Sitting of 12 February 1836

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a first time:—Prisoners' Counsel.
Petitions presented. By Mr. BRODIE, from Gosport, in favour of Mr. BUCKINGHAM'S Claims; by Sir J. BECKETT, from Licensed Victuallers at Leeds, Complaining of the increased Duty.—By Mr. G. F. YOUNG, from the Thames Watermen, that Steam Vessels might not come above Greenwich.—By Mr. PEASE, from Darlington, in favour of Mr. BUCKINGHAM'S Claims.

CHURCH-RATES.
Mr. Wilkspresented a Petition from Dissenters of Great Marlow, against Church-rates, and stating some circumstances of peculiar and individual hardship.
Sir William Clayton: I support most cordially the prayer of the petition presented by the hon. Member for Boston. The House will, I trust, permit me to occupy their attention for a few moments on this subject, which, in point of fact, is not only interesting to every Dissenter, but to every member of the Established Church. In consequence of the especial directions of the Church authorities, an Act was passed for establishing a new church at Marlow. The trustees for carrying this Act into execution, of which I was one, frequently applied to the Dean and Chapter of Gloucester for pecuniary assistance, to enable them to proceed in the work. After repeated applications, the Dean and Chapter promised a donation of 30 l. I must here beg to call the attention of the Government to the point at issue— a Government which I have for many years supported, because I have been convinced that their measures are founded on justice, liberality, and true Christian principles; I feel a confidence, therefore, that they will, in consequence, be of opinion that some remedy shall be immediately applied to the grievances of which complaint is so generally made throughout the kingdom. The Dean and Chapter of Gloucester receive 1,000 l. per annum from the parish of Marlow in money, in the shape of tithes, out of which they pay the vicar 72 l. per annum for the cure of nearly 7,000 souls. The parish, therefore, contributing thus largely towards the support of the Church Establishment, are now compelled by a church-rate, be it observed, under the power of the Act I have before alluded to, again to contribute, and that for forty years to come, an enormous sum towards the support of that Church which they consider the l,000 l. per annum, which they pay to the Dean and Chapter should defray. This week a Church-rate
332
has been called, equal in amount to two Poor-rates, and also one Poor-rate has been called. Thus the labourer who earns 9s. per week, rated at the lowest sum, will have to pay 8s. this week, viz. 5s. 4d. as Church-rate, and as Poor-rate 2s, 8d. Thus depriving him of the whole of his weekly earnings, and in fact bringing ruin into his family. To the agriculturist also it is a most severe impost; and in consequence very great discontent every where prevails, not only amongst my constituents but in very many parts of England. If an execution under a warrant from a magistrate takes place, no one will sell or buy: this has been the state of Ireland. As a sincere friend to the Protestant Established Church, I view this state of things with considerable apprehension, because I observe that it is working a certain overthrow. The Ecclesiastical revenue should be made to support the Church, and I think it is unjust that the people should be taxed twice over for the same purpose. I earnestly hope, therefore, that the Government will very soon take the whole matter into their serious consideration, and remove the very oppressive system which now exists.
Petition laid on the Table.

THE ORANGE SYSTEM IN IRELAND.
Mr. Finnrose, in pursuance of the notice he had given, to propose a Resolution relating to the Orange System in Ireland. His anxious wish to promote the peace and happiness of Ireland, as well as to vindicate the character of the Government, led him to the performance of what he must call a very painful duty. He hoped that he should be able to perform that duty honestly and firmly to his constituents, and temperately and courteously towards those from whom, on this subject, he was obliged to differ. He hoped that the House would extend its patient indulgence towards him whilst he assured it that the system which he now wished to extinguish was that baneful system under which Ireland had been governed during the last forty years. Before he entered into the consideration of the question at large, he would ask leave to vindicate his own character and that of the Committee which had been appointed on his Motion last Session, from the aspersions which had been thrown upon them by a paper, purporting to be a Report emanating from the Grand Orange

333
Lodge of Ireland. That Lodge was at the head of a very powerful body. He believed that one half of the Protestants of the Established Church of Ireland, who were of adult age, were Orangemen. Of the Yeomanry corps of Ireland, consisting of 27,000 men, 25,000 were Orangemen; and of the Police-force, which amounted to 7,000 or 8,000, he believed that between 5,000 and 6,000 were enrolled in Orange lodges. Among Grand Jurors, Petty Jurors, Magistrates, Sheriffs, and Sub-sheriffs, it was impossible for any man unacquainted with the details to conjecture to what extent Orangeism prevailed. The House must perceive the deplorable consequences that necessarily flowed from such a state of things, when they recollected that the Orange system was one of deadly hostility to the great mass of the population. [" No! no!"] If hon. Gentlemen opposite would have the kindness to hear him out, he thought he should be able to prove it, if not to their satisfaction, at least to the satisfaction of every impartial mind that had not been deluded and contaminated by the principles of Orangeism. The professed object of this Lodge was for the purpose of keeping alive feelings of loyally and attachment to the Crown, and supporting the real interests of religion; and yet, could it be credited, consistently with such a character drawn by itself, that no Roman Catholic could be a member of that Lodge; nay, that no Roman Catholic who had recanted and who had trampled upon and calumniated the religion of his fathers for interested objects, would be admitted into its sanctuary, unless he were recommended by the unanimous approval of the members. He would, however, say no more at present on the subject of the constitution of the society, but proceed to vindicate himself and the Committee from the declaration, as it is called, of the Orange Lodge of Ireland, with reference to the conduct of that Committee. The charge was contained in a Report of the Committee of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, which had been published in the Dublin Evening Mail, and copied into the newspapers of this country. The document was authenticated by the name of the hon Member for Cavan (Mr. H. Maxwell; grand secretary of the Orange Society, He undertook to show that the imputation; contained in this Report were perfectly unfounded, The Meeting of the Grand
334
Lodge, at which this Report had been read, was very numerously attended—500 members (more than ever assembled before) being present. Among these were several Members of Parliament—Lord Cole, the Earl of Roden, both the Members for Sligo, and the Members for Cavan and Drogheda. The Report stated that a Parliamentary Committee was appointed on his Motion, and added, that "the Committee was not one from which impartiality could have been expected. It consisted predominantly of those who had repeatedly prejudged our case, and to whom the very excellencies of our institution—its Protestant character, its uncompromising loyalty, and its tendency to consolidate the Union of Great Britain and Ireland, must naturally have been a cause of offence, or a ground of objection." Now, how did the fact stand? When he submitted his Motion to the House, the list of the Committee consisted of thirteen Orangemen and Tories, and of fourteen Catholics, Whigs and Liberals. It was stated that the majority of the Committee consisted of persons opposed to the Orange Society, on account of religion—" its Protestant character;" it would not be difficult to show how perfectly unfounded was this assertion. He believed that conscientious Protestants professed that their religion was a thing belonging not to this but the other world; on the contrary, it seemed that the religion of Orangemen, was solely confined to earth—a religion of loaves and fishes. If so, it would be understood how the Orange religion might afford "cause of offence" to others besides Catholics. But the Report insinuated that a majority of the Committee were Repealers, whereas of twenty-seven Members only three were for a Repeal of the Union, those individuals being himself, the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, and the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary. Was that a majority of Repeaters? He repeated that the Committee consisted of thirteen Orangemen, or supporters of Orangeism, and of fourteen others of whom, excluding the chairman, nine were Protestant Whigs, and four Catholics. Changes took place in the Committee from time to time, but they were made at the special request of Gentlemen opposite, or in consequence of official appointments. There was no alteration in the proportion of parties. One name that he saw upon, the List of the Committee filled him with

335
unaffected sorrow-he alluded to the late Lord Milton, the worthy son of a worthy sire. If the nobility of the country generally resembled that excellent young nobleman, no misunderstanding or want of sympathy would exist between them and the people. There was not a single suggestion relative to the Constitution of the Committee to which he did not accede at once. The hon. Member for Armagh was originally nominated, but declined to serve, and on his subsequently expressing a wish to be put upon the Committee, the Members thought that he had no claim. The hon. Member thought he had a right to a seat on the Committee, as he had been personally assailed, but to the Members of the Committee that seemed to constitute a reason why the hon. Gentleman should not be placed on it.
Having stated the constitution of the Committee he asked whether it was one that could be fairly accused of hostility to Protestant institutions, or of an anxiety to sever the union between Ireland and this country? He had shown that this was no just description of the character of the Committee. Yet this document went forth to 1,600 or 1,800 Orange Lodges, and was read by men who never saw a newspaper, and, meeting with no contradiction of the statement, thought that the House of Commons was acting unjustly, and were therefore disposed to treat its proceedings with contempt. The Report next proceeded to impugn the conduct of the Committee, and set forth, that "when the Committee assembled, it appeared that our adversaries were not prepared to enter upon their case, and we were therefore placed in the singular predicament of accused persons called upon to make their defence before they were made acquainted with the crimes of which they were accused, or the nature of the evidence by which the charges against them were to be supported." The course taken was adopted in consequence of the suggestion of the Orangemen themselves. ["No! no!"] He asserted that such was the case. The hon. Member for Armagh, a grand master of the Society, proposed to go into the Orange case first. The Report slated, "that our laws and regulations were referred to in proof of the Christian spirit by which we are actuated; instances were brought forward of individuals having been expelled from our body whose only offence was a violation of that law which
336
enjoins universal charity; and we defied our enemies to produce a single instance to justify the very erroneous impressions which prevailed to our prejudice, by which intolerant and persecuting sentiments were ascribed to us—sentiments directly opposed to the spirit of our order, and most abhorrent to the feelings of our members." This affectation of peace, charity, and brotherly love was absurd in the face of the knowledge that we possessed of the irritating processions, party toasts, and offensive tunes of the Orangemen. The next allegation of the Report was the following:—"And here our adversaries upon the Committee interposed, by intimating that as they were then prepared to go on with their case, the further examination of our witnesses should be for a time suspended. Our friends expostulated against this, as being not only unfair, but contrary to what had been expressly agreed on; but they were silenced by the proposition, that after the evidence against us had been heard, we should be permitted to make a rebutting case—that our witnesses, who were then dismissed, should be resummoned—and that we should be at liberty to adduce any further evidence which might be available for the defence of our institution." He must here state the reason why the Committee put an end to those proceedings. They had had the rev. Mortimer O'Sullivan before them for five or six days, and by his evidence that gentleman attempted, not to vindicate the Orange Lodges, but to prove by Latin, Greek and Hebrew quotations, that every Roman Catholic was in principle a murderer and perjurer. The rev. gentleman quoted, among other authorities, Dens' Theology, of which he had never heard before. "Whilst this was proceeding, he heard it stated out of doors, that the inquiry into the Orangeism of the army was to be stifled, and that the object was to prevent the Committee from making a Report. The fact was, that, in the first instance, he and his friends had proposed Mr. Ward as Chairman of the Committee, but they were defeated, for Mr. Wilson Patten was chosen. The Orange party succeeded in beating the Liberals on every division, and, in fact, the proceedings of the Committee were only restrained by the force of public opinion. He put the Member for Middlesex in possession of the discoveries made with regard to the army, and after the result of the hon.

337
Gentleman's Motion, the Orange party abandoned their attempt to stifle the Report, and extended the inquiry. The Report proceeded—"The brethren are, we believe, aware that this pledge, on the part of the Committee, was never redeemed. The remainder' of the Session was consumed in the examination of a host of witnesses, the known enemies of the institution, whose object it was to blacken our character, and criminate our principles; and the Committee closed their labours without having given us any opportunity of correcting the error or refuting the calumnies of our ill-informed or malevolent accusers; and thus debarring us of the privilege of making known the whole of our case, and leaving untouched many points which would have satisfied even the most prejudiced of the excellency and utility of our institution." This accusation was as groundless as the preceding: he asserted, and believed it would be admitted that he had proved, the proceedings of the Committee to be perfectly fair towards the Orange party. The Orangemen said—"We were prepared by the most unquestionable evidence, to give the Committee an insight into the diabolical system of Ribandism, by which this country is at present distracted. We were prepared to show the atrocious and treasonable character of this conspiracy, the dreadful nature of its oaths, and the bloodthirsty malignity of its denunciations. We were prepared to show that this confederacy is not confined to the lower orders, but extends to individuals holding a respectable place in society, and, in some instances, lays claim to a connexion with Members of Parliament. We were prepared to prove that individuals of great consideration have availed themselves of the organization of this band of miscreants for the purpose of forwarding their views at contested elections; and that, again, the leaders of the Ribandmen have availed themselves of the countenance thus afforded for the purpose of consolidating and extending their system until it has now reached the length and the breadth of the land. All this we had witnesses in readiness to prove, and when it is considered that to many these facts would have afforded a most complete justification of our institution, and that much of our adversaries' case consisted in attempts, by indirect, second-hand, and hear say evidence, to prove that either the
338
Riband system had no existence whatsoever, that it was confined entirely to the lowest class of the peasantry, and that no person of the rank of a gentleman ever was connected with it, we do think that we have much reason to complain of having been debarred the opportunity of putting upon record a plain statement of indisputable facts, by which the most confident amongst our enemies would have been confounded. 0"He called upon the Orange party, if their loyalty were not merely conditional, to prove to the satisfaction of the Government the existence of treasonable societies in Ireland, and he had no doubt the Attorney-General would order a prosecution. He had done with the accusations contained in the Report of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland. In reference to the charges made against the Orange Society, the Report treated the matter very lightly,—there were no charges of any consequence adduced against Orangeism—merely a sort of petty treason. It was true, according to the Report, that warrants had been issued to hold lodges in the army; there were about fifty regiments thus circumstanced. Passing over that part of the subject, he would proceed to show that the society had interfered with the administration of justice in Ireland. A person of the name of Richards, an Orangeman, was brought to trial for the murder of a poor man, and the friends of the prisoner called upon Mr. Bridge, a Dissenting clergyman, to give him a character. Mr. Bridge refused, whereupon a party of Orangemen went to his chapel for three Sundays, and on the third attempted his life, because he would not come forward in behalf of an Orange murderer. The Protestant rector and curate went to a place of worship which they had never entered before, to use their influence for the prisoner, and, finally, Mr. Bridge was hunted from the parish. Another Orangeman had robbed a Catholic chapel, an act which hon. Gentlemen opposite might not consider sacrilege; and in spite of his own confession and the charge of, the Judge who tried him, the Jury acquitted the prisoner. To prove the influence of party spirit on men of station and respectability in Ireland, he referred to the evidence of Colonel Blacker, who appeared before the Committee as a witness on the other side, A man, named Bell, was executed, under Lord Ellenborough's Act, for two atrocious

339
attempts on the life of a fellow creature, and the following evidence was given by Colonel Blacker in reference to the transaction:—
"The case of one Saunders Bell has been mentioned to the Committee, do you know any thing about it?—I do.
"He is stated to have been in the yeomanry, in your corps?—He was.
"What was his character?—He was as quiet and as inoffensive a man as any in the country, and as good a soldier in his way.
"Will you state what you know of his case?—It is now twenty-nine years ago; he was, as I said before, a quiet, inoffensive man himself; unfortunately some members of his family were not quite so; there was a quarrel between some of them and one of his neighbours; I believe it was confined" to the females of his family, I do not know that he had a son. As well as I recollect, it arose out of something connected with poultry, or something very triflig; the family with whom the quarrel took place was that of a man named Birmingham. It appears that Birmingham got a summons from a magistrate for some of Bell's family, and went to serve the summons in person. As Bell told me the story, and as he persisted in it to the hour of his death, he was cleaning his bayonet in the kitchen. Birmingham says he took it off the shelf against which he was leaning; at all events, it was a matter of the most sudden and unpremeditated nature; he made a blow at Birmingham with that bayonet, he says, to frighten him, but unfortunately inflicted a very severe wound. Birmingham, of course, lodged information; a warrant was issued against Bell, he fled the country, returned at the end of nearly three years, I think, and he was taken and tried under, I believe, what is called Lord Ellen-borough's Act. The event took place in 1806, he was tried in the summer of 1809, convicted, and executed.
"Do you know whether the yeomanry were employed to take Bell?—I know they were.
"It has been stated, that Bell could have been taken sooner had the yeomanry wished it, have you any reason to doubt that?—I have this strong reason to doubt it, that the man was out of the country, and out of their reach.
"Do you happen to know, of your own knowledge, where he was at any time during that period?—I remember his making his appearance in the town of Tuam, in the county of Galway, where my regiment was quartered at the time; he made an offer of himself as a recruit; he wished to enlist into our regiment, but the surgeon would not pass him. I believe he continued a considerable time in the town of Tuam, and I think when we left it he remained there.
"Can you fix the particular period when he was in Tuam?—It was in 1807.
"How long did he remain white the regiment was there?—As well as I remember some months."
340
Here was a Magistrate, a major of militia, and captain of a yeomanry corps, admitting that he was aware of the retreat of a man accused of a serious crime, who had set the law at defiance for three years, and would have been passed into the militia, but that the surgeon did not approve of urn. It further appeared that two Magistrates, Mr. Blacker and another, made an application to the Judge, not on the ground of the prisoner's innocence, but because it was apprehended that the prosecutor and witnesses would be murdered by his friends if he were executed. There was another case of two men, named Murphy and Ford, who were tried for the murder of a man found guilty of manslaughter by an Orange Jury, and sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment, in 1830. These persons were rescued, and in November, 1832, Ford was admitted into the police by a Magistrate and clergyman of the county of Galway. As for Murphy, he became a member of the Tanderagee Yeomanry in October, 1832. The hon. Gentleman read a letter from. Earl Bandon, for the purpose of proving that the prevalence of Orangeism in the yeomanry corps of Ireland was quite incompatible with the maintenance of regular discipline, insubordination and mutiny being everywhere its natural and necessary results. And with respect to the army, nothing but mutiny and insubordination marked the conduct of the regiments into which Orange Lodges had been introduced. He would further allude to the atrocities which had been committed at Killenane, by the parishioners of the rev, Mortimer O'Sullivan, where the gallant Colonel, the Member for Armagh, having interfered, for the protection of the unoffending peasantry, was threatened with murder by his own tenantry. Five years had elapsed since the ravaging of the town of Maghara, and although the Catholics, who had committed outrage to the extent only of 10 s, had been severely punished, no measures had yet been taken to bring those Orangemen, who had demolished twenty-nine houses, to justice. The hon. and learned Member proceeded to read extracts from a variety of documents, to show the character of the language held by the Orangemen towards the Roman Catholics. "Damnation to their Papist souls," appeared to be one of the expressions most commonly in use. What at this time was the conduct of the Govern-

341
ment? Were the parties who bad these opprobrious epithets perpetually on their tongues brought to justice? Was any endeavour made to visit them with the punishment their conduct deserved? Far from it. When complaints were made upon the subject, the answer of Sir Henry Hardinge, who at that time held office in Ireland, was, that he thought no further proceedings should be taken. This reminded him of a speech of Mr. Grattan, in which that eloquent and accomplished man described the conduct of the Government in Ireland in the year 1792. "Under the present Administration," said Mr. Grattan, "the Orangemen of Ireland, instead of the punishment which their outrages should bring upon them, meet with success, impunity, and triumph." Were not these words strictly applicable to the present times? Lord Gosford again, in the year 1795, after eloquently describing the outrages committed by the Orangemen in Armagh, concluded by stating that he conceived such outrages to be injurious, in the highest degree, to the cause of Protestantism in Ireland. With these observations he should conclude by moving the resolution of which he had given notice, viz.—"That Orangeism has been productive of the most baneful effects upon the character and administration of public justice in Ireland; that its prevalence in the constabulary and peace preservation force, and yeomanry corps of that country, has led individual members, as well as large bodies of the above description of force, to the gross neglect and violation of the public duty, and to the open, daring, and lawless resistance to the authority of the magistracy and of the Executive Government, on various occasions; that the systematic and surreptitious introduction of Orangeism into every branch of the military service, into almost every part of the empire, in direct violation of orders issued in 1822 and 1829 by the Commander-in-Chief of his Majesty's forces, and the resolute power and control vested by its governing bodies, the Grand Orange Lodge of England and of Ireland, in his Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland, together with the rank, station, influence, and numbers of that formidable and secret conspiracy, are well calculated to excite serious apprehensions in all his Majesty's loyal subjects, and imperatively call for the most energetic expression on the part of the representa-
342
tives of the people of this empire, to secure he safe, the peaceable, the legal, and rightful succession to the throne of these realms. He might be told that it was wrong to include his Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland, but if it was wrong in the King to be connected with these Lodges, was it not suspicious in the Duke of Cumberland? This was a power which the peace of the empire demanded should be put down.
Mr. Edward Bullerrose to second the Motion. As a Member of the Committee which sat upon the subject of Orange Lodges in the last Session of Parliament, he trusted the House would allow him the opportunity of expressing the opinions he had formed in consequence of the evidence which had come before him in the course of the investigation. On entering upon the subject he was surprised to find that an association formed, as was said, solely for the purpose of self-defence, and for the protection of life and property, should be a strictly exclusive society, If the objects of the Association were only such as were described, why should the respectable Roman Catholics of Ireland be rigidly excluded from it? The fact was, that the views of the Association were solely those of maintaining the Protestant ascendancy, and of rendering permanent the dominion of one particular party in Ireland, Proceeding further with the Inquiry, he found that this Association interfered materially in the administration of justice in criminal cases. He found it furnishing legal advice and aid of counsel in cases where any of its own partisans were concerned, especially in Government prosecutions. He found further that to this society belonged a great majority of the Magistracy of Ireland—of that Magistracy who presided at quarter sessions and by whom the police were appointed: and in the northern part of the kingdom one of the consequences of this combination of partisan Magistrates was, that five-sixths of the police were Protestants. He found, besides, that in the north of Ireland the Sheriffs and under Sheriffs—the officers who summoned and empanelled juries, were members of this Association, and that some of them had avowed their determination never to put a Roman Catholic upon a jury which they should empannel—a determination which, in one instance, at least, had been very religiously adhered to. Surely, then, with tribunals

343
so constituted, with Magistrates, Sheriffs, and subordinate officers so associated, for the purpose of sustaining a strong and violent party feeling, it would be a miracle if justice were impartially administered. If hon. Gentlemen would refer to the Report of the Evidence given before the Committee of last year, they would find abundantly sufficient to show that justice was not impartially administered in Ireland. The hon. Gentleman then referred to many cases detailed in the evidence, in which it appeared that the Orangemen had been aggressors upon the Roman Catholics, and in which all attempts to bring the delinquents to justice were rendered nugatory by the powerful influence of the Orange Association. One of the pretended virtues of the Orange Association was, that it was peculiarly loyal. He had very great doubts upon that point. He believed that the loyalty of the Orangemen was only conditional. The oath originally administered to every member of the society bound them in loyalty to the Crown only as long as the Protestant ascendancy should be maintained by the Crown, It was true that that oath was no longer administered; but its spirit still remained. He warned the Government against identifying itself with such an Association, and against relying upon its boasted loyalty, nay, calling to mind the nature of the facts which had been developed in the course of the investigation before the Committee, he would recommend any Government to use every exertion in its power to put down such an Association.
Lord John Russelldid not rise for the purpose of discussing the terms of the resolution. If he did so, he might raise an objection to some parts of it, although he was by no means prepared to say that he should dissent from the whole. But he thought it quite evident, from the state of the House at that moment, that the present was not a convenient opportunity to come to a decision on this Question. It was quite evident that upon a question in which there had been so much inquiry, and upon which opinions were so very strongly opposed on different sides of the House, that if a decisive vote were expected on such a question, there would have been a much more full attendance of Members- And if they were to have an impartial and useful discussion of the Question, he submitted that they ought not to enter into the subject peace-
344
meal—discussing a part to day, and a part to-morrow, and another part on some more remote occasion. Therefore, not seeing any Gentleman present who would be likely to take a strong and decided part in defence of the Orange Societies in Ireland—and certainly after what had been stated on the one side, he should not feel at liberty to interrupt any Gentleman who might be disposed to come forward to defend them—but not seeing any Gentleman present anxious to interfere in their behalf, the proposal he felt inclined to make was, that the debate on this question be now deferred till some future day. There were two notices of Motions on the Notice Book for the 23rd of the present month—one given by the hon. Member for Middlesex of a resolution for an Address to the Crown; the other by the hon. and learned Member opposite, of a Motion for a fresh Committee of Inquiry into the organization of Orange and secret societies in Ireland generally. If the present debate were adjourned till that day, he should then be ready to state the view which the King's Ministers took of this great question, as well as their reasons for not adopting either of the courses which had been proposed by the hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House and, at the same time, his reason for thinking that without some further inquiry it would be impossible for the House now, at the commencement of a fresh Session, to express its sentiments on the nature and tendency of these Orange Lodges. He should then be ready to submit an opinion upon the subject, in two resolutions. He did not mean to preclude himself from assenting to any Motion that might be made with respect to other secret societies, if public inquiry with respect to them should be thought necessary; but he certainly would now state broadly, that he was an enemy to all Secret Societies, and if by further inquiry, by the appointment of Select Committees, or by any other means, they might be better enabled to get at the nature, the tendency, and the extent of such societies, he for one should readily embrace those means; convinced as he was that, in suppressing all secret societies, he should be doing (hat which would tend most to the harmony of Ireland, and, he might say, to the peaceful profession of the religious sentiments of every class of his Majesty's subjects in that country. He would con-

345
clude by moving, "That this debate be adjourned till Tuesday, the 23rd instant."
Mr. Henry Maxwellwas fully prepared, in common with many friends then in the House, to meet on the instant the statements which the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny bad brought forward with respect to the Orange Lodges of Ireland. He was anxious to meet that statement as speedily as possible, and he was also anxious to take the first opportunity that should present itself of stating the opinion which he entertained with' respect to the construction of the Committee appointed in the last Session of Parliament to conduct the investigation into the nature and character of Orange Societies in Ireland. He was anxious to submit to the House his view of what the conduct of that Committee had been, having been as constant an attendant upon it as the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Finn) himself. He was anxious, also to state his view of the resolution which the Committee had adopted upon the evidence adduced before it. But as his Majesty's Ministers bad expressed a desire that no protracted discussion should take place upon the subject on the present occasion, he was perfectly willing in deference to them and with a view to the advancement of public business (and in that feeling he was borne out by all his friends with whom he had communicated), not to oppose the adjournment of the debate to the day mentioned by the noble Lord
Debate adjourned to the 23rd inst.

DISMISSAL OF MILITARY OFFICERS.
Mr. Humerose to submit to the House a motion of considerable importance, connected with the dismissal of military officers from the Army. He bad some time ago asked a question of the noble Lord, the Secretary at War, to which the reply was, that his Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland was not on full pay, and consequently was not amenable to a court-martial. Now be put it to the House and to the noble Lord the Secretary at War, whether, whenever Parliament granted his Majesty power or authority to make such laws as he might deem necessary to carry into effect the discipline of the Army, there was any class of persons, or any individual, however high he might stand in rank or station, who, whilst enrolled on the list of the army, might presume to defy the orders of his Majesty?
346
He conceived that no individual would be justified in doing so, whether he were on full-pay or half-pay. This was not the first time that he had brought before the House the question of the power of his Majesty to dispense with the service of officers in the army, without bringing them to a court-martial; and he had invariably heard from the Secretary at War that it would be perfectly ridiculous and absurd to intrust his Majesty with the power of making laws for the army, and at the same time to take from him the power of removing from the Army List such individuals as disputed his orders or degraded their station. And when the right hon. the Secretary at War placed upon the table of the House a return of the names of 1,000 officers who bad been dismissed from the army without any inquiry, or any cause assigned, be must say that be thought there was a great and serious ground of complaint. If such had been the case, if veteran and experienced officers had been summarily dismissed, without even the poor satisfaction of knowing the cause of their removal, what must be said, if at that moment they had an instance of the highest individual in the kingdom, next to the King himself, setting at utter defiance the orders issued by his Majesty's Commander-in-chief. He thought the House ought to take this matter into its serious consideration. His object was to have laid on the Table of the House a return of the officers of each rank in the army not on full-pay, or liable to trial by court-martial, who had been dismissed from the army by his Majesty's prerogative. As he wished only to show that the principle existed, it would not be necessary to go back many years. He knew that since the peace many officers on half-pay had been removed from the army by his Majesty, without any reason being assigned, though no doubt there were reasons operating on the mind of his Majesty for making the dismissals. If his Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland, whose excuse, he understood was, that he was not on full-pay, persisted in treating with derision, and setting at nought the orders of the Commander-in-chief, it was high time to consider who was really the first military individual in this country. If he continued to resist those orders, on the plea that he was not amenable to a courtmartial because he was not on full-pay, it became essentially necessary to show that

347
no plea of that kind could avail, and that he was within the reach of the kingly prerogative. He (Mr. Hume) knew of no such thing existing in this country as that species of justice which sanctioned the dismissal from the army of officers holding subordinate ranks, while it sheltered a field marshal from similar punishment, although equally deserved. On the contrary, the field-marshal ought to be the first to be dismissed, seeing that a bad example by him most be more pernicious than the misconduct of officers of inferior rank. If, then, he should establish the principle for which he was contending, and if he should prove the Duke of Cumberland to be within the operation of that principle, it would be the duty of his Majesty's advisers to see that his Royal Highness should be immediately removed from the army. Should his Majesty not be advised to dismiss him, it would then become imperative on him to submit to the House the propriety of inquiring how far the Commander-in-chief, Lord Hill, had done his duty; and On that occasion he would prove that the House of Commons was the proper place where a remedy and relief were to be obtained. If those to whom the army was intrusted by the Act of Parliament, annually passed, did not do their duty, there was no other mode by which to ascertain the truth of that fact, than by an inquiry on the part of the House of Commons. On a future day he would prove that Lord Hill, in 1832 and 1835, issued two orders respecting Orange Lodges in the army, which formed part of the general orders delivered to every general and colonel of regiments; he would prove that the Duke of Cumberland, as a colonel in the army, had those orders in his possession; and he would prove that the Duke had acted contrary to those orders, and that he continued to attend Orange Lodges. He would further show that Lord Hill had not done his duty—that whilst he threatened individuals in the lower grades, he had been afraid to deal with individuals in the higher ranks of the army. That was not what the country had a right to expect from the Commander-in-chief. If he should succeed in proving these facts, it certainly became necessary for the House to ascertain what steps it would be proper to take. For that purpose he called for the present return. It was incumbent on them to have a full knowledge of their power, if, indeed, the controversy should come to
348
this, who was to be the Commander-in-chief in this country? He could assure the House that when the time arrived he should be able to prove, chapter and verse, all he had alleged; and all that he now wanted to know was, whether any individual, not on full pay, had been dismissed from the army within a given time? He, therefore, begged to move that there be laid before the House a list of all officers, of whatever rank in his Majesty's regular service, who, when not on full-pay, and not liable to be tried by court-martial, had been struck out of the list of the army without their consent in each year since 1815, with the alleged reasons for such dismissal, and also a return of any persons who had been re-Stored to their rank after such dismissal, with the alleged reasons for such, restoration.
Viscount Howicksaid, as a considerable portion of the remarks of the hon. Member for Middlesex related not so much to the question of granting the returns he had called for, as to that Motion of an. Address of which he had given notice, he (Lord Howick) should defer any remarks he might have to make on that subject until they came to debate it in a regular manner. For the reason already stated by his noble Friend near him (Lord J. Russell), he thought it highly inconvenient that such a discussion should be prematurely entered upon and conducted, as it were, piecemeal. He had no hesitation in agreeing at once with the proposition, that the Crown undoubtedly had the prerogative of striking officers off the list without trial by court-martial, even though upon half-pay, and therefore not liable to be brought to court-martial; nor had he the slightest objection to lay upon the Table the returns required to afford any further clue that might be necessary to the hon. Member for bringing on his subsequent Motion. But he thought there was a very reasonable objection to laying the returns on the Table in the form now proposed. The hon. Member had asked for the names of all the officers struck off the Army List, and the reasons for their being so dismissed. Now, he believed that every hon. Member was aware that this was a power belonging to the Crown, which was rarely, if ever exercised, except in consequence of some highly disgraceful conduct on the part of the individual. He was sure the House would feel that it

349
would be an unfair and an unjust aggravation of the punishment of those individuals who had already suffered, if now, after the lapse of a considerable number of years, their names and particularly their offences, were to be held up to the public eye. For that reason he hoped the hon. Gentleman would content himself with asking for a return, showing the number of officers who, not being on full pay, had since 1815 been without their own consent removed from the army. That return would show, not only that the power of dismissal did exist in the Crown, but, in point of fact, that the power had been exercised; and if the hon. Gentleman should then be able to make out a proper case on the facts he had stated to the House, he would have a full right to call upon the House to address the Crown upon it.
Colonel Vernersaid, although he was neither on full pay or on half-pay, yet as his name stood enrolled amongst those of the gallant defenders of their country, he might be permitted to say a few words. Having been allowed in consideration of his services to his King and country, to retain his rank in the army, and not being aware of having done any thing dishonorable or disgraceful to his Majesty's service, or unbecoming the character of an officer and a gentleman, he thought it would be extremely unjust that his name should now be struck out of the list of the army, in which it had appeared for upwards of thirty years, for having belonged to a society, at the head of which two of his Majesty's brothers were placed.
Mr. Scarlettwas very much surprised at what had fallen from the hon. Member for Middlesex. Did he intend to abridge personal liberty by attempting to prevent a man, because he happened to be on half-pay, from belonging to a society which no law of the country had proclaimed to be illegal? "Would the hon. Member for Middlesex, in defiance of all law, commence a bitter persecution against men because they might belong to an institution of which he did not approve, but which the law did not condemn? He trusted the hon. Member would allow others the same liberty he claimed for himself.
Colonel Thompsonhappened to be a half-pay officer, and if he acted according to his own desire, he should be proud to establish a Reform Association in every
350
regiment in the army. There were many interesting questions which he should be happy to bring before both the soldiers and officers; particularly the question of military punishment. Nothing would delight him more than, within the next six months, to establish such associations, and to be personally active in directing the attention of the soldiers to that and many other most important points. But he had always been restrained from an idea that there was a sort of point of honour in the army, a kind of feeling at least, that it was prudent, politic, and wise to abstain from the introduction of politics among the soldiers. He wished to know whether that point of honour was to be abrogated, as regarded Orange Lodges and Field Marshals? because he was at a loss to understand that kind of Irish reciprocity which was all on one side. If the bar was to be removed on the one side, it ought also to be removed on the other. He wished, then, to be informed whether he should incur any danger if he should be discovered establishing Reform Associations in the army? Would the power of the Crown be exercised against those who should promote Reform Associations in the army, and not against those who formed Orange Lodges? who formed them, he had no doubt, from the purest motives, and without rendering themselves liable to any imputation of dishonour. He could imagine that hon. men, stimulated by a desire to promote those principles which in their hearts they thought right, would be found engaged on either side. But if the bar were done away on one side, it ought to be so on the other. The hon. and gallant Member on the other side (Col. Verner) had complained (if he, Col. Thompson understood him aright) that he had been treated severely for some political interference. He believed that the hon. and gallant Member and himself were of the same rank; therefore he had a suspicion that there was something in the rank which made that perfectly legal and honourable in one member of the profession which was illegal and dishonourable in another. Entertaining this belief, he must point out the great desirableness of having a regular and well-defined line drawn; in order to point out where this distinction of rank lay, and whether a colonel, a general, or a field-marshal only was at liberty to introduce politics into the army. He men-

351
tioned these things, because a state of certainty was always better than a state of doubt. He had ever thought that what was strong sound sense in civil life, was as sound and as strong sense in the army; and he claimed for the army the privilege of having that principle applied to it, which was found to be wise and politic in every-day life.
Viscount Howick:—Supposed that the hon. and gallant Officer imagined that from what he had meant to imply, that officers on half-pay had been allowed to exert themselves in establishing Orange Associations in the army, it never entered into his mind to say so. The purport of what he stated was this, that officers on half-pay being considered as civilians, were usually treated as such, and might belong to reform, or any other associations which were not prohibited by law; and that the Commander-in-Chief did not think it necessary to interfere with officers so situated. But, undoubtedly, the order issued by the Commander-in-Chief, in August last, applied to Orange and political societies of every kind established in the army. It would be an act most grossly improper for any officer to assist in supporting any associations of the kind; and most clearly, if an officer, even on half-pay, were to be instrumental in setting such associations on foot in the army, it would bring him within the terms of the order. He was not going into the question, for be the facts as they might, those who were interested in Orange societies denied that they had promoted associations in the army; but most undoubtedly, he must say, to establish such societies in the army, would be, in officers, from the highest to the lowest, an offence of the very gravest nature.
Mr. Humefelt the force of one of the noble Lord's objections—that it would be unnecessary for the purposes of the Motion, to drag forth any individual who had retired into civil life, and whose name and offence were forgotten. But he differed from the noble Lord when he said that it would be cruel to set forth the conduct of such an individual. This was false delicacy. It was not doing justice to the army at large, to refrain from publishing the grounds why any officer had been struck off the list. Indeed, he made this a matter of complaint against the Commander-in-Chief. By the publication others would learn what they themselves had to avoid,
352
in order not to incur similar degradation. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Scarlett) had asked whether he (Mr. Home) would by these proceedings attempt to abridge the liberty of the subject. He assured the hon. and learned Member, that no act of his would abridge the liberty of the subject, except the hon. and learned Member meant the liberty to do wrong. He begged to call the attention of the House to the two last sentences of the hon. and gallant Officer opposite (Colonel Verner), who had said how cruel it would be on him to be removed from the list of the army for the offence of belonging to any society to which two of the brothers of the Sovereign belonged. He wished hon. Members to bear that in mind, because he did most sincerely agree with the hon. and gallant Member. He thought it would be cruel. It was upon that ground he wished to see the subject on a future day fairly discussed.
The returns, as suggested by Lord Howick, were ordered.

METROPOLITAN RAILROADS.
Mr. Harveysaid, that in the few remarks he felt it incumbent on him to urge on the consideration of the House, in support of the Motion of which he had given notice, he desired to be expressly understood that it was not his intention to bring under the consideration of the House any one of the many Railroads for which petitions had been, or were about to be, presented. The sole object of his Motion was to call the attention of hon. Members and the Government to a subject unquestionably of very great importance. At the present time there was no subject of a domestic nature which so largely occupied the public attention as that of Railroads. A greater number of persons was enlisted in. their advocacy or in opposition to them, a larger amount of capital was embarked in their furtherance, a vaster extent of property was involved in their prosecution, than in any one other subject that could claim the attention of the House. He could not, therefore, but believe that hon. Members would be most anxious to listen to any plan calculated to economies expense, and to save the time of the House; for, when they called to mind the fact that the number of petitions which had been already presented for the introduction of Railroad Bills, and when they considered how they were disposed of before

353
Committees, it was not too much to say that there was work enough in their Committee-rooms to engage every Member of the House to the latest period of the Session. Was it not, then, a fit object of the House, as far as it could consistently with justice, to restrict the expenditure of time upon inquiries which might prove abortive, and upon subjects which ought not to have been brought before it? The terms of the motion restricted the inquiry to those Railroads which had a terminus within seven miles of the metropolis. The object of that restriction would be obvious. It would have been too much labour for any Committee, or Board of Inquiry, to have had brought within its cognizance, all the Railroad Bills which were likely to be matter of legislative inquiry. Moreover, it appeared to him that it was unnecessary, as it regarded those Railroads whose termination began and ended in the provincial counties, inasmuch as they generally originated in the places themselves, were carried on by the conviction of their utility, and countenanced by local contributions. The parties, therefore, who had given their sanction to local Railroads and improvements, were the best judges of their importance and mode of accomplishment. But the same remark would not apply to many Railroads which were proposed to connect the metropolis with distant and remote parts of the country, having a termination in London. The greater part of those projects had their origin, not from a sense of their utility, not from any intention in the minds of those who resided on the line of road on which it was to pass, but, in the main, they had their origin in parties seeking wealth, and of active enterprise, and it would be generally found, if those who were contributors to those projects were analysed, that they had little connexion with distant places, with the commerce of remote towns, and commercial ports. It therefore became important that this House should exercise a domestic superintendence over objects which had not those local ties. Because, though it might be said by gentlemen who considered that every enterprise which was based upon the employment of capital ought to be allowed to work out its own object unfettered by any restraint which legislation might impose; yet this was a principle which might be carried out perniciously, inasmuch as it would affect the
354
interests of persons who could not protect themselves from the manifest inconveniences which they might encounter. This would be illustrated if they brought their minds to the several projects now in progress. There were three principal Railroads projected from the eastern part of this metropolis to Norwich. One proposed to go through Chelmsford; the second to proceed to Cambridge, and then turn to the right to Norwich; and the third to proceed to the same destination by way of Bury. He thought it would be readily conceded, whatever might be desired, and whatever profit might be got out of a Railroad from London to Norwich, that there could be no just pretensions for the establishment of three lines. But even if there were, he would submit to the House that it was a most important duty in them to consider whether those three roads were to have three distinct entrances into the heart of this metropolis. The effect would be the immolation of whole towns. It would desolate entire streets, and produce incidentally most serious injury upon person and property. If, therefore, it was desirable there should be communications of this kind, he would suggest that it was expedient that places should be adopted within reasonable distances of the metropolis in each direction to which all these roads should tend, and should all come, and from which none should be allowed to deviate. Should some such mode not be adopted, no standard of value would be sufficient to measure the immense loss of property likely to ensue to individuals. It was obligatory on the Government of a country to protect its property as much as to protect its peace. Property of a peculiar nature was threatened with danger by the multiplication of Railroads; the present was the time to stand forward and protect it. Not only were these Railroads projected from London to every corner of the country, but even from one part of London to the other. So that when a traveller on the Birmingham Railroad would have arrived at the termination of that line, which was to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of Euston-square, he would be taken up then on another Railroad, and carried into Snow-hilt, if the House permitted the project of the latter line to be proceeded with. The next Railroad, he presumed, would be to the House of Commons; and, perhaps, the one after to Blackfriars-bridge; until at

355
last there would not be a single street left in London without a Railroad. If change were necessary, let there be change; but, in his opinion, utility should always be the guide followed in changes of every description, and not a speculative spirit, which often led individuals to ruin not alone themselves, but their neighbours. It might be urged against his Motion that a tribunal already existed to try the merits of cases similar to those included in it, and that, therefore, it was unnecessary. But to this he would reply, that although Committees of the House of Commons were very much improved for investigating such matters of late, they were not sufficiently so to meet the evils likely to arise from an excessive indulgence in unwise speculations of the nature adverted to in his observations. The numbers composing them were too large, the rooms in which they were held too small, the attendance too crowded and confused, and the motives of many hon. Members too questionable, through private or public prejudice in favour of one line or in opposition to another, to render a Committee of the House of Commons, upon subjects of that nature, the most correct or impartial tribunal. The consequence of this combination of unfavourable circumstances, particularly the latter, was in many cases a compromise, in which the interests of the parties prevailed, and the interests of the public were very rarely considered. The proceedings before that tribunal were very expensive—enormously so; and every day they were increasing. It was due to the public to put an end to those expensive proceedings. No later than that morning certain parties interested in the progress of a Railroad Bill had been with him; and one of them told him he had to pay, before he was permitted to take a single step, the sum of 500 l. for what was called "a list of the assents and dissents." While the other had informed him, that for the same thing he expected to be called on for three times as much in as many days hence. It was now the practice to obtain the consent not alone of proprietors, but of lodgers on any estate to be affected by the line, but in many cases that of the former was dispensed with, while that of the latter, who had no real interest in the estate, served to swell a list in approbation. This had a delusive, as well as a destructive, effect on the public; for it gave an appear-
356
ance of feasibility to projects which were by no means of a warrantable nature, and substituted the names of persons possessing not a particle of valuable interest in a property for those of the actual bona fide owners of it. AH this was calculated to deceive and injure the community at large, as well as destroy the property and prospects of individuals. The attention of the House of Commons had, during the last and several preceding Sessions, been very liberally devoted to the facilitating of such speculative enterprises, and he predicted, that unless some very decided step, such as now proposed, were adopted to control and regulate the very tolerant spirit which had hitherto guided their legislation, the result would be that this House would become, not a House of Parliament, but a House of Railroads; and every Gentleman's spare time would be exclusively occupied in attending Committees to promote their extension over the empire. It was under these circumstances, and with this conviction of his duty to the unprotected public and to the Legislature in which he had the honour to hold a seat, that he row proposed the formation of the Select Committee, with the powers and duties specified in his Motion,
Mr. William Crawfordsaid, some of the schemes alluded to had fallen under his observation, and he could speak from experience of the evils and inconveniences likely to arise from the mania for Railroad speculations which now possessed the country. He concurred with the hon. Mover, that it was absolutely requisite to apply some legislative check to these proceedings, which threatened to sacrifice such an amount of private property in the reckless rivalry of public companies, especially in the vicinity of London. The county of Surrey seemed to be especially marked out as a scene of visitation for the execution of such speculative projects, and had actually been mapped and partitioned amongst three principal engineers, in so many distinctshares, for their own profit, and for the delusion of the public. There were now no less than three Railroads planned to Brighton: and could any sensible man expect that they could all succeed, even if the projectors intended to work them? One was called Stephenson's line, conducted along the vale of Wickham and Wimbledon Common, extending circuitously through the most beautiful part of the country, and along the banks of the

357
rivers and streams, on the plea of the necessity of preserving the levels; a second ran in another direction through the chalk hills, cutting up that part of the country; a third Railroad was already half-made, running by Brighton due south to Dover. The originators of these clashing projects cared nothing for the inevitable failure that would accrue to one or more in their practical working, and the competition that would ensue if their plans were ever carried into effect. Armed with the deposits of the first subscribers, to the amount of 15,000 l. or 30,000 l., the solicitors and engineers recklessly pursued their separate course of expenditure, driving lines through the country wherever they pleased, heedless of the injury to private property, the interference with public comfort and convenience which must ensue in the accomplishment of their schemes. With such funds at their command, and such powers to expend them uncontrolled for the furtherance of their plans, however objectionable, it was not to be wondered at, if private individuals were deterred from making any attempt at opposition, and, in fact, unless the Legislature turned its attention to the adoption of some effective measures for their control, the attempt would be altogether hopeless, and the injury of private property might be expected to continue in a progressive ratio. On the Southampton line the works were recently stopped below Basingstoke, from a discovery lately made of the difficulty of preserving the requisite levels in the line first adopted. With reference to this case he could have wished that his hon. Friend's Motion had embraced all Railroads within ten miles, instead of seven, of the metropolis, as this would let in the Southampton case, though, as the Motion was limited at present, that Railroad was necessarily excluded. However, as far as it went, the Motion would have the beneficial effect of preventing much valuable property from the lamentable effects of an extravagant mania which would doubtless involve and ruin multitudes, while the original plotters would, most probably, escape with the fruits of their successful imposition on the unwary and credulous. The machinery was well known to the initiated by which Railway shares were worked up to a nominal premium of twelve per cent., or fifteen per cent., before the slightest rational prospect of a return presented itself for calculation to found any data on;
358
and it was also well known to men of observation, that the originators of these bubbles never continue to hold their original shares, but as soon as a sufficient profit could be seized on, they sold them to the dupes whom they left to suffer by the ultimate bursting of the bubble. No man of experience would take the prices of shares quoted in the papers as any proof of the prosperity or soundness of a company, started under such auspices as those which marked the origin of these Railway companies; on the contrary, the more he heard of this unsubstantial prosperity, the more he felt the necessity of protecting the public from the deceptions and fallacious hopes held out to them by interested individuals.
Mr. Ridley Colbornethought it was the duty of the House to be exceedingly cautious in the adoption of any restrictive principle of legislation which might have the effect of interfering with the many obvious, admitted, and indisputable benefits, which Railways were calculated to ensure, looking to them either as the means of extending internal commerce, or of facilitating intercourse, which did not hitherto exist, and thus diffusing improvements, and the spirit of industry and enterprise. He was certain that they were beneficial in one very desirable point of view, as affording a means of employment to the labouring classes, and a happy stimulus to the improvement of their condition. Many of the projected undertakings were, he was sorry to say, speculations of a very questionable character, and he doubted whether one step would ever be taken to complete the lines the projectors had adopted, and set forth in their prospective publications. He thought the best way to counteract this species of speculation was, to enact a Clause which should render it imperative on the original promoters of a Railway scheme, to retain their shares and prosecute the work. If shares were not transferable by law, persons would not undertake such works without the intention of carrying them, on, and much stockjobbing mischief would thereby be prevented. Were such a law in existence, we should not see such an enormous, useless, and absurd expenditure of money as was now witnessed on lines of Railroads running side by side, cutting up and disfiguring the country, and evidently constructed without the smallest intention on the part of the original undertakers to

359
complete them, or if completed eventually, with any hope of utility to the public. He would be quite content to allow the free employment of capital in this department of industry, if the original promoters of the roads were compelled to continue their speculations.
Sir Robert Peelcould not see the advantage which the supporters of the Resolution expected to derive from it, more than from the system which it was sought to supersede. If it were a necessary consequence that all lines of Railroads struck out were to go on, and that all Bills introduced were to be carried through that House, it would no doubt occasion very dangerous results; but it should be recollected that each Bill presented to Parliament must be scrutinised and substantiated in detail before a Committee, and, if approved, subjected to the further censorship of Parliament, ere the evil consequences could result to the country on which so much stress had been laid, but which, after all, really rested with the whole House to permit or restrain. If the formation of a Select Committee were requisite and beneficial for the district situated within seven miles of London, to save the property it contained from the ruin which Railway projectors were expected to inflict, he saw no reason why Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, and all the other threatened towns and districts containing similarly valuable property, should not be granted an equal measure of select Parliamentary protection. If a Select Committee were good and necessary for one case, it might be expected to be good and necessary for all; but this legitimate conclusion was not urged in supporting the Motion. The hon. Gentleman confined his attention to the vicinity of the metropolis, because as it appeared, he expected shortly to see a Railroad drive from Euston-square to the House of Commons! But he did not take into consideration a condition attaching to properly in the metropolis, which would effectually protect it against any disturbance that was not very likely to have a profitable termination—the great value of the houses and land, of which the speculators must purchase possession ere they could commence operations. The inevitable expense of such proceedings in the metropolis would be its best security against uncalled-for intrusions of the kind apprehended, and Gentlemen might rest assured that there
360
was a wide and natural distinction between the origination of a Railroad project in or through any district of the metropolis and its completion. He thought that the plan of intrusting to the Select Committee the choice of one out of the lines of Railroad would lead to no good purpose, for the Members of the Committee could have no more intuitive knowledge of "the desirableness of a Railroad" than the House at large, with whom the decision would lie in the present state of the case, after the Committee had examined all the particulars which could enable them to form a proper judgment. He could not see the advantage, where a great national undertaking was at issue, in limiting its consideration to a few individuals, however selected, who were expected to decide "whether the best line had been selected, having regard to the directness of the communication, the probable expenditure, the comfort and safety of the public, and the effect on private property and particular interests." There was really little to fear in those cases, for no Railroad project could come into operation till the majority of Parliament had declared that its principles and arrangements appeared to them satisfactory, and its investments profitable. It was a recognised Parliamentary principle, in these cases, that the probable profits of an undertaking should be shown to be sufficient to maintain it in a state of permanent action and utility, before a Bill could be obtained; and landlords were perfectly justified in expecting and demanding such a warranty from Parliament before they transferred their property to any such uses. And why should not Parliament require it from, those who came forward to obtain its authority to sanction their appropriation of this property? With respect to the consent of proprietors, which was requisite in such cases, he thought the House would not be doing its duty if it did not exact the production of a bonâ fide assent subscribed by real proprietors or tenants. It was not enough to see a document signed by 1,000 tenants, if it turned out that 999 of these were weekly tenants or tenants at will. He felt that Parliament ought in all such cases to ascertain the validity and condition of proprietorships ere it admitted the effect of such consent. With respect to the individual projects, he was sorry to see that some presented the obvious characters of futile speculations, but he should be

361
equally sorry to see powers delegated to a limited and Select Committee to decide on subjects of skill, science, and enterprise, where so much was at stake, and thereby prejudge the question. He would rather see the matter left to the good sense and comprehensive intelligence of the entire House.
Mr. Peasesaid, that it was his lot to live in a county where Railroads were more numerous and their effects better known and appreciated than in any other, and where, as the result of all this experience, as soon as a project for a new line of Railroad appeared, it was almost universally adopted and approved of. The idea formerly prevalent there, as well as here, that Railroads cut up and disfigured the country, had entirely disappeared, for it was now found that ail the great cuttings and sinkings might, by a little care and expense in ornamental planting of the slopes and edges, be rendered ornamental to the scenery of a district instead of disfiguring it. He was aware from his own experience as a landowner that the ground through which a Railroad passed increased instead of deteriorated in value, notwithstanding the particular portions of which he spoke were intersected by cuttings of great depth; in spite of which some of it recently sold brought a higher price than it did before, or than any land at a distance from the Railway would bring, though adjacent to turnpike roads. All building-materials and minerals lying in lands adjacent to a Railroad were materially increased in value, and in cases where it became necessary to determine the value of such land by a Jury, double the value was frequently given, compared with what would have been awarded by the same Jury, or determined by private bargain, before the establishment of the Railroad. The turnpike roads in the neighbourhood had become perceptibly better, and had reduced their tolls fifty per cent, from the absence of heavy carriages, now transferred to the Railway. With the experience of ten or twelve years, the feeling of the country had considerably increased in favour of Railroads. "Within the last three Sessions especially the question had undergone a searching scrutiny, and been fully canvassed by engineers and the public. He had attended, very closely to the subject himself, and while he had been more thoroughly convinced of the utility which might be derived from the adoption
362
of judicious plans, he must confess he was disgusted by several which, had been presented to the public, which obviously contained the elements of failure, disappointment, and ruin. He trusted, however, that the House would discriminate between the plans submitted to it, and not suffer rival projects to destroy one another, and to absorb the property of confiding individuals who could never be repaid. He thought that some speculations of this species deserved to fail; but he did not like to see a Select Committee composed of individuals who were, perhaps, by no means competent to enter fully into the merits of apian, erected as it were into a tribunal of opinion, whose fiat would, notwithstanding, go far to prejudice the decision of the last tribunal—the House. A chief objection to the introduction of the metropolitan lines was, that they would take the trade from the great interests already in possession of it. He would suggest, as a remedy for this, that instead of having one focus in the north, or south, Or east, or west, there should be a distribution of stations and advantages—one in each of these four points of the city—which would go far to remedy the inconvenience apprehended. He must oppose the Motion before the House, as he preferred the existing mode of proceeding, which left so much more to the discretion of the House at large, with an opportunity of obtaining all the information a Committee could elicit to enable it to form a just conclusion; and if a Committee agreed in approbation of a plan submitted to it, a prima facie case was thereby established for the House that the plan was a good one.
Mr. Goulburnwas as great an advocate for Railroads generally as any man in that House; but he was disposed, nevertheless, to support the resolution. The approbation of the Committee which the hon. Member who spoke last referred to, was not a case strictly applicable, for a single Railroad case presented to an ordinary Committee could not exercise the comparative view desired in the present case, and which, if they did not enter on the task in a prejudiced manner, would be so beneficial to all concerned. His great anxiety was to avoid having the country parcelled out uselessly and injuriously by rival companies, who would inevitably entail ruin on the mass of those who invested their property in these undertakings.

363
If the House, or a Select Committee, were to exercise this comparative judgment, and choose one out of the three lines in question as alone worthy of adoption, it would confer a great benefit on the public. If, on the contrary, each Bill were, as usual, allowed to go to the second or third reading before an intentional comparison were made, he thought the House would stand a bad chance of making a correct choice at the moment.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonobjected to delegating to a body so constituted the great power which it was proposed to vest in the Select Committee. At the same time, he was extremely glad the subject had been agitated, because he considered it one very deserving the attention of the House. He owned that he felt it to be a very difficult one. He should agree in the opinion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, if, after the projects had been sifted by a Committee up stairs, the House had the means, from their Report, and from accurate testimony of a surveyor on the subject, of judging, and when they came to vote, of fully understanding, the grounds upon which they arrived at their decision. Any hon. Gentleman who had attended to the manner in which Bills of the kind were passed, and to the sort of discussion which took place on their second and third readings, must be aware that the House had not the knowledge necessary to enable them to arrive at a just decision. He had almost invariably avoided voting on such questions, because he found that no sufficient means were afforded him of ascertaining the real state of the case. Then he came to the question, whether the Committees, as they were at present constituted, could properly discuss the merits of the different Railroad projects brought before Parliament? He believed that they could properly and fairly discuss the merits of each individual plan as it was laid before them; but that was not, in reality, the question they had to consider, when so many Railroads were in formation, and likely to come under the consideration of Parliament. It was perfectly true, that different plans for different Railways running to and from the same place might be referred to the same Committee, but the Committee might very probably decide on the first before the others, or either of the others, came under their consideration at all. He did
364
not really think, that the first, or any other decision of a Committee, given under such circumstances, would be grounded on the merits of the case. The question, then, arose whether the proposed Committee would be an efficient one for all the purposes required? And here again he felt considerable difficulty in determining whether a Commission of engineers to examine into every project, or some such special Committee, would not attain the object in view. Any Gentleman who had read the newspapers within the last four or five months could not have failed to perceive the absurd and ridiculous projects which were afloat—projects not only for four or five Railways to the same place, but for Railroads to places to which scarcely any coaches at all now ran. Such plans might be very beneficial to surveyors and the gentlemen of the Stock Exchange, but beyond putting money into their pockets, and into those of the individuals who forwarded them through, that House, they were not likely to be attended with any practical advantage. Under such circumstances he thought the House should lay down some plan, under which, before any great expenditure was incurred, some definite prospect of success might be secured.
Mr. George F. Youngthought the proposal of the hon. Member for Southwark had not been quite fairly treated. He had had several opportunities of witnessing the manner in which the proceedings of Committees on private Bills were conducted, and he was bound to say, that a worse tribunal could not be conceived. He thought it would be a great improvement if every Railway Bill were referred to a Select Committee composed of Gentlemen connected with the locality to which it applied, rather than to a general list, chosen at the commencement of a Session. If such Committees acted on the principles embodied in the Resolution, they would form most efficient tribunals.
Mr. O'Connellthought it extremely desirable to afford every facility for Railways provided for the transportation of commercial commodities. While it was desirable to guard the public against uncertain and undefined schemes on the one hand, it must be remembered on the other, that a regard for their own capital, and an eye to their own interests, would be their best protection. He concurred

365
with the right hon. Gentleman in deeming it very advisable to have a special Report from a Crown Surveyor laid before the House in every case before the Bill passed, and he thought the House should pause before, by affirming the present resolution, they retarded the progress of these great public undertakings.
Mr. Warburtonthought there should be a general survey, and that all Railroads should be stopped until such survey or a Report were sent in, to enable the Committee to Form their opinion. No Member of Parliament concerned in those speculations, or who held shares in them, should sit upon any one of those Committees.
Mr. Humesaid, that he thought the Government ought not to interfere. The very best check against the danger to be apprehended from these speculations was each individual's own interest. Another protection he thought ought to be, that each subscriber should be a bonâ fide subscriber. He had not heard any answer to the representation of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth. He thought the subject had already undergone sufficient discussion to show, that some protection was absolutely necessary; but the two species of protection to which he had adverted were, in his judgment, quite enough. He thought that those Members who had duties upon his subject to perform should be uninfluenced in their conduct by the "pressure from without," and should see that each undertaking to which they gave their sanction should have a sufficiency of capital to carry it through.
Lord John Russellexpressed his concurrence with an hon. Member opposite, that the best course the House could adopt for the present year would be to refer different plans to a Committee, who should report their opinion to the House. This would afford the House the best means of giving a correct judgment on the subject submitted to their consideration; and it would be also necessary to prevent them from giving their opinion upon merely ex parte evidence.
Mr. Humewished to ask the noble Lord if it were his intention to propose any alteration in the manner of appointing Committees? As a proof of the inconvenience of the present system, he should merely refer to his own case that day, when he found himself appointed
366
upon nine County Committees. How was it possible for him to attend in alt theses Committees? Why should not some method be adopted which would enable hon. Members to discharge the duties for which they were appointed, and which it was expected they would perform? On the first day of the Session, he thought the House ought to be drafted into Committees of nine or eleven, which would have the two-fold effect of preventing any suspicion of partiality, and of preventing that system of canvassing which he regretted to see was very much practised. He should also suggest, that no Member for a borough or county should sit upon any Committee on the affairs of the place he represented.
Mr. Harvey Mr. Harvey, in reply, complained that the hon. Member for Durham had misunderstood him when he supposed that he advocated only one locality for the meeting of Railroads in London, whereas ha had proposed one locality for every entrance into the metropolis—one for the north, one for the south, one for the east, and one for the west. The right hon. Member for Tamworth had argued, that if a Select Committee ought to be appointed to inquire into the practicability of Railroads coming near the metropolis, the interests of every large town should be protected in a similar manner; but in those towns these matters were calculated upon long beforehand, their utility was canvassed, their advantages well ascertained, and the direction of them was intrusted to men who were best fitted to carry them out to a successful issue; but in London the public knew little or nothing of the localities and other circumstances of detail on which the success of a Railroad wholly depended. He thought this Motion would be productive of great good. In the proposition made by the right hon. Member for Cambridge, which was only a modification of his own, he fully concurred— namely, that all Railroads which had the same tendency should be referred to the same Committee, and that, upon a full consideration of all the evidence, they should choose that line which appeared to be the most economical, the most direct, the most profitable to the public, and the least encroaching upon private property. He recommended that the Committee should call before them the surveyors of each line, and they would elicit more information than they could gather from the

367
speeches of three or four favourite leaders, followed by two or three rising juniors, who would be left by the leading counsel to amuse the Committee, while he went to address another Committee upon another Railroad. This would be the rational course to pursue, and they would soon be able to determine whether, in the first place, a Railroad was wanted at all on any particular line, and, in the next place, whether the proposed railroad would prove permanently advantageous to the community. The hon. Member for Bridport had recommended to the House that no Member of any Railroad Committee should be a shareholder in the Railway. If that was to be, it would be as well that it should be understood. But there were many other persons interested in Railroads besides the shareholders. There were the bankers, and the standing counsel; great iron masters also, who might have seats in that House; there were many who had worthless lumps of land to get compensation for, and it was astonishing to see what a value the suggestion of a Railroad gave to barren acres. He thought it much better that every Member of the Committee should state at once what his interest in the railroad was; then the public would know what to look to; but at present the managers of a Railroad would say, "look at our plan; here we have ten Members of Parliament in our direction—it is certain to be carried;" and another set would say, "It is absurd to oppose us, you will have all the Carlton Club, and all Brooks's brought down in such a strong body, that our Bill must be carried." He hoped that some good would result from this debate. He trusted it would not be a mere discussion which was to end with the beginning, but that the House would be induced not to prevent the establishment of any Railroad where its formation was desirable, and not to countenance any speculation where it was not desirable it should be encouraged.
Motion withdrawn.

REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, &C.—DISSENTERS' MARRIAGES.
Lord John Russellrose for the purpose of bringing forward a Bill for the general registration of births, marriages, and deaths, and likewise a Bill for the purpose of amending the laws regulating the marriages of Dissenters. At that time of the night he thought it would be most convenient to the House if he
368
stated in as short a manner as he could the object and the general provisions of both these Bills. It would, perhaps, be in the recollection of some hon. Members of that House that at the time that a right hon. Member opposite proposed to bring in a Bill to regulate the marriages of Dissenters last year, he (Lord John Russell) stated his opinion, held in 1834, that a Bill to be sufficient and satisfactory for the regulation of Dissenters' marriages should be preceded by a Bill of registration. But he had not brought forward any Bill upon the subject—because any plan that could have been devised for this purpose was considered by the Government of that day as entailing an expense which formed an insurmountable objection to its adoption—that is to say, an objection, not to the principle or to its being one day or other adopted, but an objection to its being brought forward at that time, until a plan had been more maturely considered, and until it was seen whether it could not be carried into effect economically, and with a prospect of its final success. But laying aside altogether for the present moment that part of the measure which related particularly to the grievances complained of by the Dissenters, he thought that in a general and national point of view it was most desirable that a general system of civil registration should now be carried into effect. It was a most important subject—important for the security of property—important to ascertain the state and condition of individuals under various circumstances—important to enable the Government to acquire a general knowledge of the state of the population of the country—that there should be a genera! registration of births, marriages, and deaths. The present registration was very de6cient, as had been fully proved before various Committees. In the first place, it was a registry not of births but of baptisms; and, in consequence of the system adopted, it only gave the marriages where the ceremony was celebrated according to the rites of the Church of England. But without laying any further stress upon the detail of these objections, he should just observe that they arose from this defect in the principle of the registration, that it was ecclesiastical and not civil. Now, with respect to ascertaining the fact of the births, deaths, and marriages of various parts of the community, it was quite ob-

369
vious that this subject had no reference to the religious creed of any man; but, on the contrary, in a country and amongst a people composed of various sects and religions, it was quite obvious that a registration of marriages according to the rites of the established religion alone could never possibly be perfect or complete. He could illustrate this by reference to the case of the Baptists, and to many other sects; but, in fact, it required no argument to support it. If the House wished to form a complete registration, it was necessary to have one which would comprise indifferently and impartially all classes and distinctions of religions. The plan adopted for this purpose under the Commonwealth was to have the registration taken by the inhabitants and ratepayers. But without dwelling upon this plan, which was enforced for a certain time, he should refer to another plan, introduced two years ago by Mr. William Brougham, Member far Southwark. In that Bill it was proposed that the tax-surveyors should have the cognizance of the registration. Upon instituting inquiries into the working of this system, and obtaining a return from different parts of the country, it appeared that though very many of the surveyors were quite competent to discharge the duties intrusted to them, yet in very many more cases it would be necessary to employ persons of a superior class, and to give them additional remuneration, which would entail a very considerable expense, and, as he before observed, be an insuperable objection to the adoption of the plan. But within the last year or two a change had taken place in the domestic policy of the country with regard to the Poor-laws, which seemed to open the way to the establishment of a civil registration, and which would not be attended with considerable expense. At present there were upwards of 200, he believed 228, Unions, formed in England and Wales, under the new Poor-laws, comprising 3,283,000 persons; and there would be, he expected, within a short period, more than 800 Unions in England and Wales. So that by April, 1837, there would be a sufficiently broad foundation laid for the general introduction of the system. He would direct the attention of the House to the means which the machinery of the unions afforded for carrying this registration into effect. In each union there were
370
certain officers, called "Union officers," for every 5,000 persons, the union comprehending generally 15,000, 16,000, or 20,000. Besides the overseer and assistant, there were the auditor and the clerk of the Board. It was now proposed that the Poor Law Commissioners should have the power of appointing one of these officers, or any other person they might think fit, to be the registrar for a certain number of persons; that this registrar should be under another officer, (say the auditor, or the clerk), who should be his superior; that there should be another superior registrar who should have a county office; and that there should be an office in London (as in Mr. Brougham's Bill), to be under the direction of the Poor Law Commissioners. It was proposed that the subordinate officers should register the births and deaths that took place, and the marriages that were contracted, under a Bill which he should bring forward on a future occasion; that every two months all the entries they had made should be forwarded to the county office, and be thence transmitted to the central office in London; that they should keep their books of registration until they were filled up, and then transmit them to the county registry office. This he thought was the best manner of effecting the registry, and in this respect the Bill did not greatly differ, although it did in some respects, from the Bill of Mr. William Brougham. What he proposed in cases of birth was, that notice should be given to the local registrar by the occupier of the house in which it took place within eight days of the birth of the child; and within fifteen or twenty days after notice had been given, the registrar should call on the father or mother of the child to fill up the particulars with reference to the birth. The person also giving these particulars should give the name of the child; and if the parties did not give the name of the child, or if they wished it to be entered afterwards, they should be obliged at a future period to produce a certificate of baptism, so that the registrar should afterwards be enabled to enter the name of the child. In cases of death, the occupier of the house would be obliged to give an immediate account of any death that occurred in his house; and in those cases the registrar should call upon the next of kin, if resident in the house, and get any further particulars that might be deemed necessary with reference to the dead per-

371
son; for instance, with respect to the country from whence he might come, the period of his birth, and other circumstances. As far as regarded the entries of marriages he need not then say anything, as the particulars would be given in the Bill regulating marriages, which he intended to propose after the present measure. There might be some difficulties in the way of carrying out, to its full extent, a Bill of this nature at first. It might be the case with some persons that they would refuse to give the registrar the particulars he might require; but he (Lord J. Russell) was quite sure that where the plan was established, the advantages attending it would be so obvious, and, would be so soon felt by all classes of persons, they would so soon perceive the benefit of having their children's names inserted in the general register, that it would not be very long before every one would be willing to concur in carrying out the plan. It was not proposed that parties giving this information to the registrar should be compelled to pay any fee, although they would have to pay for a copy of the register afterwards, should they require it. The manner of registration would be this, every registrar would receive a fee of 2s. 6d. for any name entered within the period of twenty days; and after twenty days, 1s. extra. The superintendent would receive, on the average, 2d. for each register. It was calculated that, altogether, there would be about 812,000 entries in the general register in the course of the year. The expense of the local registries would be something more than 40,000 l. a year, and the total charge, together with the expense of the chief officer in London, would be about 80,000 l. a year. The expense of the central office in London he would propose should be defrayed by the Treasury; the expense of the local registrars and the fees of the superintendents should be made a local charge, and should be defrayed by the parishes in which the persons resided, with reference to whom the entries were made. He thought that he had then stated the chief particulars that were necessary with respect to the register of births and deaths, and would proceed to explain the details of the other Bill. He thought that the law regarding marriages was a law which had been justly described as creating great confusion between things regarded by the State as important for the well government of the country, and
372
for the due succession of property, and things which were mere matters of conscience. It was of importance that the State should have a certain degree of security in order to prevent marriages being clandestinely performed between persons able to enter into a contract of the kind, and also that the contract should, after certain circumstances had been fulfilled, be considered as finally closed; and that the relative position in which the parties stood to each other should be perfectly understood. "While on this part of the subject he would observe, that it was necessary that the register should be formed in such, a way as to embrace ail classes of persons in his Majesty's dominions; that he thought was what the State required; and it would be necessary for the due security of property and the preservation of order and morality in the State, and to that its attention should be directed. There were circumstances with respect to a registry of marriages essentially different from the other registries he had described. With the exception of a small portion of the people of this country, all persons were agreed in considering it a religious ceremony, and as such, that its celebration should be accompanied with some religious forms; but they were not agreed as to the manner in which the religious ceremony was to be completed, nor as to the forms which were to accompany it. What interested the State only was, that what was then done should be a ceremony which was considered binding by both parties. If they once ascertained the parties had given due notice for the purpose, and that the marriage was settled, and that the contract was such as would be binding on the consciences of the parties—when they had ascertained this, he thought they had obtained all that it was necessary for the State to know. But now the law proceeded in a very different way, and on a very different principle, as the right hon. Member for Tamworth had justly stated last year, and in which opinion his hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General, concurred with the right hon. Baronet, and that although now it was usual to have banns proclaimed, and the ceremony performed in the Church, yet that marriages might be celebrated in any other place, and that a contract per verbâ de prœsenti was a legal and actual marriage, and that this might take place in any private house, or even in a court of

373
justice. This state of things left the law uncertain with regard to marriages. From inquiries he had made, he understood that contracts of marriages of the kind he had just adverted to, formerly took place between Dissenters, and that Lutherans and others were married in this country in this manner previous to the Act of 1754. The Marriage-law of 1754, however, declared, that all marriages should be performed after banns had been proclaimed in the parish Church, or after licences had been granted to the contracting parties by competent authority, and that the ceremony should be performed within certain hours in the Church, whether by banns or licence, and by a clergyman of the Church of England. This law, he could not help feeling, was unjust, and was an unnecessary violation of the consciences of those who dissented from the Church, for it compelled persons wishing to contract a legal marriage, to go into a Church which they were not members of, and to have the ceremony performed by a clergyman in whose religious opinions they did not agree, and whose doctrines they did not follow, and many of whose religious opinions they might not be willing to receive or listen to. He thought, therefore, that the law should be brought into a state of greater simplicity, and be altered so as to avoid the objections that were raised against it on this account. The Protestant Dissenters had pressed for the redress of what they considered grievances, and he thought they justly regarded this as one of a serious nature. Within the last few years they had manifested great anxiety on this point, and he had heard statements made to the House by them during the Administration of Earl Grey, as well as during the Administration of the light hon. Baronet, in which they asserted, that they were willing to accept an arrangement in either one of two ways—either by making marriage altogether a civil ceremony, and by doing so acknowledging that all parties might adopt any religious ceremony they might consider desirable, apart from anything required by the State, and that they might perform such religious ceremony either in Church or chapel, or in any other way conformable to their consciences. If this was not admitted, they were willing to adopt another line. They acknowledged the religious nature of the ceremony, but they said, "Allow the members of the Church of
374
England to go to the parish Church, and allow us to be married by our own ministers in our own chapels." There might be great simplicity in this plan; but considering the circumstances of the country, and the feelings of the people, it was liable to great objections. The Legislature would respect, as it ought to do, the religious obligations of the contract. But if the Legislature took no notice of the religious part of the contract, and said, that the civil con tract was sufficient, and that everything then required by it had been performed, he thought that the ministers of the Church of England would complain of this as an unnecessary offence to their consciences, and that sufficient and due respect had not been paid to the religious ordinances which they considered themselves enjoined to observe. There was another way which the right hon. Baronet proposed—and in a manner, he would add, which reflected credit on his liberality, and which induced all the Members of that House who were Protestant Dissenters to acknowledge the enlarged and liberal views he entertained on the subject; but this was not satisfactory to them, as it was proposed that the marriages of the members of the Church of England should be left as at present, but that the marriages of Dissenters should be treated as a civil contract, and that the contract should be entered into before the civil Magistrate. This was a question of feeling; and he fully entered into the feelings which made the Protestant Dissenters say, that by a measure of that kind, the State acknowledged, that marriage was a religious ceremony in the Church of England, but it was not so as regarded the Dissenters. By far the greater part of the Dissenters regarded the marriage contract as much a religious contract as the members of the Church did. They said, "We have the same religious notions of the obligations of the contract as the members of the Church, but by this difference in the form you probably intentionally cast some stigma upon us." There remained another method by which the principle of relief could be afforded, and by which the Protestant Dissenters would be allowed to be married by their own ministers in their own chapels, in the way which they thought most conformable to their own consciences. He intended to propose that there should be one form with respect to all marriages; that

375
instead of the contract being entered into by the present system of bans or licences, that it should be by means of a notice-book and licence. With respect to licences, almost all the higher classes were now married by means of them, as they were obtained for sums of money; but the poorer classes were married by bans, and their names were proclaimed in the church. As to the proclaiming the bans in the parish church, he wished to observe, that after having taken the opinions of many clergymen of the Church of England, as well as other persons, on the subject, that he did not think that they afforded the security against clandestine marriages which was intended by their use. He believed that this law subsisted long before the Reformation, and when every person in the parish belonged to the Church, and all were of one religion, and when the parish church, was sufficiently large to embrace the greater part of the inhabitants of a parish, and when almost all persons resorted there. But in the present time bans were void and of no effect to all Dissenters from the Church, as well as to all persons who did not attend there. In populous parishes also, where not one-tenth or one-twentieth part of the population could attend, there was merely a huddled list of names read over, and this was done in the most careless manner; and clergymen had told him that it often occurred in an interval of the most solemn part of the service, and caused a most unpleasant and an almost indecent interruption of the service. He proposed, therefore, instead of this, that all persons about to be married should give notice to the registrar that their names might be inserted in the notice-book. That previous to the marriage the name should continue on the notice-book for twenty-one days; and that it should be open to inspection, and that the names of persons wishing to be married by licence, should remain on the notice-book eight days. There certainly was a distinction here between two classes; but it was not of such a marked nature as existed at present. Those who were married by licence had to pay a large sum for it, which those who were married by bans were for the most part unable to afford. He did not propose to do away with the special licences granted by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and, therefore, need make no observations on that part of the subject. As he had said before, the names
376
were to remain on the notice-book for twenty-one days, and the registrar would then give a certificate of this to the patties, and within a certain period the marriage might be performed. It was not necessary for him to state the number of days to be allowed for this, as that could be arranged in the Committee. If the parties were members of the Church of England, they might, if they thought proper, have bans proclaimed in the church; but he proposed that the clergyman should not be bound to do so, unless the parties produced the certificate of the registrar. He should previously have stated that before the names of the parties could be inserted in the notice-book, that some persons known to the registrar should declare that the parties were really and bona fide what they purported to be. If the parties were not members of the Church of England, and did not choose to be married in the church, he proposed that they might be married in a Dissenting chapel, which Dissenting chapel must be regularly licensed for the purpose. He proposed that this should be done, provided twenty housekeepers signed a declaration that they had been in the habit of attending the chapel, and that they knew it to be constantly used as a place of public worship. When this was done the place was to be licensed, and it was to be described as a licensed chapel in which marriages could be contracted. After a Dissenting chapel had been licensed for the purpose, the Dissenting minister would be empowered to marry the parties, in the manner which was agreeable to their own feelings and conscience. It was to be recollected, with respect to the officiating minister of the Church of England, that he was well known, and that his designation and habitation were fixed, and there was great security as to proper care being used in performing the marriage ceremony. With respect to Dissenting ministers, he need hardly observe that they were a great society of persons; and it often happened that a person for a time became the minister of a Dissenting congregation, and afterwards laid down his charge. The consequence would be, that there would be great uncertainty and vagueness if some care was not taken. He therefore proposed, that in all marriages in Dissenting chapels the registrar should be present at the ceremony. Then there remained that class of persons to whom he had be-

377
fore adverted, but which certainly was not very numerous, namely—those who declared that marriage was a simple civil contract; and in order to make the measure complete, he should give them something resembling what the right hon. Gentleman proposed to give them in his Bill of last year. Instead, however, of making them go before the magistrate, as the hon. Gentleman proposed, he should prefer that the parties, in such a case, should go before the chief superintendent of the district, and that they should be married according to a certain form of words prescribed in the Bill. The only difference between the marriages in the Church of England and those in Dissenting chapels was, that in the former the clergyman would have to enter the date of the ceremony, and the names of the parties, in the parish register-book, and that he afterwards must prepare a duplicate copy of the certificate of marriage, which he must send within a few days to the local registrar, who would enter it in the usual way, and afterwards send it to the chief register office in London. It thus appeared that he did not propose that it should be incumbent on the registrar to be present at marriages in the Church of England; but in Dissenters' chapels he deemed it requisite that the registrar should be present. In the Church of England, then, all the forms of marriage would be preserved, and at the same time he trusted adequate relief would be given to the conscientious objections of the Dissenters. These were the chief points of the two Bills which he proposed to introduce. He thought by the proposed civil register they would have a further advantage, which he did not think could be obtained in any other way. It would relieve the Protestant Dissenter from that which he conscientiously considered a grievance, and, at the same time, it would afford good security against clandestine marriages. By passing these Bills, he thought that the Legislature would deprive the Dissenters of one of those grounds of complaint which had been adverted to in the King's Speech, and would relieve them from grievances which they considered a burden on their consciences. He thought for this purpose, above all, a system of civil registration was necessary, and therefore it was, that he was anxious to consider both Bills together. Thus, then, while no disadvantage was offered to the Church, a complete relief was afforded to the
378
Protestant Dissenters of the grievances of which they complained. He would say a few words, and a very few, with respect to other practical grievances of which he had heard Protestant Dissenters complain during the last three or four years. The first complaint was, want of a civil and general register; the second was the want of a marriage ceremony, which was not offensive to their feelings. With respect to these two points, he had already addressed the House, and he trusted that the two Bills be proposed to introduce would afford an ample and satisfactory remedy. The third subject was the disabilities under which the Dissenters laboured, as regarded attending Oxford and Cambridge, which, at the same time, disabled them from attaining those eminent degrees in some sciences and arts which might be obtained by the members of the Church of England. On this subject he would merely observe that he had always been favourable to opening the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge to Dissenters; but he should be guilty of something like delusion if he held out any prospect of immediate relief in this respect. Some Protestant Dissenters, however, looked to another mode by which those honours and distinctions might be obtained, from which they ought not to be debarred in consequence of their religious opinions. He meant the establishment of a new University. This subject had occupied the attention of the Government, and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had devoted much time to devising a plan by which Protestant Dissenters, as well as all other persons, would be enabled to obtain their degrees, and that standing to which they were entitled, but which were now limited to those who studied at Oxford and Cambridge. This plan his right hon. Friend would shortly state to the House. Another matter of complaint was church-rates. Before, however, adverting to this, he would allude to the complaints that had been made, that ministers of Dissenting chapels were not allowed to bury deceased members of their congregations in the burying-grounds of the Church of England. He was not prepared to propose any thing on this point; but he would venture to say to those Protestant Dissenters who might be prepared to petition the House on the subject, that the great object all should have in view was, the promotion of religious peace; and that while they left the Church

379
of England in the full enjoyment of the rights which it ought to possess, the Protestant Dissenters should be placed in such a position as to feel themselves perfectly free and equal in all civil concerns, and that this matter should not be an occasion of jarring or quarrelling between themselves and the members of the Church. He was sorry to hear that there were some among the Protestant Dissenters, who stated that they preferred going on with the contest between themselves and the Church on this point, as well as respecting church-rates, rather (ban the Legislature should interpose to promote peace and harmony. Nothing, in his opinion, could be more desirable than putting an end to those contests which unhappily subsisted. It was the duty of the Legislature to establish such a system of laws that those feelings of alienation which unhappily existed between members of the Church and Dissenters should be lessened as much as possible. At the same time both parties should yield to a mutual feeling of good will, and one party ought to feel that it possessed nothing which could be considered an injury to the other. If this state of things was ever established, he should be able to look with confidence to the settlement of the question of burying Dissenters by their ministers in the churchyards. He was sure, if they introduced a measure for this purpose at present, and gave Protestant Dissenters, at any time, and under any circumstances, the right of going into church-yards for the purpose of performing any religious ceremonies they pleased, against the wish of the clergyman, so far from promoting harmony, they would widen the breach which now existed. The clergy would feel that it was an unnecessary and unjust interference with them, and it would excite painful feelings in their minds, to see ceremonies performed in the church-yards, against which they entertained serious and conscientious objections. If, however, those feelings of harmony and goodwill were produced, he had no doubt that this might be made a matter of compromise between the clergy and the ministers of the Dissenters. A clergyman living in harmony in his parish, and having feelings of good-will to all classes of his parishioners, might freely be induced to allow a funeral ceremony to be performed by a Dissenting minister in whom he had confidence, and with whose piety and devotion he was satisfied, and
380
from whom he did not anticipate anything obnoxious or insulting to his feelings. The subject of Church rates would form a matter of consideration and debate for another day; and he trusted that the end of these measures would be to establish firm peace between all religious parties in this country, and to do away those religious heats which now prevailed; and thus that a spirit of religious harmony would be engendered, in which respect he was sorry to say that England was far behind other countries. In commerce, in wealth, in industry, and, in some respects, in public instruction, there were some nations far inferior to us, but, in respect of religious tolerance and harmony, they were far before us. The noble Lord concluded with moving for leave to bring in a Bill to establish a general civil registration of births, marriages, and deaths in England and Wales
Mr. O'Connellrejoiced at the extent of the measure, as regarded the marriages of Protestant Dissenters; but he wished to know whether the measure extended to Roman Catholics?
Lord John Russellreplied, that in England and Wales the provisions would extend to Roman Catholics.
Sir Robert Peelconsidered this subject to be one of too great importance to make any lengthened observations upon it until he had seen the Bill, There were two great principles to be considered in it. First, the interest which all had in common, Dissenters as well as Churchmen, namely, the preventing clandestine marriages, and the insuring the perfect regularity of the ceremony, so that young persons should not be inveigled into it. The second point was concerning the religious scruples of either party. As a member of the Church of England, he would at once say, that, as far as he understood the Bill of the noble Lord, he had no objection to make to its principle. The noble Lord proposed that members of the Church of England should continue to have their marriages solemnized in their churches; that the religious character of that ceremony should continue to be respected; that there should be required no other obligation whatever for the purpose of giving validity to the contract, than the performance of the religious ceremony. He was speaking of members of the Church of England; in their case, he would repeat, the noble Lord did not pro-

381
pose to superinduce any civil form whatever in order to give validity to the contract. He was reminded of the exceptions relating to the publication of bans, but this was antecedent to the religious ceremony, and of the civil registration; but this was after the religious ceremony: they were no doubt, civil matters, but he was speaking of the religious operation of the contract, which was not affected by the Bill. Members of the Church of England would not be prevented, he presumed, from availing themselves of the religious registration now in use, as well as the proposed civil registration. The noble Lord had on this point omitted to take into consideration the question of the emoluments which at present arose to many persons from the mode of registration now in use; but this was a matter of minor importance. In the case of the marriage of Dissenters the noble Lord proposed that the ceremony should be a religious one on the part of those Dissenters who attached importance to it as such. He could only say, that whether the measure which the noble Lord proposed as more satisfactory to the Dissenters than that which he Sir Robert Peel had last year the honour of bringing forward, were really so, he must, of course, leave as a question of feeling, on which the Dissenters ought to be considered and consulted; for his own part he could not but think the measure he had proposed calculated to be equally satisfactory with the present. This, however, as he had just observed, was a question to be decided according to the religious scruples and feelings of the Dissenting body. The noble Lord had, however, not precisely described the measure which he had last year introduced; the Noble Lord said that that measure proposed to continue the marriage contract as a religious ceremony in the case of members of the Church of England, but only as a civil contract in the case of Dissenters. Now this description of the measure, although not at variance with the truth, was not at all a complete or exact description of its character. He certainly had proposed that there should be a civil evidence of the contract, but he had not proposed this because he undervalued the religious ceremony: on the contrary, the preamble of the projected Bill expressly recited that the Legislature wished to encourage the religious ceremony. The Bill certainly left it to the parties to observe
382
only such religious rites and ceremonies as they conscientiously felt disposed to; but it in no way undervalued the religious ceremony which he wished to have superinduced on the civil contract; all the Bill did was to obviate the necessity of the religious ceremony being a condition indispensable to the validity of the marriage contract. The noble Lord still proposed to make a difference between Dissenters and members of the Church of England, to which, he would admit, Dissenters could not fairly object; at the same time he might observe, that the Dissenter who reconciled himself to this difference might equally have reconciled himself to the provisions of the Bill which he had brought forward. Under the now proposed Bill, in the case of the marriage of members of the Church, the attendance of the registrar would not be required; while, in the case of the Dissenters, the ceremony would not be valid unless performed in the presence of a civil officer, the registrar of the union. In his Bill, the magistrate was the civil officer before whom the marriage was to be celebrated. Then, as to the registrar's attendance, he (Sir R. Peel) did not exactly see how it would be possible to insure the attendance of this officer, if there were to be only one in the Union, at every Dissenter's marriage. Supposing all these marriages to take place on the Sabbath-day, it would be extremely difficult for the officer to perform his many duties; and, on the other hand, it would be impossible for the Dissenters, under the contemplated circumstances, to make a free choice as to what day they would be married on, which would be a hard case. One great inconvenience and annoyance under which the Dissenters laboured, was in having their marriages performed in a place of worship in which they held no communion. Now, under the proposed Bill, suppose the registrar "to be a member of the Church of England, yet he was required to be present at every marriage celebrated under every form of religious worship which Dissenters might think it their conscientious duty to adopt, whether Roman Catholic or any other species of dissenting form. The noble Lord, in proceeding with this Bill, must take care to guard against the possibility of fraud, or evasion of the law on the part of false pretenders to religious scruples, who, making a pretence that their principles of religion taught them to consider the reli-

383
gious ceremony as not necessary to the validity of the marriage contract, might seek means of evading the law, and throwing families and society into confusion. He was not speaking of respectable and conscientious Dissenters, but of those who, under pretence of being of their profession, sought to evade the law. He must say again, that after carefully considering the nature of the proposed Bill, he saw little material difference between it and the Bill he proposed last year; but if it were more palatable to the conscientious Dissenters, they certainly had a right to adopt that which they found most consonant to their religious feelings; and if they were pleased with the present measure in preference to his, he was quite ready to say that, for his own part, he had, as a Churchman, no objections to the principles of the noble Lord's Bill. All he would stipulate for was, that the very utmost precautions should be taken that the real object of the Bill should not be defeated, for any fraud or evasion of the law would be dangerous to society and to property, and destructive of the peace of families.
Mr. Bainesrejoiced to find, from what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet opposite, that the proposed measure was not objectionable in the eyes of members of the Established Church, and he believed, though he spoke only as an individual, that it would be equally acceptable to the Dissenters. Nothing could be more beneficial than a general system of civil registration of births, marriages, and deaths; and he (Mr. Baines) looked upon the present measure, in its general outline, as calculated to effect that desired object. He differed from the right hon. Baronet, who thought that there was no material difference between the Marriage Bill announced this night, and the one brought forward last year, for he thought the noble Lord's measure would obviate a very important objection, which applied to the plan announced by the right hon. Baronet, who drew a distinction between the marriages of Protestant Dissenters and those of members of the Established Church, the former of which were to consist, as far as the law was concerned, in a mere civil compact, while the latter had the sanction and force of a religious obligation. In the Bill of the noble Lord, the members of the Established Church would be married according to their own marriage ceremony; the Protestant Dissenters would
384
be married by their own Ministers with equal solemnity; and those that preferred the civil contract, were here left at liberty to adopt it in the presence of the registrar, who would become an attesting witness. With respect to the question of Church-rates alluded to by the noble Lord, he (Mr. Baines) hoped that they would soon arrive at a conclusion equally satisfactory to the members of the Church and to Dissenters. On this subject, speaking merely as an independent Member of Parliament, and not as the representative of a body of Dissenters, he might express his decided opinion that the Dissenters would never yield their consent to any mode of arranging that matter that did not go to the actual and absolute extinction of those rates without commutation. As to the admission of Protestant Dissenters to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, they had long claimed that privilege; but if collegiate benefits and honours could be secured to them of equal value by other means, he supposed that the principal cause of their discontent on that head would be removed. The Dissenters did not, he believed, insist very strongly upon the right of their Ministers to perform the funeral service in the parish church-yards, unless with the concurrence of the clergyman. To insist upon this privilege would, in certain cases, be to violate the conscientious scruples of the Minister of the' Established Church; and the Protestant Dissenters of England, If he understood their characters, were as little inclined to do violence to the consciences of others as they were to submit to the violation of their own consciences.
Mr. O'Connellexpressed his extreme satisfaction at the plan developed by the noble Lord. The relief which it would give Roman Catholics from many of their inconveniences and annoyances was considerable, and the advantage to the State would be no less so. At present, when the law required a twofold ceremony to be gone through in the case of the marriage of a Roman Catholic and a Protestant, many of the poorer Roman Catholics neglected the second ceremony on account principally of the expense, and the consequence was, that in a great many cases this neglect rendering the marriage invalid, parishes were, after a few years, burdened with numbers of illegitimate children.
Mr. Goulhurnthought the Bill did not

385
provide sufficiently against cases of fraud. He should, however, in the progress of the measure, take further occasion to express his opinions on several parts of it.
Lord John Russellthanked the House for the very favourable manner in which it had received his proposed measure. After the broad and liberal principles which were stated last year by the right hon. Baronet on this subject, he had felt assured of his support of the present Bill. With reference to the objection which had been made on the point of one registrar's being insufficient to attend all the marriages of Dissenters within his registry, he (Lord J. Russell) would reply, that he believed there would generally be one registrar to every 5,000 persons, which would be sufficient, the calculation being, that the marriages, in proportion to the population, were less than one per cent. With reference to the facility which would be given to clandestine marriages, he did not think his Bill inferior in this respect to the Bill of the right hon. Baronet.
Sir Robert Peelobserved, that when no point of honour was concerned, he had sanguine hopes that many of the Dissenters, particularly the female portion of them, would prefer being married in Church.
Motion agreed to—Leave given.
Leave was also given to bring in the Bill for regulating Marriages.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Earl BROWNLOW, from the Agricultural Association of Boston, for Legislative Protection to Agriculture.—By Lord HOLLAND, from Prisoners in the Fleet, for Abolishing Imprisonment for Debt.

THE CIVIL WAR IN SPAIN.
The Marquess of Londonderryassured their Lordships that it was with the utmost diffidence and reluctance he rose to make a few observations upon the subject of the Motion of which he had given notice, relative to our interference with the affairs of Spain. He was sorry to bring forward such an important subject so early in the Session, but as he had been precluded from offering a few observations on that part of the Speech which referred to Spain, he felt that he was bound to take an early opportunity of calling their Lordships' attention to the matter. He had on many occasions been obliged to animadvert upon the refusal of all information from the Government, and the indifference with which he had been treated by the noble Viscount when he had felt it his duty to ask any question relative to Spain. Last Session, the noble Lord, when alluding to the convention of Lord Eliot, had said that there was no doubt but that it would extend to all Englishmen engaged in the Spanish service; and only the other day, the noble Viscount said, he did not know whether the decree of Don Carlos was retrospective in its operation or not. Events had shown the noble Viscount's ignorance, and he must say that there seemed to be a great deal of indifference on the part of the Government to this important question. They had been loud in their vituperation of Don Carlos for the order he had put forth; but it was well-known that he had not had recourse to such a severe measure, until he was driven to it by the brutalities of the Christinos Generals,—it was a mere matter of retaliation. He was sure that that decree was contrary to the feelings and wishes of Don Carlos. The Govern-

313
ment seemed bent upon nothing but upholding the cause of the Queen. What was the immediate object of the passage in the King's Speech with regard to Spain? Was it not to give to Europe at large the belief that the present Government of Spain, by its prudence, firmness, and vigour, would be able to re-establish peace in that country? What he contended for was, that the House ought to be informed fully and faithfully, of the grounds upon which the hope expressed in the royal Speech of so satisfactory a termination of things in Spain rested. To him it appeared that, the propagation of such a notion was the propagation of a fatal delusion. What was there in the past or present state of Spain—where was there any appearance of harmony or stability, to warrant the belief of a speedy settlement in any judicious mind? Within the last eight months Spain had had four or five different persons at the head of affairs. The last, he believed, was transported from the Stock Exchange of London to assume the reins of Government in Madrid. What had been that gentleman's course since he was there? Had he performed any of those prodigies the world was given to expect from his genius? Or, in fact, had he done anything to sustain the reputation so confidently boasted of by the noble Viscount opposite and his colleagues? He had undoubtedly ordered a levy of 100,000 men to drive Don Carlos from his mountains; but he had not yet got his 100,000 men, nor would he, in the opinion of any person at all acquainted with the country, or the circumstances of it, get more than one-tenth of that number. He had no confidence, therefore, in the military strength of the Queen's Government. With respect to finance, it was said that Mr. Mendizabel had prepared a plan concocted in his own brain; but it had not yet transpired, and therefore nobody was enabled to pronounce an opinion upon it. Next, this minister had dissolved that very Cortes from which he, a few weeks ago, solicited a vote of confidence. He had seen his armies go forth from Vittoria to the mountains to beat the Carlists, and he had seen them beaten back again to Vittoria, and shortly, no doubt, he would see them in full march upon Madrid. Yet such was the opinion entertained by the present Government of the resources of this man, that they put into the mouth of his Majesty the public expression of a
314
hope that, from so much vigour, prudence, and firmness, the pacification of the entire Peninsula might be expected. Only a few months ago they had heard or seen a speech delivered by the Foreign Secretary in another place, to which he would now allude, for the purpose of showing what confidence could be placed in the prophesying of that noble Lord. The noble Lord had stated that he looked upon the success of Don Carlos as impossible—that the majority of the people of Spain were in favour of the Queen, that there were only 10,000 or 12,000 men in arms against the Government in one or two of the remote provinces of Spain—that it was only to put down those partial and local insurrections that their efforts were to be made, that the resistance to the Queen's authority had been confined to two or three particular provinces, and that no disturbance had broken out in the rest of Spain. Would the noble Secretary now say, that no other province had declared in favour of Don Carlos, and that disturbances had broken out in no other provinces? Instead of 10,000 or 12,000 men, Don Carlos had in Biscay and Navarre 30,000; in Catalonia 22,000; in Arragon 7,000; in Gallicia 6,000; he believed, in all, 80,000 or 90,000 men. Yet with such statements as these, how was it possible they could express confidence in the prudence, vigour, and firmness of the present Government of Spain? He called upon his Majesty's Ministers to show one instance in which the Government of Spain had manifested prudence, vigour, or firmness. There was nothing mentioned in his Majesty's Speech relative to the Belgians, Was he to congratulate the noble Lord opposite that the question between Holland and Belgium was decided? Were they to express such confidence as they were called upon to do, he had no hesitation in saying, that it would meet with the most perfect derision throughout the whole of Europe. It was to Europe this country was to look. There were no doubt many noble Lords who might be very deeply interested in the domestic policy of their own country that their attention was not awakened to foreign affairs; but he would say, look to those great allies who had carried this country through the struggle in which she had been engaged. What would those great allies say, when they found it was declared by his Majesty's Speech, that the firmness, prudence, and vigour of the Go-

315
vernment of Spain, gave a confident hope of a speedy termination of the warfare? When he found these passages in the Speech, deeply interested as he felt in the foreign policy of Europe—when he felt further the degradation in which the profession to which he had the honour to belong, had been placed by the mode in which the warfare had been carried on, carried on in a manner that would certainly throw shame and defeat, and every thing-that was disgraceful, on the British troops, and give the praise of any victory to the Spaniards—he could not refrain from bringing the subject under their Lordships' notice. He could not but feel strongly at the manner in which the present Government had connived at the scenes of slaughter and butchery going on between the combatants in Spain; and which were calculated, so far as this country was concerned, to cover it with disgrace. That was one object of his inquiry. He wished to know from the noble Viscount opposite, if he would have the goodness to tell him, what steps were about to be, or had been taken to alleviate those scenes of horror and bloodshed to which he had alluded? If the person at the head of the Government of Spain, who seemed to possess so much influence over the Queen, really had the power represented by his Majesty's Government, he could put an end to these enormities if he were bona fide determined to do so. The noble Lord could not be ignorant of them, for a short time ago a letter had appeared in all the papers, professing to have been written by the noble Secretary of State for the Foreign Department (Lord Palmerston) to the Bishop of Leon. In that letter the noble Lord seemed to have departed from his usual suaviter in modo, and to have adopted the for-titer in re of his allies. The letter seemed to him to have been most useless and uncalled for. It served no good purpose, and indeed no purpose that he could discover, beyond that of firing a phillipic against the unfortunate Bishop. If the noble Lord had been merely looking out for an opportunity of showing the ability of his pen, he might have addressed a despatch to Count Nesselrode upon any of the numerous circumstances in the conduct of Russia calculated to excite his ire; or he might have selected that publication called "The Portfolio," for the desired display of his powers, and in order to create a sensation throughout Europe. The singular part of
316
the letter, however, was, that the thing requested by the Bishop of Leon, the requesting of which so excited the wrath of the noble Lord, was exactly what the noble Lord had done a month before the receipt of that letter. Now, he wished the noble Viscount opposite to say, whether he would object to place the letter of the Bishop of Leon and the answer of the noble Lord before the House, that they might be able to judge for themselves as to the success of the application. If the noble Lord would show a determination to act up to the letter and spirit of the convention, he was sure there would be an end of all those atrocities which made Europe shudder. It was in vain to deny that these examples of butcheries and slaughters were infectious. They went from one camp to another; and he was sorry to say that our own unfortunate troops who were seduced into the service by the speeches of the noble Secretary of State for the Foreign Department about the glory and honour of the cause, and misled by the declaration of the noble Viscount opposite, that they would be protected under the convention—he was sorry to say, that they had caught the infection of assassination. He confessed that he felt deeply the dishonour brought upon the character of the British soldier by these proceedings, for British soldiers (the mercenaries, as they were called in Spain) they must be considered. After the last battle circumstances the most disgraceful had occurred. He was in possession of documents, and he should be ready to show his authority to prove to the people of England, to the army, and to Europe, that the British Government, instead of boldly, manfully, and courageously carrying on war, as was due to the honour and ancient character of the country, was, in fact, doing the same thing in a weak, vacillating, furtive, and unintelligible manner, which would hereafter produce the most fatal consequences as regarded our foreign policy and relations. The noble Lord read from two letters in his possession descriptions of the massacre of some Carlist prisoners by the soldiers of General Evans. One was dated from St. Jean de Luz, and stated, that on the "17th ult, the soldiers of Evans, returning to Vittoria, perfectly drunk, and in a State of exasperation at having been beaten, fell upon and murdered 130 Carlist prisoners in their hands. The officers did all they could to arrest the massacre, but in vain."

317
Now, he begged to ask, what must be the state of discipline of the soldiers of that army if their officers had no power over them? He had good authority for stating, that upon the occasion of the last attack of the British upon the Carlists, they were in a state of the most gross intoxication. With such information, what, he asked, must be his feelings, as a soldier, if he were to take no notice of such proceedings? The noble Secretary of State for the Foreign Department had told this country that the troops of the Queen were greatly superior in force to those of Don Carlos; and he then went on to taunt that Prince on the ground of his remaining in the mountains of Navarre for security. Don Carlos, he had no doubt, recollected the conduct of the Duke of Wellington when he entrenched himself within the lines of Torres Vedras, returning, year after year, to those lines till the country was ready effectively to aid him upon his leaving them. Don Carlos was also too wise and prudent to leave the mountains till he was in possession of a force throughout the country which would leave no chance of his meeting with disaster. He hoped this wise conduct of Don Carlos would inspire his Majesty's Ministers with the opinion that his firmness and vigour would speedily bring the contest to a termination. Sure he was that there was no vigour, and no firmness on the other side. For these reasons he was of opinion that that part of the royal Speech referring to Spain was ill-advised, and he entered his humble protest against it. He must also take that opportunity of noticing the denunciations uttered in the public press against that House. He hoped their existence was not so exactly limited as had been foretold. Six weeks, he understood, was the allotted term of their existence as a House in their present state. This had been stated openly throughout the country by one supposed to be in connexion with the Government; and when he found them so passive upon home affairs of great importance, as he thought, as not to come forward to disavow and denounce such sentiments, he confessed he could entertain no confidence in them with regard to their conduct of the foreign affairs of the country. As to the returns for which he was about to move, his object was to know the grounds upon which warlike stores were furnished to the Queen of Spain, the extent to which they were furnished, and how they were to be
318
paid for? Upon these subjects he had only the treaty of April 22, 1834, and the additional articles to that treaty of August 18th, 1834, to refer to for information. By the additional articles of the Quadruple Treaty, the king of the French engaged to take, in the portion of his states near to Spain, the measures best calculated to prevent any sort of assistance in men, arms, or ammunition from being sent from the French territory to the insurgents in Spain; and on the part of England it was stipulated in the second article—"That the king of England engages to supply to her Catholic Majesty all the assistance of arms and ammunition she may claim, and, besides this, to assist with naval forces should this become necessary." By those stipulations it would be seen that France was left free to fulfil her part of the agreement in the manner she deemed most fitting, whilst this country was tied down to the very letter of the stipulation, and this was the treaty which hung round the neck of the late Administration. But how differently had they acted, even with this clog upon them. But what was the nature of our stipulation in Spain? It could hardly, he should think, be expected that the present Parliament would consent to furnish supplies of arms and ammunition to one party in Spain, if the payment by that party for these supplies were to be left till the struggle should be terminated; for that struggle might be protracted for a period beyond calculation. It was evidently a struggle in which each party sought the extermination of the other. Had the Duke of Wellington remained in office, the differences of the parties would have been arranged before now. The Duke was using his utmost endeavours whilst in office, and he (Lord Londonderry) pledged his faith as a soldier, that he would have settled the question in a satisfactory manner if he had continued. In conclusion the noble Lord moved for a return of "all warlike stores, clothing, accoutrements, arms, ammunition, artillery, and Congreve rockets, and also of all naval stores of every description, furnished to the Queen of Spain by Great Britain, stating the value of the same, and if any and what payments had been made for the same; likewise, a return of the names, rank, and number of officers upon the half-pay of the British service at present serving in the army of the Queen of Spain."
Viscount Melbournemeant to offer no

319
opposition to the production of the return moved for by the noble Marquess. It was natural that the noble Marquess should wish to have such information, and there could be no objection on the part of his Majesty's Government to furnish it. With respect to the question of the noble Marquess, as to whether the stores and warlike articles furnished in pursuance of the treaty were to be paid for, he had to state that, of course, they were not furnished gratuitously. They had been furnished upon the undertaking of the Spanish Government to pay for them. Having stated this, he begged to remind the noble Marquess, that in answer to a question put to the Duke of Wellington when in office, he had strongly declared it as his opinion that in the present state of the Government of Spain, and the circumstances of that country, she ought not at present to be called upon to pay for the warlike stores furnished by Great Britain. That was the noble declaration of the Duke of Wellington—that was his interpretation of what was the duty of the Government of this country under the treaty entered into with Spain— that was his Grace's view of the best manner of upholding the honour of the country and supporting the national faith, thereby, according to the noble Duke's invariable practice, doing his best to maintain the honour, good faith, and dignity of the Crown. He was sure the noble Marquess would see that his Majesty's Government could not do better than follow the example of the noble Duke in that respect. Of course the supply of these stores was not to be unlimited; but was to be bounded by the circumstances of the case, and the discretion of Government, due regard being had to public economy, the state of the contest, and the convenience of this country. The noble Lord had taken this opportunity of making some remarks upon a portion of the Speech which his Majesty had been advised to make at the opening of the present Session of Parliament. He must say that he could not see why the noble Lord could not have adopted, as a more natural occasion for delivering these sentiments, the period when his Majesty's Speech, or the Address in reply to it, was under discussion before their Lordships, instead of this day, upon the mere motion for papers. The noble Lord seemed to intimate that he had found some difficulty in fixing upon a fitting occasion for delivering his sentiments upon the subject in
320
question. But he must say, that as long as it was the practice in their Lordships House, by a tacit understanding, though that, he must say, was most irregular and inconvenient, and very unfair to those who were expected to make replies—as long as any time, and the opportunity of any sort of business being before the House, was considered appropriate for the introduction of any question or remark whatever which any noble Lord chose to offer, the want of opportunities to make speeches was the last thing he had expected to hear complained of by the noble Lord. The noble Lord had mentioned one circumstance which he (Lord Melbourne) could wish he had omitted, but which, having been mentioned, he could not allow to pass over without observation. What the noble Lord had alluded to was that passage in his Majesty's Speech which referred to the intimate union existing between this country and our powerful neighbour, France; an allusion which the noble Lord seemed to consider an invidious one, and tending to disparage the importance of our friendly relations with other European powers. He could assure the noble Lord that no such sentiment was intended to be conveyed by the paragraph alluded to, which certainly was not intended to express an attachment to any particular State or Power in preference to what was due to the rest of our foreign relations. This, however, he must be permitted to say, that, considering the rivers of blood which had been made to flow in that unhappy country, in carrying on long and implacable warfare, in which all the Powers of Europe were involved—hostilities which might arise again if cause existed for them—considering this, he did not think it unnatural to congratulate the world, and particularly that portion of the world which had been devastated and divided by past unhappy contests, that an earnest had been received for the continuance of peace and union between this country and France. The noble Marquess had next adverted to the affairs of Spain, into which he had gone at considerable length. With respect to the cruel decree which had been issued by Don Carlos against foreigners engaged in the civil contests in Spain, the noble Lord had declared that that decree had been issued most unwillingly by that prince, and only adopted as a necessary means of retaliation for the cruelties to which his own

321
soldiers were still exposed at the hands of the Queen's Generals. Undoubtedly the cruel and bloody character of the contest now carrying on in Spain could not but be deeply deplored by every observer, and he was sure the noble Lord did his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Foreign Department no more than justice when he admitted that everything had been done by him which was in his power to restrain those horrible proceedings. For his own part, he (Lord Melbourne) could prove that no case of the kind had been brought before his noble Friend in which he had not remonstrated, and earnestly desired that means might be agreed upon and adopted to prevent the recurrence of these cruel acts of retaliation. With respect to the alleged unwillingness with which Don Carlos had been brought to adopt this decree, and the leniency with which it had been hitherto acted upon in many cases, he could only say, that upon every occasion when communications had been addressed to Don Carlos, or his officers, on the subject, the reply had been that the decree was still in force, and that Don Carlos had always intended that it should be strictly adhered to. The noble Lord had further stated that some of his Majesty's subjects engaged in these contests on the part of the Queen Regent of Spain, had been in many cases guilty of similar atrocities to those complained of in Don Carlos. For his own part, he could only say that he had never heard of any circumstances of the kind; on the contrary, from all he had heard of the conduct of the British auxiliary troops in Spain, which the noble Lord alleged was such as to degrade them as men, and by which he further declared the very name and character of a soldier was lowered and vilified; so far from this being the case, from all which he (Lord Melbourne) had heard of the general conduct and character of these troops, their courage in action, and their patience and subordination under the trials and privations to which they were necessarily exposed, they were such as he would assure the noble Lord, so far from disgracing the name of Englishmen, might do honour to the very troops which the noble Lord himself had at one time commanded in the same country. He would take this opportunity of observing, that in the course of the recent debates upon the King's Speech, two distinct, principles
322
appeared to have been laid down, one in that House, and one in the other House of Parliament, by neither of which, he begged to declare, would he consent to hold himself bound. One of these rules was, that Ministers had no right to call upon the House to pledge itself to a principle upon any matter upon which the Parliament was to be afterwards called upon to legislate. The other rule was, that his Majesty should not be allowed to advert in terms either of praise or disparagement to the conduct of a foreign Government. Now, for himself, he would declare fearlessly, that neither of these rules was founded, either on precedent or reason. It might, he thought, be very necessary in many cases to call upon Parliament for a distinct declaration upon a matter of principle. With respect to the other rule, it might be equally necessary, in many cases, particularly in time of war, to call upon Parliament for an expression of its opinion in reference to the conduct of a foreign Government. But his noble Friend himself had broken through this pretended rule, by going, as he had done, into statements, in order to prove the weakness and imbecility of the Queen of Spain's Government, instead of the prudence and firmness which had been attributed to it by the King's Speech. These allegations he would not then take into consideration; but he would declare that, considering all the facts which were before them, he did believe that the language which had been used in that Speech was not of an exaggerated character; and he had every reason to hope that a speedy and happy termination would be put to the Spanish contest, through the means now in operation. It was of the utmost importance to the peace of Europe that this contest should terminate, and he had every reason to believe that the hopes which he had expressed upon this subject would prove well founded. He did not think that there was any other matter in the noble Lord's speech immediately calling for observation, nor was there anything, he believed, to be added on the subject for the satisfaction of his noble Friends around him; he should, therefore, conclude by again stating that he had no objection to offer to the motion of the noble Lord.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, that as the noble Viscount opposite offered no opposition to the production of these papers,

323
he did not rise to say anything upon that point, nor to enter into any inquiry as to the general course of foreign, policy pursued by his Majesty's Government in respect to Spain. At the same time, however, he must be allowed to advert to some particulars connected with affairs now going on in Spain, which he felt certain every noble Lord in that House, and every individual in the country, must regard with feelings of horror and disgust. He spoke of the manner in which the hostilities had been carried on in Spain, not only between the parties concerned in the contest, but also by third parties, aliens from the Government of the Queen Regent of Spain, and belonging, themselves, to a nation which specially claimed for itself a constitutional and liberal character. Yet these very men had committed atrocities equally horrible with those committed by either of the two contending parties themselves. Whether or not the conduct of the Queen Regent's Government had been characterised by that vigour and prudence which had been attributed to it in the King's Speech, he was not prepared to say. He should prefer waiting to see the evidence of that prudence and vigour. Of course his Majesty's Ministers must have been in possession of what they considered sufficient evidence on this point before they ventured upon Such a public expression of opinion; for he recollected very well, that upon former occasions noble Lords on the opposite side of the House had been very scrupulous about making observations of the kind upon the conduct of foreign Governments, particularly in a case not long ago, when one of the nearest, the best, and the most intimate of our allies was the one alluded to. The purpose for which he (Lord Aberdeen) principally rose, however, was to state, that if he abstained from entering upon a discussion as to the general foreign policy pursued by his Majesty's Government, it was not from any feeling of tacit approbation of that policy—very far from it. The case of Spain was one of disputed succession. He did not quarrel with noble Lords opposite for supporting the legality of the Queen's Government, Whatever might be his own opinion upon that point, he would be the last to say that, when once a treaty had been entered into to that effect, that treaty should not be adhered to fully and entirely. The noble Viscount, in his observations, had
324
only done justice to the conduct of the noble Duke (Wellington), and he appealed to the noble Viscount confidently whether Administration of a right hon. Gentleman in the other House, through the conduct of the noble Duke, who then held the seals of the Foreign Department, had not honourably and faithfully executed the provisions of the treaty in question? But, if the noble Viscount should infer from this statement that that noble Duke entertained a different opinion as to the policy of the country from that which he had just expressed, he would greatly deceive himself; for the noble Duke thought as he (Lord Aberdeen) did, that a treaty which had been sanctioned and ratified by the King was binding so long as it existed. To bring this fact before the House was the principal object he now had in view; but there was one other point to which he should advert before he sat down, as he could not abstain from expressing his regret that his Majesty's Ministers had not continued to execute the Quadruple Treaty, according to its provisions. He regretted that they had permitted the enlistment of British subjects into the Spanish service. He did not intend to enter into the many reasons which might be adduced upon this point, as there was one objection sufficiently obvious to every man. He repeated again his regret that his Majesty's Government had not thought proper to adhere strictly to the terms of the treaty, instead of suspending an Act for the purpose of permitting British subjects to enlist into a foreign service. He should now purposely abstain from proceeding with the subject, and if he might venture to make a recommendation to the House, it should be, not to carry the discussion any further on the present occasion.
Motion, agreed to.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS' CONSOLIDATION BILL.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that in rising for the purpose of laying on their Lordships' Table a Bill for the Consolidation of the Ecclesiastical Courts, and for the more efficient administration of justice in them, he should not enter into much detail upon the subject. At the same time it might not be inconvenient, as the subject was one of great importance, and the grievances it was proposed by the Bill to remedy, of considerable extent, shortly to state the outlines of the intended mea-

325
sure. Their Lordships were doubtless aware of the amazing variety of questions which, according to the existing state of the laws, might be brought under the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts; and the reason probably why the country had escaped from many of the grievances and inconveniences which the nature of the existing laws was liable to produce was, that in very many of the cases to which he was about to refer, the powers of these courts had fallen into desuetude. One of the most important jurisdictions of the Ecclesiastical Courts was in questions of probates of wills, and in granting administration of the property and effects of an intestate. In former times, when the property of the country consisted chiefly in land, the importance of this jurisdiction was not so great as it was at the present time, when so large a portion of the property of the country was in the shape of money and other personality. It now became a most important consideration, therefore, how far the law as it stood provided for the due administration of what was required to be done in this matter. Another important branch of the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts was, that in reference to matrimonial contracts, questions as to the validity of marriages in the first instance, questions arising after marriage between the parties, and questions as to the restoration of conjugal rights, all questions of the utmost importance in themselves, affecting, as they did, obligations and rights most solemnly entered into and agreed upon between parties, which should not be interfered with except upon sufficient grounds, of pure necessity, all these were questions which the Ecclesiastical Courts had to decide upon. But although these were some of the most important duties of the Ecclesiastical Courts, they were by no means all which fell within their province. These Courts held jurisdiction at present over matters of legacies—a very imperfect jurisdiction, it was true, for in all cases of legacies with trusts attached to them, and in all cases of legacies connected with church or landed property, these Courts were prevented from adjudicating. Their jurisdiction, therefore, upon such matters as these was very limited, and of very little use. Another part of the jurisdiction of the Courts was in matters of tithe. But this jurisdiction entirely ceased in any case of prescription or modus; and so it resulted, that in
326
almost the only cases where the interference of those Courts could be of use, they were prevented from interfering. A very simple course was, therefore, open to every one, upon being sued in one of these Courts upon a matter of tithe, and that was to put up a plea of prescription or modus; and, by so doing, remove the case from the jurisdiction of the Court. Another matter in which the Ecclesiastical Courts now hold jurisdiction was that of churchrates—duties which they were very ill adapted to execute, and which, it was thought, might be much better performed by another process. He would pass over one or two other minor matters in which the Ecclesiastical Courts now held jurisdiction, and which were not included in the provisions of the present Bill, amongst which were questions connected with pews and seats in churches. He proposed to leave the authority of the bishops over the clergy in matters of church discipline untouched in substance, though in form of execution he had some amendments in contemplation. The proceedings at present were not only dilatory, but exceedingly expensive, not only to the party accused, but too frequently to the accuser. Some provisions to remedy this might be introduced in a future Bill to regulate the proceedings with respect to the clergy, and which, would have the effect of giving the bishops a more salutary jurisdiction. Amongst other duties which still attached to the Ecclesiastical Courts, were those which they were said to execute pro salute animæ, as to the suppressing of immoral practices; but it appeared that whenever their attention had been called to matters of this kind, it had been attended with very great expense, and with very little benefit. He would pass over other slighter heads of their jurisdiction, as for instance, against indecent brawling in church-yards &c, in which they possessed very extensive -powers if they chose to execute them. The processes by which the Courts were called upon to act in these cases were those of admonition, penance, excommunication, and others. Statutes of comparatively recent date, whilst they confirmed the principle and nature of the judgment of these Courts, pointed out a different course of action. Having stated some of the powers and duties of these Courts, he would now state the number of them, which was no less than 386. Many of these Courts had been constituted upon

327
a much better footing than others. About 300 of them were peculiarly constituted during the time of popery when jurisdiction was given in these matters to particular monastic institutions, and also to certain manors, the jurisdiction of which remained to the present day. He need hardly draw their Lordships' attention to the very great inconvenience which must necessarily be felt on account of the great number of these courts by all parties who happened to be concerned in matters within their jurisdiction. There being for instance so many courts to which a party might resort for the purpose of proving a will or obtaining administration, how was it possible for any person wishing to object to such a process to find Out where it was being carried on? The course such a person had to pursue was, to issue a caveat; but, amongst 360 courts, which should he resort to in the first instance for the purpose of tendering his caveat? and how long might be not be going from place to place, in hopes of finding out the court in which it was available? It so happened, however, that parties were afraid of applying to any of the Local Ecclesiastical Courts upon matters of this kind, on account of the inconvenient state of the law, by which it was provided, that if part of the deceased person's estates, to the amount of only 5l. was within the jurisdiction of another court, the process, when taken out, would be invalid. In consequence of this it happened that the course generally pursued was to take out probates of wills and administration of the effects of an intestate in the Prerogative Court of London. It was scarcely possible also to suppose that judges could be found for all the Local Ecclesiastical Courts who, aided by counsel, experienced as they themselves should be in ail the intricate points of law on these subjects, should be able to decide upon such matters. An absolute necessity, therefore, appeared to exist for the establishment of some comprehensive and settled plan upon the subject. Another evil resulted from the great number of these courts—namely, the multiplicity of appeals. There was an appeal first to the Bishop's Court, then to the Court of the Arches, and from thence, until very recently, there was an appeal to the Court of Delegates, and there was now a last appeal to his Majesty in Council; and so it happened that parties could appeal to every one of these
328
courts, at every stage of the proceedings, indeed as was very frequently practised, before the cause had stirred a single step. He admitted that that very privilege at present tended greatly to prevent the increase of the other evils which would result from the constitution of these courts parties being generally induced to appeal at once from the inferior courts, as a preliminary step not on account of any matter connected with the merits of the case, but because they were anxious to escape from the authority of an inferior tribunal. The importance of having some general place in which all documents affecting property might be deposited, was a question which had been much discussed. An objection had been raised against this proposal, from an apprehension that it might lead to the publicity of circumstances connected with many persons' titles, which they might wish to keep private. This objection could not apply to the matter of wills, which could not be acted upon till after probate had been granted; and when once this was obtained, the contents of the will itself were open to all who were fortunate enough to find out where it was deposited. Now, if one certain place were fixed upon at which probates on all wills could be obtained, it was evident that persons might more easily resort to them, which he apprehended would be a great convenience. The measure which he was about to submit to their Lordships on this subject, was one which had received particular consideration from many of the ablest authorities of the law. In 1812, the late Lord Stowell proposed a measure in the House of Commons for the purpose of destroying the jurisdiction of the inferior Ecclesiastical Courts. In 1830, an Ecclesiastical Commission was issued, and in 1832, the Report of the Commission appeared, signed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishops of Durham, Lincoln, St. Asaph, and Bangor, by the then Chief Justice of the King's Bench (Lord Tenterden), by the present Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, by Sir W, Robinson, Dr. Lushington, Sir Herbert Jenner, &c. It was hardly possible to have higher authorities than these; and it was the object of the present Bill to carry into effect, some of, but not all, the alterations which those eminent individuals had recommended. Amongst other of these recommendations was that for destroying all the Local Ec-

329
clesiastical Courts, and the only exception, in respect of which there appeared to exist the smallest question in the minds of the Commissioners, was that of York; as to the propriety of maintaining which, there was stated in the Report to remain some doubt amongst the Commissioners. But he had the sanction of what he was about to propose, not only of the Ecclesiastical Commission, but also of the Real Property Commission, which concurred in recommending the consolidation of these Courts. The method by which the present Bill was intended to effect this object, he would now very briefly state to their Lordships. In the first place it was proposed, that there should be one general Court in London for proving all wills; the jurisdiction of all Local Ecclesiastical Courts being entirely abolished. The Bishops, however, it was proposed, should still hold their jurisdiction over their clergy, excepting only in criminal proceedings, in which it was proposed to abolish it altogether. The jurisdiction in matters of tithe was also to be taken from the Ecclesiastical Courts, which were found to be wholly insufficient in authority for the purpose, and would be transferred to the Court of Exchequer. The jurisdiction of these Courts in respect to Church-rates would also be abolished, and all disputes connected with those payments subjected to (he same course as those connected with Poor-rates—viz. appeal to Quarter Sessions. The Bill also abolished the authority of the Ecclesiastical Courts in the repression of immoral practices, which would) be left to the ordinary operation of the Common or Statute-law. The Bill further abolished the power of these Courts over cases of defamation, and regulated the mode to be pursued in the sequestration of livings, a matter of great importance to clergymen, and all those connected with them. These were the general objects of the Bill which he had the honour of laying upon their Lordships' Table, and which he hoped would prove satisfactory to them, and beneficial to the public.
Lord Lyndhurstbegged to be allowed to say a single word with respect to the history of this Bill. The Commission which had given rise to the measure had been, in fact, issued by his noble Friend, the Duke of Wellington, when at the head of his Majesty's Government. With regard to the composition of that body, and the manner in which it had discharged its
330
duties, when the subject was brought under consideration of either House of Parliament, it received the most unqualified praise. Their Report was made in the year 1832, and the Commission was issued, he believed, in the year 1830. The Report was followed up by a Bill in the summer of 1833, brought in by his noble and teamed Friend, who then had the Great Seal, and whose absence from the House, and the cause of that absence he very much regretted. That Bill was laid on their Lordships' Table, and no further proceedings were taken respecting it. When a change took place in the Government of the country, and his right hon. Friend, the Member for Tamworth, was intrusted with the conduct of his Majesty's councils, this was one of the very first subjects that engaged his attention. His own attention was particularly directed to it, and he had several conversations and interviews for its discussion with the, present President of the Court of Arches, and also with Sir Herbert Jenner. The result was, that a measure corresponding in its general outlines, and also in most of its details, with that now proposed, was introduced into the other House of Parliament. Before any further step could be taken with it, another change in the Government took place, and the subject slumbered from that time till the present. He heartily rejoiced that he had been anticipated in the intention he had entertained of bringing it under the notice of the House by the measure announced by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. He rejoiced, because a measure of this kind could with propriety and effect be carried through Parliament only with the sanction and support of his Majesty's Government. He was happy to find, from some conversations he had had with his noble and learned Friend, whom he was glad to see opposite in his place as a Member of that House (Lord Langdale recently elevated to the Peerage), that their views on this topic did not materially differ. He should readily give his best assistance in passing the Bill through the House, and would lend his aid to obviate any well-founded objections which might appear against its principle or details. From what he had heard that night, he thought it likely that little difference of opinion on them would arise.
Bill read a first time.