Sitting of 21 December 1837

MINUTES
Bills. Read a first time:—On the motion of Sergeant TALFOURD, Custody of Infants On the motion of Mr. LYNCH, Married Women; Municipal Boundaries.
Petitions presented. By Mr. H. FLEETWOOD, from the Handloom Weavers of Preston, for relief.—By Mr. LEADER, from Westminster, in favour of the Dorchester Labourers.—By Mr. WAKLEY, from Finsbury, against Lord John Russell's Declaration.—By Mr. GROTE, from Illeringham, Suffolk, for Vote by Ballot.—By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, from Edinburgh, for Vote by Ballot; also from the Senatus Academicus of Edinburgh, against the Privileges of the College of Physicians.—By Mr. HUME, from Glasgow, for Vote by Ballot, Short Parliaments, and a system of National Education.

HANDLOOM WEAVERS.
MR. J. Fieldenthen rose to bring under the consideration of the House the petition which he had presented on the 11th December, relative to the condition of the Hand-loom Weavers. Amongst other facts stated in the petition it was set forth that the petitioners, owing to extremely low wages, suffered great distress, and that this distress had been more severe in the present than in any former year. In Manchester alone there were
1404
computed to be at least 6,000 weavers, some of whom had been visited by persons appointed for that purpose. The results of the inquiry made by the visitors were, that 876 families whom they had visited, containing 3,274 persons, depended for support on the income of 1,740 looms employed. The average earnings of these looms did not exceed 332 1. 6s. 3d, weekly, leaving an average of 2s. ½d. a week to each person, and deducting Is. 2d. a week for rent, fuel, soap, and candles, the average for the support and clothing of each person per week would be only l0½d. or 1½d. per day. It was now five years since this subject had been brought under the notice of Parliament, and though the distress of these persons was admitted to be great, no redress whatever had been afforded them. This subject had been considered by successive Committees of the House, and it had been admitted by the report of one of these Committees in 1834, that this distress was by no means exaggerated, but existed to an extent that was scarcely to be conceived or credited, and that these individuals bore their sufferings with unexampled patience. In that House the people were not properly represented, and it was to the refusal to attend to their wants and remove the evils that pressed upon them that they were to attribute the calls that were making for an extension of the suffrage. It could scarcely be said that they lived in a Christian country if all sympathy for human suffering was to be suppressed. It had been proved before Committees that these men worked from twelve to fifteen hours a day, and yet they were unable to support themselves by their labour. The articles which were produced by these operatives were of a description principally consumed by the rich and wealthy, who could afford to pay a remunerating price for the labour that produced them, and a great quantity of these articles were exported to foreign countries, to be exchanged for commodities that contributed to the comfort and luxury o the wealthy classes. Notwithstanding the patient demeanour of these persons, their grievances remained unredressed. If this indifference continued, he would at the risk of being considered factious, take steps that would force the case of these persons on the attention of the Government. If some redress was not afforded he would feel bound to get up and oppose every vote of

1405
money that was proposed. That might be a course open to blame; but if redress was not afforded, or some attention bestowed on this subject, that course he was determined to take. There was not one of these weavers that did not contriute to the taxation of the country, and if the situation of these men did not receive attention he would take every opportunity that the privileges of the House afforded to force that attention. All the facts respecting the distress of these suffering classes had been clearly established before a Committee, of which the right hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. P. Thomson) was a member, and he did think that that right hon. Member had not done his duty towards those people by not directing the attention of the Government to the sufferings they endured. One of the reports of a Committee recommended a bill to be brought in, which would have the effect of relieving those distressed weavers. That bill was brought in by the hon. Member for Lanark, and it was met on the part of the Government by a direct negative, and was not allowed to proceed. In the course of the last Session the matter was not lost sight of. A motion was made in July last for an address to the Crown for a commission to inquire into the condition of the distressed operatives in the manufacturing districts. That address was voted six months ago, and yet not a single commissioner had been sent forward, though the operatives were dying for want of food. It showed that the Government were indifferent to the condition of the working people; but he could tell the House that no Government could carry on their business who were indifferent to the distresses of the working people. He would like to know why this inquiry had not proceeded? If a vote of that House was good for anything it ought to be acted upon. The Government that would act in this way could not have his confidence, for he thought after the vote of the House that that inquiry ought to have been proceeded with, and they should have ascertained what redress could be afforded. Something should be done. They must either raise the wages of these operatives to a scale that would afford them the means to live, or they must do what would lead to the same effect, namely, reduce the taxation that pressed on the necessaries of life. He thought that they ought to have aminimum of
1406
wages. The existence of distress could not be disputed, and they ought to decide how relief could be afforded without injuiry to any other class of society. Without this the Government could scarcely feel satisfaction to themselves, and they would give no satisfaction to the country. The hon. Member concluded by moving the following resolution:—
"That there is in this kingdom an immense body of hand-loom weavers suffering unparalleled distress, and that that distress arises from the present unforeseen low rate of wages that these weavers are paid for their work, and from the heavy taxes imposed by this House on food and the other necessaries of life, a sufficiency of which these wages are inadequate to procure; that the work which a large pro. portion of these weavers execute consists of articles indispensably necessary for the personal comfort and convenience of the higher and middle classes of society, or of articles exported to other countries in exchange for luxuries for the use of these classes; that it is, therefore, the interest and duty of the Representatives of the people in this House immediately to devise and enact such laws as shall raise the wages of the hand-loom weavers to a scale adequate to maintain them comfortably, or else so to reduce the taxes imposed on the necessaries of life, and to alter the modes of collecting those taxes, so that no part of the wages paid to these weavers shall be abstracted from them by either direct or indirect taxation, further than shall be necessary for the exigencies of the state."
Mr. Hesketh Fleetwoodseconded the motion. Seeing that the commission had issued some months, he did hope that the President of the Board of Trade would be enabled to make such a statement as would give to the hearts of the poor handloom weavers that comfort of which the smallness of the wages they at present received deprived them. During his canvass he had had an opportunity of seeing the distress which pervaded this class of persons. In the place which he had the honour to represent were found numerous families working for sixteen hours a day in damp places under ground. He had seen one poor woman giving her children bread in a hot stale; and on his asking her the reason, her answer was that she did so because a less quantity sufficed to satisfy the cravings of hunger for the time. He did not see, however, how an increase of wages could be effected by legislation; but at the same time, with regard to taxation, he thought that those who possessed property and who devised the means of

1407
taxation, ought to be anxious, and take care not to aggravate the distress which prevailed among the poorer classes of their fellow-countrymen.
Mr. Mark Phillipsassured the hon. Member for Oldham that the petition which he had brought under the notice of the House had not escaped his (Mr. Phillip's) attention. He was not in the House when the motion for an address to the Crown for the appointment of a Commission was agreed to, but he did not hesitate to say if he had been present (and his not being so was occasioned by severe indisposition), knowing what he did on this subject, that he should not have been found amongst the supporters of that proposition. He begged to say that the hon. Member for Oldham could not more deeply deplore and commiserate the unfortunate situation than he (Mr. P.) did himself, and, in order to put himself in the possession of facts, he had applied for and received statements from Manchester which differed materially with the allegations contained in the petition; and those facts he had obtained from those who employed the greatest number of operatives in that town. Manchester was divided into four districts, from one of which districts he had the report made by the overseers, by which it appeared that while in August last there were 275 families out of employ, on the 15th of the present month there were only seventy six. So far, therefore, there was a discrepancy between the statement contained in the petition and these returns. He admitted that great manufacturing distress among the hand-loom weavers prevailed throughout the country, and he knew, as stated by the petitioners, that in Manchester it prevailed to a greater extent than in former years; he knew that such was the fact; and why? it was in consequence of the stale of the American market; that was the cause of the distress. He, for one, should always be anxious to forward the views of the petitioners when he was satisfied that good could be done; but at the same time he must say he could not see any possible good that could result from the interference of the Legislature in order to maintain prices during a depression in trade. Supposing that a minimum of wages was established, what would be the effect? Why, that those who wished for the establishment of such a principle would be the first to break it,—such would be the case of the hand-loom weavers, who
1408
themselves were so anxious for its adoption. And why? Because there was no class of the operative portion of the community by whom a depression in their trade was so soon and immediately felt as the hand-loom weavers. The moment the market was depressed the masters said they had no more work, and that the operatives must wait until things came round, and the consequence would be, that they would offer their services for less than the minimum in order to obtain work, and thus break through the principle they were so anxious to see adopted. Such would be the inevitable result. But there was a remedy, and that was an alteration in the corn-laws. He had always, in that House and out of it, declared his opinion to be in favour of the repeal of the corn-laws. He took his seat in that House, which he considered a privilege, as an heir-apparent, looking to the possession of a landed estate; but he should feel ashamed if on that account he could neglect the interest of those with whom he was so intimately connected as he was with the hand-loom weavers, or that of the community at large. But sure he was, that it would be impossible for the manufacturers of England to compete with those of the Continent, or of America, unless there was a change in the corn-laws. The time was fast approaching when this question must be considered. He should be ready to lend his assistance in effecting a reduction of taxation, and more particularly that of the tax on bread, which so deeply affected the interests of the working classes of the community. He wished to draw attention to the bank system, which certainly did not work well at present. During the late commercial panic much evil was occasioned by that system, connected with the depressed state of the weavers. In his opinion an inquiry into the prices of labour compared with the state of the currency might be very advantageously entered upon by the commission appointed to investigate the condition of the hand-loom weavers. He perfectly concurred with the hon. Member for Oldham as to the admirable conduct of the hand-loom weavers. If any distinct manner of relieving them could be pointed out, it would give him great pleasure in adopting it, but he did not see any. In the proposition made by the hon. Member he could not acquiesce.
Sir Eardley Wilmotobserved, that

1409
during the five years that he had been in Parliament he had advocated the cause of the hand-loom weavers. There were many thousands of them in a state of starvation. They did not ask for charity; what they asked for was a fair compensation for their labour. By other machinery goods were produced at a third of the rate at which the hand-loom weavers could produce them. If the laws could not be altered for the purpose, something should be done to relieve them. It was impossible, however, to employ them in other labour. They were quite unfit for agricultural labour. The hand-loom weavers formed a large portion of his constituency, and he had intended to present a petition on the subject of their distresses. That petition had not yet reached him; but soon after the recess he hoped to have an opportunity of presenting it. In the mean time it was his duty to state that the hand-loom weavers were in a dreadful condition; and that if something were not done it was impossible to foresee what might be the consequences.
Mr. Hindleyobserved, that there seemed to be a general agreement on two points: the first was the existence of great distress, the second was the patience with which it was borne. He was persuaded that it was impossible to exaggerate the distress. He had himself paid considerable attention to the subject; and he firmly believed that the distress was to an extent of which the House was little aware. He thought, also, that they were all agreed on another point. He wished to argue the matter calmly and dispassionately. It appeared to him that they were agreed on the difficulty of finding a remedy for the evil. If such a remedy could be discovered he was persuaded that it would be most cheerfully adopted. The remedy proposed by the hon. Member for Oldham was a fixed rate of wages. To that he (Mr. Hindley) strongly objected. He had said, when an application was made to him in Manchester on the subject, that he could not acquiesce in any such proposition. The effect of a fixed rate of wages would be to prevent manufacturers in times of distress from giving them any work at all. The hand-loom weavers did not desire charity. All they desired was justice. If the Legislature could not benefit them, at least it should avoid doing them injury. It had been said that they ought to go into the factories. How was this practicable, when
1410
Government had sent down commissioners, Messrs. Mummeridge and Baker, to force the agricultural labourers of the neighbourhood to enter into competition with them. In vain did the poor hand-loom weavers make application at the factories for employment for themselves or for their families. The only result was, that they lost their time. Not so the agricultural labourer. A contract was entered into for them by the commissioners. But was it fair to transport another class of labourers into competition with these unfortunate persons? The causes of the existing distress were quite evident. The first was the present state of our Corn-laws. It was a shame to ask the hand-loom weavers of this country, paying double the price for their corn, to compete with the weavers on the Continent. He hoped that the Commissioners who had been appointed to investigate the subject, would mention this cause of distress in their report; and he hoped the House would deal with it without reference to any private interest or consideration. Another cause of the distress, was machinery. It was impossible, at this time of day, to go back on that subject. No doubt could exist of the great social advantages which the human race had derived from the invention of machinery. He hoped, however, that the management of it would be so conducted as to render it an amelioration of the first curse which had been pronounced upon mankind. Another cause of the distress, was the influx of the Irish poor. There were vast numbers of the Irish poor in Manchester who contended for bread with the English weaver. He by no means objected to their right to do so. On the contrary, he thought we ought to make them welcome, and by every means to better their condition. Yet, certainly, the effect of their coming and entering into competition with the resident weavers, was to increase the distress of the latter, and to render their condition almost as low as that of the Irish. But what must be the effect upon them, if the proposed Irish poor-law were passed? By four clauses of that law, they were going to make beggary a crime in Ireland, subject to various terms of imprisonment. What would be the effect of that? It would force numbers of the Irish out of their country; and they would come hither, enter into more severe competition with the English weavers, and increase

1411
their distress. It really would be very hard upon this industrious class of our population, if, being unable to find a remedy for their grievances, they were to adopt a measure which must materially aggravate them. From what had fallen from the hon. Member for Manchester he (Mr. Hindley) collected that that hon. Gentleman intended to agree to the motion of the hon. Member for Oldham, for the hon. Member for Manchester acknowledged the justice of the second proposition of the hon. Member for Oldham, that the distress was, in a great measure, owing to the heavy taxation to which the food of the weavers was subjected. To that point he wished to pin the hon. Member for Manchester and the right hon. Gentleman opposite, as he conceived it impossible to remedy the evil without attending to it.
Mr. Philip Howardsaid, that unquestionably much of the distress was attributable to the introduction of machinery. But it must be considered, that the handloom weavers enjoyed greater liberty than the power-loom weavers, and could choose their own times of labour. He rose, however, to express his sympathy for the distress which they were suffering. At the same time he did not think that to repeal the corn-laws, and thereby to throw a great deal of land out of cultivation, would benefit the. Undoubtedly great differences of opinion existed; but in his judgment any material alteration of the corn laws would be productive of very general inconvenience. When the report of the Commission appointed to investigate this question came to be laid on the table, the House would be better able to come to a satisfactory decision upon it. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member for Oldham would, for the present, withdraw his motion.
Mr. Darbyalso trusted, that the hon. Member for Oldham would withdraw his motion; the fir t part of which appeared to him (Mr. Darby) to be totally inexpedient. It would be impossible to reduce the taxation in such a manner as to afford the hand-loom weavers the relief they required, without, at the same time, withdrawing the protection justly afforded to other classes of the community.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonhoped that the hon. Member who had brought forward this motion had done so rather for the purpose of giving hon. Gentlemen an opportunity of
1412
expressing their sympathy for the objects or it, than with any intention of dividing the House upon it. He should feel it his duty to move the previous question on the hon. Gentleman's propositions; for he was unable to assent to them. One of those propositions stated facts of which the House had at present no knowledge; the other recommended a species of vague relief that it would be impossible to afford. It was very easy for any man to gain a great character for humanity by dwelling on the harsh and severe conduct of Government, or of that House, by representing that they were unwilling to inquire into distress, or to apply to that distress a remedy; and by intimating that he alone was disposed to commiserate and to relieve the distressed. He utterly denied the existence, on the part of that House, or on the part of Government, of an indisposition to consider the distress of any portion of the people; or to apply to that distress a remedy, if a proper and adequate remedy could be discovered. Why did not the hon. Member for Oldham propose some distinct and specific remedy which might be fully and fairly discussed? Why did he not make some direct proposition on which all might express their sentiments and stand a chance of coming to a just and practical conclusion? He repeated, that there was no indisposition on the part of the House, that there was no indisposition on the part of Government, to take into consideration any specific proposition on the subject, and to adopt it if it should seem likely to be beneficial. But what was the hon. Member for Oldham's vague proposition? That as the House had rejected fixing a minimum of wages, they should lower the general taxation in such a manner as to exempt, the individuals in question from contributing to it. He should like to see that proposition put into a definite shape. How could that be accomplished? Was it to he provided that persons who did not earn such or such wages were to pay no taxes? To attempt that object would be to alter the whole system of our taxation. A large portion of that taxation, all, for instance, which came under the heads of customs and excise, was indirect. How, with reference to those taxes, could such a proposition as that which he had described be carried into effect? But, upon the strength of making such a proposition, the hon. Member for Oldham exclaimed to the weavers, "My friends, I am the only person who wishes to relieve you; others are hard-hearted, and

1413
will not take your case into consideration," Now that was mere delusion, although he did not think it would take, which he felt ought to be exposed, and therefore he would take the liberty to expose it. The hon. Member for Oldham said, that it was his duty, both as the Representative of Manchester, and as holding the situation in the Government which he had the honour to hold, to satisfy the wishes of the individuals who were the subjects of the motion. Now, he would not yield to the hon. Member for Oldham in the sincerity of his desire to relieve the unfortunate persons in question, if any rational or practicable mode of furnishing that relief could be devised. But he did not believe that any legislative measure could be adopted by which that relief could be afforded. It was on that ground that he had opposed the appointment of a commission of inquiry. He had opposed it because he thought it likely that the appointment of such a commission would raise delusive expectations which it would be found impossible to satisfy. Not seeing that any good could be derived from such a commission, he had opposed its appointment. The House, however, had decided otherwise. The evil he had apprehended had occurred: but the responsibility rested not with him but with the House. [A Member: With the last House.] With the last House. The commission having, however, been appointed, he should do everything in his power to render it effective: and he hoped that the result of the report of that commission would at least set the question at rest. The commissioners were exceedingly anxious to make their inquiry as comprehensive as possible; but as the hand-loom weavers were scattered over almost every county in the kingdom, the progress of the inquiry must necessarily be slow. The House, however, might rest assured that they would proceed with all the dispatch that the circumstances of the case would admit of, and that all the information it might be in their power to collect, would be communicated without loss of time. He denied that the distress of this class of operatives arose either from foreign competition or from the general use of machinery. The same distress existed amongst other classes of operatives where there was no foreign competition; and as to machinery, he believed that the effect of it was rather to increase than to diminish the demand for manual labour. The real cause of the distress of the hand-loom weavers was their
1414
being too numerous. Under all the circumstances, he thought that the only course the House could pursue would be to wait for the report of the commissioners. If that report suggested any remedy for the relief of this class of persons, he should be most ready to support it.
Mr. Wakleycould not concur in the concluding recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. It might very possibly happen that three or four years would elapse before the Commissioners made their report. In the meantime, according to the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman, these people would be left to starve. The real object of the Commission should be to inquire into the remedy, not the cause, of the distress. The cause was well known. The remedy, though the House had not temerity enough to make the confession, could only be found in the repeal of the corn-laws, and the imposition of a tax upon property. The only relief for the poor was to take the burden of taxation from their shoulders, and to place it upon the shoulders of the rich.
Mr. George F. Youngdiffered from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He thought, that as a Commission had been issued, it was only proper, before any decided step was taken, that the House should wait for the report of that Commission. He, for one, therefore, could not support the present motion, a motion which he hoped the hon. Member for Oldham would see the propriety of withdrawing.
Mr. Humealso expressed a hope, that the hon. Member would withdraw the motion. The distress which pressed so heavily upon the hand-loom weavers, arose from the high price of food in this country as compared with any other country in Europe. The Government had the remedy in their own hands, but were afraid to adopt it. Repeal the corn-laws, and there would be no distress amongst the weavers. But there was no hope of such a step being taken. The agricultural interest was too strong, had too great a preponderance in that House; and the noble Lord, the Home Secretary (Lord John Russell), had declared that he looked upon that preponderance as one that ought to exist. The words used by the noble Lord on an early evening in the Session, were to this effect, "He was aware, at the passing of the Reform Bill,

1415
that it would give a preponderance to the landed interest, and he should object to any alteration of the suffrage which might tend to lessen that preponderance." Instead of there being no legislative remedy for the distress of the hand-loom weavers, he contended that there was a legislative remedy. Let them have an honest House of Commons. He did not wish to say anything offensive, or otherwise than this—that they ought, at least, to be most anxious not to legislate for their own advantage. He wished to see the people's House legislate for the benefit of the people at large. But as long as he had been in the House, it appeared to him that legislation had gone on for the benefit of the few, and not of the many.
Colonel Sibthorpthought, that the agricultural interest paid more towards the taxation of the country, than any other class of the community. He deemed it necessary to make this observation in order that it might not go forth to the public, that those who represented that particular interest, were indifferent to the sufferings of any other class in the state.
Mr. Matthias Attwoodconsidered that the subject of the Corn-laws had been improperly introduced into this discussion. He believed that the Corn-laws were not the cause of the distress which prevailed among the manufacturing classes, and therefore that the repeal of those laws would not relieve that distress. On the contrary, he thought the repeal would be attended with a greater weight of suffering than such a measure was calculated to remove. He knew how reluctant the House was, to entertain questions of this kind, and how very difficult it was, for any hon. Member to bring any question under the consideration" of the House which involved nothing of a personal or of a party nature. For this reason, therefore, he felt the more disposed to give his support to the motion of his hon. Friend. They had been told to wait for the Report of the Commissioners, but he conceived it was vain for them to wait for that. All the facts that were capable of being ascertained by the Commissioners were, already sufficiently well known. The right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade had spoken of the extensive reduction that had taken place in the taxation of the country. Now, upon that subject, he would refer the right hon. Gentleman to an authority which he was sure would
1416
not be disputed—he alluded to the evidence of Lord Ashburton taken before the agricultural committee in 1836. At the close of a very lengthened examination that noble Lord said, "He would maintain that there had, in fact, been no reduction of taxes from the period of the war to the present day." He would vote for the motion, because in doing so, he considered he should be expressing his opinion, first, that extensive distress existed among the hand-loom weavers, and, in the next place, that the House were desirous to discover a remedy for that distress.
Mr. Laboucherecould not refrain, after hearing the last observation of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Attwood), from troubling the House for a few moments. The hon. Gentleman had said, that he considered in voting for the motion, all that he was expressing was his opinion, first, that extensive distress prevailed among the hand-loom weavers, and next, that the House were desirous to discover a remedy for that distress. Now, this being the opinion of the hon. Gentleman as to the effect of the vote he was about to give, he felt it to be his duty to call the attention of the House to what was the nature of the question before them, and to show how very far beyond those two propositions stated by the hon. Gentleman, they would go if they voted for the present motion. He would first of all, however, remark, that the House during the last Session of Parliament, had given a strong proof how anxious they were to meet the distress complained of; for they actually adopted an address to the Crown that a Commission might be issued to inquire into the nature and extent of that distress. He begged to say, that in his judgment the House did not on that occasion take a prudent or well-advised step in pursuing that course; for he believed there was always the greatest danger when any one branch of the legislature took upon itself to investigate any particular and local case of distress, inasmuch as it gave rise to expectations which, in all probability would only result in disappointment. But he would now remind the House what were the terms in the concluding part of the motion before them. The motion stated, "that it was the duty of the representatives of the people in that House, immediately to devise and enact such laws as should either raise the wages of the distressed weavers sufficient to maintain them

1417
comfortably, or reduce the taxation on the necessaries of life, and alter the mode of taxation so that no part of the wages paid to the hand-loom weavers should be extracted from them, by either direct or indirect taxation, and that a new system of taxation should be introduced, so as to leave untouched the necessaries consumed by the working classes." Now he had a great deal too much respect for the intelligence and good sense of these weavers to believe that ninety-nine out of every hundred of them could possibly read with a serious countenance, such a proposition as this. To suppose that any system of taxation could be devised, consistently with the financial state of this country, so as to leave untouched the necessaries purchased by the wages of the working classes was such a mere delusion that one could scarcely conceive it possible for any person seriously to imagine it.
Sir C. B. Veresaid, that the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Oldham had put his motion in such a form, as not to admit of those who wished to do justice to the poor hand-loom weavers, to give him their support. He would, therefore, advise the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his motion; and he hoped to see the question brought forward again in a manner that would not permit of its being put down.
The House divided: Ayes 11; Noes 73: Majority 62.

List of the AYES.

Attwood, W.

Hallyburton, Lord

Attwood, M.

Morris, David

Browne, R. D.

Wakley, T.

Cayley, E. S.

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Fleetwood, P. H.

Tellers.

Freshfield, J.

Fielden, J.

Godson, R.

Hindley, C.

List of the NOES.

Adam, Sir Charles

Denison, W. J.

Aglionby, H. A.

Dennistoun, J.

Alsager, Captain

Dick, Q.

Anson, Col.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Baker, Edward

Eaton, R. J.

Baring, F. T.

Ellis, John

Barnard, Edward G.

Fremantle, Sir T. W.

Barrington, Viscount

Goddard, A.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Berkeley, hon. F.

Grey, Sir G.

Blair, James

Grimsditch, T.

Borthwick, Peter

Hastie, A.

Broadwood, Henry

Hayter, W. G,

Chalmers, P.

Hobhouse, Sir J. C.

Copeland, W. T.

Hobhouse, T. B,

Courtenay, P.

Hollond, R.

Darby, George

Hope, G. W.

1418

Howard, P. H.

Style, Sir C.

Hume, J.

Talfourd, Sergeant

Kemble, Henry

Tancred, H. W.

Labouchere, H.

Thomson, C. P.

Lennox, Lord George

Tollemache, F. J.

Macleod, R.

Tracy, H. H.

Macnamara, Major

Troubridge, Sir T.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Tufnell, Henry

Paget, Fred.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Pechell, Captain R.

Vigors, N. A-

Perceval, G. J.

Warburton, H.

Philips, Mark

Whalley, Sir S.

Richards, Richard

While, A.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Wood, C.

Rose, Sir George

Wood, Sir M.

Round, John

Wyse, Thomas

Salwey, Col.

Yates, J. A.

Sibthorp, Col.

Young, G. F.

Smith, Robert V.

Tellers.

Stanley, E. J.

Parker, J.

Stewart, John

Steuart, R.

DUCHESS OF KENT'S ANNUITY.
Mr. P. Thomsonthe Order of the Day for the Committee on the Duchess of Kent's Annuity Bill was read.
On the question that the Speaker do leave the chair being put,
Colonel Sibthorpcomplained of the conduct of the hon. Secretary for the Treasury towards him as regarded the amendment which he had given notice of on this Bill, and said, that he believed it to be the intention of her Majesty's Government to throw it altogether over. On that ground, though he had been requested by the "smooth device" of the hon. Secretary to postpone his amendment, for the convenience of the Government, he should not do so, as they would not promise him a day for its discussion. They deserved not the slightest indulgence at his hands, and they should not have it. He would do his duty. If the public were satisfied, so would he be.
The House in Committee.
On Clause 1,
Colonel Sibthorpcame forward to propose his amendment. He said, that when the House of Commons was called on to grant a sum of 30,000 l. a-year to "her Royal Highness Maria Louisa Victoria, Duchess of Kent," he, as one of the guardians of the public purse, felt it to be his duty to express his opinion on the subject, and to inquire wherefore was that sum granted. It came down to that House as a recommendation from her Majesty, on the advice of her Majesty's servants in the Government; and no doubt her Majesty had been told by them that such a grant

1419
would be at once agreeable to the feelings of the people of this country and available from its pecuniary resources. And it was not in any spirit of disrespect to her Majesty's commands, or of irreverence towards her recommendation, that those observations which he should make on the subject matter of that grant were conceived, or his opposition to it offered. Who did this measure in reality come from? Ostensibly from her Majesty, but in reality from her responsible—he would rather term them dangerous—advisers—from those men who so loudly professed economy in their expenditure of the public money, and put forward reduction as their principle, but who, he was free to say, practised neither the one nor the other in the slightest degree during the period they—unfortunately, he should add—had held the reins of government. No one was more willing to admit the excellent qualities of the Duchess of Kent, and he had no doubt that she had fulfilled her maternal duties in the most exemplary manner, but he thought that she had, after all, done no more than she ought to do as a mother, and the country had a right to expect; and if she had not fulfilled those duties as she had done, the country would have had every right to censure her. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had argued that they were, by the proposed arrangement, only giving the Duchess of Kent 8,000 l. per annum additional; but he denied it, and asserted that, if they looked to former grants, they would find it would be an addition of 20,000 l. He contended that the grants for the education and virtual support of the Princess Victoria had virtually ceased and become lapsed by her accession to the Throne, and that the Duchess of Kent might now (as far as any reasons of State existed to the contrary) retire into private life; and he had no doubt that her Royal Highness herself entertained the wish. As to precedents, it should be remembered, that in the reign of George 3rd the members of the Royal Family, actually nearer to the Throne than the Duchess of Kent, wore allowed much smaller incomes. His six sons were only given 60,000 l. amongst them, and his five daughters 13,000 l. The former certainly had much greater establishments to support than the Duchess of Kent. The hon. Gentleman on the Treasury bench had expatiated on the limited allowance hitherto enjoyed by her
1420
Royal Highness; and he certainly must admit, that if it was right to allow her 30,000 l. per annum now on account of her proximity to the Throne, it was mean and niggardly in them to restrict her to 22,000 l. hitherto. It was rumoured that there were certain debts incurred in the education of her Majesty still undischarged, to the payment of which this additional grant was to be devoted. If this were the case he could not help saying, that it would have been more straightforward to have brought forward that matter openly, and he would have been one of the first to have aided the re-payment. It was also asserted that there was a sort of private arrangement, that some workings were going forward in foreign lands as well as at home, where he could plainly see that hon. Gentlemen were acting upon a principle well understood in one part of her Majesty's empire, viz., "scratch me and I'll scratch you." The grant was evidently concocted and supported by those who were only anxious to secure power and place, and who, he trusted in heaven, would only hold them for a short time. It was a measure obviously prepared to please those by whose will and pleasure they continued to sit on the Treasury Bench. If they were going to grant this 30,000 l. he wanted to know where it would go, and to whom it would go? He should now move, "That it shall be lawful for her Majesty to give and grant, by letters patent under the Great Seal of Great Britain, to her Royal Highness Maria Louisa Victoria, Duchess of Kent, for the term of her natural life, for the adequate provision of her said Royal Highness, a certain annual payment or annuity of 22,000 l. of lawful moneys of Great Britain, in lieu of the proposed grant of 30,000 l.
Sir S. Whalleyfelt some reluctance to the grant, and would most probably have supported the gallant Colonel's proposition but for the line of argument by which he supported it. He assured the hon. Gentleman that he was no party to the scratching system of which he spoke, and was quite surprised that a man of his gallantry should insinuate such motives where a lady was in the case.
Colonel Sibthorpassured the hon. Member that he did not apply the axiom to the Royal Personage alluded to, but to those who scratched her Majesty's Ministers, in hopes of getting something in return.
Mr. Finchasserted that instead of merely granting an increase of 8,000 l., they were actually giving an increase of 14,000 l. Looking at the entire arrangement, and the circumstances under which the additional grant was proposed, he could not reconcile it with his duty to his constituents to accede to it. He must, therefore, give his vote to the gallant Colonel.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 67. Majority 48.

The AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Kemble, H.

Alsager, Capt.

Lowther, Visct.

Attwood, W.

Richards, It.

Attwood, M.

Round, John

Barrington, Visct.

Tollemache, F. J.

Broadwood, H.

Wakley, T.

Darby, George

Warburton, Henry

Dick, Quintin

Wyse, T.

Fielden, John

TELLERS.

Finch, F.

Sibthorp, Col.

Grimsditch, Thos.

Hume, J.

The NOES.

Adam, Sir C.

Macnamara, Major

Baker, E.

Maule, W. H.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Mildmay, P. St. John

Berkeley, hon. H.

Morpeth, Visct.

Borthwick, Peter

Morris, D.

Briscoe, J. I.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Chalmers, P.

Paget, Frederick

Courtenay, P.

Parker, J.

Denison, W. J.

Pechell, Capt.

Dennistoun, John

Rice, T. S.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Rich, H.

Duff, James

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Dundas, Frederick

Russell, Lord John

Ebrington, Viscount

Smith, R. V.

Ellis, John

Steuart, R.

Fergusson, hon. C.

Stewart, John

Fitzalan, Lord

Stuart, Lord James

Goddard, A.

Style, Sir C.

Grey, Sir G.

Surrey, Earl of

Hallyburton, Lord

Talfourd, Sergeant

Hastie, Archibald

Tancred, H. W.

Hawes, B.

Thomson, C. P.

Hayter, William G.

Tracy, H. H.

Hindley, C.

Troubridge, Sir T.

Hobhouse, Sir J.

Tufnell, H.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Holland, R.

Vigors, N. A.

Hope, George W.

Whalley, Sir S.

Howard, P. H.

White, A.

Howick, Visct.

Wood, C.

Labouchere, H.

Wood, Sir M.

Lennox, Lord G.

Young, G. F.

Lushington, C.

TELLERS.

Lynch, A. H.

Stanley, E. J.

Macleod, R.

Baring, F. T.

Clauses of the Bill were all read and agreed to. The House resumed.

MINUTES.
Bill, Read a first time:—Prisoners Conveyance (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, from the Clergy of Lincoln, for a repeal of the Registration Act.—By Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from the Medical Men of Cheltenham, for an alteration of the Poor-law Act with regard to Medical attendance upon the Poor.—By Lord BROUGHAM, from the Prisoners confined in Bath Gaol, in favour of the Imprisonment for Debt Bill.

POOR LAWS—MEDICAL RELIEF.
Lord Wharncliffepresented a petition from surgeons and medical practitioners of Cheltenham, signed by nearly 200 persons complaining that under the provisions of the Poor-law Bill, sufficient medical assistance was not afforded to the

1375
poor. They stated that the remuneration offered to medical men, was wholly inadequate to the labour, and that, from the great extent of some of the districts, it was quite impossible to afford the necessary assistance. The prayer of the petition was, that their Lordships would appoint a Select Committee, fully to inquire into the operation of this part of the Poor-law Bill. He could not concur in the prayer of the petition, and he had written to the petitioners to that effect, informing them at the same time, that there was a Committee of the House of Commons sitting on the subject of the Poor-law, by whom their complaints would be investigated. In his opinion, the time would come when it would be found that the present Poor-law was much preferable to that which had formerly prevailed. He believed, that if the New Poor-law system had been gradually introduced into those places where riots had recently occurred, those disturbances would have been avoided.
Lord Ellenboroughwas of opinion that the petitioners had attacked the least vulnerable part of the Bill. Under the law, the pauper received medical assistance gratis, which a man in full employment could scarcely command. The sick pauper was allowed broths, porter, and other comforts, he would not call them luxuries, which the working labourer could not purchase.
The Earl of Radnorobserved, that in his neighbourhood an opportunity was given for a report to be made to the board of guardians, as to whether individuals under medical care were or were not satisfied with the treatment which they had received. He understood, that, whenever the New Poor-law had been carefully introduced, even in the northern parts of the kingdom, it had given satisfaction, and that objections were raised against it only in those places where they had no experience on the subject. He knew that a great many petitions had been presented to the House from respectable medical practitioners, complaining that the Bill would have a tendancy to degrade the profession by the system of competition. But there were also a great many respectable men, who had since entered into that competition.
Petition laid on the table.

CIVIL LIST.—DUCHIES OF CORNWALL AND LANCASTER.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that in proposing that the House should resolve itself into a Committee on the Civil List Bill, he had a few observations to make to the House in reference to a subject which was in some degree connected with that motion. He saw on the order-book a notice of motion for the production of an account of the net proceeds of the revenue of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster for a certain number of years. It certainly had been intimated on a former occasion that there would be no objection on the part of Government to the production of these accounts. But it had since been ascertained that such information had never been laid before Parliament, and it was felt, that unless such information was granted as a voluntary act of grace on the part of the Crown, it would be an insult to the Sovereign to call for its production. He had already stated that it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to introduce new regulations with respect to the revenues of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster. It was intended to do away with the present system of secrecy as regarded the accounts, to remedy any abuses that might appear to prevail, and to cause the accounts to be regularly laid before Parliament for consideration and inspection. Upon those grounds he would venture to submit to his noble and learned Friend whether it was necessary that he should press his motion.
Lord Broughamcould assure their Lordships that there was no man in the universe less disposed than he was, after the appeal which had been made to him by his noble Friend, to persevere in the motion of which he had given notice. It appeared from what his noble Friend had stated, that to move an address on this subject, would be at once unfitting and disrespectful to the Crown. If their Lordships thought that this motion ought not to be brought forward, he felt that to persevere in it would be useless. It would only be leading to a debate, or rather to the renewal of the debate of last night. Looking to the support which he was likely to obtain in that House, he saw that he had no chance whatsoever in obtaining the account which he was anxious to procure; and he felt that he had still less chance—indeed he might say—that he had not the most remote possibility of achieving his object, without the assistance

1377
of his noble Friend, who, for the reasons which he had stated, would most unquestionably join in the opposition against his motion. He must, however, say a word or two in vindication of the course which he had adopted, as it was asserted that such a course would not be fitting, as it was declared that such a course ought not to be taken, because it would be wanting in due respect to the Crown. He must say, if this were so, that he was not the only person who laboured under a mistake in supposing that it was neither unfitting, nor unprecedented, nor in opposition to that respect which was due to the Crown, to adopt the course which he had pursued. He gave his noble Friend notice of the motion which he intended to make, and he entered on the motion-paper the very words of that motion. He produced his intended motion to his noble Friend, in order that he might communicate it to his noble Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, to his noble Friend, the Lord President of the Council, and to his noble Friend, who presided over the department of the Woods and Forests. He did this that it might be considered—yes, that it might be maturely considered—whether it would be right or not to comply with the terms of that motion. That paper was given to his noble Friends—they had it in their possession for twenty-four hours—and then a communication was made to him, that there was no possible objection to the production of the papers—that they had communicated with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the proper officer, no doubt, and that no opposition would be given to the motion. Now, he would ask, whether, under these circumstances, he could be charged with the onus of taking a course which was manifestly unfit—which was wholly unprecedented—and which showed a want of due respect to the Sovereign on this question? He certainly thought not. Neither were his noble Friends accomplices with him on this occasion—they were not parties in any conspiracy. He held that he had committed no offence under any one of these three separate heads of charge; and there being no principal offender, there could of course be no accomplices. He hoped that his noble Friends would excuse him when he thus defended them from the imputation which had been cast also upon them when it was directed against him. But he
1378
would appeal to their Lordships whether, at all events, he did not stand abundantly acquitted from such an imputation? How stood the case? They were called on to vote hundreds of thousands a-year on account of the civil list, for perhaps half a century, and the question was, or ought to be, "What is the amount of the revenues of the Crown derived from other sources?" And in order to ascertain that point before it was too late, in order to arrive at that information which ought to influence their vote, he called for certain documents. Now, however, it turned out that that was not the proper course of proceeding; the proper mode, it appeared was to vote the money first, and to make calculations on the information which they might receive with reference to the necessity that existed for the vote afterwards. He had heard on all sides expressions of surprise at the adoption of such a preposterous course, the doing that first which ought to be done last. Oh! but they had for adopting this preposterous course the authority of the Commons House of Parliament—the guardians of the public purse—the jealous watchmen over the funds of the country—those who were sent to represent the people in the people's House of Parliament—whose voice was the voice of the free people of this country. He hoped, however, that they should never see the voice of the people put down in that House by any juggle, by any collusion between the chair and the Treasury benches, by any stifling of that voice on petitions, or debates on petitions, by which debates on petitions, he would say, all the great victories ever gained in that House—their own House—by the people against a borough-mongering Government were achieved. He hoped that they should never see that House less jealous hereafter in the exercise of its functions than it had heretofore proved. But, for the present, a cloud appeared to have passed over the Representatives of the people. Something seemed to have lulled their senses—to have charmed away their activity—to have removed their watchfulness over the purse of the people whom they represented. It did happen, indeed, that their Lordships were charged with taking too much care of the purse of the people. It was asked "Why are you more careful, why are you more "watchful than the people themselves, or than those who are supposed to speak the sentiments of the people?" He could

1379
not answer that question, but he believed that before long the people might awake, and then they might ring a peal in the ears of the Parliamentary guardians of the public purse, the echo of which would be remembered, not only to the last hour of the official existence of the present Government, but to a much later period—to the last hour of the life of the youngest public functionary in the country.
Lord Ellenboroughwas aware that within the last four or five years numerous instances had occurred in which that House had asked for information respecting public expenditure, which the House of Commons had either not asked for, or which, if it had been asked for, was refused. In his opinion it was essential that they should obtain all the information possible to be acquired, in order that they might be enabled to legislate safely. On these grounds he did not think that the noble and learned Lord was justified in withdrawing his motion. There was, however, an objection to the noble and learned Lord's motion.
Lord Brougham:—If the noble Baron is going to argue the question, I will go on with my motion.
Lord Ellenboroughdid not mean to argue the question, which had been argued last night at very great length by the noble and learned Lord, when there were very few peers present. He should now observe, in reference to the statement made by the noble Viscount opposite, "that a Bill was about to be introduced for the regulation of the revenues of the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster," that it was absolutely necessary that such an Act should be passed, because the Crown could not grant a single lease of that property until an Act was passed enabling it so to do. On the accession of William 4th such an Act was passed, and therefore the subject must now come under the notice of Parliament. An opportunity would thus be afforded for making, as he thought there ought to be made, an entire change in the whole system of the duchy of Cornwall. He saw no reason why a full inquiry should not be made into the enjoyment and application of the revenue of that duchy. In his opinion, an end ought to be put altogether to the renewal of leases on fines. All that ought to be required for the buying in of a new life was a fixed annual rent. In one point of view, the system of fines might not be objec-
1380
tionable, because the fine might be fairly equivalent to a certain rent; but in another point it was bad, it was morally ruinous that a Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, on coming into possession of this property, should, at the age, probably of nineteen, have to receive 90.000 l. or 100,000 l. There was no likelihood of a Prince of Wales coming into possession of it for at least twenty years; and advantage ought to be taken of that circumstance to place the property upon an entirely new footing. He did not object to information on the subject; on the contrary, he wished to have it; and his objection to the noble and learned Lord's motion was, that it would afford no sufficient information.
Lord Broughamrepeated, that for his purpose the information which he asked for would be abundantly sufficient. He was induced to withdraw his motion chiefly from the hopelessness of carrying it.
The motion for going into Committee on the Civil List Bill, was then put by the Lord Chancellor.
The Duke of Wellingtonwished to make a few observations on this subject. He had heard a part of the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the preceding evening, and he was sorry that circumstances had prevented him from hearing the whole of it. The noble Viscount opposite had stated yesterday that he (the Duke of Wellington) had made some objection to a similar measure on a former occasion. It was true that he had done so, and he had the same objection to the measure then before their Lordships. His objection at the former period was that provision was not made for the First Lord of the Treasury, and other great officers of state, to make them independent of an annual vote in the Committee of Supply in the other House of Parliament, and he felt an objection to the present measure on the same ground. He objected, also, to what was proposed with respect to pensions. In his opinion a sufficient provision was not made for the exercise of the royal bounty. The noble and learned Lord had gone into considerable detail with respect to the inconvenience likely to result from the long period of time during which provision was about to be made for granting' pensions. Noble Lords looked at the time, but they did not look at the service which was rewarded. Those pensions were not granted to persons who

1381
had performed no services, who had no claims on the country. Many military and naval officers had their names placed on the List in consequence of services which they had rendered the country during the late war. Legislating, as he hoped they were, for the next fifty years, were they, he would ask, making a sufficient provision whereby the Crown could reward naval and military services, when they only granted 1,200 l. a-year for that purpose? He had also another objection to the Bill—he alluded to that Clause by which the Crown was obliged to state the ground on which those pensions were granted. He had been long enough at the head of the Government of this country to be aware that there were many claims, many well-founded claims, on the bounty of the Crown, nay, on its justice, which a Minister could not successfully defend either in that or in the other House of Parliament. He could state some claims arising out of certain public events, which he was sure that every one of their Lordships would admit to be well-founded. It was desirable, in considering a question of this nature, that both Parliament and the public should be distinctly informed what the amount of the property was which the Sovereign gave up when this bargain of the Civil List was made, and also that Parliament and the public should consider whether there were not claims on the justice and generosity of every individual having large property, and whether it was fitting that the illustrious personage filling the Throne, should be the only individual in the country who could not perform an act of justice and generosity, but must come down to Parliament to have the propriety of it discussed in a public assembly. He could have wished that before this subject came under the consideration of their Lordships they had had a distinct statement made to them of the amount of the revenues which the Crown had given up; for then they would have been able to decide whether it was fitting that the generosity of the Crown should be limited as it was in the first instance, and then that every act of that description should be laid before Parliament, and that a Minister should be then called upon to get up in his place in Parliament to defend it. He could not let an Act in which he saw so much to disapprove pass without protesting against it. He would not, however, take up the time of the House
1382
further in discussing the objectionable parts of the Bill, nor would he delay the passing of it by stating any further arguments in opposition to it.
Viscount Melbourneobserved, that he had stated at so much length on a former occasion the grounds on which he thought that the arrangement made for the civil list in 1831 was the best that could be adopted, that he would not enter further into them on the present occasion. He differed widely from the view which the noble Duke had taken of this subject. He thought that the present arrangement, which settled the revenue to be appropriated to the personal convenience, comfort, and dignity of the Sovereign, and which left the other points to be settled by an annual grant of Parliament, was the best and most convenient arrangement that could be adopted. No inconvenience had been found to result from the arrangement of the civil list which had been made at the commencement of the last reign, and he certainly could not see that there was any reason to apprehend inconvenience, if their Lordships acted upon that arrangement during the present reign. The noble Duke had also complained of the arrangement made in this Bill with respect to pensions. The noble Duke had contended that the fund at the disposal of the Crown was insufficient for the purposes of generosity and charity, which the Crown might think it fitting and proper to exercise, That was a question on which great difference of opinion prevailed, and that difference of opinion arose from a difference of principle. The noble Duke had adverted with much feeling to the number of widows and children of officers whose names were upon the pension list; and it was manifest, from the observations of the noble Duke, that he had made up his mind to a much larger system of pensions and superannuations than that which existed at present. Now, his principles were opposite to that. In his opinion nothing was so dangerous and so prodigal for the country as a general system of pensions and superannuations. If it were carried out far, the finance of no country could survive it, any more than the revenues of a private individual could survive it. We had already carried it out to a large extent—we had already given large allowances, as the noble Duke knew much better than himself to individuals both in the army and in the navy; and, in addition

1383
to the pensions on the civil list, there were settled pensions for the widows and families of those officers who had fallen or suffered in the service of the country. He must say for himself, that he knew that this allowance of 1,200 l. a-year for pensions was a smaller sum than that which was before placed at the disposal of the Crown. If the pension list had been voted to her present Majesty in the same way in which it had been voted to his late Majesty, there would have been pensions to a larger amount at the disposal of the Crown than there were at present. The former system, however, was uncertain, for many pensions might fall in during the course of a-year, or none might, while the present system was fixed, regular, and certain. As far as be had seen of the Government of the country, and of the fair demands of individuals upon the bounty of the Crown, he thought, considering that there were other funds for the relief of those who had become destitute or had suffered in the service of the country that the sum now granted, if it were properly administered and wisely distributed,—and its proper administration and its wise distribution could only be secured by the publicity established by this Bill—would be amply sufficient for all the purposes for which it was intended. The noble Duke had adverted to what would have been the amount of the hereditary revenues of the Crown, and to what was given up by the Sovereign in assenting to this bargain. Whatever might be the fate of this act, whatever might be given up by the Crown, this question ought not to be considered on the grounds of its being a claim of compensation, but on the grounds of public policy—not as a claim of bow much the Crown was entitled to receive, but as a question of how much the Parliament in justice and liberality was entitled to grant. For his own part, he thought that what was given to the Crown was sufficient. It should also be recollected, that the restricted amount of funds led to a more prudent and enlightened administration of them, while a profuse amount of them too often led to a profuse expenditure in their management. He was happy to hear the noble Duke in the conclusion of his speech remark that, although he had expressed his disapprobation of several parts of this Bill, he did not intend to give any further opposition to its progress.
1384
Their Lordships went into a Committee and went through the Bill. House rsumed—Bill reported.

UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE.
The Earl of Radnorobserved that when he gave notice a few days ago, that he would on the present occasion draw the attention of their Lordships to circumstances connected with the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, he had said that he should probably direct their attention chiefly to occurrences in the University of Oxford, though a few of his observations might also apply to occurrences in the University of Cambridge. He could not help alluding to what had passed in that House some months ago respecting both those Universities, and to the measures which the authorities of them had professed their intention to take in consequence of them. Though little appeared to have been done in either university, yet it was only fair to state that he had received a letter from Lord Cavendish, stating that much was now going on in the way of reform in the University of Cambridge. "I can inform you," said Lord Cavendish, "that I have reason to believe that in Trinity College and some of the other colleges progress is making, and will be made, by the appointment of Committees to revise the statutes of their individual colleges and also of the University at large." With regard to the University of Oxford he had also been informed that Committees for similar purposes had been appointed in one or two colleges; and he had also been informed that a hope was entertained that after they had ascertained what the statutes of those colleges were, an attempt would be made to consolidate and amend them. He should not further allude to these matters at present, although he thought it right to say that after the recess, in the course of the Session, he might think it necessary to adopt measures to ascertain what the Committees of these Colleges were doing. In the University of Oxford, it was stated that something had been already done, that an alteration had taken place, and that great improvements were going on. He could not, however, congratulate either himself or the country on the extent of reform which had hitherto taken place. Though the heads of houses had applied themselves with great apparent zeal to revise the Statutes

1385
of that University, the sum total of their labours and of their reforms was of the most ridiculous and ludicrous character. That sum total consisted in this, that the tutors were no longer prohibited from reading lectures to their pupils in Lent, that an English sermon should be substituted for the Latin sermon, preached at the commencement of each term to the University, that certain prayers hitherto recited in Latin should in future be recited in English, and that the oath taken by students upon their matriculation, to observe all the Statutes of the University, should be abolished. He begged pardon, he was not certain that he was correct in saying, that an English sermon was to be substituted for a Latin one. No, he was wrong about that point. He saw that the Concio ad Clerum was still to be in Latin. It had been proposed that it should be in English, but on a division, it appeared that the placets were eighty-one, and the non-placets were 102. The only real alteration of the slightest importance which had been made was the abolition of the oath taken by students on their matriculation, to observe all the Statutes of the University. He thought that nothing could be more objectionable than to call upon young men of seventeen or eighteen years of age to swear that they would observe a set of Statutes which they knew nothing about. The getting rid of that oath was certainly an improvement; but it was the sum total of the reforms made at Oxford after incessant labour for a long time. He believed, that if the noble Duke looked into the matter, he would think that this alteration had been most accurately described in a paper which had been published in the University, and from which he would read a single extract:—"It is merely an affectation of doing something when nothing is really intended to be done." He had been told, however, that the University was now doing something on the 15th chapter of their Statutes, which affects the discipline of young men in statu pupillari. He did not, however, anticipate much benefit from that. No one who was acquainted with that University would deny that there was a great aversion to all change in those personages, from whom any change in the discipline of the University must originate; and when their Lordships knew that every change proposed must be assented to by the Convocation, and when
1386
they saw the members of that body voting as they usually did, what hope could their Lordships entertain of any great and salutary reform? He would give their Lordships a specimen how some of the things proposed to be reformed had been received by that learned body. A proposal was made to abolish the obsolete custom which gave to the proctors the power of appointing two masters of arts to chant the Litany, and of imposing on such masters of arts as refused a fine of 5s. This proposal was opposed by sixty-eight persons. He mentioned this to show that there was no chance of any great improvement emanating from such a quarter. Forty-eight members of the Convocation had also voted against a proposition to abrogate a rule which had fallen into desuetude for the last 150 years. These were, however, minor objects. The principal object for which he then rose was to complain of the illegality of the proceedings of the University of Oxford against one of its most learned and pious members—Dr. Hampden. He would not enter into the question, whether alterations of the Statutes ought to originate with the hebdomadal board or with the house of Convocation; for he was prepared to argue the total illegality and incapacity of the University to alter the Statutes without the consent of the Crown. The Code of Statutes by which the University of Oxford was now governed, was passed in 1636, and was called the Laudian or Caroline Code. The circumstances under which that code was passed were these:—About two centuries ago, from the variety of charters which had been granted to the University by several of our monarchs, and from the variety of Statutes which had afterwards been grafted upon them, all the rules and laws of the University had got into a state of great confusion. In the year 1631, the then Chancellor of the University was anxious to reform its Statutes, and to get them consolidated into one code. Delegates were appointed at his instigation for that purpose. The Earl of Pembroke died soon after, and on his death, the celebrated Laud was appointed Chancellor. He set about the work commenced by his predecessor with great zeal, and after the labour of two or three years completed it. Few of the Statutes which he provided for the University were newly drawn up; they consisted principally of the old Statutes ar-

1387
ranged so as to form one code. Charles 1st was very anxious that they should be adopted. They were, therefore, tried for twelve months, and having been approved by the University at the end of that time, were sent down to it with great form, the great seal being attached to them. A Secretary of State and several other officers of high rank were sent down to Oxford with them, and they were received with great form and ceremony by the authorities of the University. He ought to cave mentioned, that previously to this, an Act was passed in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, incorporating the Members of the University under the title of the Masters, Fellows, and Scholars of the University of Oxford, confirming to them all their previous charters, and all their former rights. On the Laudian Statutes being sent down to them, they surrendered all their former charters, and received the Caroline Charter as the charter by which they would in future be governed. Now, if this were so, if this were the governing codex of the University, the next point to be settled was, whether there was in that codex any power reserved to the University to alter its Statutes. He found in the body of the Statutes many expressions forbidding any such alterations. In an original letter which Laud sent down to the University with the Statutes in 1636, there was a paragraph in which he stated, that they were to have legitimam vim, the force of law, for all legal purposes apud posteros perpetuo, for coming generations for ever. Again, there were expressions to the same effect in the letter which Charles 1st sent to the University on the same occasion, and it was therein stated that all former Statutes contrary thereto were repealed. These terms, he repeated, were sent down to the University, and were accepted by it with great form. It was expressly provided, that there should be no power of altering any of the Statutes without a special license from the King himself. There was also a whole chapter on matters which were called indispensable, in which it was expressly stated, that no dispensation or change should be prayed for with respect to any Statute or decree which had received the Royal authority. He knew it had been contended that those provisions of immutability related only to some particular Statutes—the Caroline Statutes, as they were called. But such was not the fact. The prohibition of
1388
making any alteration was not confined to those Statutes; and the natural construction was, that it must apply to the whole. But it was said, there were certain provisions in the Statutes for necessary alterations; and it did singularly happen that in the Caroline Statutes themselves, which had always been held to be unalterable, there was a similar power given to different persons of setting matters right, if there should be any " dubitatio" on the subject. It was important also to observe what had been the feeling of the University itself. The Statutes were passed in 1636, and for 120 years from that time only seven new Statutes, or supplements as they were called, were made, and every one of them came literally within the permission given for making necessary alterations. Then in 1640 a new Statute passed for regulating the Arabic lecture, which had just been founded; in 1662, another supplementary Statute was passed—the only one which afforded any justification of the modern practice—and the object of that Statute was to require two declamations instead of one before taking a degree. In 1708, there was another Statute for regulating the poetical lecture, then first founded. In 1738, another for extending to the sons of Scotch and Irish Peers, the same honorary indulgencies enjoyed by the sons of English noblemen. Another in 1757, for regulating the appointment and remuneration of the officers of the press, and another in 1758 for regulating the Vinerian professorship. In 1759, some dispute having arisen with respect to these Statutes, the opinion of Blackstone, who had just been appointed the first Vinerian Professor, and of two counsel, Morton and Wilbraham, was taken; and it was supposed, from their opinion, that the University had the power to make Statutes. Up to 1758, only seven alterations had been made which really and truly were no violations of the Statutes without the Royal license. These seven were placed as an appendix to the corpus statutorum; but from that period, a body of alterations, almost as large as the Statutes themselves, were made in the nature of additions. In the next thirty-six years there had been no less than fifteen additions; and so the University had gone on up to the present time. He should have mentioned as a strong confirmation of the opinion he had given, that in 1637, the very subsequent year to the passing of the

1389
Statutes, Laud gave a body of laws to the University of Trinity College, Dublin, containing an express prohibition to make any alterations, and the consequence was that, from that time to the present, they had continued the same absurd forms which were in use in those days. There appeared very good ground to suppose that up to 1759, the University felt that under what he contended was a proper understanding of those provisions they had no power to alter any essential part of those Statutes without the Royal assent. It might be said it was wholly absurd to suppose that a corporation of this nature would accept of Statutes which bound them so stringently against the adoption of any alteration; but this happened in fact every day, and in petitions presented last year on this very subject it was contended, in accordance with this view, that neither the Universities themselves, the heads of houses, nor the visitors, nor even Parliament itself, had the power to make any alteration. This, he contended, afforded a complete justification of the view he took upon the matter. The steps which had been adopted last year against Dr. Hampden, were therefore perfectly illegal. There was a Statute passed last year without any authority from the Crown, which repealed two chapters of the Statute, stated in the margin as being part of the addenda. One of those chapters directed that the Regius Professor of Divinity, should be one of those to appoint the select preacher, and the other directed that the Regius Professor of Divinity should be one of the persons appointed to try matters of heresy in case any heretical doctrines were preached in the University. It was said both of these Statutes were in the addenda. He contended the whole of the addenda were irregular and illegal, inasmuch as they were additions to the original Statutes, and therefore he saw no harm in repealing them. It seemed to have been customary for the University, in altering parts of any Statute, to repeal the whole, and transfer any parts of it they wished to retain to the addenda, word for word as they appeared in the original Statute. Now, the section of the chapter which enacted that the Regius Professor of Divinity should be one of those appointed to choose the select preacher was only to be found in the addenda, and he did not complain of its repeal; but the other, depriving him of
1390
the power to sit at what was called the Board of Heresy, was transferred from the original Statute to the addenda, and the University had no power to repeal it. The University had, therefore, he contended, violated that Statute in the insult they had offered to Dr. Hampden. Without any accusation having been made, they were at once the accusers, the judges, and the executioners. Dr. Hampden was living quietly in Oxford as Regius Professor; a convocation was called, a great stir was made, the greatest activity was used to get up people from all parts of the country, and coaches drove into Oxford with men to give their votes who, to his (Lord Radnor's) certain knowledge, knew little about the matter, and had never read a single word of Dr. Hampden's works, save and except the extracts which his enemies had circulated against him. He believed he could prove that at the bar. Those men came up to the Convocation, and passed the statute by which they declared that some of Dr. Hampden's writings contained such theology,res theologica, that the convocation, had no confidence in him, Dr. Hampden never having been summoned nor heard in his own defence. Indeed one of the speeches at the Convocation made by the Warden of Merton, concluded thus:—"Where is the accuser? Where is the accused? What is the accusation?" Dr. Hampden was not only excluded from being one of those to appoint the select preachers, but was also excluded from sitting at the board of heresy. The conduct of the university in that respect was illegal; nor were their late proceedings less illegal in reference to a general revision of the statutes. But he might be charged with inconsistency, first in urging the university to undertake the work of self-reformation, and then complain of them when they did so. The whole difficulty might easily have been re. moved if the University of Oxford had applied to the proper quarter, but they had proceeded in an irregular, illegal, and most improper manner; and he conceived it was the duty of her Majesty's Government to take some steps in order to vindicate the prerogative of the Crown with respect to Dr. Hampden, as having been appointed by the Crown to an office of so much importance and dignity. No doubt it might be said, if Dr. Hampden had suffered any grievance, he should seek redress for himself; but the remedy was so cumbersome

1391
and so expensive, that with limited means and a large family he did not choose to resort to it. After the statute passed, no notification had been given to him, and although he sent his protest to the Vice-Chancellor, no notice whatever was taken of it; but the Vice-Chancellor thought proper to stick up an advertisement in one of the colleges, of which he was principal, that no candidate for orders, however well conducted or meritorious, should have a testimonial if he attended Dr. Hampden's lectures. Luckily this conduct had been counteracted by the determination of two of the bench of bishops, their rule being to require testimonials of having attended the lectures of the Regius Professor of Divinity. Those were the grounds on which he founded his motion. But there was another point of view in which the proceedings of the university, if not technically, were morally illegal. He had felt it to be his duty on more occasions than one to animadvert on the way in which oaths were taken at Oxford. They would rather, it was said, be turned into the world houseless and penniless than break an oath. Well, the observance of the statutes was enforced by repeated oaths. Up to the other day every matriculated member of the university swore to observe them; every B.A., and M.A., and D.D. bound himself by repeated oaths to observe them, and yet those repeated oaths were violated by the proceedings to which he had alluded. The noble Earl then referred to a pamphlet recently published at Oxford and attributed to the gentleman who addressed a letter to him last spring in the public papers, in which an opinion was expressed that obsolete laws were not imperative: while it was well known there was a part of the statutes which expressly stated, that if any of the governing authorities suffered a law from neglect or indolence to become obsolete, he should be deemed guilty of perjury. There was a passage upon this subject in an article in the last number of the Quarterly Review, which (although anonymous) must, from the singular coincidence of doctrine and style, have proceeded from the same individual to whom he had already referred, and which he hoped their Lordships would allow him to read. The passage read by the noble Earl was as follows:—
"We cannot here point out all the errors prevalent just now on this important subject; but, in the case of a trust requiring the constant
1392
adaptation of fixed rules to changing circumstances, under the necessary promise of adherence to those rules themselves—if one thing more than another can relieve the conscience, and remove the difficulties of the trustee, even where the greatest changes may be required, it is an oath. A promise to man ties us down to one fixed act, from which we cannot swerve, because man cannot see our heart, or provide for contingencies, or judge us with discretion; but an oath restores us at once to that Christian liberty which in all cases of difficult conduct is absolutely necessary, but most of all amidst the multitude of duties and relations involved in the functions of the universities. In very, very few cases, is the administration of an oath anything but an error and an evil; but in the commission of such a trust as this it is absolutely necessary, to enable men to act as they must act, sometimes even in opposition to the verbal will of their founder, but at all times under the eye of God."
That was the language of the Quarterly Review, the organ of the church and the universities. Talk of Popery indeed, it was nothing to that. The Pope was said, he did not know how truly, to release a man from his oath; but according to this doctrine every man was his own Pope, and might release himself from any oath whenever he thought fit. The noble Earl concluded by moving for a copy of the protest made by Dr. Hampden to the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford on the 8th of November, 1836. He hoped the Government having had their attention called to the subject would take some step to vindicate the prerogative of the Crown and set Dr. Hampden right.
The Duke of Wellingtonfelt himself bound to object to the motion of the noble Earl. In point of form that motion could not be made, and he did not know to what end it could be directed; but he did not solely object to it in point of form—he objected to it also in substance. The object of the noble Lord's motion was to bring the subject under the consideration of the House, with a view to a prosecution by the authority of her Majesty's Government of the University of Oxford. That was the object of the noble Lord's motion. If the noble Lord had given notice of his intention to address the Crown to direct that Dr. Hampden, as an individual, should be prosecuted, his motion might be more in form, but the intention avowed by the noble Lord was that the University of Oxford should be prosecuted on account of these transactions. That was an interference not only with the affairs of the university

1393
but with the Crown, which in his (the Duke of Wellington's) opinion that House ought not to make. That House ought certainly not to take such a step upon a subject of this description. If it aid take such a step with a view to a prosecution of the University of Oxford, and that there should afterwards be an appeal to that House in consequence of such prosecution, he should like to know in what situation the noble Lord and that House would stand when such appeal came before it? Under these circumstances, he was quite sure their Lordships could not adopt the motion on the grounds stated by the noble Earl. He could not help thinking that the last part of the noble Lord's speech was almost an answer to the first; because, if the noble Lord contended, as stated by him in the latter part of his speech, that the university had no right to alter these statutes, upon what ground did the noble Lord blame the university for not having made the alterations which the noble Lord was of opinion it ought to make in the statutes and conduct of the university, as stated by him in the commencement of his speech? Before he sat down he trusted he should be able to show that the University of Oxford had the power of altering its statutes; and on the part of that university he must say, that for a long time the Convocation had had under their consideration the alterations which ought to be made in those statutes, that the work of alteration had been commenced by them in the course of last term, and that they were proceeding with that work as fast as they could proceed with propriety, and at the same time with attention to the other duties they had to perform. Besides, he could tell the noble Lord, in answer to the first part of his speech, that in all the colleges in which it was in the power of the governing body, whether assisted by the visitors or not was not essential; but that in all these colleges where it was in the power of the governing body to make alterations in the statutes, they had those statutes under their consideration, with a view to make in them such alterations as might be considered just or requisite. They had had the subject under consideration during the few months that had elapsed since the close of last Session; and at the expiration of a few months more, during which there would be comparatively much more leisure to devote to it, he hoped he should
1394
be able to inform the noble Lord that some progress had been made in the work of alteration. The noble Earl had entered into a long detail upon the subject of the statutes of the University of Oxford, in order to prove that the Convocation of that university had not the power of altering those statutes. Now, he believed that there was no corporation in this kingdom which had had the power of making its statutes for a longer period than the University of Oxford. It was perfectly true that in the reign of Charles 1st, a revision of those statutes became necessary; that a commission had been employed to revise and consider them; that the commissioners agreed upon what course they should adopt in the year 1634, and that in the year 1636, and not immediately after, as stated by the noble Lord, the King sent down a letter confirming those statutes, and containing the clause adverted to by the noble Lord, and which the noble Lord contended had the effect of preventing any alteration in those statutes, although they contained expressly the power of enacting, interpreting, or altering statutes, but at the same time forbidding the exercise of that power in case the statutes were sanctioned or confirmed by royal authority. The noble Lord pretended that these words referred to the whole code of statutes passed, as he had said, in 1634, and confirmed in 1636. But it was well known in the university that the prohibition of altering statutes extended solely to those statutes which had been sent down to the university by the King himself, which in fact had been made by the King, and which were directed to be carried into execution under very different circumstances, and containing very different words from the rest of the statutes. This was a matter perfectly well understood in the university, and it always had been understood and acted upon from the year 1630, up to the present time. The noble Lord stated, that in the year 1640 a statute had been passed respecting the establishing of an Arabic professorship by the Chancellor Archbishop Laud: but surely if it were understood at that time that a statute could not be altered, abrogated, or interpreted, excepting with the consent of the King, Archbishop Laud would have asked his Majesty's consent to the enactment of this statute, passed at so early a period as 1640, that was to say, within four years after the period at which those

1395
statutes had been confirmed by his Majesty, and, as the noble Lord said, under the Great Seal. It happened that the Caroline statutes were confirmed under the Great Seal; but the general code of statutes was not so confirmed. There was one general letter applying to the whole, which he held to be under the Great Seal, though not in the same form as the Caroline statutes. There were other statutes subsequently passed, and by those who were perfectly well acquainted with the transactions of 1634 and 1636; but there never had been a doubt expressed of the power of the University of Oxford to make alterations and promulgate statutes until a very late period, when the subject came under the consideration of Mr. Justice Blackstone and certain other judges in the year 1759. Mr. Justice Blackstone said, "that the corporate body of an university being a thing entirely distinct from all private eleemosynary collegiate foundations, possessed the same rights and powers, and was subject to the same regulations, as other bodies politic—that all corporations had an inherent and inseparable right conferred by the law in the very act of their incorporation to make by-laws and statutes for their own domestic government, provided such by-laws were not contrary to the charter of their incorporation or the general law of the land." Mr. Justice Blackstone also said, "that with respect to any prohibition contained in former statutes, it was certain that no corporation had the power to make statutes or by-laws abridging the legislative power of its successors, who had the same right to enact as their predecessors had, any more than one Parliament could effectually make an act to abridge any future act. Therefore any academical act or by-law which seemed to assume such power was either void in itself, or voidable and subject to be repealed by any subsequent act." It followed from this that such prohibitions contained in statutes against repealing or explaining former statutes without a license from the Crown was contrary to the first principles of law and reason, and therefore void, or at least liable to be repealed or suspended in any particular instance.
The Earl of Radnorinquired in what capacity that opinion had been delivered by Blackstone? Was it in a case of law?
The Duke of Wellingtonwas not able to inform the noble Lord. It had been put
1396
into his hand as the opinion of Mr. Justice Blackstone, and the noble Earl could refer to it himself; he had no doubt whatever the opinion had been given; at all events he relied upon it; he believed it to be law, or at least the law upon which the university had been acting. He admitted that at the period when this opinion was given there must have been some doubt with respect to the right of the university to alter or make their statutes; but at the same time there could be nothing more clear, nothing more reasonable, nothing more just, than the opinion to which he had referred, and upon which he relied as being the law of the case. He must say, that the noble Earl himself, the House, and the public generally, having called upon the universities both of Oxford and Cambridge to consider their statutes with a view to their alteration, and having before them such opinions as those of Mr. Justice Wilmot and other judges, it did appear rather extraordinary that the noble Lord should now come forward and say that they had no right whatever to make any alteration in their statutes. They must continue absolute though they might be—inconvenient and unreasonable though they might be—yet that alter them the universities must not, because certain words in the Caroline statutes contained a prohibition against their alteration. The noble Lord having made that assertion, then addressed their Lordships respecting a gentleman, in reference to whom he was anxious to say as little as possible. The late king had been advised to appoint that gentleman to be Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford. There could be no doubt that the general opinion of the university was, that that gentleman's theological tenets were not exactly orthodox, or consistent with the articles of the Church of England, an opinion which the publication of certain works by that gentleman had tended to establish. Several persons in the university had considered it their duty to petition his Majesty, praying, if the appointment had not been completed, that he would not make it. He believed that another address had been presented to his Majesty, entreating his Majesty not to sanction that appointment. The appointment, however, had been made, contrary to the views of the university at large, and a short time afterwards Dr. Hampden had thought right in his inaugural lecture to state that he then

1397
felt it his duty to explain the opinions which had been complained of. It was not for him to pretend to judge either those opinions or that explanation; but this he would venture to say, and he believed their Lordships would concur in the opinion, that in proportion as Dr. Hampden had found it necessary to give an explanation of his sentiments, in the same proportion were those justified who had thought proper to disapprove of them. He believed it would be admitted that if a clergyman who had published certain opinions not being orthodox, thought proper to come forward and explain those opinions, at least those opposed to such opinions had some justification for the course they had taken in disapproving of them. That was all he wished to say respecting the opinions and explanation of Dr. Hampden. His appointment having been made notwithstanding the petition of a vast number of the clergy of Oxford, and the general opinion expressed there that it should not be made, a request was made to the heads of Houses requesting that they would propose some measure to the Convocation which would have the effect of marking the disapprobation on the part of that body, of the opinions and appointment of Dr. Hampden. The noble Earl had alluded to the act of Convocation excluding Dr. Hampden from being one of those to appoint the select preachers, and also from sitting at the board of heresy. He was not disposed to say anything against Dr. Hampden, but this he must say, that considering the whole transaction, his opinion was, the Convocation had done as little upon that occasion as it was possible to have done, consistently with the necessity which existed of taking some notice of that gentleman, his opinions, and conduct. Since that period, he really believed that the university and the bishops of the Church of England, and all the persons who had any influence on this question, had done everything in their power to put it down and prevent it becoming a subject of discussion, even in the university or elsewhere. For himself, he could say, he had invariably pursued that course, it being his object to prevent any discussion on the matter; and he never should have mentioned it there, or elsewhere, publicly, if the noble Earl had not on the present occasion, forced it upon him. He certainly lamented the transaction, principally because he considered
1398
it was likely to produce a schism in the Church; and he had been as anxious as any man could be in his situation to prevent the university from proceeding upon the subject in such a manner as might by possibility lead to that result. The noble Lord adverted to the conduct of a Gentleman who was now Vice Chancellor of the University, and who had in his capacity of head of a house prohibited the attendance of the students in divinity upon the lectures of the Regius Professor. He did not pretend to be competent to mark the difference between the private and public lectures of the Regius Professor, but he certainly did not approve of the course taken by the Vice-Chancellor. In his opinion, the question was not one to be considered by the head of a house, for in fact no ordination could be conferred by him or the Regius Professor of Divinity. Ordination could only be conferred by the bishops of the Church; and whether the students attended the lectures of the Regius Professor of Divinity, or those of the Margaret Professor, or of any other Professor, he would say it was the duty of the bishops of the Church to consider the attainments of the persons coming for ordination, and whether they were qualified or not, without taking into consideration the certificates of the Regius Professor of Divinity, the head of a house, or any other individual. It was, he contended, the duty of the bishops to examine every candidate for holy orders without reference to the certificate of any individual whatever. He must say, however, with regard to the course adopted by the Vice-chancellor, that he was thoroughly convinced, not only from what that gentleman had stated to him, but from his own knowledge of that gentleman's conduct, and his character for candour and fairness, that he had the very best motives for pursuing that course. From that course he departed as soon as he had found that the bishops of the church had determined upon taking a different course, conceiving that he was then relieved from all charge and responsibility in the situation which he held. Such was the history of that transaction, and he had only to say with respect to the Vice-chancellor, and with respect to others of the university of Oxford, that it was their anxious wish and desire to avoid taking any step in reference to Dr. Hampden, lest it should in any manner whatever lead to what they would con-

1399
sider the greatest possible misfortune—a schism in the church. He thought he had answered the greater part of what had fallen from the noble Earl. The noble Earl had thought proper, at the end of his address, to read a letter and likewise an extract from a magazine, neither of which, he could assure the noble Earl, he had ever heard of. It was impossible for him to say whether he concurred or not in the opinions they contained; but if he conceived they were at all of the nature which the noble Lord had described, they certainly could not be more abhorred by that noble Lord than by him. Without meaning any disrespect to the noble Lord, he thought the proper course for the House to pursue would be to reject the motion of the noble Earl.
Lord Broughamprotested against that part of the noble Duke's statement with regard to Dr. Hampden, in which he asserted that the explanation given by that gentleman of the opinions previously put forward by him afforded any justification of the charge which had been made against him on account of those opinions. As well might it be said that the story which had been lately circulated respecting him—namely, that he had committed a breach of good manners in prematurely quitting the royal table—as well might it be said that that story had some foundation because he now declared it to be an utter falsehood.
The Earl of Winchilsea The Earl of Winchilsea, in reply to the observation of the noble and learned Lord, begged to say, that what had been said by Professor Hampden had been said only in explanation, and not in contradiction, of the opinions contained in the pamphlet which had called forth animadversion on the part of the university. Moreover, that explanation had not satisfied the great body of the university as to Dr. Hampden's having renounced those opinions to which they were opposed. With regard to that gentleman's appointment, it was well known at the time that his religious opinions were about to be made the subject of public animadversion in the University of Oxford. The university had in his (Lord Winchilsea's) opinion acted with great leniency towards that gentleman under the circumstances, and, as it appeared to him that the object of the noble Lord was to bring that individual's conduct before their Lordships, he sincerely hoped that their Lordships would
1400
coincide in the opinion expressed by the noble Duke, that it was inexpedient on the part of that House to entertain such a proposition, and would therefore reject the motion of the noble Earl.
Viscount Melbournewas not in the slightest degree aware that there was anything to be condemned in the writings of Dr. Hampden. They were upon points of extreme recondite and difficult scholastic learning. Very few of their Lordships indeed had the means of forming any sound Opinion upon such extremely difficult, abstruse, and obscure points as those. With respect to an intimation that had been made to him upon the subject from the University of Oxford, it seemed to him to have been made by persons who were utterly ignorant of the writings of Dr. Hampden. He knew very little upon the subject, and yet he believed he knew more than those who had come to him on that occasion. He did not, in the slightest degree, conceive that there was anything understood in the writings of Dr. Hampden which was contrary to the doctrines of the Church of England. The noble Duke seemed to think that, because of his explanation, there was something objectionable in the opinions Dr. Hampden felt it necessary to explain. In point of learning and extent of knowledge he believed that that gentleman was the most worthy person who could be found in the university at the time to fill the professorship. Upon his appointment he gave, in an inaugural lecture, a statement of his opinions; but whether that statement contained a retractation or explanation, it was, undoubtedly, not for him to say. He believed it to have been an explanation of Dr. Hampden's opinions, entirely doing away with the charge which had been brought against him; he believed it to have been a complete explanation, showing that those opinions were entirely consonant with the articles and doctrines of the Church of England. The noble Duke said, that they were contrary to the opinions of a majority of the University of Oxford; but he could not admit that a majority of the University of Oxford possessed any power to settle such disputed points, for the opinions of reformists were contrary to those entertained by a great majority of the University of Oxford. If these opinions had been generally entertained at the period of the Reformation, he believed that the Protestant religion

1401
would never have been established in this country. The opinions of Mr. Locke, were contrary to those of the majority of the University of Oxford, and he begged leave to say, that if the opinions of that majority had alone been consulted, everything liberal, everything noble, everything free and ingenuous in this country, would undoubtedly not have been established in it. It was not his intention to have taken any part in this debate, and he had now only to say a word or two respecting the motion of his noble Friend. It was, as he understood, for the production of a protest delivered by the Vice-chancellor of Oxford against the opinions of Dr. Hampden. He would not say whether it was within the competency or power of the House to order the production of this paper or any paper of a similar nature; he would not say that circumstances might not render such a thing expedient, but it was very unusual to ask for such a document, inasmuch as they had no way of enforcing its production if refused, except by treating the refusal as a breach of the privileges and authority of that House. Conceiving, then, that his noble Friend only made this motion for the purpose of bringing the subject under discussion, he would submit to his noble Friend whether it would not, under the circumstances, be better to withdraw it.
The Archbishop of Canterburywould not have risen to say one word upon the motion were it not for an observation which fell from the noble Viscount, the First Lord of the Treasury. He felt assured that the noble Viscount in the observation made by him, did not mean any disrespect to certain persons who waited on him relative to the appointment of Dr. Hampden to the Regius Professorship. He said, they appeared totally ignorant of the subject. He would not say whether he were ignorant of theology or not, or whether he was more ignorant of it than the noble Viscount professed to be; neither would he allude to the peculiar opinions of Dr. Hampden. These opinions were announced in several publications, and he believed they gave dissatisfaction in various quarters. They were, however, of a character totally different from the opinions which produced the Reformation, and from the opinions of Mr. Locke. The question was, were the opinions maintained by Dr. Hampden consistent with the doctrines of the Church of England?
1402
Upon this point be would abstain from any observation. He would not attempt to go into the subject. He felt it his duty certainly to make some representations to the First Lord of the Treasury upon the appointment; but he appealed to those Ministers who were in power previous to the present Ministry—he appealed to the noble Duke (Wellington), and to a noble Friend of his who had just left the House—if he ever, upon any occasion, stood in the way of any man's preferment in the Church. Nothing but a sense of duty could induce him to remonstrate against this or any other appointment, but having with him the great majority of the University, many also of the ablest Divines, he did not feel that his conduct ought to meet the ridicule of the noble Earl (Radnor). There was so much of contradiction in the noble Earl's observations, in his complaints respecting the things done, and other things left undone, that he felt much difficulty in understanding him. The noble Earl said that on some points there was a majority in the University in favour of his opinions, and complained at the same time that he was in a minority. The noble Earl at one time insisted that the Statutes must be altered, and then insisted that they could not be altered, because there was a Statute that made them unalterable. Then the noble Earl proceeded to the case of Dr. Hampden. Had he known such to have been the noble Earl's intention before coming into the House, he would have endeavoured to dissuade the noble Earl from such a course. Was it likely to do any good? Would it not be better to have passed this matter over in silence? For his part he did everything in his power to soften the matter in the University. The noble Earl read a passage from a review. What right had the noble Lord to assume that this review was the organ of the Church? What right had he to assume that certain sentiments must be the sentiments of the University of Oxford, because he found them expressed in this review? Similar sentiments might be entertained in an Oxford newspaper, or in some Church magazine, of which there were many; but were such publications therefore to be called the organs of the Church? The Church had very different organs, and highly as he respected the celebrated journal mentioned by the noble Earl, he must protest against it being considered the organ of the Church.
The Earl of Radnor, in reply, said it was generally understood that the review from which he quoted, spoke the sentiments of the Church. The truth was, that the doctrine laid down in the review was adopted in practice by the University. The doctrine was, that by an oath, a person bound himself to God, not to man. It was all well to say that it would be more discreet to observe silence on the case of Dr. Hampden, but it should be recollected that he was the party injured, traduced, and insulted. He believed him to be as honest, as virtuous, and as honourable a man as any living. He had no doubt that all the hostility to him in the University arose from his advocating the admission of the Dissenters. His theology was never censured before. On the contrary, he was appointed to the professor ship of moral philosophy. With respect to the alterations made in the Statutes, he thought that getting rid of the oath was a great advantage, but the subscription, as now insisted upon, was more objectionable than it was before, because persons even under the age of twelve were called called upon to subscribe, and that as to matter of faith, not merely as to matter of opinion or reason.
Motion withdrawn.