Sitting of 4 June 1839

ELECTIVE FRANCHISE.
Sir H. Fleet-woodsaid, the question e was about to bring before the House was one of the most important of those which could possibly affect the elective franchise in this country, and he should confine himself as much as possible to the general reasons which led him to move for leave to bring in the bill which he now was about to describe. If, when he gave notice of the present motion for leave to bring in the bill he proposed, he was satisfied that the representation of counties was not sufficient, he was much more so then, for he had received every day further corroboration of the necessity and the justice of extending the franchise as he proposed. It was a measure based upon sound constitutional principles, and it contained nothing to affect in the slightest degree the most timid who dreaded change in the institutions of the country. He had given notice of his motion on the subject long before the noble Lord, the Member for Stroud, had pub-

1343
lished his address to his constituents, and it was gratifying to him to find that the sentiments in that pamphlet were in accordance with the views he was now advocating, and echoed them to a great extent on this question. Being accustomed to regard the noble Lord as the leader of the reform party in that House, it was gratifying to him to find that on this point he agreed with the noble Lord, and that the noble Lord by adopting his proposition could extend the franchise to an immense number of persons without militating against the present constitution of the Reform Bill. He held that the question could be entertained without at all affecting the principles of that measure as it was at present constituted. It did not extend the principle of representation, it merely went to confer upon parties, possessing the same qualification and amount of property, the franchise at present enjoyed by others possessing less property to whom it had been given by the Reform Act. His bill extended the right of voting for Members to Parliament to a class of persons in the rural districts superior in intelligence and superior in property to those now enjoying the elective franchise in boroughs. Holding that the Reform Act extended the elective franchise to individuals possessed of a certain qualification in right of property; if the individuals to whom he proposed to extend still further the right of voting, were of a rank above these persons, possessed of a greater amount of property, and of a higher standing in society, he could not be charged with extending the principle of that bill unduly; he only sought to extend its influence to a quarter which had been wholly forgotten. It had been urged that, although the 10 l. householder might be a fit voter for a town, he had not the proper qualification for a voter for a county constituency. But those to whom he was about to extend the franchise were not persons within the Parliamentary boroughs, but among the remote districts, and in the small towns and villages in which there was no borough representation existing. Looking back at the debates on the Corn-laws, he invariably found that all those persons— all this class to whom he wished to extend the elective franchise—were on every occasion added to the landed interest by the advocates of the Corn-laws in that House, therefore he hoped for the concurrence of those hon. Members in his view of the case, as it was an extension not alone of a
1344
benefit to their supporters, but also of a great advantage to themselves. Another objection which would be urged against the measure he proposed was, that it would be apprehended that in large manufacturing districts a great danger might arise that the natural constituency of the country would be entirely swamped by the artificial and factitious constituency created by the great mill-owners. But the vote according to the bill was to be given to the occupant of a house of the clear annual value of 10 l. alone; which, in itself, would be a sufficient guarantee for its efficacy. If, however, that was deemed a danger, did not the same danger daily occur in small borough towns under the Reform Act, as it stood at present? And yet in some of those towns—in Lancaster, for instance, and others of the towns in that county where manufactures were most numerous, the Members returned to serve in Parliament were Conservatives. In fact it required such expense to create a factitious household franchise, that it would be quite impossible to swamp the natural constituency of any county. A curious fact, as connected with the operation of the Reform Bill in respect to votes for counties, was of daily occurrence in the town which he had the honour to represent. In Preston, the place alluded to, where the population voted on the principle of inhabitancy, and where the low freehold franchise was preserved by the Reform Bill, it was found that persons with small properties, who had a vote for the county from one of these freeholds, had also a vote for the town; while the 10 l. householders, who were for beyond them in point of property and respectability, had no vote at all, and were wholly unable to exercise the franchise in the county. Yet, notwithstanding this, it might be said, that it would not be fair or right to have a vote for the borough and the county. To this the answer was prompt: the 50 l. tenant-at-will clause in the Reform Bill conferred a similar power upon persons holding under its provisions. One great difficulty in the case, he admitted, was, that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House might think that the constituencies of counties, as at present existing, were perfect for these purposes, and that then hon. Gentlemen might be very unwilling, consequently, to support any measure which would have for its effect the slightest alteration of their construction. But the support which the right hon. Baronet on

1345
the other side of the House enjoyed at present, was chiefly derived from Gentlemen who upheld the Corn-laws, and he believed that, if the right hon. Gentleman were in office, and the Corn-laws were made an open question, it would have a most serious effect on his power by reason of the effect which it would have on the return of his supporters in counties. The qualification which he now proposed would, therefore, be of the greatest advantage to the right hon. Baronet and the hon. Gentlemen opposite, as well as to the counties. There were very few places in the rural districts of this country where the rent of a gentleman's house ranged beyond 40 l. a-year. Therefore the measure was in itself Conservative—of the best character of Conservatism— conservative of intellect, and property, and station in society—and having thereby a direct tendency to the consolidation of the power of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he did not well perceive how the right hon. Gentleman could refuse it his support. Its effect would be to disperse voters as property and intelligence were dispersed throughout the country, and it would in no wise have the effect of altering or disturbing in any way the provisions of the Reform Bill. He (Sir H. Fleetwood) had endeavoured to confine himself to the points of his case, and, as he stated in the outset of his observations, to limit himself to the general reasons in favour of his proposition. He had endeavoured to point out to the House that, in supporting it, they would not be extending the principle of the Reform Act, or opening a new franchise, but only granting the right of voting to persons who should have had it, and would, but for some oversight in that measure. Hon. Gentlemen opposite ranked the constituency which he proposed to create as among the best defenders and supporters of the soil. No opposition could, therefore, fairly come from that quarter to it. It was argued on his side of the House, by many hon. Members, that the 10 l. franchise was too high in boroughs; if that argument held good, and he did not mean to controvert it, how much more forcibly would it apply to counties; and, therefore, again, he calculated upon the support of the other side of the House, because the principal effect of his proposition, if acceded to, would be to include in the class of voters clergymen (thus embracing the Church), medical men, and merchants, having villas, or seats, or houses, without the limits of Parliamentary boroughs. If
1346
the franchise were extended to those individuals, the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) near him, nor hon. Gentlemen who sat at the same side of the House, could not say that it was extended beyond the limits of the Reform Act; or that it gave the right of voting to any classes not rightfully comprehended, though, perhaps, as he had already stated, forgotten in that measure. He looked, therefore, for the support of the noble Lord and of those bon. Gentlemen, and he hoped, likewise, to be able to draw from him some indication of the course which he intended to pursue in the future as regarded the Reform Act. He would also beg to call the attention of the noble Lord to the expectation of all Reformers, and Liberals of all classes, of some improvement in the constituencies of counties, the quiescence with which they waited for it, and the ardour with which they wished it; the desire, in short, which was universally felt of extending the benefits of the Reform Bill more widely over the whole country. He was anxious to hear what the noble Lord would say in reference to that subject, as well as in reference to the question before the House. The Reformers of this country were most anxious to carry out the principles of the Reform Act. The horn Baronet concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill for extending the qualification of voters for Members of Parliament representing English and Welch counties to the occupier of a house of the clear annual value of 10 l., the same as in boroughs.
Lord John Russell: The hon. Baronet who has brought forward this motion has stated the reason upon which he founds his motion in a most temperate and judicious manner. He has stated the grounds upon which he thinks the House ought to accede to the motion, both as being consistent with the Reform Bill, and as being an improvement of the present state of the franchise in the counties. There is a part of his argument in which I agree with him, and in which my agreement is well known to the world. I certainly consider that the introduction of the 50 l. tenant at will clause, carried to the extent of giving the right of voting to the occupant of property in counties, and thereby destroying the ancient tenure of freehold, with the additional disadvantage of placing the limit of the value of the property to 50 l. was a most injurious and dangerous change in the Reform Bill, and it was one which the Government of that day felt it-

1347
self bound to oppose. The ground upon which it was argued by a noble Lord, now a Member of the other House of Parliament, both in this House and in the country was, that if it was right to give to a 10 l. householder the right of voting in towns, then it was very unjust to deprive the 50 l. occupier in counties of the same right of voting, that it was an obvious partiality in favour of the residents in towns, and an injustice and injury to the agricultural population of the kingdom. If that argument was a good one—I do not think it was—but if it was a good one, undoubtedly it would go to the extent of giving to voters in counties the same right of voting which was held in towns, because in point of character and in point of property and of respectability no one could deny, that the occupier out of the limits of a borough was as fit to exercise the franchise as those living within it. Therefore in bringing down the limit of tenure which those who proposed the Reform Bill intended to keep up, I thought a change was made which would lead, in point of reason, in point of fairness, and perhaps in point of effect, to further changes. However, the Government on that occasion, through Lord Althorp, stated the reasons for objecting to the proposition. Those reasons were not satisfactory to the House, and we were defeated by a considerable majority. The opinion of the Marquess of Chandos prevailed in this House, and was even countenanced and deemed acceptable in the House of Lords. That was a sufficient reason in the opinion of the Government, why the 50 l. franchise then proposed should be introduced into the Reform Bill. I therefore agree so far with the bon, Baronet, that in point of fairness and of justice if am asked whether a 10 l. resident out of the limits of the borough is not as fit to vote as a resident within the limits, I must say decidedly and at once that I think he is. I think it is unfortunate that the 50 l. tenants were ever introduced into the Reform Bill. I do think so. I certainly do not now wish to deprive them or any of those who enjoy rights under the Reform Bill of the exercise of those rights, but I think it leads very naturally to the motion of the hon. Baronet this night. But now I come to the objections to be made to that motion, The hon. Baronet has himself admitted that the question is of such great importance, that the proposition is so large and so extensive a one—that of introducing a new class of voters—that it
1348
cannot be expected that either the Government or the House should entertain it at this time of the Session. But putting aside that objection, which seems to me a sufficient one against the immediate adoption of so great a change, I think likewise that there are very serious and substantial objections to the proposition at whatever period it might be brought forward. The hon. Baronet in the course of his speech, has alluded to some of those objections. He has stated what he thinks to be the inequality which now occurs with respect to voters in boroughs returning Members to Parliament. It would be necessary to revise the distinction made in the Reform Bill, which was intended to provide, that persons holding property in the borough should not, by virtue of the same property, be enabled to vote in the county. That distinction, whether good or bad, wise or unwise, was made in the Reform Bill, and it would be necessary to enter into the whole question on that point. There is likewise a very important question as to what would be the practical effect of such a change with respect to the elections in counties. That is a question with regard to which I am not now able to pronounce an opinion. The inclination of my opinion is, that the electoral body would rather be improved than otherwise by such an addition. But I have not sufficient information to enable me to pronounce a decided opinion upon that point. There is another objection which it is obvious will be taken by persons of various parties who have considered the Reform Bill, and who would look upon this change not merely as an extension of the right of voting—not as an extension directly in conformity with the principles of the Reform Bill, but as an extension going beyond the bill, and as being a new right of voting, not conferred by that act. These are objections that would be made, and are of a sufficiently serious character to induce any government not merely to decline agreeing with the proposition of the hon. Baronet as to voting for his motion now, but to decline giving him any reason to suppose that if brought forward on another day it would meet with their concurrence. The hon. Baronet has said, that he wished to have some explanations from me with regard not merely to his own proposition, but with regard to any proposition of a similar nature. In accordance with his wish, and I think in accordance with the wish of many who have asked me my opinion with respect to

1349
certain points, I will first state generally that I think there are three different parties. I do not speak now merely of the common division of political parties, but that there are three different modes of viewing the Reform Act, There are a considerable number, I am sorry to say, who, while adhering to the letter of the Reform Act, and being quite willing in their adherence to every word and syllable of that Act, yet wish to pervert and abuse the spirit of that Act—who wish to prevent persons from having the franchise which is given to them by that Act, and who vexatiously oppose their maintaining that franchise, and who like wise are very forward by means of intimidation and corruption, to prevent them from freely exercising that franchise. With those who thus act I need not say I entirely differ. There are many others who view the Reform Act in another light. I may refer to a letter in the newspapers of this day, written by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, who takes this view of that measure, and great numbers agree with him; he considers that the Reform Act has been a total failure, and that it is necessary to have a new law, giving the franchise a far more extensive range, and providing for a duration of Parliament extremely short, at the same time, depriving the Crown of the prerogative of dissolution, and adopting also a secret mode of voting, which he and his supporters think would be a protection to the voter. That is a proposal for an entire abandonment of the Reform Act as it at present exists; it is, in short, a proposal for an entirely new system of legislation upon the subject. I need not now discuss the reasons upon which that proposal is founded. The propositions, many of them, I admit, extremely plausible ones—which are put forward by those who advocate that system of legislation, I can only say, are such as I cannot agree with. There is a third system, which consists in taking the Reform Act as a basis, and in saying, that you will introduce into the Reform Act and found upon it, any corrections and improvements which, as a legislative measure, it must necessarily from time to time require. That is the general opinion I entertain with respect to the Reform Act. I cannot deny, that wherever that Act in its provisions is defective, or where by means, not perceived at the time, it has become abused and perverted from the spirit in which it was proposed by Earl Grey, it is expedient and
1350
just, and even necessary, to consider what amendments may properly be introduced. Without going into all the questions which may arise upon this subject, I will mention one upon which a bill was introduced by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-general several years ago, which has been renewed during several years, and which is now again before the House. With respect to that measure, relating to the registration of voters, it appears to me more and more, year after year, that the vexations incident to the preservation of the franchise are much greater and more extensive, than I could ever have supposed they could have been. I do think, when you have seventy-five barristers going to the differ cut parts of the country, and those very barristers not going to the same counties in different years, but changing their cir-cults, to decide upon various questions respecting the rights of voters, and when you have a number of persons ready to go to any expense for the purpose of questioning the rights of voters, that it does become a hardship and an injury to the holders of the franchise, which imperatively calls for amendment. I frequently receive letters upon this subject from persons who represent, not their own grievances, but the grievances of others, stating, that it frequently occurs to persons to be obliged to travel many miles, year after year, in order to defend their votes, and that they find, on coming into the registration courts, that there is neither any objection or objector for them to meet. This is a matter not affecting one party only, or the other. It affects all. But if you really mean, that persons having a bonâ fide franchise should retain it, you ought to endeavour to do away with this vexatious proceeding, We proposed, two years ago, a plan which, I think, would have been found a very great improvement—that of diminishing the number of revising barristers, and determining that, instead of a fluctuating court, with seventy-five learned gentlemen, there should be only ten or eleven barristers, forming a permanent court, to decide on questions relating to the elective franchise. That bill was rejected by the House of Lords. We proposed another bill, last year, which had not the same efficacy, but which would still have diminished, in some degree, the number of vexatious objections—I mean the proposal to impose costs on the party making such objection. But even that bill was not acceptable to the House of Lords. It was thought necessary

1351
by their Lordships to add to it that which we had carefully kept out of view—by the introduction of a clause decidedly in favour of one party on a disputed right of voting. The effect of all this, and of the many observations which have been made to me upon the Registration Bill introduced this year, on my mind has been this:—that although I am certainly not, after several discussions upon the subject with my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-general, and with my colleagues, prepared to say exactly what should be the details of the remedy, yet I am prepared to say, that we ought altogether to revise the whole system of registration. I am sure it will be necessary both to have a permanent court and a smaller number of revising barristers; and I think it will be necessary to provide, by some means or other—perhaps by giving a longer period for the register to run—that the voter should not be called upon so constantly and perpetually to defend his right, and be subjected so frequently to an expensive and vexatious contest in the court of the revising barrister. In saying I think it a question entirely separate from that which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) discusses in his bill respecting election petitions, I shall be disposed, certainly, not to concur in any motion at present which would place in his bill clauses with respect to any change in the constitution of the courts of the revising barristers. But I think, that Parliament, in another Session, should reconsider the whole subject, and endeavour to form a court with which this House and the country in general might be satisfied. There are other questions which relate not to the mode of registration, but to the mode in which a person obtains a right to have his name placed in the list of voters. We took very great care in the Reform Bill that the voter should not merely have the property which we declared was necessary to give him a vote, but that he should pay sufficient rates and taxes to show that he was a bonâ fide holder of the property, to which the Parliament intended to give the franchise. My argument, I confess was, when discussing this measure and imposing these restrictions, that if we impose too severe terms, it would be far more easy to relax that severity, than if we gave the franchise to a class of voters who were not entitled to it, to take away that franchise which had once been given. Experience has convinced me that, with regard to these restrictions, we have gone farther than is at
1352
all necessary to insure the respectability of the voter. I think the general principle is the right one; and that the ancient principle of paying scot and lot is a principle to which we ought to adhere; but I do think that you can ascertain the respectability of a person who merely pays rates— which is the interpretation given to the expression of "paying scot and lot," without putting any further restrictions upon him, which only have the effect of depriving many men of the franchise who are clearly entitled to it. It was with that view that I last year introduced a bill, and which was carried through this House, by which the time for paying the rates was changed, and instead of the voter being disfranchised unless he had paid in June or July what was due in April, he should only be liable to disfranchisement if he had not paid in July what was due in the previous October. I think the principle of that bill was a correct one, and I think, moreover, that if you take care that there has been a payment of the poor rates for any number of months, or for a year, you ought not likewise to insist upon the payment of the assessed taxes. That I consider a needless and vexatious system. I find from all I have heard that instead of the right of voting being granted, as was apprehended it might be by those who proposed the Reform Bill, to persons not entitled to it; on the contrary, hundreds of persons who are fully entitled to it do not enjoy it, owing to the manner in which these clauses of the bill are framed. That, therefore, is a matter upon which, I think, we may fairly propose an amendment; and in doing so shall be acting not contrary to the spirit, but in the very spirit in which the Reform Act was made. With respect to other matters of the same kind, as they are not immediately now in question, I do not see that there is any reason to detain the House upon them. I have already stated the general principle upon which I am disposed to go. That general principle is to adopt any amendment in the franchise which is in conformity with the principles of the Reform Act, and in analogy to the general provisions of it; but not to adopt altogether any new scheme of representation. With regard to my general views, it is unnecessary for me to state them now, because I have on several occasions stated them, and have even, perhaps, with some degree of rashness ventured to state my general opinions upon the subject. All I wish now to state is, that not complying

1353
with the hon. Baronet's present motion, not giving to that Gentleman any promise that I will at a future period concur in it, at the same time I think he is fairly entitled to ask the consideration of the House upon a question of this kind. It does appear to me a question fairly brought forward, and if you adopt his proposition you will not be introducing any very dangerous innovation; but, at the same time, it is not one to which I, on the part of the Government, can give any concurrence. I do not know that it is necessary for me to enter further into this subject, or to state any thing with regard to my general principles, those being already known to the House and the country.
Mr. Warburtonthought it might be fairly collected that a very large majority of the people of England, and of the Members sitting on the liberal side of the House, were not satisfied with the representation of the United Kingdom as it now stood. This being the feeling of a large majority of the people, the question was whether the Members sitting on the liberal side of the House, would be satisfied unless the Government were prepared to take the amendment of the Reform Act in hand. If they were convinced that the Government would act upon that feeling, that they would be for measures of progressive Reform, and that as fast as evils and defects were found in the system of representation they would be prepared to propose amendments, he believed that the people and the liberal Members of the House would be willing to leave the amendment with the Government. If they were told that the Government would take the matter into their own hands—though really in what manner he was precisely to interpret the declarations of the noble Lord he felt considerable difficulty to understand; but if the liberal Members were informed that the Government would take the matter in hand, he was persuaded that on his side of the House there was every disposition to forbearance, and to wait for the measures which the Government might think proper to present to them. He did not think the Liberals were at all impatient. They did not wish to press upon the Government in the present state of the Session to produce a measure for all those amendments they considered necessary. Let the Government declare their willingness to correct the defects of the Reform Bill, and without pressing them to produce any measure this session, all that the liberals would ask was
1354
that they would throw open their doors to receive suggestions from the Liberal party in the same manner as they did previous to the introduction of the Reform Bill. What he contended against was, that of there being so many separate and unconnected changes proposed at once; whereas, if any Gentleman would examine into the nature of the case, he would find in how close a manner all those different measures hung together. There was the measure of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tam-worth, who proposed to make a perfectly impartial tribunal for settling all those questions which now came before election committees. That Was no doubt a legitimate object; but what he and his Friends complained of was, that it was a detached measure, and did not cure any present defect that arose out of the existing system of trial before election committees. The real question was, how could gentlemen of moderate fortune be induced to become Members of that House? At present it was only necessary for any opponent to present a petition in order to deter persons of moderate income from attempting to obtain seats in Parliament. Now, one mode for correcting this evil would be that of making the registration of voters final. In that case, the greater number of questions which now came before an election committee would be taken out of the record. But if they made the registration of the electors final, was it not necessary they should amend the constitution of the registration court? Was it not necessary, that instead of having, not those seventy-five barristers, as the noble Lord had stated, but those 150 revising barristers which they had at present—to have a limited number of gentlemen with competent salaries, fit to try cases, and upon whose decision the public would place confidence? He took these measures as an example, with a view to show how they were all necessarily connected together, and how impossible it was, if they took them separately, to deal justly with the laws relating to the constitution of the representative system. Therefore it was that he said, with the present state of dissatisfaction among the people, that if the Government were really at the head of the Liberal party, they were bound to do that which the Liberal party called upon them to do—that was, give notice of their intention to propose a bill for amending the Reform Act, which bill should embrace all the objects which he had alluded to, and others

1355
to which he had not alluded. If they would do that, instead of the liberal party of the country being depressed and discouraged in spirit, which they now were, the Government would raise their spirits and give courage to the Reform party throughout the United Kingdom, and instead of their being almost afraid to meet a general election, and anticipating discomfiture from so meeting the constituency of the country as it now stood, they would, if spirit and courage were given to them by such an announcement, be the foremost, and as ready as—nay, more ready than the hon. Gentlemen opposite, to meet a general election. But if the matter remained as it now was—if the constituency were left in its present state, then he would say, that he anticipated discomfiture for the liberal party at the next general election; and not only that, but he did believe that at every future general election the Liberal party might expect that their situation would be worse than it now was. "I like (said the hon. Member) to state what my real opinion is. Now, I tell the hon. Gentlemen opposite that the liberal party feel satisfied—and all impartial men will admit they are right—that they are the most numerous. I say, that in the aggregate, they are the most powerful, have the most property, and are the most influential body in the State, and they will not submit permanently to be left in such a position that whenever a general election is to be met they find their situation worse and worse. Therefore, I say, that if the Government whom the liberal party consent to place at their head will not take upon itself to place the liberal party in that position which they contend, from their numbers, their wealth, and their influence, they have a right to hold, then the liberal party, independently of the Government, must act for themselves. The division on the Ballot will show what their strength is. They must, I say, act for themselves, and throw themselves upon the country for support, and take those measures which they think necessary by means without and means within the House for giving supremacy to their opinions." He would then say, that if there was the smallest encouragement on the part of the Government to lead them to believe, that they would take the amendment of the Reform Act under their patronage, there would be the greatest forbearance by the liberal party, both in the House and out of it. The liberal party in the House would be glad
1356
to leave the subject in the hands of the Government, if the Government would take it into their hands—if measures like that proposed by the hon. Baronet in the motion then before the House—if measures which the noble Lord admitted to be of a moderate character, like this, were to be fairly considered by the Government—for he (Mr. Warburton) would be satisfied with that. He, for one, fully admitted the force of the argument of the noble Lord, that he had not fully considered the bearings of the measure—that he must have recourse to the statistics of representation to see the effects of the measure; and he thought, that this was a fair argument for the Government taking the suggestions into consideration, and on which to deliberate whether it was fit that they should introduce a bill for the amendment of the Reform Act, and it might be an argument why the hon. Baronet should not press the present motion to a division. If he interpreted the words of the noble Lord right, he individually approved of the present motion, but that the Government could not consent to it. He was glad that so far as his statement went, the noble Lord considered this to be a reasonable proposition to be made. What course the hon. Baronet would take upon this occasion he did not know; but he thought, that it was a very fit occasion for the Members of the liberal party to give vent to their opinions; and after be had heard them, the hon. Baronet would be prepared to state, what course he meant to take with respect to this measure—whether he would divide the House upon it, or whether he would leave it for the consideration of her Majesty's Government, For his own part, he did not ask for any determination on the part of the Government, or for any immediate decision, either upon this or upon any other question, as to the representation of the people; but if they would agree to take into their consideration the amendment of the Reform Act in such parts as they should think it required amendment, he would recommend his hon. Friend to forbear from pressing a measure of this kind in the present Session, but await the production of a bill which he would be glad to hear announced by her Majesty's Government.
Sir R. Peelcould not concur with the hon. Member for Bridport, that the noble Lord had been ao obscure and so equivocal as the hon. Gentleman had represented. He did understand the noble Lord to say,

1357
that in certain respects he was prepared to admit, that alterations in the Reform Bill might advantageously be made. The noble Lord had not left the House or the country in doubt as to the intentions of the Government on this important question. The noble Lord had said, that registration was defective, and that measures ought to be taken to improve the present system; he had said, that instead of having seventy-five barristers, they ought to have a more limited number, that they ought to be more permanent, and that there ought to be a power of appeal. He had understood the noble Lord to make that statement, and how then could the hon Member for Bridport charge him with vagueness and obscurity? Then with respect to the main provisions of the Reform Bill, the noble Lord had said, that he was willing that some relief should be given, that some alteration should be made in the rate-paying clauses, and he had also stated, that if there was a satisfactory payment of poor-rates, there might then be some relief afforded as to the payment of taxes. Such was the construction which he had put upon the statement of the noble Lord, and if he were right in his conclusions, then the hon. Member for Bridport was too late in calling for a declaration on the subject of reform from the Government, and it was unfair to charge the noble Lord with obscurity or vagueness. He had taken down the words of the noble Lord. The noble Lord had stated, that the hon. Baronet was very fairly entitled to bring this subject under the consideration of the House; but the noble Lord had added, that the proposition of the hon. Baronet was one on which, neither on his own part, nor on the part of the Government could he give a pledge, that it would be supported by her Majesty's Ministers. The noble Lord had said, that he could not now promise the support of the Government to the proposition of the hon. Baronet, and that he could not hold out any expectation of support for that proposition either now or at a future period. Was it possible, then, that the hon. Member for Bridport could charge the noble Lord with being vague and obscure? For himself, he could not doubt, that the noble Lord had made up his mind to resist the proposition of the hon. Baronet— he could not doubt, that he should that night have the satisfaction of voting with the noble Lord in opposition to this attempt to break in upon the principle of the Reform Bill. But, whatever the noble Lord might
1358
do, it was his intention to resist the proposition of the hon. Baronet, and to offer it every opposition in his power. In forming that resolution he was confirmed in the course he intended to follow by the arguments which had been advanced by the hon. Baronet who had brought forward the motion. The hon. Baronet had said, that the 10 l. householders out of boroughs were as respectable and as well entitled to a vote as the 10 l. householders within boroughs. All he could say was, that such was not the principle of the Reform Bill; and he therefore felt, that to admit the proposition of the hon. Baronet would be a departure from the principle of that bill, and in direct opposition to the finality of that great constitutional settlement of the representation. If it were a fair principle that the 10 l. householders out of boroughs were as well entitled to votes as the 10 l. householders within boroughs, then it followed that the 40 s. freeholders in boroughs were as well entitled to a vote for boroughs as the present constituency. The one argument was as good as the other, and the consequence of pushing such a principle to extremity would be to abolish all distinction, to give every one votes, to place every one upon the same footing as regarded respectability, and to hold all equally capable of exercising the franchise. It was true the noble Lord had said, that the introduction of the 50 l. tenants in counties had made a difference in this respect, but he could not concur with the noble Lord in that opinion, for he could see no difference. But if the introduction of the 50 l. tenants had made a difference, that difference ought to have been stated when the Reform Bill was under consideration, and arrangements ought in consequence to have been made for the future. They were told at the time the Reform Bill was considered, that it was a most extensive measure, and it was admitted, that in a country like this, with such complicated interests, such an experiment could not be made without danger, and it was distinctly declared that it was made extensive in order that it might he considered as a final settlement. He held that measure as a final settlement, and it was upon the ground that it was final that he would now resist the motion of the hon. Baronet, The noble Lord had divided the politicians of the country into three classes. The first class, according to the noble Lord, consisted of those who advocated the Reform Bill, but who were favourable to improvement. The second

1359
class was composed of those who were entirely dissatisfied with the Reform Bill, and who were anxious to push reform to extremes; while the third class, according to the noble Lord, was made up of those who, adhering to the strict letter of the Reform Bill, wished to deprive the people of the rights which they had obtained by corruption and intimidation. Now, he must disclaim belonging to any of these classes. He was for maintaining the spirit of the Reform Bill. He looked upon that measure as a great constitutional settlement, upon the principle of which he would resist every attempt at innovation; but he was not disposed to deprive the people of the rights which that measure secured for them, and he abominated intimidation and corruption by whomsoever they might be practised. He belonged, therefore, to neither of the classes mentioned by the noble Lord. There was a fourth class, then, and it was composed of those who adopted the Reform Bill as a constitutional settlement, who looked upon it as a final measure, as final as any such settlement could ever be. He was willing to accept the Reform Bill in the spirit in which it had been advocated by Lord Grey and by Lord Althorp, and with every wish to see it carried fairly and honestly into operation, and he detested the system as much as any one could, which attempted to deter the constituency from exercising the franchise by the abominable means of intimidation and corruption. He was anxious to see the Reform Bill and its provisions respected by all parties—to see the constituency which it created fairly exercising the rights they had acquired, and it was because he felt that anxiety, and because he looked on the Reform Bill as a settlement of a great constitutional question, that he was disposed to resist every attempt to break in upon its principle. The hon. Member for Bridport had asked the noble Lord to give the liberals some vague assurance of his intentions in regard to the Reform Bill, and had charged the noble Lord with obscurity. He, on the contrary, considered that the noble Lord had been perfectly explicit, and he would add that the advice of the hon. Member for Bridport ought to be rejected by a constitutional minister, whose duty it was to hold out no vague promises to the country which could never be productive of any good, and which were only calculated to mislead and to bewilder the public, And what was the
1360
motive for the advice which the hon. Member had tendered to the noble Lord? Did he ask for a vague declaration with a view to improvement? No; such was not the object of the hon. Gentleman. He sought for that declaration from no more exalted motive than to enable the liberal party to regain the influence which they had lost. If the hon. Member for Bridport was the representative of the liberal party, he was not at no loss to comprehend the cause why they had lost the support of the people. If such were the principles of the hon. Gentleman, if such was the advice he gave on a great constitutional question, those were sufficient reasons why the liberal party had lost the confidence of the people, those were the reasons why they were afraid to face their constituents upon the hustings. The noble Lord ought to make no vague declarations. It was the duty of a Government to be explicit, and if that Government considered alterations necessary, then the changes ought to be immediate, and not put off by obscure and unsatisfactory declarations, to be acted upon at some future and uncertain period. He protested against the system of transacting business which he saw a growing inclination to adopt, by making vague declarations of intentions to be carried into operation at some future time. It was the duty of a Government to mature its measures before making any declaration in regard to them, and when they were prepared, to bring them forward and submit them to the consideration of the Legislature. In the first instance, the executive ought to hold itself responsible for public measures, and until such time as the opinion of Parliament was pronounced upon them; but the plan adopted of asking for a decision by the Legislature upon vague generalities, which were afterwards to be acted upon, or perhaps abandoned, had the effect of making Parliament share the responsibility which ought to be borne by the Government alone. Such a system was calculated only to generate expectations which could never, perhaps, be realized and to produce dissatisfaction and discontent, while nothing could tend more than such a course to lower the character of that House in the estimation of the country. Such was the inevitable effect of asking Parliament to share the responsibility which ought to be borne alone by the Government. It rendered perplexed and confused the relations in which Government and the Legislature stood towards each other. The hon. Mem-

1361
ber for Bridport wished to ask the Houses of Parliament to give a vague pledge as to what they might do in some future Session. Let him ask that hon. Member if he would be contented with a vague pledge if it was not to be acted upon till 1842? Would that satisfy him? If it did, any Gentleman more easily satisfied he could not imagine. The hon. Member asked not for reform, not for legislation, but for a vague declaration which would enable him and his party to face the hustings. If the liberals had lost the confidence of the people, such was not the way to regain it. If they had lost the confidence of the people, he would say let them seek to regain it by a manly and straightforward course of proceeding, and not by asking for vague declarations, calculated only to bewilder and mislead. They could give no satisfaction by such measures as that which was proposed by the hon. Baronet. The extension of 10 l. qualifications to tenants out of boroughs would not be more final than the qualification of the Reform Bill. Then, if they were persuaded that such would be the case, why did not hon. Gentlemen avow their conviction in an open and manly manner? While Gentlemen opposite invited the Government to give a vague declaration on the proposition which had been made, they were obliged to admit by their cheers that a 10 l. qualification to tenants out of boroughs was but a stepping-stone to something more. If that were granted, he well knew that the unrepresented classes in the large cities would then be enabled to press their claims with tenfold force. The shopocracy, as the tradesmen had been termed, with the medical profession and lawyers would be ill able to oppose those who were unrepresented, if it was once admitted that a new qualification was to be allowed. He had the admission of hon. Gentlemen opposite that the proposition of the hon. Baronet was of no value, but as a foundation for something else, and for that reason he would oppose it; for, if change were once admitted, he could see no end of change. But the hon. Gentleman said that if the Government did not yield, they would appeal to the country. But had they formerly forborne to press their own views upon the Government? No; they had on every occasion, on every opportunity, opposed the Government, and advocated their own peculiar views. But what was the meaning of the hon. Gentleman? He said that if the Government yielded to his wishes, the liberal party
1362
would forbear pressing their own views. He had given that party credit for more manliness than the declaration of the hon. Gentleman manifested, ["No, no"], and if the hon. Gentleman was the representative of that party, he could not wonder that they had lost the confidence of the people. Well, then, the hon. Member disclaimed being the representative of the liberal party, and that dissent had been confirmed by the hon. Gentleman's Friends. As the hon. Gentleman had acknowledged that he sought for Reform only in order to enable the Liberal party to face their constituents upon the hustings, that he was favourable to the proposition of the hon. Baronet, merely because he looked upon such inroads upon the Reform Act as a means of regaining the confidence of the people, and as it had been allowed that the measure under consideration would not be productive of satisfaction, but would, on the contrary, be viewed as a stepping-stone to something else, as an imperfect concession, and as an inducement to demand more and greater innovations on the great constitutional settlement of the representative system, he thought it was unnecessary to say more to induce the House to reject a proposition calculated to lead to such consequences. He was inclined in a fair spirit to adhere to the Reform Bill. He wished to see that measure carried out in a fair spirit. He wished to see a distinction made between the registration and the rate-paying clauses, and the former improved. He was convinced that by such improvements they would advance the interests of the country. He was convinced if, instead of seeking for a new system of representation, they made improvements where they were necessary, and attempted in a fair and candid spirit to carry out the Reform Bill, and thus show that they were qualified to discharge their duties as the representatives of the people, they would more surely obtain the confidence and respect of the country than by the adoption of vague and visionary schemes.
Mr. Harveysaid, that in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bridport—that it was desirable upon the pre., sent occasion that those hon. Members who took a large and deep interest in the cause of Parliamentary Reform, should embrace the present opportunity of expressing their candid and unrestrained sentiments—he fully agreed. It was not only due to themselves, to their constituents, and to the country, but also to

1363
the Government. He confessed that he did not enter into those feelings of surprise or of disappointment intimated by his hon. Friend the Member for Bridport, at a speech containing declarations so clearly and so unequivocally made as were those of the noble Lord. They entirely coincided with his expectations. It was true that during the last month he could scarcely meet a person who either was or wished to be a politician, who had not some, secret and undefined expectation that the Government would be prepared to outstrip the most liberal anticipations of their supporters, and who had misapprehended any doubts which were expressed that the Government was not prepared to make any considerable advances in the cause of what was called Parliamentary Reform. But however strong those expectations might have been, and on whatever basis they had been raised, he had never expected any other declaration than that which had been so clearly, so unequivocally, and he would add, so manfully and so openly made by the noble Lord. He was still eager for further and great reforms, and he would remain consistent to the last as the advocate of them. He was pleased, therefore, to find that the noble Lord went to no inconsiderable extent in his wishes to carry out further the principles of the Reform Act, but he would have regretted, after the noble Lord's reiterated opinion delivered in that House and recorded in his address to the electors of Stroud, if for any party purpose he had bent his opinions, or had endeavoured to countenance an idea that to purchase a truce from hostility he would make a partial change in his opinions. If, therefore, he voted for the motion of the hon. Baronet, it would only be for the purpose of showing that he was one of those who was anxious for further progress in the path of reform, however slow that progress might be. For himself, he thought it was undesirable to be constantly dabbling in these constitutional suggestions, in this little ware of reform; he would be glad to see the Government giving a title to a bill, and to call it a bill "to reform the Reform Act," he would be glad to see such a title with the objects distinctly stated, and the details so considered that it might be, as far as it could, both ample and final. But till this was done he thought it better that the time of the House should not be
1364
wasted, and that expectations should not be held out, to the real postponement of valuable measures of legislation, unless the Government were prepared to introduce a measure such as that to which he had alluded. His hon. Friend would allow him to say that they would not excite the feeling of the country upon this, and he assured him that a restricted measure like the present would riot be satisfactory to the country. Those who advocate reforms in the towns would not respect this suggestion. He thought that there should be a large extension of the suffrage, that there should also be a limitation of the duration of Parliament, and that some provision should be made, whether by the ballot or by the imposition of penalties, against intimidation and corruption. And here let him observe, that he had hoped that the right hon. Baronet would not have been contented with stating in such clear language, his hostility to all intimidation or corruption, but that he would also have stated his promptness and his readiness to apply a remedy to the great and growing evils which he had condemned. If the right hon. Baronet had said that, he would have said he was the representative of a better government, and a better Reformer than he now found on the Treasury benches, and he had hoped to have gathered from the hon. Baronet's hostility to intimidation which now existed, and to the corruption that now prevailed to so large an extent, that he would have been prepared to adopt the ballot if no other or better remedy could be suggested, and that he would not have been contented with the vague deduction which was intended to produce the opinion that he was in favour of a reformation of the corruption which was so rife, and of the intimidation which was so awful on a recent occasion. There was another point on which he was anxious to express an opinion. He was not one of those who considered that without reform they were incapable of proceeding with objects of useful legislation—quite otherwise; for though he was a decided advocate for such objects, yet he believed that the House did contain within itself the elements of sound legislation. He did not conceal his decided conviction, there or elsewhere, that the people themselves—that is, the constituent body—had much to do before they might or could be highly improved in their notions of

1365
their political obligations; because, though he was aware that there were some small places which ought not to send Members to that House, and that there were temptations which made the voters often strike a balance between their personal and their political interests—temptations so powerful that it was an appeal to the moral sense too strong for their resistance, yet he did maintain, that in all towns the constituency of which amounted to 1,000 there was in that body an ample power, a numerical strength, sufficient to protect its own virtue, provided there was a disposition. He could run over many constituencies in his memory, but he would refer to one town which he had had the honour to represent for many years. There were 1,200 electors and upwards in the town of Colchester. Why was it that those electors, many of them opulent men, and all, perhaps, well to do, could not send Reformers to that House? Because those 1,200 were not friends to Reform, but to Conservatism. He would not let constituencies run away with the idea that they had nothing to do because that House, or rather some persons in that House, entertained large speculative views of Reform; for those speculations led to no practical result, and nothing was done beyond the delivery of some needless speeches. But it was desirable and essentially necessary that some steps should be taken by which a Government should be formed which should conciliate and secure such a majority in that House as would carry out useful measures. He saw but little difference between those who occupied the Opposition benches and those on the Ministerial benches, for he found that nearly on all great questions, whatever difference there was between them, it was rather in the mode of expressing their opinions than in anything else, and that they pretty nearly came to the same conclusions; therefore he hoped that some experiment would be made by those country Gentlemen who were in the habit in past times of taking part in such grave matters, and that they would take means to address her Majesty, praying her Majesty to appoint such Ministers as should have the confidence of that House. In his judgment he conceived that such a Ministry might be formed, for the two parties had nothing else to do than to weed their respective forces of what might be called the dead timber—that on the
1366
one side they should cut off those who were so extreme in their opinions, and on the other side they should get rid of those who were so unmanageable, and then he thought a Government might be formed which would be capable of carrying out many useful measures. He did not say this because his attachment to Reform, or his conviction of its desirableness, was impaired, but he thought it far better to leave the principles of Reform to work their own way, until some important and definite expression of the public mind should be obtained for their guidance, than to waste the public time in descanting upon minor points and suggestions, which could only irritate the public mind, without doing any essential service to the cause of good legislation.
Mr. Humequite concurred with the right hon. Baronet that there was no mistake this time. The noble Lord had spoken out manfully, and stated opinions which were very unpalatable to many who formerly supported him. He had distinctly told the House that whatever might be clone in the way of Reform nothing was to be expected from him—for the present at least. He deeply regretted the announcement of the noble Lord, and could not place much dependence on his assurance of what might perhaps be dune in some future Session, but when that Session, as the right hon. Baronet had observed, in reference to another question, would arrive, they did not know? What he had wished to hear, and what he had expected, was an expression not of the noble Lord's opinion merely, but of the whole of his colleagues, and their declaration whether they meant to do anything, or what they meant to do, not prospectively, but immediately. They had been told elsewhere that progressive Reform was the principle on which the present Government were to proceed; and he had expected that by this time they would have been prepared to state the extent and degree of that progressive Reform which they had promised the country they would carry out. The right hon. Baronet had very truly declared, that the speech of the noble Lord had fixed the finality of the Reform Bill as strongly as anything that could fall from his lips. He concurred with that view of the noble Lord's speech, but be could not bring his mind to the belief that a coalition would take place; he had a better opinion of

1367
both parties in that House. They had hitherto acted honestly in the maintenance of their peculiar opinions, and he believed they would act so still. The time was not come when hon. Gentlemen opposite would join the noble Lord in carrying out their own party purposes, regardless of their former pledges. But he would pass over that, and ask his hon. Friend if he really thought he was correct in stating that a majority of the electors was against Reform? If it were the case, that would be one of the strongest inducements to the Government to increase and extend the franchise. It would be so, because if the Government wished to carry good measures it must be supported, and could only be supported, by the popular voice. At the present moment there was not one male of full age in five, who had a vote, or not one in seven, and was it wonderful then to find that the working classes and others who were excluded from the franchise should be anxious to send men into the House who would better represent their feelings, and endeavour to procure an amelioration of their condition? The addresses that had been recently presented to the Queen showed that the people were of opinion that no men should remain in office but men who were prepared to carry out progressive measures of Reform. He was one who thought that the people were generally dissatisfied with their representatives in that House, and that they were anxious to see, not rapid, hasty, or extensive reformsadopted at once, but that they wished and expected that her Majesty's Government, wherever they found faults and abuses existing, would proceed to remove them, and not put off the necessary reforms from session to session. But when the noble Lord or any Minister admitted such grievances to exist under the Reform Bill as he had admitted, was it fair to expect that the people would be satisfied to see him contentedly and quietly putting the matter by, and unwilling to apply the remedy which he himself thought ought to be applied? He thought the time was come when it should be clearly understood what it was the Reformers wanted and the people required. It would be his duty, and that of his hon. Friends around him, at all times to express their opinions openly and distinctly, and he had no hesitation in saying, that it was the duty of her Majesty's Ministers to give a fair scope for
1368
the discussion of the whole question of reform to every Member of that House, and every man in the country. Her Majesty's Ministers ought not to interfere to prevent the question of the Ballot being freely discussed; official connexion with the Government ought not to prevent men in that House from having an opportunity for expressing their opinions on that subject; neither should this be the case with regard to the extension of the suffrage, triennial Parliaments, or any other measures of the like kind. He did not believe, that the right hon. Baronet would be able long to resist those questions. He could only say, that the country would be as much grieved as he had been at the declaration of her Majesty's Ministers, and he was certain, that they would find it very difficult to maintain the position they had assumed. Yet it was better, that they should thus speak, than that the country should be any longer deluded. He hoped, that the question before the House would come to a vote, for the purpose of showing the people who were disposed to support further reforms and who were not.
Mr. Wardsaid, that he thought, that the declaration of the noble Lord was fully justified by many events. The noble Lord said, that his opinions had been frequently misunderstood by some, and misrepresented by other persons; but all doubts were now cleared up by the speech of the right hon. Baronet opposite. He deeply regretted the determination to which the noble Lord had come; but he would fully admit the honesty and candour which he had exhibited, and the perfect right which he had to announce the opinions in that House which he professed; but all that he denied was, the possibility of holding together a party composed of men, two-thirds of whom passed far beyond the line which had been laid down for them by the declaration of that opinion. He thought, that this was a question which was to decide the fate of the struggle between the two parties, and he believed, that hon. Members must be ready to go to the country prepared with a full explanation of their own views, and without the least reference to those who held the reins of Government. He begged to express his intention to vote for the motion of the hon. Baronet, because he believed it to be unexceptionable in itself, and that no good objection could be made

1369
by the Ministers to extending the franchise to a most deserving class of people, who were perfectly qualified to receive it. He gave his vote upon the merits of the question, and he begged to make this profession of his political creed, that it was his determination to extend the franchise, whether that policy might suit or not those who happened to be at the head of the Government. He knew how impatient the House would be, and he would not detain them by any further observations; but he could not help remarking, that if the decision of this question should ultimately lead to the fusion of parties not accustomed to act together, as had been suggested by the hon. Member for Southwark, the matter would in his opinion in reality resolve itself into a mere question of speaking on one side of the House or on the other. If the Reform Act was to be a final measure, with the exception of the amendments in detail which had been alluded to, and was to be the basis of the new Conservative party, he could not see objection to its formation on the score only of the parties who were to form it having hitherto acted in opposition to one another. The motion involved a principle and an effect more important than he had at first believed to belong to it, and he sincerely trusted, that the hon. Baronet would not shrink from a decision being arrived at upon it.
Mr. Wakleywould only detain the House a very short time, but he thought he should not do justice to his own feelings if he remained entirely silent after what had passed. First of all, he was induced to ask for what purpose the noble Lord and his colleagues had taken office again? He should like very much to have that question answered frankly and distinctly, but he feared, that unless he applied to two great ladies, not very far distant from that place, he should have no frank, candid answer, not one at least that would satisfy his mind. In adopting the course which they had taken, however, he had no hesitation in saying, that they were trifling with the feelings of the people of this empire, and were pursuing a course unprecedented in the history of this country; and the question which he should ask he was the more provoked to put, not on account of the speech of the noble Lord here only, but in consequence of the speech of a noble Lord elsewhere on Friday night last. It was a good Tory
1370
speech, fit for the old times of Toryism; and in fact, if he had read such a speech as having been made by Lord Eldon in 1818, he should not have looked twice to see whether he had mistaken the name of the person by whom it was delivered. The noble Lord had said, that he hoped that the constitution, as it now stood, would work well in times of trouble and danger; and he said, that the opinion of some of the most experienced politicians of Europe was, that it might not, and that if it worked well in fair weather, when breakers appeared and a storm was bursting over the ship, it might fail, the pilot might lose the helm, and the vessel might become a wreck. If, then, this was the opinion of the Prime Minister, and that there might be danger in going forward with the principles of reform, why was he again at the helm, why had he again entered the vessel of the state? Why had he again taken that post when he had before declared, that he could not hold it with the approbation of his shipmates. Was it possible that the Ministers could continue in office, if their only means of retaining it was the pursuit of the same course which they before adopted? He was not one of those who would desire that the noble Lord should attempt to obtain support by making promises which he intended never to fulfil. He gave him credit for the candour of his declaration; but he had expected that after the speech of the right hon. Baronet, some hon. Member on the Treasury Bench would have risen in his place, and have said, that the right hon. Baronet had gone too far in binding the noble Lord down so closely. He had expected to hear the noble Lord say, "get up, for I did not say so—he is binding me down too fast." The right hon. Baronet, however, knew the opportunity which he had for displaying his powers: he spoke with glee and delight, and he said to himself that he had got the noble Lord into a net, and he dragged him backwards and forwards through the water until he almost drowned him—until, indeed, he was almost ready for an inquest to be held. There was not a single Member of the Government, however, to rise in his place, and say that the right hon. Baronet in any respect misinterpreted a single word of what fell from the noble Lord. Then what had they to expect from the noble Lord? Nothing. That was all; and he was not

1371
disappointed. He had got what he expected, and no more. With reference to a recent transaction which had taken place at the palace, he begged to say that he approved of the conduct of Ministers in taking office, and he thought that they would have been wanting in their duty to the Crown and to the people if they had neglected to make themselves responsible for the act of her Majesty. The speech of that evening necessarily carried him back to that event. He regretted that an occasion of such a momentous character had been allowed to pass off in mere empty words and speeches in the House, and he regretted most deeply that it had not been recorded in the journals of the House. It was a maxim of the Tory party, and of the constitutional authorities of that party, that the Crown could do no wrong. If so, the right hon. Baronet could not deny that he was in the wrong. He thought that it was fair to put such an interpretation on his conduct, and on his own opinion in reference to the matter. But should the Ministers when they took office have ended there? They should have gone on and said—"We know why we lost office, and we will have a vote of this House on the subject, and we will present that vote to the Crown." Was anything of that sort done then? There was not. He was an advocate for the monarchy and for monarchial institutions, and desired to see them maintained and upheld, and he rejoiced in what had been done by her Majesty, and in what had occurred with respect to the right hon. Baronet, because it showed them what were the peculiar qualifications of Toryism in these days. The Tories had, in fact, lost none of their grasping powers. The right hon. Baronet said in his own mind (he knew this was the kind of soliloquy which he held)—"Now, these foolish Whigs have thrown the bell into my hands, and I will use it to some purpose; and if I only act cautiously, I know that the Civil-list and all the powers of the Crown will be at my disposal." That was the common sense of what he thought. Her Majesty, however, was courageous and prudent, and acted in a manner which every Englishman must admire and esteem. She said, I know my duty to the country, and I know that it requires me to give you full powers with respect to the construction of a Ministry. I am bound to obey the House of Commons, seeing that the constitution tells me that it is the re-
1372
presentation of the people," but when the right hon. Baronet demanded of her her Friends—["Question!"] It was unpleasant to hear this, and if they would only be patient, they would not hear much more. The right hon. Baronet, however, having demanded that he should have the power of dismissing the females of her Majesty's establishment, she said, "No, I have personal rights which are consistent with the maintenance of the prerogative of the Crown, and not one of them will I part with." The right hon. Baronet, upon his principle, must approve of the decision to which her Majesty came; and if the Queen had reason now to rejoice at her Ministers having gone into office again, he asked how long her pleasurable sensations were likely to continue. From what they had heard to-night, it might be supposed that her friends had forsaken her, and that she was about to become the royal captive of the Tory party. It was with shame, vexation, and sorrow, that he saw the course of the Ministry. He told them that their fate was now sealed, and it was evident to him that in case of a general election the Tory party would gain a majority of sixty or seventy Members. He believed that the fact would prove the truth of what he asserted. He did not entertain a doubt on the subject, and it would be solely attributable to the stupid course pursued by Government. It was most unfortunate that that course should have been pursued, because he thought that nothing would be more likely to secure the interests of the country than the faithful representation of the people. The right hon. Baronet said, that he hated bribery and corruption in any shape; but was there any mart in the kingdom who lived out of a lunatic asylum, who could believe that the Tory party generally disliked intimidation and corruption ["Oh, oh!]" They groaned at him; he was glad to hear it. It showed the workings of a troubled conscience. If they were not afraid of the honest maintenance of public opinion, if they were not opposed to the candid opinions of every voter being declared, why not give the electors the only mode of manifesting those opinions, why not give them the ballot? He wished, however, that the motion of the hon. Baronet might be carried first, with others of the same kind. Let there be constitutional modes of voting established, and he would not object to their having the bal-

1373
lot; but he knew that in small boroughs, which belonged to the two great parties, the ballot would be as decided a shield to bribery as it would be for fair voting in general. Whatever might be the end of this motion, however, he was satisfied that at no distant period the country would demand that her interests should be attended to, and her rights granted; and whatever the powers of the House might be, they would be unable to resist the demands of the people of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Slaneysaid, he had heard with great satisfaction the declaration of the noble Lord. From the earliest period he (Mr. Slaney) had voted for reform, and in his honest opinion, he believed the noble Lord had done himself honour by the way in which he had spoken on this question. After having voted with the noble Lord for along time, it would have been with deep regret had he been obliged conscientiously to vote against him. After a final settlement had been made of the great question of reform, when concessions had been made by public men, he regretted to see endeavours made to unsettle the Reform Act. He was glad to see, that the present Ministry were not forgetful of the best interests of the country, and were not disposed to break down this great measure for the sake of retaining office. He believed, that the great majority of the country was satisfied with the system of reform as it now stood, with those alterations and changes which the noble Lord would not be unwilling to grant. He looked for nothing personal from any government, but he declared honestly in his place, that he thought the noble Lord had done himself the greatest credit by the manly and straightforward declaration he had made, in spite of the censure to which it would expose him.
Mr. Phillip Howardsaid, if this concession were made to the county voters, without likewise extending a concession to the voters in towns, no permanent satisfaction would be derived. During the long progress of the Reform Bill he had voted with the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), and he then heard, that "the bill, the whole bill, and nothing but the bill" was acceptable to the country. If there were no other reason for inducing him to stand by the noble Lord on this occasion, he should find it in' this, that he coveted not the ignominy of deserting his Friends.
Sir H. Fleetwoodsaid, it would have been his wish if he had it in his power, seeing the feeling of the House, to withdraw his motion; but he felt when a Member had given notice of a motion, it was his duty to come to a discussion of it. He was anxious to withdraw the motion. If, however, they went to a division, he thought it but fair and right to put a statement right which had been misinterpreted on the part of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell). He certainly understood the noble Lord to say, that the noble Lord's opinions coincided with his own on the present motion, but that in the present Session he could give it no support, and could not promise to give any support to the motion at any future Session; but he was satisfied he was not led to consider, that the noble Lord would pledge himself to oppose it on any future occasion.
The House divided:—Ayes 81; Noes 207: Majority 126.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hawkins, J. H.

Aglionby, Major

Hector, C. J.

Archbold, R.

Horsman, E.

Baines, E.

Hume, J.

Barnard, E. G.

James, W.

Barry, G. S.

Jervis, J.

Bellew, R. M.

Johnson, General

Bewes, T.

Lambton, H.

Blake, M. J.

Langdale, hon. C.

Blake, W. J.

Leader, J. T.

Bridgeman, H.

Lushington, C.

Brotherton, J.

Lushington, Sir S.

Buller, C.

Marsland, H.

Bulwer, Sir L.

Molesworth, W.

Butler, hon. Colonel

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Callaghan, D.

O'Connell, D.

Chalmers, P.

Ord, W.

Chapman, Sir M. L.

Parrott, J.

Clay, W.

Philips, M.

Collier, J.

Protheroe, E.

Currie, R.

Ramsbottom, J.

Curry, Mr. Sergeant

Roche, W.

D'Eyncourt, C. T.

Rundle, J.

Duke, Sir J.

Scholefield, J.

Ellice, E.

Sheil, R. L.

Etwall, R.

Steuart, Lord J.

Evans, Sir De L.

Stock, Dr.

Evans, G.

Strickland, Sir G.

Evans, W.

Strutt, E.

Ewart, W.

Style, Sir C.

Finch, F.

Thornely,

Gillon, W. D.

Turner, E.

Grattan, H.

Vigors, N. A.

Grote, G.

Wakley, T.

Hall, Sir B.

Walker, R.

Harvey, D. W.

Wallace, R.

Hastie, A.

Warburton, H.

Hawes, B.

Ward, H. G.

1375

White, A.

Winnington, H. J.

White, S.

TELLERS.

Wilbraham, G.

Fleetwood, Sir H.

Williams, W.

Duncombe, T.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Erle, W.

Acland, T. D.

Estcourt, T.

A'Court, Captain

Farnham, E. B.

Alston, R.

Feilden, W.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Fellowes, E.

Ashley, Lord

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Bagot, hon. W.

Filmer, Sir E.

Bailey, J.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Bailey, J. jun.

Fleming, J.

Baillie, Colonel

Forester, hon. G.

Baker, E.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Baring, F. T.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Baring, H. B.

Gladstone, W. E.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Barneby, J.

Godson, R.

Barrington, Visct.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Bateson, Sir R.

Gore, O. J. R.

Bell, M.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Blackstone, W. S.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Blakemore, R.

Grant, F. W.

Blennerhassett, A.

Greene, T.

Bowes, J.

Grey, Sir C.

Bramston, T. W.

Hale, R. B.

Briscoe, J. I.

Halford, H.

Broadley, H.

Harcourt, G. G.

Brownrigg, S.

Hardinge, Sir H.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Harland, W. C.

Burroughes, H. N.

Hayes, Sir E.

Busfeild, W.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Calcraft, J. H.

Heathcote, G. J.

Castlereagh, Visct.

Heneage, G. W.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Henniker, Lord

Cavendish, hon. G.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Cayley, E. S.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Chetwynd, Major

Hillsborough, Earl of

Christopher, R. A.

Hinde, J. H.

Clerk, Sir C.

Hobhouse, Sir J. C.

Codrington, C. W

Hodgson, R.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Hogg, J. W.

Compton, H. C.

Hope, hon. C.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Hope, H. T.

Corry, hon. H.

Hope, G. W.

Courtenay, P.

Hotham, Lord

Crawley, S.

Houstoun, G.

Cripps, J.

Howick, Visct.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Hurt, F.

Darby, G.

Ingham, R.

Darlington, Earl of

Irton, S.

De Horsey, S. H.

Irving, J.

D'Israeli, B.

Jermyn, Earl

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Johnstone, H.

Dowdeswell, W.

Jones, J.

Duffield, T.

Jones, Capt,

Dugdale, W. S.

Kelly, F.

Dunbar, G.

Kemble, H.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Dungannon, Visc.

Knightley, Sir C.

Du Pre, G.

Labouchere, H.

Eastnor, Visc.

Lascelles, W. S.

Egerton, W. T.

Law, hon. C. E.

Ellis, J.

Lemon, Sir C.

1376

Lennox, Lord A.

Round, C. G

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Round, J.

Lincoln, Earl of

Rumbold, C. E.

Litton, E.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Lowther, hon. H.

Russell, Lord J.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Rutherford, A.

Mackenzie, T.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Marsland, T.

Sheppard, T.

Marton, G.

Shirley, E. J.

Master, T. W. C.

Sibthorpe, Colonel

Mathew, G. B.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Maunsell, T. P.

Smith, B.

Miller, W. H.

Smyth, Sir G. H.

Moreton, hon. A.

Stanley, E.

Morgan, C. M. R.

Stansfield, W. R.

Morpeth, Viscount

Stewart, J.

Neeld, J.

Stuart, V.

Neeld, J.

Stormont, Visc.

Noel, hon. W. M.

Sturt, H. C.

Norreys, Lord

Tancred, H. W.

Pakington, J. S.

Troubridge, Sir E.

Palmer, G.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Parker, M. E. N.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Parker, R. T.

Verney, Sir H.

Parker, T. A. W.

Villiers, Visct.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Vivian, J. E.

Peel, J.

Vivian, Sir R. H.

Pemberton, T.

Waddington, H.

Pendarves, E. W.

Wall, C. B.

Perceval, Colonel

Walsh, Sir J.

Perceval, hon. G.

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Pigot, D. R.

Winnington, T.

Pigot, R.

Wodehouse, E.

Plumptre, J. P.

Wood, C.

Polhill, F.

Wood, Colonel

Powerscourt, Visct.

Wood, T.

Praed, W. M.

Worsley, Lord

Price, R.

Wyndham, W.

Pringle, A.

Wynn, rt. hon. C.

Pusey, P.

Young, J.

Richards, R.

Rickford, W.

TELLERS.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Howard, P.

Rolleston, L.

Slaney, R. A.

Paired off.

FOR.

AGAINST.

Power, J.

Lowther, J.

Hayter, W. G.

Broadwood, H.

Fenton, J.

St. Paul, H.

Cave, R. O.

Manners, Lord C.

Easthope, J.

Packe, C. W.

Hoskins, K.

Ossulston, Lord

James, Sir W.

Seale, Colonel

Hill, Lord M.

Planta, J.

Dundas, J. C.

Lockhart, J.

Dundas, Sir R.

Trench, Sir F.

Dundas, C.

Foley, E.

Morris, D.

Hawkes, T.

Barron, H. W.

Adare, Visc.

Roche, Sir D.

Bradshaw, J.

Redington,T. N..

Cartwright, W. R.

Rice, E.

Young, Sir W. L.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Grimston, Visc.

O'Connell, M.

Powell, Colonel

O'Connell, M J.

Knight, G.

Lister, E. C.

Duncombe, hon. A.

ELECTION OE CORONERS.
Sir H. Fleetwoodmoved for leave to bring in a bill to limit the time of taking the poll at elections of coroners for counties, to one day, and for increasing the number of polling places.
Mr. Wakleysaid, that his experience showed him there were many alterations requisite to be made in the election of coroners, which might be urged without any party or political feeling of any kind. There were many excrescences to prune, and many things to add. As the proposed bill went to remove only one of the evils connected with the office, the change in itself would be nothing, unless they also specified who were to be coroners, and settled the qualification of voters. Under the circumstances, as this would only be the removal of a very trifling amount of the evils, he did hope, that the question would be left to another Session, and he promised he would employ as much industry as he could for the purpose of discovering what ought to be done with reference to the office, and give the measure every aid in another Session of Parliament.
Mr. Pakingtonthought the bill brought in by the hon. Baronet was by no means sufficient to meet the required alterations with regard to the election of coroners. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Finsbury that several alterations were needed. The bill did not go nearly far enough, and it was preposterous to bring such a bill forward on such a subject.
Mr. Wynnthought there ought to be some intelligible qualification established for voters; and until that was done, it seemed quite absurd to attempt to bring in any motion.
Sir H. Fleetwoodwished first of all to have the bill brought in and printed, that it might be circulated throughout the country, and that by that means he might be enabled to receive suggestions relating to it. But if he saw no expectation of carrying the bill this Session, he would adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Finsbury, and withdraw it for this Session.
Leave given to bring in the bill.

NATIONAL EDUCATION.
Lord Ashleyrose, pursuant to notice, to move a call of the House for the 14th of June. He apprehended no opposition, as the noble Lord
1378
had announced his intention to second the motion.
Lord J. Russellrose to second the motion, as he had already stated his intention of doing. He would take the same opportunity to state some reasons why he conceived the House should not be influenced by statements in petitions—no doubt honestly intended—but totally at variance with the plan proposed by the committee of the Privy Council. One prevailing error was, to suppose that the plan proposed was intended to apply uniformity to all parishes throughout the kingdom. In the school that was to be established, it was proposed that the persons to be educated in it were not merely to be day scholars, but that they were to live in the house. Therefore it was obvious that neither the system of the National School Society, nor that of the British and Foreign School, would be applicable to it. Under the National Society any child educated must belong to the Established Church, and thus it necessarily became an exclusive school, and those who would send masters for learning to them must be aware that they would be under this exclusive system. If they took the British and Foreign School system, under which the children received instruction in reading the Scriptures, and also religious instruction, either from the Established Church or in conformity with the tenets of the religious societies to which their parents belonged, it was open to other objections. He had always belonged to the British and Foreign School Society, and he was proud and gratified at his connection with it. By the plan of that society, it was provided that Scriptures should be read in the schools belonging to it, and the children should on the Sunday attend divine worship at the church, or attend at the peculiar place of worship of their parents, and also that the children should receive religious instruction, one day in the week, in conformity with the religion of their parents. This system, it was obvious, could not apply to children remaining in the school all the week, and not being under immediate parental superintendence: it was therefore thought necessary, in the plan that was prepared, that they should direct the appointment of a chaplain of the Established Church, and that provision should also be made that the children of Dissenters should be instructed in the peculiar religious doctrines of their parents. It had been assumed that this was the system that was to be established throughout the country.

1379
Now, as neither the principle of the National Society nor that of the British and Foreign School Society would apply in the proposed school, neither could the plan that had been alluded to apply all over the country. According to the rule of the National School Society, all the children must attend divine worship with the master of the school at the parish church on Sundays; but he thought that the rule on the same subject that had been adopted by the British and Foreign School Society was more fair and extensive in its operation. But there was another feeling which had got abroad, which was a most mistaken one, which had arisen from an erroneous view that had been taken of a few words in the report of the committee of the Privy Council. It had been said with respect to the children of Roman Catholics, that they would be allowed to use their own version of the Bible. From this it had been assumed that there were to be new versions of the Bible used in their schools, and it was also assumed that they were to be generally used. Now, although there was not such a great difference between these two versions of the Bible as had been described, still he was aware that objections might be urged on the assumption that two versions of the scriptures were to be commonly used. But in the way in which it was proposed in the report of the committee of the Privy Council, it was not open to any such objection. The principle that it was proposed to act upon was by no means a new one, for it had already received the Sanction of that House and the Legislature in an important enactment. It was enacted in the Poor-law Amendment Act, that in the workhouses the pauper children should be assembled in a school and instructed, and that act also provided that each child should receive instruction in the peculiar religion professed by its parents. Now if any of the inmates of the workhouses should happen to be Roman Catholics having children, those children of Roman Catholic patents would require Roman Catholic teachers to attend them, who, of course, would bring with them Roman Catholic books of instruction, and he was not aware that this had been objected to. He therefore thought that the outcry that had been raised on this point had arisen from a completely mistaken view of the subject; and when he said this, he would also observe that there were several other points in which the instructions of the committee of the Privy Council had been completely
1380
misunderstood—he would not say misrepresented, but misunderstood so completely as to put an effectual stop to the plan proposed by the committee of the Privy Council. After this misunderstanding, and after the effect which it had produced, he had arrived at the conclusion that it would be unadvisable to pursue the proposed plan further at present. The most excessive eagerness had been manifested in opposition to the system, and the zeal of the opponents of it had been carried to an extent that he could not account for. He had that day received a letter informing him that a clergyman had read a petition against the plan at the conclusion of his sermon, and called upon his congregation to sign it. He had also received the copy of a petition which was described to be against the Government plan, to expel religious instruction from the schools of this country. Now this could only have arisen from a perverse anxiety to exclude the public from forming a correct notion of the plait, for a want of religious instruction could not with any fairness be said to be one of the objections to it. It had also been observed that another objection to it was, that when the children were receiving together general instruction under the same roof, that from the several religious teachers imparting instruction in their peculiar tenets and doctrines to the children belonging to their various sects, it would tend to shake a stedfastness of belief, and render doubtful their convictions in the doctrines of their own peculiar churches. He would not say whether or not this was a valid objection to the plan, or whether it was open to any such objection; but he must say that the zeal that had been manifested on this point was most extraordinary when taken in contrast with the practical infidelity which had prevailed for so long a period on the part of many of those persons on this subject. If reference were made to the reports of the inspectors of prisons, it would be seen that it often happened that forty or fifty persons were found in a gaol who could neither read nor write, and many others who could not repeat the Lord's prayer, or who knowing it could not give any common meaning to it, or give an answer to the most simple questions as to the doctrines of the Christian religion. When be recollected the state of the classes most subject to the criminal law, and who were most severely punished for any offence against society, and when such a large portion of them had net been taught the simple elements of religion and morals,

1381
and who, when questioned by the chaplains of the prisons, hardly knew of the existence of a God, or of the doctrine of the death of Jesus Christ, he should not have been surprised if such zeal as had been shown against this plan had been manifested against this lamentable want of instruction. Although the Government might have suffered from the attacks made on it, in consequence of bringing forward this plan, he still should rejoice if it could be turned to a useful purpose, and promote the moral and religious instruction of the people, in connection with the peculiar doctrines of those zealous persons who now appeared so anxious to promote education in that way. He would willingly bear all the odium that had been cast on the plan, if the result was that that extent of ignorance which now unhappily prevailed could be diminished, and that those classes of persons who were now reared in ignorance had an opportunity afforded them of learning their duties to God and man. He repeated that it was not the intention of the Government to persist in the proposal to found the normal school. He should be prepared when the proper time arrived to go into a statement on the report of the committee of the Privy Council, and he should then propose the vote of which he had given notice, and he should also propose that it be divided as at present between the National School Society and the British and Foreign School Society; but in agreeing to this plan for the present he felt bound to observe that he was by no means satisfied in leaving the matter as it was, and giving the control of the education to two voluntary societies which might have very imperfect and defective plans of education, which might be open to the most serious objections. He was glad that increased attention had been devoted to this question since he addressed his constituents on the subject in 1837, and he trusted that all classes would look to a more general diffusion of the blessings of education. In conclusion he would only add that in the first place he was satisfied that it was the duty of the House and the Legislature to promote the instruction of all classes of the community, and secondly that in doing so they should not confine themselves to any exclusive system of instruction. He would only add that he felt great pleasure in seconding the motion of the noble Lord.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that during the whole time he had been in Parliament, he bad never seen so extraordinary a course
1382
taken as that which had been adopted by the noble Lord. It was, indeed, most extraordinary that the noble Lord should have taken that opportunity for entering into a discussion of one of the most important subjects that could possibly come under the consideration of the House. The noble Lord had, if he understood him right, told the House, that he had entirely abandoned the plan which no longer ago than last Friday night he appeared so confident in bringing forward, judging by the readiness which the noble Lord had shown in saying that he would second the motion of his noble Friend, the Member for Dorsetshire. The noble Lord had, in seconding the motion for calling the House together, in order that the subject might be fully discussed, taken that opportunity of making an attack on the objections of those who were conscientiously opposed to the Government plan, and of throwing out insinuations, to use no stronger term, with respect to the persons who had petitioned against it. Now, he had been intrusted with a petition from the University which he had the honour to represent, and also petitions from various other places, against the Government scheme of education, as it was understood from the papers which had been laid before the House a few days ago; and although he had not yet found an opportunity of presenting them to the House, yet he could tell the noble Lord that the persons who had signed those petitions, were as capable of understanding the plan as the noble Lord himself. On looking to the number of petitions that had been presented against the resolutions recently laid on the table, he was prepared to say that the persons who had signed them understood those resolutions as he (Mr. Goulburn) understood them, and that they concurred in the objections which had been urged against them in that House. He certainly did not think this was a time to go into a discussion of the subject, and he considered that it would have been more fair of the noble Lord, if he had given some notice of his intention to do so, instead of entering on the discussion so unexpectedly. There was one part of the noble Lord's speech which he felt himself compelled to answer, and that was, with reference to the neglect with which some persons were charged on the subject of education. Now, if he were disposed to impute to one party more than

1383
another a want of zeal in bringing forward some plan of education to supply the great defect that at present existed, he did not think that imputation would rest on the party who had opposed the Government plan. Had there not been large public meetings in almost every part of the country for repairing the present defective system, which was the more strongly felt from the great want of religious instruction! And had not those numerous meetings preceded the motion of the noble Lord? He quite agreed with the noble Lord in deploring the evils which arose from defective education; and, in saying that, it was lamentable to see the ignorance of the great truths of religion that was shown by many of the lower classes of society. There were many cases in which the opportunities of instruction that had been afforded were rendered ineffectual, either from the conduct of the parents of those unhappy persons, or from the habitual aversion of youth to receive it; but these were the consequences of ignorance rather than the defect of attention of those religious instructors under whom those persons were placed. As to himself, he certainly must say that he considered all education as good for nothing which did not comprise religious instruction. The plan, however, proposed by the Government—he meant the one now lying on the table of the House—in his opinion tended greatly to the laxity of all religious principles; and entertaining that opinion, he could not possibly approve of it. He would not trouble the House with any further observations on the subject, and had only risen to say that the speech of the noble Lord was entirely unexpected by him, as he believed it to be by many other hon. Members.
Mr. Humeregretted the noble Lord had been obliged to give up his plan, but after the misrepresentations that had gone forth respecting it he was not unprepared for such a result. The members of the Church of England, instead of supporting this plan had manifested the utmost opposition to it, and stated that they were most anxious for the extension of education in connexion with the Church, but he believed that their conduct was influenced with the design of maintaining the present state of ignorance throughout the country. He recollected that when he was a member of the committee of the
1384
Lancasterian Society some years ago, the clergy used every exertion to put it down, and when they found that they could not do so, they started another society, and he was convinced that if at that time the Lancasterian Society had come to Parliament for a grant of money, they would have been met as the present plan had been. The clergy had ample means and sufficient resources to educate all classes, but they had entirely neglected it. The clergy were amply paid for the instruction of the people, and all the evils that had arisen, had resulted from the allowance of pluralities and non-residence. He contended, therefore, that the Church of England was answerable for the prevalence of ignorance and crime that existed in this country to such a frightful extent. After all his experience, however, he had hardly thought that the plan would have been treated in the manner in which it had been. He was sorry that the discussion had not come on respecting the plan, for if it had, an opportunity would have been afforded of exposing and doing away with many of the objections that had been urged against it, and thus the feeling that had been excited throughout the country would have been allayed. Nothing could be more absurd and monstrous than some of the opinions that had been put forward in some of the petitions presented to the House. He had seen, in one petition that had been presented from 439 schoolmasters against the bill, an observation to the effect, that they would rather see the children die in ignorance than have them educated under the proposed plan. What could be expected when they saw such a remark emanate from those who were regarded as instructors? It was entirely owing to the scandalous neglect of the heads of the Church Establishment, which was so richly endowed for the purposes of education, that such ignorance prevailed.
Viscount Morpethmerely rose to reply to some of the observations of the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge, and to say, that in his humble judgment at least, the proceeding of his noble Friend the Secretary for the Home Department was not at all obnoxious to the reproof it had received. On the contrary, his noble Friend was right to take the first opportunity that was offered by any motion to inform Parliament, in due

1385
time, of the course he meant to pursue, and to refute and contradict the offensive, mendacious misrepresentations that had been made with respect to the Government plan, through so many different channels. Why, hon. Members could not take up a single daily or weekly newspaper without finding endless misrepresentations made of this plan. His noble Friend was not forestalling any discussion on the subject which was to take place according to previous notice, because he had stated, that in deference to the opinion expressed by the country, he did not intend to press his present plan on the House. He hoped that the country might form a more deliberate opinion upon the subject, and that there might be adopted at some future time a plan of universal education, for he trusted this question was only delayed for the present. His noble Friend, however, he was happy to think, was resolved to obtain as much education for the people as possible, and for that purpose he would still call upon the House for a grant of 30,000 l. for the purposes of national education, which should be distributed by the two societies named by his noble Friend; but possibly under some better and different modifications of the manner in which those societies acted at present. When the right hon. Member said, he thought education was good for nothing without religious instruction, and that the present plan tended greatly to produce a laxity of' religious principles, he must have forgotten that both the speech of his noble Friend, and also the plan laid down by the committee of the Privy Council, were most emphatic and expressive in the contradiction of such being intended by the present plan.
Sir E. Knatchbullobserved, that this was the first time that he had ever heard a Minister of the Crown designate petitions as mendacious and offensive. He appealed to the House whether such observations had not been applied by the noble Lord to the petitions sent to the House on the subject of the Government plan of education. If he was wrong, the noble Lord would have an opportunity of setting him right, and of doing away with an impression which the noble Lord's observations had made on his mind, as well as, he believed, on the minds of other Members. He understood the expressions of the noble Lord to be to the effect that he had described. The hon. Member for
1386
Kilkenny said, that this was a Church question, and had intimated that the petitions that had been presented, praying the House not to agree to the plan of education proposed by her Majesty's Ministers, had been got up through the agency of the clergy. He would ask whether the Wesleyan Methodists were connected with the Church?—and that most respectable body of dissenters had, unâ voce, declared against the adoption of this plan. The petitions that had been presented expressed the opinions of a large portion of the people of England, and it was in consequence of this, that the noble Lord had not thought proper to submit the plan that had been proposed to the consideration of Parliament. His noble Friend had moved for a call of the House, in expectation of this subject coming on, on Friday, the 14th; and after what had fallen from the noble Lord the other night, it was generally believed that there would be no objection to the motion. It had been thought that the noble Lord would have seconded the motion in the regular and proper manner—aye, in the regular and proper manner, for he contended, that the noble Lord had been most irregular, in proceeding to discuss a motion which, it was understood, was unopposed, and which might have come on in the early part of the evening. This was an unopposed motion, and nobody expected that the noble Lord would have made a speech on the subject of education. He would appeal to the House whether it was not generally understood, that when his noble Friend proposed his motion for the call of the House, and when the noble Lord gave notice of his intention of seconding it, whether it was not generally understood that it was to be unopposed? It might, however, be thought, that the noble Lord had availed himself of the absence of the right hon. Member for Tamworth, who probably would have answered him had he been present, and had taken the opportunity of explaining his reasons for abandoning his proposed plan, in what he must designate as not either a very clear or a very distinct explanation. It would be said, that the noble Lord availed himself of such an opportunity of abandoning the plan which was to give education without religious instruction. He did not believe that this was the intention of the noble Lord, or of those who acted with him, in proposing the plan; but such certainly was the belief of many

1387
with regard to the plan, and the course that had been pursued would certainly lead to that opinion in the country. This opinion had been formed by seeing that the whole control of the general education of the country was to be left to a committee of the Privy Council, and not a single ecclesiastic was a member of this body. It might be said, that there were to be chaplains to these schools, who were ministers of the Church; but these were all subordinate officers, under the control of the committee of Privy Council. In a body so constituted, in the present circumstances of the country, there would be little confidence, and above all, when the situation was recollected in which they were placed. He agreed in all that had fallen from his right hon. Friend near him, and only regretted that the present course had been taken. He at present understood, from what had fallen from the noble Lord, that his proposition would be, that the 30,000 l. which he intended to propose to vote, should be expended under the superintendence of the two societies to which the pecuniary grants had been made. If this was the case, he believed that there would be no very serious opposition to the plan. He had felt bound to rise, after the observations which had fallen from the noble Lord, and which he had understood in the sense which he had described; but if he was under an erroneous impression, he should feel happy in being corrected.
Viscount Howickcould not help remarking, that the right hon. Baronet had manifested a singular talent for totally misunderstanding the language and observations of his noble Friend, otherwise he would not have so completely misrepresented what had taken place. He was quite satisfied, that no other person who had listened to the speech of his noble Friend, could have supposed that the observations that he had made, applied to those who had signed the petitions against the proposed plan. He thought that the term "mendacious misrepresentation" was most properly applied to those persons who got up the excitement that had prevailed, with the view of deceiving and inducing feelings of opposition to the plan, and with the view of leading persons to sign petitions. With reference also to what had fallen from his other noble Friend, nothing could be less improper or unfair, than for him to explain the
1388
nature of the vote he intended to propose, when he seconded the motion for a call of the house, and to say, that he did not intend to press the plan which had been the means of exciting such a feeling as he had described. Could anything be more fair on the part of his noble Friend than that previous to the House coming to a vote, there should be no misapprehension as to the nature of the motion which he intended to make? What had his noble Friend gained by the course that he had pursued? He had merely explained the feelings that had induced him to abandon his plan, and propose a vote somewhat different. So far from this being unfair, it gave an opportunity to Gentlemen opposite to consider what answer they should give to his statement, or to the proposition that would be grounded on it. The right hon. Baronet stated, that this was an unopposed motion, and that it might have been made at the beginning of the evening; and that it was, therefore, irregular for his noble Friend to have made any observations on seconding the motion of the noble Lord. Was the right hon. Baronet aware that it often happened that unopposed motions were discussed for hours? What was more common than to debate the most important questions of foreign policy on motions for papers, to the production of which there was not the slightest objection? The course, therefore, pursued by his noble Friend was entirely in conformity with the proceedings of the House. Considering the manner in which the plan of education had been misrepresented and misstated, the complaint of unfairness made against his noble Friend appeared to him to be most extraordinary and uncalled for, as he had been only anxious to give the most ample notice of what his views and intentions were.
Mr. Littonfelt, that as the country had been alarmed from one end to the other, at the announcement of the proposed plan of education, they were justified in expecting the fullest explanation from the noble Lord. It had been stated, that the feeling that prevailed had been the result of the misstatements and misrepresentations that had been put forward on the subject. If this were the case, why did the noble Lord shrink from a full discussion of the plan, and show that the objections that had been urged against it had been the result of misrepresentations and

1389
party feelings? Those who sat on his side of the House had a right to expect that an opportunity of fully discussing the plan would have been afforded to them, and when he stated on Thursday last that he would second the motion of his hon. Friend for a call of the House, he would ask, whether it was not the belief of every man in the House that he was prepared to justify the plan which he had announced, and to take the sense of the House on the subject? There could be no mistake as to this plan. It was a plan for mingling up in one common school the children of the Socinian, the members of the Church of England, and of the Roman Catholics. This mixture of children of all religious persuasions would not fail to destroy every religion whatever. He denied that the representations which had been made by the opponents of the Government scheme, whether in or out of petitions were mendacious. The statements which had been made from that side of the House were strictly true, and expressed the opinions of all who had any religion in their hearts. He challenged discussion on the question, and then let it be judged who was wrong and who was right. The noble Lord had heard some severe remarks on his conduct with regard to this measure; and while he and others pursued Similar plans—while their measures went to destroy all true religion, he would hear observations still more offensive. Of all the bad measures brought forward by her Majesty's Government, he firmly believed this was the worst. It struck at the root of the morals and religion of the country.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman entertained very peculiar notions, for he maintained, that if the children of parents holding different opinions in religion were educated together, the result of the entire would be the production of a kind of negative quantity, and end in no religion at all. There was no country in Europe where the children of different persuasions were not educated together. Let them look at the report of Mr. Nicholls on the state of Belgium and Holland, and they would find the followers of Calvin, the Lutheran and Roman Catholic educated together in amity and perfect good faith. That was the spirit which ought to exist between Christians, and formed a cheering contrast to that bigotry which allowed no
1390
freedom of thought, and grasped at every thing. The Church of England was the richest national church in Europe, and it was the church which, of all others, had contributed the least to education, and it was a lasting disgrace, that of all countries in Europe, England alone should have no system of national education. The hon. Member for the University of Cambridge maintained, that the Church of England did educate the people, but what did he mean by that? Did the church educate Dissenters or Roman Catholics? No, it did not; neither would he right hon. Gentleman allow that to be done. Yet the 30,000 l. proposed to be voted for education was not the money of the Established Church, any more than it was the money of the Independents, Baptists, or of any other religious sect, for it came as much out of their pockets as it did from the pockets of members of the Church of England. It was as much the money of the Dissenters as it was the money of Churchmen. Yet what was the public outcry and clamour which had been raised, except that no part of that public money should be expended towards the support of any system of national education which was not founded on the principles of the Established Church? He declared such a plea to be bigoted and unjust. If they permitted only one version of the Scriptures to be read at the public schools, children, when they were grown up, would find they had been deceived. Besides, he would ask, what harm could the perusal of the different versions produce? All that was formerly insisted on was, that the Roman Catholics should read the Bible. But now that the Roman Catholics were ready to read the Bible by the adoption of the Government plan, their opponents turned round and said they should not be allowed to read their own Bible. He did not wish the Roman Catholic version to be put into the hands of any except Roman Catholic children. To ask for more would certainly be unjust and unfair. All that he asked was perfect equality to all children to be educated as children of that special persuasion which their parents followed—that the children of parents of the Church of England should be educated in the principles of that Church—Dissenters according to their particular tenets, and the Roman Catholics according to theirs. He would ask, which was the most numerous per

1391
suasion? The Roman Catholic was the most numerous in the British isles. They had seven millions in Ireland, and two millions in England, and he begged to add, they were not diminishing in numbers. Yet hon. Members opposite wished, that this numerous and increasing class should be shut out from the benefits conferred by their own money. What was the cause of this? Were they afraid to let the Roman Catholics have the benefit of education? Did they wish to keep them in ignorance, that they might be the more easily converted. That was a narrow and most singular course, for in other countries the children of all persuasions were educated together on a footing of equality. The clergy of the Established Church had availed themselves of this opportunity to raise the old no-Popery cry, without any justifiable reason. He was sorry to hear, that the noble Lord intended to abandon his former plan, and that he proposed to give public money to voluntary societies. Those societies would allow none but the legalised versions of the Bible authorised by law to be read at their schools, so that such a scheme would practically exclude the Roman Catholics from all benefit. He protested against the appropriation of the public money to such purposes, and thought, that the public at large ought to have the benefit fairly and freely.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, that there was no trick that falling men would not practise to endeavour to save themselves; but the noble Lord's trick would not do.
Mr. Slaneyconsidered it unjust to taunt the noble Lord for giving way in regard to the scheme of education proposed by the committee of the Privy Council, because he was only yielding to the loudly expressed opinions of the country. He was sorry, that the question had been met with so much asperity; but he must say, that if on the one hand there had been exaggerations and misrepresentations on the opposite side of the House, he could not acquit some on the Ministerial benches from having made use of wrong expressions; for instance, the hon. Member for Kilkenny charged the clergy of the Establishment with having neglected the education of their flocks, while in point of fact they had been most forward on all such occasions in giving their aid and example.
Mr. Godsonsaid it was extraordinary,
1392
that not only the Members who sat on that side of the House, but almost all who had read the minutes of the committee of the Privy Council, should construe them in a different sense from what was intended. Many of his constituents felt a deep interest in the question, and he trusted, that as the published plan was to be abandoned, the noble Lord would speedily enable the House to judge of what was to be brought forward as a substitute.
Mr. Wysesaid he must protest against the withdrawing of the published plan, and had always expressed his objections to giving the public money to any societies whatever. He protested against every arrangement by which these societies were to be understood as standing in the place of the nation. He trusted the noble Lord would consider whether, by giving money to these societies, he would not be giving a bonus to maintain political and religious ascendancy. The Roman Catholics would be excluded by giving the public money to these societies, and he hoped the noble Lord would still recur to his former plan, from which he had been driven by the mistaken clamour and the unfair means that had been used to get up petitions against it. He had at that moment in his possession a petition in favour of the Government scheme, in which it was stated, that the signature of the petitioner had been extorted to a petition against the measure, as he was coming out of a church, by telling him, that the was petitioning in its favour. He did not believe, that the real sense of the people of England had been ascertained, or that it would prove to be really hostile to a scheme of national education on liberal principles. He had presented petitions from 80,000 persons in the North of England in favour of such a measure a year ago, and he saw no reason to induce him to believe, that these persons had since changed their minds. He regretted, that the noble Lord had not given more time to enable the public mind to be rightly informed as to the principle of the Government scheme, and still further, that the noble Lord had not adopted such a course, when he (Mr. Wyse) brought this subject under the consideration of the House on a former occasion, as would have enabled the Government to bring the scheme forward supported by resolutions of that House. As to any obstacles that might be thrown

1393
in the way of a system of national education, based on free and comprehensive principles, he said fearlessly, that it was not in the power of the hon. Members to stop its progress. It was not a question that could be ruled by Wesleyan Methodists, or any other sect. But it was a question whether there should be "knowledge" in the country; and he believed, that there were many persons who, under the cloak of religion, were desirous to stop the advance of instruction altogether. He was gratified, however, to see that there had been what was termed an "awakening" of the Church of England; that that Church, which had remained so long "speechless," had at length roused herself from lethargy. He did not charge the Church of England with negligence on the subject of education upon his own authority alone. He did so upon the statement of learned doctors, who admitted that the Church had not taken sufficient charge of the instruction of the people. Authorities in that Church stated, that they would not attend even once a-week to the religious instruction of their people, if it were not specially enjoined as a part of their duty. In his opinion, a Roman Catholic priest might, perhaps, with propriety, have said something of that sort; but the ground of the Reformation, the great principle inculcated by Luther, was that it was a duty which all ought to discharge—the teaching of the poor and holy. How they had neglected that duty, the history of this country fully demonstrated. But the Church had done well to "awaken;" he was glad of it; he rejoiced at it. He was gladder, perhaps, at that awakening than some Members of the Church of England. He augured much good from that increased activity. He believed it would be productive of much good. If the people of this country were sufficiently instructed, they should not have to witness such deplorable scenes as had taken place lately at Canterbury, and which exhibited, in a strong light, the evil effects of a Church slumbering in its duties of attending to the general education of the people. He did not wish to carry the discussion further at present. But he must again enter his protest against granting the public money to any of the national schools, whether to the British and Foreign, or to the National school, to the exclusion of others. He was anxious that all schools and classes should have
1394
the benefit of the public money, without distinction of sect or creed.
Lord Ashleymust say, that when the noble Lord gave notice that he would second his motion, he thought it would have been more courteous to the House if he had stated that he would take that opportunity of withdrawing his former plan, and explaining the nature of that which was to be substituted in its place, as well as to expose the misrepresentations which had been urged against the Government measure. He would only add, that the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, had thought fit to use words throwing into the discussion that gall and bitterness which had not formerly been introduced. He would only say, that he hoped the noble Lord would be prepared to explain what he meant by the terms "offensive" and "mendacious."
Viscount Morpeth: I may state at once that I mean at least three-fourths of all the statements which have appeared in opposition to the plan.
Lord John Russellstated, that it was his intention, in the course of a few days, to lay upon the Table certain papers relating to the subject of education. It would be for the noble Lord to say whether he would persevere in his motion for the call of the House after those papers had been produced. If the noble Lord insisted on going to a division now, he (Lord John Russell) should certainly consider himself bound to support him.
Lord Ashleyadmitted, that nothing could be more fair than the noble Lord's proposition; he understood that it was the noble Lord's intention to lay upon the Table certain papers upon which the House would be enabled to form a better judgment of the whole question. But surely the House would see that, as regarded the division now proposed, the greater part of the Gentlemen who sat upon the Opposition side had gone away, under an impression that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) would not oppose the motion for the call of the House, and consequently that no division would take place. Under such circumstances it was quite possible that the Government might obtain what, in their estimation, would be a victory; but it was a victory which he thought would not redound much to their credit.
Mr. French,considering that the original motion was to be withdrawn, thought it

1395
was too much for the noble Lord (Lord Ashley) to call upon the Ministerial side of the House, which, as far as his experience extended, had always been found to be practically useless.
Sir S. Lushingtonsaid that nothing in the world would induce him to vote against the noble Lord's motion. If he did so, he should conceive that he had been guilty of practising a deception upon the House of Commons, because no one who heard his noble Friend (Lord John Russell) the other night, could entertain a doubt that he had assented to the proposition for the call of the House. The only question was, whether, under the circumstances, the noble Lord (Lord Ashley) would deem it expedient to persevere in his motion.
Mr. Sheilthought, that the observations just made by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets was quite conclusive of the question. There could be no doubt of the noble Lord's right, if he thought proper to press it, of insisting upon his motion for the call of the House; but he would respectfully submit to the noble Lord, as an intimation had been given to him by the noble Lord, the Home Secretary, that the plan was to be changed, whether he would not consult the convenience of hon. Members by not insisting upon the call of the House? The whole matter rested entirely with the noble Lord himself. If he insisted on going to a division he should certainly consider himself bound to vote with him.
Lord Ashleyshould be extremely sorry to do anything that was in the least degree annoying to the House, or that for a moment could be regarded as discourteous; but he had no means of knowing that the call of the House would not be as necessary as applied to the new plan, as it was to the old one. The noble Lord, however, had promised that the new plan should be laid upon the Table to-morrow. Under such circumstances he could only say, that as soon as he had seen it, and had had the opportunity of consulting his friends with respect to it, if it should appear not to require a strict attendance of Members when it came to be discussed, he would immediately move that the order for the call of the House be rescinded.
Motion for the call of the House agreed to.

MINUTES.
Bills. The Royal Assent was given by Commission to the following Bills:—Deanery of Exeter; Seditious Societies Act Amendment; Designs Copyright Extension; Purchasers Protection; British Museum; and a number of Private Bills.
Petitions presented. By Lord BROUGHAM, from Lennox-town, against the further Extension of the Church of Scotland; from Glasgow, for the Improvement of Prison Discipline.—By the Bishops of RIPON, EXETER, and GLOUCESTER, from several places, against the Church Discipline Bill.—By the Marquess of LANSDOWNE, and Lord TETNRAM, from several places, for a Uniform Penny Postage.

MALTA—M. MITROVICH.
Lord Broughambegged to state that what he had advanced on a former occasion by way of conjecture, had now turned out to be true—viz., that the noble Lord the late, and the noble Lord the present, Secretary for the Colonies, had relied too much upon the statements of a Mr. Mitrovich, a petitioner to that House, who was described as an agent of the people of Malta, and who represented in his petition, that the Maltese were quite satisfied with the present state of the press, and begged that the ordinances might not be revoked. He (Lord Brougham) had said at the time, that he suspected Mitrovich had no authority for these statements, that he was not an accredited agent of the people of Malta, and that he had no more authority from them than he had, nor so much. He now held in his hand two newspapers from Malta, in which they abandoned and disclaimed Mitrovich, and said that they had nothing to do with him. The papers, moreover, were full of the debate in their Lordships' House, and one of them contained a very long argument against the ordinances, and supporting his arguments. He had never known anything of the kind more atrocious, than that this gentleman should pass as the agent of
1306
the people of Malta without a shadow of authority from them.
The Marquess of Normanbyhad never mentioned Mitrovich as agent for Malta; he had said, that he had received a letter from Mitrovich, but he had never spoken of him as an agent. As to the reception of the ordinances in Malta, he had that day received despatches from the Governor, and he gave a very different account of the matter from that which appeared in the newspapers referred to by the noble and learned Lord.
Subject dropped.

CHURCH DISCIPLINE.
The Lord Chancellorrose for the purpose of moving the committal of the Church Discipline Bill. Their Lordships might recollect, that at the close of last Session a bill similar in principle to the present measure was brought under their notice. It was read a second time, and be believed on the third reading, some opposition being raised on the suggestion of a most rev. Prelate, the bill was withdrawn for the time. He mentioned this fact, lest it might be supposed that their Lordships were now called upon to give their assent to a measure which they had on a former occasion rejected. He should be glad if the interval that had passed since last July had put an end to the opposition then manifested to the principle of this bill; but as he had no reason to suppose this to be the case, as he on the contrary had every reason to suppose it was not so, it was his duty to explain to their Lordships the evils which it was proposed to remedy by the bill, and the nature of the remedies to be applied. In detailing the present state of the law, he should be guided by a document which must be considered for the present purpose as of the highest possible authority—the report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of 1832. That commission was comprised of a considerable number of bishops, and of judges, or eminent lawyers who had afterwards become judges. There were therefore as many ecclesiastical and legal authorities on that commission as could well be selected to investigate a question of this nature. They were naturally led to inquire into the present state of the law with respect to the power of enforcing church discipline, that is, correcting the errors and crimes committed by the clergy. They stated in their report very clearly and very fully the history of the law on that subject. In the early part of British history, during the

1307
establishment of Popery, they declared that unlimited powers were given to the bishops over their clergy. In those times the bishop had the power of calling on any clergyman who was supposed to have committed an offence to clear himself by an oath and through the agency of compurgators; and if the bishop were not satisfied with the result of the investigation, he possessed the largest possible powers of removing or suspending the clergyman. In the reign of Henry 7th, an act passed, which gave unlimited power to the bishop, at least over the benefices possessed by the clergy. He was authorized to exercise jurisdiction, in his own person and of his own right, over all who might be within the diocese. Such was the state of the law up to the time of the Reformation. At that epoch great changes were made in this respect as in all others, and by a statute of Henry 8th, against heresy, it was declared that "it standeth not with the right order of justice or equality that any person should be convicted and put to the loss of his life, good name, or goods, unless it were by due accusation, by witnesses, or by presentment, or confession, or process." The right to call on a clergyman to discharge himself of any imputed offence by oath was taken away by that statute. He would read a passage from the report, which would at once show their Lordships what changes had been made at the Reformation, and what the state of the law had been from that period down to the present:
"In the beginning of the next century Bishop Gibson was desirous of reviving in the diocese of London the summary mode of proceeding, against clergymen, especially in cases of non-residents, but the persons claimed a hearing, and asserted the right of defending themselves according to the rules and practice of ecclesiastical courts, and it was ultimately found impossible to resist that demand. Proceedings against clergymen for ecclesiastical offences have accordingly in modern practice been uniformly conducted by the same rules and proceedings as are observed in other cases in civil jury courts,"
This extract, considering who were the members of the commission, left no doubt of the state of the law at present. The statute of Henry 8th had never been in force since the Reformation, but it still remained the law of the land. It was as yet on the statute book, and being unrepealed, must be held to be law, but not for the purpose of being put in force; for if that
1308
were attempted, the necessity for its repeal would become immediately manifest. One object of the present bill was to repeal this statute. If that were the state of the law, and if proceedings against clergymen must be commenced, as beyond all question they must, not at the discretion of the bishop, but by suits in the Ecclesiastical Courts, he would ask them to look at the state of those courts, and then say whether the law could remain as it now stood. The report furnished him with the means of showing their Lordships the state of those courts. He spoke not of the courts of the archbishop, or of the diocesan courts of the bishops, which were sufficiently well known; but perhaps their Lordships might not be aware, that besides those superior courts, nearly 300 other ecclesiastical courts were in existence. It was not to be supposed that all these had a jurisdiction for trying criminal offences of clergymen. One great misfortune was, that nobody knew which court had jurisdiction and which had not; it was impossible for the parties to discover in which court they should institute proceedings. A great object of this bill was to take away from all the ecclesiastical courts, except those of the archbishops, the power of trying such offences. That these minor courts were totally unfit and incompetent to be trusted with such a duty, he apprehended no one could doubt, In some of them the judges were not lawyers; many of them were presided over by deputies, receiving salaries of 10 l. 10 s. yearly. These were not courts that ought to have the power of exercising an important jurisdiction over persons holding the station of clergymen. Though the diocesan courts were of a more respectable class than those of which he had been speaking, still the mode of proceeding was of the most dilatory and unsatisfactory kind. In a particular case, where it had become nececsary to institute proceedings against a clergyman, the litigation lasted five years, and the bishop was put to an expense of 1,500 l. He was sure that this was a state of law which their Lordships could not allow to continue; and that being the case, the question was, what remedy could they apply? He was sure that an alteration of the existing law was universally desired, so that he need not take up their Lordships' time with that part of the question. The report of the commissioners on this subject recommended that all these small ecclesiastical courts should be abolished, and their business transferred to the courts of

1309
the archbishop, with the assistance of assessors. It was his wish, as it was his duty, to speak with all respect of anything that was recommended by such authority; but if anything could justify him in expressing his dissent from that proposition, it was, that all the commissioners who had had an opportunity of expressing their opinions on the subject, with one exception, had expressed the strongest possible dissent from what they had before recommended. In 1836, however, a bill had been introduced into that House founded on the recommendations of the commissioners, though not adopting all of them. The bishop was to be the head of the court, and was to be assisted by an assessor, who would be practically the judge; and there was also to be a jury of clergymen to try the offence and deliver a verdict upon it. Their Lordships had approved of that bill, which passed through their House without opposition; but, as the clergy were opposed to it, a great cry against it rose up in the country, and the bill made no progress in the other House of Parliament. That was in 1836. In 1837 he had been anxious to obtain the concurrence of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners before he introduced another measure on the subject. The Session, however, passed over, and nothing was done on that matter. In 1838 the present plan, or at least a plan very similar to it, was introduced into Parliament, and with the concurrence of the archbishops. He certainly could not say that it had met with the unanimous support of the right rev. Bench, but it had met with very general support and approbation from the members of it. The bill, however was subsequently withdrawn. He now brought it forward again with some slight alterations. Formerly the appeal was to the court of the archbishop, now it was to the Court of Arches, which was always presided over by a learned judge, and which had always the benefit of the presence of a learned bar. It had been said, that there was a spirit in the bill which always evinced a strong tendency to interfere with the jurisdiction of the bishops. Now, if this bill did take any jurisdiction from the bishops—which he would hereafter show that it did not—it would only be doing that directly by a tribunal in London which was already done indirectly by a tribunal in the country. He called upon their Lordships to consider how the law on this subject now stood. You could not take any jurisdiction from the bishops in
1310
this respect, because they had no jurisdiction at present, for there were various processes by which all suits of this nature were even now taken from the bishops' jurisdiction. First of all, the judge of the inferior court could send the suit by letters of request to the Court of Arches. Next, either party to the suit might apply for these letters of request, and when once applied for they could not be refused. Furthermore, if either of them appealed to the Court of Arches on an interlocutory decree relating to a point comparatively immaterial, the whole suit was transferred from the bishops' court to the Court of Arches, who might keep it as long as they pleased. Any party, therefore, had the means at present of taking his suit to the Court of Arches, but at a great expense, which this bill would for the future spare him. As far, then, as the bishops' courts were affected, this bill only gave the power of doing directly that which was already done indirectly. He likewise denied that any additional expense would be incurred by suitors in consequence of this bill; for even at present all the important business of the bishops' court was transacted, and all the important papers and documents were drawn up, in London, and afterwards sent down to the different courts in the country, to be there decided upon by the different judges. The questions tried in those courts might involve questions of facts. Now, it was proposed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in their report that in such cases the parties and witnesses should be examined vivâ voce. That proposition would require the attendance of the witnesses at the places where the courts sat. But though it was necessary to the interests of justice that there should be the power of examining witnesses vivâ voce in all cases, there were many cases in which it was not necessary to exercise that power. The bill, therefore, provided that certain cases, as was the case now in the Court of Review in Bankruptcy, should be tried upon affidavit; but it also provided that in other cases the witnesses should be examined vivâ voce, and the issue of facts should be tried by the judges as they proceeded on their different circuits. The bill had the merit, therefore, of providing means for saving the suitors expense, and for obtaining a satisfactory trial of facts. Now, if their Lordships were all convinced that something ought to be done on this subject, and that speedily, the only question was, whether they would give their sup-

1311
port to the measure recommended in the report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, or to the measure which he had just introduced to their notice? He had stated the reasons why he thought his own was the better measure, and he hoped that their Lordships would give it their sanction and approbation.
The Archbishop of Canterburywas understood to say, that from the share which he had had in drawing up this bill, and from the objections which had been urged against it in different quarters, he should not be acting with justice either to the measure or to himself, if he did not offer a few words to their Lordships upon it. On the importance of the subject, there could be no doubt whatever. He had heard much of the necessity and of the justice of passing, for the sake both of the Church and of religion, some measure, by which there should be a more speedy mode of punishing those clergymen who injured the Church, either by gross violations of morality, or by the neglect of their duties in other respects. If there were a coercive power to punish them, it was quite clear that there must be a tribunal to exercise that power, and that, too, a vigorous and effective tribunal. They all knew the regret expressed by the bishops for the duties they were unable to perform, and all of them agreed that there was ground for complaint against, and that the country suffered much from, the present state of our ecclesiastical tribunals. The cry of the public on that subject was universal, and must be attended to. The delays which occurred in those tribunals were excessive, and tended to discourage all prosecutions for gross offences against the Church; and yet now, when an attempt has been made to remedy and improve the condition of those courts, he had been accused of the commission of a grave offence against the Church for having joined in that attempt. He had heard, with great surprise, the language which a right rev. Prelate had deemed it consistent with his duty as a Christian pastor, to use upon the subject; and his surprise was not in the slightest degree diminished when he discovered, upon examination, the slight grounds on which that language was founded. The right rev. Prelate had said, that he should consider himself a traitor to the Church, if he were to agree to such a measure. Now, the natural inference from that language was, that all who supported that measure were either traitors to the Church or la-
1312
bouring under great imbecility or perversion of mind. At present, though the sentence of deprivation might be pronounced by the bishop in person, still it was to be considered the sentence of the judge who had presided at the trial. It was only to give additional assurance to the public, that the bishop approved of the essence of the sentence which made Lord Stowell consider and declare, that the bishop's residence was necessary: The bishops had, therefore, acted very properly and wisely, in transferring the power to others; for it could hardly be exercised more inconveniently than by the bishop in person. But was it a power in daily use? As had been stated by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, within the five years preceding the commission, there had been only fifteen prosecutions, excluding the province of York, in twenty-two dioceses. Surely that could not be an essential power which was so rarely exercised. It was also an inefficient, troublesome, and expensive power. In many cases, the expense was almost ruinous to both parties. He might say, that this power, which was hardly alive, which showed no signs of life, could not be a very important one. Everybody knew its inefficiency. What, then, was the remedy which ought to be applied? After what had been stated by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, he thought their Lordships would agree with him, that the bill of 1836 would not supply the best remedy. He concurred in opinion with the learned Judge of the Court of Admiralty on this important subject; and he found himself supported, not only by the authority of that learned and eminent individual, but by the authority of many others, whose opinions well deserved the serious attention, and were well entitled to the respect, of that House. Amongst the number, was that of Chief Justice Tindal. Moreover, he had consulted every one of his right rev. and learned Brethren then in London, and they expressed their approbation of the measure. It occasioned him no small regret to find then, that some of his right rev. Brethren in that House entertained different sentiments with reference to this bill from those which he was bound conscientiously to express. He regretted, that these differences should unhappily exist, and he could not help expressing further his regret, that the differences which did exist had not been reconciled amongst themselves, rather than brought under discussion before their Lordships. Several petitions had

1313
been laid upon the table of their Lordships' House, and several letters had been published in the newspapers, taking notice of and discussing the merits of the measure. It had been opposed, also, and that very strenuously, by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter) now sitting at the table. Was it to be supposed that so resisted, that so assailed by a man of his ability and eloquence, it could escape from other adversaries incited by his example, though not capable of reaching the force of his opposition? Was it to be supposed that a right rev. Prelate possessing the talents and influence which he possessed, presiding for so many years, as he had presided, over the see of Exeter, could not command as many petitions as he thought proper from the clergy of that diocese? The Bishop of Gloucester, too, published a letter, or if he did not, as the right rev. Prelate intimated, publish a letter, he wrote a letter to the Archdeacon of his diocese which others published, in which he expressed sentiments decidedly adverse to the present measure. That right rev. Prelate could likewise command as many petitions in his diocese as the right rev. Prelate at the table could in the diocese of Exeter. Now, admitting that the petitions from those dioceses did really express the sentiments of the clergy residing in them, he would take the liberty of saying, that this proved nothing with regard to the opinions of the great body of the clergy throughout the United Kingdom, for, if he were informed correctly, there were no petitions against the measure from any other quarter. [No, no.] Well, there might, perhaps, have been a few other petitions, but he believed that their number was very inconsiderable. He held in his hand a statement made upon the subject, at least considered and drawn up, at a seat of learning; it was considered and prepared by men of undoubted learning, and great respectability, and high station in the church—men well versed in ecclesiastical history, and well acquainted with the ancient state of the law. He would venture to affirm, that the petitions presented that night, unless it could be shown that they came from men better acquainted with the subject than were the eminent and learned theologians of Oxford, were entitled to very little weight. There could not be a greater error than to suppose that the bill which he stood there to support was one by which the clerical jurisdiction could be destroyed. Complaints had been urged against the hardship appre-
1314
hended from the present measure; he, on the contrary, did believe that it would, so far from being productive of any hardship, tend to much less mischief than the present system, for it would put an end to the evils of informers, at least, it would cause a considerable diminution in the evils which informers occasioned, and therefore he trusted that there was no ground for the statement set forth in the petitions then on their Lordships' table, that the bill was calculated to effect the destruction of the Church. He need scarcely observe that he at all events was not likely to bring forward or support, any measure calculated to destroy the church; on the contrary, he hoped that he should be a most earnest opponent of any thing of the sort. The present measure was supported by him because, so far from destroying, he did think it was calculated in a very high degree to prevent injury to the Church. Upon these grounds he should urge their Lordships to agree to the measure, entertaining, as he did, the strongest conviction that the petitions which came before them were full of mis-statements; though certainly he was quite ready to admit that those mis-statements were made without any disposition on the part of the petitioners to deceive the House, or to practise deception on any party. He gave the petitioners credit for every disposition to support the Church; but it would be for the House to judge of the weight due to their statements, and to judge also of the wisdom or the justice or the expediency of complying with the prayers of individuals, however respectable, who betrayed so much ignorance of the real facts of the case.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, that it afforded him some satisfaction to observe the fair and candid manner in which the most reverend Prelate who had last spoken, had expressed his opinions in favour of the measure then before their Lordships. In one respect, he enjoyed some advantage at present as compared to the position in which he stood when it became, on a former occasion, his duty to oppose the bill. He had now the advantage of having heard the grounds upon which the noble and learned Lord and the most reverend Prelate supported the measure. Formerly, when it was before the House, nothing was said in its recommendation. On that ground he had no longer any cause of complaint. If he had any complaint to make on his own account, he should forbear from making it; but he must say, in

1315
his own defence, he must, in justice to himself, appeal to their Lordships whether they would consider it quite fair, if any of them thought that a measure was proposed which was of paramount mischief to those interests, which they regarded as the most sacred, and which, as in his own case, and with the sincerest feelings he said it, he felt he would be a traitor to the Church if he did not resist it—he appealed to them whether, conscientiously entertaining and expressing that opinion, it was fair to say, that because he would consider himself a traitor if he did not resist a measure, he thereby charged others with being traitors to the Church because they supported it? He never heard anything with such astonishment and with suet, surprise as this; and if he did not know the exceeding fairness of the most reverend Prelate, and if he did pot know the justness of that most reverend Prelate's mind, he should say, that nothing could be more manifestly unjust than the imputation, he would not say the cruel misrepresentation, although he did not know by what other name to call it, than that which was thus used on that occasion. He bad never thought, he had never said, he had never intimated nor suggested that he thought that those who supported this bill, did not think it to be a good and useful bill, He gave them credit for their honesty, and was the return to him to be that he was to be regarded as dishonest and insincere? He thus, thee, dismissed that part of the subject. There were some things which had fallen from the most reverend Prelate to which he felt it his duty to advert. He must say, that, while he owed all due obedience and all due reverence to the most reverend Prelate, and no man should exceed him in due reverence to that most reverend Prelate, and no man should surpass him in all due reverence, yet still he could not recognise the infallibility of that most reverend Prelate. He ventured to affirm, that, upon the present occasion, the most reverend Prelate was not only fallible, but greatly deceived; he, therefore, must and would express his sentiments in reference to the present bill, though they differed from those entertained by the most reverend Prelate who had just addressed the House, The most reverend Prelate had said, that he considered that the present state of the discipline of the Church was peculiarly excellent, and referred to the paucity of
1316
instances in which there were trials of clergymen for misconduct. He rejoiced, with the most reverend Prelate, as to the excellent working of the system as far as the clerical character was concerned. He said, then, that if such were the practical result of the present state of things, he was astonished that a principle should be sacrificed by the bill to remove so little a practical evil. The most reverend Prelate had described the costs of a Bishop sitting upon the trial of clergymen, and applied words used by him a twelvemonth ago, that it would be a fatal blow to the Church; and yet the most reverend Prelate now recommended a course which he had already said would be a fatal blow to the Church. The most reverend Prelate had strongly animadverted upon a petition concocted in Oxford. It was not for him to justify the learned clergyman, whose petition he had never seen till he saw it in print: that part which was most strongly animadverted upon was the passage which declared that the bill would be a suppression of the apostolic jurisdiction of the Church. [The Archbishop of Canterbury: It was an error.] They held that sentiment, however, in common with himself. It might be ignorance upon his part and upon theirs; but, if be and they were right, those who held an opposite doctrine could not be right—they must be in the wrong. The right reverend Prelate had said, that he would not enter into theological questions. He never wished to discuss theological questions in that House, unless when it was absolutely necessary. Here, however, was a question essentially theological. The question was, whether or not the apostolical jurisdiction of bishops would be destroyed by this bill if it were passed into a law. In his opinion it would. He was afraid, therefore, that he could not follow the example of the right reverend Prelate in abstaining altogether from the consideration of that question. Their Lordships must allow that he must feel most deeply and anxiously on the subject, when be believed that there was an almost absolute certainty of his being left in a small minority; and he could assure their Lordships that it was to hint a matter of very great: regret that he should be compelled to think that the view he took of this measure was the right one, He rejoiced to bear the right reverend Prelate raise his voice on this occasion, because it was always a matter

1317
of gratification to him to hear any of the right reverend Lords express their opinions upon subjects of such importance to the Church of England as he conceived this to be. But he would now turn to the right reverend Prelates and ask them whether they did not believe that Bishops had by divine right, a jurisdiction over their clergy? He had ventured to hope, in putting that question, that he should have received the ordinary indication of assent commonly given to a truism. It was painful to him that it should seem to be doubted. [The Archbishop of Canterbury: No one can doubt it.] He rejoiced to hear the right reverend Prelate say, that no one could doubt it. If, then, there was an episcopal jurisdiction by divine right, he supposed that that episcopal jurisdiction must be exercised, and if it must be exercised, it ought and must be exercised by those to whom it was given. That he should think was a truism almost as readily to be assented to as the other; and though there was no intimation to that effect, he would take silence as an assent in this instance. He would go one step further, and ask what was the form in which that jurisdiction was given, and in which it was received at the time of the consecration of Bishops? He would be as brief as possible, but their Lordships would see the importance of referring to it. In the form of consecrating Archbishops and Bishops, one of the first prayers was, that "they may diligently preach the word of God, and duly administer the godly discipline thereof." The service did not end there. There were some parts of it which were too solemn, even with the view of strengthening his own argument in a sacred cause, for him to venture to cite. There was one question, however, of a very serious and solemn character, which was put by the Archbishop at the time of consecration, to which he would advert—namely,
"Such as be unquiet, disobedient and criminous within your diocese, will you correct and punish, according to such authority as you have by God's word, and as to you shall he committed by the ordinances of this realm?— Answer—I will so do by the help of God,"
That was the question which the most reverend Prelate put to him solemnly and seriously, and that was the answer which he sincerely gave to it. It might be supposed, at first sight, that the authority to be committed by the ordinance of this
1318
realm, limited the authority to be given by God's word; but he was sure his right reverend Friends would not say so. He was sure they would say, that they were two distinct authorities—that the authority given by God's word was one, and that given by the law of the land another. The service did not end there. The Archbishop, towards the conclusion of the ceremony, delivered to the Bishop a Bible, saying,
"Give heed unto reading, exhortation, and doctrine. Think upon the things contained in this book. Be so merciful that ye be not too remiss; so minister discipline that you forget not mercy?"
That was the solemn charge which he had received from the most reverend Prelate. He had received it with reverence; he had endeavoured to practise it; he should always feel it his duty to endeavour to practise it; but to say that he felt a necessity for, or could yield to, the fancied expediency of suppressing altogether the exercise of episcopal jurisdiction, he never would, until he should be also prepared to say, he felt that the service of which he had just spoken was no better than a solemn mockery. If it were to be declared that it was high time to put an end to episcopal jurisdiction, he assured their Lordships that he should deem it his duty also to declare that it was high time to request that a convocation might be called together for the purpose of devising some mode of introducing persons under the name of Bishops, if the name of Bishop was to be continued on the bench, in accordance with that change in the exercise of those duties which were now required of them. Even that was not all. When priests were ordained, they were solemnly asked by the bishop:—
"Will you reverently obey your ordinary and other chief ministers, unto whom is committed the charge and government over you, following with a glad mind and will their godly admonitions, and submitting yourselves to their godly judgments?"
Here was a recognition, on the part of those who were to answer, of the jurisdiction of the bishops over them. What was the answer? "I will do so, the Lord being my helper." It was a mockery therefore, to contend that there was to be no exercise of episcopal jurisdiction. Our Church was not the only Church where episcopal jurisdiction of the clergy was considered to be essential. During

1319
300 years the Christian church had not been mixed up with any state whatever; there had been no coercive tribunals; no support had been given to that Church by the temporal laws of the countries in which it flourished; but was episcopal jurisdiction not exercised in those days? So far from it, that that jurisdiction was then exercised with a degree of vigour which it was rarely seen to have been exercised with since. Perhaps he might be permitted to read a very few lines from one of their best Christian antiquaries on this subject. Although they were already well known to his right rev. Friends, and who did not need to be reminded of them, he was sure they would pardon him for quoting them on the present occasion. The words he alluded to were from Bingham's Antiquities, and as follow:—
"Bishops always retained to themselves the power of calling presbyters to an account, and censuring them for their miscarriages in the discharge of their office. Nothing can be more sure and evident than that in Cyprian's time all bishops were invested with the power of censuring delinquents among the clergy."
Cyprian's time was before the Roman empire had declared in favour of the Church, when it had no support from the temporal powers. Well, if it had a jurisdiction, how was that jurisdiction to be exercised? Was it to be exercised by a judicial process? There were but two ways—either arbitrarily, or by that process which common equity, common justice, and the analogy of every judicial proceeding pointed out. Witnesses must be called; the accused must have notice of the charge, and the opportunity of answering it; in short, there must be a judicial process. So it had been in the early Church, and so it was essential it should always be in the exercise of judicial and likewise of episcopal jurisdiction. It was to be remarked, that not only had the early Church—not only had the Church of England, in former periods, recognized episcopal jurisdiction as coming from God, but the State also had repeatedly recognized it. It had recognized it every time it had given force and sanction to the Church itself. It had been recognized by King Henry 8th, and King Edward 6th, even in those instruments in which one could least expect to have found such a recognition, if it had not been extorted by the certainty of the truth of what it stated, In the early
1320
period of the Reformation the bishops did submit to take the whole of their bishoprics by licence from the Crown, and that licence, while it enumerated all the acts of episcopal jurisdiction, stated, that they were given over and above the jurisdiction given by the word of God. King Edward 6th, when Cranmer received a licence from his archbishop, and to the terms of which he was willing to adhere, made the same admission. Where the Church had not the advantage of connexion with the State, there also was episcopal jurisdiction acknowledged and acted upon. If the American episcopal Church, without the slightest assistance from the state, beyond that given to all professions, to every species of belief—if the episcopal Church of America exercised that jurisdiction by judicial process, it was plain that in the nature of things there was nothing whatever to prevent it from being still executed even here. Surely the circumstance of our Church being protected by the State ought not to prevent it. What, let him ask, was the meaning of "protection given by the State?" of the State avowing its belief in the religions opinions and acceptance of one body of Christians as the Church of Christ? Was it not that, by acknowledging them as that Church, the State acknowledged it to be their duty to carry into effect all the essential points of the discipline of that Church, and that all that was essential to episcopacy—the State by recognizing, recognized at the same time its own duty. Therefore did he say, that when a State recognized the Christian Church as its own, it consequently recognized the bishops of that Church; and being so, it became the duty of the State to give to episcopal jurisdiction such sanction—such civil sanction—as should insure the effective exercise of it. He was willing to spare their Lordships' time and his own by declining to go into the proofs which might be adduced from the writings of their predecessors, by stating at once that almost every distinguished divine who had ever written upon this subject was of that opinion. He would, however, refer to what had been said by one of them, and he could produce a dozen such authorities—namely, Bishop Hall, one of their own predecessors, a most distinguished and illustrious divine, one of the most able supporters the Church ever had, and in times more pregnant with danger to the Church than even

1321
the present. It was in such times that Bishop Hall thus maintained that episcopal jurisdiction was that jurisdiction which was to be exercised at all times and under all circumstances:—
"It is the charge upon Titus (iii., 10). A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject. So, then, it is to Titus it belongs to proceed against erroneous teachers, to judge of heresy, to give formal admonitions to the heretic, to cast him out of the church upon his obstinacy. Can any man suppose it to be for a mere presbyter to make such a judicial process against heretics, to eject them out of the church? What is spiritual jurisdiction, if power to do this be not? To sum up all, therefore, it is no other than our present episcopal power, that by the blessed apostle is committed to Timothy and Titus; and that, with so clear evidence, that, for my part, I do not more fully believe, there were such men, than that they had such power, and these warrants to execute it."
Their Lordships would see that Bishop Hall spoke of the necessity of that which this bill said should no longer be. He had made use of the very phrase, "judicial process," in a clause at the end of the bill; it was stated (the preceding section having deprived bishops of every right to convent criminal clergymen, and bring them to judgment),
"that nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to affect any authority over the clergy of their respective provinces or dioceses which the archbishops or bishops of England and Wales may now, according to law, exercise personally, and without judicial process."
But that judicial process was absolutely essential. It was so in the opinions of Bishop Hall, Bishop Jewell, Archbishop Cranmer, and others, which opinions he would not weary the House by repeating. He declared most solemnly to their Lordships that he could not find a single instance of any eminent divine who had written on the subject who did not express the same sentiments; and he hoped, that such Members of their Lordships' House as should follow him in this discussion, and particularly such of the right rev. Prelates as should do so, and who might wish to show, that he was wrong in thinking that this bill had a tendency to extinguish episcopal authority, would be of the same opinion as those high authorities, he had just named. They were told, that the "judicial process was not extinct "—that it was given to the Court of Arches. Perhaps he might be also told, that it was
1322
a judicial process to the bishops, inasmuch as that the dean of the Court of Arches was the representative of the Archbishop of Canterbury. All he could say was, that the dean of the Court of Arches had no such commission from the Archbishop of Canterbury. All the dean of that court held from the Archbishop of Canterbury was the appellate jurisdiction; and the appellate jurisdiction recognized, instead of extinguishing, the original jurisdiction of the other bishops. If this bill passed, the jurisdiction would be held, not from the Archbishop of Canterbury, but from the State. If that were permitted to take place, then would he say, that a very strong and serious mischief—a mischief which it would be more easy to lament than to remedy, would arise; then would he say, that a lay power would be the only authority for the exercise of the whole episcopal jurisdiction of England, because it would be exercised only by the dean of the Court of Arches, who would hold his authority solely and simply from an Act of Parliament. They would then, indeed, be brought to that state which the Roman Catholics were anxious to represent them as being in—namely, an Act of Parliament Church; and they certainly would be very near it. As far as he could conceive that part of the subject, the exercise of episcopal jurisdiction would be given to the Court of Arches by an Act of Parliament, and an Act of Parliament only. It might be said, that the archbishop could issue a new commission if this bill passed, giving to the dean of the Court of Arches the same authority as the Act of Parliament, and that then the dean would hold the authority from the Archbishop of Canterbury as well as from the Act of Parliament. But the right rev. Prelate could only give that which he had; and with very great respect for the right rev. Prelate, who, he was sure, would agree with him, he must say, that the right rev. Prelate had not that authority to give. He was sure the right rev. Prelate would admit, that he had not any right to such a power himself, and that, not having it himself, be would not claim the right of conferring it on others. The Archbishop of Canterbury had no original jurisdiction in any other than his own diocese. He would here take leave to refer to a pamphlet from the pen of Dr. Nicholl, vicar-general of the Archbishopric of Canterbury—a pamphlet very temper-

1323
ately written, containing notes upon the Church Discipline Bill, directly addressed to him (the Bishop of Exeter), and in which the author had also done him the honour to refer to a printed speech of his. That speech he had never seen; he knew not, therefore, how far it might be correct; some parts of it judging from what the pamphlet quoted, were not correct, although what was quoted on this subject was. The pamphlet justly surmised, that in the opinions there expressed, he had quoted from the authority of Gibson. He had done so in his character of legate of the Pope. That was his (the Bishop of Exeter's) assertion. Besides, after having taken the authority of Gibson, he did that which he was in the habit of doing, to satisfy himself that he was right—he referred to books which enabled him to trace what the real facts were, and what the law upon those facts was. He held in his hand Lord Hobart's reports, a most learned and able judge of the reign of King James 1st, and the case to which he wished to call attention, was one, in which an office of the Archbishop of Canterbury, after having been restrained by the statute of Henry 8th, from calling up persons from another diocese into the diocese of Canterbury, had thought fit to establish a court in the borough of Southwark, in order to call up persons from the remotest parts of the diocese of Winchester. The case was tried in the Court of Common Pleas, and this was the judgment:—
"And it bath heretofore been held in this court, that the supposed concurrent jurisdiction, that the archbishop is supposed to have in the inferior diocese was not as he was archbishop, but as he was legatus natus of the Pope; for the Archbishop of York neither bath, nor claimeth any such; and then that power is ceased, being abrogated with the Pope, and the late practice, if any hath been, is but an usurpation; and, if is permitted to be in the archbishop's mere power, he may erect a court of audience in every diocese, and call all causes from other ordinaries."
Their Lordships would therefore see, that Lord Hobart confirmed his statement, that that jurisdiction had its origin in the Pope, and that the claim of the archbishop to a concurrent jurisdiction, was nothing more than a renovation of a Popish claim, and that if any person should claim that concurrent jurisdiction, he claimed nothing more than what was a remnant of Popery, while it was contrary to the law of the land. He felt convinced, that the Arch-
1324
bishop of Canterbury would not claim at present any such jurisdiction, but in the pamphlet to which he (the Bishop of Exeter) had alluded, the Archbishop's vicar-general claimed it for him. There was only one way in which, upon Church principles, the Archbishop of Canterbury could have the jurisdiction which the bill proposed to give him, and that was by making the whole of England into one diocese—that of Canterbury; and by making all the other bishops suffragans, not in the best sense of the word, but in the sense in which the term was employed in the reign of Henry 8th, according to which the suffragans had only to confirm the acts of the bishop. That was the only way in which, upon Church principles, the vicar-general of the Archbishop of Canterbury, or any one claiming authority under him, could have the jurisdiction proposed to be given by this bill. But even that would not be suddicient for all the purposes of the bill; the bill was not satisfied with giving over to the Archbishop of Canterbury the whole of his own diocese, but it gave him that of York also; so that not only must England form only one province. He admitted that Parliament had the power of making those alterations; he admitted the right of the State to appoint the measures and boundaries of dioceses and provinces; but such alterations must be made in order to give the Archbishop of Canterbuty the jurisdiction sought to be conferred by this bill upon the Court of Arches. It was very remarkable that a whole diocese, that of Sodor and Man, was exempted from the operation of this bill. The reason of this exemption was, it was hardly necessary to say, that individuals might not be obliged to travel so great a distance as that from the Isle of Man to London. He rejoiced at the candour which was shown in making this exception, and it tempted him to hope, that if he could show that certain other clauses of the bill would also lead to very great inconveniences, his right rev. Friends would exhibit the same candour in assenting to other departures from the general principle of the measure. He admitted that they would go to destroy still further the analogy of its provisions, but he hoped to show that they were absolutely necessary. It was

1325
the third clause of the bill which was the most important. By that clause the power of passing sentence of excommunication, suspension, deprivation, deposition, and degradation, or pronouncing any other spiritual censure, was given exclusively to the Court of Arches. He would pass over the irregularity of spiritual censures issuing from a lay court, but, by the 122nd canon, the power of depriving was to be exercised only by the bishop. The pamphlet to which he had referred stated, that it was a great mistake to suppose that that canon prevented the court of Arches from having jurisdiction in such a case, and affirmed the right of the Court of Arches to deprive in spite of the canon. But the pamphlet cited no authority more modern than 140 or 150 years ago. Now, there had been a case of more recent date upon the point, a case which had been decided in the year 1822—he meant the case of "Saunders v. Davies," which was reported in the first volume of Addams Reports, page 291, and came before the court by letters of request from the Chancellor of the diocese of Oxford, a cause of office promoted by a parishioner against the curate of the augmented cure of Ascott, for immorality and irregularity in performance of divine offices. The charges being established, the sentence prayed was deprivation, but the court said that, in spite of what had been urged to the contrary, deprivation was a penalty which it was not at its option to award, deprivation and deposition being specially reserved by the canon to the diocesan. The court said:—
"It would be extremely unwilling to do in the teeth of that canon what the canon itself seemed framed to exclude upon the mere dicta of counsel, in the absence of any, or at most upon the strength of one (blind) precedent."
Who had pronounced that decision? who was the court? A great name, and one which he (the Bishop of Exeter) could never cease to respect. It was Sir John Nicholl who gave this opinion, and in giving it, pronounced that the principle on which this bill was founded was wholly untenable. Suppose, however, that Sir John Nicholl was wrong, and that his son, the author of the pamphlet, was right, still there was another claim which even the Vicar-general did not venture to make, but which was set up by this bill. The bill actually purported to
1326
give to a lay tribunal the power of deposing and degrading, in other words, of destroying, the ministerial character of the offending clerk. This was a power which the House had no right to dispose of. Neither her Majesty, with the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons in Parliament assembled, nor all the Kings and Queens and Parliaments in the world, ever had, or could have, the power of doing what this bill presumptuously said the Court of Arches should have authority to do. The utmost conceivable human power could not confer upon a lay tribunal the right of stripping the ministers of the church of Christ of their ministerial office. The supreme civil authority in a state might forbid any clergyman to exercise his functions in any part of the dominions belonging to the state, but it could not rob him of his ministerial office; it could not make him cease to be a clergyman; that power, from the very nature of its origin, could only be exercised by the bishops themselves. He looked towards his right rev. Friends upon the Bench, and he called upon them to say, whether any lay tribunal could possess this power. He should be sorry to think that his right rev. Friends could give any answer but one to his appeal. If, then, the Legislature could not confer the power of deprivation, deposition, and degradation, upon a lay tribunal, some court there must be, in which this power should exist; and this court, whether it was called a Consistory Court, or any other name, for that was of small consequence, must be presided over by a bishop. It might as well be said, that the power of ordaining could be given to laymen; the authority required to confer the ministerial character could be no greater than that which was required to take it away. Therefore, the bill might, with quite as much right, enact that the power of ordination should belong to the Court of Arches. That, however, it could not do; a bishop, and a bishop only, could ordain a layman to the ministry, The maxim of the canon law went further; it said, "facilius spiritualia construuntur quam destruuntur," and accordingly, the canon law of England required the concurrence of a certain number of bishops in order to depose a clerk. Even at this day the Bishop was assisted by some clergyman of his diocese, when he pronounced the sentence of deposition. The

1327
learned vicar-general, indeed, laid it down in his pamphlet, that in pronouncing this sentence the Bishop only acted as the mouthpiece of the Court. But the Bishop read over the depositions of the witnesses, and acted upon his own opinion, when he concurred in the judgment pronounced by the Chancellor. He (the Bishop of Exeter) believed, that the learned vicar-general would not find many of the right rev. Prelates upon the bench disposed to act as mouthpieces. They might be called upon to act merely in that capacity, but the learned vicar-general would be like Owen Glendower, who boasted that he could "call spirits from the vasty deep;" he would discover that they would not answer to his call. The State, by adopting the Established Church, had taken upon itself the duty of giving effect to its ordinances; it might vary or modify them in circumstantials, but all essentials it was bound to maintain and uphold. This duty was recognised by the Legislature itself in its most solemn enactment, that which prescribed the form of the coronation oath. What would be the state of the Church, if the measure were carried? Its legislative power was gone already. The clergy never met in convocation for the purpose of legislating upon the affairs of the Church; all legislation was now carried on by the state. And he must say, that whatever evils might have arisen from the clergy sitting in a convocation or synod, there were also great evils on the other side, and that those evils, if legislative measures like the present were to be passed, were incalculably greater than those which could possibly arise from the scandal produced by the squabbles of convocation. The passing of this bill, then, he could not help repeating, for he had given his reasons for the opinion which he held, would be in his eyes the extinction of the true episcopal character of the Church. Legislative power it had none; its judicial authority would go with the present bill, and of its executive functions, the highest and best, that of administering justice with mercy, was no longer to be intrusted to its Bishops. The Church was stripped both of her judicial and her executive power by this bill. Suppose that the proposition was, that they should interfere with the independent functions of the Church of Scotland, would not the whole of Scotland rise in arms against it,
1328
and would not the union with Scotland be speedily found to be a mere parchment union? If the interference were attempted with the Quakers, the proverbial peaceableness of that body would, he imagined, become a very formidable ingredient in the present state of the country. The Church of England was the only body in the land which could be assailed in its essential and vital parts with impunity. Entertaining these sentiments, he had felt it to be his duty frankly to avow them. With regard to the subject of church discipline generally, he had already intimated, that he would be disposed to adopt the recommendation contained in the report of 1832, with reference to increasing the powers of the bishops. To increase, and not to circumscribe, those powers, was the proposition of his right rev. Friend upon that occasion; and to the report he found affixed the names of Charles James London, Christopher Bethell, as also that of another right rev. Prelate, who he deeply regretted was not now present at their councils—he alluded to the name of William Dunelm. If that excellent man were still cheering them with his presence, and giving strength and confidence to all the friends of the Church, he would have unquestionably so addressed their Lordships that this bill never would have been entertained. He cordially concurred with the recommendation of the Commissioners of 1832. The great object of the Commissioners, as stated in their report, was "to maintain and enforce the authority and control of the Bishops over the clergy," of the decline of which they gave the history, and the restoration of which they stated as one great recommendation of their plan.
"They would restore to the bishops that personal jurisdiction which they originally exercised, and which was afterwards delegated by them (for never before this bill did Parliament undertake to transfer it) to their chancellors and officials."
Will the Commissioners, therefore, increase and regulate the power of the Bishops:—
"The doctrine of the canon law is, that although the trial of causes of certain descriptions (i. e. matrimonial, &c.) may be properly intrusted to a lay judge, to the Bishop himself belong inquisitio, correctio, punitio excessuum seu amotio à beneficio. Agreeably to this principle, the power of deprivation is reserved by our

1329
canons to the Bishop in person; and the same principle seems to apply to the case of suspension, and to the infliction of any other censure which may affect a clergyman's spiritual functions."
He did not approve of their fettering the Bishops with assessors. They might depend on it that the Bishop would know what was best to be done pro re natâ, whether to call to his aid the advice of a lawyer or of an experienced clergyman. The law of the Church was, that the Bishop should have some of his presbytery with him. The dean and chapter already presented a body which ought to be ready at his call upon all occasions. There was one other suggestion which he (the Bishop of Exeter) would give—namely, that there be only one appeal. This might be startling to some of their Lordships; but it was his decided opinion, that the only appeal from the Episcopal Court should be to the Court of Arches, and to no other tribunal. It might be said that the Queen, as head of the Church, ought to have the ultimate resort to her. This, however, had not been the practice of the Constitution. The statute of appeals, which he looked upon as a most extraordinary specimen not only of wisdom but of eloquence (he alluded to the 24th of Henry 8th, c. 12), gave a most accurate description of the Constitution of England, and claimed for the spirituality of England the power of deciding in all cases spiritual, and for the temporality in all cases temporal. This statute enacted, that there should be no appeal in spirituals from the Archbishop's court. The cause of a different course being adopted in the following year was well known. The Bishops of that time were strongly suspected of entertaining a very amicable feeling towards the Pope. Therefore an appeal was given to his Majesty; and in the dernier resort the power was vested in the Crown of trying appeals. This power was to be delegated by the Crown to a commission. How did this work? Till late in the seventeenth century, no temporal peer or judge of the land, except in one instance, was included in the commission. His authority was not a light one; it was that of Mr. Gibson. The judges always put forward in the last resort consisted of bishops and divines. Of what did this judicial tribunal now consist? Of bishops or divines?—No. Of churchmen?—No. Of
1330
the twelve officers who were then named, it was not necessary that more than two should be churchmen. All the rest might be the bitterest enemies of the Church—Roman Catholics or Unitarians. The only excepted cases were those of the Lord High Chancellor and the Judge of the Prerogative Court. Did not common sense reclaim against this? The effect of vesting in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council the last resort in spiritual cases was to constitute them ecclesiastical judges. So that the arrangement was one, which in the event of Roman Catholics being appointed judges, would directly clash with the Act of 1829. The right rev. Prelate concluded by moving, that the Bill be committed that day six months.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that it would not be possible, within the compass of a few observations (and beyond a few he could hardly think of trespassing on their Lordships), to say all that would be desirable to state in answer to the very able speech of the right rev. Prelate who had just sat down. That right rev. Prelate had undoubtedly a right to call upon him and two of his brethren to give some account of the change in their opinion as to the measure which they had adopted and recommended in the report of 1832. He had certainly entertained at that time a notion very similar to the opinion now expressed by his right rev. Friend, that the early powers of the Bishops should be restored to them; and he still thought it of very great importance that those powers should be augmented, but not exactly in the manner proposed by his right rev. Friend. The experience of the years which had elapsed since the time to which the right rev. Prelate had referred, had led him to doubt the expediency of that specific enlargement of powers which was pointed out in the report. His right rev. Friend appealed to the authority of one of the most prudent and amiable Prelates that had ever adorned the bench of England—he alluded to the late Bishop of Durham. Although that right rev. Prelate had signed the report generally, he had withheld his assent from that particular recommendation. He said it would be imposing a burthen on the Bishops, which he shrank from inflicting on them, and which he could never take upon himself. The law of these cases was very complicated and depended so much on a great variety of precedents, that, for his part, it would be a matter of the deepest concern to him to

1331
have his attention drawn away from matters of far higher moment, to decisions upon questions relating to mere points of ecclesiastical law. In three cases tint of four he should have to sit as a judge in his own cause. One of the most important recommendations of this Bill was, that it removed all these cases from tribunals which were mostly incompetent, and always liable to the suspicion of partiality, to a judge deeply versed in ecclesiastical law, and far above all suspicion of unfair bias. This, of itself, was so great a recommendation, that he should be disposed upon this ground to adopt the present measure, if he believed it to be free from the objections which had been stated by his right rev. Friend. Those objections were of a very important character, and he (the Bishop of London) did not say that this measure was altogether free from them. It was quite true that, according to strict ecclesiastical principle the entire exercise of spiritual authority should be reserved either to the Bishops, or to the persons especially authorized by them. It was not, however, now-a-days practicable; and, as they must make a choice of evils, he thought the adoption of the present measure would be the least. It was his opinion that the right rev. Prelate had unintentionally confounded the different kinds of jurisdiction, which belonged to the episcopal office. He agreed with him that that which was strictly of a spiritual nature ought not to be delegated to others. He alluded, for instance, to the power of ordaining and confirming; but, when they came to the power of inflicting punishment, the case was different. There were two kinds of ecclesiastical punishment. They might proceed to inflict punishment on a clerk, or other member of the church, by spiritual censures. That was a power which might be held to be incommunicable, and yet it for ages had been delegated to the judges appointed by the Bishops. Excommunication was a sentence decreed in open court by the ecclesiastical judge. [The Bishop of Exeter: The greater excommunication is reserved to the Bishop.] However, two of their jurisdictions were even now entrusted to the hands of laymen, and to show that this was not necessarily incommunicably inherent to Bishops, it was executed by other bodies, such as deans and chapters and the ordinances of peculiars. His right rev. Friend had in the course of his speech expressed a sentiment which he should have been glad had it been repressed, for the sake of the effect it might produce out of
1332
doors. His right rev. Friend had said that if this bill passed, it would go a large way to sanction the statement which was frequently in the mouths of Roman Catholics, that the Church of England was an Act of Parliament Church. Would not however, the same objection in point of principle apply to any measure that even his right rev. Friend might introduce—to any remedy he might think it right to apply to existing evils? Could any such remedy be applied except by the authority of Parliament? He thought it was one of the peculiar doctrines of the English Church that it assigned the supreme temporal headship, to the Sovereign, and whatever might be the theories of divines, as stated by his right rev. Friend, that was the doctrine of those who were looked to as authorities on questions of the Church in connexion with the State. Those authorities held, that with respect to jurisdictions affecting the rights of persons, the Crown was the fountain of all authority, ecclesiastical and civil. Such were the opinions of the greatest lawyers of this country upon a matter in which the opinions of lawyers was at least equivalent to those of the most learned divines. Lord Chief Justice Hale, who though a most illustrious judge, was, he must say, rather prejudiced against the ecclesiastical courts of the country, spoke of the jurisdiction exercised by the Bishops as being derived from the Crown, and he declared that all courts, ecclesiastical or civil, held no other power or authority but such as were derived from the King's Most Excellent Majesty. Again, Bishop Gibson observed that the external administration of spiritual discipline, such as the removal from benefices, was in the Bishops, but that it was impossible for them to exercise that discipline without the aid of those courts which derived their authority from the State. This was a measure to enforce the performance of duties by the clergy. Now, he had never heard in the English Church that the temporal power might not interpose for that object. The Necessary Doctrine of a Christian man, published in 1543, says, "that priests and bishops may not exercise any of their spiritual offices, but with such sort and limitation as the ordinances and laws of every Christian realm do permit and suffer." Was there, then, any real objection to the principle that lay authority might be admitted in aid of ecclesiastical discipline? And then arose the question, which was the best mode of enabling the

1333
bishops to exercise that discipline which they could not exercise without the authority of the State? He entirely concurred with the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) that this Bill would strengthen that truly spiritual discipline which every Bishop possessed, and which no one wished to take from them. The discipline of the Church was best secured on the one hand by a paternal exercise on the part of the Bishops of the authority vested in them; on the other hand by the opinion entertained by the clergy of that spiritual authority, and by their conscientious regard to the obligations they were under by the ceremony of ordination, At his consecration a Bishop was solemnly charged to administer discipline according to the will of God and the law of the realm. Here, then, were two kinds of discipline—a spiritual discipline according to the will of God, and not exercised by the law of the realm further than the recognition by the law of the authority of the particular Bishop of each diocese; and another kind of discipline to be exercised according to the laws of the land. This distinction furnished an answer to the argument which his right rev. Friend had drawn from the service of consecration. Then, by the ordination service, the party admitted, promised to obey the chief governor, to whom the authority over him was committed, that is by the law of the land. He apprehended that his right rev. Friend would not now insist on the power of personal excommunication as an effective means of administering the discipline of the Church. Sorry should he be to see any individual clergyman of whatever degree taking upon himself most dangerous power—a power so liable to be abused, and which had been so often abused by the clergy of other Churches, He thought it was a proof of the wisdom of the Protestant Reformers that they did not think it necessary to assert that power for individuals, but left it to the discretion of a competent tribunal after due inquiry and investigation into the merits of the case, and the 65th canon required, that the sentence should be pronounced in open court. Now, with regard to the transfer of the jurisdiction from the Bishop's to the Arches Court; if be could devise or see any other plan for the more effectual discipline of the Church, which would steer clear of the difficulty which that transfer presented, he would gladly embrace it. That part a the measure was, however,
1334
important rather in principle than in practice; but, although important to a certain degree in principle, it was not likely to be drawn into an inconvenient precedent. In practice, their Lordships had heard that fifteen cases in five years formed the sum total of suits against criminous clergymen from all the dioceses in the kingdom, and he was sure if this bill was passed the number would be further diminished—diminished pot only because the body of clergy of the present day were more carefully educated than formerly was the case, and, therefore, he need scarcely add, were a more decorous arid better conducted class of men, but because the knowledge that such a tribunal as that now proposed existed—that the mode of trial was summary, just, impartial, and not very expensive—that facilities were given, not to common informers, but to the bishops; these circumstances all being known would deter many criminous clergymen from persisting in proceeding in a wrong course. It would deter, for this further reason—they would know that the Bishop had power to send for a clergyman to speak to him in a friendly but firm tone, to say to him he had too much reason, after inquiry in the neighbourhood, to believe what he had heard respecting the conduct of that clergyman to be true: to such a man the Bishop could say, "There is a mode of bringing you to justice, and if convicted, you will be ruined; let me persuade you to submit at once to my judgment, which shall be as light as circumstances will admit, and retire from your benefice altogether, or at least for a time" In practice this was now a common mode of proceeding to which Bishops had recourse, and might be resorted to with still better effect if the bill was passed into a law; whereas, if the principle contended for by his right rev. Friend was carried into effect, all this preliminary discipline would be put a stop to. With regard to the delegation of powers to laymen to which his right rev. Friend objected, there was no innovation of principle, for it had been done in the act of Parliament which constituted the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council a tribunal in such matters in lieu of the Court of Delegates. The difficulty which presented itself to his mind, was involved in the transfer of the ecclesiastical causes from the courts of the Bishops to that of the Archbishop. That proposition certainly weighed heavy on his mind, and he wished some other mode could be devised for getting over it; but on the whole,

1335
he could not say of a measure which was likely to effect great good to the Church, with so little of evil as was contained in the bill, he would not accept it with its evils and benefits, such as they were, thinking, as he did, the balance was greatly in favour of the latter. He concurred with his right rev. Friend in the opinion he had expressed that the word "degradation" ought not to be introduced into the bill. In no case ought degradation to be inflicted by laymen; a clergyman might be deprived of the power to exercise his spiritual functions, but he doubted, whether either the state or any ecclesiastical tribunal was competent to deprive him of his holy orders, when once admitted to them. He, therefore, thought the word "degradation" ought to be omitted. There were many other points on which he would gladly have touched, but time warned him that he had trespassed too long. He admitted the difficulties of the question, but thinking the bill had objections less than advantages, and that it might receive some modifications in Committee, he was disposed to adopt it in its present stage.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that having served in committee on this subject, with the right rev. Prelate who had just addressed the House, he must offer a very few observations to their Lordships. His objections to this measure were of a nature more familiar to his mind, than those which were so ably expressed by the most rev. Prelate, and the two right rev. Prelates, who necessarily looked upon this subject with a view to the spiritual questions involved in it. As to the subject of the assessors, several plans had been brought forward in the committee, which, after much deliberation, had been thoroughly discussed. His own proposal was, that the deans and chapters should act in this capacity in the bishop's court; but the right rev. Prelates thought that would not do. Now it was the fact, that from the earliest period, though the bishops had delegated all other powers, their criminal jurisdiction over their clerks they had ever reserved to themselves, merely calling in a legal adviser or assessor, in cases of difficulty. An act of Parliament, passed in the reign of Henry 7th, had confirmed this jurisdiction to them, and most wisely; for who so competent as the bishop, who was constantly watching over his clergy, to sit as judge of their offences? In his opinion, this jurisdiction ought to be transferred to no layman whatsoever. He remembered a case which had occurred some time back, and would probably be in the recollection
1336
of the most rev. Prelate, in which he had been called upon to sit as assessor to a right rev. Prelate, upon a clerk who was charged with adultery, the object of the suit being the revocation of his licence to his curacy. Here was a grave inquiry of a criminal nature against a curate; and by whom was it heard? Not by any court—that could not be, but by the bishop. This was an advantage for the clerk. But why should the crimes of the rector be decided in one way, and the crimes of the curate in another way! There ought not to be two methods of trial; questions, by the decision of which a curate might be ruined, ought not, he contended, to be decided in a different way from that adopted in the case of all other clerks. His opinion was, that the bill retained all the mischiefs which were attributed to the present law; still he did not say, that no alteration should be made in the present law. The expenses of proceedings under it ought to be diminished. He remembered a right rev. Prelate having been put, on one occasion, to an enormous expense, in pursuing a criminal clerk to justice. The old constitutional method was, he was convinced, the only way which could be made available for this purpose—he meant the trial before the bishop in foro domestico This would prevent all the heavy expenses of pleadings in the Ecclesiastical Court. The right rev. Prelate who spoke last, seemed to think that much delay would be got rid of by this measure, and he spoke of getting through a trial in a few months. But what was really done as to this by the bill? Only one appeal was saved, that from the bishops' courts to the archbishops' courts; but how did other provisions of the bill make up for this saving? The appeal at present would be from the archbishops' courts to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. But under this bill, the cause would go, in the first place, into the archbishop's court; from the 'archbishop's court an appeal lay to the Privy Council, and there appeals would end. But when the cause got into the archbishop's court, then it would be heard on depositions taken by commissioners previously sent into as many parts of the diocese, and to as many other places as there happened to be witnesses living, who knew anything of the case. Besides the delay thus occasioned, the expense of these commissions would be exceedingly great. Nor was this all, for after all these commissions, the judge of the Ecclesiastical Court might hear the matter over again, or vivâ voce evidence, by witnesses brought up from Cornwall, or the

1337
most distant places. Still this was not all; for the judge might order an issue to be tried before any going judge of assize, and here, if any evidence should not appear on the judge's notes which ought to have been there, or any other mistake occurred, a new trial might be had. Would any one tell him that this bill would be less expensive, or cause less delay, than the present system? Again, the person who instituted proceedings would be liable to taxed costs, at least, and to whole costs if he were not fortunate. He would be liable also, to enter into recognizances to discharge any damages which the judge might assess, who was likely to become a promoter under this bill? In fact, he was quite satisfied the measure would fall a dead letter, unless the bishops chose to become promoters, as they frequently had become, under the present law, much to their honour. But, however this might be, unless promoters were to be found, there was an end of the bill. There was another point. At present, a clergyman could only be tried in his own diocese, and this, not merely by the regulations of the Church, but by an act of Henry 8th.; this, however, was to be done away with by the bill. Now, he thought this would operate most unjustly and oppressively. There were many cases in which the clergy would submit to any terms almost, rather than enter upon a dispute with a promoter, if such should be found to set the bill in motion. For these reasons, he must declare he could not concur in the measure.
The Bishop of Gloucester and Bristolsaid, that, as he had been alluded to pointedly in the course of the debate, he felt it impossible to give a silent vote on this occasion. He thought the measure which they had passed three years ago, though he did not approve of every part of it, was a better measure than that which was now offered to the House. He was not present on the last occasion on which this measure was before the House, but he had seen it stated, that the most rev. Prelate had said, that the former measure was generally disliked among the clergy, from their repugnance to sit in judgment on their brethren. There must be come mistake, he thought, for he had written to all the archdeacons of his diocese, desiring them to ascertain the real sentiments of the clergy generally, but without himself intimating his own opinion, or saying anything which could bias any one, and it turned out that the clergy of his diocese
1338
were almost unanimous in favour of that measure, and against the present. He thought that the objections of the Bishop of Exeter had not been answered. The enactments of the bill were opposed to the canons in several particulars. One canon, the 94th he thought, said, that the Dean of Arches shall not summon any person to answer before him who was not within the province of Canterbury; but the bill said, that he must summon every criminous clerk whatever before him. Again, the canons said, that every sentence should be pronounced by the bishop, but the bill said, that every sentence should be pronounced by the Dean of Arches. He thought, with a right rev. Prelate near him, that the bill, instead of diminishing, would rather increase both the delay and the expense attendant on proceedings in the ecclesiastical courts. He was very apprehensive that, while it would not secure justice against the real delinquent, it would be liable to be made an instrument of persecution against innocent persons.
Their Lordships went into Committee, and immediately resumed.
Committee to sit again.
The following Protest was entered by the Bishop of Exeter.
Dissentient—
"1. Because, though the ecclesiastical judges derive their power in foro exteriori, even in spiritual matters, from the State, their authority is independent of, and pre-existent to, the sanction of the temporal law, which merely adds temporal consequences to the ecclesiastical censures, the infliction of which is part of the power of the keys, vested in the Church by its divine founder, and exercised by it in the earliest ages. It follows, that the State, though it may refuse to add a civil sanction to the exercise of the spiritual authority, cannot either grant that authority, which does not spring from any human source, or take it away from any one, in whom the divine constitution of the Church has vested it. Consequently, this bill prohibiting in every diocese the exercise of all spiritual jurisdiction, so far as any spiritual censure on a criminous clergyman is concerned, except that of the Court of Arches, cloth exceed the power of human law, inasmuch as it affects to deprive bishops of that essential authority and inherent right which appertain to their sacred office by the Word of God; and which they, at their consecration, have promised and vowed that they, by the help of God, will faithfully and duly exercise by correcting and punishing such as be criminous within their respective dioceses.
"This fundamental objection to the bill is not removed by the 26th clause, which professes to 'save any authority over the clergy which

1339
bishops may now, according to law, exercise personally and without judicial process;' for judicial process is essential to the due exercise of episcopal authority, which, without it, ceases to be judicial, and must become either arbitrary or utterly ineffective. It is prescribed by the apostle. It was used and practised in the Church for 300 years before Christianity became the religion of any state, or its laws and discipline were enforced by any human government. Its necessity is recognised and asserted by all the soundest and ablest divines of the reformed Church of England, who have written on the nature of the visible Church, by Bishops Jewell, Bilson, Hall, Bramhall, Stillingfleet, Jeremy Taylor, Beveridge, by Hooker, Field, Hammond, and many other luminaries of that age in which theological learning in England was most diligently and most successfully cultivated, not to mention other authorities of the last and the present centuries.
"2. Because, to prohibit judicial process, even in the domestic forum of the bishop, and thereby, as was admitted in debate, to extinguish all episcopal jurisdiction, on the plea that the Church is now protected by the State, is to confound things essentially distinct; it is in effect, however laudably intended, to betray the Church, and to mislead the State. On the one hand, it forbids the exercise of the most sacred rights and duties of those to whom they are committed by the word of God, (being thus an act of direct persecution,) and professes to transfer them to another, whom no human law can empower to exercise them in some of the highest particulars enumerated in the bill. Such are excommunication, deposition, and degradation, judgments which cannot be pronounced by any but those to whom the divine Head of the Church bath committed the keys of his kingdom, and the power to bind and to loose.
"On the other hand, while the bill thus seeks to arm a layman, by authority of Parliament, with that spiritual sword which not the highest lay potentate on earth can wield, it hides from the Sovereign, and from the great council of the nation, that solemn duty which 'He by whom kings reign, and princes decree justice' Lath inseparably annexed to Christian magistracy, the duty of upholding and enforcing the essential discipline of his church—a duty which this State, so long as it acknowledges our own apostolic branch of that church, can only discharge by sustaining and strengthening, in all things necessary, the government by bishops, a duty which the sovereigns of this realm have ever hitherto religiously observed, and which the legislature bath repeatedly recognized in its most solemn acts, especially in that great statute of 24 Henry VIII. c. 12, which, most eloquently yet most accurately, sets forth the constitution of this imperial realm, 'governed by one supreme head, under whom a body politic, compact of all sorts and degrees of people, divided in terms and by names of
1340
spirituality and temporality, are bound to bear, next to God, a natural and humble obedience.' 'That part of the said body politic called the spirituality, having always been thought, and being also, at this hour, found sufficient and meet of itself, without the inter-meddling of any exterior person or persons to administer all such offices and duties as to their rooms spiritual doth appertain.' And again, in those more modern statutes, which are, as it were, the landmarks of the constitution, the 1st William and Mary, c. 6, passed by Mr. Somers and the other enlightened patriots of that day, and embodying the contract between the sovereign and the people in the coronation oath; of which contract the preserving the rights and privileges of the bishops and clergy' are a prominent part. And the act of union with Scotland, reciting and confirming as a fundamental article of that union, the act for securing the Church of England, in which it is especially provided that every king or queen, coming to the royal Government of the kingdom of Great Britain, shall take and subscribe an oath that he will maintain, to the utmost of his power, not only 'the doctrine and worship,' but 'the discipline and government of the Church of England.'
"In accordance with this language of the laws, have been the solemn declarations of our most illustrious princes, claiming indeed, as is their clue by the laws of God and man, to be over all persons, and in all causes, both spiritual and temporal, supreme; yet disclaiming all authority of ministering God's word, of which the power of the keys, and of binding and loosing is an especial part; in a word, having both the right and the duty to rule all estates and degrees of men committed to their charge by God, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers.
"3. Because the Dean of the Arches, holding only a limited commission from his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, which commission does not extend to the original jurisdiction in any diocese whatsoever, would not have even the semblance of ecclesiastical authority to exercise the powers proposed to be given to him by this bill. Neither can this fundamental defect be supplied by any new and enlarged commission from the archbishop, who bath not himself a right of original jurisdiction (except in cases of nullities) in any other diocese than his own; such right being contrary to the laws of the primitive Church always hitherto held sacred—contrary to a canon of the Council of Nice, acknowledged by the laws both of the Church and State of England to be the first œcumenical council—contrary to the canonical law of England, as expounded even by Lynwood, the highest authority for interpreting that law, himself official principal of the Archbishop of Canterbury of his day, who expressly says, 'the archbishop cannot depute officials to hear causes in the diocese of any of his suffragans. For, as the archbishop himself

1341
cannot constitute an official in the diocese of another bishop, neither can he there exercise anything which concerns judicial powers.' Indeed, the assumption by the Archbishop of Canterbury or his officers of original or concurrent jurisdiction in another diocese, hath been repeatedly adjudged in the highest courts of England to he an usurpation, founded solely on his ancient claim of being Legatus Natus of the Pope. So that the power which the present bill either recognises as already existing in the Court of Arches, or affects to give to it by its provisions, that court is not competent to exercise, unless the supremacy claimed by the Pope do indeed reside within this Church, in the Archbishop of Canterbury.
"4. Because, by an unprecedented and unprincipled assumption of power, the bill professes to subject the clergy of the province of York, both those of the corn-provincial bishops therein, and even those of the archbishop and metropolitan himself of that province, to the jurisdiction of the court of the Archbishop of Canterbury; whereas the province of York, and the jurisdiction of the archbishop and bishops thereof, are as wholly independent of the Archbishop of Canterbury as they are of any prelate in the most remote corner of the Christian world.
"5. Because the only advocate of the bill, who discussed its provisions, admitting in several important particulars that great principles were violated by it, rested its justification solely on the practical benefits sought thereby; thus, in conformity with that fatal policy which has been the bane of our times, proposing to sacrifice, in a matter of this high religious nature, principle to expediency; although the highest authority in the church, by just before declaring that the actual result even of the present most defective state of ecclesiastical discipline is such as admits of little improvement through the operation of law in the general tone of clerical manners, had precluded even the plea of any urgent necessity for making the sacrifice.
"6. Because, on the soundest considerations even of expediency itself, the provisions of the bill are open to just objection, inasmuch as they have a direct tendency to destroy, or most grievously to impair, the wholesome authority of bishops, by making them, instead of judges, to become merely the prosecutors of their clergy, before a lay tribunal; or, it may be, to employ them as executioners of the sentences of that tribunal.
"7. Because, although it may be true that bishops are not likely to be skilled in legal science, they must be more competent than laymen can be expected to be, to decide these questions of ecclesiastical discipline, which, in the exercise of their spiritual jurisdiction, Would most commonly come before them. As ecclesiastics they must be most competent to decide whether, and in what degree, the ecclesiastical duties of a clergyman have been violated; more particularly because many things
1342
are criminal in a clergyman which in a layman would be merely indecorous, and not always even indecorous; and many things are punishable by the canon law, and the principles of ecclesiastical discipline, to which no principle of temporal law is even applicable, Again, and in a still higher degree, bishops must be more competent than lay-judges to decide in cases where the question relates to the soundness of doctrines taught or sanctioned by a clergyman; especially as the constitution of the church has provided him with an ecclesiastical council to assist him in his decisions; and, meanwhile, he can experience no difficulty in obtaining the best legal advice, enabling him to dispose of questions of law as satisfactorily as any ordinary court.
"8thly and lastly. Because, if this bill shall pass into a law, that most estimable and venerable body of men, the clergy of England and Wales, will be reduced to a worse condition than any other class of her Majesty's subjects, being made liable to answer to charges affecting their highest religious and civil rights, their feelings and characters as men, their functions as Christian ministers, before a remote judicature, which, because it is remote, can never inspire confidence, but will be found, in practice, at once to prevent the prosecution of real delinquency, and to rob calumniated innocence of that best protection, the known characters of the accused and the accusers, as well as of the witnesses by whom the accusation is sustained or repelled."