member for Yarmouth in saying, that he would not say a word about bribery—that he knew nothing about it. If the House refused a Committee, they would be protecting bribery. Bribery was a horrible thing, but it was more horrible that it should go forth to the public that the House refused inquiry. The fact of bribery at Yarmouth was not denied—171 persons allege of their own knowledge that it was committed; that it was a practice up to the last election. It was said, the proposed Committee was an infringement on the Grenville Act. But the Grenville Act was bad, as it was notorious that Members were canvassed to attend the ballot, and that the canvassing went on on both sides openly. Any Committee was had where there was a chance of an overwhelming majority being given to one party. In the present Committee, care

593
would be taken that no party had such a preponderance. It was clear that his name or that of the right hon. Baronet was inserted in the petition by no friend to it. It was easy to insert names clandestinely in such a petition.
Sir Thomas Fremantledenied, that this case could be compared to the case of Stafford. When the parties in that case refused to proceed it was not consistent with the dignity of the House to allow the matter to stop. The hon. Baronet then adverted to the Hertford case of last year, and asked the noble Lord (Russell) why it was that after gross bribery had been proved in that case he had not brought the matter before the House upon the noble Lord's Own resolution of which he (Sir Thomas Fremantle) altogether approved.
Viscount Howickobserved, that if it happened that parties prosecuting an election petition on the ground of bribery, afterwards made a compromise, there was no method whatever under the existing state of the law by which the honour and dignity of the House could be vindicated, or those who had violated its privileges be punished. It was absolutely necessary, therefore, to institute an inquiry by the House itself. Was it a sufficient reason not to have an inquiry that there was no party sufficiently interested to incur all the vexation and expense of prosecuting a private election petition! If the House refused inquiry upon no other ground than this, the public would have a fair right to believe that they were not anxious to put a stop to bribery and corruption. With these feelings he gave his most hearty acquiescence to the Motion. The House divided, when there appeared,
For the Motion, 186; Against it, 132; Majority in favour of it, 54.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Barnard, E. G.

Alston, R.

Brotherton, J.

Aglionby, H. A.

Bodkin, J. J.

Astley, Sir J,

Butler, Colonel

Attwood, T.

Blake, M. J.

Bagshaw, J.

Baldwin, Dr.

Bannerman, D.

Biddulph, R.

Blackburne, J.

Brocklehurst, J.

Bowes, J.

Brodie, W. B.

Barron, H. W.

Buckingham, J. S.

Berkeley, C.

Bewes, T.

Berkeley, F.

Bridgman, H.

Baines, E.

Blamire, W.

Bowring, Dr.

Buller, C.

Bellew, R. M.

Blackstone, W. S:

Bellew, Sir P.

Browne, D.

594

Byng, H. G.

Murray, J. A.

Brady, D. C:

Maule, Hon. F.

Byng, G.

Majoribanks, S.

Codrington, Sir E.

Milton, Lord

Chalmers, P.

Mackenzie, J. A. S.

Chichester, J. P. B:

Morrison, J.

Cavendish,—

Marsland, H.

Chapman, M. L.

M'Cance, J.

Clive, E. B.

Maher, J.

Cave, O.

M'Taggart, J.

Clay, W.

Marshall, W.

Collier, J.

Nagle, Sir R.

Cayley, E. S.

O'Connor, Don

Carter, J. B.

O'Connell, D.

Clayton, Sir W. R.

O'Connell, J.

Crawford, S.

O'Connell, M. J.

Denison,—

O'Loghlen, M.

Dunlop, C.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Dunlop, J.

Oliphant, L.

Dundas, Hon. T.

Oswald, J.

Denistoun, A.

Palmerston, Lord

Dykes, F. L.

Parker, J.

Davenport, J.

Parrott, J.

Ebrington, Lord

Pinney, W>

Euston, Lord

Plumptre, J. P.

Ewart, W.

Ponsonby, J.

Evans, G.

Ponsonby, W.

Egerton, Sir P. D. M.

Potter, R.

Elphinstone, H.

Philips, M.

Finn, W. F.

Pryme, E.

Ferguson, R.

Pelham, Hon. A.

Fitzsimon, N.

Pendarves, E. W.

Fergus, John

Pattison, J.

Ferguson, Sir Ronald

Pease, J.

Folkes, Sir W.

Power, W.

Forster, C. S.

Russell, Lord

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Russell, Lord C. J.

Gordon, R.

Russell, Lord J.

Grattan, H.

Rice, Rt. Hon. T. S.

Grote, G.

Rolfe, Sir R.

Gaskell, D.

Roche, W.

Gillon, W. D.

Ronayne, D.

Gully, J.

Raphael,—

Heneage, E,

Rundle, J.

Harland, W. C.

Ruthven, E. S.

Mutt, W.

Ruthven, E.

Howick, Lord

Ramsbottom, J.

Hay, Colonel

Spiers, A.

Howard, E.

Spiers, A., jun.

Hodges, T.

Sheil, R. L.

Hume, J.

Smith, V.

Howard, Captain

Sandford, A.

Hindley, C.

Strutt, E.

Heathcoat, J.

Stanley, E. J.

Hawkins, J. H.

Stuart, R.

Hall, B.

Stuart, Lord J.

Ingham, R.

Sheldon, E. R. C.

Jervis, J.

Smith, B.

Kerry, Lord

Stewart, P.

Leader, J.T.

Scholefield, J.

Lennard, T. B.

Scott, Sir E.

Lennox, Lord G.

Tracy, H.

Lemon, Sir C.

Troubridge, Sir T.

Lefevre, S.

Tancred, H. W.

Loch, J.

Thornley, T.

Lister, C. N.

Tooke, W.

Long, W.

Tulk, C. A.

595

Thompson, Colonel

Wason, R.

Trelawney,Sir W.

Warburton, H.

Talfourd,T.N.

Williams, W. A.

Vigors, N. C.

Westenra, Hn. H. R.

Villiers, C.

Walker, C. A.

Wallace, R.

Wilde, Sergeant

Wilks, J.

Wyse, T.

Williams, W.

Wilson, H.

Wigney, I. N.

Wood, Ald.

Wakley, T.

Young, G. F.

Wood, C.

On our re-admission to the gallery, we found
Sir Robert Peeladdressing the House. He was understood to suggest to the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) that the appointment of the Committee should be postponed until to-morrow.
Mr. Wasonthought it perfectly fair that six Members should be appointed on the Committee from that (the ministerial) side of the House and five from the other side—the five being selected from the counties of York and Norfolk.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, that if the Committee so constituted were to proceed on its inquiries, it would not be long before there were petitions from other counties and places, calling in question the returns of hon. Members on the opposite side of the House. He was convinced, from the specimen which they had that night, not of judicial conduct, but of party feeling, that the Committee could not dispose of these two cases, without hearing others of a similar description. He respected much the character of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General; but he could not help expressing it as his opinion, that there was the same facility of accusation by means of petition with as numerous signatures, against the constituents of the hon. and learned Member, as against those of the hon. Members for Yarmouth and York. He would not now name other places; but he knew many other hon. Members who, before the Committee closed its proceedings, would be brought under the operation of the same system. Therefore, he did consider, that the mode in which it was proposed to strike the Committee in the Yarmouth and York cases, was not at all satisfactory. He thought it would be much better to have the appointment postponed for twenty-four hours.
Mr. Hume: I do hope that hon. Members will not be deterred from doing their duty by the threats which have been dealt out by the hon. and gallant Gentleman; if such proceedings as those to which the
596
hon. and gallant Gentleman has alluded, do actually occur, the best course is to bring them immediately under the consideration of the House, and at once to put an end to those disgraceful practices where-ever they are found to exist.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer: I do not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has dealt quite fairly with the House, or with those Gentlemen to whose individual cases he has alluded as being similar to those of the hon. Members for York and Yarmouth. I do think that he has not acted in a spirit of justice to my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Penryn; for he should have recollected that a petition was lodged against that hon. and gallant Gentleman containing allegations of bribery and corruption, and those allegations, the parties who brought them forward, have been completely unable to prove; and yet, contrary to this decision, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman now comes forward and designates my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Penryn, as an individual Member whose conduct is open to animadversion. Now all I can say is, let that case, or any other case involving bribery or corruption, be brought forward, whether on a small scale or on a large scale, and I, for one, shall never be found in a minority against its being referred to the decision of a Committee; but after the decision to which I have alluded, the right hon. and gallant Officer has certainly done wrong by referring to the case of Penryn and casting a censure on my hon. and learned Friend.
Sir Henry Hardinge, in explanation, said that he had purposely avoided making any charge against the hon. and learned Gentleman; all he had stated was, that the constituency of Penryn would in all probability, be placed very speedily on their trial, as well as of several other cases which he did not think it necessary to mention, if these precedents were established. The Penryn Election Committee had only tried the question of agency, and on that point the sitting member had a full right to claim the benefit of their decision, but the inevitable consequence of the unprecedented proceedings of that evening would be, for questions being entertained with respect to the independence of the constituencies all over the country.
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, that as a charge had been made, not against himself, but against his constituents, he hoped that the House would allow him to speak of what

597
came within his own knowledge. It was true that the case had gone off against himself, because no evidence had been produced by his opponents which could connect him with anything which bore even the appearance of bribery, but he was prepared to say this—that so far as he knew anything of the proceedings of his election, except from the mere gossip of the witnesses who were examined before the Penryn Election Committee, he had no reason to suspect that anything irregular had been practised by any member of his Committee. It might be that an occasional half-crown had been given away by some of his friends without his knowledge. He admitted that there would have been some grounds for those cheers, had he himself given away to any of the electors an occasional half-crown—but he had done no such thing. If he had given away an occasional half-crown, it would have been a good reason for unseating him; but if supporters of his had done so without his concurrence,—and he did not mean to admit that they had,—though he might ask where was the Member whose supporters had not done something of the kind; that was no reason for bringing any charge against him, nor yet for impugning the general purity of his constituents.
Mr. Wilksbegged leave, as a Chairman of the Penryn Election Committee, to state, that by that Committee a full opportunity had been given to the petitioners to bring forward any specific charge of bribery, either against the sitting Member or any of his supporters. The Committee had left an opportunity open to the petitioners of bringing forward evidence, which they had not brought forward; the Committee had given them an opportunity of bringing forward proof of general bribery; but of that opportunity the petitioners had not availed themselves. The Committee had, therefore, no opportunity of entering into that question.
Mr. Wasonsaid, that he was at the disposal of the House. [Cries of "Name the Committee" from Mr. Hume and several hon. Members near kim.] In deference to the opinion of the right hon. Baronet opposite, he was ready—
Sir Robert Peel. I have no interest in this question. I only suggested that it would be best for the character of the House to adjourn the appointment of the Committee for twenty-four hours.
Lord Sandonrose amid cries of "Spoke," and said, that the hon. Member for Ipswich
598
had proposed to form his Committee of five Members connected with the Counties of York and Norfolk, and of six Members taken from the Ministerial side of the House, [Cries of "Spoke, spoke."] When hon. Gentlemen so far forgot what had passed as to assert that he had already spoken on this question, he begged leave to remind them, and to assert most solemnly, that he had not. He was sorry to say, that he had observed of late a practice growing up in that House, of Gentlemen meeting any argument that they could not refute, or any assertion that they felt to be disagreeable, by loud cries of "Spoke, spoke." Such a practice was most pernicious in its results, and was one which he should always resist, and in which he should expect to be always supported by a majority of the House. He was desirous of confining his observations to what the hon. Member for Ipswich had said about the nomination of this Committee. In former cases of this kind the object had always been to select a Committee impartially, and not to choose the Members from any particular county or counties. Why had the hon. Member departed from the ordinary practice?
Lord John Russellsaid, that it certainly appeared to him desirable that the appointment of this Committee should be deferred for four-and-twenty hours.
Postponed appointment of the Committee.

CORRUPTION OF THE FREEMEN OF THE CITY OF YORK.
Mr. Aglionbyhoped that, at that late hour of the night, (it was a quarter to two o'clock) he should be spared the necessity of stating the circumstances which induced him to move that the petitions of the inhabitants of York, complaining of bribery and treating at the last elections for Members of that city, be referred to a select Committee. As the petitions had been printed, he should take it for granted that every Member was acquainted with their contents. The principle on which it was proposed to refer such petitions to the consideration of a select Committee was so well known, that he would not venture to say a word upon it. With regard to the first petition; which was presented from the inhabitants of the City of York, he would only observe that he considered, that in presenting it he was performing a duty unpleasant in itself, but still necessary, as it had been put into his hands. He was sure that the House would excuse him from going into the details of the petitions, as there was nothing in either of

599
them which could take them out of the rule just laid down in the Yarmouth case. He was sure that his hon. Friend, the Member for York, would offer no objection to this motion, for the petitions contained no allegations against him, though they did contain allegations that the most gross and corrupt practices had taken place among his constituents. He (Mr. Aglionby) was most desirous that the circumstances of every election since 1831 for the City of York should be fully examined into by the Committee. The hon. Member for Buckingham had told the House, that in such an investigation he would not rely upon testimony merely oral. Now, if the House would allow these petitions to go to a Committee, he would undertake to say, that the hon. Member for Buckingham should have something beyond mere oral testimony. He was given to understand that sovereigns had been enclosed in papers to more than 800 persons in the City of York, and these papers would be presented to the Committee in great numbers. He had made inquiry into the subject matter of these petitions, and he believed that the allegations which they contained would be fully substantiated. If he had not entertained such a belief, he for one would not have required that this question should be investigated. He should, therefore, beg leave to move that the two petitions from the inhabitants of York presented, one on the 30th of June, and the other on the 13th of July, complaining of bribery at the two last elections for that City, and that the allegations contained in those two petitions respecting the contested elections for that City, be referred to a select Committee. He hoped that that Committee would be impartially selected, and that no party feeling would be visible in its appointment. He likewise hoped, that every Member appointed a Member of it would attend its sittings, as in the Ipswich case, every day, whilst the investigation was going on.
Mr. Lowthercalled the attention of the House to this fact, that the first of the petitions presented against his constituents was signed by not more than forty-five, and the second by not more than sixty-three, persons. There was, therefore, a great difference between this case and that of Yarmouth, where the petition had been numerously signed. The House would also be surprised to hear, that many of the individuals who had signed these petitions had since shrunk from avowing their sig-
600
natures. He stated this upon the authority of one of the leading Whig journals of York.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, that as not more than one individual in forty of the electors of York had signed these petitions, he was anxious to learn what number of signatures would be hereafter deemed sufficient to induce the House to follow the example which it had now set, of referring petitions containing general allegations of bribery exercised among the constituency to the consideration of a select Committee. Out of a constituency of 400 persons, such for instance as existed at Tavistock, if ten persons were to send a petition to the House complaining of the general corruption of the electors, would the noble Lord opposite deem that number sufficient to induce him to grant a Committee to inquire into the allegations of their misconduct? As to the case of York, the proportion was one to forty; was it intended that elsewhere the same proportion should be the criterion of the numbers necessary to obtain an inquiry into allegations of corruption? If that were to be the criterion, perhaps hon. Members on the other side of the House would soon find a greater number of petitions presented against the disinterested purity of their constituents than they might find agreeable.
Mr. Rundle. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member had better take his criterion from Launceston than from Tavistock, especially as a petition was presented in the last session of Parliament from the former borough against his return, on the ground of the corrupt charges which he had appeared to patronize.
Lord John Russell, in reply to the speech of the right hon. and gallant Officer on the other side of the House, observed, that it was difficult to lay down any precise rule in such a case as that which had been proposed to his consideration. Still, in cases like the present, where a petition was presented, alleging as a fact that sums of money had been sent in letters to the voters as a consideration for their votes, he thought that the House was bound to institute an inquiry. But, in cases where a small number of electors did nothing more than make general allegations of bribery against their brother electors, he thought that doubts might fairly be entertained whether the House was bound to interfere at all.
Sir Henry Hardingecontended, that when a new precedent like the present was established, it was fitting that the House

601
should know the basis on which it was established. He confessed that he was at a loss to imagine what it was that the hon. Member for Tavistock had alluded to. He had formerly represented in Parliament the City of Durham, which contained a numerous constituency of 1,500 Freemen. He could solemnly declare, that as the Representative of that Town, he had never been guilty, directly or indirectly, of an act of bribery; and he would further say, upon his honour as an Officer and a Gentleman, that he had never been guilty of any corrupt practice at Launceston. It was in the power of any set of persons, if the principle now contended for were established, to bring the most unfounded charges against any constituency. If five signatures were as good as ten, or as good as fifty, to such petitions, you would soon be able to shake from its privileges every constituency in the British Empire.
Mr. Cayleyadmitted that the petition which he had presented from the inhabitants of York was not numerously signed; it was, however, signed most respectably, for it had the signatures of five or six aldermen, of the town-clerk, of three or four clergymen, of two or three bankers, and of several most respectable merchants and tradesmen. They were parties who held themselves aloof from the violent partisans on both sides of the question, and being such persons, the prayer of their petition ought, in his opinion, to be attended to immediately.
Sir Henry Hardingeagain repeated, that as the rule was now established, it was desirable that the House should know what number of signatures it was necessary to attach to a petition to obtain a Committee of this kind.
Mr. Lowthersaid, that it was not his intention to cast any imputation upon the petitioners. He admitted that, in their individual capacity, they were all highly respectable persons. He did not know whether all of them stood aloof from party contests; but this he did know, that all, or at any rate the great majority of those who signed the petitions, had voted in the late elections against himself. He agreed with his noble Friend, the Member for Liverpool, that hon. Members were too much in the habit of crying out, "Spoke,spoke," when they heard arguments advanced which told too strongly against themselves. The charges contained in these petitions did not at all affect him, but they affected his constituents, the Freemen of York, who were
602
as respectable and independent a body of electors as any that they could find in the kingdom. So far was it from being correct, that he had authorized his agents to adopt corrupt practices to secure his election, that he had absolutely given them directions to discountenance such practices to the utmost.
Mr. Rundlewould say, that his constituents at Tavistock courted the strictest investigation into the manner in which the election of Members was conducted in their borough. He was surprised that the hon. and gallant Officer should have alluded to the Borough of Tavistock, when he had a case at hand much more apposite—he meant the Borough of Launceston, of which the inhabitants had last year presented a petition against the right hon. and gallant Officer's return.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, that his only reason for alluding to Tavistock, was because he then saw the noble Member for Stroud standing right opposite to him. He was sure that the noble Lord would agree with him, that under the Reform Bill, Tavistock had been a place of particular favour. He was convinced that the last election at Launceston had been conducted with as much purity as any election in the country, and he repudiated all insinuations to the contrary.
Lord Ebringtonsaid, that if the right hon. and gallant Officer had felt himself justified in casting imputations upon the electors of Tavistock, merely because he sat opposite to his noble Friend the Member for Stroud, surely the hon. Member for Tavistock had a right to feel himself justified to glance at the constituents of the right hon. and gallant Officer, especially as he sat opposite to the right hon. and gallant Officer, and knew that a petition had been presented from Launceston against his return. In giving his vote in favour of referring these two petitions to a select Committee, he must observe that he did not give it so much in the hope of amending the representation of these two places, York and Yarmouth, as in the hope that it would produce the effect with which the right hon. and gallant Officer had threatened his side of the House—namely, that in all cases in which bribery had been committed, and in which the parties who could have proved it, were deterred by the ex-pence of disputing the return from coming to prove it before the House, they would now come forward to prove the bribery before a Committee of the description which

603
the House was then on the point of appointing.
The motion agreed to.

Preamble
MINUTES. Petitions presented. By the Earl of ABERUDEEN, from Greenock, against any Alteration in the Timber Duties.—By the Earl of MANSFIELD, from Kineleven, for Protection to the Church of Scotland, and for further Accommodation in Scotch Churches.—By the Duke of WELLINGTON and Lord KENYON, from Members of the University of Oxford, against the Subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles' Bill.
DUTY ON PAPER.
Lord Broughampresented a Petition from the letter-press printers of London and Westminster against the Stamp-duties, and against the Excise-duty on paper. This last petition, which was exceedingly well drawn up, was signed by above 1,700 persons who stated in the clearest manner the evils of these taxes. He himself knew of a publication that was very extensively circulated, and to which some very eminent men communicated some of their scientific labours. Among these men was Professor Whewell—he might mention the name without any breach of confidence, because that very learned Professor had avowed the fact, and had collected some of his contributions and published them among his works. He had inquired, out of a curiosity upon such an interesting matter, with a view to find what was the proportion which the tax on the paper bore to the compensation given to the able and scientific men who contributed their stores of knowledge to the publication, and he had asked whether it amounted to one-tenth or one-fifth, and he found that it was not one-tenth of the amount but ten-tenths, that is, just that the whole of the tax on the paper of this publication, the circulation of which was 60,000, amounted to precisely as much as did the compensation paid to the writers. This was a remarkable instance of the operation of the tax. He did not propose to take off the duty altogether, but to reduce it; and he was sure that even if it was reduced no more than one-half, it would produce a larger revenue than now. This had been shown with respect to other duties, and yet there were still people stupid enough not to be taught by experience in this as in other things.

POOR LAWS.
The Duke of Richmondwished to call their Lordships' attention to the Petitions of the inhabitants of two places in Sussex. The petitions related to the new Poor-law Bill, and more particularly to that Clause of it which related to the expense of building workhouses. The farmers and the tenants for short periods chiefly complained of this Clause, for as their interest was only to last for a few years, if the expense of these buildings was thrown on them the landlords would have all the advantage at their cost. He regretted the existence of the Clause, and thought that the tenants had a just right to complain, and the landlords ought to pay their fair share of the expense. In his opinion the parishes should borrow the money, and should have an extended time to pay it in. He should suggest as an alteration in that part of the Bill, that they should lend money to the parishes at a small rate per cent, payable at some years after the loan; he wished the Government would consider the suggestion.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, that if his memory did not deceive him, the money that was to be laid out in the repairing or the building of workhouses was to be paid off in five or ten years, a fact which seemed to him to meet the views of the noble Duke.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that that was the case with regard to such of the money as was borrowed, but was not the case with such money as was raised by rates. In his opinion, however, ten years, did not afford sufficient time, and he should suggest twenty or twenty-five years. The petitioners suggested thirty years; but he thought that too much.

BUILDING OF THE HOUSES.
The Duke of Cumberlandasked, what was the intention of Government as to the buildings for the temporary accommodation of the two Houses, and especially what was intended with respect to the remaining walls of St. Stephen's Chapel?
Viscount Duncannonsaid, that it was necessary to consider the subject, and that before he advised his Majesty to direct the adoption of any course with respect to the walls of St. Stephen's Chapel, he had thought it right to have the opinion of some other architects. He had submitted the question to Sir Jeffrey Wyattville, who, after examining the walls,

493
thought them to be in a good state, and that with a small expense they might be perfectly restored. After receiving that opinion, he had sent to have the opinion of three other architects, Mr. Montague, Mr. In wood, and Mr. Cave, whom he had understood to be extensively employed in large buildings, and well acquainted with the stability of them. Two of these gentlemen confirmed the opinion of Sir Robert Smirke, the third said, that the upper part of the walls must be taken down; but that the under part of them might be restored. He had since then taken the opinion of two other architects, Messrs. Savage and Cottingham, and they stated distinctly that they had examined the walls, and were of opinion that they might be restored without any great difficulty or expense, and also that the walls were not now in a dangerous state. He had also received an opinion from Mr. Laing, who said that the walls were dangerous. Under these circumstances he should make no positive recommendation without further examination. He ought to observe, that in the proposition laid before Sir Robert Smirke with a view to the temporary accommodation of the House of Lords, the question of the possibility of St. Stephen's Chapel standing or not had never been introduced, and he did not seem to imply from his answers before the Committee, that for building the temporary House of Lords, it would be necessary to take down the walls of St. Stephen's Chapel. The questions put to him were distinct from that, and that matter had only recently been submitted to his consideration. It ought to be observed also, that in almost all the opinions of the architects, though some said the walls would stand, and others that the walls must be demolished, yet all agreed that the ornamental work and tracery must be removed.
The Marquess of Lansdowneobserved, that the noble and illustrious Duke was aware that the Committee had to secure not merely the old walls of the building, but also the indispensable safety of those which were now to be erected. He was glad that this opportunity had occurred of correcting what he conceived to be a misrepresentation which had gone abroad on this subject. He could assure their Lordships that there was no individual belonging to the Committee who was more anxious than he was to preserve any
494
part of that Chapel in its ancient form, and with all its ancient recollections, so far as there were any practicable means of doing it. Of course such an object was not to be attained at the cost of great individual danger to those who might frequent such a building. If the old walls could be maintained without danger, they would be maintained; but if it should be necessary, they must be demolished, at least to a certain extent, with a view to restore the rest.
The Duke of Cumberlandwished the walls to be saved if it was possible. In his opinion, the reports of the architects should be shown to the House, and submitted to his Majesty before they were finally received and acted upon.

COMMITTEES OF PRIVILEGE.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, he should not have troubled the House with what he was about to mention, but that it really was a matter of very considerable consequence, relating, as it did, to the injury sometimes suffered by suitors at their Lordships' House. He had been in attendance yesterday upon a Committee of Privileges, upon a claim of Peerage, and the House was kept waiting one whole hour, from ten to eleven, without the means of doing anything, because there was not a sufficient number of Peers ready to form a Committee. In consequence of this a case was postponed to Thursday, and then the further hearing of the Peerage claim was anticipated, and was fixed for to-morrow. Great inconvenience was felt by the suitors, if there was not a sufficient number of Peers present to do their business. In his opinion there should be, for Committees of privilege, as well as for the other judicial business of the House, an attendance in rotation, by which the attendance of a sufficient number of Peers would always be secured. As matters stood at present, the suitor might have to incur a great deal of unnecessary expense—such as to re-fee Counsel, and pay other expenses which need not be incurred but on account of the delay.
Lord Broughamwas unwilling to enter upon this matter at this moment, as it would have the effect of postponing what they were all anxious to hear—the discussion on the order of the day; but he must say, that the matter referred to by the noble Marquess, was the cause

495
of much prejudice to the interests of suitors. What the noble Marquess said was perfectly true—they had been detained yesterday for the best part of an hour, which, however, was not unusual, waiting for a sufficient number of Peers to constitute a Committee; for it was often very difficult to get seven Peers together in the morning, so that they lost an hour, and might very likely make parties pay the expense of an additional day besides that to which the hearing was postponed. He wished that some rota was established, as in the judicial business of the House, for that might have the effect of avoiding the mischief. He should be ready to give his best attention to the subject, and to assist in procuring a remedy. He begged, however, to say, that he was not to blame in this matter; for he had no choice but to postpone the full hearing of a case then before the House, and he had anticipated the next hearing of the Peerage case, lest there should be nothing before the House to-morrow.
The Marquess of Westmeathhad not intended to blame the noble and learned Lord; what he complained of was, the occurrence of a circumstance which had entailed so much unnecessary expense on the parties.
Lord Farnhamthought that, however, it might be expedient to postpone a case, it could never be proper to anticipate it, for the parties might not be fully prepared; and therefore he should propose that, instead of to-morrow, a future day for the hearing of this Peerage case should be fixed. He thought that there would be some inconvenience in the plan of the rota. It was well known that it was always considered that lay Lords should not interfere with law cases, so that it did not much matter who were upon the rota for the judicial business of the House; but it was most important and most proper that all noble Lords present at the hearing should take part in cases of claims of Peerage, and if the rota were established with regard to them, it might happen that some would hear part of the case one clay, and the others the remaining part on another day. Some remedy for the evil should, however, be adopted.
Marquess of Westmeaththought that though the rota were established as a rule, the same noble Lords who had heard part of any one particular case might still con-
496
sider themselves bound to attend on every other day till it was heard out.
Lord Broughamagreed with what had fallen from the noble Marquess; but with respect to what the noble Lord had observed, as to the inconvenience of anticipating cases, he begged to say that though such a course was unusual, it was not without precedent. He himself had frequently anticipated the hearing of the causes. Many cases appointed for the Monday, had been taken on the Friday, the Thursday, or Tuesday preceding, without any inconvenience whatever. In the case now referred to it was clear that the parties must be prepared, for if there had been time, the whole case would have been heard out yesterday, he begged also to observe, with reference to what the noble Lord had said, that a question of a claim of peerage was as much a matter of law as anything else.
Lord Lyndhurstobserved, with respect to the inconvenience of proceeding to-morrow with the case of the claim of peerage that he now saw in the House most of the noble Lords—he believed all—who were present yesterday, at the hearing of the case, and if they would agree to come tomorrow, the matter might be disposed of without difficulty. As to the other case, he should be unable to attend to-morrow, and it was therefore postponed, as he had heard part of it; and his noble and learned Friend had appointed the Peerage case for to-morrow, that their Lordships might not lose a day. With regard to the rota, he begged to say that there was no rule as a rota adhered to. The only rule that he knew of was, that when a noble Lord had attended once, he was not called on to attend again in the same session.
Conversation dropped.

SUBSCRIPTION AT THE UNIVERSI- TIES.
The Earl of Radnormoved, that the Subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles Bill be read a second time. The question which their Lordships had now to decide, was solely as to the principle of the Bill. If there were any errors in its details, they might be remedied in the Committee. The principle of the Bill was, to abolish the Subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles and the question to decide was whether the Thirty-nine Articles should be taken as a test on admission to the University of Oxford or of Cambridge or not. There were Clauses in the latter part of the Bill

497
saving; all the endowed schools, and saving all the rights of the bodies having authority in either of the Universities, and also preserving the rights of the Convocation. The principle of the Bill was, to put an end to the subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles by persons on entering the University, providing that they should not make that subscription before they had arrived at the age of Twenty-three or before taking the degree of Bachelor of Arts or that of Master of Arts. Perhaps their Lordships were not, fully aware of the different practice in the two Universities on this subject. He should do his best to explain it to them. At Oxford, the applicant for admission was called upon to subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles on matriculation, which was not the case in the University of Cambridge. At Oxford also the person about to be matriculated was obliged to subscribe the three Articles contained in the 36th canon, which was not required at Cambridge. The object of the Bill was to render such subscription unnecessary at the time of entrance into either of the Universities, or until the party should have attained a certain age, or should have proceeded to take the degree of Master of Arts. He could not help thinking, after all that he had heard on this subject—after all the consideration which had been bestowed on it—after all the discussion to which it had given rise in this and in the other House of Parliament—that none of the arguments which had been adduced against the principle on which the Bill was founded were satisfactory. He could not understand the absurdity—he would not use a worse epithet, of calling of boys of 16, 17, or 18 years of age, to subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles on their matriculation,—articles of the nature of which they knew nothing. The idea of young men being thus called on to subscribe that which they did not understand was as offensive to common sense as it was to the principles of morality. To say that individuals might with propriety be called on to sign such and such things, without knowing or understanding them, appeared to him to be perfectly ridiculous; yet such was the assertion, such was the language, which he heard used from time to time by different individuals. For his own part, he felt the utter impropriety of adopting such a system. He could not understand how anybody could justify
498
themselves for calling on any person, under any circumstances, to subscribe his name to that of the nature and tendency of which he was ignorant. That, however, was what was done every day at the University of Oxford. Young persons were called upon to subscribe their assent to that of which they knew nothing at the time, but which after that assent had been recorded was to be explained. The continuance of such a system was calculated to sap the very foundations of morality and make men hypocrites and deceivers. If individuals were thus called on in one case to bind themselves to a belief in that which they did not understand, how did he know that any person who subscribed anything, at any time, or under any circumstances, really did believe what he subscribed? In the last discussion which took place upon that subject in the hearing of their Lordships, he had illustrated his argument by reference to a paper against the Bill which he had introduced, signed by 4,000 Members of the Convocation of Oxford, and he had argued that if the subscription to any paper did not imply a knowledge of its contents by those who made it, he did not see how it could be shown that any one of those 4,000 persons assented to the statement made in the paper to which he had referred. There was no difference in the principles which applied to the two cases. If he did not suppose, in consequence of seeing certain names appended to the resolutions contained in the paper that those who subscribed them were acquainted with the subject to which they related, how could he tell that they understood the nature of those resolutions more than the young men on matriculation understood the nature and tendency of the Thirty-nine Articles? There really was no mode of knowing decidedly what the conviction in the minds of the parties was with reference to one case more than to the other. This did away with the value of this system of subscription altogether. How could any person know that those who subscribed the resolution in question really understood them, and fully believed in their contents? He, however, knew that many of the Gentlemen who subscribed those Resolutions (not perhaps without seeing and understanding them) had certainly done so without accurately knowing the object to attain which the Resolutions were framed. They had signed the Resolutions without

499
seeing the Bill, or being acquainted with the provisions of the Bill against which those Resolutions were directed. This he knew of his own knowledge, because he was informed by some of them that they really were not acquainted with the provisions of the measure against which they thus expressed their hostility. From this circumstance be inferred, that the practice which was at so early an age inculcated at the University, the practice of subscribing to that which was not understood, formed the groundwork of a certain degree of looseness and laxity in this matter of subscription. The difficulty which was connected with this subject had very much increased lately—it was now considerably greater than it was a year ago, in consequence of the different meanings given to this process of subscription. How could any man know under what sense or meaning he subscribed the Thirty-nine Articles when so many definitions were attached to the ceremony? It was impossible for any person to tell. One person said, that by subscribing, the individual declared that he belonged to the Church of England; another, that he admitted by subscribing that so far as the persons understood the Thirty-nine Articles he assented to them; another said, that the person subscribing, thereby declared that those Articles should be his rule of conduct during the period while he remained in the University. Could any person therefore decide in what sense he was called on to subscribe these Articles? The names of persons about to be matriculated were, it appeared inserted in a great book, but not a particle of these Thirty-nine Articles were read. But as the system had continued for 150 years, that he supposed was considered a valid reason for continuing it. He repeated that, on matriculation, a large vellum book was produced, containing a great many names, but nothing was read about the Thirty-nine Articles, and, for aught he knew, those articles were not contained in the book. A friend of his had turned over the leaves of the book, and he could not find the Thirty-nine Articles in it. He could give a very curious confirmation of the careless manner in which these things were in the habit of being done. Very lately a proposition was made to the University of Oxford to substitute a declaration in the place of subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles. Amongst those who were particularly zealous in
500
canvassing against that proposition was a Gentleman nearly related to himself, an intimate friend of his, and one who was extremely ardent in the support of any cause which he supported. He circulated printed letters, which were addressed to all the non-resident Members of the convocation, and in which he strongly opposed any alteration in the existing system. In this letter he said, "May I take the liberty of adding, since some of the absent Members may not recollect the circumstance, that at matriculation there is no oath taken connected with a subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles." [Lord Kenyon: There is no oath now taken with respect to subscription of the Thirty-nine Articles.] He was aware of that; but what he complained of was, that this subscription was made in so loose a way that there were many who thought that no oath was taken at it; and it appeared from the letter to which he had just referred, it was supposed that many who had actually subscribed these Articles, were in a doubt as to whether or not they were bound to their observance by an oath. It was well known that with regard to Oxford (and to it he more particularly directed his observations, being most intimately acquainted with it)—it was well known with regard to Oxford that tests were insisted on for the purpose of excluding Dissenters from the University. Now, he did not very well see what value could be attached to a test which it was notorious those who took it did not and were not called on to understand. Such a test could furnish no criterion by which to judge whether a person was a Dissenter or a Mahomedan. In point of fact, however, Dissenters were not excluded: a particular class of Dissenters, Baptists and Socinians, were excluded, but the Universities were not thereby confined to Members of the Church of England. But the absurdity of continuing this test with a view to the exclusion of Dissenters was, that those belonging to the University maintain that there were other tests, much more efficacious for this purpose; and it was said by one of these persons, "the joining in our daily worship is infinitely a closer union with the Church than signing the Thirty-nine Articles." If that were the case, and the attendance at the chapels, (the continuance of the service in which could not be objected to) was a much better means of securing the non-admittance of Dissenters to the Uni-

501
versities, why on earth was the subscription, which all must consider somewhat objectionable (though they might not censure it so broadly as he did) persevered in, whilst the purpose which it was meant to answer was perfectly fulfilled by means with which no one could fairly find fault? But other reasons were giving for an adherence to this subscription, and amongst them it was alleged that this observance inculcated a submission to the Church of England. Why, he asked, should the Universities inculcate submission to the Church? They might call on the students to attend to their regulations and conform to their practice, but why inculcate submission to the Church? The mode, too, in which they inculcated this submission was very extraordinary; it was altogether different from that to which the Church itself had recourse. The Church never called on any of its lay members to subscribe the thirty-nine articles on any occasion whatever. Candidates for Orders were very properly required to subscribe them, but neither at the baptism of infants, nor of adults at confirmation, at the sacrament, nor before absolution, was subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles required of any layman, unless he happened to go to the University of Oxford or Cambridge. One of the great arguments advanced in favour of this subscription in the debate last year arose out of the alleged bad effects which were represented to have followed the abolition of Tests in the German Universities, where a great deal of theological anti-Christian doctrines prevailed; the inference to be drawn being that, of course, the same results would be introduced into this country, if subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles were dispensed with. This argument, however, proceeded on the assumption that the German Universities were the only ones in the world where Tests were abolished. He would presently show how unfounded this supposition was; but he would now take it for granted, that in the German Universities only were these Tests done away with, and yet he would confidently assert, that no one acquainted with German literature could believe that the same effects would result from such a change with respect to religious Tests in this country, as must naturally flow from it in a country where the inhabitants, and especially those of highly cultivated intellects, were of an exceedingly theoretical and
502
speculative turn of mind on religious subjects. But this passion for speculation not only prevailed with respect to religious matters, but it displayed itself also in their prosecution of literature and the sciences. For the purpose of proving what no doubt their Lordships were already familiar with, it would be only necessary for him to state, that one very learned Geologist in that country contended that man was not an original animal, and that he arrived at his present form, not by a transmigration of soul, but by a transformation of body, and he actually went the length of saying, that the process by which the transformation was effected was this—that a lizard was changed into a monkey, and a monkey raised into a man. Another instance of this was, that one of their learned men had composed a most voluminous work on the Jurisprudence of Ancient Athens, in which he recounted all their modes of legal proceeding, treated of their John Does and Richard Roes, their pleas, answers, replications, and rejoinders; and the only foundation of this extraordinary work was a trial said to have taken place before the Goddess Minerva, in one of the Plays of Æschylus. These things he mentioned to the House for the purpose of showing the absurdity of drawing any inferences respecting the Abolition of Tests from what had taken place in Germany. But in addition to this, attention should be paid to the nature of the German disposition upon religious subjects. In illustration, he should just observe that the origin and progress of the Reformation were totally different there from what they were in this country. In Germany the Reformation began amongst the learned Members of the Universities, and they were followed by the People and the Government. In this country the contrary was the case—the Reformation began with the Government, and they were followed by the people. Again, in Germany the Universities robbed the Churches, while in this country the Church robbed the Universities. In Germany, too, the Professors' chairs were profitable in proportion as they were popular. They were paid by the persons who attended the lectures, and therefore were they obliged to maintain and follow those principles and views which would render their situations at once popular and profitable. Such a state of things did not exist in this country, and therefore it was unfair to refer to the Ger-

503
man Universities for an illustration of the effects that would be likely to follow from the Abolition of Tests. But there was something strangely inconsistent in the argument which was urged against the Abolition of Tests, grounded upon the nature of those theories that were put forward by divines and theologians in those places in which the Abolition had taken place. It was a fact, certainly peculiarly comical, and altogether unknown to, or overlooked by those who cited the prevalence of anti-religious feelings and doctrines in those Universities, as a reason why religious tests should not be got rid of in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, that the principal part of these anti-religious doctrines proceeded from those persons in the Universities of Germany, who held theology in chains; and these persons being divines, were the individuals who were subjected to religious Tests, whilst the other members of the University were excepted from their observance. Therefore, far from the partial Abolition of Tests in Germany being any argument in favour of their being retained in our Universities, the fair inference to be drawn from the spread of anti-religious feelings in that country was, that such an effect had been produced by the preservation of these Tests in any shape whatever. But were these religious Tests abolished in no other country beside Germany? Why, in France no Tests were required for persons entering the Universities, and all were equally eligible for the chair of professors. One of the present Ministers of France, M. Guizot, who is a Protestant, held a Professor's Chair in one of the Universities of that country. In Bologna, no religious Test was required for persons coming to receive instruction, or those desirous of taking degrees. At the University belonging to this place no Test whatever was required until very lately, when it was determined that no Foreigner should be admitted to the University, in consequence of the pupils having rebelled, and evinced a desire for the establishment of a Republic. In Louvain no Test was adopted. In Pisa none. The University of this city was attended by Greeks, Jews, and Mahometans; and the only difference which existed between the mode of admission to degrees for those belonging to such persuasions, and the others who attended the University, was, that in the former case the Chancellor (who was generally a
504
Vicar-General, or Archbishop) got out of the Chair, and the Vice-Chancellor took it. He could state further, that no Test was there required for Professors; and he could even show cases in which the Chair in Pisa had been filled by an English Protestant. At the latter end of the seventeenth century, Thomas Forbes, a Scotchman, was Professor of the Historical, and afterwards the Philosophical Faculty. And about ten years later, Sir J. Finch, an Englishman, filled the same Chair. Gronovius, also, before his return to Leyden, was a Professor there. The same might be said of Padua, where no Test is required, and it frequently happened that the chairs there were filled by Foreigners—by Members of the Church of England—by Presbyterians and by Calvinists. He had the names of many, to some of which he would just advert:—Dr. Walter Charlton was invited in 1678 by the Moderator of the University of Padua and the Senate of Venice, to the Chair of Practical Medicine, but after long negociation, he refused to give up his practice and appointment in England. In 1698, Dr. Martin Benenden was invited from England, but from incompetency was disqualified. In 1716, N. Bernouilli, a Calvinist, was Professor of Mathematics, and Gronovius and Salmasius, both Calvinists, were invited to Chairs. It appeared evident, therefore, that in these Roman Catholic countries—in the Roman and Venetian States, formerly, and in the Austrian States at present,—there was no jealousy on religious subjects, nor were any Tests whatever required. Although, continued the noble Lord, I see a noble Lord opposite smile at what I have said, I must say, for my own part, that I who have been brought up a Protestant, and who as such have been taught to conceal nothing in religious matters—to leave religious doctrines open to rational consideration, and to test their truth by the exercise of private judgment—I say that I, at least, bred up as I have been, a Member of the Established Church, cannot help being mortified, and feeling in some degree ashamed that the doors of our Universities should be shut up by the enforcement of a religious Test, whilst those of Roman Catholic Universities are thrown open to persons of all religious persuasions. But this liberality in opening the Universities to men of all religious opinions was not confined to Catholic countries. In the Prussian States, in Ba-

505
den, Breslau, and Copenhagen, the Universities were open to all. In Copenhagen one of the Professors of Medicine was a Jew. Coming nearer home, he believed that in the University of Durham, which had been established by Act of Parliament, no Test was enforced with regard to those who came for instruction. Was it not, therefore, a matter of regret, that the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge should be the only ones in Europe or in the world, which were shut up by the continuance of Tests which those who were called on to subscribe had not been at the pains to study, or could not understand? In the University of Oxford (and he spoke principally of this University, because he was better acquainted with its history than that of our other Universities)—in that University persons were formerly admitted, not only belonging to different countries, but professing different religions. It was a matter of history, that about 450 years ago, the first Reformer in England, (Wycliffe) one whose efforts were as great for the propagation of Protestantism as those by whom he was afterwards succeeded (however more successful the latter might have been in receiving a larger share of popular approbation), the Reformer Wycliffe, he repeated, continued to hold the Chair of Professor of Divinity, and remained the head of one of the Houses at Oxford, long after he had been summoned to the Court of Rome to answer for his heretical doctrines. He found, too, that in 1547, Peter Martyn, D. D., Padua, and 1556, Joannes Fautereille, were Professors of Divinity in Oxford. Again, in 1587, Albericus Gentilis, D.C. L., Perugia, was Professor of Civil Law; and in 1648, Louis de Menlin, of Leyden, was Camden Professor of Ancient History. One of the most liberal bequests made to the University was that of——Saville, who bequeathed an estate for the establishment of a Professorship in Geometry and Astronomy, and in leaving that bequest he appointed the Chancellor for the time being, and the Chief Justices of the King's Bench and Exchequer, to appoint the Professors, and he besought them not to confine their researches to England, but throughout "the whole Christian world," to seek persons the most fit to fill the situation, and he provided for this by allocating funds to defray the expenses of going abroad for the purpose of making this search. He mentioned this for the pur-
506
pose of showing that the principle of exclusion was new in Oxford. Saville, to whose bequest he had adverted, was not ignorant of the practices of Oxford. He was himself a head of a house, and had accompanied his bequest with the condition adverted to, in the full and perfect knowledge of what were the rules and practices of the University of Oxford. Therefore, while all Foreign Universities were open, Oxford and Cambridge alone were closed. He could not reconcile the principles on which this institution rested in former times to those by which it was now sustained, on any other ground than that which had been urged by a noble Duke (Duke of Wellington) on a former occasion, namely, that the exclusive practices of the University were necessary to maintain the alliance between Church and State. He did not at first understand the argument; but after considering it for some time, he supposed it to mean that the University was so connected with the Established Church, that it was necessary to have it exclusively devoted to those belonging to that Church. The mode by which that alliance was secured and confirmed was unquestionably a very strange one, for it was no other than this—that those who are about to enter the University were called on to subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles. He had already proved that the Church never enforced an obedience to its doctrines, by requiring its lay members to subscribe these Articles. The State never did so either, with one necessary and proper exception—where a person who presided as one of the Judges in the Ecclesiastical Courts, and who was called on to decide questions relating to the Thirty-nine Articles was required by Act of Parliament to subscribe them. That was the only case in which the Church called for a subscription to these Articles. The King did not subscribe them. The Chancellor of Oxford and honorary doctors did not subscribe them. The Chancellor of Cambridge or the honorary doctors of that University did not subscribe them. [The Duke of Wellington: I signed them the other day at Cambridge.] He could speak with certainty as to the University of Oxford. Did the noble Duke sign them as Chancellor of the University of Oxford? He believed not. Certainly the Statutes did not require him to sign them, but he did not think that any of the charters of the

507
University of Cambridge required that honorary doctors should make the subscription. Certain he was that no subscription to these Articles was required in the case of the Chancellor of Cambridge, for a late Chancellor (the Duke of Grafton) was an avowed and professed Unitarian. Neither did honorary doctors there subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles. He himself happened to know that at the annual meeting of scientific men, there were four highly distinguished men,—Messrs. Faraday, Dalton, Brown, and Birkbeck, who were, however, incapable of being admitted on account of their being Dissenters. They were, however, admitted speciali gratia, (as we understood the noble Earl) upon that occasion in compliment to their attainments. That showed the evil effects of supporting that principle of subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles. The whole of that argument to which he had adverted, respecting the close alliance of the Church with the State, was founded upon a mistake. This union of the Church with the State had no necessary connexion whatever with the Universities. The Universities had no more necessary connexion with the Church than they had with any other faculty. They were connected with the law, with medicine, and with theology; but quoad a University no more intimate connexion existed with any one of these faculties than with another. The mistake which so generally prevailed upon the subject had grown up from the fact of all the offices being usurped (he did not mean it offensively, but there had been a usurpation) by the heads of colleges. The Universities did not exist in colleges. It was perfectly erroneous to suppose they did. The colleges were extraneous—they were, in fact, excrescences—not properly belonging to the body. The error, he was aware, was general, and deeply-rooted. Authority, he was aware, might be quoted in opposition, and to one authority he should refer. It was that of a right rev. Prelate, (he did not then see him in his place, although he had been there in the early part of the evening) and was to be found in a work of which that right rev. Prelate was the reputed—indeed he believed the acknowledged author. That right rev. Prelate had been himself the Head of a house which he had raised to a great degree of eminence. (We understood the noble Earl to say that the Prelate was the Head of Oriel College.) In
508
that work he said—"The Universities are not national establishments;—they are a congeries of Corporations moulded into one." Now he (Lord Radnor) said, that the Universities were national establishments and not congeries of Corporations. The Universities existed for hundreds of years before any of these Colleges existed. Oxford certainly existed before any of these colleges, though there was some doubt as to whether "University College" was or was not the site of the University. This, however, was a mere subject of speculation, and no doubt existed that no other college was founded. But he would put a hypothetical case. Suppose the Legislature were to do any thing so outrageous—he did not mean to say they ought—but suppose they were to do any thing so outrageous as to take possession of all the colleges, as had been done with the Monasteries before, would the Universities in that case cease to exist? Most certainly not. Therefore it was quite evident that these Universities were not a congeries of Corporations—made up of these (subsequently established) Colleges. But he contended that they were national institutions—with all the elements and all the requisites of national institutions. They were founded by charter granted by the King—not for a particular purpose, but for the good of the country. That charter stated that "the good of the country, its strength, and the prosperity of its military institutions depended upon the literary and scientific education of the people," and for the promotion of this object was the charter granted. These Universities, too, were watched over in the most zealous manner by the Crown. In ancient documents and papers to which he had referred, he frequently found the Universities mentioned, but there was never any mention of the colleges. There were only two colleges mentioned, Oriel and Merton, and the latter was mentioned for the rather curious reason that it did not take care to keep a ditch opposite the college clean. In the Statutes of Elizabeth all mention is omitted of colleges. The preamble of the 13th. of that Queen, c. 26., recites:—"For the great love and favour that the Queen's most excellent Majesty beareth towards her Highness's Universities, and for the great zeal and care that the Lords and Commons, of the present Parliament, have for the maintenance of good and godly literature, and the virtuous educa-

509
tion of youth … and to the intent that the ancient privileges, liberties, and franchises of either of the said … Universities may be had in greater estimation, and be of greater force and strength, for the better increase of learning, and the further suppression of vice." And enacts:—"That the Right Honourable Robert Earl of Leicester, now Chancellor of the said University of Oxford, and his successors for ever, and the masters and scholars of the said University of Oxford, for the time being, shall be incorporated, and have a perpetual succession—in fact, deed, and name—by the name of Chancellor-Master, and scholars of the University of Oxford; and that the same Chancellor-Master, and scholars of the same University of Oxford, for the time being, from henceforth, by the name of Chancellor-Masters and scholars of the University of Oxford, and by none other name or names shall be called and named for evermore." It was quite obvious that this Statute did not contemplate colleges, nor was there any reference to masters of colleges. By the term "masters," in the Act, Masters of Arts were meant. The Universities then, were simply schools of learning; but it became desirable that a domestic character should be given to them by the establishment of colleges or halls: and according to the statutes which existed till within four months ago, the power of establishing halls existed to an unlimited extent, according to certain forms; and formerly there were as many as 300 halls existing at one time. New statutes had been passed within the last four months; he had not seen them, and what their provisions were he could not tell. However, the power was originally possessed to an unlimited extent, and to him it appeared to be a most valuable and useful power; for it prevented the narrowing of the University to an injurious extent. The colleges were originally established by individuals, and endowed by them with funds for the benefit of persons studying at the University. One of the most splendid of these institutions was Merton College, which was founded by Walter de Merton, and endowed by him with large estates for the benefit of persons educated in the University; at the same time he limited the advantage to certain persons—namely such as were born within particular dioceses—the dioceses indeed in
510
which his property was situated. In other colleges there were similar limitations, in some instances to a surprising extent. Indeed, out of the whole number of 499 resident fellowships, only fifty were open to all—the rest being limited by some specific bequest and restriction as to family, parish, county, or diocese. The whole revenues of a college—all estates and patronage—were for the benefit of the members of the foundation, and they were not bound to admit any individual into it except by the course of electing him into the foundation. It was only indeed in times comparatively modern—since the close of the 15th century—that the practice had obtained of admitting persons in any other manner. Unless, therefore, the general power, which he had noticed, of establishing halls, were allowed to exist, the heads of colleges would be enabled to limit the number of those admitted; and the restriction would operate on the Church by limiting the supply of proper persons to perform the functions of its offices. He thought that it would be much to the credit of the University of Oxford, if subscription at matriculation were abolished. Many persons were willing to concede that point, who at the same time contended for retaining the subscription at the taking of degrees, inasmuch as, according to their statement, the same objection could not then be urged on the ground of ignorance in the party subscribing, and as some security ought to be exacted from him, in consequence of his becoming fitted, by the taking of a degree, for election to a fellowship, or for acting as a tutor. With respect to the first point, concerning the absence of ignorance, it had been admitted as a fact, by a reverend Doctor who had written a pamphlet on this subject, that young men when admitted to the degree of Bachelor of Arts were not qualified to judge of the Thirty-nine Articles; and under the circumstances it was not likely that they should be. As to the election to fellowships, he could not attach any weight to the argument of a necessity of subscription, as a security on the part of those elected; for every one elected underwent a certain examination, and the electors might take a much more effectual means of obtaining a guarantee security of his fitness than was afforded by subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles. Then with respect to their becoming tutors, as the masters of

511
houses had the appointment of these functionaries, they might easily ascertain the learning, knowledge, and faith of the persons applying to be appointed. The same objection that applied to the requiring a subscription, applied also to the requiring a declaration. Now as to young men who were obtaining the degree of Master of Arts, it must be allowed that they were likely to possess that degree of knowledge which should enable them to form a judgment on the Thirty-nine Articles; but at the same time it was a case of the greatest hardship towards a Dissenter, that after having passed with credit through his University career, he should be debarred from taking his degree, and enjoying the advantages attached to it in after life. Another objection was urged to this effect—that if Dissenters were allowed to take their degrees, they would be admitted to the masterships of schools which were instituted in connexion with the Established Church, the presentation to those masterships being vested in Masters of Arts. He was quite willing to insert a provision in the Bill, preventing Dissenters from interference with any endowment whatever, from which they were excluded under the will of any founder. The noble Earl then adverted to a most extraordinary objection which had been raised against this restricting portion of the Bill, in a published letter addressed to the noble Duke by a most respectable gentleman, a Fellow of Baliol College—making it a reproach to the measure that the exception had been provided in regard to endowments; and saying that the exception had been so provided, because it concerned a pecuniary interest. It was impossible for that gentleman not to know, that not one of their Lordships would be willing to sacrifice any principle for the sake of pecuniary interest; and it was certainly a strange argument to urge, that because they could not do all the good which they wished to do, in consequence of being interfered with by certain bequests, they should not even do that which they could. There had been presented that night petitions against the Bill. One had been presented by the noble Duke from the Convocation, and it prayed that a measure subversive of the beneficial privilege which the University had enjoyed for several centuries, of legislating for themselves in all matters relating to the discipline and
512
government of the University, might not be passed. The Bill left that privilege entirely as it existed before, except in one instance; it did not subvert it, although he admitted that it violated it. It did not prevent the Convocation from legislating for the discipline and regulation of the University, but it did prevent their enacting, that subscription or declaration should be imposed. The petition spoke also of the necessity of preserving subscription for the maintenance of a system of education, by means of which so much benefit had been conferred on the country. Why, subscription had only existed for the last 250 years; and in what state had the University been thirty-five years ago? Had it not been described by a right reverend Prelate as being then in a state of corruption? Yet the privilege of legislating had existed from the time of 1681 to that of 1800, just as much as it had existed from 1800 to 1835. He could not suppose, therefore, that it was subscription to the Thirty-nine articles which enabled the University to legislate for the purposes of education. The Bill certainly violated that privilege; and he trusted that their Lordships would assent to the violation. There was no chance of the subscription being removed unless by their Lordships' interference. Of this a sufficient proof was found of the exhibition made at Oxford the other day, and in the zeal and animosity which had been then excited. It was said again that colleges were private institutions, and that the Bill thus committed an attack upon private institutions, because it said that no subscription should be required upon entering a college or hall. He admitted that it did so to a certain extent, and he had inserted the provision referred to with regret, in order to prevent any attempt to defeat the object of the measure by chicane. He did entertain that feeling of suspicion with great regret; but still he felt that he was justified in entertaining it, especially when he found that Mr. Oakley (the individual to whom he had before alluded) had held out an intimation of the probability of some measure of the kind being resorted to, in order to counteract the operation of the Bill. He, of course, should hope that such would not be the case, but still he thought it right to guard against it. The other petition which had been presented that night came rather furtively from the under-

513
graduates and bachelors of the University; and he could not help thinking that it must have been drawn up by some gentleman totally unacquainted with the contents of the Bill. It deprecated the measure as transferring the management of the University from the hands of those persons who now held it. The Bill did not transfer that management in any way. It violated the custom of the University in one instance; but that violation being effected, the University would be left to the management of the same persons as at present, unfettered by the necessity of subscribing the Thirty-nine Articles, much, he doubted not, to the joy of many of those persons. It had been stated that the Bill was an attack not only on the Universities, but on the Church and religion. Now he wished to make no attack on any one of those institutions. He could not conceive how it could be supposed that he desired to attack the Universities; for with Oxford he had formerly been intimately connected, and with Cambridge he was now in some degree connected. He had no wish but for the prosperity of both; and he conceived that it would be a thing most conducive to their good to remove the reproach which the Bill was intended to do away with. Of that opinion were many excellent and learned men at Cambridge itself, as had been shown by the petition sent up to their Lordships; at Oxford the feeling in its favour was not so strong. As to the charge of an attack on the Church, he had already explained that the getting rid of subscriptions not only would not injure the Church, but might prevent that which would be very injurious to it. At all events, for the cause of truth, plain dealing, and honesty, he did implore their Lordships to give the Bill their grave consideration before they rejected it. Turn it in what way they would, that practice was most unsatisfactory in which persons were called upon to subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles—at Oxford when entering the University, and at Cambridge when taking a degree at an age which did not imply a full knowledge of them. He thought it a stigma on the Church; especially when no such practice was to be found prevailing elsewhere; for he defied any noble Lord to name an university in the civilized world, at which such tests were required. The continuance of it in the universities of our own country,
514
seemed to him a national reproach, and a reproach to religion. In conclusion he begged to move that the Bill be read a second time.
The Archbishop of Canterburywas far from imputing to the noble Earl who had just sat down an intention either to make an attack on the Church or to injure the Universities, because the tone in which he had delivered his speech had certainly indicated no such intention; at the same time, he was not the less apprehensive of the effects which this Bill must produce both on the Church and the Universities. It was not his intention to follow the noble Lord through the arguments he had drawn from the state of the Universities on the continent, or of our Universities established in modern times. He always had an objection to arguments drawn from the state of places in other and distant countries, in which the circumstances were probably different from ours, or with which we were not fully acquainted. Oxford or Cambridge he apprehended, had no occasion to take a lesson from the Universities on the continent. In some of them it was well known the utmost laxity of religious opinions prevailed, and the greatest indifference to all religion. In the Roman Catholic Universities it was not surprising there should be the absence of any test whatever. What was however very striking was, that in Catholic Universities on the continent, with respect to which the noble Earl had wandered into the century before last, persons of different religious persuasions might be admitted not only to prosecute their studies, but to hold professorships. He could not account for this, but he knew that in some of those Universities such toleration might be extended to particular persons without any apprehension on the part of the governing bodies, because they knew they had always the power of bringing into force the laws against heretics on any occasion whenever it might be necessary to set those laws in motion. With respect to the Universities here before the Reformation, the noble Lord had said, they were open to the whole world, and that nothing was then heard about the religion of the State. The noble Lord had cited the case of Mr. Wycliffe, but that eminent reformer was supported by some of the most powerful persons in the realm, otherwise he never would have been able to

515
escape the punishment then awarded without much scruple to those who differed from the Established Church. It was well known how his ashes were treated, and there was hardly anything he could have suffered at the stake which he would not have been tortured with but for the powerful influence by which he was protected. Having thus adverted to some few of the observations made by the noble Earl, he would revert to the Bill now before the House, the title of which prohibited subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles in certain cases. The reason was given in the preamble, and was—"Whereas the subscription of particular Articles of Faith in the cases of persons of tender years, and before they can have so accurately and minutely examined the same, and the grounds on which they rest, as to give an entire and implicit assent to the doctrines therein laid down, is unreasonable, and may tend to evil consequences." This was the gist of the noble Earl's argument—that requiring the subscription was unreasonable, and tended to evil consequences. He would observe, that this Bill proceeded upon an assumption that subscription to the Articles on all occasions, and in all persons, had exactly the same significance and import, and that that import was an entire and implicit assent to the doctrines therein laid down. If this were the case, the proposition would be untenable. There was a distinction which he felt bound to make between the matriculative subscription at Oxford and that which took place afterwards. He would take the lowest age to show what the intention was; a student of twelve years old matriculating at Oxford was required to subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles. Was it not absurd to sup pose that a boy of that age was to be taken as having fully and maturely considered every one of those Articles in such a way as to be able to give an entire and implicit assent to them all? The University never looked for or required any such thing. He was admitted simply upon the subscription, without having undergone any previous examination, with out any questions having been put to hit and without his even having heard the Articles read over. If such understanding on the part of a boy of that age could have been expected by the divines and statesmen and the statesmen in Queen Elizabeth time were divines, who were parties to
516
the enactment requiring the subscription, hey must have entirely lost their own understandings. A boy having thus been required to sign the Articles he was placed n the University books and transferred on a tutor, who was directed to instruct him in the rudiments of religion, and particularly in the Thirty-nine Articles. If it was to be expected that a boy should understand the articles at the moment he first signed them, it would be worse than ridiculous to direct immediately afterwards that he should be instructed in the rudiments of religion, and particularly in the Thirty-nine Articles. That being so, he pursued his studies for three or four years, under the immediate direction of his tutor; he was then called upon for a second subscription to the Articles; but was he allowed to subscribe to them in the same way as before? Certainly not. Although he had been studying the articles for three or four years under the direction of his tutor, and had proved his proficient knowledge of them by a public examination, yet the University did not allow him then to subscribe to them until they were read over in his presence by a proctor; and at that time he was required to declare that he agreed in the articles. His early subscription, therefore, was only a mark of his adherence to the Church of England, and that he was desirous of being instructed in the articles. Last year it was said, that this was an explanation given merely for the purpose of getting rid of a difficulty; and a right rev. Friend near him had been charged with Jesuitism for having brought forward such an explanation. On that occasion he had not taken much part in the Debate; however, he thought it but right that he should bear his share of the reproach. Since then, however, he had considered the subject more, and he had found that when this matter was debated in the House of Commons in 1783, much the same course had been taken by men who had always been considered as men of sense, and capable of drawing a sound inference. Lord North at that time stated exactly the same argument as he (the most rev. Prelate) had now used, as to the difference between the nature of the subscription required from the student in early and that in later years. Another objection had been raised, and that more particularly in reference to himself, as if he had acted simply upon the fact that no

517
subscription was required before a boy was twelve years of age. There was an age before which a child was not capable of forming a choice with respect to religion, and that was fully acknowledged by the rite of confirmation in our Church. In old times twelve years was the age at which children were called upon to take upon themselves the vows of their sponsors. Under certain circumstances children were received at confirmation at that age, now it was preferred that they should be a little older. By this Bill it was proposed that the student should be twenty-three years old or should have taken a degree, before he could be supposed capable of being called upon to subscribe satisfactorily the Thirty-nine Articles. That had been stated so clearly by the noble Lord, that it required not to be gone over again. Young men generally went to the University between the ages of seventeen and nineteen, and look their first degree from the ages of twenty to twenty-two; and he was of opinion that the Thirty-nine Articles, containing the rudiments of religion as taught in the Church of England, were in such language as might be fully understood by any young man of twenty-two or twenty-three years of age, who had obtained a liberal education, and studied in the University three or four years, so that he might be able fairly to give his assent to them. Some of those articles were founded on the natural principles of religion; others, though at first they might appear startling, were capable of being proved by a reference to Scripture; and who could wish for more than that they should be borne out by Scripture? Many of the doctrines of religion were far beyond comprehension, but they were sufficiently proved by being once brought to the test of Scripture. A young man taught, therefore, as he had pointed out, was to be expected at the age of twenty-two or twenty-three to be able to understand the Articles; and he would deny that calling upon such an individual to subscribe them was unreasonable. On the other hand, he would contend that it was most reasonable that the University should require a proof from those whom she admitted into her bosom that they had fulfilled her intentions, made themselves acquainted with those doctrines she taught, and imbibed those principles she endeavoured to instil. The University was bound to prove to the country that those whom she sent forth to the world
518
had made themselves acquainted with the doctrines of the National Church—not only that they had made themselves acquainted with them, but that they received them as true, and believed them to be consonant to the Scriptures. Thus much as to the unreasonableness of the subject; and he now came to the assertion that the subscription might tend to evil consequences. It might be supposed that in the course of three centuries (for he believed it was more than 250 years ago that subscription was introduced at Oxford,) the tendency whether good or evil, must have been fully developed, and he thought it had. To him the tendency appeared to be not to evil but to good consequences. The consequences which had been produced were, that during a space of nearly 300 years the Universities had preserved religion in all its purity; that polemical controversies had been banished from the seats of those sacred institutions, and that a succession of learned and well-principled men had been produced to fill all stations in the different professions of life, and in the several departments of the State. He deprecated therefore alteration in a system so fruitful of good. It was most desirable that the youth should be attached, not merely from habit, from prejudice derived from their parents or perhaps from their party, but from personal conviction, to the doctrines of the Church of England. He would venture to say, that as the doctrines of the Church were more fully understood, so would they be more highly and justly appreciated; and it required, but little knowledge of human nature to know that they would be studied with greater assiduity, with greater attention and interest, in proportion as the student was aware that he would be called upon to declare his assent to them at a certain period; that, just as he was aware of that, he would consider them more attentively, examine their language more nicely, be more ready to trace their connexion with Scripture, and be more anxious to fix them in his mind. It was most desirable that every man in the country should be acquainted with the principles of the religion he professed. There would then be much less heard of the prejudices that had been raised, some originating in malice, others in error and ignorance, against the Articles of our Church, and such knowledge among the higher classes

519
he sincerely believed would be promoted by a continuance of a subscription in the Universities. In this he could see nothing whatever that could tend to evil consequences, but fatal indeed in his apprehension, would be the consequences of this Bill, if it ever should be passed into a law. The sanction of that House, the sanction of Parliament, would then be given to a calumny against the Church, and against its fundamental principles. It would go forth to the world as the opinion of Parliament, that a peculiar creed of the Church was unfit for the assent of students, as being above their comprehension, or altogether unworthy of their belief; and that it regarded her peculiar doctrines not only with indifference but with disapprobation. The passing of this Bill would be the heaviest blow which had yet been inflicted upon the Church. It would be indirectly condemning her tenets, and pronouncing an assent to the proposition that those tenets were unreasonable and tending to evil consequences. When he entered the House he did not know the intention of this Bill—he did not know whether it was merely to relieve the members of the University from the necessity of subscription who, by the way, were not desirous of such relief, or whether it was intended to throw open the gates of the University to Dissenters. There was much to be said as to both. He did not accuse the noble Lord from what he had said of his approbation of certain Universities being open to the admission of Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Christians of every denomination, Pagans, and Mahometans, of a wish to admit Jews, Pagans, and Mahometans into the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge; but undoubtedly his statements might convey such a feeling to the minds of people. The present measure was one of the greatest importance, both with respect to our Church and Universities; and he called upon their Lordships to pause before they assented to an invasion of privileges which had been approved of for centuries, and to a disturbance of things which had and which still worked most beneficially. It was an interference with the discipline of the Universities without any charge of mismanagement, and that in a manner which threw a slur upon our Church, and a censure upon our Universities, for teaching a system of doctrine unfit to
520
receive the assent of those who were educated in our institutions. He would conclude by moving, that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.
The Bishop of Llandaffsaid, that the Noble Earl who moved the second reading of this Bill having been pleased to refer to some expressions of opinion which he (the Bishop of Llandaff) had made use of on a previous occasion, he begged to say a few words in explanation upon that point. The opinion which he had given, upon which the noble Earl had commented, was this; that the University of Oxford was not a national institution. He begged to explain that that opinion was expressed by him under very peculiar circumstances, at a time when the Universities were loudly challenged as having grossly neglected their duties to the public, and when they were compared to the Municipal Corporations of the kingdom, which were then especially under consideration. That comparison he (the Bishop of Llandaff) considered a very dangerous one, for he thought he saw material points of distinction between the constitution of Municipal Corporations and that of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. It was in reference to these distinguishing features that he had expressed himself to the effect that the Universities were not national institutions. If, in that declaration, he was understood to imply that the Government of the country had no right to interfere when they saw a case of necessity, and to do their best to render the University establishments more subservient to the good of the nation, he begged distinctly to disclaim such a meaning, for he agreed entirely that the Government or Legislature of the country had that right. He hoped, therefore that the noble Earl would allow him to retract what he had said so far as this explanation went; and if the noble Earl were content with this explanation he should be happy to let the controversy end where it was. Now as to the interference which the noble Earl proposed to introduce, through means of this Bill, into the management and discipline of the Universities, he really thought that interference quite uncalled for and unnecessary; and that the noble Earl's speech in supporting the measure—a speech by no means a short one—was throughout a mere attempt at fighting a shadow. The noble Earl said, that the heads of colleges, in administering this oath or declaration,

521
always said, that it was not required nor expected of the pupil to understand what he was subscribing to. Now, from his own experience, he would boldly contradict this assertion. Nobody in such a situation ever said or implied, by his manner, that it was not incumbent on the student to understand what he was professing to believe. Perhaps the difficulty on this ground might arise from the inaccurate definition applied to the word "understand." In his view of the matter the word understand in many cases, of which the present was one, did not mean a capacity to enter into all the proofs necessary to support the fact believed, nor so thorough a knowledge of all points of dispute as to enable the individual in question to undertake a controversial discussion upon the subject. There were many of the most ordinary truths in nature, many of the points in the Newtonian philosophy, which he fully believed, but which yet he did not feel in a condition to defend if they were disputed. So, in like manner, when the youth on entering the University declared his adherence to the Articles of the Church as established by law, what he then declared amounted to this, that he had hitherto been brought up in that religion of which those Articles were the profession, and that he was desirous of subscribing to the spirit of them, and of being educated in their doctrines. Again, the declaration which they made on this occasion was not like an oath. It was simply a declaration of the individual's belief at the time he made it, for the purpose of satisfying the heads of the college that he was a proper person to be admitted under their tuition. He thought it right to take notice of this point, when he looked to the wording of the preamble of the Bill, which, in using the word "implicit," declared that, "a full understanding was necessary in order to an implicit assent." The next point urged by the noble Earl was the hardship suffered by the Dissenters in being partially excluded from the Universities under the present arrangement. Now this, he must say, with all due respect, was a most futile complaint. He would refer to the opinion expressed on a former occasion by a noble Lord in that House, that religion was an indispensable part of a liberal education. It was well known that when the London University was established, there was a desire to include a religious course, if pos-
522
sible, amongst its advantages; but it was afterwards found to be impracticable to teach religion so as to admit all to the benefit of instruction. In order, therefore, to admit Dissenters of every shade of belief into its classes, the London University had been obliged to exclude religion; and in like manner, the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, in order to admit religion into their course of instruction, had been obliged to exclude Dissenters. Whilst on this point he regretted the late decision which the University of Oxford had come to in respect to this subject; he thought that the passing of a declaration of the sense in which the subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles was held by them, would have answered all the desired purpose. At the same time he thought the system pursued at Cambridge a very good one. There the pupil was admitted on the understanding that he had adopted the doctrines of the established religion of the country; and if at any time the individual was disposed to change his opinions upon the subject, he was at liberty to withdraw. Upon this arrangement it might be observed that the University was very liberal, as long as education only was concerned, but was closed against the nonconformist applicants as soon as any of the emoluments of the University were in question; but the noble Earl adopted this very principle when he proposed that no persons should participate in the affairs of the University until they had subscribed to the Thirty-nine Articles. He would not further detain their Lordships with remarks, but conclude by declaring his intention to support the Amendment which had been moved by the most reverend Prelate below him—that this Bill be read a second time that day six months.
The Bishop of Gloucester, considering the manner in which he had been connected with the University of Cambridge, was bound to mention the grounds on which he felt it his duty to vote for the Amendment of the most reverend Prelate, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. The noble Earl had stated, that the Bill in its present shape did not touch the University of Cambridge in the least, for that it commanded the University not to do what it had not been in the habit of doing. The noble Earl, however, proposed by his Bill to abolish a certain declaration made by those who were admitted to the degree of Bachelor of Arts

523
at Cambridge—that they were members of the Church of England as by law established. If, therefore, he thought it was likely that their Lordships would agree to the second reading of this Bill, he should reserve what he had to say on this point for the Committee; but as that was not likely, he should proceed to discuss it at once. It was quite true, as the noble Earl had stated, that the Universities had taken a different line in maintaining uniformity of religious opinion, but although no declaration should be required from the Bachelor of Arts when he proceeded to his degree, he would still have, before he was admitted to his degree of M.A. to subscribe to the three Articles of the 36th Canon, one of which involved an agreement to the Thirty-nine Articles. Connected as he was with the University of Cambridge, he much preferred the method which was there taken, in calling for the declaration of a student's religious belief, to that which was followed at Oxford. This might arise from prejudice, or, perhaps from other reasons; but he could not forget that the interests of both Universities were exactly the same, and that the blow which was aimed at one must affect and wound the other. A change had been made in the time of requiring subscription in the University of Cambridge, but this had originated with the authorities of the University themselves, or rather in a petition preferred by the young men, in which they stated, that at the time of proceeding to the degree of Bachelor of Arts, they had not sufficient time to weigh all the different points of doctrine contained in the Thirty-nine Articles, but that, at the same time, they were firmly persuaded of the truth of those doctrines, but wished their declaration of belief in them to be put in a different form. When he was an officer of the University he came into contact with some old members of the University, who had been parties to that change, and they declared, that in making it, it was not their intention, or the intention of the University, that any persons but such as were members of the Church, should be either admitted to degrees, or to the right of giving tuition. He believed it was very well known, that young men of talent, after taking their degree of Bachelor of Arts, devoted themselves to the tuition of the undergraduates, and it was evident that, from this connexion they must enjoy considerable influence over the minds of
524
their pupils. He looked, however, upon this Bill as the beginning of a series of measures equally hostile to the Universities and the Church, and he hoped their Lordships would allow him to say—and the remark was not one of to-day or yesterday—that whenever an attack was designed against the Church, the Universities were always the first object of assault. He did not mean to insinuate this intention against the noble Lord, who had expressly declared that his views were favourable to its prosperity; but the noble Lord must be well aware that the party who called out for admission into the Universities did so solely from the hope of getting appointed to headships, fellowships, and professorships. This was the course which had always been followed when the same object was to be attained. It was that which was taken by the long Parliament, in the reign of Charles 1st, in 1641 he believed, when one of the first measures directed against the Church was a declaration by the House of Commons that subscription to the three Articles of the 36th Canon was against the law and liberty of the subject, and ought not to be forced upon the members of the University. The consequence was, a fierce dispute in the University, and the University expelled those who would not subscribe. James 2nd, too, in the very first of the attacks he made on the Universities, sent down an order to the University of Cambridge to admit a person to a degree without subscription. This was exactly what was attempted to be done now. He would remind their Lordships that, if this Bill passed, the law of admission to the Universities would be in the most anomalous state possible. He would undertake to say, that more complaints would be heard upon this subject than were now made. The Table would be covered with the complaints of Dissenters, stating that they had been allowed to proceed a certain way; but when they became candidates for the honour of a fellowship, they were obliged to take the degree of M.A., and to subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles. He was afraid, that after the introduction of controversial habits among the young men of the University, it would be idle to expect the same attention which was now devoted to liberal and scientific pursuits, and he was therefore favourable to the practice of keeping out of view, as much as possible, matters which would, lead to

525
religious controversy. It had been said, that no bad consequences had resulted from the matriculation of some young Dissenters at Cambridge, without requiring them to subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles. He had observed this circumstance with pleasure, and as far as he had the opportunity of judging, he was bound to admit that no bad consequences had ensued from their admission. But these instances were very few, and when they were admitted, it was not as Dissenters, and indeed many of them afterwards took degrees, and professed themselves members of the Church of England. Others, it was true, left the University without taking a degree, but while they remained in it they participated in its privileges, not on a tacit but an express condition of attendance at lectures, religious as well as others, and at College Chapel, and till they left the University, it was not known, except perhaps to a few private friends, what their own religious opinions, or those of their family, were. He repeated, then, that he was glad that the Dissenters did, in some instances, join in communion with members of the Established Church at the University of Cambridge, but once admit this to be a right, and the case would be entirely reversed. The University would then, instead of being looked up to as a standard of the correctness of religious belief to members of the Established Church, be filled with popular and ardent preachers of the different hostile persuasions, and their Lordships might depend upon it, that the attention of the young men would be more occupied with these controversies than with the subjects which now engaged their minds. The noble Earl must be aware that the measure he proposed was too small and too short to stop here. The noble Earl might destroy subscription, but that would not prevent the adoption of other tests by most of the colleges, if not all; and that the only consequence of the success of the noble Earl's Bill would be, that perhaps one or two colleges in both Universities might admit Dissenters, which would shortly be deserted by all who belonged to the Established Church. Now what would be gained by this? Would it not be better that the Dissenters should endow an University of their own, on the same footing as Oxford and Cambridge, and run a fair and liberal course of competition with them? He did not and could not admit
526
that our Universities were not nurseries for the Church of England. They always had been, and he hoped they always would be so. But if once the Dissenters were admitted there, they would no longer be places for the education of members of the Church of England.
Viscount Melbournesaid, he was unwilling to give a vote, as he should do, in favour of this Bill, without addressing to their Lordships a few words. With respect to his opinion as to the propriety or impropriety of admitting Dissenters into the Universities, it was unnecessary for him now to go into that part of the question, because in the course of last Session he voted for a Bill which distinctly bore on the present question, and the object of which was to favour the introduction of Dissenters into the Universities. Having voted for that Bill clearly and distinctly—having voted for the question in that shape, he would say he by no means agreed with the right reverend Prelate who spoke last, that it was desirable for tranquillity, for religious peace, that an attempt should be made to put an end to the differences which existed between these classes of his Majesty's subjects, by the division of the parties, by founding distinct Universities for them, instead of inviting them to one place in common, where they would probably become united, where the habits of youth and their pursuit of the same studies would probably exercise a strong influence over them. He was sorry to hear such a proposition as the establishment of separate Universities proceed from such a quarter.
The Bishop of Gloucestersaid, the noble Lord mistook what he had stated on the subject. He had observed that it was to him a subject of satisfaction that the University to which he belonged had the power of extending the benefits of education to Dissenters, if they chose to accept it on the conditions which it was considered necessary to impose.
Viscount Melbourneunderstood the right reverend Prelate to say, that it would be better for the Dissenters to institute Universities of their own than to endeavour to obtain admission into the University to which he belonged. From that opinion he must express his dissent. With respect to the facility afforded by the University of Cambridge to the admission of Dissenters, he agreed with the right reverend Prelate, he knew that it had been pro-

527
ductive of great advantage, and he thought it full time that such liberality was imitated by the sister University. He had listened with great attention to the opinions expressed by the most reverend Prelate who stood at the head of the Church. That most reverend Prelate said, that if the subscription were to be considered as an assent to the Thirty-nine Articles—as an admission of them after they had been carefully examined—that would be quite absurd; and in that case he should agree in all the censures and animadversions that had been cast on the practice. The most reverend Prelate also said, that the parties were desired to subscribe without a question being asked of them, without any examination on the subject—without even the Articles being read to them. If he had wanted the strongest statement he could get to show the gross absurdity of the practice, he must say he would ask for no stronger one than the statement made by the most reverend Prelate on the present occasion. Well, then, if this declaration of opinion to the heads of the University—if it were only a declaration of a willingness to be taught—if it were only a declaration that they were disposed to be instructed in the matter of the articles, why continue a practice which was evidently so absurd in itself?—why, for the sake of preserving it, submit to so much misrepresentation. Why maintain that which was liable to be so attacked, and complained of as it had been, and he was afraid with much justice by his noble Friend. The most reverend Prelate said that the University owed it to itself that it should have proof that those who applied for admission belonged to the Church of England—that it should have proof that the individual was willing to be taught the doctrine of the Church. But what proof, he would ask, existed in this subscription as it had been explained by the most reverend Prelate himself? [The Archbishop of Canterbury: That was the first subscription.] Very well; it was the first subscription; then why not give up that? Why not go that length, which was all that was asked on this subject? At least that was absurd, as appeared on the statement of the most reverend Prelate himself; and undoubtedly there was a great deal more to be said with respect to the subscription required in the further progress in the University. The most reverend Prelate declared, that
528
by pursuing this course the University was preserved in the true religion of this country; and, above all, it had preserved the Universities from being the scene of polemical controversy. Now what was the fact with respect to the tranquillity of these Universities? Both of them had been over and over again disturbed by polemical discussion, but particularly Cambridge which had been agitated in the beginning of the last century. Did not the year 1710 furnish a celebrated instance? Was not that respectable individual, Mr. Wilson, who was a professor, turned out of his University on account of Arian principles? Was not that followed by the controversy between Dr. Waterford and Mr. Middleton, at Oxford. Who did not recollect the great schism which distracted the Church, and out of which sprung the great body of Wesleyan Dissenters? It appeared, then, that the repose mentioned by the most reverend Prelate as a proof of the advantages of the present system, it had not been the good fortune of the Universities to enjoy. If to abstain from religious controversy were a virtue, that virtue had unquestionably not been the boast of the Universities in former times. Why, what did Bacon say in his "Novum Organon" in the passage in which he spoke of ecclesiastical controversy? Strepere argumentis sonare questianibus. Was repose, so desirable at a University? Was nothing at all taught by the emulation and excitement which controversy produced? How was inquiry to be stimulated—how was knowledge to be obtained—so well as by the collision of various and conflicting opinions, Little was his reading in divinity; but he might refer to the effect of controversy on divinity, in those times when the tests originated. If there ever were a man on whom the pure light of knowledge shown, it was Hooker, and what said he? The passage he meant to refer to was in the first book of Ecclesiastical Polity? In arguing on an occasion when several Dissenters were anxious to have a conference, Hooker said, "What need is there of appointing a conference, have you not the University?" He remembered the passage very well, it thus proceeded, "There are many solemn occasions on which all the questions between us and you are brought into dispute; many of you are members of the Universities, and if there are any who are

529
not, and who would appear, you well know that by the courtesy of those learned bodies and learned men, you would be received with welcome, and attentively heard." That was the nature and character of the Universities of that day. They were open to inquiry; they courted investigation; and sought to defend the faith that was in them by argument. They did not seek repose—they did not seek to banish inquiry—they did not claim for themselves a protection against controversy; but, on the contrary, were ready to dispute with any adversaries who presented themselves. It was stated, and perhaps this was the strongest argument urged against the Bill, that if it were passed perhaps it might not prove effectual, because it was certain that the Universities having inherent in themselves, the power to adopt such regulations as they thought decorous might resolve upon something which would be equivalent to the exclusive regulation which was done away with by this Bill. He could not think, however, that the Universities would so conduct themselves after receiving such an admonition from Parliament as this Bill would be considered. Therefore he could not think it would be ineffectual for the purposes for which it was intended. To legislate for the Universities unnecessarily and wantonly would be bad: but it was generally admitted, that this practice should be to a certain degree dispensed with, and he felt pretty certain that they would not dispense with it of themselves. It was for the wisdom of Parliament to prescribe the course on such an occasion. The Universities were the great public seminaries for education; and their being well directed, the prudence of their conduct, and their freedom from reproach were matters of great public interest—of great interest to their Lordships and to the whole community. Surely, then, it was the duty of their Lordships to interpose their authority, and by adopting the Bill they would in his opinion strengthen the influence of the Universities, and much increase their utility.
The Duke of Wellingtonthought that the observations of the most reverend Prelate had completely put an end to the question. The Bill which the noble Earl had brought forward was entirely different from that which was introduced last Session. The speech of the noble Earl, however, and the explanation with which he
530
introduced the measure, showed that his intention was precisely the same with the intention of the promoter of the former Bill. The noble Earl's intention—and the noble Lord at the head of the Government had clearly stated this intention to be also his—was, to give the Dissenters a right to enter the Universities. That was the intention of the noble Earl, and that was the intention of the Prime Minister. Now he had an objection to the Bill of the noble Earl for the reason stated by the most reverend Prelate. He conceived there was no cause to complain of the subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles, as practised in the University of Oxford. He would say that the explanation of the most reverend Prelate was entirely borne out by the statutes of the University, and likewise by the practice which had prevailed there. It might be desirable that there should be some other test adopted, in order to prove that the individual claiming to be matriculated was a member of the Church of England; but that which was most important at Cambridge and Oxford was, that the person to be matriculated was a member of the Church of England. That was the point; and upon that he conceived the whole question turned. The noble Earl, in his observations, alluded to something that fell from him in the course of the discussion of this question last year, viz., that he advised the most reverend Prelate not to consent to this Bill, because by such consent they would carry up to the Throne for his Majesty's assent, a measure which would tend to subvert the union between the Church and the State. That argument was neither more nor less than this—that the education of both the Universities must be education in the religion of the Church of England. That was necessary—it was the very foundation on which the Universities stood. He contended that they could not go to the King with a Bill that had for its object to establish a system of education in the Universities different in principle from the Church of England, without attacking the principle of union between the Church and State. But the noble Lord said, that the Church did not claim from individuals any subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles. True, it did not; nor would the University of Oxford claim the subscription of the Thirty-nine Articles, except as evidence that the person was a member of a family who belonged to the Established Church.

531
It was contended last year, and by the noble Earl this year, that individuals might be admitted into both the Universities who were not members of the Church of England, notwithstanding the Subscription of the Thirty-nine Articles. He admitted this; but there was a great difference between this and allowing Dissenters by right to enter the Universities. What he contended for was, that the system of religion taught should be that of the Established Church; but if Dissenters were admitted of right, he was apprehensive that not only would not the religion of the Established Church be taught, but that no religion of any kind would be taught there. He stated this opinion on the authority of a publication, from which it appeared, that at a college established to teach ministers of dissenting persuasions it had been found impossible to adopt any creed or any system for any considerable length of time. He confessed he was surprised when he heard the noble Lord the first Minister of the Crown come down to this House and declare his preference for the existence of polemical disputes in the Universities. He should have thought the object of a Minister of the Crown would have been, by all means to protect the Universities from all such disputes, and to preserve any system of religion whatever from being attacked by differences of opinion. He confessed that it appeared to him that the Bill of the noble Earl, if it had really for its object to prevent the signature of the Articles, did not go far enough for the attainment of the object the noble Earl had in view. As was truly stated by the noble Viscount, the Universities were enabled to make regulations respecting the taking of degrees, which might interfere with a Bill like the present; the Colleges, indeed, by the will of their founders, and by their original charters, were compelled to make certain regulations on this subject, under which they acted. If this measure, therefore, passed, they would have to take other measures to insure the object they intended to attain by the signature of the Thirty-nine Articles. The noble Earl had not only compared the two Universities with foreign Universities, but also drew a parallel between the practice prevailing at the present day, and that which existed in those two learned bodies shortly after the Reformation. Now, he agreed with the most reverend Prelate in contending that no parallel
532
could be drawn between the English and Foreign Universities. The sects in the two Universities were the children of the Reformation. These sects were most necessary, and were intended to preserve the standard of the religion of the Church of England. If they were to have no established religion in the country—if every man was to have his own religion in the Universities—if every man was at liberty to frame a system of religion for himself in these corporations, then let their Lordships take the Bill of the noble Earl with all its consequences, which must inevitably follow from it, namely, constant polemical disputes, and all the other consequences which the noble Viscount regarded as proper for the Universities. Supposing the object of the noble Earl to be just, and supposing it to be desirable to put an end to these subscriptions and to all tests, he (the Duke of Wellington) conceived that no mode of effecting that object could be deemed so objectionable in its nature as by the interference of Parliament with those bodies, instituted as they were by charter, and solemn y sanctioned by Acts of Parliament. He thought that those who contended in favour of the Universities had a right to complain when they found arrayed against them the Ministers of the Crown and the policy of the Government. They had a right to expect that the noble Viscount, and the other noble Lords on the bench opposite, would support inviolate the rights, the authority, and the privileges of the Universities, as granted and conferred by ancient charters. Instead of this, however, they found the Ministers of the Crown exercised their power, their influence and abilities in support of this measure, which had for its object the overthrow of the institutions and authority of the English Church. The noble Viscount shook his head, apparently in dissent from his opinions; but did the noble Viscount think that the University of Oxford could maintain its authority if such a Bill as this became the law of the land? On what, he would ask, was the preamble of this Bill grounded, and the charges embodied in it? Had any of those charges been proved? Notwithstanding the complaints made in the preamble that individuals had been prevented from resorting to the University of Oxford, in consequence of these tests, was it not an admitted fact that at that moment there were hundreds waiting to

533
obtain education, and to be admitted to reside in the Halls and Colleges of that University? There were many hundreds of persons now residing in the town who were unable to get residences in the various Colleges of Oxford. He contended, therefore, that there was no ground for the complaint as stated in the preamble of the Bill, and there was no ground for Parliamentary interference by means of a Bill like the present. He entirely concurred in the statement made by the most reverend Prelate as to the consequences that would flow from this measure. Would any man tell him that he believed, after this Bill passed, that the public would not understand that the meaning of it was, to proceed against the institutions of the Church of England. It was impossible that this should not be believed. The measure itself was apparent on the face of it, although it merely stated, that the Articles of the Church should be signed at a more advanced age. Noble Lords, however, must know that the Bill was not effectual for the purpose which was contended for. It extended to other views: those who attentively considered the measure would perceive that the great object of it was, to inflict a blow on the University of Oxford and against the interests of the Church. Under these circumstances he felt that it was a measure that the House should not adopt, and he earnestly recommended their Lordships to vote for the amendment of the most reverend Prelate.
The Earl of Radnorwas understood in reply to say, that if the Universities persisted in making the pupils subscribe the Articles, they ought, at any rate, to state the circumstances of each case: for instance, that one lad was aged twelve years, and understood them; another aged fourteen, and did not; a third, aged sixteen, and had not read them; and so on. This would not be liable to the objections the present mode was open to. The original object of having tests was to exclude the Roman Catholics from the Universities. At the time they were enforced, a number of Catholics were secretly living in the Universities, and yet were not directly connected with any of the colleges. The tests were first introduced in 1681. He would not detain the House; but he protested against the interpretation put on the Bill by the noble Duke.
Viscount Melbournewished to say a
534
few words in explanation of what had previously fallen from him. He did not intend to express any disapprobation of the Thirty-nine Articles. He thought, considering the time they were drawn, that they embraced much that was excellent and wise, but at the same time they contained much which he could not help thinking was unnecessary in the present day. For instance, in one of them it was denied that it was a doctrine of Christians to have a community of goods; in another it was asserted that the magistrates had a right to punish for civil offences; and in a third, that it was lawful to go to war. These opinions it might be necessary to insert in the Articles at the time they were framed; but it did not appear to him to be necessary to retain them. With these exceptions he thought that they were excellent, and were drawn up with great prudence, wisdom, and moderation.
The Duke of Richmondmerely wished to say a very few words in explanation of the reasons which would induce him to vote for the second reading of the Bill. He was anxious to do so to prevent any misapprehension arising as to the motives which induced him to pursue the course he intended to follow. He denied that this Bill, if passed, could be construed into an attack on the Church establishment of the country or the Thirty-nine Articles. If he thought so he would not support it, but he felt that it was absurd to call upon the youth at the Universities to subscribe to the Articles of the Church before he could be aware of their nature. He was an advocate for the admission of Dissenters to the Universities, because he believed, that by their being sent there it was probable that many of them would be converted to what he, in his conscience, believed to be the true faith, namely, that of the Protestant Church of England. He was of opinion that there should be some tests as regarded the tutors, but none to be taken by the pupils. He thought if the Bill went into Committee that his noble Friend would find that the second clause of it required some amendment. He thought that great caution should be taken as to the tutors appointed in the Universities.
Their Lordships divided.
Contents present 28; Not-contents present 85–57. Contents proxies 29; Not-contents proxies 78–Majority 106.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.—PRESENT.

DUKES.

Hay(Earl of Kinnoul)

Cumberland

Boston

Leeds

Camden (Earl of Brecknock)

Newcastle

Wellington

Montagu

MARQUESSES.

Kenyon

Salisbury

Douglas

Hertford

Gage (Viscount Gage)

Bute

Saltersford (Earl of Courtown)

Cholmondeley

Westmeath

Northwick

Camden

Farnham

EARLS.

Dufferin

Westmorland

Redesdale

Shaftesbury

Sheffield (Earl of Sheffield)

Abingdon

Jersey

Colchester

Poulett

Ker (Marquis of Lothian)

Morton

Ormonde (Marquess of Ormonde)

Selkirk

Maryborough

Orkney

Oriel (Vist. Ferrers)

Aylesford

Ravensworth

De Lawarr

Forester

Hillsborough (Marquess of Downshire)

Downes

Bexley

Digby

Penshurst (Viscount Strangford)

Bexley

Mansfield

Wharncliffe

Carnarvon

Lyndhurst

Caledon

Tenterden

Rosslyn

Cowley

Romney

Skelmersdale

Wilton

Wallace

Limerick

De Lisle

Lonsdale

Fitzgerald

Harewood

Ashburton

Verulam

ARCHBISHOP.

Brownlow

Canterbury

Beauchamp

BISHOPS.

Glengall

London

De Grey

Lincoln

Amherst

St. David's

VISCOUNTS.

Carlisle

Maynard

Rochester

Gordon,(Earl of Aberdeen)

Llandaff

Exmouth

Gloucester

Combermere

Exeter

Canterbury

Hereford

BARONS.

Elphin

Saltoun

Colville

PROXIES.

DUKES.

EARLS.

Beaufort

Pembroke

Rutland

Chesterfield

Manchester

Doncaster (Duke of Buccleuch)

Dorset

Northumberland

Howe

Buckingham

Airlie

MARQUESSES.

Leven

Bath

Macclesfield

Thomond

Warwick

Exeter

Guilford

536

Hardwicke

Braybrooke

Bathurst

Stewart of Garlies

Norwich (Duke of Gordon)

(Earl of Galloway)

Rolle

Talbot

Carrington

Mount Edgecumbe

Bayning

Malmesbury

Wodehouse

Mount Cashel

Ellenborough

O'Neil

Arden

Onslow

Ardrossan (Earl of Eglintoun)

Clancarty

Powis

Manners

Manvers

Hopetown (Earl of Hopetown)

Orford

Bradford

Churchill

Eldon

Harris

Somers

Clanbrassil (Earl of Roden)

VISCOUNTS.

Hereford

De Tabley

Arbuthnot

Feversham

Strathallan

Melros (Earl of Haddington)

Melville

Sidmouth

Heytesbury

Beresford

Clanwilliam (Earl of Clanwilliam)

BARONS.

De Roos

ARCHBISHOPS.

Willoughby do Broke

York

Forbes

Tuam

Grey

BISHOPS.

Sinclair

Durham

Monson

Winchester

Walsingham

Salisbury

Bagot

Lichfield

Southampton

Worcester

Grantley

Chester

Tyrone (Marquess of Waterford)

List of the CONTENTS.—PRESENT.

DUKE.

Lilford

Richmond

Melbourne (Viscount Melbourne)

MARQUESS.

Lansdowne

Foley

EARLS.

Minster (Marquess Conyngham)

Suffolk

Ilehester

Brougham and Vaux

Charlemont

Kenlis (Marquess of Headfort)

Chichester

Minto

Clements (Earl of Leitrim)

Gosford

Lichfield

Howden

Radnor

Mostyn

VISCOUNT.

Duncannon (Viscount Duncannon)

Torrington

BARONS.

Glenelg

Teynham

Strafford

Howland(Marquess of Tavistock)

BISHOPS.

Chichester

Holland

Bristol

Auckland

PROXIES.

DUKES.

MAKQUESS.

Sussex

Anglesey

Portland

EARLS.

Bedford

Shrewsbury

Norfolk

Mulgrave

537

Spencer

Plunket

Burlington

Poltimore

Essex

Stourton

Carlisle

Gainsborough

VISCOUNTS.

Saye and Seale

Hood

Dorchester

Leinster (Duke of Leinster)

Templemore

Mendip (Viscount Clifden)

Lake

King

BARONS.

Godolphin

Carleton (Earl of Shannon)

Tunbridge (Duke of Argyl)

BISHOP.

Lyttleton

Bath and Wells.

Dacre

Second reading put off for six months.