Sitting of 11 April 1837

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Penitentiary (Millbank), Mutiny and Marine Mutiny Bill.—Read a first time:—Uniformity of Process; Judicial Factors (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By several Hon. MEMBERS, from various places, against the Abolition of Church-rates; and from Twickenham, Great Marlow, and other places, against the ministerial Measure.—By Mr. WILKS, and other Hon. MEMBERS, from various places, for the Abolition of Church-rates; from Leeds and various other places, for the ministerial Measure.—By Lord G. SOMERSET, Mr. WILKS, and other Hon. MEMBERS, from Halsted, Stroud, and other places, for an Inquiry into the mode of providing Medical Relief by the New Poor-law Act,—By Sir JAMES GRAHAM and Lord HENNIKER, from Bridgend and Cambridge Union, for Amendment of New Poor-law Act.—By Mr. P. HOWARD and Lord HENNIKER, from Rochford and Wangford Union, against the Repeal of New Poor-law Act.—By Mr. TOOKE, from the Inhabitants of the Liberty of the Rolls, for Equalisation of Land-tax.—By Sir A. LEITH HAY, from Banf, complaining of the Advantages enjoyed by the Owners of the Post-office Shipping List over similar Lists, which are burthened with Postage Dues.—By Mr. HASTIE, from Paisley, for a Household Suffrage; and from Dalmellington and Maxwelltown, for Burghs of Barony (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. O'CONNELL and other Hon. MEMBERS, from various places for Abolition of Tithes (Ireland).—By Mr. O'CONNELL and Mr. MORGAN JOHN O'CONNELL, from several places, for Municipal Corporation Bill (Ireland).—By Mr. O'CONNELL and other Hon. MEMBERS, from various places, for Irish Municipal Corporations; for Abolition of Tithes (Ireland); and for Vote by Ballot.

MUNICIPAL. CORPORATIONS, IRELAND. — (THIRD READING) — ADJOURNED DEBATE.
The Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate on the third reading of the Municipal Corporation (Ireland) Bill having been read,
Mr. Humesaid, it was not his intention to intrude very long upon the patience and attention of the House, but feeling strongly the importance of the measure now before the House, as essential to the peace of the United Kingdom, and feeling also that its rejection would be of serious consequence to the Church of Ireland, he wished to state to the House what he had
1044
hoped past experience would have taught them. viz.—the evils that would, in his judgment, ensue if the opposition to this Bill should succeed. He would ask hon. Members opposite, whether the events in relation to the Church of Ireland, which had taken place during the last fifteen or sixteen years, should not teach them that on this occasion they ought to have pursued a very different course. The opposition to the progress of this Bill rested solely on the injury which it was alleged would be done to the Established Church in Ireland. Now, in 1822, when he urged upon the House the reform of the Irish Church as a step to other important reforms, he took the liberty of stating frankly and fairly that which he now repeated as his conviction, that the Church of Ireland had ever been the bar to all improvements in that country, and he was quite confident, judging from the history of the past, that no effectual reforms, no peace could be expected there, until that sinecure Church—the Church of the minority—was reduced according to the scale of its communicants. Until this was done, there would be no chance that peace in Ireland would be maintained—none that the union, so essential to the welfare and happiness of both countries, would be preserved. The noble Lords, the Members for North and South Lancashire, on a former night, and hon. Members on the opposite side, last night, founded their opposition to this Bill solely on the suggestion, that the proposed extension of popular power would be dangerous to the Church of Ireland, and on this ground they resisted that corporate reform for Ireland which the people of England and of Scotland had already obtained. This course was fraught with injustice, and though noble Lords and hon. Members opposite had been warned and advised to yield in time, and to redress grievances long felt and complained of, yet they seemed determined to pursue their own course, even at the risk of the peace and tranquillity of the country. But the people ought to know that the allegations on which the opposition to the measure was grounded, were not those which ought to weigh. The cry of the other side was, that the Church (meaning thereby the religion of the country) was in danger. He denied this: it was not that religion, but the rich sinecures and incomes, that would be endangered by the

1045
passing of the Bill; and these were the real grounds of the present resistance to the progress of reform. In a word, religion was made the stalking-horse; but the danger to the revenues of the Church was the real ground of opposition to this Bill. It had been said, that though this Bill might be passed by the House, yet there would be no chance of its passing in another place. He begged to say, that this House ought not to be influenced by any impediment that elsewhere might be thrown in the way of this measure, but rather ought to do its duty, and send up such a Bill as, in the opinion of the majority of this House, was calculated to give to Ireland an equality of civil rights. The majority of the people of Ireland ought to have the same advantages as the majority of the people of England and of Scotland; but until the Church of Ireland was reduced in its power—indeed, destroyed as regarded its supremacy—the people of Ireland would not be satisfied. He owned he was surprised that the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, who had formed a part of that Government which had given corporate reform to England and to Scotland, should now turn his back upon himself, and tell the people of Ireland that, on a plea of religion, he would not consent to give them equal civil rights. He (Mr. Hume) had often heard the noble Lord, when on this side of the House, point out, in able and eloquent terms, the evils which had resulted from the system which had formerly existed, of refusing civil rights on the ground of religious faith; and he was at a loss to account for the strange perversion of reasoning which had led the noble Lord now to go back from his former sentiments. The other noble Lord, the Member for South Lancashire, and a noble Lord in another place, had both contended that this Bill would make the Corporations the arenas for political discussion. Was it, however, to be supposed, that because Corporations did not exist, the people would not meet, and that an arena for political discussion would not be found in every town and parish, or that the discussions would not be mixed up with much bitterness, from the conviction that the refusal of civil rights was to be attributed to the existence of a sinecure Church, to which the minority of the population belonged? He therefore contended, that hon. Members opposite were,
1046
by their present course of action, driving headlong to the destruction of the Church of Ireland. The majority of the House and of the intelligence of the country was opposed to such a course of policy towards Ireland. The sinecure Church of Ireland was a positive monstrosity. He was not inclined to think that a Church Establishment was in any respect essential to the constitution or welfare of the country; indeed, he thought the Constitution would be purer and better if there was no Established Church. He had never advocated the abolition of the Established Church in England; but, proceeding on the principle which actuated their forefathers when they established Protestantism, as being the religion of the majority, he did not see how the principle—least of all, how the present scale, of the Irish Church could be maintained in Ireland. An hon. Friend near him said, the Church of England was the true religion, but he was a wise man who knew what the true religion was. They had seen every form of religion in different ages and different countries declared to be the true religion. But if this Bill were rejected elsewhere—if the Irish people, increasing in intelligence and power, were taught to consider the Established Church as the only barrier to their enjoyment of civil rights, and equal immunities with the English and the Scotch, it was impossible not to see to what a state of jeopardy they would thereby expose that branch of the establishment. The rejection of this Bill, so far from lessening the evils which the Church now suffered, would only increase the dissatisfaction it engendered, and rouse the people of Ireland against it as their common enemy. He regarded this Bill as but an instalment of what was due to the Irish people, and if it were refused, they would be driven to call for a repeal of the union as the only chance they had of obtaining equal laws and institutions. From an English House of Lords and Commons apparently they had every opposition to contend with. Lord Mulgrave had done much, more than had ever before, in the history of any Lord-Lieutenant, been accomplished, by the wisdom and justice of his procedure to secure peace, and defeat the atrocious attempts that were made by speeches in that House and elsewhere to excite insurrection in Ireland. He hoped the tranquillity of the country would still be maintained; the people of Ireland

1047
might depend on it, if this measure were rejected now, it could not long be withheld. Its rejection would only tend to hasten and prepare the way for other and more extensive reforms. Hon. Members opposite might think by refusing to pass this measure they would curtail the power of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kilkenny; but they were altogether mistaken. And even if that hon. Member were withdrawn from his present position in the country, there would not be wanting others to agitate successfully in favour of equal rights and privileges for the people of Ireland. With respect to the Bill itself, there might be anomalies in it; but he took it as a whole, and the people of Ireland were satisfied with it. He hoped hon. Gentlemen opposite would at last learn prudence by the experience of the past: if they did not—if they persisted in their present course of blind opposition to the will of the people, he hoped he should live a few years longer, if it were only to see the mortification, the confusion and dismay, with which their own obstinate resistance of moderate measures of reform must speedily overwhelm them. It was not his fault that the progress of reform had not been more rapid. He hoped, however, that the people of this country would at length see there was no hope of good Government while the minority in that House was so numerous. They must increase the majority before they could expect really good Government—not a Government to maintain the peers in their power, and the aristocracy in their privileges, but which should look to the general interest of the community at large. Reform was making rapid progress. He had commenced the reform of the Irish Church many years ago, and he was glad to see it now recognized that Church property was actually national property—that there was no Church property at all, and if that House were to adopt the system of the Quakers, the whole of what was called Church property would immediately revert to the State. Aristocracy had already had its day—he trusted its converse, popular power, real democracy, was now about to have its turn too. It was gratifying to him to think that already aristocracy was going down the hill, and he was happy to see that its advocates were adopting the best means, by their opposition to this Bill, of hastening their own downfall. He
1048
cordially approved of this Bill, and should give it his most strenuous support.
Mr. A. Trevorwould not have ventured to trouble the House upon the present occasion, but for certain expressions which had fallen from the hon. Member who had just sat down. The hon. Member had denounced the other House of Parliament, extolled the learned Member for Kilkenny as the great hero of the age, pointed out the awful consequences of the course which (the Opposition) were about to pursue, and crowned the whole by pronouncing no small eulogium on himself. But let the consequences of their present course be what they might, if the Church of England and Ireland were destined to fall they were prepared and willing to fall along with it. They felt it to be their duty to uphold those principles which had been handed down to them from their ancestors, which were not only perfectly consistent with, but the real foster-parent of all sound and rational liberty. He looked upon the present and every other measure introduced by the Ministers as having for its object to convert Ireland from a Protestant to a Popish country. The hon. Member for Middlesex, had himself admitted that this Bill was only an instalment intended to prepare the way for further and more extended innovations. Past experience had proved what they must expect from concession. They had been told a few years ago that, Catholic emancipation granted, Ireland would be content, and nothing further would be demanded, yet what had been the consequence? It was now seen to be only the beginning of the end. If this measure were conceded Ireland would not be satisfied; the more they were disposed to yield, the more would be required of them. A stand must be made somewhere, and he conceived no better stand could be made than around the altars of their holy religion. This Bill would give complete power to one party over the remainder in Ireland, and once let that party acquire supreme power, history warranted him in predicting it would not be so tolerant as the members of the Church of England; they would have tyranny and oppression of the most cruel description, and in its worst and most painful forms. The hon. Member for Middlesex had represented the Established Church as the enemy of improvement—the stumbling-block and bar to the public

1049
well-being. On the other hand he conscientiously believed that, but for the Established Church of the United Kingdom, the state of the people in general would have been far more deteriorated than it was; and when that Church fell, every other privileged order, and property of every description, would fall along with it. What might be the fate of this measure in another place it was not for him to say; but whatever their decision, he was sure the Members of the other House of the Legislature would perform their duty to their country in a manner as manly and as honourable as heretofore, conducive to the welfare and best interest of the country.
Mr. Gally Knight: I sincerely hope the wish which the hon. Member for Middlesex expressed about himself may be fulfilled; but I cannot say that I think his speech was calculated to reconcile Gentlemen on this side of the House to the measure proposed. It will increase their alarms instead of inspiring them with confidence; and as no material alterations have been made in the Bill during its progress through the Committee (and it would have been useless for us to have attempted any, for we are in the hands of not a very conceding majority, and no attempts would have been successful), it is impossible for me or for any man who has voted against the Bill in its previous stages, not to vote against the third reading; but, at the same time, I am free to confess, that it would give me great satisfaction if at some future time this Bill were to return to this House under similar circumstances, and with such modifications, as would enable us to bring this vexatissima questio to a conclusion. When I say this, I have not ceased to think, that in a country so peculiarly circumstanced as Ireland, where two contending parties are in constant presence, and where both are very susceptible—I have not ceased to think that the introduction of mere debating societies would not prove a complete remedy. If Ireland were not so peculiarly circumstanced, I should not have a moment's hesitation, for, without admitting the applicability of all the arguments which the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard, with so much eloquence and ability, drew from ancient history—without admitting that municipal institutions are of as much importance to these islands as they were to the unrepresented towns of the less free Roman republic, or
1050
in the turbulence of the middle ages, I do admit that municipal institutions are a legitimate object of local ambition, and an useful occupation of local talent; and if the people of Ireland would only be satisfied with what affords satisfaction in a neighbouring country, where the democratic principle is more advanced than it ever will be, I trust, in this country—if the towns of Ireland would only be satisfied with what satisfies the towns of France, I should not entertain the same apprehensions. The municipal towns of France are contented with the management of their own local affairs, and never dream of entertaining political questions. I should have thought that any towns might have been satisfied with what affords satisfaction to Lyons and Marseilles. We do not set our faces against Municipal institutions—we do not say that the people of Ireland are incapable of managing their own affairs—all we do say is, that, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, we doubt whether it would be either wisdom or kindness to establish arenas for political discussion. But if the whole people of Ireland really consider the refusal an insult, if the whole country is to be kept in a permanent state of anger and agitation, then I cannot deny that to be the greater evil of the two, and to get rid of this greater evil—to prove to the people of Ireland that we think them in no way inferior to ourselves—to prove to them that the restoration of Protestant ascendancy is no part of our object, but the fair distribution of power and emolument, without reference to religious creeds, I should be ready to make concessions, whenever it can be done without endangering those institutions upon which the people of England set too high a value to permit them to be shaken with impunity. I know that an expression made use of by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, has indisposed the minds of many to the measure now before us. The hon. and learned Member said, "give me the Municipal Bill, and I will get all the rest." I do not feel certain that the prediction of the hon. and learned Gentleman would be fulfilled; but of this I do feel certain, that if the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny thought that by any expression of his, he could induce the Conservatives to take an impolitic course, he would gladly convert himself into an ignis fatuus to lead his opponents into a bog; and as far as

1051
Dublin is concerned, we know, by the registration, that in that city the hon. and learned Gentleman would not be omnipotent. I should now, therefore, be disposed to shape my conduct with reference to any expressions that may drop from that hon. and learned Gentleman. I feel that, as the Bill now stands, it is impossible for me to take any other course than that which I did before, but I repeat it, it would afford me great satisfaction to see this question brought to a conclusion."
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the hon. Member who had just sat down had made a very un-English sort of speech, by holding up the case of French towns as examples to be followed by England in refusing the advantages of a participation in political rights to Ireland.
Mr. Knight: The towns in France had municipal rights, but they did not pervert them to political purposes.
Mr. O'Connell: Those towns had portions of political rights only; they had no entire political rights; and therefore it was that he was about to comment upon the instance quoted of the French towns. The hon. Gentleman had given them strong reasons for voting one way, and had declared his wish to vote for the Bill, and yet persevered in the determination to vote against it. With reference to the words which had been imputed to him, if he had not had an ulterior object in view, he should not have adopted them. He should not now perform his duty if he did not make an appeal once more to the English Legislature, or rather to such portion of it as would condescend to listen to him, and to hear him again advocate his favourite demand of "Justice to Ireland!" Yes; he demanded justice for Ireland. There could be no tranquillity in that country, and God forbid there ever should be, till they obtained justice. Till they obtained justice agitation would increase. But the hon. Gentleman ought to make his vote tally more with his argument. Now he called for justice for Ireland. Justice consisted in an equality of civil and political rights. England enjoyed the advantages of Municipal Corporations; Scotland the same; and should he be told that Ireland was not to have Municipal Government? Did hon. Members on the opposite side seek to postpone the concession of this right to Ireland? Suppose that Ireland already had her Municipal Corporations, and that Englan
1052
also enjoyed the same privilege, and that they refused Municipal Institutions to Scotland—suppose that case, and he would contend that England dared not refuse the right to Scotland. But they dared to refuse it to Ireland, because it was thought that that country was not so united, and that she was distracted by party animosities. But put the case again in another way. Suppose Scotland and Ireland to have Municipal Corporations, and to refuse them to England. Oh! what a show would they make on the other side of the House, advocating the giving Municipal Corporations to Scotland and Ireland, and refusing them to England. He did not think they would ever be again restored to their situations; he did not believe that they would ever have time to canvass their respective constituencies; because he should hope that in such a case the people of England would assert the right which they had to resist oppression, and if necessary to terminate the contest by the destruction of their tyrants. Though the Irish people had been more accustomed to the domination of tyrants, hon. Gentlemen speculated wrongly if they thought the young heart showed so little emotion or feeling when she was refused that which had been conceded to England and Scotland as not to feel the wrong and the insult which were heaped upon her. They might come forward with paltry pretences and empty words—they might give them vague excuses—but what signified their words? Was not the fact this, that Scotland and England had secured for themselves Municipal Reform, and that Ireland had not any such advantage? What then became of their words? He knew that there were always multitudes of reasons to be found when it was thought fit to oppress the people of Ireland; there were religious bigotry, national antipathy, and individual malignity. He would say take the three, and he would show this, that they had had to contend against the whole three combined. The history of Ireland was full of instances of the fatal effects of the combination of the three. He would defy the hon. Member who had preceded him, and those who might follow him, to point out a single period of English history when England had ever governed Ireland justly. It was a history covering a period of 700 years; and the grievances of the country, with the actors in the Government, had differed in various trans-

1053
actions, but the principles of each succeeding Government had been the same—the grievances had been the same in amount—the government of Ireland had been still carried on unfairly and by faction. And now there was abroad this miserable feeling, that respectable men would allow themselves to be carried away, by a weak or party feeling, to the consideration of the question, whether the Irish people should be considered and treated as aliens to the constitution of England, or amalgamated with it, and thus form a great portion of the strength of the British nation. No Government could be unjust and strong at the same time. They might try experiments by these pretences—by the aid of religious bigotry, national antipathy, and individual malevolence. But individual malevolence was so poor a motive to action that it could not be admitted as an argument. National antipathy was, indeed, the principle upon which those persons had too long acted who opposed good government for Ireland. To what extent had it been carried in another House? There, to vituperation had been added insult, and insult to injury, which never could be sufficiently reprobated. Now he did not think that was a prudent course. The persons who acted thus were more safe in infringing the rights of the Irish people than they could be by inflicting insults upon them. Men were always more irritated by insult than by injury; and yet the hon. Gentleman talked of his wish to conciliate when he sat beside those who had both injured and then insulted the people of Ireland, and considered that that was the proper course to be taken. The hon. Member for the University of Dublin had stated, that he considered the municipal franchise of itself of little value. In showing that he undervalued this power, the hon. Gentleman took not a speech, but a letter of his (Mr. O'Connell's), and he read this paragraph: "It is quite true, that if Lord Lyndhurst had contented himself with limiting his proposition to the mere extinction of Corporations I would have voted for that Bill." The hon. Gentleman quoted this part of this paragraph to show that he (Mr. O'Connell) was ready to vote for the extinction of corporations; but he left out the concluding words—"and looked for new corporations immediately afterwards." This was a specimen of the candour which had marked the hon. Gentleman's mode
1054
of proceeding. Did the hon. Gentleman deny these words? [Mr. Shaw: No!] Nor could any other person for him? The noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, had made a speech last night which exhibited less of his character, and less mental power than usual. The noble Lord, too, had dwelt much on the subject of the declaration which he maintained was required to be made, but which had been omitted in the present Bill. The noble Lord contended, that the 51. franchise was too little in Londonderry, and made a difference in the principle of the measure. The noble Lord referred to the question of the sheriffs, and said, he would rather have them appointed directly by the Corporations. He could easily conceive why the noble Lord would prefer having them so appointed; it would hereafter supply him with a powerful argument against the Bill. They had already experienced the evils resulting from the appointment of partisan sheriffs in Ireland; and it became absolutely necessary that no officer of the kind should be appointed except upon the responsibility of the Government. They had been told in the course of the discussion, that the question was now only one of time. It was admitted, that the time would eventually come when the Corporations of Ireland must be reformed; but, said the hon. Gentlemen opposite, it is not convenient for us to reform them at present. Was it right or proper—would the House sanction such a course—that the Irish nation should be insulted and kept in a constant state of agitation upon a paltry question of time. Would the House allow this outrage to be inflicted upon Ireland for a few weeks or months, until some altered circumstances, some shifting perhaps of office, when it might suit the pleasure or the policy of the Gentlemen opposite to concede a measure which they themselves allowed could not be long withheld. What an argument to place in the mouths of the repealers. "We admit that you are aggrieved, but we will not remove the fetters we have fixed upon you until it suits our pleasure and convenience to do so." If the hon. Gentlemen opposite stood upon a bold and distinct ground, and said that the corporations should not be reformed at all, or that they should be totally extinguished, and nothing of the kind substituted in their stead, there would be some consistency in their con-

1055
duct; but how paltry, how insignificant, how unworthy of themselves, how insulting to Ireland was their behaviour when they said, "We know you are aggrieved, but the time at which it may please us to wipe away your wrong has not just yet arrived." Why would they not do it then? They told them (them, the Representatives of Ireland) that the Irish people were not fit to receive British institutions. Not fit to receive them! The tendency of British institutions was to elevate the human character. Then, if the Irish people were not sufficiently elevated in the scale of civilization, the way to raise them and to render them ultimately fit for the enjoyment of British institutions was to give them British institutions at once. This argument of unfitness for the reception of British institutions was the same that had been advanced against the Irish people for the last 600 years. They had always been told that they were not fit for British institutions. He repeated, give them British institutions, and they would speedily become fitted for the full and true enjoyment of them. The language of the opponents of Ireland was always this—"We will give you British institutions when you are fit to receive them;" but they studiously and carefully withheld from Ireland the institutions of Great Britain, in order that the Irish people might never be fitted to receive them. Such conduct reminded him of the village clown who was determined never to go into the water until he had learned to swim. So it was with these institutions; they were kept away from them, and they could not, therefore, be fit for them, any more than the clown could swim who would not enter the water. Religious bigotry he had before alluded to as our excuse for withholding Municipal Institutions, and he would appeal to his hon. Friends, the Members for Weymouth and Caithness whether the best course they would adopt as sincere Protestants, who must naturally wish the conversion of Catholics to Protestantism, would be to attempt it by persecution? He was perfectly convinced that his hon. Friends were in error, and if he wanted to convert them to Catholicism the worst thing he could do would be to attack the church to which they belonged. But this system of religious bigotry and persecution began with Queen Elizabeth, and had continued down to the present time. How did she
1056
introduce the Protestant religion but by slaughter and treachery? To entitle the natives to come within the pale the first step they were compelled to take was to bring the head of some murdered relative, and so great was the cruelty prevailing, that when it was found that by butchering with the sword the work of slaughter could not be carried on fast enough, the harvests were destroyed, and the people died, in the words of the historian, "in the fields, their mouths green from eating herbs to save them from starvation." It was the same in the reign of James, who conquered the province of Ulster, and hunted the inhabitants in their bogs and mountains with bloodhounds. This he did in the name of God, and for the advancement of the Protestant religion. Cromwell, too, with the sword of the Lord and of Gideon, as he was pleased to call it, attacked and slaughtered the garrison of Drogheda, and, his hands reeking with blood, wrote to the Parliament to inform them of the triumph of the Protestant faith. That was not religion. If the Revolution were then put down matters would be found still the same. The Irish were not defeated in the Revolution. William the Third left 2,000 of his best troops under the walls of Limerick. The Irish surrendered then on terms of security; they had, moreover, the pledged word and honour of the King for their safety and protection. The treaty entered into with them, was, however, observed only so long as the Irish troops were in the country: when they left for France, and when the land was garrisoned in all parts by English and Dutch forces, then it was most shamefully violated; and one of the most iniquitous codes ever devised by the ingenuity of man was enacted against the people of Ireland. By that code, all learning was prohibited to Irish Catholics, and they were also forbade to hold property. They were thus made ignorant paupers. A penalty of 10 1. a day was levied on every person having a Popish instructor in his house, and the punishment of transportation or imprisonment for life was inflicted on the hapless tutor. Also a child sent abroad by his parents or relatives for the instruction which he was denied at home had all his property confiscated. A Catholic could not hold real property for a longer term than thirty-one years, and then only while his interest in it did not exceed 6s. 8d. in

1057
the pound. The moment it went beyond that, any Protestant might file a bill of discovery, and at once enter on possession. He (Mr. O'Connell) was himself a victim of that law. An ancestor of his had purchased certain estates, when a bill was filed against him because he was a Catholic, and the property for which he had paid was wrested from him. The same principle was still at work, though in a lesser degree; for now the Catholics had become too strong for their oppressors to persecute them so openly and so grossly. It was the same feeling which Burke described in his letter to Sir Hercules Langrishe, in 1792. He would read a passage to the House. Speaking of the rebellion of 1641, Mr. Burke said:—"By the issue of that war, by the turn which the Earl of Clarendon gave to things at the Restoration and by the total reduction of the kingdom of Ireland in 1691, the ruin of the native Irish, and, in a great measure, too, of the first races of the English, was completely accomplished. The new English interest was settled with as solid a stability as anything in human affairs can look for. All the penal laws of that unparalleled code of oppression which were made after the last event, were manifestly the effects of national hatred and scorn towards a conquered people; whom the victors delighted to trample upon, and were not at all afraid to provoke. They were not the effect of their fears but of their security. They who carried on this system looked to the irresistible force of Great Britain for their support in their acts of power. They were quite certain that no complaints of the natives would be heard on this side of the water with any other sentiments than those of contempt and indignation. Their cries served only to augment their torture. Machines which could answer their purposes so well must be of an excellent contrivance. Indeed, in England the double name of the complainants Irish and Papists (it would be hard to say singly, which singly was the most odious), shut up the hearts of every one against them. Whilst that temper prevailed, and it prevailed in all its force to a time within our memory, every measure was pleasing and popular, just in proportion as it tended to harass and ruin a set of people who were looked upon as enemies to God and man; and, indeed, as a race of bigotted savages, who were a disgrace to human nature itself."
1058
It reached its full force at that period; it was now going down; but it was not as yet totally extinguished. The debates in that House, and the insults offered to the people of Ireland elsewhere, were in the same spirit—still unfading and warm. Protestantism in Ireland was not a religion of beneficence. It came armed with the sword, it looked for war, and it would not have peace. Carnage, plunder, hatred and violence attended its track. Carrickshock and Rathcormac still cried aloud. The blood of the son on the feet of the clergyman even while he tendered the Bible to the mother for the purpose of swearing her to pay his 4s. 6d., still reeked in the memory of the country. If all the arguments were on the opposite side, that fact alone would counterbalance them. The people looked naturally on Protestantism as the cause of all this; and it was associated in their minds with the horrors of Moloch, and of Juggernaut. Yet all these were entrenched behind the old corporations. If the right hon. Member for the University of Dublin were present, he should tell him a little of the enormities of the Dublin corporation; how they extracted by their Court of Conscience 2,000 l. a-year from the poorest of the poor. Why, then, link them, with the Church? It was like the conduct of the tyrant of yore, who tied a dead body to the living man, and left him to perish with it. The hon. Member for Cumberland, who spoke last night, said, "It is not my fault, if I connect the topics of the Church with that of the corporations. I am compelled to do so, because they have been previously connected by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny." He (Mr. O'Connell) considered both as grievances, and no doubt had mentioned them both at the same time—perhaps in the same breath; but it did not follow that he had in any way linked them with each other. The fact was, that to him the existence of each of those grievances was a weapon of strength. Take away either of these and he was at once deprived of one of his most powerful arguments in the cause of Ireland. Take them both away and he at once changed places with his present adversaries—they would become strong, he weak. Whilst it was denied that either the Church or the Corporations, as at present constituted, was a grievance, his power must continue. He had tres-

1059
passed longer on the time of the House than he intended; he stood there to demand justice for Ireland; and the ground of his demand was, that justice had already been granted to England and Scotland. He had raised his voice in vain to obtain for his country as large a measure of Parliamentary Reform as had been granted to England and Scotland; and he had told his countrymen that if they had a domestic Legislature, they could not be deprived of justice on paltry excuses. The manufacturing industry of England and Ireland had become more active and enterprising when the Parliament became independent; each in its infancy required the fostering hand of good government,—they had started together, and in some things, the people of Ireland had been more successful. But the prosperity of Ireland had been retarded by religious bigotry. How many administrations had been changed by the "No popery" cry, that it was now again attempted to raise. His countrymen had been the victims of misgovernment, they had been robbed, plundered, and insulted, and there he (Mr. O'Connell) stood to implore that House to do at last one act of generous justice—to place them on the same footing as the people of England and of Scotland—to declare to them that there was henceforth to be no difference between them. They were well enough disposed to listen to argument, but fraud and insult only disinclined them to hear the voice of reason. To those who endeavoured to withhold the been he would only say, "Your paltry corporations, the last remnant of your tyranny and oppression, may give you a temporary protection but I tell you emphatically that seven millions of Irishmen will not endure them long. The elders amongst us may bear with it, because we have been bred up in servility, but there is young and violent blood in Ireland which will not long submit to the tyranny practised upon ourselves and our fathers."
Mr. Finchcontended, that the principle laid down by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, if carried out to its full extent, would lead to the inevitable destruction of the Established Church in Ireland. He maintained that there was no need of corporations in Ireland, and that they could confer no benefit upon the people. Where was the advantage resulting from corporations
1060
even in England? There were the two cities of London and Westminster; the first had a corporation, the second had none; yet who ever heard of any man's removing from Westminster to London in the expectation of deriving any greater benefit because the latter was governed by a municipal body? It was really preposterous to hear hon. Gentlemen, night after night, contending that the people of Ireland would be deprived of a benefit if the Corporations in that country were wholly abolished. It was equally absurd to say, that Ireland must have Corporations because England and Scotland had them. There was little identity of law between the two countries. The Irish Tithe Commutation Bill, the Irish Poor-law Bill, and the Irish system of taxation, all differed in many material respects from the measures passed upon the same subject as affected England. How, then, did it follow, that upon this subject of Municipal Reform a measure must be given to Ireland, exactly conforming with those which had been carried for England and Scotland, where the condition of the people was widely different? He was satisfied that the speech made that night by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had, at least, been made ten or twelve times in his hearing in that House. It had been said, that Ireland was much more tranquil than it was a few years ago. He admitted it was so; but he denied most of the inferences which Gentlemen opposite wished to draw from the circumstance. He must, however, deny that there was that astonishing decrease of crime in that country that had been asserted; and, as corroboratory of this he would appeal to the charge of the learned judge at the last Kilkenny assizes. Now it was not denied, that if this Act passed it was intended to make use of these corporate bodies to increase agitation in Ireland, which, of course, must be attended with a great degree of anarchy, and also an increase of crime. To pass this Bill, therefore, would be nothing more nor less than plunging that country into the greatest possible state of discord, and place it more under the influence and control of the priests and agitators. This measure would also make the Church insecure; and he sincerely believed, that, that Establishment was the chief means of restraining the encroachments of the Church of Rome. After

1061
Some time Ireland would become utterly ungovernable by a British Government, and all Protestant property would be rendered insecure. Under those circumstances was it possible for the House to sanction such a measure as the present? He was satisfied, that half the evils of Ireland had resulted from the shortsighted policy of the British Government towards the Irish priesthood. The recommendations of Drs. Troy and Mac Hale afforded a fair specimen of the advice given by that priesthood, and certainly nothing could be more pernicious. He was anxious to see an influx of British property into Ireland; but this never would take place so long as agitation prevailed, and the priesthood exercised to such an enormous extent their baneful influence. In conclusion he would only add, that he should give his most strenuous opposition to this Bill.
Colonel Thompsonsaid, that, without making any promise not to be "somniferous"—and on looking round he saw sad symptoms of the progress the disease of somnolency had made in invading their proceedings—he must say one part of the question appeared to have been entirely overlooked, and that was in what light the "young blood" of England might happen to view the case, if Ireland was driven to the extremities which hon. Gentlemen opposite appeared to be bent on? That House ought not to make itself too sure of being a rigid criterion of all the feelings and sentiments existing in the country. There were large masses from which it was the boast and glory of that House to separate itself, as from a profanum vulgus, and to establish a test of wide distinction between the two. For his own part, it had often happened to him to be astonished at discovering the under current of opinion on Irish affairs which came to light when thoughts were declared without disguise. As it had been announced by a preceding speaker, that the House was in a leisure moment, that there was a sort of lull in its proceedings, he would make it an excuse for relating one instance of this nature. He knew a man, to whom he was under all the obligations of every kind which one individual could be to another; a man of great natural intelligence, and considerable acquired influence; for many years a Member of that House; not one imbued with wild political theories, but whose antecedents would be
1062
best described by saying he had been a Tory banker with strong religious opinions. To this individual he happened to return, after an absence of many years, being then himself of middle age; and in a confidential moment, when the conversation turned on Ireland, partly in consequence of his expecting to go there in a military capacity, he was surprised at hearing his senior and governor break out with something of oracular solemnity as follows: "I always thought there would have been only one cure for Ireland; general"—what? Not general fast, nor general humiliation; nor general representation, nor general suffrage; it was a much more substantial general than any of these—"general Hoche." Now if a man like this came to such conclusion, was it not still more probable that others who had less ballast on the other side might do the same? If the irritation to Ireland was persevered in, there were two threats that would be heard of from that country; first, repeal of the Union; and if that would not do, separation. He did not believe either of these events would be viewed with all the horror by every portion of the community, which hon. Gentlemen opposite might calculate on. It was no secret, that the inclinations of large, and what would be influential, classes in this country, were setting strongly towards republican institutions. For his own part, were he to attempt to define with exactness the political party to which he considered himself as belonging, he should say it was to that party, a very strong one at the period of the revolution, and than whom there had been no more faithful and unflinching supporters of that great alteration, which might be called the republicans under compact; by which he meant men, who having no more doubt of the inherent superiority of republican institutions, than they have of a straight line being the shortest distance between two points, are still willing to concede to the wish of the majority, and engage to discharge all the duties of citizens under a monarchical government; and he had yet to learn in what portion of those duties they had failed. With these sentiments he could not but be a keen observer on the subject, and therefore he could say from his own observation and knowledge, that a desire for republican institutions was progressing, more rapidly in fact he feared, than was accompanied by know-

1063
ledge. But with this before them, would Gentlemen on the other side believe, that a large party in this country would not be rather gratified than otherwise by the apparition of an Irish republic, if the Irish were driven to it? Would there not be many who would infer, that they should thereby obtain all the benefits that could be derived from Irish connexion, without the evils? Why then run the chance of exasperating Ireland? Let the case be supposed inverted, and say whether, if English municipal privileges were intercepted on the ground that they would be unfavourable to the power of a small minority of that ancient Church which once was dominant in England, there was any length of violence to which Englishmen would not be disposed to go. He saw in all this strong reasons for the exercise of moderation towards Ireland; and if in any quarter there was a determination to the contrary, he must leave it to the correction of that experience, which would probably be anything but agreeable in its lessons.
Mr. William Rochesaid, that the gallant Colonel who just sat down alluded to the almost ealised invasion of Ireland by General Hoche. He referred to the gallant Member's allusion because nothing could exceed the loyal spirit, the heroic enthusiasm, and cordial co-operation with the national troops, manifested on that occasion by the peasantry and people of the south of Ireland, in their readiness and vigour to oppose that hostile and powerful armament. Why did this pleasing state of things then exist, but because the people were not, at least in that quarter, then so goaded and exasperated by the harsh measures instituted in other parts of Ireland, as to supersede their inherent loyalty and love of country. Most necessary, he said, was this disposition of the people at that crisis (had there been occasion to call forth the practical exercise of it), for so ill-prepared were the constituted authorities to defeat or meet the danger, that in some instances it was notorious the cannon-balls were not suited to the calibre of the artillery. It was a proof, that when the people was treated kindly we might always anticipate the same gratifying results. Having in an earlier stage of the Bill expressed his sentiments on the common fairness, the obvious justice and sound policy of conferring upon Ireland (so peculiarly in need of it)
1064
those municipal improve men granted to the other portions of the empire and having then also stated his opinion on the danger of repudiating so fair a title and natural a claim, calculated as it was to rouse a sense of insult and indignation amongst a sensitive and enthusiastic people, he did not mean now to enter into the depths or details of the question, more especially as it had been explored, in its minutest views and involutions. As he was, however, on his legs, he felt himself called upon as one of the representatives of the city of Limerick to bear testimony to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his able speech of last night in reference to the advantages accruing to the citizens of Limerick from the valuable though incomplete reforms which the right hon. Gentleman, when Member for that city, effected after much labour and perseverance in its then corporate system. When he used the word incomplete, he, however, did not mean to blame the right hon. Gentleman, quite the contrary, for he had to contend against not only the long existing power and preponderance of the corporate body and corporate party, but likewise against the Tory spirit and principles which then predominated, and the Tory government which at that time ruled the ascendant. Nevertheless, things were materially changed for the better. Some deference must now be paid to the wishes and interests of the people: their efforts in the choice of their Representatives in Parliament could not (as formerly they habitually were) be swamped by an inundation of non-residents, who felt little or no interest in the welfare of the city; and who having, generally speaking, received their right of voting, and the freedom of the city for the special support of the corporate interests, were of course to be found at each election principally on that side. At present, too, it would scarcely be proposed to grant any portion of the public money in support of the corporate candidate's seat in Parliament under the allegation of its being thus legitimately applied, because in sustentation of the corporate rights and privileges. He should be always happy to bear testimony to the high esteem he entertained for several of the members of the corporation of that city, but they themselves could scarcely deny that the citizens had reason to call for an improvement of the system. In fact, the more effective the responsibility of every class of society

1065
intrusted with power or expenditure was made, the better ultimately for both the governors and governed. In his opinion the spreading of civil rights over every religious class of the community would in point of reason and experience tend much more to remove than to widen the barrier of sectarian feelings, for when men were in the habit of associating together, and deliberating upon matters of general and equal interest, they rapidly discovered the folly and unfitness of mixing up religion with civil or political concerns; until at length religion and politics found their proper level and respective spheres of action. In fact he could, as he often had done before, adduce the instance of his own city in confirmation of this view. There existed in Limerick a new Municipal body, created for a particular parish in the year 1809; this body was elected by the ratepayers, who, though chiefly Roman Catholics, could not, he was persuaded, be charged in even a single instance, with being influenced by mere sectarian views or preferences, but solely by their estimate of the general character and fitness of the individual. He could similarly adduce the equal zeal manifested by the Catholic voters for the return of his Protestant colleague as for himself, though a Roman Catholic; and he could alike assert he was chosen not on account of his religion, but because of the kind estimate of his fellow citizens as regarded his general character, as well as from a recollection that for twenty-five years he had laboured for the furtherance of civil and religious liberty. The weighty calendar of crimes adduced by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last occurring in Kilkenny; it was surely not a fair criterion of the whole. It was not right to take an isolated case or two, and the hon. Member should look to the whole series during the late assizes, and the opinions of the judges throughout the entire south of Ireland, which would prove that a great abatement of crimes had taken place. But if even the people were as barbarous as represented, who were most to blame but those at the other side of the House who so long held the reins of Government, but never wisely and effectually applied themselves to the education, amelioration, and union of the people? He considered nothing more injudicious than the conduct of Gentlemen on the other side who rendered the Established Church the stalking horse on every occa-
1066
sion. Surely it had antipathies enough to contend with in Ireland (antipathies not of a spiritual but temporal nature), without burdening it with the odium of preventing the extension of Municipal protection to that country. He would most cordially support the Bill.
Mr. Villierssaid, that as he observed a disinclination on the opposite side to take any part in the debate, and that as the "leisure moment" which his hon. Friend the Member for Hull had spoken of had not entirely ceased, he would take the liberty of making a few observations upon the question; and first he would say that he did not wonder at the course which the discussion had taken upon this question being the subject of general remark, and that astonishment was expressed that a measure which was thought of sufficient importance to justify resistance at the expense of offending the pride and feeling of numbers of our fellow-subjects should go forth from this House to be thrown out in the other House without an argument being offered in answer to those by which it had been supported, and that here, in this second stage of the debate, that we should hear only repeated those personalities, those fallacies, that bigot cry, which had done so little credit to the House on the former occasion, and which had then been the subject of such just reproof from this side of the House. He was not surprised at this, as he had observed from the first a deliberate purpose on the other side to remove the question from its natural province, and to argue and to use it for other purposes; and, whether wisely or not, he had seen that the other side, distinguished as it was from this upon principle, were determined to take their stand before the country on this question. It had been selected to make an experiment upon the present opinion of the country. The reform of the institutions of the country, and the resistance to that reform, had brought the struggle now to a question of principle, and the ground was now fairly chosen on which to decide the contest by which power the policy of this country was to be guided and governed in future. The question was whether the general policy of the Government of this country was to be dictated by the House of Lords or the House of Commons. That was fairly the conflict in which we were engaged. The advocates of governing this country by the

1067
House of Lords said, that we have gone too far in reform—that its progress should be arrested—and that an opposite policy should be adopted; and if, say they, the popular party have gained strength by introducing the representative principle into the Municipalities of England and Scotland, they will stand between them and any accession of their strength to be derived from a similar source in Ireland. The Lords had been cheered on to persist in the course they have pursued for three Sessions past, and were encouraged to believe that, if they would show courage and energy equal to the task, they might accomplish the object and obtain that dominion over this House which they formerly possessed for so long a period. Without their consent the Legislature of this country could not proceed: they were called upon by the enemies of reform to withhold their consent until the people, wearied out should elect a House, and that House support a Government more in unison with their wishes and their feelings. The country it was said would be satisfied then, for now all business was stopped; but once return a majority of the anti-popular party to that House, and then the different branches of the Legislature would agree and the business of the country would proceed. Now, this might be very good policy for the interests of party, and he might counsel it, were he on the opposite side; but it was more his duty at present to remind the country what that business was that would proceed so glibly if King, Lords, and Commons were so united; and if any man honestly wished to solve that question, he would just ask him candidly to reflect on all he saw and all he heard of the sayings and doings of the opposite party. It was known that three great triumphs in the cause of civil and religious liberty had been achieved of late years. One was the improvement in the representation, or the Reform Bill; the other was the Municipal Corporation Bill; the other was the removal of religious tests for Members to sit in Parliament, or the Catholic Bill. Now, he would ask any man to say if it was not the burthen of every Tory song—if it was not the topic in politics in every company of that party—that all the evils which had visited this country since that time were to be ascribed to the passing of one or all of those measures; and that the institutions of the
1068
country, nay, that the English Constitution, could not be preserved unless those measures were modified, as they called it, but repealed, as they did not scruple to say they intended to repeal them? But did it only depend upon what they said? Let any man look to what they did. Last year an attempt was made in the House of Lords to tamper with the Reform Bill. In every court now there was an attempt going on to undermine the Municipal Bill. There had not been a Session since the enactment of the Catholic Bill that Members had not come down to the House, and avowed their regret at passing that Bill, and who had declared that they never would be parties to it again if the choice were again offered to them. Now, we know that for men to seek power upon the avowed intention of repealing these measures of justice would defeat their object. Care must be taken, therefore, not to awaken alarm; much store was now set upon the apparent indifference of the people; it was well not to rouse them from their slumber. It became a question, then, how popular vigilance was diverted for so many years in this country before; and how was attention turned from the reform of real abuses to matters of trifling import. Why, it was, as was well known, by appealing to the religious fears of the people on the score of the Catholic faith, and by alarming an ancient prejudice once deeply rooted in the people against all persons of that persuasion. It was, therefore, reasoned now that what a Catholic question did before, a Catholic question would do now; and what was now raised but a Catholic question—the very question which occupied us for so many years? We have it in all its ferocity, in all its characteristics of intolerance. Not an argument was used against the admission of Catholics into that House that had not been advanced against the introduction of Catholics into corporations. The cry of "No Popery" was raised, and shouted forth in all the vigour of former times; and all hope, and all expectation of return to power, was now built on the success of this cry. If it succeeded, if the people would really believe the idle tale that the Church was in danger from the ministerial measures, then a cloak would be found for a power to deal and meddle with the three great measures to which he had alluded, and to which the

1069
friends of the Church were hostile; for could any man doubt who had read the ferocious attacks that were made every day against those who dissent from the Church, that if any pretext could be found in a church cry to remove the present Government, and substitute one from the opposite ranks, that little time would elapse before some new tests would be devised for those who did not agree with the Church—some disadvantage discovered under which it would be possible to place the Catholic dissenter, and which would be said to be for the protection of the property of the Church? And if the power existed for this purpose, how soon might the clauses of the Reform Bill also be dealt with in a similar manner? But the great question was, could the people again be deluded by a "Church in danger" cry? Did they now understand the true character of that cry? Did they trace it in all its bearings? If it were underrated, let men only tax their memory to learn the order in which civil liberty had been conquered in this country, and let them observe how invariably it had been in the train of religious liberty; and when religious persecution had been possible, how certain had been the oppression of the subject in civil matters. Would hon. Gentlemen only remember what was effected in this country by the old Catholic question? He would ask whether Protestants ever obtained any reform while Catholics were persecuted. For nearly twenty years, while the Catholics were demanding emancipation, was it not the boast of all the cunning, clever men of party that there was no real danger in removing the restrictions upon Catholics, but that the Catholic question was the outwork of the citadel of abuse; that so long as the Reformers were knocking at those outworks all was safe within; but, if they were once destroyed, that then all the mysteries of misrule would be examined, and nothing would be left in peace within? But were they right or were they wrong, who reasoned so? What was the case? From 1812 to 1829, this question was in constant agitation. Was any other reform obtained, or even ventured to be asked for, during that time? In 1829 the Bill was passed. Now mark the consequence. In 1831 the Reform Bill was carried; in 1832 the Scotch Municipalities were reformed; and in 1833 the first step taken to reform the Irish Church, and the bishops
1070
were reduced in number. In 1834 the slaves were set free in the West Indies, and trade set free in the East Indies. In 1835 the English Municipal Bill was carried. In 1836 the newspaper press was released from part of its trammels. In 1837 the hopes of the opposite party revived, and why? Because an opportunity was thought to be observed for raising a religious cry, and stopping the progress of reform in future. A measure of wisdom and justice was proposed for the Irish people, the majority of whom were still Catholic. A ray of the old prejudice was immediately seen flickering about the country against that persuasion. It was immediately hoped that it would be possible to patch those wretched shreds together, and devise a means of again obscuring the popular vision in all that concerned its interest; and, if once accomplished, the unreforming process might begin its work. What was there that stood between the reforms that have been carried and the designs of the opposite party? A majority of about sixty Members of that House. But what were the calculations that one heard whispered about? Why, that if by any device the present Government should be removed, these sixty men might be reduced; and again, if an appeal was made to the country, there was much for the opposite party to hope in the sections of the counties having become nomination boroughs of the landed proprietors, who were identified with the House of Lords, and that a majority might be thus secured. Could any man, then, who cared for reform, help to see that if we quietly allow this flagrant act of insult and injury to be inflicted upon the Irish people, in withholding from them this Bill, there would be the greatest danger for ourselves? And was it possible to doubt, when he heard the able speeches which had been delivered in favour of this Bill, met only by personal allusions to the Member for Kilkenny, and by the atrocious doctrine that Catholics were unfit for power by reason of their faith, that ulterior views were not contemplated by the other side? He hoped the people of England would stand nobly forward by the Irish on this occasion, as the Irish always had by the English when they were seeking reform, and show that they had intelligence and public spirit enough not to become the dupes of the hateful cry which was to become the ground of an-

1071
other religious crusade against persons professing the Catholic faith. For his part, he thought that the attack that had been made upon Catholics during this discussion, was one of the most wanton and unwarrantable pieces of intolerance that the history of religious persecution afforded any instance of, for occasion had been now afforded for the experiment of Catholics enjoying equal political power with ourselves, and he dared any man to state with truth that they had not shown themselves as good subjects and citizens as any other portion of the community, or that they had acted with any sectarian spirit. The Catholics in this country engaged in the business of life with all the integrity and steadiness of Protestants, and he happened to know that, in many instances, the Catholic clergy in this country inspired the love and esteem of the neighbourhoods in which they were known. To the religion of the Irish he saw no reason to trace the disorders of that country: but to centuries of misrule by Protestants, he saw abundant cause for their misfortune. To change the condition of that country he was willing to make any experiment, and none that he had ever heard of led him to expect such advantage as that which was calculated to inspire in the people a confidence in their local authorities.
Lord Francis Egertonsaid, that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had mentioned a fact, of which he was before entirely ignorant; namely, that scarcely a night passed in which some hon. Member in that (the Opposition) side of the House, who was formerly distinguished for his advocacy of the Catholic claims, did not come down and express a wish to see the Catholic Relief Bill repealed. He certainly was not aware of this circumstance, and with respect to himself, it was perhaps unnecessary for him to say that he entertained no such desire. It was unfair to charge those who objected to the present Bill with being opposed to the Roman Catholics as a body; but they could not avoid seeing that in the present state of Ireland every question relative to that country assumed a religious tinge; for such was the division of society in that country, that the great mass of Catholics belonged to the lower orders, while the higher and wealthy class was com posed of Protestants. This division of society produced a state of circumstances which induced him
1072
to think that it would not be conducive to good government to extend municipal institutions to Ireland. Some hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House, were often taunted with their prophecies of danger to the state from the passing of the Catholic Relief Bill. He was not one of those who had ever uttered such prophecies; and, in making this statement, he thought it, in some degree, tended to his own discredit as a political prophet, for, in his opinion, the whole course of events on the other side of the channel had been of a nature to justify the foresight of those who apprehended danger from the passing of the Catholic Relief Bill. [Cheer.] He confessed that he did not understand the reason of that cheer. If hon. Gentlemen imagined that he was prepared to repeal the Catholic Emancipation Bill, or that he would not now pass it, if it remained to be passed, he could assure them that they were mistaken. In agreeing to that measure, he believed that it would confer a great benefit on Ireland; and he heard many a prediction that it would tend to make the Protestant church secure. But he asked hon. Gentlemen what they now thought of the state of the Protestant establishment in Ireland? He and his friends on the Opposition side of the House thought, that the Church was in great jeopardy from the course of policy pursued by his Majesty's Government. There had been quoted an expression of his to the effect, that "the grant of new Corporations, under the present circumstances, would amount to the erection of a platform from which a fire would be kept up on the Church." Now, the number of petitions presented to that House in favour of the Bill then before it was 283. He was always disposed to treat, with respect petitions to that House, bearing on the subject to which they referred; but when he discovered in them a palpable connexion between the wish for corporate reform and the wish for the destruction of the Irish Church, and for other measures which he could not but deprecate, then he thought that he had a right to mix up together—nay though wrong, he could not disconnect—the two questions of corporate reform and the Irish Church. Out of the whole number of petitions presented in favour of corporate reform, 226 included prayers against tithes and for the ballot; and the prayer against tithes did not imply commutation—did

1073
not mean substitution; but did mean total abolition. In the very towns on which the corporate privileges were to be conferred, there did not appear any warm desire for the adaptation of municipal privileges—only twenty-three out of the scheduled towns had pronounced in favour of them; so that, to use the language he had heard when the result of the ballot for the Longford Election Committee had been ascertained, from which he did not augur much for the fairness of its proceedings, those against the scheme of Government were in the majority of one.
Viscount Morpethrose to trouble the House with a few observations, although he must admit the subject matter of the debate had been worn almost threadbare. The noble Lord opposite had assured the House that it was most unjust towards him, and those with whom he generally acted, to infer that he or they came down to that House with a feeling of opposition to the Roman Catholics as such, or with any desire to repeal the Act of Emancipation. He was sure that the straightforward mind of the noble Lord would indispose him to any such course; but he must say, that the tenor and force of all the arguments and statements of the speakers at all the different meetings and dinings together of noblemen and gentlemen of similar political opinions with the noble Lord, went to create and foster such an impression as this in the minds of the public. The noble Lord and his friends were quite wrong in supposing that it was the wish of Members to invest the Roman Catholics of Ireland, as such, with any exclusive privileges; it was not their wish to do this any more than it was their wish to give these exclusive privileges to the Protestants of Ireland. What they aimed at was, to do away with exclusive privileges altogether, and to give to all classes alike equal privileges. What was the only real argument which had been brought forward in this discussion, more particularly by the noble Member for North Lancashire last night? The noble Lord stated that this was not the time for the measure; that the hour was not auspicious, or he might be inclined not to oppose it. The planetary conjunctions were not favourable. The noble Lord, it seemed, could not consider this Bill, because the Irish Poor-law Bill had not been read a second time, and because the Irish Tithe Bill had not been introduced at all. He
1074
certainly wished that they could make a more rapid progress with measures. But he was by no means sure, that by attempting to proceed with several at the same time, they might not entangle them with one another, so as to occasion considerable confusion. The interests of the Established Church, it was said, would be endangered by the operation of this measure. How, he was quite at a loss to conceive. It would affect none of the revenues; it would interfere with none of the Ministers; it would touch none of the doctrines of the Church. As his right hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General of Ireland had said in his able speech last night, if the Municipal Corporation Bill were rejected, they might swell the torrent of public opinion in Ireland, and in that way might injure the Church Establishment. They might embitter that torrent, but they could not stem or impede its progress. His noble Friend the Member for South Lancashire, had alluded to the character of the petitions which had been presented on the subject. If his noble Friend wanted any confirmation of the state of public feeling on the subject in Ireland, let him look at the address presented to his Majesty about three weeks ago, bearing 250,000 signatures, of which address the single and exclusive object was, the acquisition of corporate reform. It was not strange, that in many of the petitions to that House, the petitioners should unite the various objects which they were desirous of attaining. But his noble Friend said, that in some of the petitions the ballot was mixed up with corporate reform. Must that House, therefore, not grant corporate reform until they were prepared to dispose of the question of the ballot? Was it not a most desirable thing to endeavour to occupy men's minds with their own local concerns? Would not that object be promoted by the Bill? A complaint was made of the difference of the qualifications in the English and Scotch, and in the Irish Municipal Corporation Bills? They did differ. The Irish Bill could not comprehend a qualification similar to that of the English Bill, for there was no corresponding rate. The Scotch Municipal Corporation Bill of 1833, was a temporary measure; and there was a Bill in progress by which the qualification was to be diminished. But a low franchise was no novelty in Scotland. He would read to the House a table, showing

1075
the nature of the constitutions granted both by charter from the Crown, and by Act of Parliament, to a class of burghs

Burgh or Town.

Population.

Date of Charter or Act.

Nature of Franchise, &c.

Airdrie (now a Parliamentary Burgh.)

6,000

Act 1 and 2 Geo. IV. c. 60, 1821.

In succeeding years resident burgesses (paying 3l. 3s. for the privilege) to be electors and councillors.

Bathgate

2,600

Act, June 17, 1824.

Electors consist of resident burgesses (paying 2l. 2s. for the privilege), and having in property or tenancy a house of the rent of 3l. or upwards.

Kilsyth

2,500

Crown Charter, August 7, 1826.

Electors consist of resident burgesses (paying 5s. for the privilege) who are proprietors or leaseholders for nineteen years, of a house of the annual value of 5l.

Pollockshaws

3,850

Crown Charter, January 5,1813.

Electors consist of resident burgesses (a stranger paying 1l. 1s., and the son of a burgess 10 s. 6d. for the privilege) possessing property within the burgh of the yearly value of 4l.

Now, in order to show the House how small a number of 10 l. householders was to be found in many of the Irish towns, he would read a list of some of them.

Population.

Registered 10 l. House holders in 1833.

Athlone

11,406

157

Carlow

9,114

380

Cashell

12,000

less than 200

Dungannon

3,515

185

Drogheda

17,363

26l

Tralee

9,568

200

Waterford

28,821

614

Youghal

11,327

232

From these Returns it was evident, that in applying to the towns in question a qualification exceeding 5l., the constituency would be rendered much too scanty. And what, after all, was the qualification fixed by the Bill? The very qualification of the Act of the 9th of Geo. 4th, which was such an excessive favourite with the Gentlemen opposite. A great objection which had been made to the Bill was, that the present Corporations had many functions which the new ones were not to have. The argument was, that the new corporators being left comparatively idle, would necessarily be mischievous. And the very ingenious and logical conclusion was, that they ought to have nothing
much more important, as regarded wealth and population, than many of the legal burghs.
whatever to do. But it seemed the Irish were not so civilised as the English, and therefore were not fit to have any Municipal Corporations. But surely they were as civilised as our ancestors were when the Saxons and Normans established Corporations; or as the people of Italy were when they established those free Corporations which preceded their wonderful burst of science, and learning, and art. He would here allude to a very eloquent article which appeared in the last number of The Quarterly Review, an article which was written with great ability and spirit. In the first place, how-however, to show that the writer of that article did not concur in the view which his Majesty's present Government took of ecclesiastical matters, he would read a paragraph from the article on that point;—"Instead of reducing the number of churches, it should multiply; instead of uniting parishes, divide and sub-divide; instead of merely repairing churches, build them where there is little demand for them, and therefore the more need. We should not wait for a church till a congregation is formed, but form a congregation by building a church." This paragraph showed that the writer's views of ecclesiastical matters were very dif-

1077
ferent from those of his Majesty's present Government. But what did he say of Corporations?—"Let us remember that Europe owes all its liberty, its knowledge, its wealth, its power, to incorporations, and we shall then understand why, in the eyes of our law, they have as true an existence, as much reality, as distinct rights, as much claim to respect and delicacy of treatment, as any individual." And a little further, "Opinion has little weight, and very little logical strength, unless it conies from a community. The different tempers, and acquirements of individuals, acting and counteracting on each other, form the best check upon error. They give validity to testimony, expansion to views, modification to hasty generalities, authority to individual character, and caution and steadiness to impetuosity. And thus the State, as well as the Church, has always placed her councils and laws in the hands of corporate bodies." Without trespassing further upon the patience of the House with this worn-out subject, he would conclude by expressing his confidence that the House would not refuse to Ireland the benefit of such valuable institutions; and that they would not allow a difference of creeds, or of worldly interests, to generate such a malicious animosity as to produce harsh and arbitrary proscription. His Majesty's Government never pretended that this was the sole, or even that it was the most vital of the remedies which they were desirous of applying to the evils of Ireland. Most anxious was he that the discord which was produced by the present system of tithes in Ireland should be harmonised. Most anxious was he that the poor-laws of Ireland should be placed on such a basis as to afford the relief so necessary to the most afflicted peasantry on the face of the earth. But the Bill under consideration involved a principle, the establishment of which would make the prosecution of the other measures a task of easier accomplishment; a principle which was at the root of all the questions bearing on the connexion between the two countries, and the establishment of which was inseparable from their joint tranquillity and happiness.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that nothing would have induced him to rise, had it not been that he was one of those who had voted last night against the further continuance of the debate; for no man could feel more strongly than he did that the
1078
subject was wholly exhausted. But there were some of the observations of the noble Lord on which he wished to make a few remarks. The noble Lord had adverted to the qualification in the Scotch Municipal Corporations Bill. Now he, (Sir James Graham), appealed to those who remembered the debates on that Bill whether a proposition for making a qualification 5l. was not proposed, and whether it was not resisted by Lord Grey's Government, on the ground that if the qualification for the elective franchise for Members of Parliament were departed from in the Municipal Corporations Bill, it would become difficult afterwards to maintain the qualification for the elective franchise at 10 l. But the noble Lord said, there was a Bill in progress to reduce the qualification in Scotland to 5l. The fact was, that everything that had been done by Lord Grey's Government with reference to the elective franchise was now made the object of attack. It appeared to be the anxious desire of the present Government upon that subject to loosen and untie what it had been the policy of Lord Grey's Government to bind up and render permanent. The noble Lord had read a statement of the small number of 10 l. householders in proportion to the population in several of the Scotish towns. The interference which he (Sir James Graham) was disposed to draw from that statement was, that those towns ought not to have been inserted in the schedules. The noble Lord had expressed his hope that no person on his (Sir James Graham's) side of the House would be influenced on this subject by interested or malicious motives. He should be ashamed of himself if he were to be so influenced. But he could not avoid feeling regret when he saw the recurrence of the greatest misfortune that could befal any country—the mingling of religious and political matters. So strongly was he sensible of the evils which resulted from permitting political to be influenced by religious considerations, that he could scarcely avoid exclaiming, in the words of the Latin poet.
"Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum."
In the present unhappy case, the connextion between politics and religion was clear and not denied. The opponents of the measure were asked in what consisted the danger apprehended from it to the Church of Ireland? That was the most important question to be considered. He was un-

1079
willing to trouble the House at any great length, but, as related to his own opposition to the measure, this was the cardinal point by which he was guided. The noble Lord allowed that the present was not the vital question, and that the vital question was the Irish Church. Now, what was the connexion between the two questions? As far as it was practicable to collect the public sentiment in Ireland with respect to the Church, the sentiment of the great majority, it might be gained from that unhappily constituted body called the National Association. He would read the resolutions on that subject of the National Association, passed unanimously, and by acclamation within the last three months. The first resolution was as follows:—"That it is incompatible with the principles of religious liberty that any man should be compelled to pay for the ordinances of a Church with which he is not joined in communion." [Cheers.] Did the hon. Gentlemen on the other side mean by their cheers to indicate their approbation of this resolution? The second resolution was, "That as under the present appropriation of the tithe composition, a tribute is levied from the whole nation for the uses of the Church, of only the one-tenth portion of the community, the people of Ireland are therefore justified in demanding the total extinction of an assessment so applied." There were no cheers on the other side now. He should like to know whether these were the principles on which the new Tithe Bill was to be founded. The third resolution was—"That in our opinion no settlement of the tithe question can give satisfaction to the people of Ireland which is not founded on the foregoing principles." That was carrying the matter much farther than the appropriation clause. He should not be surprised to see the appropriation clause thrown out, and the voluntary principle substituted for it. The fourth resolution was as follows:—"That we call upon the people of Ireland not to desist from all legal and constitutional means of redress till they have obtained full and complete relief from an impost equally oppressive and degrading." It thus appeared that in the opinion of the Association any support of the Irish Church was oppressive and degrading. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, that all that was said on that (Sir J. Graham's) side of the house respecting the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny
1080
only magnified and increased that hon. and learned Gentleman's power. That from the benches opposite! Had they forgotten the appointment of Mr. Pigott? Had they forgotten the appointment of Mr. O'Dwyer? Had they forgotten the appointment of the last two assistant-barristers, both of whom were members of the National Association? He was the last man to deny the talents, the power, the influence of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny. But was not the weight of those talents, of that power, of that influence felt by his Majesty's Government? Did they not retain office during the last Session mainly by the assistance of that hon. and learned Gentleman. And if those numerous Irish Members who confided implicitly in the hon. and learned Gentleman were all ready to co-operate with his Majesty's Government, surely this showed the power and influence of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny. Now, let the House have that hon. Gentleman's opinion with respect to the Irish Church; and he (Sir J. Graham) was not about to quote any hasty expression. He was unwilling to trespass on the attention of the House, for it had been his wish that this debate should have closed last night, but as he believed the debate was to be continued to a second night, he hoped he should not be unfairly treated; because he did not wish to put anything offensively to any hon. Gentleman. He would not quote a hasty or a casual expression [casual was the term used by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer]; but he would quote from a letter of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, written in a calm moment, in answer to a question which had been put to him by the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. W. Beaumont). The letter from which he quoted was dated Derrynane Abbey, December 30, 1836. "You ask, first—'If I believe that Ireland ever will be,' or 'ought to be tranquil, until the religion of the majority is placed on an equal footing, in every respect, with that of the minority?'" The answer was as explicit and clear as ever was given to a plain straightforward question.—"My answer is ready:—Ireland cannot possibly be—she, in my opinion, ought not to be tranquil—until the religion of the majority is placed on an equal footing, in every respect, with that of the minority;" so that now it was a question of equality as be-

1081
tween the two establishments. But the hon. and learned Gentleman said something further; and he should be curious to hear whether this would be greeted by a cheer also—"I add, that untill then she will not be; and, while I live, she certainly shall not be free from salutary, but peaceful and energetic agitation; that is, until perfect religious equality—without one particle of political, civil, or temporal ascendancy at either or any side—is firmly established." Now, what was the interpretation of this equality? Why, the hon. Member went on to say—"I am convinced that the peace, tranquillity, and prosperity of Ireland require the establishment amongst us of the voluntary principle of maintaining religion; and that as long as any pecuniary ascendancy, as long as any power remains to a Protestant minister to put his hands into the pockets of the Catholics, so long dissension, dissatisfaction, and turmoil will reign paramount in Ireland. The people of Ireland join me in this contemptuous disclaimer of longer supporting, out of our means, that Church; we never will be parties to our own degradation, by acquiescing for one moment in the superiority of a church to which we do not belong." Until, then, this voluntary principle was established, the hon. and learned Gentleman declared, that energetic agitation should never cease. But, said his Majesty's Attorney-General for Ireland, "I do not quarrel with the present position of the Established Church in Ireland." Why, he (Sir J. Graham) was not astonished to find that that learned Gentleman, being a Roman Catholic, did not quarrel with the present position of the Established Church in Ireland; more especially when he heard the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, and his colleagues, as Ministers of the King, declare the Protestant Church to be a rotten Church. [Viscount Morpeth, "No, no!"]—If the noble Lord retracted his words he was happy to hear it; but he certainly understood him to say it was a rotten corporation. Then the noble Lord was pleased to comment on the observation of his noble Friend the Member for North Lancashire, and said that he appeared to regret the concession of the Roman Catholic claims. He did not understand the Attorney-General for Ireland when he declared that all the predictions which had been made with reference to this Bill were similar to those made by the
1082
right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, in 1817, in regard to the subject of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, and similar to the predictions of those who opposed the Bill of 1829. This was little consolation for those who were going the downward path of concession. He would not shrink from saying, that no man supported the concession of the claims of the Roman Catholics more warmly or more conscientiously than he did. But under what promises did he support concession. Why he had the solemn oaths and declarations of some of the most distinguished members of the Catholic body; he had the most solemn assurance of the most distinguished Roman Catholics, that all assaults on the Established Church should cease. And what consolation, then, he would ask, was it to him to go on making concession after concession, notwithstanding what had been already done? It was said formerly, if you grant freely, you may trust freely; but the result and the experience of past years had ended only in bitter disappointment to those who supported the Catholic claims. He would say more; if these concessions were made, he saw nothing in the arguments which had been urged by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They had been before promised that if certain concessions were made, all attacks upon the Church should cease. Now, with reference to the present demand for concession, they were told, "you may make it if you will; but agitation shall never cease in Ireland until we are placed on an equality." War was declared—war to the knife with the Church Establishment. There was no mistake on this occasion, for they were told that the Irish people looked to a greater and ulterior object. Now, there was a point made by the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, with regard to the omission of the declaration that the corporate offices should not be used for any purposes trenching upon the interests of the establishment; and certainly a more whimsical answer than that which had been given by the Attorney-General for Ireland he had never heard—he should say, indeed, it was purely Irish, for he said, that supposing the Municipal Bill passed, that would be a reason why the oaths should be dispensed with. He would say that strong objection to this measure in its present shape, was, that it would be a most powerful lever whereby the destruction of the Established Church in Ireland might be effected. He had said

1083
he stood not there to frame a bill of indictment against the people of Ireland. The right of the people of Ireland, primâ facie, to their municipal rights was felt; and the onus to prove the exception rested with those who opposed the measure. It was the peculiar circumstances in which the Established Church was placed in Ireland which were to be considered. He thought it was a matter worthy of the attention of his Majesty's Government, and for one he would distinctly say, that if he could see the Church of Ireland placed in a position of greater security, he should be happy. In the hope of removing any angry feelings on the part of the people of Ireland, and in the hope of removing the impression that any national insult was intended towards them—he for one (though he would never consent to this Bill) would not be opposed to the erection of Municipal institutions in Ireland if they could satisfy him that they could be granted with safety to the Church. But he would say, if the Government introduced a Tithe Bill with the appropriation clause, it must contain a principle which was inadmissible as applicable to the English as well as the Irish Church; and he never could give his consent to the third reading of this Bill.
Lord John Russellcould well conceive that it must have been the wish of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to have had the debate closed on the previous evening, for a position more difficult or more embarrassing than that in which the right hon. Gentleman was placed, he had never witnessed in that House. On former occasions, and upon the very last discussion of this question, the proposition raised by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House was, that Municipal Corporations ought not even to be reformed, but that they were to be entirely abolished in Ireland. This was an argument which he thought was quite untenable—it was one which he thought did not support the views of those who used it; but it was an argument which must be paralyzing to those who maintained it, when they now argued for the utility of Corporations, but refused to give them to the Irish at this time. They yielded with great propriety to the declared sense of the House, that Municipal Corporations in Ireland ought not to be abolished—that they might and must be reformed, and yet at the present time, and in the present state of society,
1084
and with the provisions of the Bill, its clauses with respect to tolls and other matters before them, there was one-half of the Gentlemen opposite who thought it improper to agree to the Bill because it would give Municipal Corporations in Ireland, and there was another half who objected to it as laying the groundwork of the downward path of concession. But they were already treading in that path, for the downward path of concession most truly it was when the just desire of a great portion of the people having been long refused, the matter was to be wrung from those who withheld it, by their fears. That was the downward path, and if in that spirit they were to concede a boon, they could not be beforehand with the people, and would claim no gratitude for conferring a favour. The right hon. Gentleman, in the greater part of his speech had dwelt but little upon the subject immediately in debate; but he had adverted to questions, relating to the general situation of Ireland. He would endeavour to touch on the points on which the right hon. Gentleman had dilated. The right hon. Gentleman, catching at the 5l. franchise in Scotland, which had been mentioned, the noble Lord near him, had made that the occasion of a taunt against the present Government, and contrasted their mode of proceeding with that of Earl Grey's Government. The right hon. Gentleman had attached much importance to this point; this franchise in Scotland was spoken of as a vital question. Now, what was the fact with reference to this vital question respecting the 5l. franchise proposed for Scotland, on which it was pretended so much interest was taken by Earl Grey's Government? Why, did the noble Lord and others forget that the subject came forward on a Wednesday. He remembered that the Ministers dined with him on that day, and he certainly did not remember that any one of the Members of Earl Grey's Government expressed a strong opinion on the question. He would not be quite sure, but he supposed that his right hon. Friend the Member for Cumberland must have been one of the dinner party. Undoubtedly there might be some small points upon which the line taken by the present Government might be different from that taken by Earl Grey's Government, but in general the same line of policy was followed. To proceed, however, to another point of the right hon. Gentle-

1085
man's speech, the right hon. Gentleman said, that the people of Ireland did not ask for this Bill, but he thought that it was generally admitted that they did ask for it.
Sir James Grahamhere observed, that the corporate towns did not ask for it.
Lord John Russell: The right hon. Baronet said, the corporate towns did not ask for this measure; but the people of Ireland generally did, he supposed he would allow. But the people of Ireland were in this unfortunate condition, that if they did not speak out loudly, or if they expressed their anxiety without noise, then it was said that they were not eager for the measure; but if they urged their claim vigorously, then came the portentous declaration from Gentlemen opposite, that they would not yield to the clamour from without. And then the right hon. Gentleman touched upon a topic which he should have thought he ought to have omitted, after the previous speeches, namely, that of the misfortune of mixing up politics with religion. Now hardly any hon. Member had mingled religion with politics. If, indeed, any one had brought forward religious matter, it had been the right hon. Gentleman himself. He would ask what was the meaning of the passage which the right hon. Baronet read from a pamphlet, giving a description of a Spanish priest, on a former evening? Did he, or did he not, mean to apply that paragraph to the priests of Ireland? And, if the right hon. Baronet read the passage for this purpose, was it fair, he would ask, to make this sort of wholesale accusation against the priests of six millions of people, and then give them a solemn lecture on the impropriety of mixing up religion with politics? The right hon. Gentleman had said, that his noble Friend (Lord Morpeth) near him, had declared this not to be a vital question. Now what his noble Friend did state was this, that there were other vital questions to be considered, but that this was not, perhaps, the most vital. He had declared on former nights, and he had not departed from his opinion, that this was a vital question to the present Administration. He had before stated the same thing, and his opinion had undergone no change. Then, again, the right hon. Gentleman said, that he would not agree to this Bill, because certain resolutions had been passed by the General Association of Ireland. He would presently advert to those resolutions, but, in the mean
1086
time, he would beg to tell the right hon. Gentleman, that, threadbare as the debate was, one of his taunts was even still more so; namely, that his Majesty's present Government existed by the support of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny. Undoubtedly, when a Ministry was supported by no very considerable majority, and yet not in the position of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were left every night in a minority when they were in office, if any portion of those who voted usually with them were to vote against them, the case must be altered, and then they must have lost the confidence of the House. It appeared that the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny supported them, but it also appeared that a section of that side of the House consisted of the oldest Whigs, who, if they thought the Government were disposed to deal too violently in going the downward path, must become their opponents—a fact which would be equally fatal to the present Ministry. What was there, then, in this taunt of the right hon. Gentleman, as to the smallness of the majority in favour of the Ministry? What did it amount to but this—that the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, although he did not agree with the Government in many of their opinions, nevertheless thought it right to give them his independent support, because he saw in their measures a better prospect for the future fate of Ireland? When he said this, he (Lord John Russell) was not responsible for the opinions of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, as that hon. and learned Member was not responsible for his opinions. He knew that hon. Gentlemen were in the custom of meeting and settling their differences; and, if rumours were to be credited, at some of those meetings the more violent individuals of the party carried their views against the opinions of the more distinguished leaders. He certainly did not know what might have happened lately, but he, perhaps, might be permitted to mention what might be considered to be matter historical, though he saw his noble Friend smiling at the remark. There was a common rumour in the world, that at the great crisis of the Reform Bill, when all the agents and organs of the Tory party were engaged in abusing the Earl of Harrowby and Lord Wharncliffe as waverers, they were told, when they wished to go on with the Reform

1087
Bill, that if they would not consent to strike out Schedule A, or postpone it, the party would not go down to vote. This was one of the many instances in which rumour had declared that the more violent part of a body had defeated the more moderate. The course of his Majesty's Government exposed them to more argument which was not carried on in so agreeable a way. But when hon. Members who sat above them proposed measures, they were often opposed to the views of the Government. Suppose a motion to be made for household suffrage—suppose the hon. Member for Middlesex to come down to the House some day (as he was likely to do) to propose a motion for household suffrage—he (Lord John Russell) would immediately get up in his place and oppose it; and it was notorious they differed from the hon. Gentlemen whom he had named. Yet, of course, he did not yield his opinions to those of the Government, and they went together generally upon those questions which the Government thought proper to adopt. But while it might be the better course for the moderate men of the Tory party to agree with the more violent, in order to maintain the appearance of union, he thought the Ministers course was to the full as honourable; and, as he believed, would finally tend more to the advantage of the country. The General Association of Ireland had declared, as the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny had also declared an opinion in favour of the voluntary principle. The hon. and learned Gentleman had a right, if he chose, to entertain that opinion and he had the support of those who elsewhere entertained the same opinion against the Established Church. But what the right hon. Baronet had no right to say was, that the Ministry entertained the same opinion. [Sir James Graham had made no such assertion.] He was glad to learn that the right hon. Baronet had not said so, because the whole tendency of his argument went to show how dangerous it was to make concessions to a Ministry so supported. If the right hon. Gentleman, however, did not maintain that opinion, then he (Lord John Russell) held the opinion that the maintenance of any such opinions on the part of others did not commit them. Then the right hon. Baronet desired to know whether those on his (the Ministerial) side of the House maintained the principle of the
1088
Resolution of the General Association of Ireland with respect to the extinction of tithes. Now, as to that subject, he remembered, when he was sitting by the side of his noble Friend opposite (Lord Stanley), his noble Friend got up from the Treasury Benches, and in answer to a question put by Mr. Croker, who was then a Member of the House, the noble Lord said, that the measure which he had in contemplation was one for the extinction of tithes. The noble Lord would excuse him for saying, that whether it bore a greater resemblance to the measure of his noble Friend, or to the Resolution of the General Association, because the extinction of tithes was common to both, he would not say. With reference to the question of the Catholic claims, and to the passing of the Catholic Emancipation Bill, he did not think that there was any ground to say that the result had been different from that which had been anticipated. They were told at the time by the Duke of Wellington, that it was a measure which would be likely to prevent civil war in Ireland. They knew it was a measure which had introduced Roman Catholics into Parliament, where they were enabled to urge their claims in a peaceable manner; and whatever disturbances there might have been, he was convinced that more peace had been secured by bringing in Roman Catholic Members than could have been secured now, in the year 1837, had that Act not been passed, and the restrictions on Roman Catholics continued. But after having addressed himself to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, he would proceed to state some few observations with regard to this measure, and the objections which had been made to it. He must state first, that he considered the measure was in strict conformity with the Act of Roman Catholic Emancipation; he did not consider it to be a measure calling for further concession, or as implying something which was not to be intended to be given at the time of the Roman Catholic Bill being carried into a law. What was the enactment of that Bill? It was this:—"Be it enacted, that it shall and may be lawful for any of his Majesty's subjects professing the Roman Catholic religion to be a Member of any lay body corporate, and to hold any civil office or place of trust or profit therein; and to do any corporate act, or vote in any corporate election or other

1089
proceeding, upon taking and subscribing the oath hereby appointed and set forth, instead of the oaths of allegiance, abjuration, and supremacy, and instead of the declaration against transubstantiation; and upon taking also such other oath or oaths as may now by law be required to be taken by any person or persons becoming a Member or Members of such lay body corporate, or being admitted to hold any office or place of trust or profit within the same." What was the plain meaning of that clause but that the Roman Catholics were to be admitted to corporate offices? To refuse Roman Catholics offices in Municipal Corporations in Ireland, under the apprehension and plea that they would exercise a dangerous supremacy, was to contract the letter and spirit of the Act. Talk of Roman Catholics not keeping faith? What faith were the opponents of this Bill keeping in excluding Roman Catholics from Corporations and municipal power? In 1829 they said they were admitted to corporate offices, and yet, when it was proposed to carry that principle into practice, it was urged that they could not be admitted? His noble Friend, and his right hon. Friend, said, why not impose the declaration which was imposed by the Act for repealing the Corporation and Test Acts? He thought he had read a sufficient answer to this question in the words of the clause to which he had referred, because in that clause it was provided that every person who should hold a corporate office should take an oath which was prescribed by the Act. The words contained in the declaration could only be regarded as intended to apply to the Protestant Dissenters of Ireland, because the Roman Catholics were bound to take the oath prescribed in the 9th George 4th.
Lord Stanleyhad said, that the Protestant Dissenters, by the 9th George 4th., were placed in the same situation as the Catholics have since been by the 10th of George 4th; for, in the latter Act, it was found necessary to provide that the 9th of George IV. should not be dispensed with.
Lord John Russellthought, it would have been much better, as well as much more convenient, that his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) should have stated his opinion upon points of detail when the Bill was in Committee. For his own part, he could only repeat at that moment the
1090
opinion he had expressed ten years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman proposed the declaration to the Bill for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Act, namely, that as a qualification to any municipal office, or to a seat in Parliament, he should wish only to have the simple oath subscribed to—"I will bear faithful and true allegiance to the King." That being his opinion, he did not attach the same importance to the security of oaths as his noble Friend. Without going into the various arguments that had been advanced, in the present as well as in former debates, upon the subject of municipal reform in Ireland, he would shortly endeavour to show the position in which they then stood. They maintained, in the first place, that Corporations were good in themselves; that they were useful in exciting the spirit of the people, and in producing good local government; and that they were likewise useful in promoting order, and awakening a general spirit of freedom in the community. That position, after some very ineffectual attempts to defeat it on the part of the opponents to the measure, he apprehended was now fully established, the position with regard to the cities of He thought they had also established Ireland, that there was no reason why Cork and Waterford should not have Municipal Corporations as well as Bath and Bristol. Further than that, he thought that they had also established the position that while England and Scotland were allowed to have reformed Municipal Corporations, it would be unjust as well as insulting to deny them to Ireland. He came then to the last point endeavoured to be maintained by the hon. Gentlemen opposite, although it was true they had not supported it by much argument. They stated generally, in the first place, that there was something peculiar in the position of Ireland which forbade them to yield this measure; and, next, that they were bound to oppose the measure because it threatened some specific danger to the Established church. With respect to the something peculiar in the condition of Ireland, it had been so little defined what that something was as to leave him entirely without the means of answering the argument. With respect to the threatened danger to the Church, he thought that those who put the Church forward in the argument were, in fact, the parties who created the very danger they

1091
apprehended. It appeared to him that while the Church in Ireland was undoubtedly in a state of danger, that danger arose more from its being the Church of a small minority, and from the circumstance of its being dissented from by a majority daily increasing in wealth, intelligence, and power, than from any other circumstance whatever. Undoubtedly, it might be said with some appearance of truth, that by denying the power proposed to be conferred by this Bill, we should be keeping away one weapon by which the Church might be attacked. But if that argument Were pushed to its true extent, it would not be confined to the rejection of this Bill of municipal Reform, but would go to the full length of reducing the Catholic people of Ireland again into that depressed condition from which, for the last half century we have been gradually emancipating them. If that could be done—if the whole Irish people, under the operation of unequal laws, could be kept in a state of complete subjection — the privileged minority might perhaps be regarded as safe; but when the fetter was removed from the Roman Catholics—when they were allowed to acquire land, to hold office, to sit in Parliament, there could not be more danger in the feeling of their strength and numbers as compared with that of the Members of the Established Church in Ireland. Such being the danger to be apprehended, and impossible perhaps to prevent, it was still said by some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, that if certain things could be done, they would not altogether hesitate about the concession of a Reform in the Municipal Corporations. He must beg the attention of the House for a moment to one or two of the arguments advanced upon this subject, as he himself had heard them, or rather as he found them recorded, in order that the House might judge what the terms were upon which they might expect to have a municipal reformation for Ireland according to the views of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge, in the course of his speech of the last evening, stated that "he could conceive it possible to place the established church in a position in which its revenues should be secured against the attacks made upon it by opposing sects — he could conceive a measure which would place it in such a position of security and strength as to
1092
render its stability compatible with the existence of municipal corporations, vested with all the forms of self-government that could be desired in bodies of that description." That, undoubtedly, was sufficiently vague and indefinite; but what said the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire (Lord Stanley), who, if sometimes peremptory with the House and harsh to his own friends, had usually the merit of being exceedingly clear and precise in his language—what was the prospect that the noble Lord held out in his speech of last evening? The noble Lord said, that if he saw the Church placed in a situation of security as to its revenues—if he had not heard the dangerous doctrines of the Gentlemen who composed his Majesty's Government, and of the supporters of that Government—his objections, which were now insuperable, might in a great measure be modified. But even then he could not pledge himself to the present Bill, as it would still be open to objections. But he did say that the question would be placed on an entirely new footing if they were able to deal with it in such a manner that his objections to it, as a Protestant, might be removed. With these views, and these views only, he would willingly yield to the introduction into Ireland of institutions which were not necessarily nor precisely similar, but which should be analogous to those of England, and which, in his deliberate judgment, should be for the advantage of the people of Ireland." This, too, he thought was sufficiently vague and indefinite. Such was the language held by his noble Friend and by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Cambridge; and it was, in fact, a very good sample of the inconclusive nature of the arguments and statements advanced by the great mass of those who opposed the measure. The meaning of this language, as far as he could collect any meaning from it at all, was this:—"If he saw the Church in Ireland perfectly secure he would then agree to a Bill upon the subject of Municipal Reform, but not to this Bill." Could anything be more vague or unsatisfactory? What was meant in the first sentence by making the Church in Ireland perfectly secure? What was the danger to the Established Church that the right hon. Gentleman had that night pointed out to them? It was this: that the General Association in Ireland

1093
had three months ago entered into certain resolutions of a hostile character towards the Established Church. Why, whatever Bill were introduced upon the subject, what power had the Government of the day to prevent meetings at Dublin at which similar resolutions might not be agreed to, and upon which Gentlemen so timid as those opposite might not found an argument that the Church was not perfectly secure? Yet, according to the statement of his noble Friend, until the Church in Ireland was perfectly secure, until there were no resolutions, no opinions expressed against it, it would be totally impossible for him to agree to a measure of Municipal Reform. One word upon the other part of the question. The hon. Gentlemen opposite said, it was quite impossible for them to consent either to the present Bill or to any other that should proceed upon the same principle. Now what did they mean by that? His conception of a Municipal Corporation was this; that the people elected their own government for their own local purposes. If it were said that the majority of that place should elect the local government, then there would be what he considered to be Municipal Reform; then there would be vested in the inhabitants of the town that power of self-government which was deemed desirable; but if, on the other hand, it was said, that the majority should not have the power of electing the local government, if it were said that the power of electing that government should be vested in the hands of a small minority, then he maintained that the measure, though possibly it might be called a reform, would not be a real reform, but a false and ineffectual reform. In the absence of any definite explanation, and judging from the general tenor of their argument, he could only suppose that any measure of Municipal Reform likely to receive the approbation and support of the hon. Gentlemen opposite would be of the latter description. He had stated upon a former occasion, that if he could see any way of settling the Tithe and Church questions in Ireland in such a manner as should be likely to pass both Houses of Parliament, and at the same time to give satisfaction to the people of Ireland, no false pride on his part should induce him to refuse his assent and support to such a plan. To that declaration he still adhered; but he must at the
1094
same time say, that the difficulties in the way of any measure, that should be agreeable to both Houses of Parliament, and also satisfactory to the people of Ireland, were immense. He must now express an opinion upon this subject to which he could not refer without sorrow, because it was an opinion that the difficulties they had then to encounter were still greater than those with which they had had to contend in former days. His opinion was, that if a Bill similar to that of last year were now to be sent up to the House of Lords, and to be passed by their Lordships in exactly the same shape as presented to them, it would not have the effect of producing complete and final satisfaction in Ireland. And his opinion also was, that if they (the House of Commons) were to accept, clause for clause and word for word, the Bill sent down to them from the House of Lords, that Bill would not produce final and complete security to the Church in Ireland. Such were the difficulties attendant upon a settlement of the question. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the placing the charge for the Established Church more upon the Protestant landowners and less upon the Roman Catholic tenants, would operate materially to make the security of the Church in Ireland much greater than it then was. He was also of opinion with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the giving the people of Ireland a feeling that some part at least of these vast revenues were employed for the benefit of the great mass of the population was another means by which the general feeling of the country might in some degree be conciliated. There are many opinions, continued the noble Lord, upon the subject. I do not pretend to say, that I see any way by which a final and complete settlement of the question can be made. Yet I do hope—I do sincerely wish—that Parliament may devise some means by which the pressure of the question may be lessened. The Bill of the noble Lord (Stanley) opposite tends, as time advances, to place the charge more upon the landowners, and thereby to diminish, in a material degree, the pressure upon the Catholic tenant. Thus, after the lapse of years, it is to be hoped that much of the evil and much of the danger resulting from the old system will have wholly passed away. If we could hasten the operation of that

1095
Bill we should undoubtedly be doing something to promote the security of the Church; but after what has happened I will not pretend to say that a church which stands in so unfavourable a position in the estimation of the great body of the people can ever be in a situation of complete security. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) and the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) have contended that we ought to place the Church in a state of complete security. I think we should be holding out false expectations if we said that that would be the result of the measure we shall hereafter have to propose upon the subject. But whatever may be the result with regard to that measure, I do not consider that either it or the measure with regard to the Poor-laws is at all mixed up or involved with this question of the reform of Municipal Corporations. I tell you that I consider this question of the establishment of reformed Municipal Corporations in Ireland to be a just and wise measure—a measure likely to conciliate the affections of the people of Ireland towards the general government of this country, and by so much diminishing the danger to any of the institutions of the land. I say further, that it is a measure which is good in itself. I say it is a measure which the present Ministry have brought forward from a strong conviction of its justice. That conviction is increased from the manner in which it has been received in this House. The proposition for the abolition of Corporations in Ireland has been negatived by so large a majority of the House of Commons that I hardly expect it to be brought forward again. On the other hand, I look forward with confidence to the triumphant issue of the question, sure that if you grant it now, fully and generously, you will meet with that support and gratitude which a measure so given, and in such a spirit, has a right to command. But if you delay to give it now, upon the pretence that the people of Ireland are not fit to be trusted, because they have a Church which is not agreeable to them, I feel the same confidence that the measure will still be carried — I feel the same confidence that the right hon. Gentleman opposite will vote for it; but I do not feel the same confidence that it will then produce the same good feelings and the same good effects in Ireland.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that the surprise which he last night felt that the House
1096
was not permitted, considering the exhausted state of the debate, to go to a division had not been in the least degree removed by the tenour of the discussion of that night; and he sincerely hoped that those two or three Gentlemen whose absence the House last night deplored, and in compliment to whom (the debate being entirely finished) the division was postponed, were now present in the House, and would enable them finally to dispose of the question. He felt, however, that it was not entirely owing to the absence of two or three Gentlemen that the reluctance to divide was last night manifested. He had entertained his suspicions upon the subject before he heard the speech of the noble Lord who had just sat down; and these suspicions were fully confirmed when in the course of his observations he found the noble Lord so pointedly referring to the approaching disunion between himself and the hon. Member for Middlesex upon the subject of household suffrage. When he found on referring to the voles that the first notice of motion for the 1lth of April was given by the hon. Member for Middlesex, for leave to bring in a Bill to extend the present suffrage to household suffrage, he knew perfectly well that one of the motives for adjourning the debate was to prevent that motion from being brought forward. The only novelty he had heard in the course of the debate of that evening was from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers). The hon. Member, thinking that the party on that (the Opposition) side of the House availed themselves unfairly of the cry of the "Church in danger," determined, it would seem, to meet that cry by a counter-cry, namely, the "Reform Bill in danger." The hon. Gentleman said he had never heard a discussion conducted on the Opposition side of the House in which there did not fall from some one Gentleman or other an intimation that one at least of three great popular questions ought either to be altered or repealed. The first of these was the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. Now he had never heard any Gentleman intimate an intention of bringing in a Bill to repeal that measure. He certainly did hear in the speech of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. H. Grattan) last night, an extract from some Dublin newspaper, which the hon. Member said placed the hon. Member in possession of his opinions upon the subject, and accordingly, upon

1097
the authority of this Dublin newspaper, the hon. Member declared to the House, that it was his intention to propose the repeal of the Catholic Relief Act. Now, as the hon. Member for Meath was a Member of the House of Commons, and consequently had opportunities of hearing the debates within its walls, he trusted the hon. Member would take the indication of his intentions from his own declarations, and not from any anonymous paragraphs which might happen to appear, even in a Dublin newspaper. The hon. Member for Meath, in the course of his speech last night, after attacking him with a great deal of vituperative eloquence, produced extracts from speeches he had formerly delivered as arguments against him. It was rather an unfair instrument to use; but he would not retaliate. The hon. Member for Meath might rest assured that whilst he lived he would never quote an extract from any speech of the hon. Member. But, said the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, "there is not only a disposition on the part of the Opposition to repeal the Roman Catholic Belief Bill; there is also an indication of a wish and an intention to repeal the English Municipal Bill and the Parliamentary Reform Bill. At all events, he had no intention to propose the repeal of the Municipal Bill, because, if the municipal corporations continued in the same change of opinions that had distinguished them for the last year or two, they would shortly become good Conservative bodies. Then, with respect to the Parliamentary Reform Bill, who on that side of the House had proposed its repeal? Who had proposed even to modify it? He had not heard one single attack made either upon the principle or the details of the Parliamentary Reform Act, except from the hon. Gentlemen who sat on the Ministerial side of the House. So far from being satisfied with the great charter of their liberties—so far from being pleased even with the short experience they had just had of it—the book upon the table was pregnant with notices on the part of the usual supporters of the Government to repeal essential and fundamental parts of the Reform Act. He spoke not of speculative questions, such as household suffrage, vote by ballot, annual Parliaments, and the like, but of motions directly and vitally affecting the special principles of the Reform Act. Not one of those notices of motion had been given from that side of the House. They
1098
had all been given by those who professed themselves most friendly to the principle of the Reform Act. So much for the argument of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. It only served to convince him that the constituency of that good town were somewhat uneasy and restless, and that it therefore became necessary for the hon. Gentleman who represented them to raise these bugbears, in order, if possible, to frighten them into a continued support of him. He would now address himself to the speech of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell). In doing so, he would avoid all reference to the vestal criticism in which the noble Lord had indulged. He would not dwell upon the phrase "the downward path," upon which the noble Lord had laid so much emphasis. Yet what was to be implied from the phrase, as originally employed by his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham)? He (Sir R. Peel) would venture to say that if, "instead of the "facilis descensus," his right hon. Friend had spoken of the laborious and difficult upward path, he would have been attacked by the noble Lord, the great critic of the administration, for not speaking of the road of concession as an easy and pleasing descent, instead of a stubborn and unpleasing upward journey. Then came the disclosure about the Cabinet dinner. What a disclosure for the noble Lord to make! Why, with his attachment to the popular principle—with his love for Municipal Corporations in Scotland as well as in England and Ireland—why was not the noble Lord, in the case of the Scotch Municipal Bill, found watching over the cradle of freedom, instead of acting the part of Amphitryon, and leaving his charge to take care of itself? So indifferent was the noble Lord to that unfortunate measure, that he positively left it to its fate, and went to dinner. But, in his absence and in his indifference, the noble Lord unjustly and ungenerously sought to involve his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham). It was the noble Lord himself, and not the right hon. Baronet, who was absent from the discussion and division of the Scotch Municipal Bill. The noble Lord could not resist the temptation of the Cabinet dinner, at which he was to preside, and in the noble Lord's absence from his post in that House, it was his right hon. Friend who performed his duty—who resisted the temptation even of the noble Lord's cook—who left the noble Lord, now a cabinet minister and leader of the House of Com-

1099
mons, to enjoy his repose at home, whilst he attended in the House, and resisted the proposal for the insertion of the 51. clause in the Scotch Municipal Bill. It was true, indeed, that his right hon. Friend, an English Member, showing this laudable desire for the protection of the interests of Scotland, was confirmed in his own opinions by very high authority, for amongst the Scotch Members who, on that occasion, joined with his Friend the right hon. Baronet in doing justice to Scotland, he found the names of Admiral Adam, Sir Henry Parnell, now a member for a Scotch borough, and at the head of the list the name of the right hon. Gentleman whom he had now the honour of addressing in the chair. These were the Gentlemen who resisted the temptation to which the noble Lord unhappily gave way, and who set the example of resisting the 51. clause, which, upon the authority, as it would seem, of the hon. Gentleman opposite, it was proposed to insert in the present Bill. He had a great respect for that hon. Gentleman; he had a great respect for his professional opinion; but to quote him as a high authority on Parliamentary law, and upon the expediency of adopting a 51. clause, appeared to him to be most extra-Ordinary. When the 51. clause was assented to in the Irish Bill, the noble Lord said, "Oh, there is a 51. clause in the Scotch Bill, and, therefore, of course, there must be a 5l. clause in the Irish Bill." Now he (Sir Robert Peel) had certainly heard of a postliminious precedent; and it appeared to him that the precedent referred to by the noble Lord on this occasion, must embrace something of the character implied under that term. Finding that a 5l. clause in the Scotch Bill would be a sufficient authority for the insertion of a similar clause in the Irish Municipal Bill, the noble Lord immediately set to work to create a precedent, and subsequently to the introduction of the Irish Bill, moved for leave to bring in a Bill to establish a 51. constituency in Scotland. That Bill had not yet passed through one single stage; but the noble Lord was glad to look at it in his moment of difficulty, and already it was quoted as a precedent, and used as an argument by those who contended for an identity of the law in both kingdoms. He felt that the argument upon the subject of the Bill then under their consideration, was entirely exhausted, He must, however, be allowed
1100
very shortly to state the grounds upon which he rested his opposition to it. He viewed the Bill upon its abstract merits as a scheme of local government for Ireland. Upon its abstract merits, viewing it as it then stood, he objected to it. He still retained the opinion he had formerly expressed, that to establish at once forty-seven Corporations in Ireland, without any previous experience of the working of the reformed municipal system, and in forty out of the forty-seven, to establish a 51. franchise, was (even if the policy of the Municipal Corporations were ceded on all hands) carrying the principle to an extravagant and unwise extent. The 51. franchise, unaccompanied by the payment of assessed taxes, or any payment corresponding to assessed taxes, such as existed in Scotland, or to the poor-rate as it existed in England, would be a very indifferent, and, in his opinion, insufficient, test of the competency of the constituency. He had stated this objection before. He said, on a former occasion, that he thought it would be better to have some substantial definite test which should prevent all temptation to perjury on the part of any individual as to the value of his house. Was there not at that moment a Committee of the House sitting on the Report of fictitious votes in Scotland? Had not the evils which were said to have arisen in that country upon the subject of the franchise, been entirely the result of the variety of principles laid down as to the value of property? The result of it was, that the temptation to perjury had been so strong, as to lead to the necessity of appointing a Committee of that House to inquire into the extent to which fictitious votes had been carried. The Attorney-General had stated, that there were no less than five different constructions put upon the word "value." With the experience they had already received of the working of the system in Scotland, he did not know how it could be thought that the civil or moral improvement of the people of Ireland would be promoted by extending to them, for all municipal purposes, a 51. franchise. It must be borne in mind, too, that the Bill not only established forty-seven Corporations in Ireland, but gave, at the same time, an indefinite power to establish other Corporations in any towns or villages of Ireland where, not the majority of the inhabitants, but any two of them, should

1101
make a demand for municipal rights. Wherever any two inhabitants of any town in Ireland, however insignificant their interests in that town, chose to demand a charter of incorporation, there would be a power wholly uncontrolled by Parliament to confer it upon them; and each of these Corporations would have the power of appointing the armed police force, not only to protect the town itself, but to guard the property for seven miles round. They would also have the power of appointing special Constables. Was that an application to Ireland of the principle on which English Corporations were framed? It was said, give to Ireland Corporations on the same principle as those of England. The English police were appointed by the Lord-Lieutenant in each county; but in Ireland it was proposed to place the whole of that power in the hands of these local and irresponsible bodies. Upon that ground, as well as upon others on which he would not then dwell, he objected to the Bill as a scheme of local government. The noble Lord might tell him that these were details, and that they ought to have been discussed in Committee. He knew that they were details, and he would state why it was, that they were not discussed in Committee, It was perfectly notorious, that whatever objections the Opposition might have brought forward would at once have been overruled. In the next place, they felt that, with the certainty of being overruled, their objections, if brought forward, would only have the effect of obstructing the prospect of a satisfactory adjustment hereafter. In the course of the speech made last night by an hon. Member on the diplomatic service of his Majesty—he meant the hon. Member for Marylebone—the hon. Gentleman made an appeal to him; and if he passed by that appeal, the hon. Gentleman might suppose that he did not attempt to reply to it because he could not make any Comment on it. The observations of the hon. Member ran to this effect:—"There is one way in which, according to his Friends, the right hon. Baronet might escape from this dilemma. They said, 'You don't know Sir Robert Peel; he sees that the Irish Corporation Bill must pass, and when he comes into office, then he will pass something in the shape of a better Bill if he can, and after that he will say, 'Now the Church is, you see, in
1102
a better condition; now I'll consent to passing the Corporation Bill.'" He should like to ask the hon. Gentleman, who were those Friends of his whom the hon. Gentleman heard make these assertions? He should like to know what there possibly was in his past conduct, that could entitle Friends of his to give him credit for such a Course of proceeding? The hon. Gentleman supposed, or at least his Friends who communicated with the hon. Gentleman, that he meditated in effect to pass this Bill. He did not hesitate to say, that if he contemplated this Bill as he had stated, and if persevering in his hostility to the passing; of it on that occasion, and yet as the confidential adviser of the Grown, he intended to sanction it — he did not hesitate to say, that it would be a much more creditable pact, Seeing such a probability of expressing his conviction of the necessity of the measure, to give his Majesty's Government his support instead of opposing the farther progress of the Bill. He trusted, after this remark, he should convince the hon. Gentleman that he did hot intend to pass this Bill, should he, by possibility, be placed in office. The hon. Gentleman might say, "no, you do not contemplate passing this Bill in its present shape, but you may sanction a Bill analogous to this with some slight alterations." If the hon. Gentleman asked him whether he thought that, in the present position of public affairs and of parties, one party in that House was not necessarily pledged on the one hand to the unqualified support, and on the other to oppose, the resolution which turned him out of office, he (Sir R. Peel) would ask the hon. Gentleman in reply, when that resolution had passed whether he showed any wish to make concession with respect to the principle of the resolution—whether he showed any hesitation to resign the office he held? No; he left office because he could not sanction, that resolution which involved the security of the Church of Ireland. If hon. Gentlemen asked him under what possible circumstances he would consent to any relaxation of his opposition to the establishment of Irish Municipal Corporations, as proposed in this Bill, he would reply, that he thought that hon. Gentlemen had no right to ask him hypothetical questions, or expect an answer to them. But, even, if he thought any possible settlement of the question practicable, he did not then

1103
think that it would be advantageous to state what he might conceive it to be. He would say, however, that it was the duty of the King's Government, before they asked that House to come to a final decision on this question, to tell them what they intended to do with respect to the Irish Church. To say that that question was unconnected with the one before the House was perfectly insulting; and this was certainly not the feeling of his Majesty's Government at the commencement of the Session. The attention of the Parliament was called to the state of Ireland, and there was an address, to which the House assented at the special invitation of the Minister of the Crown, in which there was the following passage:—
"We humbly assure your Majesty that we will direct our attention to the state of Ireland, which your Majesty has been graciously pleased to bring especially under our notice; and that, convinced of the wisdom of adopting all such measures as may improve the condition of that part of the United Kingdom, we will take into our early consideration the present constitution of the municipal corporations of that country, the laws which regulate the collection of tithes, and the difficult but pressing question of establishing such legal provision for the poor, guarded by prudent regulations and by such precautions against abuse, as our experience and knowledge of the subject may enable us to suggest."
Would any man tell him that it was not the duty of the Government to indicate what they intended to do with regard to these two important subjects before this House; and, above all, before they were called upon to give a final decision on this measure. He had made this observation on the first night of discussing this Bill, and he had repeated it. When the noble Lord then said, that he would enter into an examination of the state of Ireland, he (Sir R. Peel) thought that he would have gone into an explanation of the principles on which the Government intended to act with respect to all their great measures regarding Ireland. But the noble Lord merely indirectly alluded to the tithe-question, and stated that the nature of the payment to be made under the Poor-law Bill should be explained on a future occasion. Now, he would ask the noble Lord, who had taunted him with dealing in vague generalities, what he meant? Did not the noble Lord, in effect, promise the early production of these measures? The noble Lord must surely be supposed to
1104
have had these measures prepared and in his possession. If the noble Lord had not these measures prepared, what did he mean by inducing the King of England, as his adviser, to recommend to Parliament to take, not into their late consideration, not to postpone the subjects to some distant period, but to take into their early consideration the present state of the Corporations, as well as the tithe question, and the difficult question of a provision for the destitute Irish poor? Would any hon. Gentleman suppose for one moment, after such declarations, that the noble Lord and his Colleagues had not got measures prepared on these subjects, that they had not made up their minds on these questions when they alluded to them in this way? The noble Lord now said that he was ready to pass a measure for the settlement of the tithe question, if he could be satisfied that it would meet with the ready assent of the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and the people of Ireland; but he went on to say, that there were great impediments in the way of framing such a measure. He would promise the noble Lord, that if he brought forward these two measures for the settlement of the Irish Church question, and for the establishment of Poor-laws in Ireland—if he knew what were the intentions of the Government on those questions—if he knew what was the particular course which the House of Commons would pursue with respect to those two measures—he would not have pursued such a line as to have rendered himself liable to the taunt of the noble Lord, and those with whom he acted, that he dealt in vague generalities with respect to the Municipal Bill; for he would have distinctly told the noble Lord whether he was prepared to make any concessions on this question, and what would be the nature of such concessions. It would have been open to him to have pursued this course if he had been made acquainted with those measures; but now, being in ignorance of the nature of those measures, he felt it to be his duty to persist in offering his opposition to the Bill before the House. Knowing nothing, therefore, of the intentions of the Government with respect to the Tithe question and the Poor-laws he felt it to be his duty to oppose this measure; and the noble Lord might be assured that if in the present condition of parties, acting on the principles he had always avowed, and ignorant

1105
of the manner in which other contemplated measures might modify the Bill, he felt it incumbent on him to oppose it,—he should act on the same principles if he should be called upon to accept office. If he should be inclined, on seeing these two measures with respect to the Irish Church and the establishment of Poor-laws in Ireland, to modify in any degree his opposition to the Municipal Corporation Bill—with respect to which the noble Lord appeared to entertain his chief anxiety—he should take an opportunity to declare distinctly what those modifications were; and to those modifications he should adhere, if they were accepted by the Government; or, if they were not accepted by the Government, to those modifications he would adhere, if by accident he should be placed in their situation. This he thought would be the course which alone it would be creditable to a public man to pursue. If he felt it to be his duty to meet this measure with unqualified opposition, such should be his rule of conduct if he were connected with the Government: if he thought that concessions should be made in case he took office they should be distinctly stated, and the Government should also state whether they would accept them or not. These two questions were most nearly united with that before the House. Would any one deny, after the declarations that had been made, that the chances of a settlement of the Church question, with security to the Establishment, would not be greatly diminished by passing this Bill for establishing Irish Municipal Corporations. He might be told that when they passed the Catholic Relief Bill there was the same assertion of danger to the Establishment. He denied it; for when they passed the Bill to remove the disqualifications and restrictions from the Catholics, they had not only the most distinct and often re-repeated declarations that the removal of those restrictions would restore tranquillity to Ireland, but that it would also ensure the stability of the Established Church. With a solemn engagement that the maintenance of the Church was compatible with the removal of the disqualifications on the Catholics, the Act was passed. Those disqualifications were removed; and would any one tell him that since that time the Church was not in danger? In many parts of Ireland it was notorious that combinations had been entered into
1106
for the purpose of defrauding of their legal property those who had an interest in Church estates. At the present moment, also, they had a resolution of that House before them that no settlement of the tithe question could take place satisfactorily unless it was accompanied with an alienation of Church property. The noble Lord said that he, and those who acted with him, had promised, on some possible occasion, that the subject of Municipal Corporations in Ireland should be taken up with a view to a settlement. They promised that they would take the subject into consideration when they saw the Church placed in a situation of security. The noble Lord, when he alluded to this, seemed to imply that if any man expressed any feelings of anxiety with respect to the Church in Ireland, he was exciting an alarm that it was in danger. This was an inference that was not warranted. Let the noble Lord state the nature of the Bill he was prepared to propose with respect to the Irish Church; and until he did so it was impossible to give any pledge as to the conduct he should pursue with regard to it; but he would maintain the position in which he now stood in opposition to the institution of Corporations in Ireland until he knew what that measure was, and he would give no pledge until he saw that it would ensure a prospect of security for the Church. But was there any prospect that by giving such institutions as were proposed in this Bill that object would be attained. He believed not but that Corporations instead of being framed for the purposes of local government, would be made the means of increasing the power of the political agitators. As he had said before, the state of the question with respect to this Bill was essentially different from the Catholic Relief Bill. What were the objects of the supporting of this Bill? It had been asserted, in a popular assembly, that the maintenance of these institutions should be insisted on in the first place, because by means of these institutions a control could be exercised over the people, and, secondly, that their influence would be exercised in a way to weaken the power of the Church. If they asked him what was his principle for the Government of Ireland, he would reply, it was the maintenance of the principle of the Relief Bill, the freedom of religion to all classes of his Majesty's subjects. But with this con-

1107
dition there was co-existing another, namely, that with the establishment of perfect civil equality there should also be a legal and binding security for the maintenance of the Establishment of the Protestant Church in Ireland as the established religion of the country. If ever there was a combination of justice and wisdom in adhering to a solemn compact—both expressed and implied; if ever considerations of equity and sound policy demanded an adherence to an engagement, it was in the case of the Protestant Church in Ireland. The Legislature consented to the reduction of ten of the Bishops of that Establishment, and the hon. Member for Meath said that a most important concession was gained by it, a larger one than he was prepared to hope for, and what had the Church gained by it? They had also offered the settlement of the tithe question, in order to remove the burthen from the Catholic tenant, and place it on the Protestant landlord; they offered also, great reduction in the revenues of the Church for the attainment of that object, and the only principle to which they adhered, and to which they were determined to adhere, was, that they would not have the voluntary system; they would not sanction the principle that they were indifferent to the existence of any religious establishment, and they would not consent to subtract from the property of the Protestant Church in Ireland for the establishment of the Catholic or any other form of worship in its place. Relying, then, on the principle of the Catholic Relief Bill—relying on the declarations made on its passing, as well as on those directed to be taken under its enactments—relying on the principles of justice and sound policy, involved, in that case, the Opposition required, and they would continue to require, legislative protection for the Church of Ireland, before they consented to give privileges which were not required by the Catholic Relief Bill, and which would Wily be employed for the subversion of the Established Church. He said, that arrangement was not unfair: he believed, that to these terms the country would subscribe, and the country would adhere. These were terms with which, he also believed, the noble Lord himself, in the present state of political parties and discussions, would be satisfied, and on which he would be prepared to rest. The noble Lord knew, also, that by the resolution
1108
which he had proposed, and which had been opposed by him as involving an abstract principle, without a practical result, the House had been fettered—he meant the resolution respecting the appropriation of Church property in Ireland. The noble Lord said the other night, "Taking into consideration the nature of the Act of Union, and the legal rights of the Irish Established Church to its property, it was my duty to support the Establishment." He was glad to hear that declaration; and he inferred that the noble Lord agreed with him, that, on considerations both of duty and of policy, it was entitled to support. The noble Lord also said, that he did not wish to bring forward Bills and place them on the table, which there was not a reasonable hope and prospect of passing through Parliament and giving satisfaction to the people of Ireland. He thought that the noble Lord was right in this; because, bringing forward Bills which it was not possible to carry to a successful termination, was a practice which, to say the least of it, was not prudent. The noble Lord had further declared, in manly language, that whenever such measures were brought forward, coming from what quarter they might, and believing that they would have such a result, no feeling of false pride should prevent his giving his cordial support to them. The noble Lord, he was sure, when he made use of that language, heard no taunt from him at a declaration so becoming in the noble Lord's situation. He thought that the noble Lord meant that he was ready, at the expense of every sacrifice—that he was ready to propose to Parliament the settlement of the tithe question, independently of the resolution by which he said the question was embarrassed. If such was the intention of the noble Lord, although that resolution had proved fatal to his government—if such was the intention of the noble Lord, not one word of taunt should fall from him on the subject; but he would at once proceed to the consideration of the tithe question with a view to the settlement of it. He saw no other way by which this question, could be satisfactorily settled. It was the evil of that resolution, neither acted on nor abandoned, that it engendered bitterness in Ireland. The noble Lord and his Colleagues knew that it was impossible to leave the question in its present state. The Government and the Legislature must

1109
do something. He thought, that it was imperative on him to make this declaration with respect to the Irish tithe question, and to show that it was necessary that they should have an explanation of the views of the Government on this question before being called upon to give an opinion on the measure before them. Again, a further explanation as to the Poor-law Bill was also necessary. If they adopted that Bill for Ireland, it would be absolutely necessary to have some other test than residence of a fitness to exercise the right of voting for municipal officers; but until the House knew what were the intentions of the Government, it would be in vain to attempt to give any explanation as to the probable bearings of that measure. If, as he had said before, after hearing an explanation of the two measures to which he had adverted, he retained his opposition to this measure, he would frankly declare it to the House and the Government; and if it were possible to make any qualification of his opposition on this subject, he would as explicitly state the extent of it, and give the Government the opportunity of deciding whether or not it would be sufficient for their object. He knew not what was the nature of the vague intimation on the part of his Majesty's Government of their intention of relinquishing office, he knew nothing about it; he viewed it with great indifference, and he was not at all surprised at their desire to relinquish office. I do not taunt them (continued the right hon. Baronet) with the desire to retain office. I believe, in the present position of public affairs, few men would take office, unless impelled by a sense of public duty. Oh! look at the position of public affairs. Look at the position of your foreign affairs. I am glad to see a smile on the noble Lord's (Lord Palmerston's) face. Oh, the noble Lord has a right to smile with respect to the position in which this country stands to Russia and the great powers of the north, to Spain, to France, and, indeed, with respect to all other powers. [Question.] This is the question—this is the real and pinching part of the question. Look at the state of commercial embarrassment in which the country is placed. Look at the want of employment in which many of your manufacturers now are. Look at the state of the governments of the three great powers of the west of Europe at the present moment. In France there is no Government
1110
—in Spain no Government—and in England, the question arises from day to day, whether there is a Government or not. Look, also, at the state of the public business before this House. Hundreds of questions, of great public importance, are glanced at, but not proceeded with. From day to day a great variety of observations are made, but nothing is done towards advancing them to maturity. What has hitherto been done in the course of the present Session? Have any measures of importance been sent up to the House of Lords? Certainly many measures of great importance have been brought forward by the Government, but no question, except the measure now under consideration, has been advanced to any thing like a result. The Irish Poor-law Bill and the Church-rate measure, have been introduced, but if you go through the whole of the Parliamentary history, I do not believe that you will find a period when the public business was ever in such a state. Again, look at the state of your colonial policy. I say this in reference to those who believe that there are parties who seek, by low intrigue, to endeavour to overturn the Government, and then intend to bring to maturity the measures they have introduced. If you look steadily at the state of public affairs, I think that hon. Gentlemen will agree, that no man, but from a sense of public duty, would take office upon himself. If his Majesty's Government wish to seek a pretext for abandoning office, and to escape from the difficulties with which they are surrounded, I do not hesitate to say that I believe there is energy enough in the country to find compensation for their loss. If the crew-choose to abandon the noble vessel amidst the breakers, I do not believe she is yet so unmanageable that she cannot be saved, or that the country will not lend its cheerful support to those who would make an effort to save her, and conduct her and all the precious interests with which she is freighted, into a tranquil and secure haven.
The House divided:—Ayes 302; Noes 247: Majority 55.

List of the AYES.

Acheson, Viscount

Anson, Colonel

Adam, Sir C.

Astley, Sir Jacob, Bt.

Aglionby, H. A.

Attwood, T.

Ainsworth, P.

Bagshaw, John

Alston, Rowland

Bainbridge, E. T.

Andover, Viscount

Baines, E.

Anson, Sir George

Ball, N.

1111

Bannerman, Alex.

Donkin, Sir R.

Barclay, David

Duncombe, T.

Baring, F. T.

Dundas, hon. J. C.

Barnard, E. G.

Dundas, hon. T.

Barron, H.

Dundas, J. D.

Barry, G. S.

Dunlop, J.

Beauclerk, Major

Ebrington, Viscount

Belfast, Earl of

Edwards, Colonel

Bellew, Rich. M.

Ellice, E.

Bellew, Sir P.

Elphinstone, H.

Benett, J.

Etwall, Ralph

Bentinck, Lord W.

Euston, Earl of

Berkeley, hon. F.

Evans, G.

Berkeley, hon. G. C.

Ewart, W.

Berkeley, hon. C. C.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Bernal, R.

Fellowes, N.

Bewes, T.

Fergus, John

Biddulph, Robert

Fielden, J.

Bish, T.

Ferguson, Sir R. C.

Blackburne, John

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Blake, M. J.

Ferguson, Robert

Blunt, Sir C.

Fergusson, R. C.

Bowes, John

Fitzgibbon, hon. R.

Brady, Denis C.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Bridgeman, H.

Fitzsimon, C.

Brocklehurst, J.

Fleetwood, Peter H.

Brodie, W. B.

Folkes, Sir W.

Brotherton, J.

Fort, J.

Browne, R. D.

French, F.

Buller, Charles

Gaskell, Daniel

Buller, E.

Gillon, W. D.

Bulwer, H. L.

Gordon, Robert

Bulwer, Edw. L.

Goring, H. D.

Butler, hon. P.

Grattan, J.

Buxton, F.

Grattan, Henry

Byng, George

Grey, Sir Geo., Bt.

Byng, G. S.

Grote, George

Callaghan, D.

Guest, J.

Callaghan, Sir J.

Hall, Benjamin

Campbell, W. F.

Hallyburton, Lord D.

Carter, B.

Handley, H.

Cave, R. O.

Harland, Wm. Chas.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Harvey, D. W.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Hastie, A.

Cayley, Edward S.

Hawes, B.

Chalmers, P.

Hawkins, J. H.

Chapman, M. L.

Hay, Sir A. L., Bt.

Chetwynd, Captain

Heathcote, J.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Hector, C. J.

Clay, William

Hindley, C.

Clayton, Sir W.

Hobhouse, Sir J. C.

Clements, Viscount

Hodges, T. L.

Codrington, Sir E.

Hodges, T. T.

Colborne, N. W. R.

Holland, Edward

Collins, W.

Horsman, Edward

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Hoskins, K.

Crawford, W. S.

Howard, R.

Crawford, W.

Howard, P. H.

Crawley, S.

Howick, Viscount

Crompton, Samuel

Hume, J.

Curteis, H. B.

Humphery, J.

Curteis, H. B.

Hurst, R. H.

Dalmeny, Lord

Hutt, Wm.

Dennistoun, Alex.

James, W.

D'Eyncourt, C. T.

Jervis, John

Dillwynn, L. W.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Divett, E.

Johnston, Andrew

1112

King, Edward B.

Pryse, Pryse

Labouchere, H.

Ramsbottom, John

Lambton, H.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Langton, W. G.

Rippon, Cuthbert

Leader, J. T.

Robarts, A. W.

Lee, John Lee

Robinson, G. R.

Lefevre, Charles S.

Roche, William

Lemon, Sir C.

Roche, David

Lennard, Thomas B.

Roebuck, J. A.

Lennox, Lord George

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Lennox, Lord Arthur

Rooper, J. Bonfoy

Leveson, Lord

Rundle, J.

Loch, J.

Russell, Lord J.

Long, W.

Russell, Lord

Lushington, Dr.

Russell, Lord Charles

Lushington, C.

Ruthven, E.

Lynch, A. H.

Sanford, E. A.

Macnamara, Major

Scott, Sir E. D.

M'Taggart, J.

Scott, James W.

Maher, J.

Scourfield, W. H.

Mangles, J.

Scrope, G. P.

Marjoribanks, S.

Seale, Colonel

Marshall, W.

Seymour, Lord

Marsland, Henry

Sharpe, General

Martin, T.

Sheil, Richard L.

Maule, hon. F.

Simeon, Sir R. G.

Maxwell, John

Smith, J. A.

Methuen, P.

Smith, hon. R.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Smith, R. V.

Moreton, A.

Smith, B.

Morpeth, Viscount

Speirs, A.

Morrison, J.

Stanley, W. O.

Mosley, Sir O., Bt.

Steuart, R.

Mostyn, E.

Stewart, P. M.

Murray, rt. hon. J.

Stuart, Lord D.

Nagle, Sir R.

Stuart, Lord James

O'Brien, Cornelius

Stuart, V.

O'Connell, D.

Strangways, hon. J.

O'Connell, J.

Strickland, Sir G.

O'Connell, M. J.

Surrey, Earl

O'Connell, Morgan

Talbot, C. R. M.

O'Conor, Don

Talbot, J. Hyacinth

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Talfourd, Sergeant

Ord, W. H.

Tancred, H. W.

Oswald, James

Thomson, C. P.

Paget, Fred.

Thompson, Col.

Palmer, Gen.

Thornley, T.

Palmerston, Viscount

Tooke, W.

Parker, John

Townley, R. G.

Parnell, Sir H.

Tracy, Charles H.

Parrott, Jasper

Trelawney, Sir W.

Parry, Sir L. P.

Troubridge, Sir T.

Pattison, J.

Tulk, G. A.

Pease, J.

Turner, W.

Pechell, Captain R.

Tynte, Charles K. K.

Philips, M.

Tynte, C. J. K.

Philips, G. R.

Verney, Sir H., Bt.

Phillips, Charles M.

Villiers, C. P.

Pinney, William

Vivian, J. H.

Ponsonby, W.

Wakley, T.

Ponsonby, J.

Walker, C. A.

Potter, R.

Walker, R.

Poulter, John Sayer

Wallace, R.

Power, James

Warburton, H.

Power, John

Ward, H. George

Poynt, W. Stephen

Wason, R.

Pryme, George

Westenra, hon. H. R.

1113

Whalley, Sir S.

Winnington, H. J.

White, Samuel

Wood, Alderman

Wigney, I. N.

Worsley, Lord

Wilbraham, G.

Woulfe, Sergeant

Wilde, Sergeant

Wrightson, W. Battie

Wilks, John

Wrottesley, Sir J., Bt.

Williams, W.

Wyse, T.

Williams, W. A.

Young, G. F.

Williams, Sir J.

Williamson, Sir H.

TELLERS.

Wilson, Henry

Wood, Charles

Winnington, Sir T.

Stanley, Edward J.

List of the NOES.

Agnew, Sir A., Bt.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Alford, Viscount

Corry, H.

Alsager, Capt.

Cripps, J.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Dalbiac, Sir C.

Archdall, M.

Damer, D.

Ashley, Viscount

Darlington, Earl of

Ashley, hon. H.

Davenport, John

Bagot, hon. W.

Dick, Q.

Bailey, J.

Dottin, Abel Rous

Baillie, H. D.

Dowdeswell, Wm.

Balfour, T.

Duffield, Thomas

Barclay, C.

Dunbar, George

Baring, Francis

Duncombe, W.

Baring, H. Bingham

Duncombe, hon. A.

Baring, W. B.

East, J. B.

Baring, T.

Eastnor, Viscount

Barneby, John

Eaton, Richard J.

Bateson, Sir R.

Egerton, Sir P.

Beckett, Sir J.

Egerton, Lord F.

Bell, M.

Elley, Sir J.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Elwes, J.

Bethell, Richard

Estcourt, T. G.

Blackburne, John I.

Estcourt, T. H.

Blackstone, W. S.

Fancourt, Major

Boldero, Capt. H. G.

Farrand, R.

Bolling, Wm.

Fector, J. M.

Bonham, R. Francis

Feilden, William

Borthwick, Peter

Ferguson, G.

Bowles, G. R.

Finch, George

Bradshaw, James

Fleming, John

Bramston, T. W.

Foley, Edw. Thomas

Brownrigg, S.

Follett, Sir W.

Bruce, Lord E.

Forbes, W.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Forester, hon. G.

Bruen, Col.

Freshfield, James W.

Bruen, F.

Gaskell, Jas. Milnes

Buller, Sir J. B. Yarde

Geary, Sir W.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Gladstone, T.

Campbell, Sir H.

Gladstone, W. E.

Canning, rt. hon. Sir S.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Castlereagh, Visc.

Goodricke, Sir F.

Chandos, Marq. of

Gordon, hon. W.

Chaplin, Col.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Chapman, A.

Goulburn, Sergeant

Charlton, E. L.

Graham, Sir J.

Chichester, A.

Grant, hon. Colonel

Clive, Viscount

Greene, T.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Griesley, Sir R.

Codrington, C. W.

Grimston, Viscount

Cole, A. H.

Grimston, hon. E. H.

Cole, Viscount

Hale, Robert B.

Compton, H. C.

Halfourd, H.

Cooper, E.

Hamilton, Geo. Alex.

1114

Hamilton, Viscount

Packe, C. W.

Hanmer, Henry

Palmer, Robert

Hanmer, Sir J.

Palmer, George

Harcourt, G.

Parker, M.

Harcourt, G. S.

Patten, J. Wilson

Hardinge, Sir H.

Peel, Sir R., Bt.

Hardy, J.

Peel, Colonel J.

Hawkes, T.

Peel, W. Y.

Hayes, Sir Edm. S.

Pelham, hon. C.

Henniker, Lord

Pemberton, Thomas

Herbert, hon. Sydney

Perceval, Col.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Pigot, Robert

Hillsborough, Earl of

Polhill, Frederick

Hogg, J. W.

Pollen, Sir J., Bt.

Hope, hon. James

Pollington, Viscount

Hope, Henry T.

Pollock, Sir F.

Hotham, Lord

Powell, Colonel

Houstoun, G.

Praed, W. M.

Hoy, J. B.

Price, S. G.

Hughes, Hughes

Pringle, A.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Rae, Sir Wm., Bt.

Irton, Samuel

Reid, Sir J. R.

Jermyn, Earl

Richards, J.

Jones, Wilson

Richards, R.

Jones, Theobald

Rickford, W.

Kearsley, J. H.

Ross, Charles

Kerrison, Sir Edw.

Russell, C.

Kirk, Peter

Ryle, John

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Sanderson, R.

Knight, H. G.

Sandon, Viscount

Knightley, Sir C.

Scarlett, hon. R.

Law, hon. Charles E.

Scott, Lord J.

Lawson, Andrew

Shaw, F.

Lees, J. F.

Sheppard, T.

Lefroy, A.

Shirley, E. J.

Lefroy, Thomas

Sibthorp, Col.

Lewis, David

Sinclair, Sir G.

Lewis, Wyndham

Smith, A.

Lowther, Col. H. C.

Smith, T. A.

Lowther, Viscount

Somerset, Lord G.

Lowther, J. H.

Stanley, E.

Lucas, Edward

Stanley, Lord

Lushington, S.

Stewart, John

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Sturt, Henry Charles

Mackinnon, W. A.

Tennent, J. E.

Maclean, Donald

Thomas, Colonel

Mahon, Viscount

Thompson, Ald.

Manners, Lord C.

Tollemache, hon. A.

Marsland, T.

Trench, Sir Fred.

Martin, J.

Trevor, hon. A.

Mathew, Captain

Twiss, H.

Maunsell, T. P.

Tyrrell, Sir J.

Maxwell, H.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Meynell, Captain

Verner, Colonel

Miles, William

Vesey, hon. T.

Miles, P. J.

Vivian, J. E.

Miller, Wm. Henry

Vyvyan, Sir R.

Mordaunt, Sir J., Bt.

Wall, C. B.

Morgan, Chas. M. R.

Walpole, Lord

Neeld, J.

Walter, John

Neeld, John

West, J. B.

Nicholl, Dr.

Weyland, Major

Norreys, Lord

Whitmore, Thos.

O'Neill, General

Wilbraham, B.

Ossulston, Viscount

Williams, Robert

Owen, Sir J., Bt.

Williams, T. P.

Owen, Hugh

Wodehouse, E.

1115

Wood, Colonel

Young, J.

Wortley, hon. J.

Young, Sir W.

Wyndham, Wadham

TELLERS.

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

Clerk, Sir J.

Yorke, E. T.

Fremantle, Sir T. W.

Paired Off.

FOR.

AGAINST.

Angerstein, J.

Calcraft, J. H.

Baldwin, Dr.

Longfield, R.

Bodkin, J. J.

Mandeville, Visc.

Brabazon, Sir W.

Lopez, Sir R.

Buckingham, J. S.

Somerset, Lord E.

Burdon, W. W.

Hodgson, Hinde

Burton, H.

Ker, D.

Clive, E. B.

Price, R.

Childers, J. W.

Dugdale, W. S.

Collier, J.

Hill, Sir R.

Conyngham, Lord A.

Chisholm, A. W.

Cookes, T. H.

Houldsworth, T.

Denison, J. E.

Harcourt, Granville

Finn, W.

Stormont, Viscount

Fitzsimon, N.

Conolly, Col. E. M.

Forster, C. S.

Cartwright, W. R.

Gisborne, T.

Peel, Edmund

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Egerton, T.

Gully, John

Smythe, Sir H.

Heneage, E.

Corbett, Thomas G.

Heron, Sir R.

Welby, Glynne Earl

Jeplison, C. D. O.

Jackson, Sergeant

Lister, E. C.

Halse, James

Milton, Viscount

Lincoln, Earl of

Oliphant, Thomas

Johnstone, Hope

Price, Sir R.

Trevor, Rice

Thompson, P. B.

Beresford, Sir J.

Vivian, Major

Wynn, Sir W.

Wemyss, Colonel

Rushbrooke, R.

Westenra, H. R.

Gore, W. O.

Bill read a third time and passed.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Marine Mutiny; Edinburgh Police.
Petitions presented. By Lords ROLLE, ASHBURTON, and other Noble LORDS, from Hawkchurch, Isle of Thanet, and other places, against the Abolition; and by Viscount MELBOURNE, the Duke of CLEVELAND, and other. Noble LORDS, from Haddington and various other places, for the Abolition of Church-rates.—By Lord SKELMERSDALE, from the Medical Profession and Bolton-le-Moors, for Alteration of Poor-law Amendment Act relating to the Remuneration of Medical Men for Attendance on the Poor.

OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE STATUTES.
The Order of the Day for the Second Reading of the Oxford and Cambridge Statutes Bill having been read,
The Earl of Radnorbegged to apologize to their Lordships for occupying so much time by having caused the several petitions against the Bill, the second reading of which he was about to move, to have been read at length; but he had done so with the view of seeing what were the grounds upon which the petitioners objected to the Bill. He was, so far as his own feelings were concerned, exceedingly glad that those petitions had been read, for instead of furnishing arguments against, or just grounds of objection to, the Bill, he conceived that they afforded very strong and urgent reasons why their prayer should not be complied with, and why their Lordships should agree to the second reading of the Bill. In the last petition presented by the noble and learned Lord opposite, from the College of Wadham, the petitioners stated that, besides the Bill being unjust and arbitrary, it would be peculiarly oppressive to their consciences, inasmuch as they were already sworn to obey the statute of the founder, and none other. Now, such of their Lordships as might not be aware of the fact would assuredly be surprised when he informed them that not very many years ago the members of that college did not consider it a matter of oppression to their consciences to disobey the statute of the founder. Feeling the irksomeness of the situation and circumstances in which that
1002
statute had placed them, they applied to Parliament to relieve them from their difficulties, and it was actually under a new Act of Parliament which amounted to a new foundation, that they were now flourishing in the manner described in the petition. How, then, they could state, that they felt themselves bound conscientiously to adhere to the strict letter of the original statute was for them, not him, to explain. He thought their Lordships would find it a matter of very great difficulty to decide what they ought to do, if they deemed it necessary to act upon the petitions which had been that evening presented. In some of these petitions it was stated, that they felt themselves bound by a solemn oath to adhere to the original statute—an oath from which even the visitor could not release them. In the petitions from New College, Oxford, and King's College, Cambridge, it was stated, that if the visitor made any alteration contrary to the provisions of the original statute, they were bound upon oath to disobey it; while in the petitions from Jesus, Brazennose, and Oriel Colleges, Oxford, presented by the right rev. Prelate, it was stated, that the visitor had the power to alter the statute to meet the difficulties of the times. Thus, then, they had some petitions against the Bill, on the ground that the members of the Colleges were bound by oath to the original statute; they had others presented against it upon an opposite ground—namely, that they already had the power of altering the statute, and that that power was vested in the hands of the visitor. [A right rev. Prelate: Not the visitors, the masters and fellows.] That made no difference if the power existed. Both reasons, it was obvious, could not be good against the Bill, although, in his opinion, they might both be advanced in favour of it. With regard to the statutes of the King's College and other colleges, which were 200 or 300 years old, he thought it an absolute absurdity to say, that they should not be altered to meet the difficulties and altered circumstances of the times. One of the Universities had petitioned against the Bill, and the other had not. The University of Oxford petitioned against the Bill on a ground which appeared to him to be very extraordinary; namely, that these colleges were public branches or members of the university. Now, it was manifest, that they were no such thing.

1003
They were no more branches of the university than they were of the corporation of Oxford. The university existed long before the corporation, and was totally independent of it, as it was also of the colleges; and if the object of this Bill was, as it was not, though the petitioners seemed to understand it to be, to confiscate the property of the colleges, it would not impair the university. It would still exist with the same force, and the charter would have the same force, and therefore the university would not be at all affected by anything that affected the colleges, unless incidentally. But he would take the statement as brought forward by the universities. The universities considered these bodies as public bodies, but the petitioners stated that they were private houses or benefactions, and that they were altogether private. In this they were perfectly correct as to those foundations being private eleemosynary foundations. There was no doubt of this, and the university had no more to do with them than the town-council. They might petition against the Bill, but they were not interested in it, as the Bill did not affect the university. It might be said that it was a most unjustifiable proceeding to interfere with these private eleemosynary foundations. Before he went any further, he must say, that he considered that a very unfortunate statute which had been passed which required that every member of the university should also be a member of some college. The colleges thus, as far as the right to interfere went, were taken out of the privileges which, as private houses, they would possess. The two universities had an entire monopoly of the education of the clergy of the Established Church, and almost all the highest offices in the Church. There were large emoluments which came to the persons who enjoyed this monopoly, and the situation was one of so much consequence and importance to the country in general, that they could hardly in such a case look upon it as a private establishment. Many of these petitioners stated, that the allegations contained in the preamble of the Bill were not true; that they had not mismanaged their property, nor were they guilty of the other charges laid to them; and that it was not necessary that the provisions of this Bill should be applied to them. It was indubitably true, that many of the petitioners had done nothing to bring them within the allegations of this Bill;
1004
but he believed he should only fail to prove the preamble of the Bill, because he had not the means of knowing what the real facts of the case were. As far as he knew, or had the means of knowing, he must say, that the allegations of the Bill were completely made out. But he believed that some of the colleges were even sworn to secrecy, and in general the terms of the foundations were unknown to the members of the colleges themselves. But there were two colleges, the statutes of which had been published by the House of Commons, twenty-eight years ago; and the examinations of their statutes would make out most completely their total dereliction from the spirit and intention of the founders, and the violation of the original statutes. It might be said, that it was not altogether fair, because this was done with respect to two colleges, to bring the other colleges under the operation of this Act, because of the improper conduct of two colleges. But he thought he had a right to infer, that the other colleges were guilty of much the same faults. In every respect in which he could trace or make out what was the object of the founders, he found the other colleges to be perfectly the same, and to have acted in unison with the two colleges he should mention. These two were the most important in either of the two universities—they were the colleges of Trinity and of St. John, Cambridge; and he hoped to be able to make out, to the satisfaction of their Lordships, that these two colleges had departed from the spirit of the original founders, and from the intention of those founders as expressed in their wills, and that they called for some measure of correction. He hoped that they would apply to the other colleges the same measure of correction, if he should be able to make out that the original provisions of the wills and the dispositions of the founders were the same with respect to them as to the other colleges. These colleges were originally founded for the benefit of poor scholars, under particular circumstances pointed out, and for the purpose stated. In every one of the statutes this was insisted upon as a most material provision. The words inopes, pauperes, et valde pauperes, were repeated ad nauseam. But he would ask, was this the class of persons that now derived the benefit from these foundations? In some of the modern colleges, for reasons which he knew not, a sort of test was

1005
directed to be applied, so that no person should be entitled to be elected who was worth 5l. a-year; and in some other colleges fellowships were made vacant on the fellows becoming possessed of an income of 10 l. But these rules were now completely evaded. He was ready to admit that 5l. in these times was a very different sum from what it was when these rules were made, and so far he was willing to make a fair allowance, but the manner in which the statute was evaded was by selling all their landed property, and investing the proceeds in the funds; it being held that the rules did not apply to funded property. There were many reasons to show that, according to the original intention of the founders, the individuals benefiting under their wills were to be poor persons. The noble Lord referred to the regulation of All-Souls, Sidney-Sussex, and Merton colleges, to prove that the original intention of the founders was for the benefit of poor persons. There was a singular occurrence connected with Merton college, Oxford, where there was a regulation that if any one of these poor men fell sick, so that he should not be able to proceed with his studies for one year, he should be removed to the hospital or alms-houses of Basingstoke. And the provision of these foundations was, that the fellows should be constantly resident; and if these houses were meant as places where these poor persons should be enabled to study, it was very natural that they should be required to reside there constantly. This rule was not complied with now-a-days. Some years ago a right rev. Prelate wrote a work against the practice of fellows being allowed to be non-resident. He stated, that only one sixth of the whole number of fellows was resident. The question was, not whether the present mode was useful or convenient, but whether it was not a deviation from, and inconsistent with, the original intentions of the founders. For instance, the original founder, in one case, built rooms for forty fellows, whilst, at the present time, there were not more than thirteen or fourteen fellows. Out of this number, there were (so we understood) thirteen honorary fellows, and one who was a Knight Grand Cross of the Guelphic Order, who was at present employed on a special embassy to Constantinople. In Trinity College, he believed not one-fourth of the number of fellows was resident, and some of them
1006
were in situations which were totally inconsistent with their fellowships; for instance, one was head master of a school at Wakefield, another held the same situation at Leicester, and various others were similarly engaged. He was not about to discuss whether it was right to say that they should be resident or not; the question was, whether they were not bound, in compliance with the will of the founders, to reside if the founders expressly directed that they should reside. It appeared, that a senior fellow of Merton College was at this moment a lieutenant-general in his Majesty's service; and that a senior fellow of Brasenose College held a stall in Hereford cathedral, held three livings in the same diocese, which returned him 1,100 l. a year, and had a cure of 3,000 souls, while he was himself resident in Paris.
The Bishop of Hereford: He holds only two livings.
The Earl of Radnor: Upon referring to the book, I find that he holds three livings.
The Bishop of Hereford: Two of those which appear to be separate, in consequence of their being two separate curates, constitute but one benefice.
The Earl of Radnor, in continuation, observed that, at all events, the continued residence of this gentleman in Paris could not be justified. With respect to "domestic superintendence," he observed that, although the fellows and masters derived from the different university establishments very large funds to be applied to the tuition and domestic superintendence of pupils, their doors were open to the reception of such pupils only nominally, and without any beneficial effect. So little was the master really attended to at present, that, wherever a sincere desire existed on the part of a young man, practically to reap the benefit of an university education, the services of a private tutor must be secured. At Trinity College, Cambridge, the sum paid annually to public tutors by the under-graduates was 4,000 l., and the sum paid to private tutors was not less than 10,000 l. per annum. He contended, that the system which at present prevailed in this respect, was in downright violation of the original statutes, as well as of what must obviously have been the intention of the founders. The will of the founder was not less obstructed with reference to the distribution of the funds set apart for the maintenance of the

1007
fellows. In proportion as these funds increased in amount, the intention must have been in every case, that the number of fellows should increase in the same ratio. Undoubtedly, there were some instances in which the will of the founder was in this matter complied with, but in Merton College, which was founded 600 years ago, the fellows were exactly the same in number as at the period of its foundation, although their revenues had increased most considerably. The total number of fellowships had increased, but not the number of fellows on the old foundation. There was only one college, as far as he knew—the Queen's College, Oxford—in which the number of fellows had increased, the number at the foundation having been twelve, and the present number sixteen. In St. Catherine's-hall, Cambridge, the number of fellows was, by Royal visitation, doubled, during the reign of Edward 6th; but no increase in the number had since taken place. Another ground of serious complaint was the mal-distribution of these funds, the senior fellows engrossing to themselves exactly double the amount which the junior fellows were permitted to receive. These were matters which certainly called for legislative interference. It was said, that Parliament could not interfere, that it never had interfered, with eleemosynary foundations. Now, it so happened, that there were several Acts of Parliament interfering with institutions of this description, and one in particular, which was passed not long since for the regulation of certain charitable funds. Who could dispute the right of the Legislature to interfere for the purpose of preventing the misappropriation of funds amounting (like those of the two Universities of Oxford and Cambridge) to no less a sum than 200,000 l. per annum? There was another point which more than anything else influenced his determination to submit this matter to the consideration of their Lordships' House. This was the very serious matter of an habitual violation of oaths. The petition which had been presented in an early part of the evening from St. John's College, Cambridge, stated, that the Legislature was not called on to interfere, inasmuch as the visitors had power to correct all abuses. Now, it so happened, that this was contrary to the University statutes, which contained a positive prohibition of any change being introduced
1008
into the existing regulations. He had a copy of a book published 150 years since, by an individual learned in the law, who had had a dispute with a master of Trinity College, and who alleged, and proved by a reference to authorities, that every one of the statutes was constantly violated in the management of that College. The same course had been persevered in up to the present period. One of these statutes enacted, that no conversation should be held in the College except in the Latin, Greek, or Hebrew language. To change this statute might be very proper, but so long as it remained unchanged, could it be proper to swear to its observance? Another of the statutes prescribed, that the nine lecturers should, for the amusement of the College youth, enact plays in the College-hall during the Christmas holydays, the junior fellows two by two, and the senior lecturer, in consequence of his greater dignity, singly. At present there were but eight, instead of nine, lecturers; so that to comply with this statute was impossible, although they swore to its observance. The master swore that he would see these statutes enforced, and that he would act in conformity to this oath—"Veré, sinceré, et sensu grammatico." For instance, the master swore to an observance of the statutes. The statutes required that the master was not to be married. The present master of Trinity College, Cambridge, was not married, he was a widower. It was said, that there were dispensations granted by the Crown. He did not know that it was in the power of the Crown to grant dispensations for the observance of oaths. In what capacity could the Crown grant such dispensations? Was it in its capacity as head of the State, or as head of the Church? In another case, the statute required that the vice-master should be a bachelor of divinity. That was not complied with. The noble Lord then read an extract from a judgment given by Lord Eldon in 1828, in a case which had arisen out of the disputed appointment of a bursar. The passage was to the effect, that the true and obvious meaning of the statute could not be sacrificed to considerations of convenience; and that a violation of the statute, in its obvious meaning, must be considered as substantially violating the oath. The noble Lord concluded by stating, that his Bill proposed to provide a remedy for the two evils of a non-compliance with

1009
the intentions of the original founders of these Colleges, and of the habitual violation of oaths.
He moved that it be read a second time.
The Bishop of Llandafftrusted, that the view which he took of the solemn obligation of an oath was quite as serious as that which had been taken by the noble Lord. He could not, at the same time, forget that the meaning of oaths differed (as all rational men must admit) according to the terms in which they were couched, and that some oaths, as the form in which they were worded implied, were to be interpreted according to the true tenour and spirit of the statute, and according to what the party swearing believed in his conscience to be the real intention of its framers, who, living at a remote period, had often ignorantly prescribed minute details, the literal observance of which, under the altered circumstances of the times, would positively defeat their own purpose. He verily believed, that in most instances these statutes had been departed from, from an anxious desire to carry into effect the genuine designs of the founders. At all events, he knew that these were the motives which were in force during the period of his connexion with Oxford University; and that in the deviations with which he was identified, he had always kept in view the intentions of the founders. He had ever figured to himself what would be the sentiments of the founders if they still remained alive, and looked to the benefits which must necessarily accrue from a departure from the letter of the statute, and from the better adaptation of its provisions to the altered state of society. Such were the feelings which operated in the minds of those who enjoyed power at the universities; and if any comment at all were made upon this subject, it should rather be in the shape of commendation than censure. In the preamble of the noble Earl's Bill it was set forth, that the colleges were "possessed of great funds to provide for the education of poor and indigent persons." He really thought that the noble Earl had here evinced a misconception of the intentions of the founders. Though the collegiate funds were technically called "eleemosynary," they were totally distinguished from the funds of almshouses and other similar institutions. The common object of all the university statutes was to provide for the careful education and moral superintendence of young men for
1010
the service of God in the church. The noble Lord had said, that a shilling a week had been stated in the original statute as an ample provision for the maintenance of these young men, and that sum had in modern times been vastly exceeded. Now it was quite evident that this excess was essentially necessary, in order to provide a decent maintenance for those who, without this aid, could not maintain themselves comfortably in literary pursuits. With regard to the question of residence, it was well known to be better for the world generally, and more conformable to the intentions of the founders, that a literal adhesion to the statute in this respect should not be required. If there were any point in which he could say that he agreed with the noble Earl, it would be in that of joining him in recommending an inquiry from which might be expected to result a statement of the names of those members of universities who did not reside in their colleges, yet kept rooms, and whether those rooms were now open for the reception of any other students who might be willing to avail themselves of the intention of the founder. In the course of the speech of the noble Earl, and more particularly in the course of the remarks which he made upon the various petitions which had been presented, he appeared to triumph in what he considered to be inconsistencies in those petitions—not any inconsistency between different portions of the same petition, but alleged inconsistencies as between the several petitions—contradictions of each other. He confessed it did surprise him to hear such an observation come from the noble Earl; for what was more natural than that each class of petitioners should view the question as it applied to his own case? The noble Earl had dealt in many allegations, but he had brought forward none—at least he had not succeeded in establishing any sufficient to entitle him to call upon bodies such as colleges to produce their title-deeds, to bring forward their Statutes, to lay before a commission their private regulations, and subject themselves in all things to the dictation of an authority so constituted. A proceeding of that nature as it appeared to him, ought to be preceded at least by an inquiry instituted before a Committee of that House. A commission such as the noble Earl contemplated was usually preceded by a measure of that sort. It was also material that the House

1011
should not sanction anything that bore the appearance of an intention to inflict an indignity upon the universities of this country; and he should certainly say, that to treat them in the manner proposed by the noble Lord would be nothing short of saying that they ought to be regarded in the light of mere alms houses. It was not so that they ought to be viewed; they were established as the House well knew, amongst other purposes, for that of raising the character of religion in England, and for creating a barrier against the military strength of the Barons. If the purpose of the noble Earl were to relieve those who have the government of universities from the pressure of such existing obligations as they could not otherwise be relieved from, he should be most happy to co-operate with the noble Earl in accomplishing such purpose; but as to interference in the manner proposed by the Bill, then under their Lordships' consideration, it did appear to him unjust and inexpedient. It did appear to him, also, exceedingly unfair to require that an oath imposed by the will of a donor five centuries ago should be defeated in its intention and spirit by enforcing with respect to it a literal interpretation. He trusted, he need hardly say, that he entertained as high a sense of the obligation of an oath as any man could possibly feel, but he was for a liberal interpretation of the oaths required by the statutes. They could not in all cases adhere to the literal interpretation of the passages in those oaths; but they should do as it was declared in a statute of Edward 2nd.: where changes were required that could not be foreseen they should make such changes as would be "ad conservationem institutionis," for the purpose of carrying into effect the institutions, and in accordance with the object, of the founders. He hoped the noble Earl, would do him the justice to believe that he did not wish to insinuate that he could be actuated by any other than the purest possible motives, but he certainly must be allowed to say, that the noble Earl had not well considered the character of the institutions for which he proposed to legislate; still, as he said before, if the object could be effected with less apparent violation of that which must be considered the rights of the colleges, he repeated, that the noble Earl should have his support. The right rev. Prelate concluded by moving, that the
1012
Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Lord Hollandobserved, that he agreed in much that had fallen from the right rev. Prelate. The premises of the right. rev. and learned Prelate were excellent, but they were in direct opposition to the conclusion to which he had come. Every word that had been said by the learned and right rev. Prelate was in favour of the Bill that his noble Friend had introduced, and which was then under the consideration of their Lordships. He agreed with the right rev. Prelate, that most persons would like to be relieved from the ancient statutes under which those colleges were founded. He was sure that what the right rev. Prelate had done in connexion with the Universities was in the spirit of the founders. He agreed, too, with the right rev. Prelate, that as to many of the statutes, and many of the provisions, it would be wise, it would be advantageous to the public, to the colleges, and to individuals, that they should be dispensed with. But he would ask, what was the object of this Bill? It was to dispense with that by law, and without any violation of moral duty whatever, which was now dispensed with in a way that, at least, gave a considerable handle to scand 1 and to misrepresentation. These regulations might be wrong, and he might agree with the right rev. Prelate that they were; but why maintain a statute prescribing them, and why take an oath to observe them, unless it was right that they should be observed and maintained? It appeared to him that the right rev. Prelate did not disagree much with the object of his noble Friend, but with the process by which he proposed to effect it. The rev. and learned Lord seemed to think, that the necessary change ought to be left to be effected by those persons who, as he said, had taken an oath to observe the contrary. The rev. and learned Lord had treated the proposition of his noble Friend as if he had proposed the appointment of a commission against the heads of houses, and against the University of Oxford. It was not that, however. There existed an evil, and the question was, how were they to get rid of it? The rev. and learned Lord said, and he thought truly, that it was not a statesman-like way to view the oaths to give them the restricted interpretation which

1013
he had put on them. In agreeing, however, with the rev. and learned Lord in this respect, he must observe, that the rev. and learned Lord had not shown the advantage of keeping these oaths in their present form. He would ask, were there no disadvantages arising from them? And he would put it to the consciences, the honor, and the good feeling of the noble Lords around him, whether if, in reference to other interests than those of a college, and in another place, it were proposed to maintain an oath which was not strictly observed, they would not have abundant quotations from some such book as Dens's Theology—whether they would not hear of the jesuitical pretences under which the sacred obligations of an oath were dispensed with, and of the subtle and crafty manner in which certain parlies who had sworn to do one thing pleaded their right to do another? He did not think that such a charge would be just against such individuals, but he would recommend the members of the colleges to consider in what way these questions were met when it was thought useful—in what way they were met by those very persons who now said, that the oaths were inconvenient, but it was better to get rid of them by a direct or an indirect violation of them than by an alteration of the oaths themselves. The persons who opposed this Bill seemed to him to place themselves in an awkward dilemma. They stated in their petitions that they could not allow any investigation—that they must resist any innovation of the existing system, because the words of their founder and the words of the statute precluded them from consenting to it; but then, when they were told that the words of their founder, that the words of their statutes, and that the words of their oaths, called on them to do certain things which they neglected, they said, "Would you wish us to do such foolish things as those? No, we act according to what we conceive to be the spirit of the founder; we place ourselves in the situation in which the founder would be were he present to consider himself what is now going on." He begged to ask those individuals, did they think, if the founder could know what was the present situation of affairs, and could act with reference to it, would he not petition this House and the other House of Parliament and the Crown to interfere, and do that which would be most advan-
1014
tageous to the University? And what would they do but that which the Bill of his noble Friend proposed? The Bill did not charge any delinquencies, it did not visit with any punishment, it was not in the nature of a penal enactment. He did not understand his noble Friend to go further than to ask for a Commission to be granted to inquire into the circumstances. That there was scarcely a college that had not departed from the original statutes would not admit of a doubt. Were there not provisions for mass to be said for the departed souls, and for other observances common to the Roman Catholic faith, and had they not been all departed from? On what authority he would ask? [The Bishop of Llandaff: The law of the land.] That was just what he said, and what he wished in all cases when the statutes were habitu ay departed from. But the petitioners from the colleges declared, that they had taken an oath which they must adhere to, nor could they allow any authority in the law of the land to dispense with that oath. They did not say so when the law of the land came in the shape of Henry 8th. The authority then was too formidable to be disputed. But where the law of the land appeared under the authority of the King, Lords, and Commons, then forsooth, was trumped up this extreme difficulty that, they could not depart from this oath, which the rev. and learned Lord said they were now in the habit of dispensing with, because their doing so was thought to be advantageous to the community.
The Bishop of Llandaffwould gladly co-operate with the noble Lord in carrying a measure free from the objections which he considered attaching to this.
Lord Hollandwished to know how the rev. and learned Lord could tell, in the event of this Bill becoming law, that the Commissioners in their Report would not continue their recommendations to the very things the rev. and learned Lord himself approved. If the truth were with the rev. and learned Lord, and the Commissioners thought it was, the result would be that his suggestions would be acted upon, and nothing more would be done. The only question was, whether there was the power to do what was required without this Bill. If there were not—and he contended there was not—the right rev. Prelate would be voting

1015
against his own propositions, and against his own wishes, in voting against this Bill.
The Bishop of Llandaffexplained. One part of the Bill proposed to release the members of Colleges from the observance of the statutes in all minute particulars. He feared that the measure would not tend to raise the character of the obligation of an oath throughout the country at large. The objects contemplated could be fully accomplished without any measure of this kind. The measure which was now proposed as a measure of relief to the parties was, in his mind, a Bill of pains and penalties.
The Marquess of Camdenopposed the Bill altogether. It was unjust to the parties most interested. The preamble of the Bill was not proved. There were no facts established on which the allegations in that preamble could be founded, and there was no desire for this measure on the part of the Universities themselves.
The Archbishop of Canterburyfelt that he would be wanting in his duty if he suffered the attacks which had been made on the Universities to remain unreplied to. He wished to prevent an opinion from arising discreditable to the Universities, as must be the case if it was supposed, from what the noble Earl had stated in the first instance, that there existed a general disobedience to the statutes of the Colleges, and that this was accompanied by a general disregard of the oaths taken to observe them. He must confess that he was surprised at the tone of the argument used by the noble Earl. He thought that the noble Earl attempted to show that these Universities, which were the pride of the country and the admiration of the world, had ceased to fulfil the purposes for which they were originally instituted, and that it was necessary to bring forward this measure. This was exactly set forth in the preamble of the Bill. The noble Baron had stated, that this measure merely proposed an inquiry into this subject. But surely their Lordships knew that the visitors of Colleges had at present the power to make this inquiry, and surely it could not be doubted but that they were interested in any improvements that they held to be desirous or advantageous. The visitors and the heads of Colleges had full power to remedy any abuses that existed. He had listened with particular attention to what the noble Earl had stated with
1016
respect to the preamble of the Bill. That preamble contained allegations of a very serious nature. It stated that whereas these Universities were originally established for the promotion of religion and virtue, and the encouragement of liberal arts, &c. Now the allegations that these Universities had departed from the fulfilment of those original purposes ought to be proved. But what did the noble Earl confine himself to? To the single instance of the duty of Universities to provide for the education of indigent persons. Had it been shown that they had failed in the promotion of religion and virtue, or that they did not produce many eminent persons both in Church and State? But, with respect to the instance to which the noble Earl had particularly directed his argument, namely, the education of the poor and indigent, on this point he would refer to a very eminent and ancient authority in the Romish Church, who was held in high repute in the Ecclesiastical Colleges in most of the continental countries, and his application of the meaning of this provision for the education of the indigent was, that it should be held to apply to those whose parents, taking all circumstances into consideration, were not equal to the expense of maintaining their sons at Colleges. Now that was the interpretation that was put upon this part of the ancient statutes in all the Colleges of either of the Universities with which he was acquainted. This was the rule on which the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford generally acted. He had the honour to be visitor of Baliol College, and in that College the qualifications for a candidate were threefold. They provided that the qualifications for every candidate should be learning, good morals, and poverty, and supposing candidates to be perfectly equal in the qualifications of learning and morals, they then gave the preference to the poorer candidate. The noble Earl had alluded to another College in Oxford which had a foundation sui generis. He was not competent to enter into all the details of the statutes connected with this foundation, but when the petitioners stated that the original founder had a right to bestow his property as he thought fit they did not say any more than what was perfectly true. He was a visitor of that College, and he knew that several alterations had taken place. With respect to Baliol College, the Master and Fellows

1017
had, according to the ancient statutes, a right to appoint each a scholar, who, according to the notion of the original founder, was to be considered a servitor, and was to pay for his education by his personal service to the Master and Fellow who appointed him. This custom were with the age, and without violating the notion of the original founder they thought that, instead of each Master appointing a scholar, the appointments generally should be open to election. But they did not proceed ad libitum to the alteration of the statutes. They applied to him as visitor to the college and he felt happy to give his full sanction to that alteration. Now, when such a power of making useful alterations existed and when it had been so beneficially exercised, why send commissioners to violate those institutions which had existed for upwards of six hundred years? Why not send the visitors, and let them inquire whether there were any objectionable deviations from the Statutes? He thought any power of making alterations in the statutes ought to receive the sanction of the visitors. He was not sufficiently acquainted with all these institutions to take upon himself to enter minutely into the practices of other colleges. He spoke merely of those with which he was personally acquainted, and with which he was officially connected. He had received a communication from the Bishop of Exeter, in which he requested him to state that in the College of Exeter no deviation from the statutes took place without the previous sanction of the visitors. The noble Baron (Lord Holland) had stated that many of these foundations existed before the Reformation, and that many of the ancient provisions fell consequently into desuetude. But why did that happen? Merely because they were at variance with the existing law of the land. If he properly understood the speech of the noble Earl his object appeared to be to restore things to their ancient state. If there were abuses there could be no objection to put an end to them; but no case had been made out? Had there been any case to show that there was any violation of oaths? Before they proceeded to pass such a censure upon the Universities they should have all the statutes before them, and see whether there might not be certain observances in some statutes from which other statutes contained a dispensing power. There were some which might be
1018
dispensed with, whilst there were others that did not admit of being dispensed with. There was nothing to determine their Lordships to vote in favour of the Bill before them, without better information than they at present possessed on the subject. The Commissioners were to be appointed by virtue of an Act of Parliament, and they had the power to confer on any one or two of their members whom they thought best to send on any special mission the same powers which they exercised in their corporate capacity. He did not see why the Bishop of Winchester, or the Bishop of York, or even the Archbishop of Canterbury, in their capacity of visitors, were not fully competent to make any inquiry that was useful and necessary. In conclusion, he must say, that he hoped their lordships would not consent to this Bill, and that they would thus show their respect for those ancient institutions so celebrated for their learning and piety, and from which all liberal professions of the country were supplied with their brightest ornaments. He did not think that their lordships could injustice or reason, consent to this Bill, and he confidently trusted that their decision would convince him that he was not wrong in that expectation. He would vote for the amendment.
Viscount Melbournesaid, it was his intention to say "content," to the Bill, and he could not, therefore, suffer the opportunity to pass without making a very few observations. He entirely agreed with the very rev. Prelate in the respect which he claimed for these institutions; he entirely agreed with him in reference to the great men they had produced, the parts they had acted in public life, the character they had displayed; and he also agreed with him as to the ennobling character of the pursuits and studies carried on at these two great national establishments. He also was aware of the difficult task which the teachers and guardians of these institutions had to perform; of all the prejudices and passions which they had to contend with; and he was therefore most anxious to make great allowances for the difficulties they had to encounter in the discharge of their duties; but at the same time, he agreed with the noble Marquess, (the Chancellor of Cambridge) that it was the duty of their Lordships to consider how the machinery of these institutions worked, what effect it had on the youth committed to the charge of the teachers,

1019
and also what effect it had on the religion and morality of the country. He could say, however, from his own experience, that there had been too much loss of everything that was dear in society — too much loss of wealth—too much loss of high and varied talents—too much loss of fair and unblemished character, which had found in the universities a sudden and untimely grave, to pronounce unqualified approbation of these ancient institutions. He would not say, therefore, that they did not require investigation or improvement. He agreed also with the most rev. Prelate that improvements had been made, but that very admission showed that the colleges needed improvement—that they had not acted up to the original purpose for which they were instituted, nor fulfilled their object; and he could not, therefore, say that they did not require investigation with a view to improvement. He had listened with great attention to the petitions which had been read, and he found that one of the arguments on which opposition to the measure was founded was the private nature of these institutions. They were said to be private institutions, founded by private persons, and that the Legislature had no right to inquire into their management; but it had been well observed by his noble Friend behind him, that the private character of the colleges had merged in the public character of the universities. A general law had existed which established a house university, but that had been done away with by a by-law, and it was now imperative to be a member of a college before admission could be obtained. No man could be a member of either university, or partake of the profits and emoluments arising from them, without being a member of a college. It had been well stated in a publication of a good deal of research and acuteness, which he had read, that "if private institutions by their influence in a great public institution so incorporate themselves with it that no one can belong to the public institution without at the same time, belonging to some one of the private institutions, the public does not become private by this union, but the private make themselves public, and in this respect may be rightly dealt with as public." With slight exceptions, such as public lectures, the whole of the proceedings in these universities were of a private character — the tuition, the mode of
1020
education, and the system altogether was collegiate—all was done in colleges; and he would therefore say, that inquiry might justly and properly be made in matters connected with these colleges. They might properly inquire if they were conducted according to the wishes and directions of the founders, and whether the statutes laid down by them had been duly observed. The statutes in many respects had become obsolete, and in order to ascertain what would be a proper remedy it was necessary to have a Commission of Inquiry. Universities never reformed themselves; every one knew that — every one knew there was too much competition and jealousy, too many and varied motives constantly in play, to prevent the desired effect. He did not say that of universities only. Every institution was unwilling—he did not care from what quarter the statement came—to reform itself. It required a fresh eye, and an external eye, that would not be dazzled or affected by the internal atmosphere. Objection was made to inquiry because it would be an interference with the rights of these institutions; but their Lordships had sanctioned interference with the Scotch Universities, and it was admitted on all hands that they were schools of great merit; at least, as regarded the education of the people of Scotland, it was admitted that they performed their duty as well as the English Universities. After appointing a commission to visit the Scotch Universities he did not see what arguments could be urged against a similar commission for England. The right rev. Prelate said, the Bill would give the Commissioners a power which might be exercised in a vexatious and inquisitorial manner. He did not expect that any member of the Ecclesiastical Commission would have made use of such an argument as that, for the very same argument had been urged by a gentleman of great ability, and with great plausibility, on paper, against the Ecclesiastical Commission. He certainly was surprised that a gentleman of great experience, and for whom he had great respect, had taken it for granted, or supposed that the Commissioners would put such questions to the witnesses. But did any one hear that the power had been abused?—did any one hear that questions were put which might lead the witnesses to criminate themselves? He had been

1021
on some half-dozen of such commissions, and he had never seen a vexatious use made of the power intrusted to the Commissioners. If such had been the fact, did not their Lordships see that the practice would have been remarked and referred to? The noble Duke seemed to doubt the statement, yet he was not aware that any complaint had been made of misconduct on the part of Commissioners [a noble Lord said, "The municipal Commissioners."] No complaint was made against these Commissioners for the manner in which they carried on the investigation; the complaint was against their report. But there was another point to which he wished to allude, and he believed right rev. Prelates would bear him out in what he was about to state regarding the efficiency of these universities as schools for the education of youth of this country. It was well known that in various parts of the country there were, at the present time, greater demands for liberal knowledge than, perhaps, at any former period. New seminaries were established—two colleges had been established in London, with which right rev. Prelates, and fellows of colleges and tutors, were connected; and he believed it was the general opinion expressed by these Prelates, that the system of education pursued at these colleges was superior to the system adopted at the two universities. They were superior to the universities on subjects of general knowledge, and on various kinds; and he believed he had the best authority for saying, that unless some enlarged and improved system were adopted in the ancient universities, they would soon cease to hold the place they had for some time held. The Bishop of Durham was not there, but he could state on the authority of that right rev. Prelate, that the students educated at Durham College, who had applied to him for ordination, were much superior to those either of Oxford or Cambridge. No one could doubt of the power of these right rev. Prelates to judge; and as it appeared, according to them, that a more enlarged and a better-arranged system was required, he thought it necessary that an inquiry should be instituted. But, after all, there was another matter of a serious consequence, which the right rev. Prelates had not adverted to, and that referred to the pecuniary expenses incurred at these establishments; and would
1022
any member of these universities, either lay or clerical, not say that much of the expense must be regarded rather as a taxation than as a remuneration for the knowledge communicated? Every body knew the many expenses—he knew himself what was the practice at Cambridge, and he did not know how these expenses under the present system could be avoided or easily and entirely evaded; that system was a great infliction on families; it was an encouragement to extravagance. Great complaints were made on account of those expenses, which had greatly increased since he was at the university. The parents of children found also that a system of private tuition had grown up which was highly injurious to poor and indigent scholars; that was a great drain on the property of private individuals, and besides it did injustice to those who could not afford the means to obtain it. It was well known what advantage might be derived from lectures on literature or mathematics, but more peculiarly the latter, by which a student could get into the secret more speedily, and acquire knowledge with more facility than if he were left to find out everything for himself, But that system of private tuition led to another evil, called cramming, which was not only unfair towards others who had not the means, but the knowledge was not so wholesome as that obtained by the student's own exertions. He would only add that he had great admiration for the talents which the eminent men in these universities possessed. He admitted that much had been done of late years to remedy the evils, but at the same time, that showed they were not perfect, however proud these eminent men might be of them; and however much these institutions might be admired throughout the world, still there was a great demand for a remedy which they could not effect themselves, and he therefore trusted that an inquiry would be instituted, which he believed would be equally advantageous to themselves and to the country.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that it was strange that the noble Viscount, who admitted the talents of the fellows and tutors of the universities, and who eulogized the zeal with which they had of late years endeavoured to remedy the various abuses which had crept into their collegiate institutions, should yet express his disapprobation of every part of the

1023
system of education which was followed under their auspices. That was the epitome of the noble Viscount's speech—that was the sum and substance of his various observations. Before he proceeded to the discussion of this Bill, he would remind their Lordships of the history of former Sessions of Parliament on this same subject of the universities of this kingdom, and more particularly of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. In the Session of 1834, a Bill was brought into the other House of Parliament to remove certain disabilities which prevented some classes of his Majesty's subjects from resorting to the universities of England, and from proceeding to take certain degrees therein; and in the Session of 1835, a Bill was brought into that House prohibiting the subscription to the thirty-nine articles in certain cases. The latter Bill was brought into that House by the noble Earl who now brought in this Bill, whilst the former Bill, which he had mentioned as originating in the other House of Parliament, was moved in their Lordships' House by the same noble Earl. Their Lordships had thought proper to reject both those Bills, and he had recalled these circumstances to their minds, in order that they might see the animus with which the present Bill had been brought under their consideration—a Bill which he must say was neither more nor less than a Bill of pains and penalties against the two universities—a Bill on which the first proceeding of the noble Earl ought to have been to call witnesses to their bar, in order to prove the statements of its preamble. The preamble of the noble Earl's Bill stated,
"That the statutes prescribed by the original founders of most of the colleges and halls in the two universities had been altered, and latterly many even of their most recent statutes had also been long and habitually disregarded in the ordinary administration of the affairs of divers of the said colleges and halls: and it was highly expedient that an inquiry should be made, by Commissioners to be specially appointed, into the amount, nature, and application of all such estates and funds, and into the said statutes, and the ordinary administration of the affairs of each and every one of the said colleges and halls, and also how far the said estates and funds may be made more conducive to the objects intended by the founders and benefactors, and for which they were endowed."
Here were statements on which the noble Earl, instead of dealing in vague asser-
1024
tions and as vague conjectures, should have been prepared to stand—on which he should have been prepared to inform their Lordships what the facts were which he intended to prove, what the proofs were which he intended to offer, and who the witnesses were by whose evidence he intended to substantiate them. He begged their Lordships also to look at the nature of the inquiry which the noble Earl proposed to establish. The noble Earl proposed that there should be Commissioners appointed to "examine into and investigate the amount of all estates and funds possessed and received by each and every of the colleges and halls of the universities." It was therefore against all the colleges and all the halls in the two universities that the noble Earl proposed that his commission should act. The Crown was to appoint the Commissioners, who were
"Empowered by summons under their hands and seals to require the attendance of all such persons as they might think fit to call before them, upon any question or matter relating either to the statutes, or to the administration of the affairs of the said colleges and halls, and also to make inquiries, and to require any answer or return in writing as to any such question or matter, and also to administer oaths and examine all such persons upon oath."
By a subsequent clause it is provided, that
"If any person shall refuse or wilfully neglect to attend in obedience to any summons of the said Commissioners, or to give evidence, or shall wilfully alter, suppress, destroy, conceal, or refuse to produce any statutes, charters, books, accounts, and writings, or copies of the same, which may be so required to be produced before the said Commissioners, every person so offending shall be liable to the payment of such fine to his Majesty as the Court of King's Bench or the Court of Exchequer, on application made by or on the behalf of the said Commissioners, shall think fit to set and impose, which fine the said Court of King's Bench or Court of Exchequer is hereby authorised and empowered to set and impose according to their discretion respectively, and to enforce payment of the same by attachment or otherwise in such manner as the said Courts respectively may do in cases of contempt of the said Courts."
So that these Commissioners, or any two of them according to a subsequent clause, were empowered to ask such questions as they pleased on the subject matter of this inquiry, and the Court of King's Bench pr the Court of Exchequer were empow-

1025
ered to impose a fine, according to their discretion, on all persons who should omit to answer such questions, no matter whether those questions were legal or illegal, were necessary or unnecessary, or whether they were able or otherwise to answer them. And this was a Bill brought in by a noble Earl whose object on two former occasions, as he had already shown, had been to put an end to the two universities, or at least to put an end to the oaths and tests by which a system of education founded on the religion of the Church of England was established therein. Now, when he saw and reflected upon the conduct of that noble Earl in the three last Sessions of Parliament, and when he recollected that he heard the noble Viscount in the Session of 1835, declare that his object was to establish in the universities a system of inquiry into religious matters, he could not have the slightest doubt as to what the real object of the present measure was; and under such circumstances he recommended their Lordships to concur in the motion of the right rev. Prelate, that this Bill be read this day six months. In the course of the discussion on this subject, various assertions had been made in respect, first to the breach of the statutes, and secondly to the breach of their oaths, by the persons at the heads of the several colleges. The noble Earl had commenced his speech by mentioning the inconsistency of the statements contained in the petitions of the several colleges. Some of them stated, that there was a power in themselves and in their visitors to alter their statutes; whilst others stated that there was no such power, and that they would be unwilling to carry into effect any alteration of the statutes imposed upon them. There was no inconsistency in this; each of the statements was true on the part of the peculiar colleges which made it. What he insisted on was this—that the working of all these colleges, and of the system on which they were regulated, was for the benefit of the public, and that in each and every college the object of the governing authorities was to carry into execution the will of the founder, just as he would have done had he been living at the present day. In every case the common object of the governing authorities was the benefit of the youth who resorted to those institutions for education and instruction. The noble
1026
Viscount could not avoid admitting, that these institutions had worked well, and that latterly a great improvement had taken place in the system of education pursued under their auspices. The noble Viscount had also spoken of the great improvement in the system of education pursued in the New University of Durham, and in other new universities elsewhere. But, nevertheless, the noble Viscount could not help admitting that the old Universities of Oxford and Cambridge possessed the merit of having established in England an excellent system of education, which was in point of fact the envy and admiration of the world. The noble Viscount had compared the inquiry proposed to be established by this Bill with the inquiry instituted into the Universities of Scotland by the Government of which he had the honour of forming a part. It was true that a Commission of inquiry into the state of the Scotch Universities had been issued by that Government: but the noble Viscount had forgotten that his Majesty, as Sovereign, was the visitor of all Universities in Scotland. His Majesty was not visitor of the Universities of England. He understood, that if an inquiry were necessary in England, there was now existing without the aid of this Bill, a power to carry on such inquiry and to annihilate the charter of those colleges, which should be found guilty, if indeed any of them were guilty, of those crimes with which this Bill charged them all indiscriminately. He believed that, though there were colleges founded by private individuals, and acting under powers given to them by private charters, yet if it could be proved that the governors of those colleges did not comply with the conditions of those charters, or violated their oaths or dissipated the funds of their societies, or did not apply them to the purposes for which they were granted, the law was strong enough to deal with them, and it was not necessary to establish a commission like this—to establish in those seminaries such a system of conducting their affairs as the noble Earl opposite required. The noble Viscount had been pleased to complain of those statutes which required that every person resorting to the university should belong to one of its colleges or halls. He must say, that he considered that rule formed one of the greatest merits of our universities, and that the marked distinction between our universities and those of

1027
foreign countries—that distinction which rendered our system of education superior to that of the foreigner—was, that our youths must reside within the walls of their respective colleges, and were not suffered to reside at large in the town. The noble Viscount had discovered that it would be advantageous to have this regulation altered.
Viscount Melbourne: I have not.
The Earl of Radnor: I have.
The Duke of Wellingtonhoped and trusted that the rule would not be departed from. On the contrary, he sincerely hoped that the buildings and accommodations of the different halls and colleges would be extended so as to give reception and lodging to all who resorted to those seminaries for education, and that every student would not only have his name inscribed in the registry of his college, but would also be obliged to reside within it. The noble Earl had also been pleased to state, that these colleges had no relation to the universities, and that the universities had therefore nothing to say to this Bill. Now, to that statement he begged leave to reply, that in consequence of residence in the different colleges being forced upon the students, the colleges formed themselves into universities, and that the relationship between them commenced in that manner. There was therefore a natural connexion between the universities and their colleges, and he maintained in consequence that the University of Oxford was right when it stated, that it had an interest, and took an interest, in every thing which related to the affairs of the colleges within it. The statutes of both our universities had, we believed, relation to every member of every college within their precincts. It was impossible that the regulations imposed by the noble Earl—regulations which bore a close relationship to the Bills which his Lordship had introduced into that House in the course of the last three Sessions—it was impossible, he said, that those regulations could be carried into effect without affecting the universities as universities, without affecting all their statutes, and every part of the system under their superintendence. As the law now stood, there could be no professor in either university who did not belong to the Church of England. Was that a regulation which the noble Earl had in view in that clause of his Bill which enabled the Commissioners to frame new rules and orders for the two universities?
1028
It was impossible to let the noble Earl carry any such thing. The object of his Bill was evidently to overturn the system on which the two universities now stood. It had been tried twice to accomplish that object by direct means. A third trial was now made, in which it was attempted to accomplish it by indirect means. It could not be denied that these Commissioners were to propose this new mode of proceeding, which was to overturn all the old system of the universities to establish a new one in their stead. Under these circumstances he recommended their Lordships to accede to the amendment proposed by the right rev. Prelate—that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
Lord Broughamshould not detain their Lordships' attention longer than was necessary to state the reasons why he concurred with the view of the case taken by the noble Earl who moved this Bill, and the noble Viscount at the head of the Government. He could not help wishing, in the first place, to remove from their Lordships' mind the impression which had, perhaps, been made in respect of the Bill by the speech of the noble Duke who had just sat down, and who had described it as one of a perfectly different nature from that which he conceived it to be. He would only say, that his noble Friend had introduced this measure without any communication with himself upon the subject, though he believed that he had since told his noble Friend that if he had been consulted upon it he should have suggested the introduction of one or two clauses; which, indeed, it was still his intention to move if this Bill were allowed to go into Committee: and he must say, that anything more different from the description of the noble Duke, anything more distinct from the statements of the noble Duke—and upon which statements he was convinced nine-tenths of the noble Duke's objection to this Bill was grounded—any two things more different than this Bill and the noble Duke's description of it could hardly be conceived. The noble Duke stated, that this Bill would entitle the Commissioners, by themselves, or any two of their number, to put any question whatever which they might think proper to any person—be his rank what it might, be he head of college, fellow, master of arts, or student—to put any question to him, legal or illegal in itself; and upon

1029
his refusal to answer such question, how illegal soever it might be, the Commissioners had the power to apply to the Court of King's Bench or the Court of Exchequer, which, upon proof of the fact, were to impose upon the individual any fine which it might think fit, for his refusal so to answer an illegal question. Now, the fact was, that there was really no such clause in the Bill. The Bill said, that if any person being summoned before the Commissioneirs should refuse, that was, contumaciously and wittingly refuse, to attend to their summons, or, having attended before the commission, should refuse to give evidence touching the matter before them, then, that the Court of King's Bench or Exchequer might set a fine upon him for such contumacious refusal Now, he would appeal to his noble and learned Friends opposite—one of whom was, and one of whom had been, a judge—whether if a ease were brought before them under this clause, they would not construe the words, "to give evidence," to refer to such questions as the Commissioners were entitled to ask? They would not, he was sure, construe this compulsion to give evidence into an obligation to answer a question illegal in itself, or the answer to which would criminate the witness himself. But even supposing the Commissioners were to be construed to have this tyrannical power, and suppose the Court of King's Bench or the Court of Exchequer applied to—what then? Why the fine to be imposed upon the offender was in the discretion of the court, and might be to the amount of one farthing only. He must say, therefore, that the existence of any thing more opposite than the provisions of this clause, even in its most strained construction, to what it was described to be by the noble Duke, he was at a loss to imagine. The noble Duke said further, that the authority of this commission would go not only to inquire into, but to alter, the statutes and regulations of these colleges—to take them into consideration, and make new ones should this be thought proper. The right rev. Prelate also had taken the same view of the matter. Now this, if it existed, would indeed be a very extraordinary provision; and if this Bill granted any power like that he should certainly oppose it. But this Bill did no such thing. It gave the Commissioners power to examine the statutes of the colleges, to consider the
1030
propriety of altering them or substituting new ones in their place, and to propose such alterations or new statutes to the authorities competent to adopt them—to Parliament or the heads of colleges themselves. "Suggest" was the word;—a most delicate term: he found they were to suggest not new statutes, but the propriety of altering the existing statutes, or providing new ones in their place. That was the second objection, and he hoped he had sufficiently replied to it. The third and last objection urged by the right rev. Prelate against this Bill was, that it was not a Bill for the purpose of inquiry, but a bill of pains and penalties; a sort of bill for which he felt the greatest abhorrence, a feeling which he was glad to see was participated in by some of their Lordships; but he must say a kind of bill which he was at a loss to conceive why the noble Duke opposite should so object to it, unless, indeed, as it sometimes happened, that dealers in the same article were some times jealous of others in their trade. So far from being a bill of pains and penalties this bill went to inflict no one censure or punishment upon any one, it merely went to institute an inquiry into the state of the colleges, and to suggest remedies for any wrong management which might be found to exist in them. Now the objections raised against such a process by the parties interested in these colleges were such as really could not all exist together and at the same time. He must say he was surprised that the right rev. Prelate who had so long presided, and with so much advantage, over Oriel College did not see the strict accuracy of his noble Friend's argument, showing the plain and manifest inconsistency of these reasons. First, these petitioners said, "There must not, and almost there shall not, be any inquiry, because whatever alteration is suggested as the result of that inquiry, we shall in our consciences be bound to refuse to obey—it can't be done—no person on earth can remove us from the responsibility we have incurred by our oaths—we can't and won't submit." Then came another argument, which had been more dwelt upon here, and which had been very much brought forward by these petitioners—an argument quite contrary to the former, in every way repugnant and subversive of it. "Don't inquire," said the Petitioners, "there's no occasion; don't enact, there's no necessity; don't

1031
suggest, there's no need of your services in that way; we have abundance of the means of legislation amongst ourselves, and of effecting all necessary changes and amendments; don't attempt to legislate for us, we can do it for ourselves; we have again and again altered our statutes; we have adopted new rules from time to time to meet the circumstances of the period." Now, what his noble Friend stated, and he thought very properly, was, that the petitioners ought to make their election of these two arguments, they could not retain both; inquiry could not be both superfluous and impossible at the same time. It could not be said on the one hand, you must not make alterations because we shall be bound by our oaths to resist, and on the other hand there is no need for you to make alterations because we can do them ourselves. [The Duke of Wellington:—The colleges have visitors.] He was aware of that. To all these establishments there were certainly visitors. He had not forgotten that fact. But what he was prepared to show was, that notwithstanding their special visitors these establishments were not exempted from the operation of the law of the land. The first statute to which he would refer was the statute of charitable uses, the 43rd. of Elizabeth, by which it was certainly provided that, of the eleemosynary institutions for the purposes of education, those should be exempted from the operation of the enactment which had special visitors. The 58th and 59th of George 3rd, acting upon the same principle, also had a clause of exemption for such charities to which visitors were attached. The question of inserting or omitting that clause was very much controverted in the other House, though it was not discussed here, because the clause was in the Bill, when it came up to this House, and this House was not inclined to dispute the retention of it. After about ten or twelve years, however, what took place? By this time men's minds had become more enlightened, and it was then discovered on all hands that this Clause was not only useless, but extremely cumbersome, tending to impede the inquiry of the Commission. The consequence was, that when the Bill was renewed in 1831 the clause of exemption was omitted, and that without either in the one House or the other a single effort—not a movement at an effort—towards preserving that exempting
1032
clause. Therefore, when he was asked what he had to say to colleges which had their visitors, he said, "Look at the year 1831, and at what you yourselves then did, who never ventured to whisper one word of objection to that Bill, deprived of its clause of exemption." [The Duke of Wellington. That concerns charters.] He did not forget that. But one thing at a time was a very good doctrine. Every man who attempted to get through business knew that it was impossible to do two things at once; and this was equally true in respect to an argument as to more practical operations. The power of visitors was evidently quite different from that of Commissioners. The power of visitors was that of a judge, to decide upon points which came under their cognizance, and without appeal. But the question here was inquiry, and inquiry for the very purpose for which a visitor's powers, great as they were, and high and supreme, and without appeal, were totally inadequate—inquiry with the view of ascertaining whether there was any ground for a visitor's inquiry. The visitor's power was put in motion, but by whom? By the persons who made them masters of the fact, and who discovered the abuse. They must first ascertain whether there were grounds for calling into action the power of the visitor. The visitor was the judge, the person to determine, when after inquiry he should have satisfied himself. This was in itself an abundant answer to the apprehensions that were entertained prospectively of a conflict between the proposed powers of the Commissioners of Inquiry, and the existing visitor's powers. This would be very well if they had had no experience to the contrary, but after six or seven years experience of inquiries in every part of the kingdom, and into every manner of establishment, such an argument could not be allowed to avail. There were some of these establishments the revenues of which would do credit to collegiate endowments. There were some of them the importance of which might well bring them into competition with many considerable university colleges. Some of them had from 10,000 l. to 12,000 l. a-year revenue, and had great connexion with the universities by means of exhibitions; they were not confined to poor scholars, but in some instances educated between three and four hundred boys, and were, many of them, the largest and most

1033
flourishing schools in the kingdom. Had these felt their dignity offended by inquiry? Had the visitors complained? These visitors, be it recollected, were not founders or founders' representatives; but in many cases were right rev. Prelates. The most noble Prelate the (Archbishop of Canterbury) might himself be a visitor at some of the schools which were thus subjected to examination. Whether he regarded the totally distinct nature of the visitors, and the inquisitorial power which alone was the object of the Bill, or whether he regarded the practice and experience which they had had since the year 1831, in either case could he see no ground whatever for the sort of objection that had been made. The right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Llandaff) and the noble Duke had taken one and the same objection—they had both asserted that the preamble of the Bill was incorrect in stating that these funds were originally intended to provide for the poor and the indigent. This had long been a matter of great interest; and it was quite impossible to say that the question was not still in a great degree unsettled. He thought it could hardly be laid down as a general rule, that these foundations were not confined, or were not originally intended to be confined, to at least poor scholars merely, because the word "indigent was susceptible of a construction that would disprove that of pauperism. How could the right rev. Prelate, by the power of his ingenuity, or by the resources of his classical lore, translate the word indigens to signify a want of the means of obtaining a proper education for the station, or rather a higher station than the one which the party was entitled to hold? But even if the right rev. Prelate could thus translate the word indigens standing alone, how could he thus translate the words pauper et indigens, and still more when he added the intensive particle valde pauper? He would not say that this meant very poor, lest he should exaggerate; but it certainly meant somewhat poor, rather poor, or if the right rev. Prelate wished it poorish. He, however, did not think he exaggerated when he said, that exceedingly poor was the literal meaning of the superlative of pauper. Lest, however, he should be thought to take any undue advantage, he would translate pauper to mean a somewhat poor man. This was the description of persons for whom many of these foundations were endowed. Granting
1034
that it was the original intention of the founders to establish these seminaries for the purpose of supplying the Roman Catholic Church with those numberless functionaries which the nature of the service of that Church required; granting that this was the manifest intention which justified these bequests in the eyes of the pious founders—and they were then taking it in its strongest sense—could they say that they would not make a wholesome deviation from the intention of the founders, though they might place these establishments on a somewhat different footing? That there had been deviations from the statutes there could be no doubt. Looking at the intention of the founders, a certain kind of persons was described as those who were to enjoy the benefit of the foundations. But did they think that the tripartite division of the emoluments and fellowships of Trinity-College, Cambridge, when one set of fellows took two fellowships, another set one and a half, and the third set only one, did they think this was carrying out the intention of the founders? These fellows were anything rather than indigent men. Many of them were men of fortune; he had known several of them himself; many were studying for the bar, and many-were at the bar. What, again, would their Lordships think of Archbishop Chicheley's foundation—of the conduct of All-Souls' College, at Oxford? There the number of fellows was originally forty, and now, as his noble Friend had stated, it had dwindled to thirteen. [The Earl of Radnor: There are only thirteen out of the forty fellows in residence.] He thought that his noble Friend had meant to say, that there were now only thirteen fellows, but it appeared that there were forty, but only thirteen resident. The statutes of that college required that its fellows should be elected out of such as being of kin to the founder were bene nati, bene vestiti, et mediocriter docti. According to that, if there was any extravagance there, it was not in learning. What did their Lordships think of the statutes which required strict residence? It was well known that those rules were not followed, and he was far from saying that they ought to be, but residence was nevertheless required. There was a great difficulty in getting access to these statutes, and if they were locked up in an iron chest, with three locks and three keys, of which the master kept one, another person another, and another a third, it was

1035
not very wonderful that either his noble Friend (the Earl of Radnor) or himself should be at a loss, first to know what the requisitions of the statutes were, and next to find out whether they had been conformed to. He remembered a very great difficulty which arose in the way of an inquiry by a Committee of the House of Commons, in consequence of these statutes not being open to the public. On that occasion the same objection was taken by the Wykhamists of Winchester as had tonight been taken by the Wykhamists of New College, Oxford. The Committee was told that they had taken an oath to observe the statutes of their founder, and that they could not in conscience obey any other regulations, but the Committee told them that they could take no oath which could protect them against the lawful authority of the Legislature. This was not done by a Reformed House of Commons, and therefore his noble Friend could have no objection to the precedent; it was in the good old ancient times—for which his noble Friend opposite was sighing, and for which he hoped he might long sigh in vain—of corruption and rotten boroughs, that they were told that no person had a right to take an oath privately which was proof against the inquiry of one of the Houses of Parliament. The Wykhamists of New-college said, that they would obey no statutes but the statutes of their founder, William of Wykham; they asserted, that they were sworn to maintain his statutes only, but he asserted, on the other hand, that they were sworn to no such thing, and he would maintain that no oath which was administered by a private person could be set up as contrary to any oath which the Legislature of this country might choose to impose on them. Now, he did not mean to say, that no deviations from the statutes were necessary, but in any particular case of deviation, he wanted to inquire if the deviation was necessary. It was said that the preamble of this Bill charged offences against these colleges, of which there was no proof—that the charges were brought forward without a tittle of evidence. He did not call them offences, nor did he understand them to be treated as such in the preamble of this Bill. The preamble called them deviations and breaches of the statutes. He wanted an inquiry into the circumstances, in order to see whether those deviations were justified by the circumstances or not. If they were
1036
justified, they ought to be confirmed, and have the sanction of law, so as to put an end to the present odious, and to the parties themselves intolerable, position; namely, the law saying one thing, and the necessity of the case commanding another. Some of the statutes could not be carried into effect, or, at least, it was next to impossible that they could be carried into effect. Some of them were positively mischievous. Some of the regulations were pernicious now, whatever they might have been along time ago. He did not mean to speak with the slightest degree of disrespect of the heads of houses; but he would ask, were not the statutes habitually departed from by themselves? He appealed to the heads of houses present. He appealed not to the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury), whose brilliant career in college no man in that House could have forgotten, but who was not the head of a house; but he appealed to the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Llandaff), whether he had not borne ample testimony to the truth of the preamble of the Bill? The statement of his noble Friend (the Earl of Radnor) would with him have been sufficient, but the statement of the antagonist who had placed himself in the front of the conflict, and had made a motion which, if agreed to, would put an end to the Bill for this session, appeared to him, (Lord Brougham) the most unequivocal and expressive testimony to the truth of the only important and necessary part of the preamble? What was this statement? That the statutes had not been complied with—that they were broken habitually; but the right rev. Prelate was satisfied, because, in his opinion, these were mere trivial deviations. But if there were deviations, were they not to know the grounds of these deviations from the statutes? Was the present position one in which, consistently with the law, or with the comforts of the parties themselves, they could continue to be placed in? Would it not be a thousand times better to accommodate the law to the practice, and more especially when some parts of the law were obsolete, others manifestly inconvenient, and others highly mischievous, if literally fulfilled. An inquiry would ascertain all this. They could not suppose that they could remain much longer in the state in which they were placed. It was not wholesome for the youth who were educated in these places to see the rules, regulations, and

1037
the statutes of the colleges daily and hourly broken without punishment, and to see the oaths that were taken in support of these rules habitually broken by the masters themselves, without the punishment due to known offences, without being treated as offences, or even dreamt of being so treated. The object of this Bill was to have inquiry; and he wished to know, with all respect for the colleges, whether there was anything so sacred in their establishments as to entitle them to say these were the only establishments in the country into which the foot of inquiry or the eye of scrutiny should never pass. He was not aware of any title these or any other establishments of men or of Englishmen could have to such a right. If there had been no deviation from these statutes, what could be their objection to inquiry? If there had been no abuse in their funds, why object to a scrutiny? But those who should vote against the second reading of this Bill, and who should refuse to adopt the principle of it, which was inquiry, and inquiry only, he would ask those upon what grounds the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and those only, should never be visited by Parliamentary scrutiny? There was no objection to inquiry into all other corruptions, ecclesiastical and lay; they had all been subjected alike to the scrutiny of the Houses of Parliament; the Crown had issued commissions, and these Commissioners had investigated the affairs of all municipal bodies in England. A commission had even been issued to inquire into the Universities of Scotland. If they rejected this Bill they would be declaring that the English corporations, the Scotch corporations, the Scotch Universities, the English schools, all establishments, lay and clerical, all over the country, were subjected to scrutiny, except the two universities; and these were the reasons for the exemption—that the affairs of these universities were so perfectly well conducted that they had no dread whatever of the closest scrutiny, of the most minute and unsparing and searching investigation. They only locked up their muniments, and charters, and title-deeds, their rules, regulations, and statutes, their bye-laws and fundamental laws, under three locks, and then they challenge, they defy, inquiry! But no, that was not correct; they abominated inquiry, they abhorred investigation, and therefore they covered
1038
the table of their Lordships' House with petitions made up upon all manner of grounds, wholly inconsistent, and the last repugnant to the one that went before it; and yet they were told in that House that these persons defied investigation as a thing of which they had no reason to be afraid. The passing of such a Bill as this would further all the objects which they had at heart, and he hoped their Lordships would forgive him for venturing humbly to suggest that in passing this Bill they would not only benefit Oxford and Cambridge in its results, but in the Act of passing it they would also do that which would be highly beneficial to themselves. He thought that in the estimation of their countrymen they would do that which would be a very wise and a very judicious act, and one which, if it ever should happen—he did not say it ever could happen—he did not say it ever would happen—but if ever it should happen at any future time, by any means, right or wrong—let their Lordships be right or wrong—that they lost that high degree of favour which they ought to enjoy in the opinion of their countrymen, his belief was, that the passing of a measure such as this would tend to restore it.
Lord Abingerconsidered that he could not do justice to his own feelings, or to the attachment he had to the place in which he was educated, if he did not say a few words respecting the Bill then before their Lordships. There had been a great deal of declamation and a vast quantity of rhetoric wasted upon this Bill. To hear his noble and learned Friend speak in support of this Bill, it might be supposed that he was arguing upon the enormity of some well-proved grievance—that some great public injury had been done, and that his noble Friend was struggling on behalf of those who had a right to complain, and called upon their Lordships to grant an inquiry. Now, he begged to ask, who complained to that House? Who had petitioned? Who called upon their Lordships to make this inquiry? Had there been a petition from any college, or even from any member of a college, saying that the statutes had not been properly observed? There was nothing of the kind. There was nothing but the statement of the noble Earl, who came down to tell them that he knew very little about the matter, and then called upon them to grant a commission—to give him leave

1039
to have a Bill of discovery. The noble Earl and the noble Baron, on the one hand, declared that the books and statutes of the college were kept under lock and key—that they were carefully concealed; his noble and learned Friend, on the other hand, declared that the statutes were placarded, so that their open violation was known to all the students. [Lord Brougham: Both statements are true.] If both were true they appeared to him to be a little inconsistent with each other. He did not say that there were no statutes that did not require residence; but the statutes of Trinity College, he believed, did not require residence. Then he would say, that if there were a mal-administration of the funds, there was a sufficiency of spirit and intelligence in the college with which he was acquainted, to make at once an appeal to the Chancellor or to the King in Council, in order to have the matter set right. If, too, there had been a larger appropriation to the senior fellows from the funds than what it was considered they ought to have, the matter would long since have been complained of. Why, then, was an inquiry now to be granted? Was it because his noble and learned Friend imagined that there ought to be an inquiry? The oppression practised by the senior fellows, and all the other enormities they had heard of, were only to be found in the active imagination of his noble and learned Friend. Or was this to be a sufficient ground for inquiry—that a noble Earl said he was told something about an institution of which he did not know anything? There was, he considered, no Parliamentary ground for passing this Bill. He agreed with the noble Duke that before they passed a Bill of this kind they ought to have some evidence. They ought to have something in the way of public notoriety, or they ought to show by evidence that there had been a gross deviation from the statutes. It had been said that the right rev. Prelate had declared that there was a deviation from the oaths. He did not understand the right rev. Prelate to make any such admission; but that where there was some formal regulation made by the ancient founders, which was inconsistent with the present state of society, and the strict attendance to which would interfere with the views of the founders, that in such cases there was a deviation. With respect to one point, the expenses of the
1040
colleges, he begged to say, that these were no more now than they had been thirty or forty years ago. There was, he said, no ground for the Bill before the House, and he therefore should cheerfully vote in favour of the Amendment.
Lord Wynfordopposed the Bill. He did not consider there was the slightest evidence offered in its support. Not one of the statements in the preamble had been proved, and though he might be ready to promote inquiry he should vote against the Bill.
The Earl of Radnorreplied. In the course of his observations the noble Lord observed, that the noble Duke (Wellington) had indulged in some personal allusions which he was not justified in using towards him. The noble Duke had no right whatever to impute to him, as he had done, covert intentions, any more than he had the right to charge him with a design to further the sinister views of others. He acted in this matter from his own discretion, and the noble Duke had not the slightest grounds for imputing to him anything of the description which he had alleged. The noble Duke had pointed to two former Bills which had been submitted to the Legislature upon this subject, and to his (Lord Radnor's) conduct with reference to those measures, as proving upon his part the existence of a determination to procure the subversion of those institutions. Now, once for all, he would distinctly disclaim that he had ever been actuated by any such views. It had been remarked during the course of the debate, that the tendency and object of his Bill was to let in the Dissenters to the Universities, and to break up and destroy those bulwarks of the established religion. He, however, asserted that his Bill was simply for inquiry whether there was any ground for altering the statutes by which the two Universities were at present governed. He had complained of the students being indiscriminately required to subscribe to the thirty-nine articles, and he now reiterated this complaint, which was based upon the clear ground that of those articles there were some which even the most learned men did not understand. The noble Duke, and other noble Lords, had said that there was no evidence of the necessity of altering or amending the system pursued at the Universities. The right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Llandaff) had, however, no objection to the appoint-

1041
ment of a Committee of Inquiry. Now, he was ready to produce his witnesses at the bar of their Lordships' house to prove in detail the existence of the abuses of which he had complained. Would the noble Duke agree to that?
The Duke of Wellington.—Agree to what?
The Earl of Radnor: To have a Committee of Inquiry.
The Duke of Wellington: There is a substantive Motion already before the House. Will the noble Lord, before he asks me to agree to another Motion, dispose of that first?
The Earl of Radnorhad merely spoken of the Committee of Inquiry in consequence of the right rev. Bishop (Llandaff) having expressed his willingness to consent to that mode of proceeding. But as the noble Duke was known to possess great influence in their Lordships' House, he was naturally unwilling to propose such a measure, even in conjunction with the right rev. Prelate, without the concurrence of the noble Duke.
The Duke of Wellington: My Lords, I have already stated that I see no grounds whatever for inquiry. I stated also, that if there be any legitimate ground for inquiry, any real abuses existing in the management of the colleges, there are legal modes of inquiring into the existence and extent of those abuses, and legal modes of applying a remedy, and, I therefore say, my Lords, that I cannot consent to the application of any remedies but those which are legal and regular.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, that he really knew not to what legal remedies the noble Duke alluded, if he were to except the authority of the visitors, which, after all, had been found to impose a very ineffectual restraint on abuse. The noble Lord then observed, that the only point in which any improvement had been of late observed in the universities was, that they were much better schools than formerly. They were, at the same time, however, much less learned bodies than formerly. The reputation which they had at one period borne was very much lessened of late. A friend of his had recently been no little astonished by hearing the observation made in Germany that the study of the Greek language was little (if at all) prosecuted at Cambridge; and this assertion was based upon the fact that no authors of eminence upon the
1042
Greek language had recently arisen at that University. Oxford stood not high in point of either theological, classical, or scientific pretensions. Dr. Pusey, in a recent work upon cathedral institutions, had very much underrated the theological course which was read at Oxford. In classical literature the merits of the Universities might be estimated from the fact, that of those who were concerned in publications upon such subjects at Oxford very few were competent to the task. With reference to science, he had only to refer to the testimony of Mr. Powell, the Regius Professor of Astronomy at Oxford, who had recently stated that the University of Oxford gives a monopoly to classical literature to the prejudice of the sciencies. The noble Lord concluded by reiterating his assertion that the Universities could no longer be considered as places of leisure for learned men.
Amendment carried, Bill put off for six months.
PROTEST.—The following protest against postponing the Bill for six months, was entered on the Journals.
"Dissentient: Because—
"First, These colleges and halls are eleemosynary foundations, similar to others which have been inquired into; and no reason was alleged why they should not be inquired into as well as the others.
"Secondly, They are peculiarly fit objects of inquiry; inasmuch as,
"1. The present statutes of the universities requiring that all matriculated members shall belong to, and be inmates in, some of the said colleges or halls, and subject to its discipline, the said colleges and halls have acquired a public character and a national importance which originally did not belong to them.
"2. The said colleges and halls are, for the most part, of very ancient foundation, and many of their statutes, contemplating a state of society very different from the present, and a religion other than that now established, are totally inapplicable to the present times, and impossible to be observed.
"3. Obedience to the statutes is generally (if not in all cases) enforced by the solemnity of oaths, which, from the necessity of the case, are explained away, evaded, or openly violated.
"4. It was avowed in the debate that such was frequently the practice; and this practice, in our opinion, dangerous to public morals, was palliated, if not justified.
"Thirdly, It is alleged in the petitions against the Bill sent up from several of the

1043
colleges, and presented to the House, that the fellows and scholars belonging to the same were sworn to obey the original statutes of the founders, and to admit of no deviation from them; and that there existed no power, either in the governing members of those institutions themselves, or in their visitors, to alter, modify, or amend them; and therefore no power short of that of Parliament can effect that object.

(Signed) "RADNOR.

VASSAL HOLLAND.

BROUGHAM.

HATHERTON.

(For 1st and 2nd reasons) SOMMERHILL.

DUNCANNON."