Sitting of 30 July 1839

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Tithe Commutation Act Amendment; Church Discipline; County and District Constables.
Petitions presented. By Sir E. Wilmot, from the Stationers and Papermakers of Birmingham, against any injury to their interests likely to result from the Penny Postage.—By Mr. Pakington, from places in Upper Canada, for Church Extension.—By Mr. Yorke, from the Cambridge Union, against a Petition previously presented by

993
Mr. Fielden.—By Mr. O'Connell, from Dublin, against the Expenses incurred by building a new Gaol in that city.—By Mr. Hope, from the Society of British Artists, against the Royal Academy.

PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
Sir C. Greyrose to move for leave to bring in a bill for establishing throughout England annual meetings of people in their parishes, and for securing to the industrious classes a regular influence in the election of Members of Parliament. If any one supposed he was trifling with the House, or had not an earnest desire of carrying the Bill into effect, they did him great wrong. The time was come when it was absolutely necessary that Parliament should consider the situation and claims of that portion of the people who had no share in the election of Members, and he believed the circumstances of the age and time had, by increasing the intelligence, and consequently increasing the excitement and aspirations of that class of people, made it quite impossible that they should remain in the condition in which they had previously subsisted without danger. If any one suspected him of revolutionary principles, or of rashness in adopting this motion, he would appeal to the whole course of his life, to his known principles of loyalty, to the situations of trust he had held under the Crown, to his time of life and disposition, to protect him from so injurious a suspicion. In consequence of the great difficulties connected with the consideration of this question, he had selected this period of the Session for making Isis motion, and although it might appear paradoxical, yet he would avow it was not his expectation—it was not his wish that the measure should be carried into a law and completed this Session. His main object was to call the attention of the House to the subject, and his desire would be accomplished if he were permitted to lay the bill on the table of the House, and have it printed for future consideration. He proposed to confine the operation of the measure in the first instance to England. In a measure of such importance, it appeared to him that it should be tried in that part of the kingdom where it could be introduced with the greatest safety, and where it would be most under the controul of the executive government. But, besides, he was bound to admit that he was not so well acquainted with the internal divisions or local organization of Scotland as to enable
994
him to say how it would be likely to work in that country, He therefore thought it would be more expedient to confine it in the first instance to England, and if it were found to work well there, it could be extended afterwards to Ireland and Scotland. He hoped that would be a sufficient excuse to those Gentlemen who represented Scotland and Ireland for his not extending it to their countries. He would now state the objects and details of his proposed measure in as few and plain words as possible, for he thought he should be highly culpable if he availed himself of his position to use topics or language that should act on the minds of the people under present circumstances so as either to inflame their passions or raise their hopes beyond what he saw some probability of accomplishing. His, object was, that the people should be enabled to hold meetings without riots, tumult, and disorder, and tending to secure to those who were not qualified by property to vote in the election of Members of Parliament—not universal suffrage nor household suffrage, but something which he hoped would satisfy the public, and produce that good looked for by some from more extensive and sweeping measures, namely, an influence in the election of Members of Parliament. His measure had a two-fold object; first, the right of meeting and speaking publicly and freely for redress of grievances, and sending petitions to the Crown and Parliament, expressing the sentiments and claims of the petitioners; the second object was still more important, as it presented a new feature in the constitution. He proposed to secure to those not qualified to vote at present by property, an influence in elections, through the influence of a certain limited number, to be chosen by themselves. The right of petition, and the right of meeting to frame petitions, was already established and recognised as an undoubted part of the most valuable rights of the people. So late as Lord George Gordon's riots there was an attempt by the then Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench to put a restriction on the right of petitioning, and of assembling for the purpose of petitioning, by reviving the antiquated statute of the 13th of Charles 2nd. But it was unnecessary for him to state how that attempt was met by that House, and in particular by Mr. Dunning. The practice of petitioning and meeting had since universally

995
prevailed, and no limit whatever could be put to the number of persons who might meet for the purpose of petitioning, or who might sign the petition they wished to present. What he wished to propose was, that instead of meetings occasionally taking place in a disorderly and tumultuous manner, there should be stated periods at which it would be known the people would assemble—that there should be stated places, and such subdivisions of those meetings, that in none of them should there be overwhelming numbers, or so many as were likely to lead to confusion or tumult. There was at present no criterion by which persons were enabled to judge whether a meeting was legal or illegal except by the conduct of those composing the meeting, from which they might infer what their intentions were. The consequence was, that the right of assembling, valuable as it was, produced often a great deal of mischief. He might allude in support of this assertion to what had lately happened in Birmingham, and to what had often occurred before of a timilar nature, and in bringing forward this proposition he was actuated by a feel sng that the proceedings that had lately occurred were likely to force upon the Government the necessity of some measure for controlling and regulating the important right of meeting to petition Parliament upon public grievances. He should be very sorry to see the present ministry reduced to the necessity of introducing any such measure, and he thought that that necessity would be obviated by the plan which he had to propose. That plan provided that at stated periods, say about the time of Easter week, there should be meetings of the people in every parish throughout the country. This he begged leave to say was no novel principle, for it was the ancient law of the land that the people of every hundred, without distinction, should meet annually within the hundred; and the 60th of George 3rd, which prohibited meetings of more than sixty persons, made a special exception in favour of meetings in separate townships or parishes. It might be said that such meetings were impracticable; but let him remind the House, that for the purposes of such meetings, it was not necessary to have a large room with a long table covered with green cloth, and surrounded by red morocco chairs; no, he did not think that the people of this country had so far de-
996
generated from those who, in the open air and under a canopy of oak trees in the field of Runnymede, obtained Magna Charta. Supposing, then, that his proposition was neither novel nor impracticable, he might be asked what advantage did he propose to draw from it? In the first place, if they were driven to the necessity of adopting measures which should give the people an idea that they were going to take away from them the right of meeting to represent their grievances, he thought that this measure would go a great way to re-inspire confidence. At present the right of meeting was exercised in a disorderly and dangerous manner, because the people only met under circumstances of agitation, so that it was hardly possible that evil should not result from such meetings; but if meetings were established for the express benefit of the people, and to give them the legal opportunity of expressing their feelings and wishes, he thought that the disorder and tumult at present attending more or less upon public meetings would be avoided. He thought also that by rendering such meetings open to all classes by bringing the different classes of the people into frequent and friendly communication, instead of standing aloof from each other as at present, this measure might be made an instrument to raise the country to a pitch of prosperity it had not yet seen. The second object which he proposed was to secure to the industrious classes a regular influence in the election of Members of Parliament. There were various signs to show that the people—the great mass of the people—were discontented at not having some influence over the making of those laws which they were called upon to obey. That discontent was, he thought, at a fearful height, and it was time to consider whether it was not possible to gratify to a certain extent the wishes of the people in this respect. Some hon. Members would, he was aware, recommend universal suffrage; but, in his opinion, universal suffrage was incompatible with the fundamental principles of the constitution. He would not discuss the difference between direct and indirect taxation, as that difference was universally recognised, but by the law of this realm the property of no Englishman could be taken in the way of direct taxation. The taxes were a gift on the part of the people,

997
through their representatives, and were levied on the property of those who elected representatives. If they adopted the principle of universal suffrage, they would call into power an overwhelming number if those who had no property, and who could not suffer from direct taxation; and if that overwhelming number had the power of taxation—and he thought it must be conceded that they would, inasmuch as they would have the power of returning a majority of the representatives—it would amount to nothing more nor less than if they gave to a foreign power—France, for instance—the power of taking from the people of this country, having property, a certain portion of that property. Instead of adopting the principle of universal suffrage, he would propose that if these meetings should be found to act in a salutary and orderly manner, they should be allowed to elect annually one person, calling him by any name they might choose, foreman, for instance, and that the persons so elected should have the right of voting in the election of every Member of Parliament that took place within their county. This would call into action in England, about, he should think, 15,000, or if Ireland and Scotland were added, about 30,000. And this, whatever might be thought of it, would be no trifling boon. The persons thus elected would in most instances be active and intelligent men, and would exercise a very considerable influence in the election of the Members of that House. He thought that this proposition, in comparison with household suffrage, would be a cautious measure. He was afraid that, although this empire was one of the richest, the most extensive and the most intelligent on the face of the globe, the lower classes of its inhabitants were less happy than those of any other part of the world, not excepting India and Canada. All these circumstances, which had pressed very heavily on his mind, had induced him with all humility to suggest a plan for the remedy of these undoubted existing evils. In conclusion, therefore, he moved that leave be given to bring in a bill for establishing throughout England annual meetings of the people, in their parishes, and for securing to the industrious classes a regular influence in the election of Members of Parliament.
Mr. Hodgesseconded the motion.
Mr. Humesaid, there could be no mo-
998
tion made for securing to the working classes their proper influence in the election of Members of Parliament which he should not be inclined to support, and this motion was of that nature, and therefore, he should support it. He regretted, however, that his hon. Friend had not explained any of the details of the measure, by which he expected to effect his object. He, therefore, hoped the House would allow the hon. Member to lay his bill upon the table, when, perhaps, some at least of its provisions might be carried out.
Motion negatived without a division.

CHURCH-RATES—CASE OF JOHN THOROGOOD.
Mr. T. Duncomberose to call the attention of the House to a case of great hardship. The petitioner, John Thorogood, was a dissenter, and a warm partizan of the liberal party, and though a poor man, he hoped the House would not indulge in the idea that his religious scruples were not as conscientiously adopted, and as firmly fixed, as those of the noblest and richest in the land. The facts of this case were stated in a petition presented by the hon. Member for Leeds, whom he was sorry not to see in his place. He had subsequently presented another petition, in which this poor dissenter again complained of having been imprisoned in Chelmsford Gaol for the non-payment of 5s. 6d. due for church-rates; that he was there treated as a felon; that he had been there six months; that for eighteen hours out of the twenty-four he was kept in solitary confinement, that none of his friends were allowed to see him, except at the hours appointed by the prison regulations; and that he had applied for leave to see his wife on Sunday, and was refused. The visiting magistrates of the county of Essex had laid a paper before the House, in which they admitted that the petitioner was a Protestant dissenter, and that he had been imprisoned for the non-payment of 5s. 6d. due for church-rates. They denied that he had been treated as a felon, and said that the felons were not confined in the same prison, but in the prison of Springfield, three quarters of a mile off. With respect to the assertion of the visiting magistrates, that the petitioner was not treated as a felon, the petitioner allowed that in certain particulars a difference was observed, but he said further, that in some respects his treatment was more severe than that of a felon, because

999
there was no limitation to its duration, and unless he were released by the timely interference of the House, he might rot and die in gaol. The petitioner had been thirty weeks in prison, and on only four days during that time had his wife been admitted to him; and now, when he applied for leave to see her on Sundays, he met with a positive refusal. He would ask whether all this persecution was likely to redound to the credit or advancement of the Church Establishment? The petitioner stated, that he had done nothing to violate the law, and that he had been subjected to this persecution merely on account of his conscientous resistance of the payment of church-rates, and all such compulsory exactions for religious purposes, which he considered contrary to the doctrines and spirit of Christianity. He would ask whether the Church would dare to promote their demands for church-rates in Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, or Birmingham, or any of the large towns and if not, why did they persecute so unrelentingly, this unfortunate individual? It was stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, two years ago, when moving a resolution on the subject of church-rates in this House, that in the town of Manchester, there were thirty thousand inhabrtants who resisted the payment of them. Now, if the law was to be applied, why should it not be equally applied to all? He might be told, that this individual wished to obtain notoriety as a martyr. Nothing, in his opinion, could be so unfounded, and he would beg to read a letter written by the petitioner to a highly respectable dissenter, a friend and constituent of his (Mr. T. Duncombe's) on the 27th of June, before he knew that it was intended to bring the subject under the notice of the House, and, therefore, not written with any view to produce effect on the present occasion. The hon. Member read, accordingly, an extract. This letter showed that the petitioner entertained a very strong opinion against church-rates, which he did not think would ever be removed by persecution on the part of the Church. But, looking at the great number of towns where these payments were successfully resisted, he maintained that it was rank cowardice, to punish this unfortunate individual. Three years ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward a motion for referring this subject to a committee,
1000
which sat in the years 1837 and 1838. The instructions to the Committee were, that they should ascertain the probable amount of any increased value of church lands, which might be obtained by art improved management of church leases, and to report the same to the House. The Committee made a report to the House, that they hoped to be able to give the information required early this Session. They had since made a report, but they had failed of giving the only thing that was called for of importance in this investigation, that of the improved value of church lands; but they recommended, under the circumstances, the enfranchisement of church property. This report left the question exactly where it was before. Though he was aware that they could not by a vote of this House release this unfortunate individual from the persecution of of the Essex authorities, yet he hoped that by expressing their strong opinion upon this act of violent and shameless persecution, they might shame his persecutors from further proceedings of this kind, and bring about the discontinuance of a system so little calculated to do credit to the Established Church. The hon. Member concluded by moving a resolution condemning the imprisonment of Thorogood as cruel and unjust, and declaring, that it would be the duty of the Legislature, at the earliest possible period of the next Session of Parliament, to make alterations in the existing laws for levying church-rates.
Lord J. Russellwould not enter into the general question of church-rates, but restrict what he had to say to the case of the individual whose petition the hon. Member had referred to. The petitioner complained, that he had been treated with great severity in gaol; that was a distinct question in itself, and he would suppose fur the present, that such severity had been used; but then the hon. Gentleman went on to say, that, therefore, on account of this severity, church-rates, being a cruel and unjust system, ought to be altered. But it did not at all follow that if this petitioner had not been treated with this severity, the system of church-rates would not be quite as unjust and cruel. A man might be taken up on a charge of felony, and treated with undue severity, but it did not follow, that the law against housebreaking or robbery, was a bad law. With respect to this par-

1001
ticular case, the magistrates stated, that the petitioner was not confined with felons, but had a room sixteen feet by fifteen, and nine feet high. As to the indefiniteness of the period of his imprisonment, that, again, resulted from the state of the law, and could not be laid to the charge of the gaol regulations This petitioner was committed for contempt upon the warrant of Dr. Lushington for not answering to a citation fur the payment of this church-rate, This might be a bad state of the law, but it was not the fault of the regulations of the gaol. With respect to the restriction as to the admission of visitors, he did not see, that there was any great hardship in a prisoner's being allowed to see his friends only between the hours of ten and four—a period of six hours. It appeared that this person had a room allowed to meet his wife on Sunday; but having collected a crowd at the window, he addressed them on the hardship of his situation, and on the severity of the law under which he was imprisoned. The magistrates thought, that such conduct tended to disturb the general order of the gaol, and, therefore, determined not to allow him the indulgence, which, up to that period, he had enjoyed. As to his general treatment, he believed, that the magistrates did not treat him with any unnecessary severity, seeing, that they were answerable for his safe custody. As to the general question of the state of the law, he was not one of those who wished the present system to be continued. He wished very much they had some substitute by which the sums now collected for the repairs of the church could be raised in a less objectionable and onerous manner. The hon. Gentleman must recollect, that he had proposed a plan for effecting that object, but it did not receive the sanction of Parliament in such a way as to enable him to give it effect. When he said he was anxious that some substitute should be provided for church-rates, he did not mean to approve of the abolition of church-rates without some equivalent. He did not think it right, that the repairs of the Church should depend entirely on voluntary contribution, but that some legal power should be given to provide for them. As to the assurance of the hon. Gentleman, that this person had no wish to be considered a martyr. He had certainly received a different impression from those qualified to speak to the fact.
Mr. Harvey: He was not surprised that the noble Lord had characterised this motion as inconvenieut. Looking at the state of the session, and the vast importance of the subject which this application involved, it might be found very convenient to deal with the applicant as a very insignificant person. He regarded it of the first importance in every civilised community that individuals should be compelled to yield an instant obedience to the mandate of the law, otherwise it would be in the power of individuals from the most censurable motives, to defeat the process of the law. But why did they not apply the same principle to matters of this description that they applied to questions of property? If an individual withheld his answer on a question involving property, did they permit that the party should be put not only to great expense, but should be permanently withheld from his right, by allowing him to remain in perpetual imprisonment? They did no such thing; and the reason was obvious. One question involved a matter of property; the other of conscience. One party was treated with respect; the other with ridicule. A man resisting a demand from conscientious motives, and imprisoned in consequence, met with very little commisseration; but when a man withheld from some powerful individual information respecting the distribution of his property, all the apprehensions of justice were kindled, and he was made to feel the effects of his obduracy by a much milder treatment. If he did not give his answer voluntary it was taken pro confesso. Why not, he asked, pursue the same course in matters of ecclesiastical demand? It would not be convenient, because if the petitioner were the sort of roan he apprehended, and ventured to think for himself, though in humble circumstances, it was desirable that he should be selected as an object of legal persecution. Hon. Members and particularly those connected with Essex, knew that any person in arrear for tithes or church-rates might have a warrant issued against his property for the amount if it exceeded 40 s. Why had not this been done here? Because John Thorogood was a troublesome man who had an opinion of his own on religious matters, and an independent course of conduct in politics; and as Chelmsford was a great Conservative citadel, it became important to deter any man in humble circumstances

1003
from daring to think for himself. It might be said, that 5s. was a trifling demand. Yes; but this man could not appear to the process under 6l. Now he wished to know from the noble Lord, who had expressed something like sympathy for the conscientious scruples of the dissenters, whether it was right or just, or likely to calm the exasperation which inoculated the entire mass of the people, to say that a man should have no opportunity to resist a demand of 5s. 6d: without being subject for a preliminary proceeding, to the legal demand of 6l. As the Members of that House had no sympathy with any case but one which involved property to some considerable amount, he asked if any one amongst them was asked for 100 l. where he thought he was liable to a demand of 90 l., what would he say if told he could not put in his answer without paying 600 l.? They would be all alarmed at such a case and all their party hostility would yield to the single sentiment of hostility against such an exaction. And yet when a poor man, who told them he was a shoemaker, and in whose case 5s. 6d. might amount to half his salary, appealed to their sympathy, he was treated with neglect. This poor man asked, "why should I pay this demand? I neither enter your church nor agree to your doctrines," But suppose this man was told "you must pay 5s. 6d. Say yes or no If you don't agree to do so, here is a process signed by Lushington, a great Member citing you to the Ecclesiastical Court." Well, this poor man might seek legal advice, and though told that the demand might be clear robbery, he must pay 6l. 5s. before he entered on his defence. Was that a state of things to satisfy the great mass of the people? Were hon. Gentlemen aware that these ecclesiastical courts were remnants of the ecclesiastical tyranny that formerly existed in this country? They were about to pass a bill for giving a distinguished Member of that House a splendid salary, amounting to 4,000 l. a-year. Ever since he held a scat in that House he had heard these ecclesiastical abuses denounced by such high authorities as the receiver of this large income, and that, too, with an eloquence and zeal which almost invited the suspicion of their sincerity; but never had the slightest step been taken with a view to the redress of such grievances. There were then no less than seven distinct ecclesiastical courts, the remnants
1004
of papal power. Blackstone, for he liked to quote a judicial Conservative—stated that these courts were the offspring of papal tyranny, which the Reformation itself had failed to destroy. Into either or all of these seven courts the clergy, or rather the great Conservatives of the national piety could draw the subjects of this kingdom. First of all there was the Archdeacon's Court, confined to the locality over which the authority of each respective archdeacon extended. From that individuals might be drawn into the Consistory Court; and though, as a religious body, they who presided over this court proceeded on the assumption that no man could tell a lie, they set out with a glaring falsehood, by making the very writ of removal declare (as in the case of Mr. Apsley Pellet, whose petition he had presented) that of his own free will and desire he came before the court for the purpose of obtaining speedy justice with the aid of men learned in the law. It was all in vain that the petitioner pleaded his own case, without assistance from the members of the court, as he had doctors learned in the law opposed to him, and was obliged to pay 30 l. or 40 l. Then he was told, "true, there is a judgment against you in that court, but it is only a preliminary one. The ecclesiastics, in their tender solicitude for conscience, and from respect for your sense of right, have provided you with a refuge. Are you not aware that there is a Court of Arches? We will introduce you to it. And if you should fail there, never despair; only leave 50 l. on the threshold of the Court of Arches, and we will introduce you to the Court of Peculiars. There you will have the advantage of an assembly of grave men, rendered singularly significant by wigs and other appendages of learning. If justice be not done you in the Court of Peculiars, you have nothing to do but to pay for the advantage of getting into the Prerogative Court, which, if it should confirm the judgments of the inferior tribunals, still thank your God you are in a land of liberty and of law, and the doors of justice are not closed against you, for you have still an opportunity of appearing before the Court of Delegates. And if you be defeated in all the courts, then the tender mercy of the law hands you over to a commission of review." All this for 5s. 6d. He fancied he heard some aristocrat, whose income it puzzled the rules of arithmetic to compute, exclaim, why not at once pay such a trifle? That was

1005
not the question. Whether the demand was 5s. or 5l., there should be the means of obtaining a prompt and efficacious decision. Nothing, said the hon. Member, will gain the attention of this House to the complaints of the poor, but some great political offence which stirs not your better feelings, but your feelings of alarm, and the case of John Thorogood having roused the great body of the dissenters on the question of church-rates, there was a chance of its finding a hearing, at the expense of great individual suffering, in this House. But allow me to say that the time is come when you must not be indifferent to the voice and demands of the great multitude. We are far too close and confined in our views. We live hardly any where else than in St. Stephen's, and we are more intent on shrouding ourselves in the conceit of our importance, and in the drapery which our pride throws around us, than in evincing a solicitude to inquire into the grievances, still less to redress them, as they affect the great mass of the people. I consider this petition to come under this class; and though a minister may say it is inconvenient to consider it, and that we should proceed for the augmentation of military establishments, or for the establishment of a constabulary, this is not the way, I think, in which wholesome legislation ought to proceed; nor is it the way to conciliate the affections of the people. Though you are accustomed to deride the name of popular power, the time is rapidly coming when a complaint of this nature will be considered a proof that the grievances to which it refers have been too long neglected.
Mr. Duncombe,in order to meet the views of the noble Lord, would alter his motion.
Sir R. Ingliswould oppose the change.
Mr. Hawes Mr. Hawes moved the omission of the words which his hon. Friend wished to have struck out.
Mr. Easthopewas glad that his hon. Friend had changed his original motion, so as to admit of the question being submitted to the consideration of the House, and of the present state of the law being canvassed without relation to individuals. He thought it of great importance that every discussion on this subject should as much as possible be divested of individual character, and that the state of the law, and that alone, should be contemplated by the House. Thorogood was incar-
1006
cerated from the 10th of January to the present time for resisting a claim of 5s. 6d.; not because he fraudulently endeavoured to resist it, but because he could not consistently with conscientious scruples agree to the payment. His mode of resistance to the law might be unwise, but that did not prove that the law itself was not unjust. Indeed, he felt astonished that this papistical law should have been continued so long, without raising a tumult in that House against it. But what surprised him more than anything was, that the hon. Member for Oxford, so famed for his objection to popery in all its forms, should cling with such apparent fondness to this relic of popish domination, which had been suffered to remain on the statute book to the disgrace of our country and of our legislation. Surely the hon. Baronet ought to be among the foremost to advocate the change in the law which, as it now stood, was injurious and disgraceful to the Established Church. If that House, being composed principally of the members of the Established Church, had resolved against the continuance of church-rates, well might a Protestant dissenter, under the influence of conscientions opinions, oppose such a tax, and well might his incarceration by a law, which was an outrage on all common sense and justice, raise an outcry throughout the country.
The House divided upon the question, that the words proposed to be left out by Mr. Hawes stand:—Ayes 20; Noes 44: Majority 24.
The House divided on the resolution so amended having been put, Lord John Russel moved the previous question:—Ayes 42; Noes 22: Majority 20.

SECOND DIVISION.

List of the AYES.

Barnard, E. G.

Humphrey, J.

Bridgeman, H.

Hutton, R.

Brotherton, J.

Johnson, General

Browne, R. D.

Leader, J. T.

Bryan, G.

Lushington, C.

Craig, W. G.

Muskett, G. A.

Easthope, J.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Ellis, W.

O'Connell, M. J.

Ewart, W.

Philips, M.

Fielden, J.

Pigot, D. R.

Finch, F.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Guest, Sir J.

Scholefield, J.

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

Seymour, Lord

Hindley, C.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Hodges, T. L.

Steuart, R.

Howard, P. H.

Thornely, T.

Hume, J.

Vigors, N. A.

1007

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Wyse, T.

Wakley, T.

Yates, J. A.

Warburton, H.

Wilbraham, G.

TELLERS.

Wood, Sir M.

Duncombe, T.

Worsley, Lord

Hawes, B.

List of the NOES.

Baker, E.

Preceval, Colonel

Blair, J.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Broadley, H.

Richards, R.

Broadwood, H.

Round, J.

Chute, W. L. W.

Sandon, Viscount

Dick, Q.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Gordon, hon. Captain

Somerset, Lord G.

Hope, H. T.

Wood, Colonel T.

Lowther, Lord

Mackinnon, W. A.

TELLERS.

Packe, C. W.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Palmer, G.

Bramston, T. W.

Resolution agreed to as follows:
"That it appears by certain papers laid before this House, that John Thorogood, a Protestant Dissenter, has been confined in her Majesty's county gaol of Essex, since the 16th day of January last, for neglecting to appear in the Consistorial Court of the Bishop of London, for the non-payment of 5s. 6d. being the amount of church-rate assessed upon him for the parish of Chelmsford; and it is the opinion of this House that it will be the duty of the Legislature, at the earliest possible period of the next Session of Parliament, to make such alterations in the existing laws for levying church-rates, as shall prevent the recurrence of a like violence being ever again inflicted upon the religious scruples of that portion of her Majesty's subjects who conscientiously dissent from the rites or doctrines of the Established Church."

THE ROYAL ACADEMY.
Mr. Humerose to move that the return to the order of the 14th of March last he made forth-with, viz., a return of the amount of money received for admission, and of the number of persons who visited the exhibition of the Royal Academy of Arts in each of the years 1836, 1837, and 1838; distinguishing the entrance money from the proceeds of the sale of catalogues; together with the amount paid in salaries and perquisites to each person employed in that establishment in each of those years; also, the miscellaneous expenses under separate heads in each of those years; and the average number of students who have attended the Life School and that of the Antique, in each of those years. The hon. Member said, this matter had become one of considerable importance, and, in his opinion, called for serious attention, especially as no objection whatever had been made to the
1008
return at the time he moved for it. The annals of Parliament, he believed, did not furnish an instance of an institution profiting largely as this did by public assistance, having exhibited conduct equally contumacious. There could be no manner of doubt about the benefit received by the Royal Academy from the public funds. The value of the chambers which they formerly occupied rent-free, in Somerset-house, was not less than from 700 l. to 800 l. a-year. These they had enjoyed many years. But the accommodation now allotted to them by the public could not be estimated at less than from 2,000 l. to 3,000 l. annually. Why should the Royal Academy (which received so much of public money) refuse to submit their accounts to the House of Commons? If George 4th had not thought fit to refuse compliance with an order of the House fir returns of the names of all persons having apartments in Hampton Court, and every other palace in the country, with other particulars, he (Mr. Hume) was unable to conceive any valid reason why this institution should be exempted from submitting their accounts. It then became a question, what right they had to so much and so expensive accommodation at the hands of the public; and what services they had rendered to the arts, to become entitled to this extent of accommodation? Their refusal to make the returns required, might fairly raise the question whether there ought to be any academy with such assistance from the public. He contended, that the academicians had no title or right whatever to occupy the National Gallery, except as far as their arts might be useful to the public; no grant was made of it. The Academy, in the opinion of some persons, acted as a blight upon art, and was injurious instead of being beneficial to it. The lectures of the Royal Academicians, so much spoken of, might be gratuitous—they might be good—but they did not amount to nineteen in the course of the year, yet such was the extent of their science. The academicians stated in their petition, amongst other claims on the public, that they had gratuitously educated, according to the best principles of art, nearly 2,000 students in 68 years, the most promising of whom had been sent by them to pursue their studies in Italy. Now, would the House believe, that out of that number of 2,000, only fifteen had been sent to Italy by the Academy, viz. five painters, five sculptors, and five architects, at an expense of between 4,000 l. and 5,000 l.? In seventy years,

1009
from 1768 to this time, the estimated amount received by the Academy for admittance to the exhibitions, and for catalogues, was 252,000 l. The salaries to the academicians paid out of this sum amounted to 73,000 l.; and yet, by their petition, they would have the country believe that their services were entirely gratuitous. The pensions in the same period to distressed objects amounted to 12,000 l., and the expenses of the annual dinners to 19,700 l. These were some of the principal items of expenditure since the establishment of the Academy. Much stress bad been made on the expenditure for the support of the school for promoting the fine arts, and the public were left to conclude that the greater part of their receipts had been paid for the support of the schools; whereas, whilst the unappropriated accumulated fund was 32,000 l., the expenses of the schools, in addition to the sums paid on account of the academicians themselves, had been in the sixty-eight years only 36,000 l.; and to that extent, and no more, were the arts, in a pecuniary point of view, indebted to the Academy. All these items were taken from the evidence of the president and secretary before the Select Committee in 1836, and are deduced from their statements. By the financial statement of the Royal Academy, the present annual expenditure appeared to be:—academicians' salaries (including their deputies, the professor of anatomy, and the assistant secretary), 1,700 l.; their annual dinner, 280 l.; pensions to members and their relations, 490 l.; making a total of 2,470 l. The general expenses, including servants' wages, workmen, light, fire, models, printing, advertisements, and incidental matters connected with exhibition, were 860 l., and on account of the schools, 840 l.—together, 1,700 l. The sums paid to students at Rome, 120 l.; and as charity to the profession at large, 460 l.—together, 580 l.; making a gross annual expenditure of 4,750 l. The annual revenue on an average of ten years at Somerset-house was:—receipts at the door, 5,000 l.; and interest of accumulated fund, 1,400 l.; giving a total of 6,400 l. The balance of revenue over expenditure was, therefore, 1,650 l. Since its removal to the new National Gallery, the income, it was supposed, had increased 1,500 l. on the admission fees, making a balance of 3,150 l. in favour of the Society: the total receipts in the present year probably has been 10,000 l. He came now to the petition of the President and the Council of the Royal Academy,
1010
presented to this House; and he should examine a few of the principal allegations. In that petition they state—
"If your petitioners had conceived that by their removal they should incur any new obligation—if they had supposed that they should be rendered amenable to any new authority, or subjected to any other responsibility, save that which they owed to their Sovereign, from whose gracious hand the President of the Academy received the keys of the building they now occupy, they could not have hesitated a moment to decline any advantage or accommodation that was to be purchased at such a price."
The Select Committee on official houses summoned the secretary of the Academy, who stated their claim for their residence whilst at Somerset-house, but did not establish a right; the Academy was not mentioned in the Act 15th George 4th, in which the several establishments were recapitulated. They had acknowledged the right and power of the House to examine the secretary and president in regard to the Academy, and their responsibility was surely not less in the National Gallery than when they answered the Committee, while in Somerset-house. They further stated in their petition—
"But whatever may be their pretensions, legal, moral, or equitable, to the undisturbed occupancy of their present habitation, your petitioners readily admit, that their best title is the use they make of it—the purpose to which it is applied. If your petitioners cannot hold it by this tenure, they desire not to advance any other claim. How far the Royal Academy has fulfilled the covenants implied under a lease of this kind, they now respectfully submit to the decision of your honourable House."
Mr., now Sir Martin Shee, in his "Elements of Art," and other works, had said as much as any man of late years to prove an academy injurious to the arts. At pages 26, and following, of "A Plan for National Encouragement," &c., he declared
"The creation of establishments for the regular cultivation of art, the mode, perhaps the most expensive and always the least effectual; that in this kind of corporate creation a spirit is often generated, as active as it is injurious, which perverts all zeal and disappoints all patriotism—the establishment spirit."
This work was published in 1809, and the following Extracts were applied to the Royal Academy. But, I may observe, that he was not then, nor did he, perhaps, expect ever to be president of the Academy. His present situation will account for the

1011
altered language in the petition from that in 1809; he says,
"Most of the eminent painters of the present day were self-taught, and the ablest masters of the past will not be found amongst those who studied in the celebrated schools of Italy, but amongst those who formed them."
Alluding to the professor of anatomy, who was not an academician, he said to the members:—
"It would be more creditable to our industry, as well as to our knowledge, if we made ourselves competent to the task of instruction in that part of anatomy which is connected with our art. Whatever is necessary for a painter to learn, a painter should be able to teach; no other person can do his duty for him with equal advantage. * * * Anatomists can hardly be said to be acquainted with a living muscle, or an elastic motion. Amongst our errors of this kind, the general neglect of architecture as a study necessary to painting, is not one of the least conspicuous."
For the president's opinion of the advantage of Exhibitions of works of art, which the petition vaunts so highly, he turned to Mr. Martin Shee's observations, 'The Radiant Star of Academic Skies.'
"Whatever advantages may be supposed to arise from public exhibitions of the works of art, there is reason to fear that they are more than counterbalanced by the evils which attend them. * * * In this country, it must be acknowledged, that our greatest painters have not been the fruit of this tree. Reynolds, West, Barry, Hogarth, Wilson, Gains-borough, were ripe in fame and merit before it can be said to have been planted among us; and if we look abroad to the old masters, we find the most eminent amongst them were those who flourished antecedent to such establishments."
The president must have seen a new light since those days, although little or no alteration has been made in the exhibitions.
The petition asserted, that
"The members of the Royal Academy have zealously supported, for two-thirds of a century, the only regular, effective, or national school of art in this kingdom, comprising separate accommodations for the study of the antique, the living model, and the works of the old masters in the school of painting; all under the superintendence of the ablest professors."
In this assertion of exclusive merit, the royal academicians had quite forgot the Dublin Academy, where their president received his instruction, and that of Edinburgh, that claimed Allan, Wilkie, and
1012
Burnet; and they also had forgot those schools, which, before the foundation of the Royal Academy, were attended by Hogarth, Reynolds, Gainsborough, Barry, Nollekins, Banks, Flaxman, &c., the Chartered Society, the Richmond Gallery, and the Society of Arts. In fact, Mr. Martin Shee, of 1809, gives the best answer to the President Sir Martin Shoe in 1839.
"They have instituted," say the academicians, "professorships for gratuitous lectures in painting, sculpture, architecture, perspective, and anatomy."
Their returns would show, that although the sum of 10 l. was paid for each lecture delivered, the average aggregate number delivered annually in every department was under nineteen. Not one had been given on the important science of perspective for eleven years. No instruction had ever been attempted in history, chemistry, or botany; but useless honorary professors of history and antiquities figured in front of the annual catalogue of the exhibition; a singular proof of the ideas of the Royal Academicians, of the importance of such knowledge. No lectures on architecture had been given for many years, and to prove the inutility of such lectures, a superannuated absentee, Mr. Wilkins, had been lately elected to the professorship of architecture within the last two years. But the academician petition went further—
"They have established an annual exhibition, to which all artists, without distinction, are allowed to send their works."
If hon. Members referred to the evidence of the president and the secretary of the Academy before the Committee on Arts, they would find, that so far from artists exhibiting with them on equal terms, and without distinction, that the academicians had every advantage of best places, of having their own works put up to advantage by a committee of their own body, and, after they had been so favoured, they took three or four days to paint and varnish them up, to the injury of the other six hundred artists, whose works were thus exposed to injurious contrast and bad places; whilst the unprivileged producers of those works were entirely excluded from all inspection and control of the exhibition of their own pictures; the great dinner also and private view, at which the fate of artists for the season was decided, being strictly limited to the academicians and their patrons. But it would answer every purpose to refer again to Sir Martin Shee's own words when he was not President, for a description of the scene;—

1013
"Two hostile generals cannot manœuvre with more dexterity to gain an advantageous position than two rival painters to secure the most conspicuous places in an exhibition room. But it is among those on whom the privilege of office confers the power of choice, that this evil effect is sometimes most strikingly apparent. To have the interest of our rivals in our hands, and hold the means to injure or to serve, affords an opportunity which generosity will accept for its honour, selfishness for its advantage, and malevolence will seize for its gratification."
So much for the opportunity which malevolence may exercise against a rival artist. Their resolute maintenance of their exclusive right to paint up and varnish their works after the arrangement of place was made, was quite enough to determine whether selfishness or generosity prevailed among those "on whom the privilege of office confers the power."
In their petition the academicians went on to allege, that
"They have instituted prizes in the different schools, to stimulate the industry and excite the emulation of the students. They have accumulated a valuable collection of casts, prints, and books, and provided every material and means of study necessary or expedient for the cultivation of the pursuits of taste."
If such has been the case to any creditable or very useful extent, there could be no objection to their giving returns of the prizes bestowed, with the names of successful candidates, and of the amount spent on casts, prints, books, or materials of study, &c. Returns which had been called for would be better than general assertions: but there was reason to suppose that the amount thus expended had been very trifling; for instance, the 'valuable collection of casts' now in the Academy, consisted, as he had been informed, principally of those obtained from the chartered Society of Artists, or were given in trust to them by George 4th, who received them from the Pope.
The president and council went on further to say that
"They have gratuitously educated, according to the best principles of the art, nearly two thousand students, the most promising of whom have been enabled to pursue their studies in the schools of Italy at the expense of the Royal Academy, and the least successful of whom have been instructed in those acquirements which might qualify them to become useful agents of manufacturing and mechanical improvement."
He had already stated, that out of 2,000
1014
pupils which the Academy had had in 68 years, only 15 had been sent abroad at the expense of the Academy: he would now give the names of the students, so maintained at Rome by the Royal Academy of Arts, since its commencement, was somewhat curious.

Sent out in

Expence of each.

1771

Mauritius Lowe, painter

£150

0

0

1772

Thomas Banks, sculptor

240

0

0

1777

John Soane, architect

240

0

0

1781

Charles Grignon, painter

240

0

0

1785

Charles Rossi, sculptor

240

0

0

John Deane, sculptor

240

0

0

1790

George Hadfield, architect

240

0

0

1795

William Arland, painter

240

0

0

Total Expenditure in 27 years

£1,830

0

0

At this period all intercourse with the continent being stopped, the maintenance of a student abroad was necessarily discontinued for more than twenty years, during which time an addition of 50 guineas, with other advantages, were made to each of the first premiums in painting, sculpture, and architecture. After the Peace there were—

Sent out in

Expense.

1818

Lewis Vulliamy, architect

£470

0

0

1821

Joseph Severn, painter

470

0

0

1825

William, Scoular, sculptor

470

0

0

1828

Samuel Loat, architect

470

0

0

1831

George Smith, painter

470

0

0

1835

E. G. Papworth, sculptor

326

14

0

1837

John Johnson, architect, now abroad

80

0

0

Total in 19 years

£2,756

14

0

Total in 67 years

£4,586

14

0

The term allowed to each student is three years. Occasional suspensions have occurred. The pension has varied at different periods, and is now 100 l. per annum, with an allowance of 60 l. for the journey out and home. Such are the great doings of the academy for the support of the most promising of the 2,000 students, or one in every 133 of that number.
And here he must again refer to Sir Martin Shee, their president, for his opinion of the quality of the instruction given at the academy. In his "Elements of Art,' he said,—
"There is perhaps no civilized people of modern Europe amongst whom the principles of taste have been less generally diffused than among us."
And again,
"The prevalence of portrait painting appears to have considerable influence in producing general inattention to the merits of design."

1015
And further,
"And the author fears that the course of study pursued in the Royal Academy is not pursued with sufficient vigour to counteract the evil. The students of that establishment are perhaps not enough impressed with the importance of a study, the traces of which do not appear to be particularly striking in the productions of those to whom they must look as their guide and example."
If he added to these extracts the opinions of the present President on the ignorance of the academicians respecting anatomy and architecture, and still more their neglect of perspective, the institution might be safely designated on his authority as most inefficient for the promotion of the fine arts; but nothing could more clearly explain the delusion of these pretended services than the statement he had already given of the number and expense of the students sent by the society to Rome. Were this a private institution, receiving no assistance from the public; he would not ask for any returns, although even then Parliament might institute an inquiry into the state of the arts, and might call the members, as it might call any other body of men before them. But, when the Academy was receiving between 2,000 l. and 3,000 l., or to that value of public money, he did urge on the House to enforce the return. All the returns asked for by his motion from the Royal Academy had been furnished to the Committee in 1836 by every academy on the continent. He would now notice the petition from Messrs. George Rennie, E. T. Paris, John Martin, George Clint, F. Y. Thurlstone, James Holmes, and George Foggo, presented on 16th July, in which it was stated—
"That your petitioners are surprised to learn that the royal academicians, located in a public building, and enjoying especial advantages and privileges from the Crown, after declaring that 'they can have no possible objection to make any return that may be required of them,' should now claim to be absolved from the order of your honourable House of the 14th of March. That the accumulated fund of the Royal Academy, which, in 1836, amounted to 47,000 l., is, in consequence of their occupancy of a conspicuous national edifice, rapidly increasing; and, with it an extension of influence fatal to that competition that should be maintained with other societies; and your petitioners humbly submit, that information on the management of the fine arts is at this moment highly important; that her Majesty's ambassadors have readily procured ample returns from the various schools in France, Prussia, Belgium, Bavaria, Wurtem-
1016
berg, &c.; that all are anxious to explain their peculiar merits by reference to the financial and other statistics of their institutions, except the Royal Academy of London, which alone claims the peculiar distinction of being secret and irresponsible. As the honour of the country, as well as the interests of art, are involved, your petitioners humbly pray your honourable House to take into serious consideration the importance of a full and complete explanation of the management of the fine arts in this country, in continuation of the returns and evidence already printed, and for that purpose to confirm the order which, in its wisdom, it made on the 14th of March."
And in the petition of Mr. Benjamin Robert Hayden, a gentleman whose works in the historical department of art were entitled to general praise,—presented on the 17th July, he represented—
"That your petitioner appeals to your honourable House that it is incumbent on the Royal Academy, as highly favoured by the Sovereign and by the public, more especially since their income has been, as your petitioner believes, increased by occupying a part of the National Gallery in Trafalgar-square, to lay before your honourable House every detail required by your honourable House; and your petitioner submits that the desire to conceal the information from the public is an additional proof, among many others in the history of all academies, of that narrow spirit which has rendered them in every part of Europe failures as to fostering genius, or realising in any way the noble objects the founders and supporters had in establishing them. That it is a known fact, that academies have ever given more consequence to men of humble ability, than distinction to men of great genius. That such is the opinion of Professor Waagen, the director of the Royal Gallery at Berlin, in his evidence before a committee of your honourable House; and Sir Martin Archer Shee has stated, that in this country it must be acknowledged that the greatest painters have not been the fruit of this tree. 'Reynolds,' says he, 'West, Barry, Hogarth, Wilson, Gainsborough, were ripe in fame and merit, before it can be said to have been planted among us; and, if we look abroad to the old masters, we find the most eminent amongst them were those who flourished antecedent to such establishments."
There were many other statements of importance in that and in the other petitions; but, as they were printed and in the hands of honourable Members, he would not make more extracts from them. In 1834 returns, which he held in his hand, were made by the Academy to the order of the House; in 1836 they also made returns, when called before the Committee, which had been appointed to inquire into

1017
arts and manufactures; and the whole object of his present motion was to have a continuation of those returns. He (Mr. Hume) had been attacked, in no measured terms, in pamphlets published in the last two years, by Sir Martin Shee, for the part he had taken to procure free access for the public to the exhibition one day in the week; and he regretted that course had not been adopted. In the letter of the president of the Royal Academy, printed and addressed to him (Mr. Hume), some personalities were indulged in with respect to himself, but he had treated them with that contempt they deserved, as he often found that when argument was wanting, resort was had to abuse; he would, however, pass over those expressions. (Sir R. Inglis: "Read.") Well, he would read. Sir Martin said that,—
"Notwithstanding the dilettanti drilling which he (Mr. Hume) had received, he had not been sufficiently enlightened on this subject; that the fine arts did not seem his forte—that his sensibilities were not exquisitely acute—that in matters of taste he was not much of a critic—that he had indulged in coarse invective against the Royal Academy—and had shown more of personal enmity and rancorous virulence than of a liberal desire for the prosperity of the arts."
Sir Martin Shee and his colleagues persisted in denying that the academy received a shilling from the public, and therefore they refused to comply with the order of the House to make the returns. Now he (Mr. Hume) repeated what he had often said, that the grant of a magnificent public building was equivalent to a considerable grant of public money. He could form his own conclusion of the service of which the academy had been to the arts, and would hereafter state them, but he submitted that the returns ought to be laid before the House, that every Member might draw his own conclusions; with confidence, therefore, he submitted his present motion to the House.
Sir H. Inglisrose to move, as an amendment, that the original order of this House directed to the Royal Academy be discharged. He rejoiced, that this question had at length come to a regular issue. The burning zeal of the hon. Member for Kilkenny in defence of the arts had indeed induced him at different times to anticipate this discussion on occasions which none but himself could have considered fitting for it. Once he discounted his present speech in a committee of supply, when the motion
1018
before the chair was, that 80,000 l. should be granted for the Parliamentary road to Holyhead. On another occasion he introduced the same speech, somewhat less inappropriately, on a motion for the repairs of Hampton Court Palace. In reference to that last occasion, he (Sir R. Inglis) might be allowed to complain, that the hon. Gentleman, after having repeated his own notice for a specific discussion, to which notice, as he knew, his amendment followed as a matter of course, should in his absence have endeavoured to make his present charges against the Royal Academy. Happily his hon. Friend and colleague (Mr. Estcourt) was present, and to him he was indebted for the defence which he made on that occasion. There were two courses open to the hon. Member. He might either have said, that the House of Commons had a right to demand what information it pleased from any man or body of men in the country, or that, at any rate, the House of Commons had this right in respect to the Royal Academy, in consequence of certain definite support allotted to it by the nation. This was the safer course; but the hon. Gentleman rushed blindly on the bolder course, and distinctly claimed for this House the right to inquire into the concerns of all the men or bodies of men in England; and to call all men to that bar to answer accordingly. He may call them; but is he sure "that they will come when he doth call them." Every one does not consider him a conjuror; and at all events in this instance he, like the elder conjuror, will find, that they will not come at his bidding. Let it be recollected, that this calling is of no avail, unless the House be prepared to enforce it? and let the House calculate well how it can and will enforce it, and what consequences will follow even from success, and let the hon. Member himself consider whether he be not engaging in a contest, from which, as from another contest of late, this House will gain neither new dignity nor new power. Let him be well persuaded, that these contests are desired by none but those who are the enemies of the real privileges of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman, however, persists in his motion. If his principle be correct, he can make a similar motion against any other body of men in England, nay more, against any individual, against any Member of the other House of Parliament. Is this House prepared to sanction a proposition so extravagant. But, said the hon. Member, how

1019
unreasonable and capricious are the Royal Academy. "First, there was no objection made to these returns when I moved for them; and, secondly, they are only a continuation of those which the Academy had previously furnished." On the first point, when the motion was made, after certain returns had been ordered from the School of Design, he himself (Sir R. Inglis)—it was at half-past one in the morning—asked whether the hon. Member had the sanction of the Royal Academy, and he was answered, that he need not make himself uneasy, for that the papers required were only in continuation of information already furnished to the Committee of the Fine Arts, by the President of the Academy. After this declaration he did not oppose the order. But what, on the second point, is the fact? Why, that the returns are not in continuation of any returns ever before furnished; but that, whereas those returns gave a list of the number of students, pictures, &c. these returns require the minutest account of the income and expenditure of the body in question. It cannot be said, therefore, with any correctness, that any precedent had been given for the order thus obtained, and which by his amendment he now desired to discharge. If the House had contributed towards the support of the Academy by any direct pecuniary grant he could understand how the House could call upon the academy for an account of the expenditure of such grant, but no grant had ever been made. But the hon. Member for Kilkenny argued, that if they did not have it in malt they had it in meal—that if they did not have it in money they had it in money's worth. When the Academy was first founded under the direction of Sir William Chambers, on his secession from the United Society of Artists, the King took the new body under his patronage. Did the hon. Member contend, that the King's patronage gave the House the right to interfere? The King afterwards made grants to the Academy out of his privy purse—did such grants give the right? Then the King placed it in the rooms of his own palace of old Somerset house—did that give Parliament a right of interference? When old Somerset-house was pulled clown, the King stipulated, that provision should be made for his Academy in the new building. Was that a stipulation so made on the part of the King, which gave this House the right which they now claim to interfere in the concerns of the Royal Academy. He had
1020
reason to believe, that this stipulation on the part of the King entered directly into the consideration of the terms upon which the old palace was made over to the nation. The society continued in possession of the new building for nearly sixty years, and did any inquiry take place during that time? It was stated by the noble Lord, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the Treasury minute of the 7th May, 1834, that the Academy would have the same title and the same tenure of its new habitation as it had of Somerset-house, that its title would neither be improved nor weakened in any respect. He said, that the title of the Academy to Somerset-house was the same as to old Somerset-palace. But it had been said, that there was a time when the Academy was amenable to law. What was meant by that? Why, that in 1834 the Academy had made certain returns to the House, and in 1835 the secretary had been examined before the Committee of Arts and Science. That, however, was not to be brought forward as an argument against them, unless the House proved it right to make the inquiry; for the concession of the Academy in making the returns to which he had just referred might have been imprudent. The returns now moved for, he must also remark, were far more minute than, and were essentially different from those which had been placed before the committee. With respect to the apartments now held by the society, the Sovereign himself had placed the key of them in the hands of the president; and yet it had been said, that the society were interlopers in the new building. But were they, he would ask, tenants without rent to the Crown and people of England? So far to the contrary, indeed, the Royal Academy had expended on objects so purely national, that if not defrayed by them it would have been a disgrace to the nation, not to themselves, for not taking it upon them, a sum of not less than 300,000 l. That money had not gone into the pockets of the academicians, and even its bitterest enemy had never impeached its integrity in that respect. Other societies divided amongst themselves the money they received, but that was not the case with the academicians. He did not grudge the largeness, but rather complained of the smallness of the sum that was given to the school of design, and fully admitted the great merit of the person who was at the head of that establishment; but the salary of that Gentleman was three times larger

1021
than that of any officer of the Academy. As to the professors too, they received nothing unless they lectured; the professorships were, in fact, only honorary distinctions to eminent men. It had been said, that the Academy acted as a blight upon the arts; but he would call on any one to state the names of any distinguished artist since the Academy had been formed who had not either been a member of that body, or who had not voluntarily declined that honour. The hon. Member had made it a matter of complaint, that the Royal Academy had expended 19,000 l. in dinners, and one of the parties examined before the committee had complained, that they were not allowed the privilege of consorting with the Academy on those occasions; and this had been gravely inserted in the report of the committee. But who paid for these dinners? Did Parliament? Did the hon. Member contribute, except by his own solitary shilling at the door of the exhibition? The Academy devoted their funds to other purposes besides dinners. There was no other similar institution in Europe that was not supported by the State; but the richest state in Europe did not contribute to its Royal Academy so much as one prince, the King of Bavaria, gave for the promotion of the arts in his own country. The Academy was supported by the hard-earned rewards of its own members, aided by the contributions of artists associated with them. The walls of the building were open to the reception of pictures by the artists of every country, and 600 artists exhibited their works last year. Was this monopoly? No; "but," said the hon. Member, "they select the best places for themselves." He trusted to the eyes of those who saw the exhibition for a refutation of this statement. Mr. Leslie and Sir Martin Shee, when, on different occasions, members of the hanging committee, had declined to exhibit at all. He had heard in an audible whisper from the hon. Member, that Sir Martin Shee had begun the attack upon him. But from the very first page of the letter to which the hon. Member had referred, he found that the hon. Member had, in December 1837, described the Academy as "the meanest and most stingy of all institutions." [Mr. Hume: That was not an attack on Sir Martin Shee.] It was not indeed an attack upon Sir Martin Shee; but it was an attack upon the institution of which he was the bounden defender, as well as one of the chief ornaments. He believed, that it was an axiom
1022
of that House, that inquiry followed a grant of money; but the Academy had had no money, and, therefore, could not be required to make any such return. Unless this principle of inquiry was limited in some manner, there was no knowing what might not be made "amenable to law," as the phrase was. Was the hon. Member prepared to state any limits to his calls [Mr. Hume: Yes.] Was the hon. Member prepared to make a similar call on all exhibitions? Then he would recommend him to call for a return from the Pantechnicon. Well, then, his favourite Society of British Artists. The Athenæum, like the Royal Academy, was built on Crown land; why not have a return from thence? He (Sir R. Inglis) admitted that there was no grant to friendly societies, and yet returns were required from them; but Parliament granted them legal security, on certain conditions, and this created a distinction. He knew of no other instance of inquiry where Parliament had not granted money. The hon. Member had urged, in support of the right of inquiry, that he had obtained a return of the tenants of royal palaces. If so it was one of those returns that ought not to have been made. The hon. Member for Bridport was a member of the Geological and Royal Societies; was he prepared to bring their accounts before the House? Yet they, like the Royal Academy, possessed apartments in a building which the hon. Member would call national, and paid no rent for it. Although the Royal Academy had not made a repayment to the State in money they had made it in other ways; they had educated 2,000 pupils at their own expense; their lectures were gratuitous, and they afforded an exhibition gratuitously for artists, in an excellent central situation, which constituted the great school of England; and so far from there being a monopoly, the exhibition was open to all, English and foreigners, without any unfairness. Then, as to the dignity of the House; was the Royal Academy, it was asked, to set at nought the order of the House of Commons? In Speaker Onslow's time, the Speaker had intimated to an hon. Member, that if he persevered in a certain course he must "name him." The Member afterwards inquired what would have been the consequence if he had named him? The Speaker replied, "Heaven knows; I do not." Now what would be the consequence of the Academy's refusing obedience to a

1023
piece of paper signed "J. H. Ley, Cl. Dom. Com.?" Was such a piece of paper to be raised to the head, or received with nine prostrations, or treated like a magic spell? Was the House prepared, if the return was delayed, to go to the full extent? It had got into one difficulty about privilege, and if this order were enforced it might get into another. In the case of Samuel Wells, the House had already during this Session made an ill-advised order; and rescinded it. In this instance also the House had made an ill advised order; and he called on them to rescind it. Was the House of Commons the only body that was incapable of error? In the case of patents, when any one of them, though granted by the Crown, is impeached, is there not a legal process to get rid of it quia improvide emanavit? He regretted to find, that no Member of her Majesty's Government had been present during this discussion. Yes, there was one present. He should not enter into the question whether there was an adequate representation of the Government on this occasion. It was worthy of remark, however, that during the division which preceded this motion not a single Member of the Government was present. However the Home might proceed in this matter, he could assure hon. Members that their order, if they attempted to enforce it would be disobeyed. The House has asked for a return which it is not entitled to require, or able to enforce. The duty of inquiry may extend to all cases, where the donations of this House may extend; and every man, and every body of men, receiving salary from this House, may receive such salaries subject to such accountability. The right to inquire may go further: it may go to cases where Parliament has given to the operations of an association powers and securities which a purely voluntary meeting could not exercise; but when this House does not give the public money, and where Parliament does not give public powers, this House has no right to inquire into the expenditure of money, or the exercise of power.
Mr. P. Howardseconded the amendment. He was not prepared to deny the right of the House to call for this return, but he thought that that right ought not to be exercised in an inquisitorial manner. The Royal Academy had by its exertions already produced most excellent effects; but he thought that its character would receive additional credit if, after having
1024
received all the pecuniary benefit likely to be procured, it were to throw open the doors of the exhibition to the public.
Mr. Hawesentirely concurred in the view taken of the subject by the hon. Baronet, and differed from his hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny, who, in his opinion, had not made out a case for insisting that the order for those returns should be enforced. If there had been a bonâ fide grant of public money received by the Royal Academy, then, he admitted it would be right that the House should know what had been done with it. But no such grant of money had been made to the Royal Academy, and the House ought not to forget that their occupation of their former apartments in Somerset-house had been founded on a direct personal grant from the favour of the Crown, and that they now were in possession of their apartments in the National Gallery as an equivalent on being removed from their original premises. Similar establishments on the Continent were entirely dependent for support on the bounty of the Crown, to whom they were of course obsequious, as the source from which their subsistence was derived; but that was not the case with the Royal Academy, which had done great credit to the national taste, and encouraged the study of the fine arts in this country in the most efficicient and liberal spirit. It was too much, because they had given half-a-dozen paltry rooms to the Royal Academy, to found a claim on that ground to insist on an account of the receipts and expenditure of that institution, consisting of funds raised by the skill, acquirements, genius, and industry of the artists themselves. Allusion had been made by his hon. Friend to Hampton-court Palace, and the argument was raised that because Hampton-court Palace was thrown open, so also should the Royal Academy. Why Hampton-court was public property, and an annual vote taken in Parliament for its maintenance. He did not undervalue the exertions of the hon. Member for Kilkenny for improving the knowledge of the people, but he could not support him in those exertions to the prejudice of private rights, and to the rights of meritorious men who had received a small boon from the country, but who in the services they had rendered to the arts had repaid that boon a hundred fold.
Mr. Warburtoncontended that it was

1025
reasonable that the Royal Academy should render the accounts called for by the order of the House. He thought they were bound to do so in return for what the public had given them—the occupancy of apartments in the National Gallery—not paltry rooms, as they had been termed by his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, although certainly they were not what they ought to be in justice to the country; but they had cost the public more than 40,000 l. The Royal Academy were, therefore, receiving from the public accommodation to the extent of 3,000 l. a-year. The hon. Baronet said, that in consequence of the grant from George 3rd., they held their occupancy independently of the Commons House of Parliament, whether the opinion of the House was favourable to their conduct or the reverse. According to that doctrine, any one getting leave of occupancy from the Crown would be immoveable, and the greatest public inconvenience might be suffered. It was evident that no such right belonged to the Royal Academy, because on the discussion of the grant of money for building the National Gallery, he (Mr. Warburton) had asked the question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the other rooms that might not be required for the purposes of exhibition would be accessible to the public for any addition that might be made for the purposes of art. The Chancellor of the Exchequer distinctly answered in the affirmative, and the right hon. Gentleman repeated that assurance the other night, when this subject was under consideration. He agreed that such institutions ought not to be needlessly harrassed by demands for producing their accounts. But he was of opinion that his hon. Friend had stated good grounds why the Royal Academy should produce the statement which had been called for. The information wanted was what return the public received for the occupation of their premises, and whether the academy expended their income in a manner advantageous to the public. And if that information were refused, or not satisfactory, then the question would come whether they should be allowed to continue in the occupancy of those apartments. Be regretted much, that the Academy had not attended to the recommendation which had been made to them although not pressed when the question was formerly discussed, from both sides
1026
of the House. If he were an enemy of of the Academy, he would wish them to persist in such a course, and he would ask the hon. Baronet to continue his opposition to the motion of his hon. Friend. All the allegations relative to the number of artists sent to study at Rome, and all the other statements of the Academy, his hon. Friend had successfully impugned, and the proceedings of the Royal Academy had thus been exposed to public view, instead of being allowed to pass sub silentio as would have been the case had not this injudicious opposition been made to the production of the returns. He was certain that throwing open the annual exhibition to the public for a limited time at the close of the Session would be beneficial to the Academy. What was its aim and object, except to encourage and foster a taste for the fine arts. And would not such a course, then, be in unison with the object for which the Academy was established? Nothing in his opinion, could be more fatal to the future prosperity of the Academy than that the motion of his hon. Friend should be defeated and that the hon. Baronet should be triumphant.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, there were three points involved in the present discussion. The first was that connected with the authority of the House the next related to the progress of the fine arts in this country; and the last, which he also regarded as one of great importance, was the welfare of the Royal Academy itself. These three points were by no means irreconcileable; on the contrary they were perfectly consistent with one another. The petition did not deny the authority of the House, but merely appealed to its discretion. He thought it was not a favourable way of putting the case of the Academy to say, as he had understood been said in the course of the debate, that the members of the Academy would rather go to Newgate, than submit to the order of the House. He could not conceive any doctrine more subversive of the authority of the House, than that which maintained that the Academy had a right to resist the order which had been agreed to. How the House ought to exercise its discretion was one question, but the right of the House to interfere, was altogether a different one, and ought not to be suffered to be compromised in this discussion or any other. If the public interest was involved in the conduct

1027
of the Royal Academy, the public and the House had a right to inquire into everything connected with that institution. But the question of the authority of the House, was not involved in this question, and was not raised by the petition of the Royal Academy. It was unnecessary to discuss now the importance of the fine arts to a country like this, for he had always found on the part of the House the greatest willingness not only to second, but to outrun any project of the Government for the advancement of them. With respect to the way in which this motion would affect the interests of the Royal Academy, no one could think that an unimportant question who looked at the great names which had cast a lustre upon that institution. But he could not tell how the present contest had arisen. Upon what possible gronnd it could eppear necessary to any member of the Royal Academy, to refuse giving to the public any information respecting its proceedings, was to him a mystery passing all understanding. His conviction was, that the more fully the accounts of the Academy were submitted to public investigation, the better the public would be satisfied with its conduct. He was sure, that this appeal to suspend the operation of the order of the House would be liable to be misinterpreted, and to be attributed to a feeling, that there was something which it was wished to keep back. He was convinced, that there was nothing in the proceedings of the Academy which it was its interest to conceal, but that those proceedings had been conducted with credit to the Academy, and advantage to the country. There was another consideration which had been adverted to, and which related to the transaction between Parliament and the Royal Academy concerning the possession of the building lately erected at the public expense. The Royal Academy held their apartments in this building by exactly the same title as that under which they had occupied their former apartments in Somerset House. When he first proposed to the House the arrangement under which the Royal Academy occupied their present rooms, he stated, that he anticipated the time might come when the country would be rich enough to enlarge the National Gallery to such an extent as to require for it the part of the building which it was proposed to concede for a time to the Royal Aca
1028
demy. It was upon that distinct impression that Parliament had voted the money for building the National Gallery, and upon that contract, the Academy were in possession of those apartments. But no one, surely, would say, that if it were necessary to dispossess the Royal Academy of those apartments, they should, therefore, be left without a habitation in which to continue its useful labours. He thought on the contrary, that when that day should come, that the House of Commons would not hesitate to provide other accommodation for the Academy. He, therefore, said, let the Royal Academy put themselves right with the public by not raising points of contest upon a question of this kind. Let them supply the required information, in the full confidence that it would conduce to their own credit, as he was convinced it would. Upon these grounds, the motion having been made, he would support it, although if it were still to be brought forward he would beg of his hon. Friend, as he had done before, not to introduce it. But he was convinced that the best friends of the Academy were those who should press upon them the expediency, if not the necessity, of obeying the motion now that it had been made.
Sir R. Peelcould not concur with any hon. Member in denying the right of the House of Commons to call for this information. He should be sorry to limit the jurisdiction of the House with respect to public institutions, even where none of the public money was received; but he would draw a clear distinction between all commercial societies, and all societies connected with the acquisition of gain, and institutions intended for the promotion of public objects. He, however, would not limit the right of the House of Commons to inquire into those institutions, even though they did not receive any of the public money; and in the case of the Royal Academy, their being accommodated with apartments at the public expense did, in his opinion, add to the right of the House of Commons to call for returns. But the question now was as to the discretion of exercising that right. He perfetly admitted the right, but he could easily conceive it expedient to exercise it; he could easily conceive that it might have a tendency to impair the usefulness of the society, and derogate from the efficient position in

1029
which it stood with respect to the arts. He was quite sure that no institution like the Royal Academy could exist without giving great offence to many individuals. Artists were not less liable to little jealousies than any other class of persons. Some who found their pictures at the exhibition in a position unsuited, in their minds, to their real merits, had gone so far as to suppose that a conspiracy had been formed against them for the purpose of oppressing them, and he could not say how far individual artists, jealous of this society, might prevail upon Members of Parliament to exercise the privilege of calling for returns for the purpose of a vexatious inquiry. The exercise of that inquisitorial power should not depend upon a single Member, but upon the House, and he considered the question to be as perfectly open and unfettered as if the order of the 14th of March had not been agreed to. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not think there was any necessity for these returns, and therefore the policy of exercising their right to enforce them must still be a question. If they had been betrayed into an inconsiderate order, it was perfectly open to them to rescind or to enforce that order. The hon. Member for Kilkenny moved for and procured the order at half-past one o'clock in the morning, when if the attention of hon. Members in question had been much called to it, their jealousy would have been entirely lulled by the words which were appended to the hon Member's notice. After naming the return, he added, that it was "in continuation of accounts of the President and Secretary of the Royal Academy in July, 1836." The hon. Member said, they were returns in continuation of old returns; no one thought, any more about it; there being a precedent, as was supposed, no one objected to the motion. But could any man have supposed, when the hon. Member moved for returns "in continuation of accounts of the President and Secretary," that they had not furnished returns analogous to those moved for? Were not those words sufficient to lull the suspicion of any hon. Member? Therefore, the hon. Member for Kilkenny, in adding them to his notice—not perhaps with any disingenuous intention, although a more apparently disingenuous appendix to a motion he had never seen—had led hon. Members and the House astray. The right hon. Gen-
1030
tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, that the day might come, and had expressed a hope that it would, when the whole of the National Gallery would be required for the use of the public, and when they must provide accommodation elsewhere for the Royal Academy. He did hope to see the day when this country would be rich enough to build fortiself a depository for the arts worthy of the British nation. He did hope to see the day when, in the most favoured part of Hyde-park, he should witness the erection of a magnificent building devoted to works of art, not for the accommodation of the sovereign, but for the accommodation and delight of the universal people of this country, for their amusement, for their intellectual refinement, and for their improvement in the arts generally. Then they would be able to give up the remainder of the present building to the Royal Academy, and they would not be ashamed to take the foreigner coming from Munich, adorned as that city was with beautiful structures of art, by means of a sum which was not one five-hundredth part of our revenue, into the National Gallery of Great Britain, supposing it to be the magnificent edifice which he hoped to see erected. The country, however, should have a Post-office indulgence first. With regard to those returns, he was perfectly certain that the Academy did not refuse them from the slightest apprehension as to the result of the fullest disclosure, but because they were afraid of establishing a precedent which might lead to a constant interference and meddling with their affairs. The hon. Member for Kilkenny, in alluding to the item of dinners, had stated that they had expended 20,000 l., but it appeared that that was the total expense for the dinners which had been given by the Academy for the last 60 years, the expense of a single dinner beig but 240 l. or 300 l. Inquiry had taken place in the year 1836, and if that inquiry were to be continued or renewed upon the suggestion of every individual Member of that House, then would the efficiency of the Royal Academy be greatly and seriously impaired. At the same time, if any Parliamentary case were made out, if any ground of suspicion were established, that the funds of the Academy were abused or lavishly expended, then he would consent to an inquiry, notwithstanding that inquiry had taken place as recently as the

1031
year 1836. But how, he would ask, had the Royal Academy been lavish of expenditure? Was it in the awarding of salaries to public officers? Let the House see Their income was about 5,000 l. a-year, derived from the receipt of shillings paid by visitors to the exhibition, and about 47,000 l. in the public funds, over which, be it observed, they had absolute control. Indeed, he believed they could, if they wished to exercise their extreme right, divide the profits amongst them. And yet, be was convinced, there never was a set of men who came before that House with cleaner hands, or who had been more scrupulous, not only in the distribution of money, but of patronage, than the Royal Academy. Even in the case of their public dinner they had not the privilege—no, not even the president himself—of inviting their private friends, but decided who should be invited by the operation of the ballot. From their list of salaries the Treasury itself might take a lesson. The president had nothing, although he sacrificed hundreds, perhaps thousands, in relinquishing a portion of his professional labours in order to devote his attention to the institution. Such had been the case with Sir Thomas Lawrence, and such he believed to be the case with the gentleman who now filled that honourable post. Well, the keeper received 160 l. a-year; the secretary 140 l.; the treasurer 100 l.; and the librarian, who attended three times a-week, 80 l. a-year. The public dinners cost between 250 l. and 300 l. a-year. During sixty years they had expended 240,000 l. in educating the artists of this country, and instituting the school of art, which the public had refused to institute. Mr. Howard, the secretary, had stated in evidence, that instead of dividing their profits as other societies and artists did, and were justified in doing, the members of the Royal Academy had for sixty years supported, without the slightest assistance from the nation, a national school of art in which the best artists had been reared, and which had given to the arts the importance which they possessed; and that that which was done in other countries by the Government had been done by them at an expense of 240,000 l. Then with regard to the amount of money appropriated to purposes of charity, they had distributed 30,000 l. in charity to distressed artists; only 11,106 l. of which had been given amongst members
1032
of their own body. Did those facts establish any ground of complaint against the Royal Academy on the score of expenditure, or any reason for calling on them for the production of those returns which they felt an unwillingness to produce? It was said, they were more of an exclusive character, that they were self-elected. They were so, but he called upon the House to try the effect of that circumstance by its fruits. Some clever men might have quitted the Academy through infirmities of temper; and there might, perhaps, be others who did not belong to it, but let the House look to those who had been elected since the year 1810, and then say whether the Academy could be charged with any narrowness of intention, or whether they had preferred mediocrity to superior merit under the system of self-election? In the list of members elected since 1810, he found the names of Wilkie, Westmacott, Raeburn (a Scotch artist, who had been elected by the force of merit alone), Mulready, Jackson, Collins, Chantrey, Bailey, Wyatville, Etty, Constable, Landseer, Briggs, Stanfield, and Gibson. That list of names alone proved, that the institution had not been forgetful of the great trust which was committed to it, had fulfilled the object for which it was established, and had exercised its powers in a manner which every true friend to the arts could wish. Not denying the right of the House to interfere, but fearing the consequences of such interference, he should give his vote to rescind the order.
Mr. Ewartcontended, that the denial of these returns would serve to promote that interference which the right hon. Baronet so much deprecated. The real question before the House was, whether the Royal Academy was responsible or irresponsible to the House? This was not the first time the question had been raised. Four years ago he (Mr. Ewart) had brought forward the matter, and obtained a committee of inquiry. Before that committee the president of the Royal Academy was called, and there was great difficulty in getting him to answer any question. He maintained, that the House had as much right to call for returns from the Royal Academy, which conducted in rooms erected at the public expense, as it had to call for returns and informations form school houses built from funds granted by the public.
Mr. P. Thompsoncould not bring himself to vote for the motion of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, and wished shortly to state the grounds on which he should give his vote. He confessed, had he been consulted, or if he had been a Royal academician, he should have advised the Royal Academy as a matter of prudence and propriety not to have refused these returns. He thought, the more the affairs of that body were known to the public, the more they would redound to their credit. At the same time, and without deciding at all the question of the right of the House to call for returns on good grounds being made out, he thought the hon. Member for Kilkenny had not either that night, nor when he moved for the returns, made out any case for their production. His (Mr. P. Thompson's) earnest desire was, that the Royal Academy should not refuse to give information, but at the same time he should be sorry if aid and protection were not given to a body which had been so eminently useful. Looking at the petition which had been presented, he was not surprised, that the body attacked by it should have some suspicion as to the motives of inquiries from such a quarter. And why interfere with them? What had the Royal Academy received from the Government, or the public, except the use of the set of apartments in which to exhibit their works and to carry on their business? And what did the Royal Academy do in return? It instructed pupils, it sent them abroad to cultivate and improve the arts, and the sums thus devoted by that body, were greater than even the pecuniary advantage from the use of the apartments which had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Bridport. In short, that body afforded the cheapest means by which to encourage the arts. He must, mention one circumstance which he thought redounded highly to the credit of that body. The House was aware, that by the liberality of Parliament, a school of design had been established on his motion at an expense of 1,500 l. He had made the arrangements for that school, and in doing so had thought it advisable to obtain a council to conduct it, and to lay down rules and regulations for its guidance. With that view he applied to Royal Academicians—not to the President certainly, because he did not wish to bring them on as a body—but he had applied to Sir
1034
Francis Chantrey, to Mr. Eastlake, to Mr. Cockerell, and to Sir Augustus Calcott; and to those gentlemen was to be attributed the success of the establishment. He had also applied to other artists not of the body, but from them he had not received equal assistance. In short, without the assistance of the gentlemen he had named, he should have been deprived of the most valuable services which had been afforded to the institution. He quoted this circumstance to show the assistance which the Royal Academy had afforded to the advancement of art. He believed there was no public body or any institution so pure in principle, or which had more effectually answered its end, and seeing no public grounds laid for the motion, he should give his vote against it.
Mr. Wyseobserved, that the returns now sought were such as the House was entitled to from every public institution. Assuming the praises bestowed on the Academy to be perfectly just, he would say, that they formed excellent reasons, not against, but in favour of the motion which had been made by his hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny, who wished to see the Royal Academy managed with that liberality which distinguished the institutions of the continent, and of which an example had been set even by the nations of antiquity—he wished to see that body throw open its doors with Athenian liberality; and he desired that the influence of the fine arts upon the public taste might be extended to the very humblest classes of the community.
Lord J. Russelldid not mean for a moment to deny that the House of Commons possessed a right to call for those returns; but another question presented itself—could they call for them upon such grounds as had on the present occasion been stated. They surely could not consider themselves bound by a motion made after an adjourned debate on the Cornlaws, at a tune when the subject met but little attention from the Members of that House. It could not be said, that the returns now demanded, ought to be conceded because they were in continuation of returns previously obtained. The Royal Academy stated, that the demand for these returns interrupted their pursuits, and was an unnecessary calling in question of their proceedings. The returns could not be demanded on the ground that hon. Members did really require any

1035
additional information, for the evidence of the President and the Secretary before the committee, furnished all the information which any such returns as were then moved for, could possibly supply. The hon. Member for Wigan had said, that on the continent the question had not only been discussed, but almost settled, that academies were rather injurious than advantageous to the interests of the fine arts; and the hon. Member for Waterford had contended, that the Academy should be opened to the public with Athenian liberality; but he presumed the House would think, that moving for such returns as these, was not the mode to effect that object. If the House thought proper, they might come to a resolution declaring, that the slight advantage which the Academy derived from the State, ought no longer to be continued; it would then be for the Academy to determine what course they might think proper to pursue. If the House intended to interfere for the purpose of putting an end to the income which the Academy derived from the exhibition of pictures, then it would be their duty to make provision for defraying those expenses, and for giving that encouragement and assistance to young artists which now devolved upon the Royal Academy. The academicians dispensed instruction, they promoted art, and they exercised charity. If Parliament deprived them of their income, Parliament should attend to those objects to which that income had heretofore been applied. Possibly it would be contended by the hon. Member for Waterford, that "Athenian liberality" did not extend to such objects, and possibly he did not exactly comprehend what was meant by "Athenian liberality;" but he readily admitted, that it might be quite right to take measures for improving the public taste in architecture, painting, and sculpture, but undue interference with the Academy, was clearly not calculated to promote those ends; to harass and vex the Academy by this species of inquisition was at once inexpedient and unjust. He hoped, that the House would not agree to the motion.
Mr. Hume: The noble Lord says he has not heard sufficient grounds for calling for the production of these returns; and when we consider that he was absent from the House during nearly the whole of the debate, that is not surprising; but what ar-
1036
gument has the noble Lord advanced why they should not be laid before the House? The noble Lord has said that I have already in the evidence of the President and Secretary of the Academy, all the information I can require. There the noble Lord is in error. I have the account to the year 1836, but I require a continuation of the same up to the year 1839. The right hon. the President of the Board of Trade, after declaring that he is ready to support the academicians in a course which he would not have advised on the score of prudence or propriety, has talked much of the exertions of the Academy in educating students, and in sending them to study at Rome. Is the right hon. Member aware that in the whole period of its existence the institution has sent to Rome only fifteen students of every kind, at an expense of between 4,000 l. and 5,000 l., whilst in the same time, the salaries of the academicians (as deduced from their own evidence,) amounted to 73,000 l., their dinners to 19,500 l., their pensions to 12,000 l.; but if the Royal Academy has done so much, what right had the right hon. Gentleman to call upon the House to vote 1,500 l. for establishing a school of design? And, on that point, I think there are strong objections to the manner in which that school of design has been carried out.
With respect to the form in which my motion for these returns was drawn up, I can assure the House that I was perfectly free from any intention of misleading. I moved for the continuation of the accounts furnished by the President and Secretary in 1836. I said nothing about former returns. Do hon. Members know no difference between the words accounts or statement, and returns; or do they hope to persuade the House that they see no difference. The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Robert Peel) was quite astonished at such a reference to an account contained in five or six pages of evidence. I quite agree with the right hon. Baronet that he is not accustomed to such a reference as mine, for I have actually mentioned the number of every question and answer referred to, but the right hon. Baronet has also referred to the same pages of evidence, and in doing so he has evinced no great knowledge of the subject. Does he really believe what he has quoted; that the acadamicians have spent on their schools 240,000 l., besides 30,000 l. in charity? However, as he also was absent from the debate, I must repeat what their expenses

1037
really have been, from an account derived from their own statements—

In salaries to the academicians

£73,000

Their dinners

19,700

Their pensions.

12,000

Accumulated funds

52,000

Charities

19,800

For students at Rome

4,586

Expenses of the exhibition, about

36,000

And what does the right hon. Baronet suppose remains for the schools, independent of the academicians' salaries, out of an income of about 252,000 l.? Surely not 240,000 l., as stated by the right hon. Baronet, but only about 36,000 l. What a very different story is here presented from that of the right hon. Gentleman, and the right hon. Baronet opposite, who has also said, that the academicians have a right to do as they please with the money which is the produce of the exhibition of their own works. Let us see how far this is the case? In the exhibition of this year there were 1390 works of art, by 704 exhibitors. Of these there where 25 academicians, who exhibited 112, and 18 associates who exhibited 69; the remaining 1,209, productions, or seven-eighths of the whole, were by 661 artists, who not only have neither control over the funds or participation in the management, but they are denied all knowledge of the proceedings of the academy. Is such a state of things right? Is not this a monopoly? My object is, information as to the proceedings of the Royal Academy up to the present time, in continuation of the statement they made in 1836; and I contend, that as a body enjoying public advantages, occupying apartments in a public building, they have a right to give such information when required. Let the academicians, if they think proper, give up the apartments that belong to the public, and declare themselves a private body, and I shall not ask for returns; but so long as they act as a public body, and claim to occupy apartments in a building erected and supported at the public expense, so long are they amenable to this House. I can draw my own conclusion from their refusal to give these returns, but I wish others to have an opportunity of judging of the proceedings of the Royal Academy, I therefore, in full confidence, call on the House to maintain its order of the 14th of March.
The House divided on the original motion—Ayes 33;Noes 38:—Majority 5.

List of the AYES.

Attwood, T.

Parker, J.

Baring, F. T.

Rice, right hon. T. S.

Bridgeman, H.

Scholefield, J.

Brotherton, J.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Browne, R. D.

Stock, Dr.

Ewart, W.

Thornley, T.

Fielden, J.

Turner, W. A.

Finch, F.

Vigors, N. A.

Gordon, R.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Hope, H. T.

Wakley, T.

Johnson, General

Wallace, R.

Leader, J. T.

Williams, W.

Lushington, C.

Wood, Sir M.

Muskett, G. A.

Worsley, Lord

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Wyse, T.

O'Brien, W. S.

TELLERS.

O'Connell, D.

Hume, J.

O'Connell, J.

Warburton, H.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Palmer, G.

Acland, T. D.

Palmerston, Viscount

Brocklehurst, J.

Peel, right hon. Sir R.

Burrell, Sir C.

Perceval, Colonel

Campbell, Sir J.

Philips, M.

Cole, Lord

Pigot, D. R.

Divett, E.

Richards, R.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Russell, Lord J.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Rutherford, rt. hn. A.

Gaskell, J. M.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Gordon, hon. Captain

Steuart, R.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Grimsditch, T.

Thompson, Alderman

Hastie, A.

Waddington, H. S.

Holmes, W.

Wilbraham, G.

Howard, P. H.

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Maule, hon. F.

Wood, G. W.

Mildmay, P. St. John

Morpeth, Viscount

TELLERS

Morris, D.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Oswald, J.

Hawes, B.

Order discharged.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Militia Ballots Suspension; Courts for Counties.—Read a third time:—Imprisonment for Debt Act. Amendment; Bankrupts Estates (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By the Bishop of Gloucester, from the Clergy of Norfolk, against the Church Discipline Bill.—By Lord Lyndhurst, from the London Dock Company, against the Inland Warehousing Bill.—By Viscount Strangford, from the Liverpool Dock Company, to the same effect.—By the Marquess of Lansdowne, from several places, for a Uniform Penny Postage.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.
Lord Broughamsaid, that as some doubts seemed to have been entertained as to whether he should proceed with his motion on the subject of crime in Ireland, in performance of the promise he had given to their Lordships, he would now state, that upon considering the matter, after conversing with several noble Lords upon it, and finding that there were only about forty or fifty pages of the report to which his motion would refer, he should most undoubtedly on Tuesday next bring forward his motion.
The Marquess of Normanbyexpressed a hope that the noble and learned Lord would give notice of the resolutions which he meant to propose. He understood that the noble and learned Lord's motion would relate to forty or fifty pages of evidence; but it might be his duty perhaps to make some general observations on the state of the country as arising out of the proof brought before that committee. His opinion was that any general discussion on the subject at this period would be physically impossible. He had commenced reading the evidence, but had made very slow progress with it. The committee had sat forty-four days; they examined witnesses for three or four hours each day; and there was, therefore, nearly 150 hours of work; so that if any noble Lord wished to make himself master of the evidence before the discussion came on in that House, he would not only have to employ every hour of every day, but nearly every hour of every night. It was quite out of his power to do anything like justice to the evidence in so short a time, but if the noble and learned Lord chose to persist in his motion, he was quite in the hands of the House; but he was sure noble Lords must see the unfairness of taking up particular parts for discussion.
Lord Broughamintended to lay his re-
974
solutions on the table of the House on or before Friday.
The Earl of Wicklowwould repeat what he had before asserted, that the course proposed by the noble and learned Lord was unjust to all parties. It was unjust to the committee to confine the discussion to one subject, and if he had been a member of the committee, no consideration on earth should induce him to consent to have any thing less than the whole question brought before the House. Since it was the determination of the noble and learned Lord to bring on his motion, he was sorry that he had been prevented by any circumstances from laying on the table of the House the paper which he had prepared referring to the topics of his resolutions, because all the clue which he now had to search for them in the evidence was a surreptitious publication, professing to be a draught of propositions to be submitted to the committee. How that got before the public he could not conceive; he thought there must have been some very great breach of confidence, and the matter ought to be investigated. It was a most extraordinary thing that private draughts of papers brought down to a committee should be made public, no one knew how, and that before they were laid before Parliament. [Lord Hatherton.—And these papers marked "private and confidential."] They were published in the newspapers of Dublin. [Lord Brougham—Before the evidence was laid before Parliament:] Yes, certainly. He saw them first in the Dublin Evening Mail, which professed to have them exclusively, and to have been furnished with them by a private friend. He did not know who that private friend was, but he thought that the matter should be inquired into. However, it was by means of that draught alone he must endeavour to get at the facts of the evidence proposed to be discussed by the noble and learned Lord. But the more he thought of that proposition, the more convinced he was that it was unjust to the committee, who had laboured for so many months, as well as to the whole question itself.
Lord Broughamsaid, if he thought that there was anything unjust to the subject in his proposition, and above all to the noble Marquess, he should not persevere in it. There was abundance of time to read the whole evidence, with a view to that part to which he should refer. There was a

975
precedent for the course he had proposed in the evidence taken on the orders in council with respect to slavery, which occupied two or three months in taking, and yet the House went into the subject at ten days' notice.
Viscount Melbournesaid, it was quite impossible for any noble Lord to make himself master of the evidence, or of any of those parts on which the noble and learned Lord grounded his resolution, in so short a time. He felt that it was a difficult matter for any Member of the Government to speak on this point, but he should not say anything which might have the appearance of deprecating or wishing to put off a motion which might be supposed to affect the Government, or any Member of it. At the same time, if resolutions were to be proposed affecting the existing authorities in Ireland, or tending towards an alteration in the administration of justice there, it would be decidedly objectionable to entertain them, when there had not been time enough to consider the evidence on which they were grounded.
Lord Broughamsaid, his resolutions would be such as might be adopted without reading one tittle of the evidence.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, be did not see why their Lordships should be influenced by the desire of the noble Earl (Wicklow) for postponement. How did the matter stand before the public? The secret committee had been sitting for three or four months, and it was generally understood that a report was to be made. Then certain noble Lords presented a certain epitome of their own opinions; but that plan was knocked on the head. Then it was decided that the evidence merely should be reported. Then, a fortnight ago, the noble and learned Lord gave notice that he intended to call the attention of the House to the administration of justice, and his noble Friend behind him gave notice of his intention to call the attention of the House to another part of the report; and now gets up one noble Lord, and says, there is no time for considering the evidence—in that another noble Lord joins him, and very likely the matter would end for the Session. He would not say there was any manœuvring about this, but he must say that to him it had all the appearance of it. It was the same course as was taken upon the Canada question. Three months ago noble Lords opposite threatened to bring serious and grave
976
charges against the noble Earl, but the other night the noble Earl the late Governor of Canada paid all sorts of compliments to the noble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's Government for the manner in which he had managed the bill before the House; and there they were, no doubt very well satisfied as to their future proceedings. The noble and learned Lord said last night, that he did not intend to be present during the first part of the ensuing Session, and, therefore, if this motion were postponed, it would stand over to the end of that Session, and the same objection on the ground of lateness would be then applicable. He feared that postponement would have the effect of making this question be treated in the same manner as the Canada question was. But he must say, that if he had been in the situation the noble Marquess had occupied, no earthly consideration whatever should induce him to remain silent under the charges made in that report, without calling upon Parliament to investigate the matter; and he thought it was due to the character of the noble Marquess that it should be investigated without delay.
The Marquess of Normanbywas not astonished at what had fallen from the noble Marquess, because it was in strict conformity of what upon a former night he stated, that he was quite ready to come to a decision though he could not have read the evidence. When persons were about to pronounce an opinion on his conduct, he was desirous that they should first read, study, and digest the grounds on which that opinion was to be framed. He had all along stated, that as soon as their Lordships had so prepared themselves to come to a decision, the better, as far as he was concerned. He was not in the least afraid of any particular points in the details of that evidence which the noble Marquess or any other noble Lord might choose to lay before the House: but he thought there were parts of the evidence which it would be inconvenient to introduce so soon into the general discussion.
Conversation dropped.

MESSRS. LOVETT AND COLLINS—WARWICK GAOL.
The Earl of Warwickwas called upon by a sense of public duty, and in defence of the characters of certain individuals who had been implicated in charges made in a petition recently presented by the noble and learned Lord op-

977
posite (Lord Brougham), from two persons, named Lovett and Collins, who had been confined in Warwick gaol, and who stated that they had been most severely treated while there. He was sure his noble Friend opposite must have been satisfied that those persons were so treated from the very anxious manner in which he advocated their cause. But those statements appeared to him to be much overwrought at the time; and knowing the magistrates who were the visitors of the gaol, and the parties who had the conduct and management of it, and being satisfied that the gaol was as well, as carefully, and as humanely superintended and managed as any other gaol perhaps in the country, he was perfectly satisfied that those statements would afterwards be proved to be overcharged. That he was now prepared to show by authentic papers. But as the noble and learned Lord went into so many details, reading the whole of the petition, and animadverting in stronger language almost than the petitioners themselves on their treatment in the gaol, he was afraid he should be compelled to read the answers which had been given to the allegations of the petitioners, long as they were; and, perhaps, the shortest way would be to read them through at once. The noble Earl then proceeded to read the report of the visiting magistrates of Warwick gaol, on the allegations in the petition of Messrs. Lovett and Collins; and also the evidence on which the report was founded:—
"Vicarage, Warwick, July 23, 1839.
"My Lord,—In reply to your Lordship's directions that a report of the visiting magistrates on the petition of William Lovett and John Collins should be immediately forwarded, I have the honour to transmit a copy of a report, &c., forwarded yesterday to Sir J. E. Wilmot, chairman of the Quarter Sessions, at his request.
"The statements and declarations appended thereto can, if required, be verified on oath.
"In this report your Lordship will perceive that the visiting magistrates have confined themselves chiefly to facts, without expressing their own opinions whether the rules and regulations for the enforcement of discipline and cleanliness, as well as the dietary, are or are not too stringent; this did not appear to them matter of present discussion, in the case of the petitioning prisoners, so much as the fact, whether the mode in which the officers of the prison have carried the rules and regulations into effect had been uncourteous, harsh, or unnecessarily severe.
"I can confidently assure your Lordship, that the visiting magistrates are one and all anxious that no undue restraints, or obnoxious
978
discipline, should be enforced in the prison. They are disposed to assent to and recommend any relaxations of the severity of discipline, or any indulgence to prisoners, which, on mature deliberation, can be deemed practicable and safe.
"I have, &c. JOHN BOUDIER, V. M.
"The Right Hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department."
"To Sir John Eardley Wilmot, Bart., M. P., Chairman of the Quarter Sessions for the county of Warwick.
"Sir,—In compliance with your wish, we, the visiting magistrates, have carefully investigated the charges contained in the petition of William Lovett and John Collins, lately confined in her Majesty's county gaol at Warwick, complaining of undue severity and harshness of treatment. We beg leave to present the following report, to which we have appended statements and declarations of the surgeon, governor, turnkeys, and others, on whose deliberate testimony, as well as the observations made by us, the visiting magistrates, the report is founded.
"REPORT.
"It appears that the prisoners William Lovett and John Collins were committed for a misdemeanour. On being received at the gaol they underwent the same strict examination and search of their clothes and persons to which every individual committed for misdemeanour is subject by the customary rules and usage of the prison. They were also bathed, and Lovett, one of them, had his hair cut.
"In regard to searching and cleansing, however anxious to spare the feelings of parties apparently respectable, it is clear the officers could not, without culpable partiality, draw a line of distinction in the treatment of individuals committed for the same class of offence. For the purpose of identity in case of escape, every prisoner, except a debtor, is, according to long-established custom, inspected minutely in person and apparel, and particular marks described and registered. The visiting magistrates admit and regret, that often from the circumstance of the numbers brought to prison at the same time, and the accommodation not being so ample as might be wished, some exposure cannot be prevented; this, however, is a point to which they are directing their attention with a view to remedy.
"As respects bathing, the very dirty state in which prisoners are brought, especially from other prisons, and from lock-up houses as at Birmingham, renders it indispensable that those who have been so confined, though apparently cleanly, should undergo further inspection and cleansing, inasmuch, as in numberless cases, the best dressed are found in a state which would necessarily introduce contamination, and even vermin, into the prison; hence, by long uniformly recognized and necessary custom, all are inspected, and all are bathed.
"The investigation of the individual cases of petitioning prisoners, Lovett and Collins

979
and their treatment, however complained of, in the opinion of the visiting magistrates, fully exonerate the officers from the imputation of any peremptory, harsh, or even uncourteous conduct. The declarations appended, strongly, deliberately, and, we believe, truly assert that they, the officers, showed every disposition to abstain from needless annoyance; that directions were given to allow Lovett and Collins to take their bath before the other prisoners; and although, by mistake, another person got before Collins, so far from complaint, Lovett expressed himself gratified by his bath, and Collins appeared also well satisfied, The water in the bath was fresh and clean.
"The charge of the prisoners having their hair forcibly cut by a common felon is wholly unfounded as respects Collins, and by no means strictly true in regard to Lovett; the hair of Collins not being cut at all, and Lovett's only shortened, in conformity with his own express direction.
"The bathman and barber, it is admitted, is a felon; but Ids offence is of comparatively trifling character—that of stealing a spade—while his exemplary conduct and previous good character recommended him to the governor as a fit person to be employed and trusted.
"The statements that the prisoners' shirts were taken from them is untrue; all that was done was to stamp or mark them, which is not only usual but necessary, in order to a correct return of them after washing, as well as on their going out of prison.
"The allegation that the prisoners were put into a ward with twenty-two prisoners, one of whom was affected with itch, is explained, and in the main rebutted by the facts. In the ward there was discovered (some two or three days after they were admitted) a deserter who had the complaint, but he was immediately removed and cured. The surgeon, in ordinary course, and in discharge of his duty, prescribed by Act of Parliament, inspected all the prisoners in the ward, and, therefore, Lovett and Collins amongst the number. The ward, be it observed, was the proper misdemeanour ward, assigned to the prisoners under the classification prescribed in the Gaol Act, 4th George iv. sect 10, rule 6, and the only one to which they could have been transferred.
"So far from exhibition of the two prisoners to persons coming out of curiosity into the prison, it is believed that fewer persons than usual visited the prison with orders during the term they were confined.
"The answering to their names was required only in enforcement of the customary and necessary discipline. The taking off the hat appears to have been required in conformity with long-established usage.
"The county allowance of provisions complained of, is in strict conformity with the dietary prescribed; in addition to which each is permitted by order of the Court, to expend 3d. per day, making together, with the county allowance, an amount greater
980
than they are permitted to expend under the rules and regulations of the prison, sanctioned and confirmed by the judges of assize; a copy is appended. The prisoners did not ask to provide themselves, although the rules admitting them to do so are hung up in their day room; they were, therefore, supposed to be on county allowance, which, with the 3d. per day, is so greatly to the advantage of the prisoners, that in the memory of no single officer of the prison have more than one or two prisoners applied to provide themselves, and these have shortly after requested to be put back to county allowance.
"The prisoner having county allowance of warm food, it is not usual in the summer months to have fire in the day rooms; but the two prisoners on application had eggs boiled for them, and knew or might have known, on inquiry that the turnkey would have dressed bacon for them. The governor also distinctly states, that had he been applied to, he should have provided them with the means to cook the provisions they purchased.
"The mode prescribed to each prisoner to make his own bed is according to uniform custom, purposely intended to promote cleanliness and ventilation. The beds are folded up so as to expose the part slept upon open to the air, and the blankets folded and placed upon the bed, as in a barrack room. The visiting magistrates are of opinion that no reasonable complaint can be made of the cleanliness, sweetness, and ventilation of the cells or bedding. The furniture is, as by custom, uniformly supplied to all alike.
"The boots or shoes of prisoners are always ordered to be placed outside the cell, as one means of rendering escape less facile.
"The regulations for walking in the yard are enforced to promote exercise and health, under the approbation of the surgeon. The day-rooms, at such times, in hot or in wet weather, are always open, and the prisoners have access.
"The regulations as to writing:—Correspondence and admittance of friends are in exact conformity with the printed rules and regulations, sanctioned and confirmed by the Secretary of State, or by long-established custom.
"Books, subject to the approbation of the chaplain, will be allowed.
"Prisoner Lovett was informed by the governor, who understood that he wished for writing-paper to prepare his defence, that he might have what he pleased, counted out to him, according to custom, and that what he so wrote for his defence would not be subject to inspection; though his correspondence received, or sent out must be. He had, in consequence, three folio sheets for that purpose, and which he took out with him on leaving the prison, the same not having been inspected.
"The assertion of the prisoners, that from twelve o'clock on the Sunday to nine o'clock a.m. on Monday, they were not served with any food, is answered by stating, that on the

981
Sunday the full allowance for the day is served out; at nine o'clock a.m. each prisoner receives one pound and three quarters of bread, and one pint and a-half of substantial gruel. At twelve o'clock one pint and a-half of soup is given to each, which (notwithstanding complaints of petitioners) is substantial and good, a strong vegetable soup thickened, and a fair portion of meat stewed down during the whole preceding night. It is left to the prisoners on Sunday to reserve such portion of their food as they please, to be consumed during the latter part of the day.
"The visiting magistrates conclude their re-report by expressing a hope, that as the charges of the petitioning prisoners have been made public and printed, that you will move the hon. House of Commons to order that this explanation and reply of the visiting magistrates be also printed, as well as the declarations of the officers of the prison.
"JOHN BOUDIER. "TERTIUS GALTON.
"JAMES RATTRAY. "J. C. B. C. CAVE."
"The Declarations and Statements of the Surgeon, Governor, Officers of the Prison, and others, in reply to charges of undue Harshness and Severity of Treatment, contained in a petition presented to the House of Commons, from William Lovett and John Collins.
"Surgeon, Mr. John Wilmshurst.—(No. 1.)
"The prisoners Lovett and Collins were inspected, and from time to time examined by him only, in the ordinary course of his duty, prescribed by Act of Parliament (4th of George 4th c. 64); that at the time they were placed in their proper ward no prisoner there was affected with the itch, and that when some two or three days afterwards it was discovered that a deserter in that ward was so affected, he was immediately removed and cured. The very filthy state in which prisoners are brought in, especially from other prisons and from the lock-up houses, as at Birmingham, renders it indispensable that those who have been so confined, though apparently cleanly, should undergo further inspection and cleaning, inasmuch as in numberless cases the best dressed are found in a state which would necessarily introduce contamination, and even vermin, into the prison. In the opinion of the surgeon, the precautions uniformly taken are absolutely necessary; the exemptions of the prison from infectious and contagious diseases exemplifying the necessity of the precautions.
"J. WILMSHURST, Surgeon."
"Governor, Henry Adkins.—(No. 2.)
"The treatment of the prisoners Lovett and Collins, both by myself and, so far as he believes, by all the other officers of the prison, was in all respects conformable with the prison rules; they were not subject to any harsh treatment or needless restrictions. As being committed not only for want of sureties, but for trial for a misdemeanour, they could not be placed in any other than the misdemean-
982
ours' yard, unless in his own (the governor's) opinion, their peculiar case rendered it specially expedient, or on their application, which they did not make, he had deemed it expedient to apply to the visiting magistrates to sanction their being removed elsewhere; but, in point of fact, there was no other ward to which he could have properly removed them. To him (the governor) they made no complaint or application whatever, though they had ample opportunity for so doing; and so far from being disinclined to afford them accommodation and comply with their wishes, on hearing that Lovett wished writing paper for his defence, he (the governor) specially called and informed him that he might have such paper; and that, as being used for his defence, it would not be subject to inspection. Three folio sheets were subsequently furnished to him; what he wrote thereon was not inspected and he took them out of the prison when bailed out. "HENRY ADKINS."
"Head Turnkey, John Young.—(No. 3.)
"I received the prisoners Lovett and Collins, who were brought to prison in a car; I took Lovett first down to a room called the description-room, where account is taken of person, clothing, and property, and according to uniform custom ordered him to take off his clothes; he complied without observation, excepting an enquiry whether he was to be put in the felon's cells; I said, 'no; but in the proper ward on the misdemeanour side.' He dressed himself, and I took him to the bathroom, and gave him over to the bath-man, Samuel Smith, saying, 'take this man, search him, and see that he is clean; I have no doubt but he is; if you rind he is, put him into the bath first.' The water in the bath was fresh and clean. I left him, and returned for Collins, and treated him as Lovett: he remonstrated as to his shirt, but on being told it was the prison rule he instantly complied. I turned him over to Maycock, the turnkey, who took him to the bath while I fetched some shirts. I followed him within a minute to the bath room, and finding another man in the water, said to the bathman, 'why did you not do as I ordered you, and put Lovett in first?' Lovett replied, 'I have been in, sir.' He made no complaint. Soon afterwards I fetched Lovett and Collins out of the bath-room, and passed them into No. 3, the misdemeanours' yard, giving them their regular county allowance of provisions; neither made any remarks, that I recollect, though I believe something had been said by one of them as to whether they could have anything in. Conceiving them to be on gaol allowance, I said 'no; but you will be allowed to spend 3d. a-day beyond your allowance. Lovett had three sovereigns, which I put up for him; he took 11 s. 9d. into the prison with him. Collins had 15 s., which he also took into the prison with him. Some Some days after, Lovett applied for some writing paper; I counted him out three folio sheets; when bailed out he took them with

983
him; I did not inspect them. Lovett had a clean towel when in the bath. More or less towels are used according to the number of prisoners.
"JOHN YOUNG."
"Turnkey on the Debtors' Side, Thomas Maycock.—(No. 4).
"Under the direction of Mr. Young, I searched the prisoners Lovett and Collins. Young takes the particulars and descriptions. I took Collins to the bath-room; observed nothing particular, only heard Collins, say to Lovett, 'well, my covey, (or kiddy, I don't know which,) what you have had a good wash, and had your hair cut." Lovett laughed, and said 'yes.'
"THOMAS MAYCOCK."
"Bathman and Barber, Samuel Smith.—(No.5.)
"I received Lovett and others into the bathroom, and was directed by Mr. Young to put Lovett into the bath first. Young said, 'I have no doubt he is clean, and then let him put his own clothes on.' Lovett said he would much rather have a good wash—it was worth a guinea. I said, 'will you have your hair cut, sir?' He said, yes, cut a little off it, but not much; cut a few long hairs off it behind.' I did so, but not in front at all. Collins came into the bath-room, and said to Lovett, 'we shall have a county crop and a wash together.' Lovett said he had been washed already, and had his hair cut. Collins replied,'d—n it, it don't seem to have been cut at all. I asked Collins whether he would have his hair cut? He said, 'just as you like. It did not seem to want it, and it was not cut. I remember Young remonstrating about putting any other prisoner in the bath before Collins; it was done by mistake, not properly understanding his former order to apply to any one but Lovett.
"SAMUEL SMITH."
"Inner Turnkey, Charles Woodward. (No.6.)
"Lovett and Collins were brought into my yard on Sunday morning. On the Monday morning following I informed them with others that they were allowed to spend 3d. per day in sugar, butter, cheese, bacon, and eggs; either Lovett or Collins asked how they were to get the eggs cooked. I said, 'there is no fire, the eggs are generally beaten up in gruel.' Collins said, he never could eat spoon meat. On one occasion, one of them asked me to boil some eggs, but there happened to be no fire; at another time I did boil eggs for them, and certainly I should not have refused to dress a little bacon for them if asked. It is well known to the prisoners that such is my custom when asked; there were prisoners in the same yard who had been previously in prison, and knew this to be the case. Collins and Lovett both appeared perfectly satisfied, and never made any complaint to me beyond what I have stated above. The rules and regulations are hung up on a board in the dayroom, "CHARLES WOODWARD,"
984
"John Smith, a prisoner in the Misdemeanour-yard.
"I was the person who got into the bath next to Lovett, not knowing that I was to wait, I heard Young complain that I had been put in before Collins. I immediately got out, and Collins got in. I was present when both Lovett and Collins were in the bath; both of them seemed quite satisfied and contented at that time. I was in the yard with Lovett and Collins till they were bailed out, I never heard them complain about anything, I heard Lovett and Collins talk together about bacon, and express a wish they had means to cook it, but I did not hear of any complaint made to the turnkey.
"JOHN SMITH."
He should not trouble their Lordships with any remarks of his own, as he thought the statements he had read would show sufficiently that the treatment of' the prisoners had been greatly exaggerated. It appeared that they had been treated with civility and attention, and he must say, that in his opinion, the noble and learned Lord opposite had, with many hundreds more, been imposed upon, for there was nothing to show that either of the prisoners had been improperly treated.
Lord Broughamsaid, if he had been imposed upon, he had been so as much by the noble Earl as by any other person, for the noble Earl had now confirmed the statement which he had previously made in all its essential particulars. He begged to say, that no charge had been brought against the county magistrates, or against the respectable governor, Mr. Adkins. It was only the bad system which had been complained of, for by that system persons not tried, nor found guilty of any crime, were treated as if they had been convicted. The petition which which he had presented on a former occasion had been prepared from the facts collected by a most respectable individual, whose cross-examination he would trust as much as that of any man not connected with the legal profession. That gentleman said he knew Lovett to be a most respectable man, to whose word every credence was due; and he stated also, that he had had both Lovett and Collins before him for hours, submitted them to a rigid cross-examination in order to test the truth of their statements, and to prevent the possibility of exaggeration. He further stated, that perfect reliance was to be placed on the statements of Lovett, who was a man who could not be excelled in integrity. Let

985
them now look at the evidence which had been adduced by the noble Lord, and see whether the statements of the petitioners had been in any degree invalidated. The petitioners complained that they had had their hair forcibly cut by a common felon, and what said the evidence? Why it was said, that Lovett's hair was "only shortened" in conformity with his own express direction; but it was admitted that Smith, the barber was a felon; although it was added, that "his offence is of comparatively trifling character—that of stealing a spade." Only convicted of stealing a spade! But as he called a spade a spade, he also called a thief a thief; and it was clear, therefore, by the admission of the magistrates, that the statement of Lovett, that his hair was cut off by a felon, was perfectly true. It was no matter what the amount of Smith's offence was, for the indignity complained of was the same. Then, as to the complaint that the prisoners had been exhibited to persons visiting the prison from curiosity, what was the evidence adduced on those points? Why, it was said, that "so far from exhibition of the prisoners to persons coming out of curiosity into the prison, it is believed that fewer persons than usual visited the prison with orders during the time they were confined." But there was no attempt made to show that they were not exhibited to the persons who did visit the prison, and the numbers of the visitors was not the point in question. It was also said, that "the answering to their names was required only in enforcement of the customary and necessary discipline. The taking off the hat appears to have been required in conformity with long established usage." Now, it was of this sort of discipline, and of this long established usage, which the petitioners complained; for what was the effect of that usage? Lovett was a most respectable householder. He was taken to prison for want of bail, and before he was tried or convicted of any crime he was subjected to the indignity of being mustered with common felons when a crowd of idle people visited the prison, and in that position ordered to take off his hat. The petitioners also stated that they were searched and stripped naked, and that fact was admitted by the turnkey and it was stated that it was the practice of the prison. But it was of the practice that the petitioners complained, because by that prac-
986
tice they were submitted to indignities to which no person not convicted of crime ought to be subjected. The petitioners also complained that the water in which they were forced to bathe was not clean, and it was now said that only two persons had bathed before them. That statement did not invalidate the statement of the petitioners. The petitioners also complained that they were note allowed to use their own money, and it was stated in their evidence that they were allowed to spend 3d. a-day. But they were not felons, and why should they have been thus restrained? The presumption was that they were guilty of no crime, and they had been treated as if they had been convicted. The rules and regulations of the prison were hung up on a board in the day-room, but the prisoners complained that they were not treated according to those rules, and they were told by the turnkey that they must not appeal to those rules, as they were often changed. The rules said, that the prisoners should be shut up at eight o'clock, and the petitioners complained that they had been shut up at seven o'clock, and that they had fared differently in all respects from the rules which were hung up in the prison, and there was nothing in the evidence to show that that statement was not correct. In short, he thought the evidence fully bore out the complaints of the petitioners, but he trusted that some good would arise from this great evil, and that in future a distinction would be made between persons convicted and those who, not having been tried, were, in the eye of the law, guilty of no crime. No magistrate had a right to establish rules by which persons before their trial were treated as if they had been tried, convicted, and found guilty. One word as to the bail. The petitioners had been confined nine days on the plea that the bail offered was not sufficient, and he would ask why the bail had not at once been accepted. Mr. Leader and Sir William Molesworth writing that they would answer for the bail, did not render the bail a bit more sufficient, and it was only because it was found that the prisoners were not helpless and defenceless that the magistrates had at last accepted the bail—and what bail? Why, the very same that had been at first refused. If he were the Government, he would take care that if the petitioners were found guilty, they should have no more punishment. The nine days' confinement

987
which they had already suffered was enough for their offence.
Subject dropped.

INLAND WAREHOUSING BILL.
The Marquess of Lansdownerose to move the second reading of the Inland Warehousing Bill. He did not think it necessary to say anything with regard to the sound policy and great advantages of the warehousing system, for he believed, that all persons were now prepared to acknowledge the incalculable benefits that the commercial and manufacturing interests, as well as the country at large, had derived from it. Fortunately, the feelings of the country were not in the state that they were when Sir Robert Walpole proposed the adoption of a system somewhat similar, and which excited against him the greatest unpopularity, and exposed his life and person to danger. The present system was adopted in 1803, and while it had been productive of the greatest public benefits, he was not aware that it had led to any complaints. The question now was, whether they could extend the system by embracing within its operation some of the large inland towns, instead of confining it, as at present, to certain ports. It might be said, that inland towns did not afford the same security for the collection of the revenue on the foreign articles warehoused for home consumption. It was the duty of the Treasury to see that every fiscal security was afforded, and before a licence for bonded warehouses in any inland town was granted, of course proper care would be taken that no risk was incurred in this respect. The question, then, for that House to consider was, whether there was any objection to trust the Treasury with powers which would enable it to take steps to make the inland towns partake of the benefits of the warehousing system, which were important to those places, as well as to the country at large. He had never before heard it asserted, till it was said in some petitions, that the ports which enjoyed these bonded privileges possessed vested rights, and that, therefore, they might deprive other places, and indeed the public at large, of the advantages of extending the system. The principle on which the warehousing system rested was, that taxes should be paid—if it could be done with security to the revenue—at those times, and at those places, most convenient to
988
the consumers. On this principle it was that the depots should be placed in such situations that the manufacturer, retail merchant, or shopkeeper, might get the articles which he required for consumption on paying the duties, and should not be required to pay them before. He proposed the second reading of the bill with great satisfaction, as he was convinced, that it would be productive of great benefit. It was a subject that had for some time been under the consideration of the Government, and it had been carried through the other House by a very large majority; he trusted, therefore, that the House would sanction the second reading.
Lord Ashburtonadmitted, that the ports had no right to claim a vested interest in the possession of the bonded warehouses, and he also admitted that if it was for the advantage of the country those privileges should be extended to other places. He did not think, however, that any case had been made out to prove that any benefits could arise from extending the bonded system to inland towns. This bill was not, as had been asserted, an extension of the principle of the bonded system, but it was a complete departure from it. The only advantage, that possibly could be alleged in its favour, was, that the bill would give certain persons in inland towns longer time for the payment of the duties. There were, however, no large inland towns in this country, at such a distance from the sea ports, that great inconvenience could arise to the public by not being able to get goods from the bonded warehouses in a short time. He also thought it was objectionable to leave this species of patronage to the Government, to determine that our inland towns should have this privilege, while it should be withheld from others. He would take the strongest case, namely, that of Manchester which place was within an hour's travelling of Liverpool. The manufacturers of Manchester could, within as short a time procure their bonded from the warehouses at Liverpool as persons at Westminster could from the London or St. Catharine's Docks. He thought, also, that there would be some want of security to the revenue in having highly-taxed articles conveyed to inland towns without having the duty paid. If this bill passed, he was sure, that within a short time demands would be made from inland towns that

989
would appear to be unsuitable, to be released from their bonded warehouses, as they would be productive of so much inconvenience. He believed, that the bill had been pressed upon one of her Majesty's Ministers by his constituents, as it was generally supposed, that they would chiefly profit by it. He recollected, that the late Mr. Canning said that while Member for Liverpool he found it to be impossible to do justice to the jobs of his constituents, and to the claims upon himself as a Member of the Government. He was satisfied that this bill would add nothing to the commercial advantages of the country, and at the same time, it would lead to gross abuses, and to constant losses of the public revenue. He was also satesfied that no great inconvenience was experienced at present, as all the large manufacturing towns were within a short distance of the bonding ports. He trusted, therefore, that the House would not sanction the bill, but would support the amendment which he should propose, namely, that the bill be read a second time that day three months.
Lord Broughamstated, that his noble Friend was a very great authority on all subjects, but more particularly an a matter of this kind, as it was well known, that he had long been regarded as the first merchant in the world. He did not, however, altogether agree with him in the conclusion that his noble Friend had arrived at. He was by no means sure that the bill might not be productive of advantages, he should, however, vote for his noble Friend's amendment on the ground that sufficient time had not been given for the consideration of the bill. In addition to this, his noble and learned Friend had presented two petitions from important places, praying to be heard by counsel against this bill, as property to the amount of millions would be risked by it. If he was not mistaken, the petitioners stated, that property at Liverpool of the value of nearer five than four millions would be risked by the bill. It was nonsense to assert, that property was not increased in value by the warehouses having the privilege of holding bonding goods being conferred on it. Thus the land on which the Regent's docks at Liverpool stood, was increased in value to an almost incalculable extent by this privilege, whereas the warehouses within fifty yards of them, which had not this privilege, were of com-
990
paratively little value. He presumed the reason why the privilege was to be conferred in warehousing thirty miles off the docks at Liverpool, while it was refused to those within a few yards of them, was, that Manchester bad the good fortune to be represented by the President of the Board of Trade. He did not, however, mean to say, that on consideration he might not assent to the bill, but he should oppose its progress now on the ground that it was too late a period of the Session to bring forward a measure of this kind, on a subject respecting which there was such a great discrepancy of opinion, and when there were parties at the bar praying to be heard against it. The bill was introduced in the other House only on the 16th of July, and it was one of that class of bills that he stated a few nights ago should be introduced at an early period of the Session.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that notwithstanding the great knowledge and experience of the noble Lord (Lord Ashburton), and the great eloquence and observations of the noble and learned Lord, he thought that no valid ground had been stated for the rejection of this bill. He certainly did not think that it came within that class of bills which it was urged should be postponed, in consequence of their requiring further information, and the fullest consideration. The noble Lord stated, that no material grievance had resulted from the want of bonded ware houses in inland towns. But this was not a fair ground of objection, for could it be said, that no evil arose, when the interests of the country and of these places were not promoted in the way in which they might be, by having such privileges as these? Was it no injustice to deprive these persons of such advantages? The noble Lord said, that all the great towns were near some seaport where there were bonded warehouses. What would the noble Lord say to the towns of Birmingham, Nottingham, or Leicester, which were as nearly as possible in the middle of the island? They were, therefore, as far from seaports as they could be, although the noble Lord might not regard them as being very distant. Was it not advantageous for the manufacturers and consumers at those places, that they should have the bonded articles as near them as possible, and that every facility should be afforded to procure them as they were required. The

991
noble and learned Lord alluded to Manchester, but he (Lord Melbourne) believed that that town was not the place that most anxiously sought for this bill. His noble Friend had alluded to the rapid means of communication between Liverpool and Manchester, but it was manifestly absurd to say, that the heavy goods, such as those warehoused articles, were conveyed from one of these places to another in an hour. This might be the time for passengers, but heavy articles were not conveyed by railways. With respect to the protection of the revenue, the Treasury would have the power of deciding on proper sites for warehouses, and of course due care would be taken on this point. This bill would be advantageous to large numbers of the manufacturers and traders of the country, and it was sought for by a great number of large towns, and it had been sanctioned by a large majority of the other House. He thought that the latter was a reason that would have weight with his noble and learned Friend, who had dwelt much upon measures sent up to that House that had received the sanction of a large majority of the other house. He, however, did not regard this of so much consequence, as he was satisfied, that measures that ought to receive the sanction of their Lordships might only be carried by a small majority in the other House. Very good measures might only be supported by a very small majority, and therefore he did not attach so much importance to the circumstances of a large majority as his noble and learned Friend. He would only add, that he was satisfied of the beneficial tendency of this bill, and should give it his cordial support.
The House divided on the original question:—Contents 38; Not-Contents 48: Majority 10.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

ARCHBISHOP.

Warwick

Armagh.

Bathurst

DUKE.

Longford

Wellington.

Wicklow

MARQUESSES.

Rosslyn

Downshire

Charleville

Londonderry

Oxford

Ormonde.

Harrowby

EARLS.

Glengall

Abingdon

Eldon

Morton

Ripon.

Moray

VISCOUNTS.

Galloway

Hereford

Dartmouth

Strathallan

Aylesford

Strangford

992

Gage

Berwick

Hawarden

Redesdale

Gort

Ellenborough

Canterbury.

Prudhoe

BISHOPS.

Rayleigh

Carlisle

Bexley

Oxford

Wharncliffe

Glocester.

Fitzgerald

LORDS.

Lyndhurst

Saltoun

Brougham

Sinclair

De Lisle

Monson

Ashburton.

Sondes

Paired off.

Montrose

Sherborne

Bute

Falmouth

Exeter

Sydney

Ailesbury

Hood

Westmeath

Doneraile

Jersey

St. Vincent

Eglinton

Exmouth

Dalhousie

Beresford

Leven

Combermere

Orkney

Canning

Digby

Reay

Carnarvon

Rodney

Courtown

Kenyon

Mountcashel

Braybrooke

Clare

Dunsany

Bandon

Glenlyon

Limerick

Maryborough

Lonsdale

Forester

Verulam

Downes

Bradford

Wallace

Portman

Lilford

De Mauley

Rosebery

Albemarle

Dormer

Torrington

Kintore

Vernon

Methuen

Lichfield

Strafford

Bellhaven

Yarborough

Camperdown

Crewe

Kinnaird

Cowper

Sutherland

Lovelace

Petre

Bateman

Shrewsbury

Erroll

Carew

Wenlock

Lynedoch

Fingall

Sefton

Zetland

Cork

Bruce

Scarborough

Duncannon

Ducie

Cloncurry

Uxbridge

Lovat

Bill put off for three months.