Sitting of 19 May 1837

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Final Registry of Electors; and Summary Conviction of Juvenile Offenders.—Read a second time:—Registration and Marriages Acts Amendment.—Read a third time:—Concealment of Births; Wills; Highway-rates; and Turnpike Roads Act (Ireland).

TRAVELLING ON THE SABBATH.
Mr. Dunlop Mr. Dunlop moved the third reading of the Glasgow and Ayr Railway Bill.
Dr. Bowringconsidered the House bound, in justice and consistency, to reject a clause which had been introduced into this Bill, prohibiting traveling on the Lord's-day.
Mr. Dunlophad letters from all quarters of the country in the vicinity of the railway approving of the clause, and it was not fair for hon. Gentlemen to oppose it, simply in order to carry forward a speculative opinion of their own. He had been twitted by the hon. Member for Bath with using pounds-shillings-and-pence arguments on a former occasion, but he had done so, because he considered such arguments would have more weight with that hon. Member, and those with whom he acted, than any others he could have used. But travelling on Sunday was hostile to the feelings of the people of Scotland, and was there any justice or any wisdom in violating the prejudices of a whole people? This rail-road was an undertaking in opposition to all the coaches and other carriages passing in the same direction, and by the old law those carriages were prevented from travelling on Sunday. If, then, the clause was omitted, a great injustice would be done to those persons to whom those carriages belonged; and he therefore hoped, that as the clause had received the approbation of the people of Scotland, and as its omission would be an act of injustice to many, the House would not reject it.
Lord John Stuartsaid, the clause had only been carried in the Committee by a majority of one. He had then opposed it, as he considered its insertion an act of gross injustice, and peculiarly injurious to the poor, and he trusted the House would now reject it altogether.
Sir Andrew Agnewhad received petitions from the constituents of almost every Member in the House in favour of the principle on which the clause was founded. These petitions expressed a strong feeling on the subject, and the rejection of the clause would alarm the prejudices of the people of Scotland, who were most strongly opposed to travelling on the Lord's-day.
Mr. Wakleyasked, did the hon. Member for Wigtonshire believe that he could, by an Act of Parliament, make the people more moral? The idea was an insult to the religion which they professed; and the clause could only be considered as levelled against the working classes, who were to be prevented from travelling by means of this great improvement on the former mode of conveyance. The hon. Baronet could not prevent the people from using their feet, and there would be no use in preventing them from travelling by a railroad. Beasts might be tortured in carriages on
900
the Sabbath, but this quiet mode of conveyance was to be denied.
Mr. Finchsaid, that if the arguments of the hon. Member for Finsbury were good for anything, they went to establish that there was no necessity for statutes of any kind for the prevention of crime. The hon. Gentleman had said, that the clause was directed against the poor, but its object was to give them one day's rest in seven; and he could assure the House that nothing would more irritate the feelings of the people of Scotland than the omission of the clause.
Mr. Roebucksaid, that there had been so many appeals on the subject, that it was highly necessary that they should be understood. First, an hon. Member had got up and insinuated that which he knew it would be unparliamentary to state openly. The insinuation of the hon. Member for Ayrshire with respect to his (Mr. Roebuck's) religion, was totally uncalled for. What was the meaning of that insinuation? A man of high feeling, of Christian charity, of common honesty, would not make an insinuation when he dared not make a direct assertion.
The Speakerthought the hon. Member must feel that he was using language not quite Parliamentary.
Mr. Roebuck: I bow to your decision, Sir. The language was too strong for this House; but it was called for by an insinuation that ought not to have been made in it. Those, continued the hon. Member, who opposed this clause in a Railroad Act, were said, by insinuation, not to have a proper reverence for the Christian religion—that was the meaning of the insinuation. Now, he asserted distinctly and broadly, that the Christian religion had nothing whatever to do with the Sabbath. The Sabbath Day was the Saturday kept by the Jewish religionist; and the Sunday, which had no reference to the 4th Commandment, was not contemplated at all by the 4th Commandment. The Sunday was an ordinance that had grown up by mere custom. He held in his hand, and he was determined to push this question to the utmost, a tract written by Archbishop Whateley, who quoted Archbishop Cranmer. He hoped that was authority enough for Gentlemen opposite. Now, what said Archbishop Cranmer:—"Know ye not, good children, that the Jews in the Old Testament were commanded to keep the Sabbath Day, and they observed every seventh day, called the Sabbath, or Saturday; but we Christian

901
men in the New Testament are not bound by such commandments of Moses's law-concerning differences of times, days, and weeks, but have liberty and freedom to use other days for our Sabbath days, thereon to hear the word of God and keep holy rest; and therefore the Christian liberty may be kept and maintained. We now keep no more the Sabbath on Saturday, as the Jews do, but we observe the Sunday, and certain other days, as the magistrates do judge convenient, whom in this thing we must obey." What was the meaning of that assertion? Why, that the 4th Commandment, like the other portion of the Jewish law, was abrogated by the Christian creed, and was no law for us. Archbishop Whateley, no ordinary authority, distinctly laid down that rule, and said that, on the Sunday—which was a mere day of commemoration, and not ordained, not commanded in any way by the Christian religion—we keep our holy rest. Now, he would go somewhat farther. He wanted to know by what rule and by what Christian guide those men were led who insinuated those individuals were not Christians who opposed the introduction of such a clause into a Bill of this kind. He held in his hand the code of the Christian faith, and he would quote that reverend book, and he would from it take his rule and his Christian charity. He was about to read, with all due deference, a portion of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. In the 14th chapter of that epistle, St. Paul spoke thus—" Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputation. For one believeth that he may eat all things, and those who were weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not, judge him that eateth, for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgeth another man's servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up, for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day regardeth it unto the Lord, and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not to the Lord, he eateth not, and giveth not God thanks." Another verse was this:—"But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother,
902
for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ; for it is written, as I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue confess to God. So, then, every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us not, therefore, judge one another any more; but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." Again, "Let us, therefore, follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify one another. For meat destroy not the word of God; all things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man which eateth for offence. It is good neither to eat flesh nor to drink wine, nor anything wherewith thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is mace weak." He would read one verse more, and then have done "Let us, therefore, not judge one another any more, but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling-block, or an occasion to fall, in his brother's way." That was his rule. He would say that, no particular day having been specified, it was not the duty of the Legislature to interfere and enjoin the observance of any given day, and thereby "put a stumbling-block in their brother's way." In his opinion it savoured more of Christian charity; and, above all, of Christian humility, for every man to take care of his own conduct, to square his rule for himself, but not in any arrogance of special command to compel another to do that which he would be unwilling to do himself. Who, he would ask, had set the hon. Members on the other side up as judges of this question? He saw nothing to distinguish them from other men—at least nothing of excellence. But the hon. Member for Ayrshire had said the people of Scotland liked the clause, and he would ask if the law commanded them to travel on the Sunday? Was there anything in the Act of Parliament to insist upon their going upon the railway on that day? Were they not able to show their peculiar faith by staying at home? Why did they not begin nearer at home if such enactments were to be carried? Why not stop the Greenwich railway or the Greenwich steamers? They dared not. It was well known that to do so was absolutely beyond the power of Parliament. He respected the people of Scotland, but he did not admire their manner of keeping the Sabbath. He would again assert, that any ascetic observance of the Sabbath was unwise, and that forcing the conscience of any man was not only unwise,

903
but unjust. The people of Scotland would not be injured by the rejection of the clause—it still left them their now uncontrolled will in the worship of God according to their consciences, and they should, therefore, abstain from uncharitably forcing the consciences of others.
Mr. Laboucherehoped the House would not suffer itself to be drawn into a theological discussion, as if there was one place more unfit than another for such a discussion, that place was a popular assembly. Although there had hitherto been nothing said by hon. Gentlemen on either side calculated to give personal offence, he, nevertheless, thought it was desirable that the matter should not proceed further. If he should see any Bill brought in, having for its object the prevention of compulsory labour on the Sabbath by those who conscientiously objected to work on that day, he was prepared to say he would not offer any opposition to it; but, as he considered that the tendency of the clause under the consideration of the House would be to alienate the respect of the people of Scotland from their English neighbours, he felt himself bound to vote against its insertion in the Bill.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, that although many persons professing the Christian religion differed in opinion with regard to the divine obligation of keeping holy one day in seven, yet he believed the most lax theologians were agreed in allowing those to observe it who chose to do so. The arguments made use of by the hon. and learned Member for Bath ought to induce him to bring forward some measure, not only for the repeal of the Act of Charles 2nd, but all other laws which had been enacted upon the subject.
Colonel Thompsonwould recant everything he had ever said upon the question, if hon. Gentlemen opposite would produce a shadow of authority or precedent from the book in which they professed to refer as a rule. He happened to be able to enumerate all the instances in which the subject was at all mentioned; or if he was wrong, he was open to correction. It was commemorated that Paul preached on the first day of the week, and that the disciples broke bread. Was there the slightest evidence of a wish to hinder any man from doing the like? It was stated that on the first day of the week the early Christians made a collection for charitable purposes. Was there any thing in the omission of the clause, to interfere with the power of doing
904
this? And it was further stated, in an abstruse and mystical book, that an apostle was "in the Spirit on the Lord's-day." Was there the slightest tendency to interfere with the right of private judgment on this point either? These were positively the only ways in which the subject was ever mentioned, and upon such grounds did hon. Gentlemen opposite claim to shut our railroads. There was no use in saying the clause was only to extend to Ayrshire; if there was any doubt of what was intended yesterday, there was none to-day. Among the papers of the House was the Bill which it was proposed to extend to England. The preamble ran, Forasmuch as nothing is more acceptable to God than the true and sincere worship and service of Him according to His holy will, and "that the holy keeping of the Lord's-day is a principal part of the true service of God." Suppose a Catholic Member had brought in a Bill stating "that the practice of auricular confession is a principal part of the true service of God," would not hon. Gentlemen have seen that this was a begging of the question? Members on his side of the House, by the same right by which their fathers resisted the one proposition, resisted the other. They stood here to maintain that it was a mere wilful imposition of man's invention, without a shadow of authority from the book professed to be appealed to; which was a great deal more than could be said of auricular confession. There was another reason against the course adopted by the other side. It was setting up a false and fictitious standard of morality, and entailing on the country all those evils which were the consequences. We were continually told, that all men who came to be hanged, confessed to having begun with Sabbath-breaking. He had no doubt that in Mohammedan countries, all men who, by their crimes, were brought to the punishment of impalement, confessed to having began with breaking the fast of Ramazan. Burthens were laid on men too heavy to be borne, and thus an artificial crime was created in men's minds, and their consciences, accustomed once to break through the artificial bound, proceeded rapidly to break through others. Was this the way to legislate for public morality? He hoped the House would show its sense of such proceedings, by resisting the attempt to establish an arbitrary and fictitious imposition.
Lord John Russellthought the House was going beyond its usual line in

905
atempting to prohibit travelling on a particular railroad on the Sabbath, while it was allowed on all the turnpike roads in England and Scotland. He did not think the House was prepared to go the length this clause contemplated; but if it was, the question ought certainly not to be brought forward in a way which affected a particular railway. The fairer way would be to make it a separate and distinct question. For these reasons he should vote against the retention of the clause.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, the clause amounted to an absolute prohibition of travelling at any hour on Sunday in Scotland; and although he disapproved of many of the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, he felt the clause to be most unnecessary.
The House divided on the retention of the clause: Ayes 83; Noes 115: Majority 32.

List of the AYES.

Alsager, Captain

Houldsworth, T.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Houstoun, G.

Ashley, Viscount

Hughes, Hughes

Attwood, M.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Balfour, T.

Jackson, Sergeant

Baring, H. Bingham

Johnstone, J. J. H.

Baring, W. B.

Jones, Wilson

Bateson, Sir R.

Lefroy, Anthony

Beckett, Sir J.

Lennox, Lord Arthur

Bonham, R. Francis

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Broadwood, H.

Mackenzie, T.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Maclean, Donald

Buxton, T. F.

Maule, hon. F.

Cartwright, W. R.

Maxwell, John

Chisholm, A. W.

Mordaunt, Sir J., Bt.

Clerk, Sir G.

Mosley, Sir O., Bart.

Clive, Viscount

Palmer, George

Compton, H. C.

Patten, John Wilson

Crewe, Sir G., Bart.

Perceval, Colonel

Estcourt, T. G.

Plumptre, J. P.

Fector, J. M.

Polhill, Captain F.

Feilden, W.

Pringle, A.

Finch, George

Richards, John

Fitzroy, H.

Richards, Richard

Foley, Edw. Thomas

Ross, Charles

Forster, Charles S.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Sandon, Viscount

Gordon, hon. W.

Shaw, right hon. F.

Goulburn, H.

Sheppard, T.

Goulburn, Sergeant

Sinclair, Sir George

Greene, T.

Somerset, Lord G.

Grey, Sir G.

Stanley, Edward

Grimston, Viscount

Stormont, Viscount

Halse, James

Sturt, Henry Charles

Hamilton, Lord C.

Verner, Colonel

Handley, Henry

Vesey, hon. T.

Hardinge, Sir H.

Vivian, J. E.

Hardy, J.

Welby, G. E.

Hastie, A.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Hope, hon. James

Wilks, John

906

Wilson, Henry

TELLERS.

Wodehouse, E.

Agnew, Sir A.

Wyndham, Wadham

Dunlop, J.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Lowther, J. H.

Angerstein, John

Lynch, A. H.

Anson, Colonel

Mangles, J.

Bagshaw, John

Marsland, Henry

Baines, E,

Methuen, Paul

Ball, N.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Barclay, D.

Morrison, J.

Barnard, E. G.

Nagle, Sir R.

Barron, H. W.

O'Brien, W. S.

Belfast, Earl of

O'Connell, J.

Bentinck, Lord W.

O'Connell, M. J.

Berkeley, hon. C. C.

O'Connell, Morgan

Blake, M. J.

O'Conor, Don

Blunt, Sir C.

Oliphant, L.

Bowes, John

Ord, W. H.

Bridgman, H.

Parker, J.

Brotherton, J.

Pattison, J.

Browne, R. D.

Pechell, Captain

Brownrigg, S.

Pendarves, E. W.

Buller, Charles

Philips, M.

Buller, E.

Potter, R.

Bulwer, Edward L.

Roebuck, John A.

Butler, hon. Pierce

Rolfe, Sir R.

Callaghan, D.

Russell, Lord John

Campbell, Sir J.

Ruthven, E.

Chalmers, P.

Sanford, E. A.

Clay, W.

Seymour, Lord

Clive, Edward Bolton

Smith, R. V.

Codrington, Sir E.

Stuart, Lord J.

Colborne, N. W. R.

Strangways, hon. J.

Crawford, W. S.

Strutt, E.

Crawford, W.

Talbot, J. Hyacinth

Denison, John E.

Talfourd, Sergeant

Denistoun, A.

Thompson, Colonel

Divett, E.

Thornley, Thomas

Donkin, Sir R.

Trelawney, Sir W.

Duncombe, T.

Tulk, C. A.

Dundas, J. D.

Vigors, N. A.

Ellice, E.

Villiers, Charles P.

Elphinstone, H.

Vivian, J. H.

Evans, G.

Wall, C. B.

Ewart, W.

Warburton, H.

Fazakerly, J. N.

Ward, Henry George

Ferguson, Sir R.

Wason, R.

Fitzsimon, Christopher

Wemyss, Captain

Fort, John

Westenra, hon. H. R.

Grate, G.

Whalley, Sir S.

Gully, John

White, Samuel

Hawes, B.

Wilbraham, G.

Hawkins, J. H.

Williams, W.

Hay, Sir A. Leith

Williams, Sir J.

Hobhouse, Sir J. C.

Williamson, Sir H.

Howick, Viscount

Wortley, hon. J.

Hume, J.

Woulfe, Sergeant

Hutt, W.

Wrottesley, Sir J., Bt.

Jervis, John

Young, G. F.

Labouchere, H.

TELLERS.

Lennox, Lord G.

Wakley, T.

Leveson, Lord

Bowring, Dr.

Clause rejected.
Bill read a third time.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Roebuckhoped the noble Lord would slate how he intended for the future to carry on the Government business. Would it not be much the better way to take one bill and go through with it.
Lord J. Russellapprehended that the course proposed by the hon. Member would be a very inconvenient one for the House to adopt. He thought it most desirable for the House, both as a deliberative assembly, and more especially as an assembly representing the people, that when a bill was once introduced, particularly if a bill of any importance, time should be allowed for its becoming generally known to the country before it was carried through its later stages. Important modifications and changes were made in almost every Bill from the information derived from bodies of the people, or from individuals, after the circulation of the bill. It might be very desirable for the House, immediately after deciding on the principle of a bill, to go into Committee upon it, but it would be highly objectionable for the House, after the bill had gone through a Committee, to proceed at once to the third reading. It was essential that some time should elapse after a committee on a bill and the receiving of the report, in order that the country might be aware of the alterations made in it in committee.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the House should adopt the natural hours of doing business. They were the only legislative body which turned the night into day. Although the practice might give the younger orators an opportunity for display, it killed those who exceeded the age of sixty. He had heard it argued that such hours were necessary for the sake of Members connected with commerce. That could only be true of such among them as resided in London, for others were enabled to leave the towns in which they lived and their business too. With regard to members of the bar, he would say that the practice might be beneficial to a few gentlemen in extensive practice, such as the Attorney-General; but the Irish barristers left their business and their country to attend their duties.
Conversation dropped.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS.
The Order of the Day being read for a Committee on
908
the Bill for abolishing the punishment of death in certain cases,
Mr. Ewartsaid, that he had given notice of a motion for the purpose of extending a mitigation of capital punishment to all cases less than the crime of murder. Having been one of those who during a series of years had taken a deep interest in all that concerned the national character and the national habits, he had paid much attention to this subject. In the present state of society the punishment of death might be abolished altogether. He was sorry to say, however, that the law of this country had long been in a barbarous state with reference to capital punishments. In other countries there was less capital punishment than here. In France and Prussia, where the united inhabitants amounted to 50,000,000, in the year 1834 there were but seventeen executions, whereas in the same year in England and Wales, with a population of only 15,000,000, there had been thirty-four executions. The effect of the rarity of executions was not injurious. Crimes had diminished with the decrease of executions. The returns from France for the last five, as compared with the five preceding years, showed a diminution of persons committed for trial in the proportion of three to two. In Belgium, for the years ending with 1829, the executions had been seventeen and the trials for capital offences forty-five, but since that period a great dislike had been manifested by the people of that country against the frequency of capital punishment, and for the four years ending 1834, the returns were, executions none, trials forty-one, which so far from an increase, showed a positive decrease of crime. He need not call the attention of the House to the many cases in which capital punishment had been abolished in our own country since 1829. He was glad that we had now no more of the detestable exhibitions of hanging in chains, and that we looked more to refining the habits of the people. But he would ask whether society was less secure now than it was before 1829? We had been told, indeed, that, some few crimes had increased, and among them that of stealing sheep. But the amount of crime on the whole since 1829 was on the decrease. There had been a slight decrease in the last year only, but on looking back to a period of years we found a diminished amount, and since 1833 the

909
decrease in the number of crimes amounted to twelve per cent. He perceived that his hon. Friend, the Member for Lincolnshire (Mr. Handley),had given notice of a motion for retaining the punishment of death in cases of burning agricultural produce. He wished to know why agricultural produce was to be guarded with greater rigour than any other property? It might be said that the particular species of crime had increased, but he contended that in a case of this vast importance we ought to look to general and not to merely temporary or local results. If they referred to the returns, they would find that the increase of crime was confined to offences against property, for as society advanced and property accumulated, the temptation and the facilities for abstracting it increased. Crimes against the person, however, had diminished. He was aware that the noble Lord only proposed to retain the punishment of death for certain offences against the person, and to abolishit in the instances of offences against property. He (Mr. Ewart) could not agree with the noble Lord in thinking this limitation satisfactory. The noble Lord could only proceed on the principle of wishing to render punishment certain, and he was sure that if the noble Lord continued the punishment of death in any case but murder, the difference between the verdicts of the juries and the words of the law would be as great as it is now. The crimes to which the noble Lord still proposed to continue the punishment of death had long ago ceased to be capitally punished in Prussia, Belgium, France, and Austria. The Code Napoleon certainly retained it in cases of burglary, though with very considerable limitations, but in 1832, capital punishment for burglary was abolished in France, and this alteration in the law was not attended by any bad consequences, but had met with the approbation of the country, and he believed of the law officers of the crown, in France the jury had the power of recommending a mitigation of capital punishment in particular cases; he knew that the noble Lord objected to investing juries with that power, although he himself did not see the force of those objections. The noble Lord retained capital punishment in eight cases. He knew that there was a very strong opinion entertained with respect to the propriety of inflicting the punishment of death in cases of rape.
910
But in all the places to which he had referred, the punishment of death was not inflicted for the commission of that crime, and this lenity in the law was not found to be attended by any bad consequences. The crime was so difficult and so uncertain of proof, that there was the greatest difficulty in bringing the jury to convict, but if the punishment of death were taken away, he trusted that the same obstacles would not exist. Then, as to infamous offences, it had not been found that this species of crime, punishable as it was with death in this country, was visited by a certainty of punishment. In the countries, however, to which he had referred, they left persons convicted of those offences to suffer a long terns of imprisonment, and to the powerful verdict of overwhelming popular opinion against them. Another reason why murder only should be punished with death was, that by the continuance of capital punishment in other cases an inducement was given to a criminal to put an end to the testimony against him by the absolute destruction of the person he had robbed. The robber would feel while he plundered his victim the strong temptation which the law put in his way to remove him altogether, and thus get rid of one chance of detection; while if the punishment of death for the offence were abolished, it would be an inducement to him to spare his life. It might be asked what substitute he should be willing to propose for the punishment of death. In all countries it was admitted that imprisonment for life was a much greater punishment than death itself. It was more enduring, and the invaluable testimony of Mr. Alderman Harmer before the Criminal Law Commissioners went to show, that in the opinions of criminals themselves imprisonment for life was a heavier punishment than death. The Legislature ought not to pronounce a punishment which could not be carried into execution, nor should a punishment which was irrevocable be decreed by any but an infallible judgment. Neither ought the people to be habituated to scenes of blood and he could appeal in testimony of that opinion to the late exhibitions which had taken place, which probably sent away more criminals than went there. People went there smoking their pipes, and indulging in language most inappropriate to an occasion so solemn. In conformity with the dictates of humanity, no less than

911
with those of sound policy, several despotic countries had diminished the number of capital punishments. Russia had mitigated the severity of her code very much of late years. In Tuscany more than fifty years ago the number of capital crimes had been much diminished. In Austria capital punishment was now only permitted to a certain extent; and should England, the freest country in the world, refuse to follow such an example, especially after the adoption of it had been found to produce the very best effects in the United States? The same results had also been produced in barbarous countries, wherever an effort had been made to mitigate the severity of their law. This had been the case in Morocco. It had also been the case in India, where, under the auspices of the late Sir James Mackintosh, and of the present Sir Charles Metcalf, a milder code had been introduced, which had at once refined the barbarism and improved the morality of the people committed to their care. He therefore called upon the House to extend the mitigatory provisions of the noble Lord's Bill to all cases short of actual murder; and in making his present motion he had the consolitary conviction of knowing that he was but responding to the general feelings of the country at large. He concluded by moving as an amendment that it be an instruction to the Committee on this Bill to abolish capital punishment in all cases save those of actual murder.
Mr. Humeseconded the amendment, and observed, that the executions which had recently taken place in the metropolis and in Glocester had a tendency to entice individuals to the commission of crime rather than to deter them from it. He was inclined to go further than his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool was inclined to go on this subject. He had come to the conclusion that the law ought not to execute anybody. In a visit which he had made to the prison of Ghent he had seen 980 individuals all sentenced to capital punishment, but all under going a commuted punishment; and he had been informed by the governor of the prison, who was an old military officer, that he had found that the diminution of the number of capital punishments in Belgium had mitigated the ferocity and diminished the amount of crime in that country.
Lord John Russellwas very unwilling to enter upon this discussion, because both the hon. Member for Liverpool who moved,
912
and the hon. Member for Middlesex who seconded, this amendment, had treated the proposition which he had laid before the House, as if he had called upon it to increase rather than to diminish the number of capital punishments. The proposition, which he had laid before the House was for the decrease of the number of capital punishments; for of thirty-seven offences which were now capital, twenty-one were made capital no longer by his bill, whilst in the sixteen other cases circumstances were stated under which the capital punishment would be much restricted. He made his proposition in that shape, because he considered that it was more likely, when so framed, to carry with it public opinion, and so mitigate the severity of the law, than it would be if he had made it in the still more mitigated form proposed by the hon. Member for Liverpool. The hon. Member had hardly disguised from the House what his object was; indeed, his argument had gone to the full length of asserting the necessity of abolishing capital punishment altogether. The hon. Member for Middlesex had been still more frank; for he confessed at once that such was the object which he had in view. The two cases to which his hon. Friend had alluded—namely, that of the late execution in the metropolis and that of the execution at Gloucester—were both cases of execution for murder, and for murder of the most aggravated description, in which no sympathy could possibly be excited so as to throw its colours over the fate of the offenders. In such cases his hon. Friend contended that there should be no capital punishment. He must say, that he thought the Legislature of the country would not be acting in accordance with the general sentiments of its inhabitants, if it acceded to a proposition which abolished the punishment of death in case of murder. He believed that if Parliament were to pass a law abolishing capital punishment altogether, and if offenders whose crimes excited the abhorrence of the public were not to be capitally punished, there would be a reaction of public opinion in favour of capital punishments. Parliament would be compelled to retrace its steps, and offences which were now no longer capital would again be capitally punished. Such a revulsion of public feeling would be a great misfortune. He thought that the taking away of capital punishment from all offences which were offences against pro-

913
perty and the continuation of it in all cases where an atrocious offence was committed against life or person,—he thought, he repeated, that that was a manner by which public feeling would be conciliated, by which juries would be led to convict offenders, and by which public opinion would be made more in accordance with the due execution of the law. With regard to what had been said on the religious, and philosophical, and practical bearings of the question as stated by the hon. Member for Liverpool, he would only say for the present that he declined to enter upon those topics; but it appeared to him that the hon. Member would have a fairer chance of accomplishing his own object by accepting the proposition which was then before the House, and by leaving his own views to work their way in accordance with public opinion, than he would have by proposing at present the abolition of the punishment of death altogether. It was quite another question whether in the present Bill the Government was proceeding too far, or not far enough. He was of opinion that they ought not to abolish capital punishments. The hon. Member for Liverpool, in the course of his speech, had quoted the example of other countries, but he must say, that with the exception of Belgium he did not think that capital punishment had been abolished in any of them on any extensive scale. During the last year there had been fifteen cases of capital punishment in France, even with the power which the jury had of doing away with the capital part of the offence by bringing in a verdict of "guilty with attenuating circumstances." During the last year the total number of persons executed in all the counties of England and Wales was seventeen. He was quite aware that the hon. Member for Liverpool meant nothing unfair to his Majesty's Government, but he had dealt out rather hard measure to it when he mentioned that thirty persons had been executed in one year about three years ago, when the number last year was only seventeen, and when it was not likely to exceed seventeen persons this year, even if it reached so high. He would not address the House further upon this subject; it was one which ought rather to be left to the discussion of public writers, and to the effect of popular opinion in future times. What he now proposed to do was to make the law in accordance with the feelings of the public at large and with the opinions
914
of the judges who were now charged with the administration of it. The best course therefore, which he could take, was to meet the spirit of our law, and the humanity of the country. One word more, and he had done. With respect to the late executions and the scenes which had then occurred, he agreed in most of the observations which had been made upon them, though he must say that great exaggerations on that subject had appeared in the newspapers. Those scenes excited in his mind the same feelings of disgust which they appeared to have excited in the minds of other hon. Members. They were not, however, the effects of the executions—they were owing to the want of sufficient religious and moral instruction in the people who witnessed them. He was sure that, if his two hon. Friends, the hon. Members for Liverpool and Middlesex, had attended those executions, their feelings would have been very different from those of the multitude which witnessed them. In conclusion, he repeated that it was not the immediate consequences of the execution which had produced the spectacles they so much deplored, but the want of sound, moral, and religious instruction among the people.
Mr. Fowel Buxtonreturned his sincere thanks to the noble Lord and to his Majesty's Government for what they had done towards mitigating the severity of our criminal code. The House was then assembled for the purpose of discussing this question, whether, the last remnant of the sanguinary code of this country regarding the crime of forgery should be abolished altogether. In the whole course of the noble Lord's speech he had not observed a single argument in support of the necessity of inflicting capital punishment in those cases where murder had not been committed. He was sure that the House, or, if not the House, his hon. and learned Friend near him, the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Dr. Lushington), would recollect the time when it was held that none but a visionary or an enthusiast could suppose that the security of property would be increased by mitigating the punishment inflicted on those who violated the law respecting it. That doctrine once held so wild and fantastical, was now proved to be accurate and sound by practical demonstration. He was not afraid of any revulsion of public feeling incase the law was still further mitigated. Two experiments re-

915
specting forgery had been tried. The one was the proces of diminishing that crime by rigour, and the other by mitigation. In the first instance all persons convicted of forgery were treated with Bow-street mercy, not a single wretch being allowed to escape. At one assizes no fewer than nine persons were found guilty of this offence, and every one of them was put to death. In the metropolis alone, twenty years ago, a greater number of persons were executed for forgery than for all other offences, throughout England and Wales; but did this inexorable severity put down the offence? It was well known that it did not. It was, however, impossible to go on with this wholesale slaughter of victims, and consequently, in nineteen cases out of twenty the capital punishment was not inflicted. It had been said in opposition to those who advocated the abolition of capital punishment in cases of forgery that the inevitable effect of such a step would be the destruction of trade and commerce; but he would defy any one now to say that either had been injured by the mitigation which had taken place. He could not help saying that all such predictions were sheer nonsense and folly, and this he could prove by a reference to the last three years. In 1833 the number of convictions for forgery was 213, while in the last year it did not exceed 179. This, he thought, was con-elusive in favour of the abolition of the capital punishment, the more especially as all other descriptions of crime had, during the same period, rather increased than diminished. While the capital punishment was inflicted there was a reluctance to prosecute. But now that was not the case; and what was the consequence? Why, that the law was put rigorously in force in almost all cases, and that the number of offenders had greatly decreased. Being persuaded that the removal of the extreme penalty of the law would be advantageous in every point of view, not only with regard to forgery, but all other offences, he certainly should give his support to the motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool.
Mr. Brothertonconsidered the punishment of death not only contrary to sound policy but opposed to the principles of true religion and right reason. By the divine law no human tribunal was, in his opinion justified in taking away the life of a man for any crime whatsoever, and he could, if it were necessary, adduce reasons to justify the view which he took on this
916
subject. He admitted that the only way to benefit the people was by giving them proper moral and religious instruction, but. he could not believe that any good could be derived from a barbarous system of punishment, which tended rather to encourage than to repress crime. The part of the criminal code of this country which related to capital punishment was against the divine creed, and he, well knowing that he could demonstrate this, should give his vote for the amendment.
Dr. Bowringwished to have the punishment of death abolished in all cases: far he was convinced that the spectacle of an execution depraved the mind more than it deterred from the commission of crime. There were parts of Italy in which the punishment of death was very rarely inflicted, and other parts in which it was frequently and rigorously exacted. Tuscany, where death was seldom inflicted, had purer morals and a more virtuous population than any other portion of Italy. He looked upon the desire for severe punishments as nothing else than a desire for vengeance, and the most humane laws were those which were the most efficient for the prevention of crime. Holland was the first country which tried the experiment of diminishing the punishment of forgery. The experiment had been in every way successful in that country, and the success of a similar experiment in England ought to encourage them to proceed further in the path on which they had entered under such excellent auspices.
Mr. Roebuckwished to guard himself from erroneous impressions in the support which he was about to give to the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Liverpool. The exception which it contained justified, or appeared to justify, the infliction of capital punishment in cases of murder. To that part of the amendment he could not agree. The prevention of the offence, not the torture of the offender, was the object of punishment. Now, the prevention of crime was only to be attained in three ways. First, you might instruct your people so as to induce them not to commit crime. Secondly, you might have a police so regulated as to prevent them from committing it. And thirdly, you might have punishments to repress it when it had been committed. He hoped, nay, he was sure, that the noble Lord thought that there was something beyond the mere punishment of the criminal. In order to prevent the people from committing crime,

917
the Legislature ought to educate them. Until we had done that, every pain we inflicted was a stain upon ourselves. He supported, then, the principle of this motion, but he regretted that it did not go far enough.
Mr. O'Connellfully concurred in what had fallen from the hon. Member who last addressed the House. He would go to the full length of abolishing the punishment of death in all and every case, not even excepting that of murder. No man, or society of men, had the right to take away life. The experience of the past would justify the Legislature in taking the course now proposed, for public opinion had gone fully with them in all the improvements they had made by a mitigation of the severity of our criminal code. Look at the press at all sides, and in every part of the country, and it was in favour of a still farther extension of clemency in our criminal code. He had only one other remark to make—with reference to what had been said by the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home-department, of the conduct of the crowd at the late execution in London. He fully admitted that conduct was bad—nothing could be worse, but was there not to be found some extenuation for it in the horribly brutal conduct of the wretch who was about to suffer, who had got himself into the confidence of an unsuspecting woman, and savagely murdered her for the lucre of gain, and who throughout the whole of his subsequent conduct showed no feeling of remorse, or appeared to have any feeling whatever of religion? He was glad to see a disposition prevailing in this as well as other countries to abolish the punishment of death in all cases. He hoped the feeling would become general throughout society, and that at no distant day the principle would be generally admitted, that no man ought to take the life of another.
The Attorney Generalrejoiced that the public voice went with the Legislature in those ameliorations of the criminal code—by which the punishment of death was about to be taken away from three-fourths of those offences to which it had before been applied. He had no hesitation in giving those measures his support, for he had no apprehension that the abolition of the capital punishment would in any of the cases here mentioned lead to the increase of crime; but he was not at all prepared to do away with the punishment of death in every case. The public mind was not at all prepared for such a change, and
918
he had little doubt that there would be a general exclamation through the country against it. He had presented several petitions on the subject, some from the city which he had the honour to represent; but though they all prayed for the abolition of capital punishment in every case save that of murder, none of them went beyond it. He certainly was not prepared to go further. The time might arrive when that could be done with safety, but he did not think it bad yet arrived. If the capital punishment were allowed to remain, as he thought it ought, in cases of murder, it should also be extended to cases where attempts were made to commit murder, for he could easily imagine cases where the intention of the party attacking to take away the life of another, might be defeated by the strength of the party attacked, or by the speedy attendance of medical aid, or a variety of causes not at all connected with the intentions of the assailant. Now cases of that kind were not distinguishable in any moral point from the crime of murder itself, and he therefore would not in such cases abolish the capital punishment. Now with respect to burglary the state of the law on that subject was a disgrace to the country. Under the existing definition of burglary a person in a frolic breaking a pane of glass after midnight, or a schoolboy stealing a penny bun, might be held to be burglars, but his noble Friend's Bill remedied that defect, and left the definition open to no misconstruction. He felt bound under all circumstances to vote against the amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool.
Mr. Wysesaid, the whole question to be decided was, whether the punishment of death for murder was efficient in preventing the commission of the crime by others? The experience of all countries where the experiment had been tried had shown, that where the laws were most severe and sanguinary, there crime most prevailed. The only effective mode of preventing crime would be to educate the people so as to lessen the disposition to commit crime. There were many punishments more severe than that of death, and where a more severe substitute could be supplied the capital punishment would not be justified.
Mr. Plumptresaid, that whichever way they looked at the question, it was one of difficulty; but if the motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Ewart) were pressed to a division, he most vote for it. He fully concurred with

919
those hon. Members who had urged that sound education would be the best preventive of crime, though he feared he might differ from some as to what sound education might be. In his opinion no education could be considered effective which was not a scriptural education.
The Solicitor-Generalbelieved, that the time might come when the visions of the hon. Members who would abolish the punishment of death in every case might be realised with safety to the community, but certainly the present times were not those in which such a change should be made. If at once they rushed into so complete an alteration in the criminal code they might do much mischief, which would be aggravated by the difficulty of retracing their steps. His noble Friend (Lord John Russell), and those who supported him on the occasion, had been placed in rather an invidious position by the course the discussion had taken; for any one who had heard that discussion would have imagined that his noble Friend had proposed some measures of additional severity, which it was the object of other Members to resist. Now, the very reverse was the case—in one respect at least. His noble Friend's proposition was this—that whereas capital punishment might now be legally applied to thirty-seven offences, it was expedient to remove that punishment in two-thirds of the cases. The hon. Member for Liverpool would take away the capital punishment from all crimes but one, but some of those who concurred with him so far would take it even from that one. He did hope that from the increasing education and intelligence of the community, death would be inflicted only in extreme cases; but he did not think it would be expedient or safe at present to remove that punishment in all cases.
Mr. Robinsondid not concur in the remark that the Legislature was in advance of public opinion, for public opinion went fully with the Legislature in all that it had done to ameliorate the criminal code. He thought it quite in consonance with the spirit of the Christian religion that the punishment of death should be abolished in all cases; indeed, the principle seemed to be admitted on all hands, and the only difference was as to the question of time, but he had heard no valid reason to show why the abolition of capital punishment might not be made with perfect safety at the present day.
Dr. Lushingtonhailed with great satis-
920
faction this measure for the mitigation of the criminal code. It was a subject to which for thirty years he had devoted his attention. He wished to see capital punishments abolished altogether. Crimes had become less heinous and aggravated in proportion as the criminal code was made less sanguinary. The effect of public executions was to deprave the public mind. He believed that there never was an execution which did not produce a future candidate for the hands of the hangman. He thought it unjust to the people of this country to say that if the punishment of death were abolished they would take summary vengeance, and appeal to what Lord Bacon called "the wild justice of revenge." There could scarcely be found an instance in which such an occurrence had taken place in this country. He believed, on the contrary, that in any amelioration which the Legislature carried into effect, the full sanction of public opinion and public feeling of the country would go along with them. When any particularly atrocious crime was committed—such as that which had lately excited the minds of the multitude in the metropolis—it was not found that a regard to justice actuated the public in their desire that the criminal should suffer, but that they were urged forward by a vehement wish to see a punishment inflicted heavy in proportion to the heinousness of the crime. He thought that the Government were entitled to great credit for their readiness in conforming to the general call for a remission of the punishment of death, and their fame would not rest on the fleeting popularity which might hail the change, but on the fact that they had brought forward a measure really useful to the country.
Sir Robert Inglisshould feel ashamed if he did not declare his reasons for objecting to the motion. This was no party question, and it never would be legislated on, he hoped, under any feeling of political bias. The House well knew that there was not the slightest chance, supposing that the instruction was carried, that the Bill could pass if framed in conformity with its principle. He certainly thought that those hon. Members who appeared so anxious that the instruction should be carried were purchasing at a cheap rate a character for humanity in the country, and that they were endeavouring at the same time to throw on the Government the odium of offering resistance to the motion. As to the arguments which might be ad-

921
duced in favour of the present system, be might point out the number of cases under the old Scripture dispensation in which the punishment of death was enjoined. He was unwilling to make the House a forum of theological discussion, and he should not, therefore, dwell on that part of the subject. He would rather refer to the arguments adduced by the Attorney-General, and request hon. Members to consider if the distinction brought forward by that hon. and learned Member, relative to what were called, in popular language, the accidents of crime, were not perfectly unanswerable. He must again repeat, that the support of the motion given by hon. Members opposite was, in his opinion, a cheap way of gaining popularity, and he should certainly vote with his Majesty's Government on the motion; and he would not go to a division without declaring that, in his opinion they had gone as far as they could in prudence attempt to go.
Colonel Thompsonsaid, that while the hon. Member for Waterford city was speaking, he had gone aside to consult a pocket Bible, which, like the hon. Member for Bath, he had brought in his pocket in consideration of the turn to biblical criticism the debates of the evening were likely to take, and moved moreover by the circumstance that the book did not make part of the works of reference contained in the library of the House—with a view, if he could have caught the Speaker's eye, to have corroborated that hon. Member's opinion of the extreme danger of taking the Mosaic law as the measure of what was necessarily to be punished with death in civilised nations. While looking for certain passages which he had in his recollection, his eye had glanced over other enactments of that code, which would answer his purpose as well. He found it written, that whoever ate "all manner of fat," of ox, or of sheep, or of goat, that soul should be cut off from his people. And whoever ate "all manner of blood," that soul should be cut off from his people. Under these circumstances, he would leave it to the House to say how far the assignment of capital punishment by the Mosaic code was authority which modern legislators must necessarily follow. There was a question on another subject quite distinct, which he would ask in hope that it would be taken up by others, either now or at some other time. Was there an intention in any quarter, to do away with the punishment of death for political offences? Many in
922
that House were old enough to have seen God's image sorely mangled, by decapitation and all kinds of barbarous processes, for what were termed political offences. The current of opinion was strongly running against such practices throughout Europe—and there was a natural anxiety to know whether this country was to be behind the rest.
Mr. W. S. O'Brienwas in favour of the motion. The state of one part of Ireland in 1831 was a proof that mild measures might be productive of excellent results. Outrages were then commonly committed which were punishable with death. The capital punishment was not insisted on, and in a month the district became tranquil.
Mr. Ewart, in explanation, wished to state that he had not expressed himself in favour of a total abolition of the punishment of death. He also desired to declare that he had not entertained the slightest intention of reflecting on the Government for their conduct respecting the subject before the House, but had given them credit for having done much good as far as they had gone.
The House divided on the original motion:—Ayes 73; Noes 72: Majority 1.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Sir C.

Hobhouse, Sir J. C.

Alston, Rowland.

Hodges, T. L.

Astley, Sir Jacob, bt.

Howick, Viscount

Berkeley, hon. F.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Blackburne, J.

Johnstone, J. J. H.

Bramston, T. W.

Jones, W.

Buller, E.

Labouchere, H.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Long, W.

Campbell, Sir J.

Macleod, R.

Clerk, Sir G., bart.

Maule, hon. F.

Coote, Sir C.

Melgund, Viscount

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Morpeth, Viscount

Dugdale, W. S.

Murray, J. A.

Dundas, J. D.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Eaton, R. J.

Packe, C. W.

Farrand, R.

Parker, M.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Parnell, Sir H.

Fergusson, R. C.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Fort, J.

Pendarves, E. W.

Fox, Charles

Philips, Mark

Gladstone, Wm. E.

Philips, G. R.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Poulter, J. S.

Graham, Sir J.

Price, S. G.

Grattan, J.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Grey, Sir G., bt.

Rickford, W.

Halse, James.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Handley, H.

Ross, Charles

Hanmer, Sir J.

Russell, Lord J.

Harcourt, G. S.

Russell, Lord C.

Hastie, A.

Seymour, Lord

Hawkins, J. H.

Stuart, V.

Hay, Sir A. L., bt.

Tancred, H. W.

923

Troubridge, Sir T.

Woulfe, Sergeant

Vernon, G. H.

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

Ward, H. G.

Young, G. F.

Wodehouse, E.

TELLERS.

Worsley, Lord

Dalmeny, Lord

Wortley, J. S.

Stanley, E. J.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Marsland, H.

Agnew, Sir A., bart.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Baines, E

Moreton, A.

Bannerman, Alex.

O'Brien, W. S.

Barclay, D.

O'Connell, D.

Barnard, Edward, G.

O'Connell, J.

Barry, G. S.

O'Connell, Morgan

Bewes, T.

O'Conor Don

Blake, Martin Jos.

Oliphant, Lawrence

Bodkin, J.

Parrott, J.

Brocklehurst, J.

Pease, J.

Brotherton, J.

Pechell, Captain R.

Buller, C.

Plumptre, John P.

Bulwer, E. L.

Potter, R.

Butler, hon. P.

Robinson, G. R.

Buxton, F.

Roebuck, J. A.

Callaghan, D.

Sanford, E. A.

Cayley, E. S.

Sharpe, General

Chalmers, P.

Stanley, W. O.

Chapman, M. L.

Strutt, Edward

Crawford, W. S.

Talfourd, Sergeant

Crewe, Sir G.

Thompson, Colonel

Denistoun, Alex.

Thornley, T.

Elphinstone, H.

Trelawney, Sir W.

Grote, G.

Vigors, N. A.

Gully, J.

Vivian, J. H.

Halford, H.

Wakley, T.

Hall, B.

Warburton, H.

Hawes, B.

Wason, R.

Hindley, C.

Weymis, Capt.

Hume, J.

Whalley, Sir S.

Jervis, John

Williams, W.

Lefevre, C. S.

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Lennard, T. B.

Wyse, Thomas

Lennox, Lord G.

Lennox, Lord A.

TELLERS.

Lushington, Dr. S.

Ewart, W.

Lushington, Charles

Bowring, Dr.

Amendment lost.
House in Committee on the Bill for Abolishing the Punishment of Death in the Burning or Destroying Buildings and Ships Bill.
Mr. Goulburnobjected to having the punishment of death remitted in cases where any attempt was made to set fire to any of his Majesty's dockyards or arsenals. First, because a great loss of life might occur; and, next, because the public interests might suffer most materially by such attempts.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that there was considerable difficulty in the point, and the matter had been already considered in some measure by the Government.
Mr. Grotethought that if the punish-
924
ment of death was to be retained it would be better that it should be inflicted in private, as public executions were never attended with beneficial results.
Sir C. Burrellwas of opinion that private executions would be found a most dangerous expedient, as it might give rise to a belief that murders were committed under such a system.
Sir Robert Peeladmitted, that the recent execution was a most disgusting exhibition, and that such spectacles seldom produced any salutary effects, but still he thought it would be a most dangerous principle to permit executions to take place in private. There was one matter connected with the present system which he conceived extremely reprehensible, that of admitting persons to visit prisoners under sentence of death. He did not mean to say that persons whose object was to obtain information which might be useful to the Secretary of State, or those whom the prisoner might desire to see, should be refused admittance to him, but he thought that persons whose object was mere curiosity should not be permitted to visit a prisoner under such circumstances. When persons of distinction visited convicts under sentence for a serious crime it invested the culprit with the character of a hero. The publication of the details of conversations held on those occasions, with the history of the past life of the convict, was calculated to excite sympathy for his situation, and to raise him in the eyes of the vulgar. If, therefore, persons who had the management and control of prisons had not the good sense or discretion to prevent the growth of such practices the law ought to interpose to put a stop to them. If it were intended to rely on transportation and imprisonment as the principal means for repressing crime, it would be satisfactory to have some precise information as to the effects produced on the conduct and habits of criminals by the duration of those punishments; and he also thought the Judges should be empowered to add to the sentence of imprisonment, solitary confinement in cases where it might be deemed necessary. As regarded the police generally, it was admitted, on all hands, that it was very effective. With respect to a rural police, if the hon. Gentleman who spoke of it (Mr. Hawes) had any proposition to make he had better propose it to the House in the shape of a Bill. It was, however, a

925
matter for very serious consideration. It was not so simple an affair as persons would suppose. The populous and manufacturing districts were different from the rural with respect to the establishment of a police, and any attempt to fix it upon the latter would be open to much objection and obloquy. It was not his object to have the Bill postponed, but as it proposed to vest much discretion in the Judges, it would be well to afford the House an opportunity of ascertaining in what manner the system of secondary punishments would be likely to work, and by that means to enable them to exercise their discretionary power in the best manner possible.
Lord John Russellsaid, that a Committee on the subject had been appointed last year, by the Lords, which, after minute inquiries had come to certain resolutions, which were afterwards communicated to the magistrates of Quarter Sessions. They were recommended for temporary application, and were found to work well, and it would be desirable to wait, and see what improvement they were calculated to effect, in the system of prison discipline. As far as the experiment bad been made, it proved successful. There were complaints that some of the prisons were overloaded with military cases, but, on inquiry, it was found, that sufficient accommodation could be made for such cases in the barracks. The reports hitherto received from the magistrates were highly satisfactory; and, this being the case, it was better that Government should cooperate with the efforts which proved so successful than to endeavour to enforce any particular rules. With respect to the observations of the right hon. Baronet respecting recent circumstances relative to criminals under sentence of death, he fully concurred in them. He admitted, that some revolting spectacles had been exhibited, but he hoped that after what had occurred, means would be taken to prevent a repetition of them.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonin reply to the right hon. Member for Tamworth, would only say, that the discretion proposed to be vested in the judges was not greater than that which they previously possessed.
Sir Robert Peel, in explanation, did not mean to say that a wider discretion was vested in the Judges. His object was, to enable the Judges to exercise any discre-
926
tion with which they might be vested in the best manner possible; and to do this, it would be well that they had every information as to how the system of secondary punishment worked—as, for instance, what was the difference in the result of five years imprisonment, as contrasted with transportation; the various manner in which the different modes of punishment operated, in reclaiming males and females, and which were the results of those separate modes of punishment as applied to the younger and the older offenders.
On the preamble being proposed,
Mr. Goulburnobjected to it, on the ground of its freeing persons found guilty of setting fire to dockyards, arsenals, and military stores, from convictions which would render them liable to capital punishments.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 102; Noes 40: Majority 62.
The Bill went through the Committee.
The House resumed.
The other Bills for improving the criminal law went through a Committee,

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Glasgow Police.
Petitions presented. By several noble LORDS, from various places, against the abolition of Church-rates.—By Lord KENYON, from Sheerness and Richmond, Surrey, for the better Observance of the Lord's-day.—By the Earl of STRADBROKE, from the Guardians of the Poor, Clayton, Suffolk, in favour of the New Poor-law.—By Lord BROUGHAM, from various Dissenting Congregations in Somersetshire and elsewhere, for the abolition of Church-rates.—By the Earl of RADNOR, from places in Wilts, to a similar effect.—By the LORD CHANCELLOR, from Saffron Waldon, in favour of the Municipal Corporation Amendment Bill.—By Viscount CANTERBURY, from graduates of the University of Cambridge, against any interference with the Statutes of the University.—By Lord GRANTLEY, from several places, against the abolition of Church-rates.

RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION—(SCOTLAND.
The Earl of Haddingtonrose for the purpose of putting a question to his noble Friend at the head of the Government with respect to the Report of the Commissioners on Religious Instruction in Scotland. The question related to the intentions of his Majesty's Government, growing out of that Report, and he was more especially anxious for an answer, considering the length of time that had elapsed since the Report of the Commissioners had been presented, and no steps taken by the Government in consequence of that Report. He could have wished to have moved, under other circumstances than those which existed at present, a resolution to which he should have asked the sanction of that House; but noble Lords would see by the votes of the other House that the subject had been mooted
882
there, and that the House of Commons, by an inconsiderable majority, had come to a different conclusion from that which would have been embodied in his motion. He did not wish that that House, on a question of this kind, should adopt a resolution which would appear like a determined difference with the decision of the other House. He therefore, on that accasion, would only put a question to the noble Viscount. If he had proposed a motion he should have entered into an analysis of the Report of the Commissioners, although he doubted whether he could have done so in anything like a satisfactory manner. He said this in consequence of the very complex nature of the Report, which, indeed he was aware must be the case from the very nature of the inquiry, and he did not intend to cast any blame on the Commissioners in saying this was the character of the Report; for at the same time it contained some very curious and interesting information, and also some very awful matter. As he did not intend to call upon the House to come to a decision on the subject, he should merely state his view of the Report in a short, and, he trusted, candid manner. He was sure that there was no person acquainted with Scotland who must not be aware that within the last few years the increase of the church accommodation for the bulk of the people of Scotland had not been anything like equivalent to the increase of the number of the population. This was so perfectly notorious, that he did not think that it was necessary for his Majesty's Government to have referred the subject as a matter of inquiry to a Committee of either House, and still less to appoint a Commission to investigate the subject. He did not mean to underrate the value of the services rendered by the voluntary subscriptions of the people of Scotland for the building of churches in places where there was an obvious deficiency of the means of religious worship; on the contrary, he thought those who had promoted these subscriptions were entitled to the highest credit, for he believed that within the last few years not less than forty new churches had been built, in places where they were most required, by such means. But admitting this, he was convinced that if anything had ever been decidedly proved, it was that the voluntary system was altogether inefficient, compared to the demand

883
for the means of attending religious worship. At the same time he admitted that in several places voluntary subscriptions had prevented, to a great extent, the mischief which would otherwise have arisen, though it was ineffectual as a cure. The voluntary principle disclaimed all public aid; the clergy consequently, who ministered in the churches thus erected were paid by means of seat-rents, which were thus necessarily high, and the result was, that the seats Were occupied by the rich, and the poorer classes of people in Scotland were excluded from them, and thus in many places were prevented attending divine service. The observation of this state of things in Scotland had operated so strongly on the minds of the clergy of the established church there, that they had exerted themselves to procure petitions to Parliament and the tables of both Houses had been covered with petitions, and in consequence of this, great attention had been directed to the subject. In addition to this, the clergy had exerted themselves with the view of remedying the evil, by getting up subscriptions, which now amounted to 150,000 l., and which was likely to be largely increased. These facts were stated in the petitions laid before Parliament. The consequence was, that the attention of the Government was directed to the subject, and at the commencement of the Session of 1835 his Majesty, in his Speech from the Throne recommended to both Houses their earnest attention to the condition of the Church of Scotland, and to the means by which it may be enabled to increase the opportunities of a religious worship for the poorer classes of society in that part of the United Kingdom. A change of government took place at about the completion of two months; and it did not appear that there was the same readiness on the part of the present as of the previous Government to attend to the prayer of the people of Scotland on this subject. Whether this arose from paying undue attention to the prayers of the petitions of the Dissenters in Scotland he could not say, and he certainly had no wish to underrate the prayers of that or any other class of persons, because he thought that Parliament were bound to attend to the petitions of all; but when the Dissenters, in a manner and spirit so subversive of the religious system in Scotland, objected to Parliament giving aid to the established
884
church of that part of the country, and endeavoured to prevent the prayer of the members of the established church being conceded, he had no hesitation to declare, that they did not deserve much attention. The present Government, however, instead of proposing a grant of money for the purpose stated in his Majesty's speech, apparently let the subject drop. After the lapse of some months the subject was brought before the other House by a right hon. Friend of his (Sir W. Rae), who moved that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into and report how far it was necessary to build and endow places of worship for the moral and religious instruction of the lower orders of the people of Scotland. In consequence of the subject being thus taken up, Lord John Russell moved as an amendment that a Commission should be issued to inquire into the subject; and on that occasion he stated, in reference to the voluntary principle, that he did not agree with those who said that religion would never flourish so well as when left to the voluntary support of those who might be influenced to attend divine worship. He then proceeded to say-" On that question of principle I do not wish to enter, for I can give but one principle, I can hold but one doctrine on that subject, namely, that a Church Establishment affords the best means of diffusing and promoting religious instruction. I think it our duty, as a Government, to maintain that principle and to uphold the Church Establishment which is founded on it." Nothing could be more satisfactory than the declaration of the noble Lord. Towards the end of his speech, and with reference to the character of the Commission, the noble Lord said, "It may be urged as an objection that the Commission might extend its labours to an inconvenient length, but that will be obviated by arranging that they shall report from time to time, that their reports shall be laid before Parliament and that as soon as Parliament and the Government shall have considered them, and ascertained that a remedy is required, and settled the nature of that remedy, they shall proceed at once to act upon them." Now, the first Report of the Commissioners had been laid before Parliament at an early period of the present year, and in consequence of the Government making no proposition founded on

885
that report, Sir W. Rae again brought the subject before the other House, and made a motion, which was discussed at great length; and on that occasion Lord John Russell said "that he had heard within the last few days that the Commissioners had made inquiries respecting the town of Glasgow, and they had also made various inquiries respecting teinds, and he hoped within a short time to place another report on the table of the House, Therefore, he said, it was better to wait until they had more Reports before them, before any further steps were taken on the subject. The Commissioners had not suggested any remedy that Government should adopt, and it was requisite great caution should be exercised in the selection of a plan. The consequence was, that it required the utmost consideration before any decided step was taken." To state that the matter required the utmost consideration was the observation made on the appointment of the Commission, and on the motion of Sir William Rae; and therefore to repeat the observation at the present day appeared to be a lamentable falling off from the former statements of the Government. It appeared to him that the matter was then perfectly ripe for legislation, and, above all, as regarded the city of Edinburgh; he therefore, wished to know whether the Government really intended to do anything on this subject. From the Report of the Commissioners, it appeared that the population o the city of Edinburgh was 162,292. The clergy of the church of Scotland employed some individuals to make a census of the population of Edinburgh and the neighbouring parishes, dividing them into classes descriptive of their several religious denominations, From the calculations thus made, it appeared that out of the 162,292 inhabitants of Edinburgh, 76,630 belonged to the Established Church of Scotland; 71,271 were Dissenters belonging to all the various denominations; and, to make up the whole number of 162,292, it appeared that there were 14,391 persons who belonged to no denomination of religion whatsoever. This, he thought, was a circumstance which imperatively called upon the Government and Parliament of this Christian country to apply an immediate remedy. The Dissenters also made a census of the population, with a view of obtaining returns of the number of Dis-
886
senters and of the Established Church; but the survey was not so extensive, nor did it embrace portions of the population so varied in character as to enable them to found on it so extensive a classification into denominations of the whole inhabitants, as that which he had previously referred to. According to the survey of the Dissenters, there were 76,330 persons belonging to the Established Church; there were 76,571 belonging to all other denominations; and there were 9,391 not known to belong to any denomination. It should be remembered however, that the dissenting investigators had gone over a space extending hot more than one-half the population and had taken the result of this survey and adopted the same proportion as applicable to the whole city and its vicinity. According to both these returns, it appeared that there was a very large portion of the population of the capital of Scotland that belonged to no denomination of Christians. He would ask, therefore, whether it was hot the duty of Parliament to afford the means of religious instruction to those who, it appeared, did not attend divine worship any where? If the Parliament did not do so, it would be grossly negligent of its duty as a Christian Legislature. It appeared also, from the report of the Commissioners, that accommodation provided by the churches belonging to the establishment, was 36,001 sittings; and the number of sittings in places of worship of other denominations, was 42,705, thus making a total of 78,706. Deducting this amount from the number of the inhabitants of the city of Edinburgh, it appeared that there were no less than 83,586 totally unprovided with the means of religious accommodation. According to other returns, it appeared that 74,795 persons were in the habit of attending some place of worship or other. The Commissioners, in their report, stated "that it is universally admitted in the evidence that there is a large number of persons capable of attending who habitually absent themselves from public worship. This number cannot be less than from 40,000 to 50,000, according to the age at which children may be supposed capable of attending church." The Commissioners conclude this part of their report, by saying, "It appears to us, as the result of the whole evidence, that from whatever cause it

887
proceeds, whether connected with their extent or nature, the opportunities of public religious worship, and the means of religious instruction and pastoral superintendence at present existing and in operation, are not adequate to the removal of the evils complained of." He contended, therefore, that a strong case had been made out to justify calling for aid on behalf of the population of Scotland. Quite a distinct case had been made out for the people of Scotland from that of other parts of the country, for they had distinct pledges held out to them on the subject. The noble Lord in the other House, told them, that the Reports of, the Commissioners should not be delayed, but should be made from time to time, and that it should not be requisite that they should all be laid before Parliament before anything was done. Such was the understanding in which the statement of Lord John Russell was taken when he opposed the motion of Sir William Rae, and moved that the Commission should be appointed; and it had occasioned great disappointment to the people of Scotland that so long a time should be allowed to elapse, and then to be told that the subject was one for mature consideration. It was not for him to propose any specific plan—that was not his duty, and it might appear presumptuous if he did—but he would shortly state what the people of Scotland asked for. They did not ask the Government to build churches, for they had already subscribed 150,000 l. for that purpose. All they wanted was, that the Government should endow the churches already built, as well as those to be hereafter built, by the voluntary subscriptions of members of the establishment. By acting in this manner, they would confer a greater service on the poorer classes than by operating for the same object in a different manner. If the Government would consent to give the minister of each of these churches a moderate endowment, the result would be, that the seats would be let extremely low, and, as he understood, at such a moderate rate, that all those who would object to receive seats gratis in the church, would be enabled to obtain them. A moderate sum to each clergyman would be amply sufficient, and the bestowal of which, he was sure, would be productive of the most beneficial results. Even as a matter of economy, this subject should
888
not be disregarded, causing, as it necessarily would, the diminution of crime, which was a matter of consideration independently of the temporal welfare and the eternal happiness of the persons whose interests were so deeply involved. The neglect of religious instruction led to the indulgence in dissolute habits, which were the parents of crime; and the country was put to an enormous expense in endeavouring to check it by punishment. He was not prepared to go into a lengthened detail of figures to show the great increase of crime that had taken place in Scotland within the last few years, but he would merely refer to the Returns laid before Parliament every Session, showing the expense of criminal prosecutions; and from these returns, it would appear, that the expense of these prosecutions were extremely great now in comparison with what they were some few years ago. This state of things would be materially altered, if the people had churches, and active and zealous clergy, from whom they would receive the best description of instruction. The saving that would result from the diminution of crime, would make a grant such as he suggested, a measure of great economy. There had been much misrepresentation of the opinions given by that eminent divine, Dr. Chalmers, before the Commissioners. It had been said, that he had delineated the zeal of the missionaries as ample for the ends required. Dr. Chalmers did not say anything of the kind; for he said, however zealous the exertions of the missionaries might be, there would be little use in sending them out without building and endowing churches which all classes could attend. The great bulk of the people of Scotland were, and they well might be, from their hereditary predilections, attached to the church of their country, and they were looking with the utmost anxiety to the Government for a remedy of those evils of which they justly complained. The poor people of Scotland thought they had a right to have attention paid to their religious condition. He concurred with them; and he called upon his Majesty's Ministers to do justice to Scotland. He would now put the questions to which he was desirous of obtaining answers from the noble Viscount. He wished, in the first place, to know from the noble Viscount, whether he was prepared positively to state that it was the fixed inten-

889
tion of Government to apply an efficient remedy to these admitted evils; secondly, whether he could inform the House what course his Majesty's Government intended to take in consequence of the Report of the Commissioners; and thirdly, whether that course was intended to be adopted immediately with respect to such portions of Scotland as had already been reported upon, or whether the whole matter was to be delayed till a general measure could be devised?
Viscount Melbourne: Before he answered the questions put to him by the noble Earl, begged to make a very few observations on the preliminary matter with which the noble Earl had introduced those questions. The noble Lord had correctly stated, that if he had attended strictly to the course of Parliamentary proceeding, it certainly would have been necessary, in order to produce a discussion upon the subject, for him to have made a motion rather than to have put questions. Great latitude, however, was given by their Lordships to the practice of putting questions, and he must say, that if the noble Earl had thought proper to make a motion, instead of putting a question, he could' not have prefaced it with a larger or more elaborate speech. The noble Earl had stated, in the first place, that this matter took its origin in the King's Speech in the commencement of the Session in the year 1835, when it was recommended from the Throne, that the Parliament should pay its attention to the state of the Church of Scotland, with a view to the people receiving religious instruction, and with a view to the poorest classes of the population of Scotland having more frequent opportunities of attending divine worship. At the time that Speech was delivered, or shortly afterwards, he stated, that, in his opinion, that was a very ill-considered recommendation. He still entertained the same opinion, and felt quite certain, that if the Government of 1835 had continued in office, and had attempted to carry into effect their views by the mode to which that recommendation was supposed to point, namely, by proposing to the other House of Parliament a grant of the public money, they would not have been able to succeed. He did not say this with reference to the number of their supporters. They would have been met by the reason of the case. It would have been said to
890
them, "Do you mean to propose this grant, without previously knowing what is the actual state of the Scotch Church; or without knowing anything about what is the accommodation at present given in that Church, and in the other places of public worship?" And being met with these interrogatories, they would have been driven to precisely the same course of inquiry as that which his Majesty's present Ministers had adopted. He would not say, that it was the intention of those who concocted that Speech, or of his noble Friend, who had brought this question forward just at the time of the meeting of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and at the moment when there was a great popular election pending in that country—most certainly he would not say, that it was the intention of his noble Friend, because he believed that his noble Friend brought the subject forward as the advocate and well-wisher of the poorer classes of the community, and upon those higher and more exalted notions which he entertained of the necessity of upholding the great cause of religion and morality, which he had shown to be so intimately connected together: he did not, therefore, believe that it was either the intention of his noble Friend, or of those who acted with him, because it would not be fitting, it would not be becoming of a great political party to be bidding against their antagonists with the public money for the favour, support, and interest of the General Assembly, and of the ministers of the Church of Scotland in the elections, and for the great political power which they were at present wielding and exercising, as he understood, without much scruple in this country. He knew, therefore, that it was not the meaning of his noble Friend, or of those noble Lords who dictated the King's Speech, that that Speech should have that effect;—but though that was not the meaning and intention of the Speech, yet, nevertheless, it had had the effect of procuring for those noble Lords throughout the country, the name of "Friends of the Church;" and of enlisting on their side, all the clergy of the Church of Scotland, who had made their pulpits resound with the denunciation of those whom they supposed to be the enemies of and opposed to that Church. He would repeat, that such was not the meaning of his noble Friend, nor the sense in which his noble Friend's ques-

891
tion ought to be received. The subject was one of a higher and of a graver nature; and ought to be considered with reference to its own great importance, and to the object which it had in view. It was a question of very great importance in itself, and with respect to the religious feelings of the people of Scotland. It was a question, also, of great importance with respect to its moral character. It was a question not only of importance with respect to Scotland, but of very great importance as considered with reference to England, and with reference to the whole empire. Because, however great the destitution of the means of religious instruction might appear to he, upon the authority of the Report before their Lordships, with respect to Edinburgh, or from any subsequent Report with respect to any other part of Scotland, it was also very well known, from documents of equal authority, and from inquiries made under the direction of the right rev. Prelate who presided over this metropolis, that a case of as great destitution, and of like inequality of the means of religious instruction, was to be furnished with reference to the people of England, as had been produced with respect to the people of Scotland. But, moreover, it was a question of very great importance with respect to the feelings which at the present time prevailed among the people. The noble Earl had stated, that there was sufficient evidence! upon the face of this Report, and had characterised it in a manner from which he certainly did not altogether dissent, to show that there was a pretty strong controversy existing between what was called the voluntary principle, and the principle of an establishment. Indeed, the noble Earl had, with reference to this part of the subject, put his case rather less strongly than ha might have done, because he seemed to consider that all Dissenters were the friends of the voluntary principle, but that was not true. He was himself a decided friend to a religious establishment; it was not, how-ever, necessary to argue that question at present, because it was not before them. But he considered an establishment necessary for the religious and moral instruction of the people, and not only for the religious and moral instruction of the people, but for upholding and preserving a standard of religious truth and purity, and saving us from the dangers of enthusiasm and
892
fanaticism on the one hand, and of infidelity on the other. Experience, however, had taught them that the best-devised measures had not always the effect expected from them. They knew that establishments had often received a serious blow and sustained great injury, and had even been subverted, by the very measures which had been intended, and which had seemed to be the most advantageous to them, and the best calculated to support and maintain them. When, therefore, they were called upon to give an accession of power and wealth to an establishment, it behaved them to take care that whatever step they adopted, should be wisely and prudently taken, and that it should not be calculated to defeat their own ends, and weaken instead of strengthening and confirming. The noble Earl had certainly very correctly stated, that the Commissioners were to report from time to time and that if it were thought fitting that any measures should be taken upon those partial reports, it undoubtedly was the intention that such measure should be adopted. But it was not, and could not be intended, when those partial reports were evidently imperfect, and when further inquiry was absolutely necessary with respect to other portions of Scotland, which might be in the same situation with those portions of the country to which such partial reports referred, that they should take any hasty, rash, and precipitate steps, and thereby bind themselves to follow up and apply the same principle in any case which might appear afterwards to be similar and analogous. He must acknowledge that he had not studied the report before their Lordships with so much care and attention as his noble Friend had done, but he had read it sufficiently to see very great reason why their Lordships should take time to consider what course ought to be pursued with respect to the matters it treated of. It certainly was an alarming fact, that there should be in the city of Edinburgh, so many persons who did not attend public worship at all. It was undoubtedly necessary to inquire to what cause that fact was to be attributed. It appeared that there were in Edinburgh 20,000 sittings unlet, 11,000 of which were in places of worship belonging to Dissenters, and 9,000 in places belonging to the Established Church. When their Lordships considered this fact, it must be perfectly obvious that at least

893
20,000 of those persons, who did not at present attend any place of public worship, might do so if they thought proper. He knew that there were reasons given for this apparent inconsistency, which might appear to some to have a great deal of weight and force, but the fact of rent having to be paid for the sittings was not one of those reasons, for there actually existed a prejudice in Scotland against free sittings. Dr. Chalmers slated this in his evidence, and declared that he himself did not approve of free sittings. Neither was it the high price of the sittings that was felt as a pressure, because some of the seats were let at an exceedingly low price, indeed it was stated that the low-priced seats let the worst. It was quite clear, then, that all these facts required great consideration, and much careful reasoning, before any steps were taken respecting them, lest they should take a step in a wrong direction, and defeat their own object rather than advance it. With respect to the questions which had been put to him by the noble Earl, he had no hesitation in saying that his Majesty's present Government were as anxious to carry the recommendation of the Commission to effect the objects the noble Earl had in view, and to encourage religion generally in that part of the country to which the Commission referred, and particularly to extend as far as was fair and just, the influence of the Church Establishment in Scotland, as the noble Earl could be, or any one of those who acted or thought with the noble Earl upon this question. His Majesty's Ministers were ready to take every step that was necessary for those objects, but undoubtedly he did not see how it was possible that they could safely, prudently, or wisely, take any single step cm a report which related only to the city of Edinburgh. It appeared to him necessary, knowing what was the state of the city of Edinburgh, to know also what was the state of the other great and populous towns in Scotland. One thing would be absolutely necessary, be-fore they could recommend anything like a grant of the public money, namely, to inquire very accurately whether there were not other resources and means at the disposition of the Government which ought to be applied in the first instance, before they had recourse to that which had been pronounced by a very high authority in the Other House of Parliament, to be al-
894
ways a "very vulgar expedient," namely, a grant from the consolidated fund. A memorial had been addressed to him by persons who were not only well informed upon this subject, but who felt a warm interest in the welfare of the Church of Scotland. In that memorial he found matters referred to, which demanded the attention of those who were about to propose a practical measure on this subject. The memorialists did not pres me to point out what resources ought to be resorted to, but "they must (they stated) venture to mention one fund, the application of which to the uses of the Church of Scotland, appeared to them to be peculiarly appropriate. This fund consisted in the tithes and rents which belonged to, and were administered by, the Bishops of Scotland, prior to the revolution. On the abolition of episcopacy in Scotland, these tithes and rents were resumed, and, up to a recent period, had been administered by the Crown. The annual amount of these tithes and rents was 2,717 l., and the memorialists had reason to believe that, under a more economical arrangement, the annual proceeds would nearly satisfy all immediate demands." Before, therefore, the Government proposed to Parliament to grant a sum of the public money for the purpose advocated by the noble Earl, it would be necessary to inquire whether there was any foundation for the opinion expressed by the memorialists, that this sum would be sufficient to meet the object which the people of Scotland had in view. There was also another fund which it appeared more natural to resort to than to that "vulgar expedient"—a grant from the consolidated fund—he meant the unappropriated tithes in Scotland—the teinds for which the land in Scotland was still liable. This fund was a natural and tangible source to meet the necessities of the Church. Of course he knew it would be levying a tax upon the heritors of Scotland, to which they were not at present liable, but he had no doubt that their anxiety and zeal for religion would make them not only contented and satisfied, but anxious to render their contributions towards whatever would promote the welfare of that Church, the good of which they had so much at heart. But still it was the duty of Government to consider all these subjects very maturely, and obtain every information respecting them, and as the General Assembly was now

895
sitting, there would be no indisposition on the part of the Government to make those inquiries which might expedite the course, which it was their anxious wish to take upon the subject. The noble Earl's second question was, whether his Majesty's Government intended to adopt any immediate legislative measure upon the report before their Lordships. Undoubtedly his Majesty's Ministers were not prepared to act upon that report, for the reasons which he had already stated, namely, because they were anxious not to establish a principle which they might not afterwards think proper to act upon. These were the general views which he entertained upon this subject. The Government were as anxious to forward the object which the noble Earl had in view as much as possible, but they were of opinion that it was their duty to proceed with caution, because it was a question much larger, and more extensive in itself than one relating only to the city of Edinburgh, because it was one of very great delicacy and difficulty, and which ought not to be decided without very considerable caution; and finally, because they were not at present in possession of sufficient information to enable them at once to adopt any legislative measure on the subject.
The Earl of Aberdeencould not help expressing his regret at the very distant and uncertain prospect of any satisfactory measure being adopted by his Majesty's Ministers upon this subject. The noble Viscount had said that it was necessary to wait for the opinions of the Commissioners with respect to the state of religious instruction in other parts of Scotland before acting upon their recommendations with respect to the city of Edinburgh; but the composition of that commission was such, that though they might make a report upon statistical facts, he would defy the noble Viscount ever to get the expression of an opinion from them. The commission was so constructed as to make it quite impossible that they should ever agree in recommending any course whatever. At the time of the formation of the commission, two years ago, he recollected urging strongly upon the noble Viscount the inutility of appointing a commission of that description, because, if ever there were any subject upon which an unanimous opinion was entertained, it was upon the insufficiency of church accommodation in Scotland. No commission was
896
required for obtaining any information which his Majesty's Government might not already have possessed. When the deputation from the Church of Scotland represented that such a commission as the one which was proposed to be appointed could only lead to interminable delay, they were met by the statement that the Commissioners would report from time to time. The object of that representation must have been to persuade those reverend persons that there would be no delay; and they no doubt thought that measures would be taken upon each case as it should be reported by the Commissioners. Therefore he thought it might be fairly stated that there was a want of good faith on the part of the Government to decline to act on these partial reports when thus made. That this was the course originally intended to be pursued might be collected from the concluding observations of the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in his letter of instructions to the Commissioners, where he said, "I trust that in the course of six months the greater part of your task will be accomplished." He thought, from the experience which his noble Friend had had of the vitality of commissions, he ought not to have entertained any such expectation. This commission had lasted two years, at an expense of 20,000 l.; so that while the Government were debating, and hesitating, and considering whether they would give a beggarly endowment to those churches which were already built, and the demand for which was so urgent, they were expending very nearly as much as the endowment would amount to. The noble Viscount had said, that further inquiry was necessary to ascertain whether the Crown was in possession of certain funds which might be rendered available in this matter. If there were any such funds, in no way could they be better employed. But what had the Commissioners been about all this while? In one week all the information required by the noble Viscount as to the Crown property might have been furnished. The noble Viscount had talked about applying certain teinds to the purposes of the church; but it was clear that the noble Viscount did not understand the nature of the property of which he spoke. It was neither more nor less than a proposal to apply a tax to any gentleman's estate in the kingdom, which was just as liable to be appropriated by

897
the noble Viscount as those teinds. The teinds were certainly liable to be called upon for the support of a single minister of the parish, but beyond that they formed as much apart of the private estate of the heritor as any other portion of his property. If the noble Viscount had not thrown this out somewhat hastily, and rather as an obiter dictum, he should say that it was calculated to excite much alarm among the proprietors of Scotland. However, he presumed that the noble Viscount did not speak with a full knowledge of facts. If the noble Viscount were prepared to act on a partial report, which must have been the original intention of the Government, he never could have one more complete than that which embraced the case of Edinburgh and its neighbourhood. If the noble Viscount declined to act upon this report, it was clear that it was not intended to act at all until the whole inquiry was concluded, and that was calculated to excite suspicion as to the motive for appointing the commission, and to induce the belief that it was only intended to set aside a pressing difficulty of the moment. He would recommend to the noble Viscount, if it were his wish to do anything to increase the efficiency of the established Church in Scotland not to shrink from the attempt from an unworthy apprehension, which he had no cause to entertain, of the effect of any measure which the report on the table would justify. The noble Viscount had said, that they must take care and not set a bad precedent; but had they not already set a precedent by making grants in support of the Church of England? Had they not voted 100,000 l. a year for many years, without opposition, for the purpose of augmenting the Church Establishment in England? But the noble Viscount contended that further inquiry was necessary. He (the Earl of Aberdeen) hoped the noble Viscount did not put this forward as a pretence for delay. The destitution of the Church of Scotland being known, it would be very hard if, under the guise of taking time to make further inquiries, a grant for the purpose of removing that destitution should be denied.
The Earl of Roseberrywas quite willing to afford assistance to the Church of Scotland by a grant of the public money, if it should be made to appear that the destitution which existed could not otherwise be remedied; but he trusted that his
898
Majesty's Government would not suffer themselves to be hurried into a decision in favour of such a step by any observations that had been made by the two noble Earls who had addressed their Lordships. Would it be fair or wise, having only information with respect to one city in the kingdom, and that not the largest, to proceed to lay down a principle which they would be bound to apply to every other town in Scotland? If they were to do so they might be adopting a precedent the existence of which they might afterwards lament; and instead of supporting and advancing the object they had in view—namely, the welfare of the established Church—they might, in the present fevered state of the public mind in that country, materially deteriorate its condition. Upon these grounds he hoped that the Government and Parliament would not come to a premature decision, but would wait until they had full information, and could see clearly what ultimate measure ought to be adopted.
The Earl of Haddington, in explanation, said, that with respect to the vacancy which had occurred in the representation of a populous town in Scotland, he begged to assure the noble Viscount that it had been his intention to bring forward this question long before that vacancy took place. As to the fact of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland being sitting, he was willing to admit that that circumstance had had great influence with him in calling the attention of the noble Viscount to this matter, because he certainly thought that so important a body as the General Assembly ought to know what were the intentions of the Government with respect to this subject.
Subject dropped.