Sitting of 14 July 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Deeds Ratification (Scotland); Personal Tithes; Entails Relief (Scotland)— Read a first time:—Medical Charities (Ireland); Court of Exchequer (Scotland); Theatres Metropolis; Postage on Newspapers.
Petitions presented. By several HON. MEMBERS, from various Places, for the Abolition of Church Rates.—By Major FANCOURT, from Barnstaple, in support of House of Lords.—By several HON. MEMBERS, from various Places, against Factories' Act Amendment Bill.—By Mr. BRADY and Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN, from various Places, for the Abolition of Tithes.—By Mr. O'CONNELL and Admiral ADAM, from Kincardine and Nairn, for the House to Adhere to the Irish Municipal Corporation Reform Bill as originally passed by that House.—By Mr. BRADY, from various Places, for the Abolition of Tithes (Ireland) and for the House to adhere to the Irish Municipal Reform Bill as originally passed by the House.—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from Dublin, for the House to pass a Bill to make a wider Street from Richmond Bridge to the King's Inns.—By Colonel PERCEVAL, from various Places, for Lords' Amendments to Irish Municipal Corporation Reform Bill; and from the Inhabitants of Whitcombe Street and Dorset Street, Westminster, that no Omnibus may be driven down a Street that is not at least twenty-four feet clear from the Curb Stone on the one side to the Curb Stone on the other.

TRINITY HARBOUR — LORDS' JOURNALS.
Sir Andrew L. Hay Sir Andrew L. Hay moved, that a Committee be appointed to search the Lords' Journals for the proceedings that took place in that House with respect to the Trinity (North Leith) Harbour Bill.
The Attorney Generalsaid, that he would not object to the motion, but if his hon. Friend intended to ground any measure on the application, and if, after they now had arrived at the 14th of July, he should introduce a private Bill for making a harbour at Trinity, he would certainly oppose it.
Sir A. L. Haysaid, that the application was made in consequence of some alterations which had been made in the money clauses of the Bill since it had gone to the House of Lords, and which were fatal to the Bill in its present shape. It certainly was his intention to follow up this application by re-introducing the same Bill in that House. The alterations which had been made in it were made by the Speaker of the House of Lords, without the sanction of the Committee of that House; and he would put it to the House whether it would be just or right that a Bill which had undergone the fullest consideration and had passed two Committees of that House, and the Committee of the House of Lords, should be allowed to drop on account of an informal proceeding such as he had described.
Sir G. Clerkhoped that the hon. Mem-
188
ber would give notice of the day when it was his intention to move for the re-introduction of the Bill. He did not think that the circumstance which had occurred in the Lords would justify such a motion. There was no instance of leave having been given to bring in a new Bill of this kind at this late period of the session, unless with the consent of all parties interested. Now, this Bill had been contested in every stage through that House, and it was not likely that the parties who opposed it would assent to its re-introduction. There were other circumstances that rendered the re-introduction of the Bill objectionable. He repeated, therefore, his hope, that the hon. Member would give ample notice of his motion.
Sir A. L. Haysaid, that he had no intention to interfere with the regular established usages of that House. He had teen informed, however, that Bills under similar circumstances had been re-introduced into that House within a fortnight of the end of the session, and carried through. After the examination of the Lords' journals he would move for the reintroduction of the Bill.
Mr. Wilkssaid, that after the immense expense and labour which had been incurred in carrying this Bill through the House, it would be cruel upon the parties that their measure should be defeated on account of the extraordinary proceeding that had occurred elsewhere. He hoped, therefore, that the House would entertain favourably an application for its re-introduction.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that he was a Member of the Committee on the Bill last session, and that in his opinion a perfect case had been made out for it. The Government, however, interfered on that occasion, on account of debts which were due from the port of Leith and city of Edinburgh, and the promoters of the Bill were obliged to withdraw it, and re-introduce it this session. He had since had an opportunity of seeing the situation where this harbour was proposed to be erected, and there could not be one more admirably adapted for the purpose. It was a great object with the public that this Bill should pass, and it would surely be most unjust, that on account of a blunder or something worse that had occurred elsewhere, such a measure should be lost. As to want of notice, this was the best battled Bill that had ever perhaps been before the House.
The Attorney Generalsaid, that his great object was to obtain a good harbour for the city of Edinburgh. It was his firm conviction that it would be for the benefit

189
of the shareholders and of the public that this Bill should be dropped.
The motion carried, and the Committee appointed.

BRITISH POSESSIONS NI INDIA.
Mr. Humerose to address the House, being very anxious, he said, to fulfil a duty which he owed to the people of India, when
Mr. Goulburnrose to order. He understood that it had been agreed upon by the House that orders of the day were to take precedence of motions.
Sir R. Peelobserved, that it had been thought necessary, for the more convenient despatch of public business, to arrange that orders of the day should take precedence of motions on all other days than Wednesday, and when he saw that a single Member of the House, on some understanding not recognised by the House, could bring forward a motion, he must say that he thought it a very bad precedent. There might be some peculiar case which would justify a departure from the rules laid down, but unless that were the case, it must be a dangerous precedent, and, to say the least of it, might be accompanied with very great partiality. He had been given to understand by the notification which had been left with the clerk of the House, and which was in the hand-writing of the noble Lord, the Member for Stroud, that not only would the rule be adhered to for the orders of the day taking precedence of motions, but that the Established Church Bill would come on. at an early hour. The first information which he had received to the contrary was to find, on coming down to the House, that one particular motion was to take precedence of all other business. Such a precedent was, he must repeat, most dangerous and liable to be abused.
Mr. Humewould only appeal to the recollection of the right hon. Baronet, whether, when the proposition was made that the orders of the day should take precedence of motions, an exception was not made in favour of this particular motion. If, however, it was productive of any inconvenience to the right hon. Baronet, he would not press it.
Sir R. Peelassured the hon. Member for Middlesex, that the course he was pursuing occasioned no personal inconvenience to him; but he could not permit such a precedent to be established without protesting against it. There were 658 Members in that House, and if they were all to follow the example of the hon. Member for Mid-
190
dlesex, the greatest confusion would be the consequence. He thought, that when the House had laid down a rule, no private or individual Member should have a right to act in opposition to it. He should, however, content himself with protesting against the precedent.
Mr. Humethen proceeded to state, that he had the honour a short time back to present a petition from the inhabitants of Calcutta, which had been agreed to at one of the most numerous meetings ever held there, and when he stated that the motion which he was about to bring forward was founded upon that petition, and that it involved the welfare of upwards of 80,000,000 of individuals, he trusted that it would not be considered unworthy of the attention of the House. The petition, which had been printed, and which, he trusted, was in the hands of every Member of the House, stated the situation of the country in regard to the effects of the late legislative enactments respecting it. By the late alterations in the Charter of the East-India Company, the government of India had undergone a very considerable change, and the protection which the British subjects there had hitherto enjoyed had been in a manner withdrawn—namely, the protection of the Supreme Court; because power was given by the 43rd section of the Act to the Governor-General in Council to legislate without any interference or advice. Now, although the late governor had returned, and no complaint was made against him by the petitioners, he was anxious that the rights of the people should not be dependent upon the authority of any one man. The law-makers in India were entirely irresponsible; against their proceedings there was no appeal, save to that House or to the King. No notice was ever given, or required to be given, of any regulations they might think proper to adopt, although they must be implicitly obeyed, and might affect the property, rights, and liberties of the people; it was therefore no wonder that they complained of being placed without the pale of the British Constitution. Remembering the mischiefs which had been committed by many governor-generals of colonies, he must say, that he thought no man could wish to see the important colonies of the East Indies placed in a situation that would render them liable to similar misfortunes. The prayer of the petition was therefore a reasonable one; it was, that

191
they should be taken under the protection of the British laws, and that they should not be left at the disposal of the Governor-General in Council, that Council being composed of five persons, namely—the Governor-General himself, a commissioner-in-chief, two civil officers appointed by them, and another appointed by his Majesty. The proceedings of this council were secret; it had no sympathy or communication with the people; it was elevated above their society and a knowledge of the real state of society, with which every lawmaker ought to be acquainted. It was quite true that the appointment of Mr. Macaulay was intended to prevent any law being made in opposition to the British laws; but every one knew that he had nothing to do with any regulations that might be ordered, and which being ordered, were as powerful and as paramount as the law itself. When he stated that the Governor-General, in his own person, could make such laws, he wished to recall to the recollection of the House, that in the case of Warren Hastings it was decided that the Supreme Court should be placed under the authority of the Crown alone, but now it was under the authority of the Governor-General. He regretted the rapidity with which the Act that conferred this irresponsible power had passed through the House. In fact, the Bill granting the new Charter had been hurried through Parliament with a degree of haste scarcely precedence by an Act for paving or lighting an English parish. He hoped that the House would take an early opportunity to grant the same rights and privileges to the people of India which every Englishman enjoyed, even in the remotest parts of our possessions. He did not see why there might not be selected out of a very large and influential body of men in that country some additional members of the council chosen on popular and responsible principles. The protection of the King's courts of justice had been withdrawn from upwards of 1,000,000 of people in the various presidencies, and that without any fault of theirs. The evils under which the people laboured in consequence of the alteration in the laws, had been discussed by them at the public meeting he had mentioned, and the sentiments delivered there by natives as well as Europeans, however they might excite surprise, proved that it was highly necessary to establish a better system of government in India. It appeared that the
192
absolute power given by section 43 of the Act could not be continued without dissatisfaction. The meeting complained that the Act had been framed for the benefit of the India Company and of individuals in this country, without reference to the interests of the people of India. Although, under the 87th section of the Act, natives might be appointed to offices, it was rendered nugatory by the condition that they should have been previously educated at the college of Haileybury. The right hon. Baronet, according to report, had selected one native to fill an office of considerable importance, and he wished to know if it were true, or if the 87th section were to remain a dead letter? The Act abolished all distinctions of colour and religion, but this provision was nugatory in consequence of previous education at Haileybury being rendered necessary. It was worth while to remark, that for the benefit of the professors of the religion of the Church of England, an ecclesiastical establishment of from 40,000 l. to 50,000 l. a year had been fixed upon India, while not half as much had been done for the many millions of Hindoos and Mahometans. In 1814, the Church establishment of India cost only about 9,000 l., but in 1826 and 1827 it was raised to 39,000 l., and the addition of two new bishops had still further added to the weight of the burden. The petitioners also complained that no attention was paid to the spread of education. At the meeting at which this petition was agreed to, one of the natives exposed the grievances which the people complained of, both with regard to the eligibility to office, and their being obliged to maintain a church establishment. That native referred to the establishment of Haileybury College, and declared that the sooner it was abolished the better. With regard to the Church Establishment, the same native asked why he should be compelled to pay for the support of another religion?—that he could not find in the sacred book of the Christians what sanctioned such a principle as this. Then with regard to education, it was complained, that while two bishops were added to the establishment, there was no provision made for the education of the people. He regretted very much to find that the subject of education should be so much neglected in India. It was of the greatest importance to England that that education should be attended to. What, he asked, ought not the people of this

193
country to do to remove the people from that idolatry which they practised? While they (the people of England) felt that they were in the right, the Indians were labouring under the most grievous error. While they felt this, ought they not, then, to employ the means within their power, by education and instruction, to remove the errors from their minds, and bring them thus to the practice of a purer creed? They were now raising 20,000,000 l. annually from the people of India, and of that enormous sum but very little was applied to their instruction. Instead of relief being granted to them, the people complained that additional burdens had been imposed upon them. They stated, that under the new Act there was entailed upon them, in patronage, not less than 60,000 l. annually. There had been ten new additional appointments made at 6,000 l. a year a piece. He thought they had great reason to complain of any great additional burdens being imposed upon them. The House was to bear in mind that every additional salary granted in India, was an additional burden upon the people. He understood that within the last twelve months there had been a surplus. He trusted that this was the case, and that it would lead to a remission of the load of taxation upon that country. He begged emphatically to press upon the attention of the House that fact put forward so strongly by the petitioners, that every additional salary was a tax upon them. Such being the case, the House was bound especially to consider the situation in which the petitioners were placed. They had no protection against that load being increased, while care was taken that the dividends upon the stock should be protected. He thought he had said enough respecting the Government; the next point to which it was his duty to advert was, that of the commercial disabilities of India. An amelioration was recently made on the article of sugar. He hoped that concession, recently made by his Majesty's Government, would be extended to the whole of India—that it would not be confined to Bengal alone; but that Madras, Bombay, the Prince of Wales's Island, and every other place, would feel the benefit of the equalization of duty on that article. The sooner the anomaly was removed, in his opinion, the better. He hoped the President of the Board of Control would look to this. He knew the Court of Directors interfered very little in
194
such matters, and what he often complained of was this, that the Board of Control did not stand between the people of India and the Court of Directors. He thought that the trade and manufactures of India had been ruined by the injurious competition permitted. Why, he asked, were the cottons of England to be imported into India, paying only a duty of 2½ per cent., while the Indian had to pay for the importation of his manufacture into this market a duty of 10 per cent.? That was not equal justice. It would be fair if every English article was admitted free of duty, and that the articles from India came here free of duty also. There was 2½ per cent, upon articles sent into India, while articles from India paid a duty of from 10 to 30 per cent. He trusted that an improvement would be made in this matter. Why, he would ask, was not rum from India to be placed on the same footing as rum from other colonies? Why was colonial rum to pay only a duty of 9s., and Indian rum 15 s. a gallon? Was that fair towards a possession of theirs from which they drew so much money? Then there was tobacco. Why was there to be a higher duty upon that article than upon what they received from their colonies? He should not now enter into the question of other duties, but he earnestly hoped that his Majesty's Government would introduce, the next session, an equalization of duties, which would prove as favourable to their colonies as he was sure, in its effect, it would be advantageous to themselves. In the petition there was a complaint respecting the monopoly upon salt. It was a proof that trade must be a bad one, when it was allowed to be stationary for several years without any increase whatever. The same might be said with regard to opium as to salt. Now in July, 1832, the President of the Board of Control declared that it was agreed by Government that the salt-tax should be removed, and it was added that the matter was then under consideration. Three or four years had now passed over their heads, and nothing was done, until the hon. Member for Chester moved for a committee upon the tax on salt. Though they paid the Board of Control largely—that Board received not less than from 30,000 l. to 40,000 l. a year— yet they appeared to him to be doing nothing. The hon. Member concluded by moving the following resolutions:

1. "That this House will take an early opportunity of considering the allegations

195
made in a petition from the inhabitants of Calcutta, presented in the present session of Parliament, against some provisions in the Act passed in the third and fourth years of the reign of his present Majesty, and entitled 'An Act for effecting an arrangement with the East-India Company, and for the better government of His Majesty's Indian territories, till the 30th day of April, 1834, with a view to a revision of the same, and the redress of such grievances as shall be proved to exist.'

2. "That the monopolies of salt and opium exercised by the East-India Company within the British dominions in India are incompatible with sound principle, and detrimental to the agricultural and commercial interests of India; and they ought, conformably to the expectations held out by the Ministers of the Crown, to be abolished as early as the same can be effected, without prejudice to the local revenues of India.

3. "That the discriminating duties levied within the United Kingdom on various articles the productions of the British possessions in India, are impolitic and unjust, alike injurious to the producers in India, and to the consumers in the United Kingdom; and that such duties ought, with the least practicable delay, to be reduced to the same amount as those levied on corresponding articles, the produce of His Majesty's colonies in the West Indies.

4."That it is just and equitable that the same duties and no other should be levied on manufactured articles, the produce of British India imported into the United Kingdom, as are levied on the corresponding articles of British manufactures imported into all British possessions in India."

Sir John Hobhousecould assure his hon. Friend, that he had given his attention to the matter to which the petitions referred. Notwithstanding all that his hon. Friend had been pleased to say of the Board of Control, and the Gentlemen in that office, he could assure him, that their attention was constantly directed to the affairs of that great country, which were now the subject of discussion. Since he had the honour of filling the high office which he now held, he knew of no subject connected with it, brought under his notice, that he did not pay to it the best attention in his power. He owed to the kindness of his hon. Friend, the opportunity of looking over the petition which was now brought before the House. Now in looking over the allegations contained in that petition, he could not, he was bound to say, think that the situation of India was as desperate as the petitioners seemed to consider it. Some time, he thought, ought at least to have been given, to see how the new charter operated. He should have thought, that the petitioners ought to have waited a little longer than nine months
196
before they cried, out so vehemently. They might at least have delayed their petition for some time. His hon. Friend had with great propriety not entered into all the allegations contained in the petition. The main complaint made in the petition, and what appeared to be the source of it altogether, was that allegation to which the hon. Gentleman had first alluded. That was the 43rd section of the new charter, and by which the power formerly vested in the Supreme Court of India was now taken away from them. To give effect to the regulations of the Governor-General, it was necessary they should be registered in the Supreme Court. Now this was a subject which underwent a severe scrutiny in that House—whether or not that Court should have a concurrent authority with the Supreme Government. In consequence of the unanswerable arguments advanced by Lord Glenelg and Mr. Macauley, this new section was introduced into this charter, and by which it was declared that no longer should a court of justice have that which in his opinion it ought not to have, a concurrent authority with the supreme power of the state. Any one who looked at India, must be aware that many of the mischiefs that had arisen in that country were owing to this very power being lodged with the Supreme Court. He was sure that the hon. Member for Middlesex must confess that it was best to have authority vested in the Supreme Government; and, in cases of emergency, in the Governor-General of India. It was for the benefit of the Government and the governed that there should be a centralization of the supreme power in one high authority. Now it was to be remarked that the chief movers of the petition were legal functionaries in the Supreme Court. It was natural that those from whom authority was taken away would feel it to be a grievance. It was natural they should so feel it when the authority was taken away from a Court to which they owed their fame, practice, and emoluments. It was not to be supposed, however, that all lawyers concurred in this opinion. There were lawyers and judges in England, who thought there ought not to be a concurrent authority. What did the complaint amount to after all? Whereas, according to the old system, Government was able to legislate for the whole of India, with the exception of some districts, it would now legislate for all India, including those districts. Nothing could be more absurd than the complaint, that because a provision had

197
been made to do equal justice to Europeans and natives, they therefore lamented, that there was a law for all—that Europeans and natives should be tried by the same tribunals, and no exception be made in favour of any one class. Another point touched upon by his hon. Friend was, the abomination in his eyes of Haileybury, and the not giving promotion to the natives. The Act was only nine months in operation, and yet these petitioners took upon themselves to declare that it was not the intention to promote natives. Now he could say, that the very contrary was the intention of the Government, and he was sure that it would be fully acted upon by the Noble Lord, who was now at the head of the Indian Government. With respect to Haileybury, he could say for himself, that he felt exceedingly unwilling to do away with an institution intended to form young men for filling situations of great importance in that vast empire, of which England had the government. If, however, it should appear that it was not proper to continue that establishment, then he should be prepared to do away with it. Now, as to the ecclesiastical establishment, he was not answerable for it. It was commenced in 1813, and there had been only added upon that ground by his hon. Friend, an additional charge of 1,000 l. a year. He had yet to learn, however, that it was not proper to allocate a portion of their revenues to an establishment for the purpose of propagating Christianity. The native to whom reference had already been made, said, he felt no interest in the religion for which the money was given. Why, he did not know that the same person felt an interest in the Government, and therefore might object to pay taxes to it. That person might prefer the Rayahs, or the Mussel-men, as his rulers, and if they were to consult the persons over whom they ruled, they would never be able to lay on a tax; they could not raise a tax but for an object purely national, and in that case they would in a short time have to give up taxes altogether. His hon. Friend complained that dividends were secured by Act of Parliament. Why, that was part of the bargain. They were at all events bound to secure their property, which had previously never been in danger. His hon. Friend said, that the Board of Control had nothing to do; he assured him they had a great deal to do. The duties he had to discharge were greater than in any of the offices he previously held. They required
198
constant labour; and to discharge them, the whole of his time (a fact which any one who had been in the situation he had the honour to fill could bear witness to,) was required. Another part of the complaint was, that there was 2½ per cent, charged upon English manufactures, and 30 per cent, upon Indian manufactures. How would the Indians like an equalization of the duty, by raising that imposed upon the English to be equal to theirs? Was that what his hon. Friend complained of? He was certain that he should have no objection, if his right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, could lower the duties. His hon. Friend had complained that there was nothing done with respect to the duty on salt. Why, taking into consideration the very large revenue received from it, it was very natural that they should be apprehensive in touching it. His hon. Friend had stated the revenues of India incorrectly; he gave 22,000,000 l. as the revenues of India. They were, in fact, 18,350,000 l., and salt comprised a very considerable item in that revenue. Opium also, to which his hon. Friend had adverted, was another considerable item. Were they, then, prepared to take away at once those two taxes without some substitute for them? He was sorry to add that, instead of a large, there would be a very small surplus from India.
Mr. Hoggsaid, that he had read the petition now before the House, but that he did not find in it one word or one topic comprised in the resolution which they were now called upon to agree to. There was nothing, for instance, about either salt or opium in it. The hon. Member for Middlesex had spoken at considerable length upon the subject of the petition, but at the same time he also moved, that the consideration of the petition should be put off, and not one word did he say either about salt or opium. The resolution was, "That the House should take an early opportunity of considering the subject of the petition." The petition, as he believed, had been here for sixteen months or more, and surely, if there was anything in it worthy of attention, it was high time it should receive it now. He suspected that the hon. Member's intention was to give the "go-by" altogether to the petition. He hoped the hon. Member did not mean to bolster up the hon. Member for Cheshire and his Salt Committee. No doubt any commercial monopoly was a

199
grievance justly to be complained of; but he did not consider the salt-tax such a monopoly; it was merely and purely a means of collecting a revenue. He certainly thought that the discriminative duties kept up between the mother country and India were a positive grievance; that English cottons should be admitted into India at two-and-a-half per cent, duty, whilst the manufactures of India paid ten per cent, in this country, he thought extremely unjust. He hoped the hon. President of the Board of Trade would consent to admit a little of his principle of free trade and reciprocity into operation with regard to India.
Mr. Stewart M'Kenziesaid, that when the resources of India were fully developed, the people of this country would be surprised at the ignorance under the operation of which they had so long been induced to uphold the exclusive system with regard to India.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonunderstanding, that the petition on which these resolutions were founded was dated a very considerable time ago, was not surprised that the gentlemen who had signed it had clone so, since they must necessarily have been ignorant of the changes which had taken place; but he could not acquit his hon. Friend, the Member for Middlesex, for presenting a petition which he must have known was not borne out by facts. One of the resolutions of the hon. Gentleman, was "That the discriminating duties levied within the United Kingdom on various articles, the productions of the British possessions in India are impolitic and unjust, alike injurious to the producers in India, and to the consumers in the United Kingdom; and that such duties ought with the least practical delay to be reduced to the same amount as those levied on corresponding articles, the produce of his Majesty's colonies in the West Indies." Now who that read that resolution would not, if unacquainted with the subject, imagine that there was a great variety of articles on which discriminating duties were levied. But he (Mr. P. Thomson) utterly denied that the fact was as stated by his hon. Friend. There did not exist a discriminating duty on more than three articles between the East and West Indies. It was in 1833 that he (Mr. P. Thomson) went through the list of Customs, and he then found only twenty different articles on which there
200
were discriminating duties, and he then was enabled to strike fifteen out of the list. The state of the revenue last year permitted him, following out the principles on which he had before acted, to assimilate the duty on coffee, one of the great articles of Indian produce, with West-Indian coffee, and this year the duty on sugar, another great article of produce, had also been assimilated. There now remained but two articles on which the duties had not been assimilated. What were they? Spirits and tobacco. Now as to the first he (Mr. P. Thomson) did not much differ in opinion with the hon. Gentleman:—at least he had no great objection to the admission of spirits. But he believed that if the duty upon spirits were assimilated to-morrow, that article would not be produced in India to any extent. The assimilation of the duty upon sugar might cause British capital to be directed towards it, and probably rum might be produced. But it was not fair to hold out the discriminating duties as a very serious injury to the producers of spirits. The House would recollect that this was an article of revenue; and he (Mr. P. Thomson) would look at it solely in that light. Then as to tobacco, he was willing to admit, he thought it bad that there should be a lower duty upon West-Indian tobacco than upon American. But when it was remembered that on 300,000 l. worth of tobacco we raised a revenue of 3,000,000 l., it would be seen to what a loss of revenue, if the hon. Member's proposition were assented to, we must on the one hand subject ourselves, and upon the other, how very little benefit would result from it to our Eastern possessions. And he would ask the House, would it not be most unwise, for the sake of promoting the industry of India to so uncertain and inconsiderable extent, to endanger so large an amount of revenue, and oblige ourselves to seek elsewhere for the amount, perhaps in much more injurious and obnoxious and impolitic taxes; and having thus gone through the articles on which discriminating duties did exist, he (Mr. Thomson) must say that unless the hon. Member for Middlesex could produce any other articles, he was not justified in proposing that general resolution which he had just read. [Mr. Hume: Cotton.] That is included in the next Resolution. "That it is just and equitable that the same

201
duties and no other should be levied on manufactured articles, the produce of British India, imported into the United Kingdom, as are levied on the corresponding articles of British manufactures imported into all British possessions in India." Now, upon this point he (Mr. P. Thomson) agreed with his right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Control, that the parties who had a right to complain were not the Indians. They had the privilege of getting our manufactures, which as his right hon. Friend justly said they had almost exclusively—at the low rate of two-and-a-half per cent. We, on the contrary, are obliged to pay ten per cent, if we wished to wear their manufactures. Now it might be very proper to reduce the duty upon manufactures coining from India to two-and-a-half per cent, and thus to give the Indians the same encouragement to export their manufactures as they now possess for importing ours. But then it was to be considered that the whole revenue system, the whole fiscal arrangements of the country, would be violated by such a measure. In India the revenues were not dependent upon the Customs' duties: there we had the salt monopoly, the opium monopoly, and other taxes of a similar description, by which the public expenditure was supported. But in this country, the Customs were the great source of the revenues; and these duties upon the importation of Indian manufactures formed part of a vast system now existing for the collection and protection of the revenues of this country, it might be an unwise, it might bean impolitic system; but still it existed, and it would be impossible to admit the principle which this resolution proposed in one branch of it, without extending it to every branch, and destroying it altogether. If the principle were to be admitted in this case, that because British manufactures were allowed to be imported into India at a low rate of duty, therefore ought Indian manufactures to be imported into this country at a similar rate of duty? It must be admitted in respect to every article of manufacture from which this country raises a revenue, it must be applied to all that constitutes the industry of a people. Now he (Mr. P. Thomson) was of opinion that we could not afford that at present. We must raise a high revenue on the produce, whether it be of our colonies or of foreign countries, and till we are enabled to do without that revenue, he contended that we could not admit the prin-
202
ciple of this resolution. It would be absurd to make distinctions between one branch of manufactures and another—we must apply the same principle to all, there was no reason for selecting the particular instance for making an exception to the general rule. He (Mr. P. Thomson) was happy that during the last few years, the Government had been enabled to show the people of India that they had their interests at heart. And he was anxious as far as the commercial relations of that country went, to advance its interests in every way within his power. But he could not, for the reasons he had stated, agree to the resolutions of the hon. Member for Middlesex.
Mr. Buckinghamwas desirous of making a remark on the subject of the salt monopoly. To tax an article of general consumption was at all times impolitic; but in India, where salt was not a luxury, but a condiment essential to the health of the people, any impost upon that commodity must be oppressive in the extreme. He hoped that the Government would proceed in the career which they had begun; and he trusted, that having assimilated the duties on East and West Indian sugars, they would make haste and remove those discriminating duties upon East-Indian goods which still remained.
Mr. Aaron Chapmansaid, in reference to what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, all that he (Mr. Aaron Chapman) had heard from the parties to whom the right hon. Gentleman alluded, was some apprehension lest the benefits of the measure proposed by Government should not hereafter be extended to Madras and Bombay.
An Hon. Membersaid, he never heard a more extraordinary error than that into which the parties alluded to must have fallen upon this subject; for he himself had asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, upon a former occasion, whether he meant to exclude the Presidencies of Bombay and Madras from the operation of the Bill, and he had given the same explanation as that which he had just furnished.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwished to say a few words on this subject, in consequence of some observations which had been lately made, not in, but out of the House, with respect to the assimilating duties which had been laid on East-India sugars. No restriction was imposed on their produce, but what had been also im-

203
posed on West-Indian produce. The principle of the Bill which was adopted by the Government, acquiesced in by the West-Indian interests, and approved of by the body representing our East-Indian possessions, was, that they had to make their election between being an importing or exporting country, but that both they could not justly be. It was in consideration of the Indian interests that that course was taken, and never was there any matter which afforded him greater surprise than his finding, after the question had been brought to a satisfactory adjustment, that, in place of being' received as a pledge of the kind intentions of this country towards India, the Bill was no sooner passed than it was complained of as a hardship and a grievance, while it was intended as a benefit and a blessing. He did not say, that if hereafter, at any future time, it should appear desirable, with regard to the interests of Madras and Bombay, that those Presidencies should be placed on the same footing as Calcutta, in reference to this subject, it would not be in the power of Parliament to effect such a measure, or that he should not be ready to support it, and to act upon it. But he did complain when such a concession had been made, holding out, as it did, such advantages to the shipping interests of Calcutta, that it should be stigmatized as unjust and partial, and as not founded upon equitable principles.
Mr. Hume, in reply, observed that the Indians were treated with gross injustice, and in proof of that, referred to the tax upon pimento of 3d. per pound, being 60 per cent., and upon black pepper of 1s. a-pound, being 300 per cent, on their value. He saw no reason why the tax on tobacco should not be reduced, as we ought to follow up the principle of reciprocity. He would not trouble the House by dividing upon his resolutions, but would be contented by their being put from the Chair.
The 1st resolution negatived.
On the 2d 3d and 4th, the previous question was put and agreed to.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH BILL.
The report on this Bill having been brought up, on the question, that the amendments made by the Committee be read a second time,
Mr. Cayleyobjected to the manner in which this and other measures relating to the Established Church had been hurried through the House. In his opinion, none
204
of those measures were calculated to place the Church upon that broad basis on which he, and other friends of the Church, wished to see it placed. He thought that, in these days, it was a monstrous thing to grant the revenues of the see of Durham to the support of the college, without opening it to all classes of the King's subjects. He felt it would be now useless to divide the House upon the question; but he strongly protested, as well against the manner in which it had been hurried on, as the principles on which it was framed.
Mr. Lennardconcurred in the observations just made by his hon. Friend; and added, that his were also the opinions of the inferior clergy of the diocese of Durham. He thought the Bill ought for the present to be postponed, and, in the next Session, that a general measure of Church regulation should be introduced.
Mr. Poultermust object to a measure founded on principles contrary to those which were indispensable to the final and satisfactory settlement of the great question at issue. If the House called before them the necessary evidence, they would find that there might be derived from the income of the dignitaries of the Church a large surplus, which might be more advantageously employed. He was convinced that no less a sum than 25,000 l. might be derived from that source, with which forty or fifty benefices might be created in populous districts in which they were needed. Why not, also, release archbishops and bishops individually from all temporal matters, such as granting leases, &c, and allow them to devote themselves exclusively to spiritual concerns, by vesting the estates of the Church in a board of archbishops and bishops? Let his Majesty's Ministers, who were, no doubt, honourably ambitious of fame for their political conduct, add to it the fame which would attend measures in which the real interests of the Church were consulted. As the Church of England now stood, it was evidently declining. To prevent this from going on, they ought to be up and stirring; they ought to do something which should be of a final, and not of a temporary character. Motions had been made in that House as to the right of archbishops and bishops to seats in the other House of Parliament, which motions, he believed, originated in political motives, and which motives, therefore, he blamed; but he equally blamed the attempt of those who were on the other side of the question to bury the

205
whole subject in silence, and to refrain from correcting the notorious abuses in the Church establishment. There was another point that demanded attention. If they wished to conciliate the Dissenters, and to draw to the Church of England those who were not at present in communion with it, let them look a little to the liturgy and articles of that Church. Let them consider whether they might not remove from the liturgy some matters that were generally deemed objectionable. Let them consider whether they might not advantageously expunge the Athanasian Creed, and some of the articles; for instance, that which spoke of works as splendid sins.
Mr. Plumptreenlogised the ability, learning, piety, and devotion of the clergy of the Church of England. It was impossible for any set of men to labour more diligently and honestly in their vocation than they did. He did not say that the Church was faultless, but he did say that the assertion of the hon. member for Shaftesbury, that it was on the decline, was unfounded.
Mr. Charles Bullercomplained of the manner in which so important a measure was hurried through Parliament. The Bill was drawn up so, that it was very difficult to propose any amendment to it. The fact was, that the Bill was chiefly founded on some Reports of the Church Commissioners, so recently made, that there had not been sufficient time to consider them.
Mr. Robinsonwas a great friend to the Establishment of the Church of England, but that he did not think that this Bill was at all calculated to conduce to its real and permanent benefit. He was decidedly opposed to the translation of bishops, to the small stipends of some of the working clergy, the pluralities, and to non-residence; and although he did not agree with the hon. Member for Shaftsbury in all respects, he admitted the justice of his observation, that we ought to take such steps as might conciliate and attract those who were not of our communion. For the attainment of all the objects to which he had alluded, the Bill fell short of providing adequate means. He wished the archbishops and bishops to be duly provided for; but he never could believe that there present splendid revenues could conduce to the benefit of the Church itself. So far from it, in his opinion they did that Church great harm. He regretted, also that the motion which had recently
206
been made in that House for the abolition of the translation of bishops had been rejected. Human nature was much the same in bishops as in other persons; and when a bishop expected translation, it was hardly to be supposed that he would pay the same minute and vigilant attention to the spritual welfare of his see, as he would do if he knew that he was to remain in it for life. He should like to see the measure postponed to another session, which would give the country an opportunity of examining the reports on which it was founded, the archbishops and bishops an opportunity of studying the subject, and the inferior clergy (than whom a more amiable, excellent, exemplary, and pious body of men never existed) an opportunity of looking into the matter; the result of which investigation he had no doubt would be, that they would agree with him that the present measure of Church reform did not go the length which was essentially necessary to the permanent welfare of the Church itself.
Mr. Humeobserved, that when the Bill was in Committee he had protested against its inefficiency: since that time he had looked into it well, and his objections had been completely confirmed. He would put this single proposition to the noble Lord who had the charge of this Bill. That noble Lord had postponed the Church-rates Bill to next session, on the ground that there was no time for it; and yet that referred only to the appropriation of about 250,000 l. Now if there was not time for that minor measure, he put it to the noble Lord how there could be time for the present larger and more important measure? How could the noble Lord think of passing, in so hurried a manner, a Bill which allowed the Church Commissioners to do what they pleased? Was it possible that such a measure could be satisfactory to the people of England; or that it must not speedily undergo revision? He had, not half an hour ago, received a resolution, signed by the united Committee of Dissenters, and which embodied all the opinions that he (Mr. Hume) had expressed on the subject. He could see no reason why an Archbishop of Canterbury should have 15,000 l. a year; or why the bishops should have more than 3,000 l. or 4,000 l. a year, as the judges had, except as a matter of whim. He objected,

207
to these extravagant incomes of the dignitaries of the Church, as incompatible with the real interests or the existence of the Church. He held it to be a bad Bill; and the short and the long of it was, that it ought not to pass. He would therefore move as an amendment, that the amendments be read a second time that day six months.
Sir Robert Peelwas of opinion, that his Majesty's Government having duly considered what were the best means of securing a measure of practical Church reform, had actually brought forward a measure to accomplish that. If the House rejected the Bill, they would reject a great benefit. If, for instance, the House rejected the Bill, they would enable his Majesty's Government, in the event of a vacancy occurring in the diocese of London, to appoint a Bishop, who would retain all the emoluments that at present belonged to that see. If the House agreed to press that Bill they would establish the principle that the maximum revenue of the Bishop of London should not exceed 10,000 l. a-year. He cordially approved of the course taken by the King's Government on the present occasion If they had adopted any other course—if, for instance, they had proposed to submit the minor details of the measure to the consideration of a Committee of the whole House, it would be impossible for the Legislature to pass any Bill upon the subject in the present session of Parliament. If the House felt generally satisfied with the principle of the measure, he thought that the details of it might very safely, and very properly, be left to the consideration of a commission appointed by themselves. At all events, he thought that that would be a better course for the House to adopt than to reject the Bill for the present session. So much as to the mode of proceeding. He would now say a word or two as to the principle of the Bill. He apprehended that the Bill proceeded upon the principle, that bishops were to continue to sit in the House of Lords. If that were the fact, the House, when it came to consider the expenses to which the bishops were subjected from the necessity of residing a portion of the year in London, independent of the claims upon their charity and benevolence, would see that the amount of emolument proposed by this Bill to be left to the office of bishop was by no means extravagant. An hon. Gentleman opposite had asked why
208
the income of each should not be limited to 4,500 l. a-year? When that question was put he thought sufficient consideration was not given to what must necessarily be the difference in the expenditure of the holders of different bishoprics—4,500 l. a-year might be an abundant income in one bishopric, whilst in another it would hardly be more than sufficient to provide for the ordinary claims upon the benevolence of the diocesan. As to what had been said of the advantage to be gained to the Government from the translation of bishops he must say, that he thought a most erroneous impression existed upon that head. But even if it were possible for a Government to obtain any undue advantage in that way, he thought that the check of public opinion would be much more effectual than any law that could be passed upon the subject. He thought, however, that no Government that could exist at the present time was likely to attach the slightest importance, or to look for the smallest advantage, from the translation of bishops. It seemed to be taken as an objection to the Bill, that it did not provide directly and positively against the translation of bishops. But although the Bill contained no positive enactment upon that head, it must be obvious to every one that it afforded every possible discouragement to translations, by producing as nearly as possible an equalization of the incomes of all the bishops, or by far the greater number of them. Under the provisions of the present Bill, the incomes of the majority of the bishops would vary from 4,000 l. to 5,000 l. a-year. The utmost difference between them would not exceed 700 l. or 800 l. a-year, yet some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to think that such a sum would be sufficient to influence their political conduct; he confessed that he could not join in such extravagant notions of the corruption of human nature. The amount of fees, and the many other expenses consequent upon the translation of a bishop, would leave so small a pecuniary inducement to obtain a translation, as to render it extremely improbable that any would sacrifice a political opinion for the sake of obtaining it. He felt opposed to any provision that should positively forbid translations, because he could imagine many cases likely to rise in which it might be convenient for the Church, and highly beneficial to the Church, that translations should take place, He approved of the

209
arrangement proposed to be made by the Bill, from a full and firm belief that so far from the emoluments being disproportioned to the actual expenses of the bishoprics, if the bishops acted as they ought to do— if they attended to the claims of benevolence and charity which were continually made upon them, and which he believed most of them did—he considered, that the incomes of the Bishops instead of leaving them rich men, would not be more than sufficient to provide for the actual wants of their situation. Upon the whole, therefore he still thought the Bill might be very beneficially adopted, and that no delay ought to be opposed to its progress in the present session.
Mr. Mark Phillipsexpressed his determination to support the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Middlesex. The Bill, as it at present stood, would confer no practical benefit upon his constituents, and looking at the importance of the Report in general, he thought it would be better to wait until another Session of Parliament for a larger and more beneficial measure.
Mr. A. Trevordid not consider this the fit or proper time to legislate upon a matter of so much importance, involving so many complicated interests, and operating so strongly upon the existing Establishment of the Church. Therefore, however unusual it might be with him, or however reluctant he might feel on ordinary occasions, to vote with the hon. Member for Middlesex, in not one of whose sentiments upon Church matters could he for a moment participate, he should certainly in this instance, if the motion were pressed, feel himself bound to support the proposition for delay.
Mr. Fowell Buxton'sobjection to the Bill was, that it made no provision for increasing the incomes of the smaller clergy, whilst it continued the payment of enormous salaries to the great Dignitaries of the Church.
Lord John Russellwould not again go over the principles of the Bill, which had already been fully stated; but there were one or two points which had arisen in the course of the discussion upon which he thought some little explanation was required. First, with respect to the time at which the measure was brought forward. Those hon. Gentlemen who had expressed a determination to support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Middlesex, argued as if the House had been taken by
210
surprise upon the subject. But he begged the House to recollect, that during the administration of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) a Report was presented to Parliament, and circulated throughout the country, containing the outline of the very plan now submitted in the present Bill, stating generally that the incomes of the two Archbisops and of the Bishops of Durham, Ely, and London, should be larger than the rest, and that the average income of the rest should range from 4,000 l. to 5,000 l. a-year. That being the case, he really must say, that after the lapse of fifteen months, in the course of which no opposition was made either by the clergy or by the friends of the Church, to the proposed plan; it was now rather too much to say, that there could be any surprise at a Bill being brought in to carry the Report into execution. In the same way with respect to the alterations proposed in the case of deans and chapters of cathedrals, the outline of the plan proposed to be pursued with regard to them was agreed to in a Report made by the Commissioners, and presented to the House on the 10th of March. That Report was immediately circulated amongst all the Members of the House, and published in the different newspapers upon the termination of the month. Upon that point, then, it was equally incorrect to say, that the House could in any way have been taken by surprise. Certainly some delay had taken place in submitting the Bill to the consideration of the House, which was done on the 20th of May, but there had been ample time for its consideration, and he was sure, that no one could say that he was not fully aware of what this Bill was intended to effect, or of the general outline of the plan for the Commissioners. The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Middlesex, (Mr. Hume) stated as a reason for not going on with this plan, that the question respecting church rates should be first settled. Now, he begged the House to recollect, that when the measure respecting Church rates was proposed—a measure which was not, as the hon. Member said, rejected, but, on the contrary, was carried by a large majority—at that time the minority stated as their ground of opposition to the plan, that they were not fully aware of the extent of Church property, and that they thought that there should be no Bill passed with respect to Church rates till they had fully considered the extent of Church property, and see whether there would be any avail-

211
able surplus. This plan proposed to deal with that property, and to apply it to certain Church purposes; and the hon. Member for Middlesex turned round and said, that he would not consider it, that he would postpone its consideration, because he wished to have a Bill respecting Church rates first. There seemed to be a good deal of inconsistency in the hon. Member's argument. He must take one or the other first. [Mr. Hume: Take both together.] Both together? That would be impossible. This Bill proposed to deal in the way which the Church Commissioners and the Government thought best with the whole property of the Church. It was also taken into consideration whether there was an extravagant amount of income appropriated to the Cathedrals or the spiritual wants of the Church, and whether if there were a surplus it should be otherwise applied? If the House decided that there was no such extravagant amount, undoubtedly they would introduce an amendment into the Bill. But the question before the House now was, the manner in which this Bill dealt with episcopal revenues and dioceses, and dealt with them chiefly, if not wholly, upon the subject of which the Report had been long before the country. It was, he must say, an extravagant hyperbole of the hon. Member for Middlesex, to say that this was a Bill to promote the translation of bishops. The hon. Gentleman, at the very time he made such an assertion, must be very well aware that, under the existing system, the incomes of some of the bishoprics were very large, whilst the incomes of others were comparatively small. Here, then, if at all, existed the desire to obtain or to give translations; but by the Bill now under consideration of the House, the incomes of the great majority of bishoprics would be very nearly equalised, and the desire to obtain or to give translations consequently, removed. Under the provisions of the Bill now proposed, he felt quite satisfied that the great object of every Bishop would be to establish himself permanently in his diocese, instead of looking for a removal, which would add only a few hundred pounds per annum to his income. Most of the high dignitaries of the Church were men far advanced in life before they were raised to the episcopal bench. Was it likely that men of this character, between sixty and seventy years of age, would be induced to go to the House of Lords to barter their votes, night after night, in
212
favour of questions which they did not approve of, and all this for the sake of being removed from the west to the north of England, and gaining by the removal about 500 l. a-year? Why, the other day, with respect to bishoprics in Ireland, in one of the bishoprics that had been suppressed there was a vacancy; in point of income, the vacant bishopric was worth 1000 l. a-year more than that of Cork; but the Bishop of Cork at once refused it; yet, in this instance, the amount was larger than it would probably be in most of the cases under this Bill, The effect of this Bill would be to render translations, if not impossible, very unusual, and he hoped it would receive the support of the House.
Mr. Warbtirtoncould not help thinking that this Bill was at variance with the principles laid down on former occasions, not only by the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), but by the hon. Gentlemen who sat on that (the Ministerial) side of the House. When matters of charity and of education had been under the consideration of the Legislature, the principle laid down invariably was, that Parliament should not provide all the money necessary, but that it should vote a sum in aid, leaving to the friends of the charity, or the promoters of the education in question, to supply all that might be further required to carry the object into full effect. He wished to know why a similar system should not be pursued with respect to the Established Church.
The House divided on the original question: Ayes 90; Noes 43—Majority 47.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Sir C.

Estcourt, T.

Anson, hon. Colonel

Euston, Earl of

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Astley, Sir J.

Fergusson, R. C.

Baldwin, Dr.

Forbes, Wm.

Barclay, C.

Forster, C. S.

Barnard, E. G.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Bernal, R.

French, F.

Blake, M. J.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Bonham, R. Francis

Gordon, hon. W.

Bramston, T. W.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Bridgeman, H.

Graham, Sir J.

Brodie, W. B.

Grey, Sir G.

Childers, J. W.

Hawkins, J. H.

Clements, Visc.

Hogg, J. W.

Clive, E. B.

Hoy, J. B.

D'Eyncourt, C. T.

Hughes, W. H.

Donkin, Sir R.

Jervis, J.

East, J. B.

Jones, T.

Ebrington, Viscount

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Elley, Sir J.

Knox, hon. J. J,

213

Labouchere, H.

Poulter, J. S.

Lawson, A.

Pryme, G.

Lefevre, C. S.

Pusey, P.

Lefroy, right hon. T.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Lennox, Lord G.

Robinson, G. R.

Lennox, Lord A.

Ross, Charles

Lowther, hon. Col.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Lowther, Lord

Russell, Lord J.

Lygon, hon. Colonel

Sheppard, T.

Mackenzie, S.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Maher, J.

Smith, B.

Maule, hon. F.

Strickland, Sir G.

Maunsell, T. P.

Tancred, H. W.

Moreton, hon. A. H.

Thomas, Colonel

Morpeth, Lord

Tynte, C. J. K.

Neeld, J.

Vere, Sir C. B.

North, F.

Walter, J.

O'Loghlen, M.

Wilson, H.

Parker, M.

Wood, M.

Parker, J.

Wyndham, W.

Pechell, Captain

Yorke, E.T.

Peel, Sir R.

Young, G. F.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Philips, G. R.

TELLERS.

Plumptre, J. P.

Stanley, E. J.

Plunkett, hon. R. E.

Stuart, R.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Lennard, T. B.

Attwood, T.

Lushington, C.

Baines, E.

Parrott, J.

Barclay, D.

Parry, Sir L. P. J.

Bewes, T.

Philips, M.

Biddulph, R.

Potter, R.

Bowring, Dr.

Rippon, C.

Brocklehurst, J.

Ruthven, E.

Buckingham, J. S.

Scholefield, J.

Buxton, T. F.

Strutt, E.

Chalmers, P.

Thompson, Colonel

Chapman, L.

Thornely, T.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Trevor, hon. A.

Conyngham, Lord A.

Tulk, C. A.

Duncombe, T.

Villiers, C. P

Fielden, J.

Wakley, T.

Hall, B.

Wallace, R.

Harland, W. C.

Warburton, H.

Hawes, B.

Ward, H. G.

Heathcoat, J.

Williams, W.

Hector, C. J.

TELLERS.

Humphery, J.

Hume, J.

Hutt, W.

Buller, C.

Amendments read a second time.
Mr. Arthur Trevorsaid, that he considered he was doing nothing more than discharging an act of duty to the diocese with which he was more immediately connected, by moving the insertion of a clause for fixing the amount of the income of the present bishop, and all future bishops of the diocese of Durham, at a sum not less than 10,000 l. per annum. In the situation he had the honour to hold, he felt this was a duty he was bound to discharge, and, whatever might be the result, he should never regret the course he had taken. The
214
hon. Member then moved that a proviso, to the effect stated, be added at the end of the 10th Clause.
Clause read a first time. On the question that it be read a second time,
Lord John Russell, said he would not oppose the clause being brought up, and read a first time, but he should certainly oppose the second reading of it.
The House divided: Ayes 0; Noes 133 —Majority 133.
[The Teller, with Mr. Trevor, was Mr. Maunsell. It does not appear necessary to give the Noes, as they were composed both of the ayes and the noes of the lists immediately preceding.]
Mr. Charles Bullerrose to move a clause, providing, "That until provision has been made for the adequate payment of the parochial clergy, and for the supply of religious instruction to those parts of the country stated in the Reports of the Commissioners to be destitute thereof, the Archbishop of Canterbury shall receive 8,000 l., the Archbishop of York 7,000 l., the Bishop of London 4.500 l., and the other Bishops 4,000 l. per annum." He considered that in doing this he was acting in conformity with the recommendation contained in the Report of the Commissioners; and he repeated the opinion he had before expressed with regard to this Bill, that it was a most incomplete measure of Church Reform. The hon. and learned Gentleman then proceeded to remark on the low rate of remuneration of the working clergy. He said, it appeared from the Report on the table of the House, that the resident clergy employed by the resident incumbents numbered 1,006, and their stipends on the average were 86 l. a-year. The non-residents numbered 4,224; and their stipends averaged 79 l. a-year. Thus the total number being 5,230, the average stipends were 81 l. a-year. If it were a question between the bishops and the working clergy, he should say, they ought to look to the working clergy first. The Government, however, had followed the contrary plan; their first consideration appeared to have been to provide large salaries for the bishops. What had the Government done? A Bill had been brought in, in which a great deal was said about deans and chapters, and no doubt it would excite the admiring gaze of the public, when they came to examine its details. The bishops being politicians, had been objected to, and it was said that he wished to make

215
them independent of the Government; but in the purposed arrangement, all kinds of temptations were held out to them. The incomes began at about 4,000 l. a year; then there were several at 5,000 l; the next step was 7,000 l.; up to the see of Durham it was 8,000; 10,000 l. was to be the income of the Bishop of London, and the Archbishop of York; and 15,000 l. was the amount proposed for the Archbishop of Canterbury. His first proposal was to equalise the incomes of all the bishops, making an exception in favour of the Bishop of London, on the ground that he was a fixed resident in a most expensive place; he thought it was necessary on this account to give to the Bishop of London a little more than to the others. He not only proposed to equalise the incomes of the bishops, but also to reduce them. As his guide in fixing the incomes, he had taken the scale of payment of the very highest paid profession in the country, and that was the profession of the law. He put aside the income of the Lord Chancellor, however, not considering that a permanent income; but with that exception, he had taken the highest rate of pay for service to the public that could be got. He could not imagine any reasonable objection to his plan, unless it were said to be unjust to pay the clergy and the bishops at the same rate as members of the law were paid, there being this difference between the professions, that the one depended for success on the possession and exertion of individual talent, and having surmounted their early difficulties, and reached the top of their profession, they secured to themselves almost a monopoly of the business, and derived large sums from it. Such was not the case with the clergy. Of course, when it was wished to take a judge from the list of those barristers who were deriving large sums from their profession, it was necessary to offer them considerable incomes to induce them to accept a seat on the bench. If it were desired to possess the talents of Sir A. Cooper and Sir B. Brodie, their income must be fixed, with reference to the incomes they were now making in their profession. In the army and navy, in the church, and in public offices, there was constant employment and constant pay. In his opinion, the fair scale of remuneration for the clergy would be that of the army and navy; indeed, at present, the working clergy had nearly the same sums
216
as the subalterns of the army were paid; it was in the higher stations that the great difference existed. Officers in the army and navy were very happy if they obtained 300 l. or 400 l. a year. He proposed to give to the bishops much higher incomes than that. And, by the way, he would here remark, that he did not see why the high sense of an honourable occupation should not animate the clergy, as governed those devoted to the other professions, in place of the ordinary desire of accumulating wealth. An officer in the army was proud of wearing the King's uniform, and was encouraged by that distinction to brave the dangers of the field. The bishop, on the other hand, fought under the banner of the cross; he was engaged in the constant struggle against the enemy of men's souls to save souls. Were his motives to be supposed to be of so low a nature that they must treat him as they would hired mercenaries, and crown him for the fight, or tempt him by the prospect of plunder. As he had said before, he proposed to fix the scale of the incomes of the bishops and the archbishops according to the highest scale of remuneration in the legal profession, except the income of the Lord Chancellor. To the Archbishop of Canterbury he would give the same income as was received by the Lord Chief Justice of England. The Archbishop of Canterbury had no duties to perform which required travelling, whereas the Chief Justice of England went the expensive circuits every year. The income of the Archbishop of York he would reduce to the miserable pittance of 7,000 l. a year. He took for his guide here the income derived by the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas. He supposed he should not be charged with a desire to reduce the bishops to beggary. The office of the Master of the Rolls, every one knew, was the best office in the gift of the Crown. The Minister was thought lucky who had it to bestow, and the person was thought lucky who succeeded in obtaining it. The income was 7,000 l. a year. The great advantage of the situation was its permanency, and the office of the Archbishop was equally permanent. Then the labours of the Master of the Rolls were known to be severe, and no one would pretend that the duties of the Archbishop were laborious to anything like an equal extent. To the Bishop of London he would give 4,500 l. a year, which was the sum allowed to the

217
common-law lords. It might be said that the bishop had to maintain a peerage, but he hoped we had not yet come to this, that it was to be considered no advantage to have the honour of a peerage without a very large income to support it. The judge, he must observe, had to pay out of his income the expenses of his circuits each year. To the remainder of the bishops he would give 4,000 l. a year each. Such was his proposition, and he should be sorry if it were considered a very heinous and malicious attack on the Church. He did not profess any great attachment to the Church Establishment; but those who knew the position in which he was placed, with regard to his constituency, would do him the justice to say, that he had had many hard battles to fight in that part of the world, owing to his having declared himself in favour of an Established Church. If, however, he were called on to say whether he would prefer the Church Establishment as it was, or none at all, he should say none at all; and such he believed to be the feeling of the country on the subject. In his opinion, popularity was essential to the Church, to enable it to exercise a beneficial influence, and that, in its present state, it was not popular. The hon. Member concluded by making the motion announced at the commencement of his speech.
Clause read a first time.
On the motion, that it be read a second time,
Lord John Russellsaid it was impossible that he could agree to the motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman. In his opinion the comparison which had been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman was quite inapplicable. Between the situation of the bishops, and that of the members of any of the professions referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, there was a vast difference. The bishop had to maintain a large establishment, to observe hospitality, to contribute to the work of charity, and to preserve his position amongst those who possessed large landed property, while persons engaged in other professions were not liable to such serious charges on their incomes. He thought, that to reduce the means of the bishops and archbishops in the way proposed, would exceedingly impair the efficiency of the Church.
Mr. Arthur Trevorfeared, from the temper of the House, that the hon. and
218
learned Mover would have a larger minority in favour of his present motion, than he had the good fortune to muster on the late division. He wished that all had the candour of the hon. Mover, who, doubtless, would vote with him, and confess, with him, they were no friends to the Church Establishment. He must repel with ineffable contempt, all insinuations made on such a question, that the higher order of clergy of the Established Church were actuated by avarice, and displayed unworthy symptoms of servility in their court to a Minister or Sovereign, in hopes of securing preferment in the Church.
Sir Love Parrystated, that the Bishop of Bangor, in Wales, received at present but 3,800 l. a year, and yet he did not complain, although he contributed largely to the assistance of a very ill-paid parochial clergy. Now, under these circumstances, he felt called upon to support the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard, because he could never consent to have the tithes taken from the poor people of Wales, to support an unnecessarily gorgeous Church Establishment, or to create a bishopric for the service of the good people of Manchester, who professed aloud they did not wish to be troubled with a bishop.
Mr. Villierssaid, there was so much justice in the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard, that the motion which he had just made should have his decided support. He agreed with him, that the vice of the Report naturally arose out of the constitution of the Commission appointed to inquire into the Church Establishment. It was altogether hypocritical to allege that the measure of his Majesty's Ministers was at all a measure of effective Church reform.
The House divided: Ayes 44; Noes 82 —Majority 38.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Chalmers, P.

Astley, Sir J.

Chapman, L.

Attwood, T.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Baines, E.

Conyngham, Lord A.

Bewes, T.

Duncombe, T.

Bish, T.

Hall, B.

Blake, M. J.

Hawes, B.

Bowring, Dr.

Hawkins, J. H.

Brady, D. C.

Heathcoat, J.

Bridgeman, H.

Hector, C. J.

Brocklehurst, J.

Hume, J.

Brotherton, J.

Humphery, J.

Buckingham, J. S.

Hutt, W.

Buxton, T. F.

Lennard, T. B.

219

Lushington, C.

Tancred, H. W.

Parrott, J.

Thompson, Colonel

Parry, Sir L. P. J.

Thornely, T.

Philips, M.

Wakley, T.

Potter, R.

Wallace, R.

Pryme, G.

Wood, Mr. Alderman

Robinson, G. R.

Ruthven, E.

TELLERS.

Seale, Colonel

Buller, C.

Strutt, E.

Villiers, C. P.

List of the NOES.

Adam, Sir C.

Lennox, Lord G.

Angerstein, J.

Lennox, Lord A.

Anson, hon. Colonel

Lowther, hon. Col.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Mathew, G. B.

Barclay, D.

Maule, hon. F.

Barclay, C.

Maunsell, T. P.

Bellew, R. M.

Morpeth, Lord Vise.

Bonham, R. F.

Murray, J. A.

Bramston, T. W.

Neeld, J.

Brodie, W. B.

Nicholl, Dr.

Campbell, Sir J.

O'Loghlen, M.

Chandos, Marquess of

Parker, M.

Clive, E. B.

Peel, right hon. Sir R.

D'Eyncourt, C. T.

Pemberton, T.

Donkin, Sir R.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Egerton, W. T.

Perceval, Colonel

Elley, Sir J.

Philips, G. R.

Estcourt, T.

Pinney, W.

Euston, Earl of

Plumptre, J. P.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Plunkett, hon. R. E.

Fergusson, R. C.

Praed, W. M.

Forbes, W.

Pringle, A.

Forster, C. S.

Pusey, P.

Freshfield, James W.

Rice, right hon. T. S.

Gordon, hon. W.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Ross, C.

Graham, Sir J.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Grey, Sir G.

Russell, Lord J.

Hamilton, G. A.

Sheppard, T.

Harland, W. C.

Steuart, R.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Thomas, Colonel

Hobhouse, Sir J.

Townley, R. G.

Hogg, J. W.

Trevor, hon. A.

Howick, Lord Visc.

Tynte, C. J. K.

Hughes, W. H.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Jervis, J.

Wilson, H.

Jones, T.

Wyndham, W.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Yorke, E.

Knox, hon. J. J.

Young, G. F.

Lawson, Andrew

TELLERS.

Lees, J. F.

Stanley, E. J.

Lefroy, Anthony

Mackenzie, S.

The Report was agreed to.

GRAND JURIES (IRELAND.)
The House went into Committee on the Grand Juries (Ireland) Bill.
The Clauses to 78 were agreed to.
On Clause 79 being proposed, which provides for the salary of surgeons of county infirmaries in Ireland,
Mr. Smith O'Briencomplained of the monopoly of the College of Surgeons in
220
Ireland, and hoped some means would be speedily adopted to abolish it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdid not undervalue the proposition of the hon. Member for Limerick. The monopoly was not defensible, and indeed it was perpetually violated in practice.
Mr. Macleysaid, if the Irish Members would bring forward a proposition for a reciprocity of action between the medical institutions of the two countries, should have his support.
Mr. Smith O'Brien Mr. Smith O'Brien moved, that that part of the clause be omitted. He did so on behalf of Irish surgeons who studied in Edinburgh and elsewhere, and who would be precluded by the clause from acting as surgeons to dispensaries, inasmuch as they wanted the testimonial of the Irish college.
Colonel Percevalsaid, that nothing would be done to prejudice the interests of the Irish College of Surgeons. He had no wish that it should possess any exclusive privileges, but they should first ascertain whether any exclusion was practised towards Irish surgeons by subscribers to infirmaries in England.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that in dealing with an Irish Bill in Committee, it was impossible to go into the discussion of the whole question, and inquire what was the practice in England. He was prepared to support the amendment of his hon. Friend, the Member for Limerick, because he considered monopolies were indefensible on principle.
Mr. Wakleysaid, that with respect to the Edinburgh examinations, they were much more rigid than those of London or Dublin. There was more exclusion in Ireland than in England; for in the latter country Irish surgeons were permitted to practise in English hospitals, whilst the medical officers of the army and navy were precluded from practice, and were met with a negative, which had the injurious effect of limiting the choice to men who received their medical education in the Irish college.
Amendment withdrawn. Clause agreed to.
On Clause 82, which requires the grand jury to present for the repayment of sums advanced, by the Lord-Lieutenant to defray the expenses incurred by boards of health, being proposed,
Mr. Callaghansaid, that this was a clause to which his constituents had a decided objection. It was an ex post facto law. It had a retrospective tendency, and was, in his opinion, unjust both in principle and effect. The object of the clause was evidently in-

221
tended to compel grand juries in Ireland to present for sums of money whether they were inclined or not. Certain sums of money had been advanced by Government during the prevalence of cholera. This money was expended for the purpose of putting a stop, not to a local but a national scourge. The people did not consider themselves accountable for the repayment; but the promoters of the bill wanted to take these monies from the people through the grand juries. Certain sums had been advanced to Limerick, to Cork, and other places, these sums the Government had claimed at the hands of the grand jury, and which, under the direction of the judges, the grand jury has invariably refused to present. The city of Cork had 10,000 l. so advanced. When the cholera broke out there the inhabitants applied to Government for advice and assistance. They were told to establish a board of health, and then to call on the Lord-Lieutenant for an advance of money. They did so, and in addition to the grant of 10,000 l., they had expended several thousand pounds raised by voluntary subscription. They thought it was a very great hardship to be called on to pay this money now. They thought that as they had exerted themselves both in person and purse to put a stop to the ravages of the disease, that the expense should be borne by the country at large, and not by a community which had already subscribed to the extent of their means. The clause would press with peculiar hardship on those who had only lately come into the possession of houses and lands, inasmuch as those who occupied them during the prevalence of the cholera would be totally exempted, whilst the present possessors would be obliged to pay. On these grounds he opposed it, and would move, by way of amendment, that the word hereafter be inserted.
The Chancellor of the Exchequernever heard so singular a definition of a clause as that given by his hon. Friend. When these sums were granted, the people knew that they were to repay them, and therefore he could not see the injustice of asking them to discharge a debt they were morally and legally subject to. His hon. Friend said, the money should be paid by the public at large. This was a doctrine he could not assent to. When disease broke out in Ireland, and when money was required to allay it, how could he call on English Members for advances of public money, when the people for whose benefit it was expended afterwards refused to refund it.
Mr. O'Briensaid, that in every town affected by the cholera the clause had excited much surprise. It would be exceedingly harsh as regarded the occupiers of small tenements. He supported the amendment of his hon. Friend.
Dr. Baldwinwas instructed by his constituents to oppose the clause. He could not deny that the money had been advanced, nor could he say that it was not fairly due; but he would request the Government to consider the circumstances of the case; and if they did not remit the whole sum, he hoped they would make the repayment of it as light as possible.
The Chancellor of the Exchequercould have no sort of difficulty in agreeing to the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman who spoke last; the government would certainly render the repayment as little oppressive as possible.
Mr. Wakleysaid, the people of England were exceedingly anxious for the introduction of poor-laws into Ireland, but he thought, if advances of public money were to be made from the consolidated fund every time contagion broke out in Ireland, they would soon demand the enactment of a poor-law in that country.
Colonel Percevalsaid, Sligo had suffered more than any other town in Ireland by the fearful visitation of cholera. The Government advances amounted to upwards of 13,000 l.—more than 2,000 of the inhabitants had been carried off in six weeks, and he thought it would be cruel to exact that sum from the survivors. He suggested that the words "they are hereby required" be struck out.
Mr. O'Loghlenobserved, that when advances were made from the consolidated fund, the grand jury was bound to provide for the repayment. The clause was not retrospective. It only recognised a right which the Crown possessed, at present, to enforce the payment of money so advanced. The grand jury was bound to present the sums, and in the event of their refusing, the judge had the power of inflicting a penalty on them for neglect of duty. It might, however, be wise for the Government to extend the time for repayment. He would suggest that a proviso be added to the clause, to the effect that the payments should be made by instalments as the grand jury should deem fit.
Mr. Fitzstephen Frenchwould not enter into a discussion on the circumstances which had occurred at the assizes of the county which he had the honour to represent. It

223
would be his duty at a late period of the evening to bring the whole matter under the consideration of the House. He considered the amendment, and the assurance given on the other side, would meet with the approbation of the different Gentlemen who had spoken of the peculiar hardship on their constituencies. He had chiefly risen for the purpose of condemning, in the strongest manner, the monstrous and unconstitutional doctrine attempted to be put forward by the right hon. the Attorney-General—a doctrine which the right hon. Gentleman was much mistaken if he imagined would ever receive the sanction of that House or of the British public—that judges were authorised to inflict fines on grand jurors for refusing to violate their oaths. Did the learned Gentleman, when he so flippantly laid down the law, know what was the oath of a grand juror? Was he aware that he was sworn not to present any thing which ought not to be presented? He would recommend him for the future to be more careful how he let such opinions fall from him. It was not the first time he had heard him avow them. Let him not for a moment imagine that he would be able to establish a system in Ireland which had cost Lord Strafford his head. He denied the right of the judge to inflict a fine. He denied he had the power, and notwithstanding the high opinion he had of the judge's office, and of their legal knowledge and constitutional conduct, he trusted the day would never come when such a power would be vested in them.
Mr. Callagkantrusted the House would not imagine that he had unnecessarily given rise to this discussion. The proviso was a great improvement, and he thought it would be satisfactory. He denied, however, that the grants in question were made on the faith of a grand jury presentment, as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The money was advanced under a special Act of Parliament for preventing the spread of contagion, and the question was an open one—whether the money should be repaid or not? The Act stated, that the grand jury may present, but it did not render it imperative on them to do so.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 97 which provides compensation for person maimed, and to representatives of persons murdered,
Mr. Fitzstephen Frenchsaid, that the clause appeared to him as an attempt to establish the ancient Irish erick—a sum of money to be levied off the county, to the
224
estimated value of the person murdered. The right hon. Gentleman, when he framed the clause, had, probably, in his mind the request made by Maguire to the Lord Deputy, on his threatening to send a sheriff to Fermanagh—that before he set out his erick might be settled in case his head was taken off.
The Attorney-Generalobserved that the clause was simple a re-enactment of the old law. Clause was agreed to.
On Clause 118, which reserves to Grand Juries power to present for advances for public works,
Mr. Fitzstephen Frenchwould state to the House the reason which induced him to oppose it. He intended to move an amendment, the effect of which would be to prevent claim for debts alleged to be due, from being advanced against counties in Ireland, in cases where they had remained undemanded for ten years. He confidently anticipated that the injustice he was anxious to prevent, entitled him to the support of the House. At the Assizes lately held in the county Roscommon, the Crown Solicitor, amongst other claims, advanced one for a presentment to re-pay the sum of 6,750 l., alleged to have been advanced to certain persons for public works in that county. The Grand Jury rejected the presentment, on the ground of its not being a debt due by the county, but by particular individuals. The Grand Jury said, that had the claim been made in any reasonable time, when it might have been possible for them to know to whom the money had been advanced, and by whom it ought to be paid, they would willingly have passed a presentment to have it levied off these persons. The landed property of the county had changed hands very much since 1821, when the money was advanced, and to saddle a townland with such an enormous amount of debt, would not only be unjust, but compel individuals to discharge claims or debts contracted by other people, years before they came into possession. The Return was, in many instances, incorrect. One townland was returned amongst the defaulters, in which the cess could be proved to have been paid. An application had been made to the going Judge of Assize, who stated, that he considered the Act imperative on the Grand Jury to present, but that it seemed to him a case of great difficulty and hardship. He could see no cause for the Government allowing such a

225
period to elapse without advancing the claim. He felt the hardship of the case, but he feared it could not be remedied. In this case the Grand Jury refused to present, and after several days' consideration, and after consulting his brother Judge, his Lordship did not feel it necessary to interfere further in the matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might ask, was it fair to saddle the people of England and Ireland with the debts due by the county of Roscommon. He denied the debt was due by the county of Roscommon. Had the Grand Jury been convinced that such was the fact, it would have been discharged without a moment's hesitation. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, "That in all cases where money alleged to have been advanced by the Government shall have remained ten years unclaimed or un-demanded, that it should not be imperative on the Grand Jury to present."
The Chancellor of the Exchequeropposed the amendment. He was willing to agree to any proposition that would save the public money, but he could not support nor consent to the views of his hon. Friend.
Amendment withdrawn.
Clauses up to 138 were agreed to.
House resumed.

MINUTES.
Bills. Received the Royal Assent:—Murderers' Execution; Petty Sessions' (Ireland); Chapels of Ease (Ireland); Sasine (Scotland); Benefit Societies.—Read a second time:—Tolls of Steam Carriages; Excise Licenses' (Ireland); Punishment of Offences (Cape of Good Hope).
Petitions presented. By Lord FEVERSHAM, from Wesleyan Methodists of various Places, for Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By the Duke of SUTHERLAND, from Tongue, against Universities' (Scotland) Bill.—By the Earl of STRADBROKE, from Stradbroke, against Poor-Law Amendment Act.—By Lord ASHBURTON, from various Places, against Oyster Fisheries' Bill.

PRISONERS' COUNSEL BILL.
On the Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Committee on this Bill
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that he conceived this Bill was entirely uncalled for. It was not an alteration of the law, but an alteration of the practice of the courts of justice, and his candid opinion respecting it was, that under its operation the verdicts of juries would be more frequently wrong than they were at present, especially in cases of life and death. The duties of a judge in criminal cases, should be confined to his keeping the evidence within legal bounds, and giving his
172
direction to the jury. At present trials were conducted in a very solemn manner, but he believed that this measure, by permitting counsel to address juries on behalf of the party accused, would have the effect of increasing that uncertainty upon which professed rogues were accustomed to calculate; while it was an admitted fact that the uncertainty of convictions led to an increase of crime. One of the advantages which it was alleged would accrue from this Bill was, that the criminal would with more certainty be found guilty; but he did not think such an effect likely to be produced by the skill and eloquence of counsel directed to influence the jury in favour of the prisoner. It had been said that in other countries such a practice had worked beneficially, but in looking to those countries they should consider all the circumstances connected with the different modes of trial; and see whether the same advantages were given to the prisoner as under the existing law in this country. In France the party accused was subject to a personal examination, as might be observed by a late trial in Paris. On that occasion, as was the custom, endeavours were made to extricate from the prisoner a confession of his guilt. Now, under such circumstances as that, he was certainly an advocate, not only for one, but for two or three counsel on behalf of the accused. In Scotland, where the prisoner was allowed counsel, it was only necessary there should be the verdict of a majority, not of the whole jury; but this remarkable difference between the practice in the two countries had been entirely overlooked by the Commissioners. In the evidence given by Sir F. Pollock, he found it stated, "that any idea of affording counsel to defendants would be mischievous unless they had the last word; otherwise he would prefer the present system, with all its defects in principle and inconvenience in practice, and he contended, if the provisions of this Bill were made law, new alterations would be introduced until counsel were allowed in cases of felony even greater latitude than at Nisi Prius." But between the two cases there existed no analogy whatever, because, at Nisi Prius, the assistance of counsel was necessary, not merely, nor even principally, to ascertain the truth of the facts alleged in evidence, but to estimate the amount of damages which should be awarded by the jury. The case of treason was next

173
adduced, but to any one at all acquainted with the history of the country and the usual course of procedure, the reason of allowing the prisoner a copy of the indictment, the names of those to be examined as witnesses against him, and the additional assistance of counsel, must be at once apparent; because charges of treason could so easily be converted into oppression from political motives; and, therefore, the policy had been wisely to surround the accused with every possible facility for making out a complete defence. The opinion of the Commissioners in favour of the principle of this Bill was founded on two or three alleged improper verdicts having been returned in cases of murder, where it was stated, if counsel had been allowed, no conviction would have taken place. He entirely objected, however, to vague statements of this description, and he very much questioned whether there would be greater probability of a proper verdict under the change which was proposed should now take place. Before he came to notice the cases of misdemeanors, he was desirous of saying a word or two upon the opinions given by Sir F. Pollock and Mr. Sergeant Wilde in favour of prisoners having the benefit of counsel on charges of felony. They had stated that they had had personal experience of verdicts being given contrary to the evidence. Sir F. Pollock stated two cases, and Mr. Sergeant Wilde had mentioned five. In one of the cases cited by the last named hon. and learned Gentleman, it was obvious from what afterwards took place, that there was an after fact of which no one knew when the trial took place. Now it was obvious that had counsel been permitted to address the Jury, he could not have produced a favourable effect, inasmuch as he could not have been acquainted with the fact upon which the Secretary of State afterwards acted. It was true that wrong verdicts might be given, but would allowing counsel to be heard for prisoners diminish the number, he begged to inquire? Was it shown that those cases would be fewer? Were wrong verdicts fewer in cases of misdemeanour, where counsel were permitted to address a Jury? He would venture to affirm that in such cases of misdemeanor where Counsel did address a Jury, it would be found on investigation, that as many wrong verdicts in proportion were given, as in cases of felony, in which counsel were not allowed. Amongst other topics which had been
174
urged on former occasions relative to the present Bill, was one which had reference to the duties of the presiding Judge in Criminal Courts. It was said that the present duties of a Judge were already sufficiently heavy in having, often after many hours of strict and severe attention in taking notes of the evidence, to sum up that evidence, and to state its general effect to the Jury. Now he might very fairly be allowed to ask whether these duties would be lessened by the Judge having to listen to the defending counsel's arguments, and also by his having to strip a speech which was made in defence of a prisoner of his highly coloured effects, and to state the naked facts to the Jury, in order that their judgments might not be led astray by the meretricious arguments used by counsel? How often would the Judge's feelings be excited and wounded by having this painful task to perform, in addition to his present duties, oftentimes also performed by him with the knowledge that he was, by so doing, sending the prisoner at the bar to death? Having taken, all along, considerable interest in this question—having had some slight experience in the administration of justice as chairman at quarter sessions, and having given evidence before the Commissioners on the subject, he had thought it his duty thus shortly to state his opinions to their Lordships; and he trusted, although out of doors it had been stated that it would be most discreditable to that House if they refused to pass this Bill at the present moment, their Lordships would not be intimidated from rejecting a measure which would, in his opinion, prove detrimental to those institutions of the country in which the lives and liberties of their fellow subjects were most intimately involved. The noble Lord concluded by moving that the Report be received that day three months.
Lord Lyndhurstthought he had some reason to complain of the course which had been pursued by his noble Friend. On the second reading of the Bill, when its principle was to be discussed, every law Lord in the House expressed a strong opinion in its favour; his noble Friend, also a law Lord, was present upon that occasion, and remained perfectly silent; but after the expiration of several days, on another stage of the Bill, he came down with a long, an able, and eloquent speech for the purpose of attacking the principle of the measure.

175
This unsteadiness of purpose on the part of his noble Friend—this halting between two opinions, was productive of this inconvenience, that his able speech must either remain unanswered, or those on the other side of the question must trouble their Lordships by repeating the arguments urged on a former occasion, which then appeared to be satisfactory to the mind of his noble Friend, and which were favourably received by their Lordships. Notwithstanding this, however, he was disposed to rely on their Lordships' recollection of what had passed on the former discussion of this subject; it was not his intention, therefore, to go through the whole of the speech, although he could not avoid making some observations on part of what had just fallen from his noble and learned Friend. His noble Friend had stated that eloquence, and passion, and zeal, would be introduced into our Courts of Criminal Justice, and that was suggested as an argument against the Bill. It did appear a most extraordinary proposition to maintain, that the only cases in which zeal, in which eloquence, in which powerful reasoning should not be made use of, were those where the liberties and lives of our fellow-creatures were at stake. His noble Friend stated in addition to this, that he was quite satisfied the effect of this Bill would be, that able and eloquent advocates would produce acquittals where there ought to be convictions, and that the course of criminal justice would thereby be perverted. That was one of the arguments pressed by his noble Friend against the measure. If the rule laid down by Lord Coke were correct, which he (Lord Lyndhurst) took the liberty of stating on a former occasion—a rule which had been confirmed and adopted by another noble and learned Lord, he meant Lord Nottingham on the trial of Lord Cornwallis—if it were the true rule that "in cases of felony no man shall be found guilty but on evidence so clear as to admit of no answer," or, as Lord Nottingham expressed it, "evidence so manifest that all the counsel in the world could not gainsay it"—if that were the rule, he for one should not feel apprehensive of any effects that could be produced by the eloquence or impassioned zeal of counsel in the due administration of justice. But if another rule were to be adopted which he had sometimes seen attempted to be enforced, that parties on trial for their lives were to be found guilty on a bare
176
balance of evidence, on plausible subtleties, on slight presumptions as to facts, or minute details of evidence, depending on the character of those who gave it, he did hope the eloquence and arguments of counsel in cases of that description would prevail, because in such cases every man must feel they ought to prevail. But laying speculation aside, let them look to evidence. His noble Friend said, they should not draw their conclusions from the practice in states where the law and administration of justice varied so essentially from what had obtained in this country. He (Lord Lyndhurst) was ready to admit that principle. He would not take up their time in attempting to prove the fallacy of the reasoning of his noble Friend, founded on the practice in Scotland; he was prepared to rest the case on the practice established, and operating without inconvenience, where the law was the same, and administered on the same principle, as in England. With respect to the United States, he had, since he last addressed the House, had an opportunity of making the necessary inquiries, and he found that the system had worked well, and without being productive of the slightest inconvenience. He had armed himself with other authorities upon the subject. The first general authority to which he would refer, was one which showed that the practice in Jamaica admitted of counsel in criminal cases, whilst the law administered was the common law of England. The Report contained the following passages relating to that practice. A witness is asked whether counsel were allowed to address the Jury in defence of a prisoner accused of felony. The answer was, yes, He is next asked whether any inconvenience resulted from that practice; he answers none whatever. And who is this witness? No other than a gentleman who signs himself "W. A. Scarlett," brother to a noble and learned Lord, the Chief Baron of the Exchequer (Lord Abinger), who had attended in that House during the discussion of the Bill, and who had given it his full concurrence. Could anything be more conclusive than such evidence? He might cite another testimony, and more than one, but he would only refer to the Report, which stated that in the colonies counsel were allowed to address the Jury in all criminal cases, and that no inconvenience ever resulted from the practice. These facts were better than all the refined arguments and inge-

177
nious speculations of his noble and learned Friend. In all cases of misdemeanours, as well as in the graver cases of treason, counsel were permitted to plead in England, and no inconveniences resulted. In felonies such aid was not permitted here; whilst in the colonies it was, and no inconvenience followed; whilst, on the other hand, all the best authorities, men whose experience qualified them most eminently to judge of the effects of such an alteration in the law, were of opinion that it was absolutely essential to justice that the principle of the Bill should no longer be disregarded, or denied its proper applications to the practice of the Courts. Amongst these authorities were Sir F. Pollock, Mr. Alderman Harmer, and the Lord Advocate of Scotland. The noble and learned Lord had observed, that the effect of the Bill as it now stood would be to deprive the prisoner of the benefit of having the last word, which was material, in fact of the highest value to him. Now he had by no means made up his mind as to this circumstance, or whether he would deprive the prisoner of this advantage; but he had certainly advised the striking out all the clauses relating to that subject, in order to try the experiment; and he would now state that if hereafter it should be found advisable for the prisoner to be allowed to have the last word, there was nothing in the Bill by which that principle would be prevented from being admitted; and the noble Lord had quite misapprehended him when he supposed that he meant permanently to deprive the prisoner of that privilege. In his opinion the evils of the present system could not well be exaggerated. Let their Lordships picture to themselves a man placed at a criminal bar charged with a grave offence, bowed down with age, by infirmity, by disease, his senses not perfect—he neither hears nor sees well—his physical powers are all but completely exhausted, and yet no assistance of counsel afforded him— could anything be more barbarous and cruel? Yet such was the case of Lord Lovat. Let them take another case, that of a foreigner just arrived in the country ignorant of the language and whole form of procedure, obliged to conduct his own defence, and not allowed the assistance of counsel; he was entangled at once in a maze of perplexity and confusion, utterly unable to say a single word, or perform a single act, contributing to his
178
justification. He would put still another case—the case of a man born deaf and dumb; he might not have the use even of the faculty of sight, but placed at the bar charged with felony, the case having been gone through, the judge was heard to say, "You have heard the evidence; if you have any thing to say to the jury in your own defence, now is the time; your counsel cannot speak for you." Could any thing be more monstrous and cruel? This case might appear extravagant and absurd in terms, but he had seen instances substantially to bear out the description. Yet such was the system which his noble Friend eulogised, and which must revolt every man of plain and ordinary understanding who for a moment contemplated it. Counsel were allowed to write a defence for the prisoner to read, but that of course must be prospective, depending hypothetically on the evidence which might be adduced; why not allow a defence to be addressed to the jury, founded on the actual facts placed before the jury? What was the first principle of justice? That no man should be condemned without being heard in his own defence. How were they to interpret that? Narrowly, according to the letter, or largely, and liberally, as every proposition in morals ought to be expounded? Did it mean that after a trial of ten hours, consisting of most complicated evidence, an ignorant man should be allowed to stand up and submit his comments to the attention of the jury? Would that be hearing him in his defence? No, that would not satisfy the rule of justice. The rule of justice meant this—that for every thing which could fairly and properly be urged in the prisoner's defence there should be the opportunity of urging it on the attention of the jury before he was pronounced guilty of the crime laid to his charge. He called, therefore, upon their Lordships, as the hereditary judges of the land, to interpose their authority on this subject, he called upon the right rev. Prelates, whom he greatly respected and revered, and whose minds must be deeply imbued with the principles of justice, to wipe out this stain—the relict of a barbarous age; and he could not do better than read in conclusion a short extract from an essay lately published by a member and dignitary of the Church of England, embodying in the most striking and forcible manner, his own opinions and feelings on this

179
subject, and which he was sure would produce a deep impression on their Lordships. He said—"We have often blushed for English humanity when we have heard the reply—'Your counsel cannot speak for you, you must speak for yourself.' And this is the reply given to a poor girl of fifteen—to a foreigner — to a deaf man — to a stammerer — to the feeble — to the blind — to the old — to the most abject and ignorant of human beings! How often have we seen a poor wretch struggling against the agonies of his spirit, and the rudeness of his conceptions and his awe, speaking in the presence of learned men, and the shame of the accusation brought against him, in the sight of his parents, or his children gazing at him in court, perhaps for the last time? The mariner sinking in the waves does not want a helping hand more than this poor wretch. But the rule is alike applied to all, to the old and young, the feeble and the strong. Age cannot have if, nor ignorance, nor the modesty of youth; one hard uncharitable rule silences all defence of those wretched beings, and at the bitterest of human moments mercy is blotted out from the ways of man."
The Earl of Radnorhad heard with much pleasure the able, eloquent, and fascinating speech of the noble and Learned Lord, although he could not help thinking the course he now pursued rather extraordinary after the opinions he had formerly stated upon this subject. In fact, he must have changed his opinions very decidedly within the last two months; for he (Lord Radnor), within that period, in a conversation had heard the noble and learned Lord state that he intended to oppose this Bill. At all events, when the noble and learned Lord was Attorney-General, there could be no doubt he supported the present system, insisting that the question depended not upon authorities but on experience. Althrough he quite agreed with the noble and learned Lord as to the anomaly of the present system, he must complain that the noble and learned Lord had delayed so long in bringing forward this Bill. He would vote for this measure, though he was not certain that, limited as it now was, it would not be mischievous. If carried in its present shape, he was convinced that it must of necessity produce further alterations, and on that account he should give it his support.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that as the noble Earl who had just sat down had introduced into his speech so much of matter personal to himself, he trusted that, though it was not strictly regular, their lordships would indulge him with their patient attention whilst he said a few words in reply. As to the private conversation which the noble Earl said had taken place between them on the subject of this Bill, he had only to observe that he had no recollection of it. He had had many private conversations upon it with his noble and learned Friend, (Lord Brougham) in the last Session of Parliament, and in those conversations he had intimated that he felt inclined to support it. He had not, however, at that time examined the subject, either so minutely or so carefully as to be able to come to any fixed decision upon it. As to the course which he had pursued upon it in that House last Session, their Lordships had already indulged him with an opportunity of explanation, and to what he had said then he had nothing to add now. He had taken Sir Michael Foster as his guide, but had not then entered into an examination of the reasons which that learned judge produced in confirmation of the opinion which he bad formed. After examining into those reasons, and after some practical experience which he had himself obtained as a judge, he had become convinced that the objections which Sir M. Foster had urged against making this alteration in our present system were much exaggerated; and upon discovering that exaggeration, and upon contrasting the objections of Sir M. Foster, when stripped of their exaggeration, with the reasons advanced in its favour by others, he had come to the conclusion which he had already stated to their Lordships. The noble Earl had also objected to him for bringing this Bill before their Lordships at so late a period of the Session. Now, he wished to remind their Lordships of one simple circumstance, in reply to the objection of the noble Earl. The Bill came to their Lordships from the other House of Parliament. The noble Earl was quite as competent to take charge of it as he was; and yet the noble Earl had allowed it to remain four weeks on the table without taking the slightest step regarding it. He had had a conversation on this Bill with his noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench; and in consequence of that conversation, and at the express

181
desire of his noble and learned Friend, he had taken charge of this Bill. His noble and learned Friend had, however, requested him not to proceed with the Bill immediately, inasmuch as the Report of the Committee was not upon the Table. His noble and learned Friend thought, that it was necessary that the Report should be on the Table, and should be printed before he proceeded with the Bill. It was out of deference to his noble and learned Friend that he did not move the Bill sooner. He had not caused the slightest delay to the Bill; indeed, it was for the accommodation of certain noble Lords who could not have attended when the second reading of it was first appointed, that he had postponed for some time the discussion upon it. He was glad that he should have the support of the noble Earl to this measure, even though the noble Earl was not certain that it would not be mischievous, now that the clause granting the prisoner the depositions was struck out. That clause was not struck out at his suggestion; it was struck out at the suggestion of his noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench, a criminal judge of great experience, and at the suggestion of another noble and learned Friend of his, the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer, a criminal judge of quite as great experience, he fancied, as the noble Earl himself. He had assented to their suggestion, but with this reserve, that he would not pledge himself not to bring it forward again, in case it were struck out now. In conclusion, he said that the attack of the noble Earl upon him was most uncalled for, and most unfounded.
The Earl of Radnoradmitted, that it was quite as competent for him to have taken charge of this Bill as it was for the noble and learned Lord. There was, however, one advantage gained to the Bill, by letting the noble and learned Lord have the charge of it. The noble and learned Lord was in the habit of speaking in a majority, while he was in the habit of speaking in a minority, in that House. With regard to one remark which had fallen from the noble and learned Lord, he had to observe, that his noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench, had told him (Lord Radnor) that the clause relating to the granting the depositions should be left in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord
182
opposite had moved that that clause be struck out. He had opposed that motion; but the noble and learned Lord had insisted upon it, and it was in consequence struck out. The noble and learned Lord said that he had then followed the authority of Sir M. Foster, as laid down in Blackstone; but according to a record of the noble and learned Lord's opinions which he held in his hands, and to which the noble and learned Lord was fond of referring, the noble and learned Lord had then said, "However much I may respect the opinion of Sir M. Foster, this is a question on which practical experience was of much greater weight than any authority whatsoever."
Lord Lyndhurst: I never could have said so then; it must be some mistake, it would be quite contrary to the general tenour of my argument.
Lord Plunketwould give his cordial support to this Bill, although he should have been better pleased had it gone further. He should not have troubled their Lordships at all upon the present occasion, were it not to express his satisfaction at hearing his noble and learned Friend declare that, although certain clauses had been withdrawn, he did not mean to say that he would not, at some future period, introduce a clause giving the prisoner's counsel the last word. The Bill would be left in an imperfect state, without some such clause. He considered that it was a reproach to our law, that a prisoner could not be heard by counsel, and on that account he gave his hearty support to this Bill.
Lord Abingerregretted that a Bill of this description had been made matter of personal discussion between two of their Lordships. Though he had originally had some doubts on the subject, the discussion which took place on it two years ago in the House of Commons, had satisfied him that criminal charges should be put on the same footing as civil charges. It was then stated, that allowing prisoners to defend themselves by counsel would not tend to facilitate convictions. To that statement it was replied, that when it was considered that the counsel who defended the prisoners were generally young men not of much experience, the tendency of the Bill would, in all probability, be to facilitate convictions. It was likewise stated, that the object of the Bill was, not that the prisoner should be acquitted, but that the truth should be

183
investigated. That argument had produced a powerful effect on his mind; for he thought that truth would be better investigated, and that justice would be done more efficiently between the prisoner and the country, if a free discussion of the charge were had on both sides. If any one were to ask him what he, judging from no inconsiderable experience at the Manchester Sessions, and in the Criminal Courts of the Northern Circuit, considered the practical effect of the present system to be, he should say that it was favourable to the acquittal of the prisoner. Supporting the Bill as it now came amended from the Committee, he felt obliged to add, that if it had contained the clause giving to the prisoner's counsel the right of replying to the reply of the counsel for the prosecution, he could not have given his support to it. Such a proceeding would not be consistent with the investigation of truth, and was inconsistent with our practice in civil cases and in cases of misdemeanour. He did not expect that, if this Bill passed, it would greatly lengthen the time of our assizes and sessions. Many prisoners would still remain without counsel to defend them, for they would not have funds to procure such assistance; and in cases where the prisoner's guilt was clearly proved, no counsel of the least discretion would think of addressing the jury to assert his innocence. In difficult cases he must say that, as a judge, he was desirous of having the aid of counsel in elucidating the facts applicable to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner, for such aid was necessary to the proper performance of the duties of the judge himself. He knew that it was the practice on some circuits for the counsel not even to open the case against the prisoner, but to proceed at once to the examination of witnesses. That was, in his opinion, a very inconvenient practice, for the opening of counsel helped the judge to a right understanding of the case, and enabled him to know beforehand what were the facts in it essential to be proved. The judge felt the same difficulty from having no opening statement made to him of the points on which the prisoner, when he called his evidence, intended to rest his defence. The witnesses were called one after another, and for want of some explanation of the points which they were called on to prove, their examination consumed much longer time than it would do, and the defence lost much of its force and efficacy. He had no hesitation in declaring
184
it to be his opinion, that in a majority of cases in which counsel were employed for the prisoner, they would be of the greatest utility both to the judge and to the jury. He again repeated, that if the clause giving the prisoner the last word had remained on the Bill, he should have given it altogether his most decided opposition.
The Earl of Devonsaid, that, in spite of all the authority which was arrayed against him, he felt bound to express his opinion that the measure could produce no good practical effect. There were many objections taken to the Bill, as that the new proceedings would occupy more time, to which he attached no weight; for their consideration should be solely this—whether the present practice did not lead to the calm and fair investigation of the truth. Now he apprehended that it did. As to the clauses of the Bill, there was great difference of opinion between the learned Judges of the Court of King's Bench and Exchequer, but upon those points he should not enter. In any cases, it was to be remembered, in which counsel having the power of addressing the Court for a prisoner, declined to avail himself of that privilege, the possession of it could only act in condemnation of his client. He had felt it to be due to himself, and due to that House, to come forward, and state shortly his own view of the matter.
The Duke of Richmondthought, that if they could rely upon the juries of Jamaica and the colonies for just discrimination, they might at least trust the juries before whom this Bill would operate, and that at any rate it would be much better that some guilty persons should escape, than that a single innocent one should suffer. As to the clause respecting the "last word," for the sake of uniformity of practice alone, which was highly desirable, he thought that clause must be readmitted. The next clause, as to the depositions, was one of considerable importance; but the question came to this— if the attorney for the prisoner were a sensible man, he would take notes, and that was the constant practice, of every word of evidence against his client; and therefore the man who was able to pay an attorney, would have a copy of the depositions; but the man who could not employ one would have no such copy, and they refused to allow him one. Again, as the law at present stood, many magistrates, upon application, were in the habit of

185
giving the depositions to the prisoners— many not. It was the duty of Parliament to decide which was the proper course to pursue. The House of Commons, and, he presumed by their votes, Sir William Follett, the Solicitor and Attorney General, together with the Commissioners, had already declared that the prisoner was entitled to have the depositions, but the House of Lords appeared about to express a contrary opinion. By striking out that clause, did they mean to say, that the magistrates ought not to allow a copy of the depositions to be given to the prisoner? All he wished for was, that the magistrates might not be left in doubt and uncertainty upon the subject.
Lord Lyndhursthad no objection to insert a declaratory clause in the bill, to the effect desired by the noble duke. As some of the magistrates newly-appointed might have a doubt on the point none others he thought could, he had no objection to insert a clause declaratory of the law.
The Duke of Richmondreturned his thanks to the noble and learned Lord for this concession. At the same time he must remind the noble and learned Lord that in the last fifteen years, some of the judges of the land had doubted whether the prisoner had any right to a copy of the depositions.
The Lord Chancellorthought it was of importance to have the clause restored, for he thought that the prisoner was entitled to a copy of the depositions. There had been another clause struck out of the Bill, which he much wished to see restored to it. His noble and learned Friend had, however, objected to it, saying that he could not see any reason why the prisoner's counsel should have the last word. Now it appeared to him that the reason was obvious. The defendant might have evidence to produce; but he would keep it back, not because it was unessential to his case, but because in calculating the chances he was bound to consider whether his chance was better without calling that evidence, than it would be supposing him to call that evidence, and so give his prosecutor an opportunity of replying upon it. The fear of a reply might induce him to keep out evidence necessary to his exculpation. This fear would be obviated in case the prisoner's counsel were entitled to comment on the reply of the prosecutor. It ought not to be forgotten, that by the clause itself the counsel for the prisoner was only to have this power of
186
making a rejoinder where the counsel for the prosecution had replied upon the defence. If the prosecutor made no reply to the defence urged by the prisoner's counsel, then the case was to go immediately to the jury. Whether it was to be done by this Bill now, or by some other bill at a future period, he thought that in all criminal proceedings the prisoner's counsel ought to have the last word, when the counsel for the prosecution availed himself of his power of reply. He was glad that in the course of this debate they had at last got rid of the fiction so contrary to the fact, "that the judge was counsel for the prisoner"—counsel for the prisoner, without having any communication with his client, and without having the slightest previous knowledge of what it was for the interest of his client to prove. He would not enter into any details to prove the propriety of their Lordships assenting to this Bill. He would merely remind them of the fact which struck even the most unobservant with surprise. In cases which involved a man's property the courts of law heard both sides; but in cases which involved a man's life, they heard only one side. Moreover, the present law was singularly inconsistent with itself. If a man wrested a gun from another for the purpose of levying war against the king, that was an act of high treason, and for such a taking of a gun you not only allowed, but in case of poverty assigned, him counsel to plead his defence. If a man stole a gun from another, it was an act of felony, and for such a taking you denied to him the right of being heard by counsel in his defence. If, again, in the course of a struggle between a poacher and a gamekeeper, the poacher wrested the gun from the gamekeeper, that was a misdemeanour, and for such a taking you again restored to him the right of employing counsel to conduct his defence. Thus in the first case you granted the prisoner counsel, in the second you denied him counsel, and in the third you restored him counsel, the act being in all three instances the same, and the sole object of the variation of the law being, as admitted, the investigation of truth. He was convinced that the result of this Bill would be, that a less number of innocent, and that a greater number of guilty persons would be convicted, and feeling that truth would be ascertained by this Bill better than by the existing system, he should give it his cordial support.
Amendment negatived.
Report agreed to.