Sitting of 6 April 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time;—Admiralty Court; Admiralty Court (Judge's Salary); Tobacco Regulation; Parliamentary Burghs (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By Messrs. Villiers, Brotherton, and Campbell, and Sir G. Crewe, for, and by Messrs. Jones, Darby, Pemberton, E. Buller, Sanford, Sir R. Peel, Sir R. Gore, and Lord Eliot, against, the Total and Immediate Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Messrs. Muntz, Ferguson, and Hastie, and General Johnston, from a number of places, for Universal Suffrage, Annual Parliaments, and Vote by Ballot.—By Messrs. Baines, C. Lushington, and Hutt, from several places, against Church Extension; and by Messrs. Goulburn, Grimsditch, Pemberton, Fielden, Plumptre, Lord Teignmouth, and Captain Alsager, from a number of places, in favour of the same.—By Messrs. Burroughes, Fector, A. Holmes, Sir W. Follett, and Sir G. Crewe, from several places, against any Grant to Maynooth College.—By Messrs. Burroughes, Lowther, Liddell, Wilbraham, Colonel T. Wood, Mr. Darby, Mr. Pusey, and Sir C. B. Vere, from a number of places, against the Union Workhouses Exemption Bill.—By Mr. Blewit, and Mr. C. Lushington, from Monmouth, and one other place, for the Release of John Thorogood, the Extinction of Ecclesiastical Courts, and the Abolition of Church Rates.—By Sir G. Clerk, Sir R. Peel, Messrs. Campbell, R. Ferguson, Sir R. Ferguson, Mr. Pringle, and Lords Powerscourt, and Stewart, from a number of places, in favour of Non-Intrusion.—By Colonel T. Wood, and Mr. Clay, from two places, against Rating Stock in Trade for Parish Dues.—By Mr. Gladstone, from one place, against the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill.—By Mr. W. Patten, from Lancashire, against the Beer Act.—By Sir R. Inglis, from one place, against the Clergy Reserves (Canada) Bill.—By Mr. Wallace, from Greenock, against the Inland Warehousing Bill, against the Opium Trade, and for Equalising the Duties on Railway Passengers.—By Lord Mahon, against any fresh Duties on Beer and Salt.

CANADA.
Lord J. Russelltook that opportunity to answer a question which had been put to him the other night with regard to the state of the seminary at St. Sulpice, Montreal. When the inquiry was made, he had not been aware of all the facts of the case; but having since received a despatch on the subject from the Governor-general of Canada, he should conclude by moving that it be laid on the Table. A good deal of discussion had taken place on the subject, and a motion was made in regard to it so long ago as in 1826. At that time, Lord Bathurst wrote a despatch requiring that a judicial decision might take place upon certain questions connected with the claims of this seminary. It appeared that the ecclesiastics of St. Sulpice had certain seignorial rights to Montreal, and possessed various privileges, parochial and educational, throughout the district. The question of their incorporation was not settled at the time Lord Gosford was in Canada, but the commission
590
appointed to investigate the subject had come to the opinion, that though there might be doubts in point of law, there was no ground in equity for disputing the general claims of this ecclesiastical corporation. Lord Seaton afterwards proposed an ordinance with the view of enabling those interested in the seminary, and persons holding property under them, to free their lands, if they so wished, but that was not carried into effect by Act of Parliament. The present Governor-general, also, proposed an ordinance on the subject, which had not yet been sent to this country. He meant, however, to propose to the special council, that the ordinance should contain certain provisions found in the report made by the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard, when he was in Canada with the Earl of Durham. At the same time, he was sorry to say, the Governor-general stated in this despatch, that a good deal of religious feeling had been mixed up with the discussions which had taken place on this subject. Undoubtedly, the ordinance proposed originally by Sir J. Colborne, and afterwards by Mr. Governor Thomson, had been objected to, either, he presumed, upon the ground that the Roman Catholics should not be treated with the same degree of consideration in point of justice and equity as others of her Majesty's subjects, or that they had been treated with too much partiality. It appeared to him, however, to be a mere question of contested property, and so it was treated by Lord Bathurst, Sir George Murray, Sir J. Colborne, and Mr. Governor Thomson; he did not see how it could be considered in any other light. The noble Lord then moved, that there be laid before the House a copy of the despatch recently received from the Governor-general of the Canadas upon this subject.
Ordered.

ECCLESIASTICAL DUTIES AND REVENUES.
Lord J. Russell, in moving the order of the day for the second reading of the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill, said he had on a former occasion postponed it until he had had the opportunity of consulting the Archbishop of Canterbury with respect to a proposal made by a subcommittee appointed by a committee of the cathedral churches upon this subject. That sub-committee had made a report, into the details of which it was not now necessary for him to enter, but the principle of which was this—instead of suppress-

591
ing a certain number of canonries, and reducing the number, as in the bill, to four, it proposed to retain the present number unchanged, and that a certain large taxation should be imposed on every stall, so as to produce a certain fund for the increase of poor livings. The proposal contained various provisions by which this scheme might be carried into effect. He had now consulted the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was of opinion, having fully examined all the details of the plan, that it was not expedient to abandon the scheme which had been approved of by the commissioners. In that opinion he entirely concurred, and in addition to the intrinsic merits of the proposal, there was this additional reason for going on with the bill as it now stood—that, supposing the plan of the committee adopted, there was no ground for believing that the chapters in general would agree to it, one or two of them having signified distinctly that they did not hold themselves bound by any plan so proposed. There were one or two alterations which he should nevertheless propose in the bill as it now stood. An alteration had been made in the present bill with respect to the number of canonries to be retained in some of the chapels, and especially in that of Westminster. The canonries of Westminster had been attached to parochial charges, and he, therefore, proposed that there should be six instead of four, doing away generally with the proposition of the commissioners, that rich and valuable stalls should be combined with parochial charges. It also appeared to the ecclesiastical members of the commission, that Christ Church, Oxford, partook both of a cathedral and collegiate character, but more of the latter than the former. He proposed, therefore, that there should be two additional stalls, the one to be attached to the professorship of ecclesiastical history, and the other to the professorship of biblical criticism. It was also the opinion of the Archbishop of Canterbury, in which he concurred, that supposing the arrangements of the bill were adopted, the commission, as now existing according to Act of Parliament with respect to bishoprics, should have the disposal of the funds from the suppression of stalls in cathedrals, and that all the bishops constituted by law in England and Wales should ex officio be members of it. That was a change which he hoped would do away with any ground of jealousy with regard to the lay members. With regard to the general provisions of the bill, he had fur-
592
ther to state, that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, and the Bishop of London, were entirely agreed that they ought to adhere to the scheme proposed by the commissioners. He now begged to move that the bill be read a second time.
Sir Robert Ingliswas willing to admit that the bill on the table, particularly with the alterations now suggested by the noble Lord, was a great improvement upon the bill of former sessions: but he complained that it was still founded upon the same evil principle. The noble Lord had referred to the contre-projet of certain members of Chapters, which had been considered and rejected by himself and the Prelates whom he had named. The noble Lord had deliberately preferred his own bill, which was founded on suppression to that proposal which involved suspension only; he had preferred confiscation to contribution. The noble Lord indeed enjoyed an advantage not shared by the great majority on either side of the House, for the noble Lord had referred to a document of the existence of which he was not aware till an hon. and learned Friend near him (the Member for Exeter) placed it in his hand, as the noble Lord was sitting down, and when he could not read it; but that paper contained the very proposals which the noble Lord had rejected: and the House had a right also to exercise their judgment in the same matter. He did not pretend to say that he should himself look with favour on that proposal, so far as he knew it: he could only adopt it as a less evil than the bill on the table. It was a less evil, because it did not actually destroy the integrity of the cathedral system, though it suspended some portions, and reduced the incomes of all. But it still left the legal numbers of each chapter; it still preserved to them their whole property in possession and in management; and instead of confiscating that property to distant uses, only required a stated contribution to purposes near and congenial. How any one friendly to the Church could prefer a plan which suppressed half its dignities, and transferred the estates of those dignities to a common fund, to a plan which preserved all its dignities and left to their possessors the management of their property, he could not understand. The noble Lord had said, something about the plan which he

593
had rejected, being objectionable because not final. Now, without entering into the general merits of finality, as applied to public measures, he must say that the plan of the bill provoked further retrenchments and alterations quite as much as the plan rejected. If the graduated taxation suggested to the noble Lord had been adopted by him, it is true that it might have again increased by some other minister, till the whole income had been extinguished; but what security would the Church have, when the noble Lord had reduced the numbers of each chapter to four (with the few exceptions which he had now indicated), that some future noble Lord in the next Parliament might not say, that four were too many; that two would do; and we should come to the hundred Knights of Lear; or the black and white hairs, till all were gone. And who petitioned against this measure? All, or almost all (all, indeed, with the exception of some of the chapters, the bishops of which sat on the commission,) had remonstrated against the measure. The bitterest enemy of the Establishment could not accuse them of any sordid interest in the matter; because their own dignities and their own incomes were preserved. The persons, then, who had the most knowledge on the subject, who were unbiassed on the score of interest, all but unanimously deprecated the measure. Did the parochial clergy, whose incomes were to be increased by it, desire it? On the contrary, the feeling was here also all but unanimous against it. Though the average income of the parochial clergy was far under 250 l., and though the funds taken from the chapters were to be applied to augment their incomes, yet they also rejected such unhallowed spoils. He had himself last year presented many petitions from this class of ecclesiastics, disclaiming absolutely all participation in the measure. The measure itself was never contemplated by the King, who issued the commission, or by his right hon. Friend near him (Sir R. Peel), who had advised it. In the words of that commission could be found no authority for its recommendations. They were authorised and appointed to inquire into the state of the cathedral chapters of England and Wales, with a view to the suggestion of such measures as may render them most conducive to the efficiency of the Established Church, He prayed the House
594
to observe that the commissioners were directed to suggest measures for rendering, not the incomes abstracted from chapters, but the chapters themselves, the cathedral churches, most conducive to the object in view. His right hon. Friend could never say that the extinction of half their number, and the withdrawal of half their income, realised the object which he had in view when he framed that commission, namely, the rendering the cathedral system, as such, most conducive to the efficiency of the Church. So much for the right of the commissioners to entertain and recommend these sweeping suggestions. He now came to the wisdom of their first great principle; that all chapters should be fixed at the number of four; the two below should be raised to that standard; the great majority above should be cut down. Carlisle was their bed of Procrustes. Yet what said their model chapter to this mutilation of the others? Why, they say (he quoted from their memorial)—
"That they felt it to be their duty to state they cannot contemplate with any degree of satisfaction the proposal for reducing the number of canons in other cathedrals to the number of four, because they are aware that with that limited number, it is very difficult and often impracticable, to secure the constant attendance of one of the body at daily prayer, more especially when sickness or old age may happen to prevent individuals from fulfilling their own wishes in this respect."
And what, again, says the Chapter of Canterbury? They say,
"We ourselves have have had at the same time four prebendaries, of whom three were more than 60, and one so much an invalid that he was seldom equal to his duty; what would have been said of our efficiency, if our number had been limited to these four?"
He might quote the representations of other chapters. Yet, in spite of all, the noble Lord persisted in fixing the magic number of four as the standard of all. He believed that this number would be found inadequate to the regular and effectual discharge of their cathedral duties? But were these all their duties? The noble Lord could not forget that to the cathedrals of, England, the Church of England, and, indeed, their common Christianity, was indebted for some of the ablest, he believed he might say, the largest and best part of the theological literature of the country. The,

595
system which had produced these fruits the bill on the Table proposed to cut down. But it was not only by their contributions to learning and to theology that these institutions were to be valued. Their members were at the head, and justly at the head, of all the diocesan societies of charity and general benevolence. The sources from which these societies derived so large a part of their efficiency, the noble Lord and the commissioners proposed by this bill to cut off, or at least to diminish by one half. Even in the lowest view of the case, the maintenance of the venerable fabrics of our cathedrals, the measure threatened the greatest evil. Could such fabrics be sustained as at present, when half of the means of the chapters shall be withdrawn? Did the noble Lord know that the restoration of every buttress of Westminster Abbey of which seven had been completed, required 1,600 l.? And that this expenditure, however, necessary, could not be continued by the diminished resources of the future chapter. In the time of the great rebellion the cathedrals were all but exposed to the hammer, and would have been pulled down for the value of the materials, if it had not been ascertained that the cost of destruction would exceed the value of the lead and timber. Another century might see the great cathedrals of England, not indeed destroyed by violence, but ruined by the forced neglect which this measure would occasion; and travellers might look at Winchester and at York, as they now look at Tintern or Melrose. Observe, he did not undervalue the objects to which the incomes abstracted from chapters were to be applied. He admitted, as much as any man could do, the urgency of the wants thus to be supplied; but they ought not be relieved by this confiscation of property, already consecrated to another use. Some of the minor institutions connected with the cathedral system, which are to be sacrificed by this bill, are in themselves of so small a pecuniary value, that no man can claim their destruction for the sake of the money, which they will bring into the common fund; some are not more than 6l. a-year. Yet the fifty prebendaries of Lincoln, though valueless almost in annual income, are very important as distinctions conferred by the diocesan; and ought not to be withdrawn from the service of the Establishment. The noble Lord might not know of the case of the Six Preachers
596
of Canterbury. Their income was not more than from 15 l. to 30 l.; yet their distribution excited the greatest interest in the diocese. They were the cheap honours conferred by its chief. He did not mean to say that these were the rewards which the Church required; but so long as human nature existed, so long would the fair and honest meed of merit be appreciated by an ecclesiastic, as the distinctions won and were by the right hon. and gallant soldier whom he saw opposite were appreciated by the army and by himself. So far, indeed, in the present times, was it from being true, that the chapters were animated by low and sordid motives, that there never was a period, when they manifested a more anxious and generous desire to meet the growing wants of the people, and more deeply felt their own responsibilities. They required only in some cases enlarged powers. See how they had used the powers too lately given them, in increasing their smaller vicarages from their own means. He knew one cathedral, Oxford, where they had within a few years secured a prospective increase of income of 2,000 l. to those poorer incumbencies. A college also, in Oxford had, instead of dividing 2,000 l. a-year among its fellows, arranged their estates in such a way that the same sources produced 8,000 l. to the poor vicarages. But while he wished this to continue, he objected to the forced augmentations contemplated by this bill; by which the property of the see of Durham, for instance was taken away to enrich a poor living which, perhaps, had been bought being poor, and might go at once into the market at Garraway's, and be sold for the higher price. The bill not merely involved this result, but hazarded even much higher interests. Did the noble Lord know what was the origin of Cathedrals? They were the missionary establishments of a diocese, from which priests might be sent forth to convert and instruct the people. Could not this purpose be kept in view in giving a direction to the powers of the present system, rather than thus mutilate and destroy it? Could not St. Paul's again be made the central missionary establishment of London, to send forth its preachers into the dense and dark quarters of the vast untaught population? But instead of endeavouring to give new duties, and to preserve institutions, the destruction of which involved

597
the hazard of all property, the bill swept away half the cathedral system, and endangered the rest. He objected to the bill for what it did, and what it omitted to do. Again he said, it shook the foundation of all property. The "too much" as Burke said, was treason against all property. Who had a right to say, that his neighbour holding the lands which the law gave him, had too much; was it a safe precedent? He would concede, indeed, that where ecclesiastical income arose from an increase of population and production, in any particular district, there (the property having been originally granted for the spiritual aid of such district), its produce should be so applied and divided as to minister to the spiritual aid of the population so increased, but he could not go further. He had once before asked, but had never received an answer, what length of time would, in the view of the noble Lord, sanctify an endowment? or, rather, for what length of time, would the sanctity of an endowment endure? He put the case of the late Mr. Tillard of Canterbury, who was said to have left 200,000 l. towards objects of general good. If he had bequeathed 40,000 l. to a particular stall in the cathedral of his own city, would the noble Lord have considered that he was at liberty to alienate a bequest in a will, the wax of which was almost hot, and the ink not dry? Yet if he would not cancel a will so made, on what ground could he vary or extinguish the bequests of Anthony de Beke, or the other great northern prelates? He objected to the bill, because it mutilated the cathedral system, violated the rights of property, was deprecated by the great body of the Church, and was fatal to its highest interests. He moved that it be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. H. G. Knightsaid that it was satisfaction to him that the Bill now before the House had been so long delayed, because it had afforded the noble Lord the opportunity of introducing modifications which he (Mr. Knight) thought great improvements, and had afforded time for the preparation and consideration of other schemes, could any preferable scheme have been suggested. The House was now given to understand that all the substitutes had been withdrawn. The House had therefore only the choice of either the plan before them or none; and, for his part, he felt that be could in no better way consult the
598
welfare of the Church of England than by supporting the present Bill. He was aware, and indeed the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford had informed the House, of the feeling against the Bill which existed amongst persons who are entitled to the utmost consideration. He would not be so base as to impute base motives to them. Let others, if they would, assail them with calumnies that were unjust, and imputations that were groundless. He was well aware that they were actuated by nothing but a deep sense of what they believed to be their duty. But he would entreat them to look at this subject in a large and comprehensive point of view, to remember how long the present plan had been before the public, that it came recommended by the heads of the church; that it was offered to the people as a satisfactory church reform; that, consequently, it was calculated to have a twofold effect, moral and pecuniary, of which the moral part would be neither the least powerful nor the least beneficial. He would also remind his hon. Friend of a circumstance to which he seemed not sufficiently to advert,—namely, that there existed at this moment a great and real emergency, a destitution of spiritual instruction in many parts of the country frightful in extent, and which, if unrelieved, would be terrible in its consequences. God knew he had no wish to humiliate the Church, or to weaken the Establishment, but he did feel that the spiritual wants of the people must, in one way or the other, be provided for, and he could not hope for the assistance of Parliament (strongly as he felt it was the duty of Parliament to lend that assistance) until, to use the words of a noble Duke, whose opinions had become almost oracular, "the Church had done something for herself." There was another reason, for which he thought the Church was bound to come forward on this occasion. On this subject the Church had some reason to reproach herself. He was far from meaning to cast any censure upon the present race of clergy; he knew how superior they were to their predecessors, how exemplary in their conduct, how diligent in their calling. All he meant to allude to was what the clergy regretted themselves, the torpor of the 18th century, those past times in which the Church did not take notice of the multitudes who were springing up in her towns, and demanding her care. The Church had awakened; but past neglect was an element in the

599
present duties of the Church and the present claims of the people. He felt sure that if the Church did not do something for herself, she might continue to reign in her strongholds and fortified places, but she would not be the Church of the nation. But his hon. Friend had said, that the wills of founders must be respected, and that the altar must not be deprived of the service which was its due. But the founders of our cathedrals were all Roman Catholics. They enriched those foundations in order to perpetuate the Roman Catholic religion. How, then, did the Protestant chapters become possessed of those estates? Was it by looking upon the will of the founder as an obstacle not to be surmounted? A few years ago, the chapter of Durham had asked, and obtained, the sanction of this House to the transfer of a portion of their estates to the institution of an University. Did not that transaction put the hon. Baronet's argument in respect of the will of the founder, and Parliamentary interference, entirely out of court? And as to depriving the altar of the service which belonged to it, was that the object of this bill? He should have thought from the language of the hon. Baronet, that this bill involved the destruction of the cathedrals. Had that been the case, no man would have opposed it more strenuously than himself. But he had the consolation of knowing that all the cathedrals were to be maintained, that service would be performed in them, in the same manner in which he had been, all his life, accustomed to see it performed, in the largest and most splendid cathedral in the island—the cathedral of York—in a manner of which he had never heard a complaint. The hon. Baronet had adverted to the loss of rewards for merit, asylums for lettered ease, attractive prizes, nor would he say that these should be disregarded. We have human instruments to work with, and must employ human means. Nor should a diocesan be deprived of the power of testifying his approbation of a deserving minister. But if there were as many prizes left in the ecclesiastial profession as in any other, would not that suffice? Might not good livings be reckoned amongst the number of the prizes? Was it necessary to preserve the non-resident prebendaries of Lincoln and York? But his hon. Friend said he would find them duties. But the question was, what duties were most wanted, and in what places? and he must say, that it was not in the towns in which the cathedrals existed.
600
The bill provided for an archdeacon, who might become more efficient, and act as a link between the Bishops and the parochial clergy. It might also be advantageous if a certain number of curates were attached to every see, who should be at the disposal of the bishop, and who might be sent to preach the word in destitute places. But these were not duties which prebendaries could perform; and he could not but be of the opinion, that the stipends of some of the prebends would be more beneficially employed, in part providing for the spiritual necessities of those who were now destitute. He was entirely of opinion that, in the case of suppressions, it would be most just, in the first instance, to restore the tithes to a certain amount to the parishes in which the tithes accrued; and, in the second place, to provide for the necessities of populous towns within the diocese, and this he was happy to see was enacted by the present bill; and whilst he was on this part of the subject, it was fair to state how much had already been done by the bishops and chapters themselves, It was not till the 4th of William 4th. that the law enabled the chapters to part with any portion of their inheritance; but since that time, they had not been slow to avail themselves of their new powers. Most of the poor livings in the diocese of Durham and Winchester had been augmented. Christ Church, Oxford, had acted with great liberality, and many other dignified bodies deserved the same commendation. He was well aware that, though this bill would do much good, it would not do half enough. He was well aware that the exigency was so great that recourse must be had to every legitimate source. There were three great objects to be achieved—the augmentation of poor livings, the multiplication of resident clergy, and a large and perennial fund for the building and endowment of new churches—objects in the accomplishment of which this bill would go but a little way. It was, on this account, that he had wished to see a more equitable arrangement of tenths; that he desired to see an increased value given to the leasehold property of the Church; and when it was once seen that the Church was making such great exertions herself, an appeal to this House for a Parliamentary grant might be made with more confidence, without which, in addition to all he had mentioned, no sensible effect could be made on our great manufacturing towns. But, whilst he was on this part of the subject,

601
he would say that, in order to relieve the present necessities, further improvement should he made in the Church Building Acts; he knew they had been amended, but it was still so much easier and so much cheaper to build a meeting-house than a chapel of ease, that in this way a premium was offered to dissent; and it was most unjust to leave the hands of the Church manacled, and then reproach her with doing so little. It also appeared to him, that in order to provide the endowments of which the hon. Baronet despaired, the laws of mortmain ought to be relaxed. In these days a recurrence of the abuses which had led to these enactments need not be apprehended, and a modification of those restrictions would lead to nothing but good. Something might also be hoped from lay impropriators. He knew the law no longer imposed the original condition; but when the necessities were so great, and the subject was brought into notice, he was willing to hope that great lay impropriators would remember the sacred obligation which was originally attached to that description of property. He should, perhaps, be accused of travelling out of the question now before the House, but he did not think he was, for when he shewed how much more was wanted, he made it the more evident how desirable it was that this bill should be permitted to pass. The hon. Baronet had expressed his disapprobation of a commission, and had intimated that the change might be carried into effect by the chapters themselves. Much had been said and written against a commission. It was to destroy the independence of the Bishops—it was to elevate the minister of the day into a Protestant Pope; but, as it was, did not every Bishop owe his mitre to the Minister of the day? Yet the independence of the right rev. Bench was by no means destroyed, and though he desired to see the wants of the diocese in every case first attended to, yet the fruits of suppressions should not be lavished within any particular district for the sake of consuming them all, and wherever there was an excess, it could only be disposed of through the intervention of a third party. The objection on this part of the subject appeared to be removed by calling upon each bishop, as the bill now does, to be present whenever any matter connected with his diocese shall be under consideration. With this safeguard there could be no doubt that all would be well and judiciously done. He had no apprehension for the fate of the bill
602
in this House, but he did not feel so confident of its success in another place. He only hoped that it would occur to the Prelates who might think themselves bound to hand down to their successors an unimpaired inheritance, that the inheritance would not be impaired if they could point out to districts reclaimed, new congregations, the empire of the church extended, the fold made equal to the flock. It was said this hill was the result of a panic— that the danger was past—that the sacrifice need no longer be made. Let it not be said that the vows of amendment which were made in the hour of sickness were forgotten in the day of recovery. The cry which had been raised against the church, a short time ago, had only the effect of shewing the number of her friends. She found herself much stronger than she had ventured to suppose. But let not this discovery induce her to refuse what in itself was prudent or desirable. She was now in a situation to reflect with composure and concede with dignity, We ask her to assist in administering to the wants of the people, and to give herself an even stronger title to their affections; and he only prayed God that He would be pleased to direct his servants, and induce them to prefer whichever course would be most conducive to the maintenance of his church and the glory of his name.
Sir R. Peelsaid, it was his intention to give his vote in favour of the second reading of this bill. When he appointed a commission for the purpose of drawing up the report on which this bill was founded, he did not do it from any wish for popularity; but he did it from the sincere belief that such was the state of spiritual destitution in some of the largest societies in this country, in some of the great manufacturing towns, that it could not be for the interest of the Church of England to permit that destitution to exist without some vigorous effort to apply a remedy. He thought that if the Church set the example of providing a remedy, it would be a great encouragement to individuals to come forward in aiding the Church—that the Church setting an example of making a sacrifice would be the most likely way to to induce the Legislature to assist the Church; but he was convinced that the Legislature would never consent to come forward without the Church made a sacrifice. He did not regret the number of the canons being restricted, believing that their revenues might be made subservient to the ad-

603
vantage of sound religion. At the same time he had an impression that there was a disproportion between the means of the higher dignitaries of the Church and the means of the minor orders of the clergy—a disproportion which could not be permitted to exist without bringing discredit upon the Church. If he might use the expression, the "staff" was taken away from the working ministers of the Church. Looking at the miserable state of spiritual destitution which existed in some of the large towns of the empire, he believed that it was a positive good to make a reduction in the incomes of the higher orders of the Church for the purpose of supplying that deficiency—that it would have a tendency to strengthen the foundations of the Church, and give it a stronger hold on the respect and affections of the people. He should be sorry, indeed, after having adopted this measure, to take advantage of some temporary abatement of feeling towards the Church for the purpose of receding from the opinion which he had formerly expressed. He firmly believed that the clamour in favour of reform in the Church had been abated by the example set by the Church of making this reduction. He thought they would find that the clamour might shortly be revived, and that then the confidence that was now placed in the Church would be entirely removed, if it were found that the Church had taken advantage of an apparent indifference, caused by confidence in if, for the purpose of receding from a measure which the Church itself had been the first to bring forward. He thought it was also of immense advantage to the Church that it should take the reform into its own hands, and that by a commission composed exclusively of the friends of the Church this measure should be brought forward. This bill was founded on the recommendation of a commission; and he could not express in too strong terms his sense of the gratitude that was due to that commission for the manner in which the members of it had performed their duty. His firm belief was, that those members of the episcopal bench— the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Lincoln, and the Bishop of Glocester—who formed part of that commission, would find; not only in the satisfaction of their own consciences, but ultimately in the public acknowledgement and grateful feeling of the people of England, ample compensation for their disappointment, when they found
604
their proceedings disapproved of by persons for whom they entertained the highest respect. He believed it would be ultimately conceded that they were the true friends of the church, in taking this reform into their own hands. He did not anticipate from his hon. Friend that there would be any serious impediment in the way of passing this measure; but he must say, if he did, it would only be an additional motive with him for declaring his adherence to the opinion he had heretofore expressed. With respect to the details of the bill, he must say, as a friend of the church, he preferred the recommendations of the commissioners to any of the other plans proposed as a substitute. He thought that the proposal of making vested interests subject to a tax for the purpose of supplying the funds was highly objectionable, and speaking generally, he preferred the principle of the measure recommended by the commissioners to the principle of any of the other plans recommended. He rejoiced to hear that the objections against the permanent commission were done away with by including in it all the bishops. He was also very glad that the noble Lord had anticipated a motion he should have made, to leave the canonries of Christ Church undiminished in number, on account of the academical character of Christ Church. He thought his hon. Friend (Sir Robert Inglis) would hardly maintain that excessive ecclesiastical incomes ought to exist, seeing the absolute necessity there was of providing means of worship in the manufacturing districts. He thought his hon. Friend would not carry his opposition so far as to object to some legislative interference to correct that which, if not corrected, would reflect great discredit on the church. In a measure of this kind the animus of it determined its character. The whole of the revenue taken was for the purposes of spiritual education. It was for the purpose of strengthening the working of the establishment. It was requisite that they should widen and strengthen the foundation of the church; if they did not, the ornamental capital would be too heavy for the base; and it was wise in the church to make some reduction in that capital, and in the ornaments that were appended to it, solely for the purpose of widening and strengthening the foundations on which it stood, first by increasing a religious feeling, and secondly, by drawing the affections of the people towards the church.
Mr. W. O. Stanleywould not oppose

605
the second reading of the bill. When he saw it supported by the leading Members of the House, he felt sure, that he should only do harm in opposing the bill. There were many points in the measure which he should feel it his duty at another time to bring under the consideration of the House. He hoped that no more of the property of the church in Wales would he alienated. The commissioners were deceived with regard to the church in North and South Wales. There was not so much destitution in North Wales, nor was the church so rich as was supposed.
Mr. T. G. Estcourtsaid, the measure now offered to the House was a measure which could only be designated as one of spoliation and oppression. He was not insensible to the advantages which would arise from the church setting the example of providing for the spiritual destitution which prevailed, nor was he instructed to say that that example ought not to be set. He objected to the commission, as one liable to change in its lay members. Persons might be introduced into the commission as lay members who might be the greatest enemies of the church. The church would not be backward in employing any surplus revenues there might be for the advantage of the church. He entered his protest against the bill, with a full determination to give his vote in support of the amendment moved by his hon. Friend.
Mr. Lambtonsupported the bill because it carried a salutary principle of reform in the reduction. He was anxious that this bill, before it passed through the committee should receive certain alterations to make it meet more completely the spiritual demands of the people. He trusted the noble Lord would not refuse to make the provisions of this bill more in accordance with the prayers of the petitions, showing the want of spiritual instruction in that quarter, which he and his hon. colleague had presented from the county of Durham, and that none of the funds of the church in that diocese should be alienated to the purposes of the church in other districts. Of the want of spiritual instruction, if that needed any proof, he was supplied with abundant evidence by the judges at the late assizes. He would suggest to the noble Lord that it would be wise also to introduce a clause into the bill empowering the ecclesiastical or executive commissioners under it to enfranchise the church property which might be alienated in all cases where they could do it on terms advantageous to the church.
Sir W. Follettthought the House was placed somewhat in a difficulty in being now asked to assent to the second reading of this bill without having had an opportunity of examining the documents in its support which had been recently laid on the Table by the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell.) Before he could give his assent to the second reading, he begged to understand whether it were intended to embody the principle contained in the recommendation of the commissioners for the suppression of the canonries and deans and chapters. Until he came into the House he was not at all aware that the Church Commissioners, with the Archbishop of Canterbury at their head, had decided so expressly against the proposal which had been made to them on behalf of the deans and chapters. The noble Lord had allowed the second reading of the bill to stand over in order that he might give his consideration to that proposal, and yet be allowed no time for hon. Members on the opposition side of the House to give it their attention. [Lord J. Russell had given notice on Friday of the second reading to-day.] That might be, but he and others were not at all aware when the second reading was fixed for to-day that the proposition which had been made on behalf of the cathedral bodies had been so peremptorily decided against. Moreover, none of his hon. Friends had yet had an opportunity of looking over the elaborate arguments contained in the papers now on the Table. He wished to understand whether by now agreeing to the second reading they should stand pledged to the principle of the suppression of canonries, and deans and chapters. If the suppression were to be general (and on this he wished for a distinct explanation from the noble Lord), he should certainly vote with the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford, against the second reading of the bill.
Mr. Humeexpressed his surprise that the second reading of this bill should meet with any opposition on the ground of any imputation of spoliation assigned to its provisions by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, and he denied that it contained any such principle, or that it would in any degree interfere with the interest of any individual. He considered the language which had been used by the right hon. Member for Tamworth that night was much more calculated to support the church than anything he had heard in opposition to the measure.
Mr. Gladstonerose to address a strong expostulation to the noble Lord upon the point argued by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Exeter. The House was placed in a difficult position on this subject—for the noble Lord had only delayed hitherto the second reading of this bill in order to give himself an opportunity to consider the proposal of the deans and chapters, an advantage of which he seemed now disposed to deprive the House. He earnestly requested the noble Lord, therefore, to give the House some explicit declaration upon this point. He was not one of those who were opposed to legislation upon this subject, but he thought that this bill was not calculated to settle the question in a proper manner, but rather to unsettle that which it professed to arrange. He believed that the individuals who had made proposals for an arrangement to the Government were not aware, except through the newspapers, that their proposal had been decided against by the noble Lord. He could not assent to the principle of general suppression; and, unless he heard some satisfactory explanation from the noble Lord, he should vote against the second reading.
Mr. Harcourt Vernonsaid, that although perhaps there might be some unfairness in proceeding with this bill without taking into consideration anything that might have been proposed by those who called themselves the sub-committee, he had no misgiving, for his own part, on this question of suppression. If this bill went to suppress cathedral establishments generally, he should cordially agree with his hon. Friend who had just sat down. Such, however, was not the case, and he concurred with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, that this bill placed cathedral establishments upon the only ground on which they ought to stand—viz., their obvious and absolute utility. He considered that one or two canons or prebendaries could just as well perform the not heavy duties incumbent upon those officers as four. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet also, that the animus in which this subject was treated ought to be taken into consideration. The measure was not, as had been stated, an invidious attack upon the Church, but was a measure which was calculated to strengthen and make the Church more firm. Thinking the measure called for by the deficiency of adequate funds to benefit the people by the extension of religious instruction—thinking that deficiency of in-
608
struction was partly owing to the defective distribution of the existing fund—a distribution which this bill was intended to relieve—thinking, also that the House could not fairly approach such a measure as had been suggested by the hon. Member for Leeds until they had done all in their power without trenching on vested rights to improve the distribution, he should give his support to the second reading of this bill. As to the confiscation of which the hon. Baronet below him (Sir W. Follett) had spoken, the hon. Baronet should consider the etymology of the word "cathedral," and what was the origin and object of cathedral institutions. The object of this bill was, that wherever there should be found to exist any degree of spiritual destitution in a diocese in which the canonries were to be suppressed, such arrangement as to that property should be made as should secure its expenditure in the most efficient manner to provide a remedy for such destitution. The hon. Baronet feared that our abbeys and cathedrals would fall into decay; but did he not know that in most cathedral churches there were specific funds for the purpose of keeping them in repair? With respect to the improvement of small livings, it was impossible that such benefices could ever be so greatly increased in value by these funds as to render them, as the hon. Baronet feared, saleable objects. With respect to the distribution of these funds falling into lay hands, it would only be a similar circumstance to that which prevailed with respect to Queen Anne's Bounty. He must say that he considered this measure was called for by the destitution of religious instruction that prevailed throughout the country, and by the deficiency of adequate funds for the service of the Church of England. They could not go with a fair face to seek the assistance of individuals, or ask for their co-operations in the work of church extension, until they had first tried every thing in their power with the funds now in possession of the Church, which did not go to the extent of materially injuring the Church, but of merely diminishing its decorations. There was in this country a great body of the religious public who entertained the most friendly feelings towards the Church, but who at the same time would wish to see a diminution of its sinecure portions. The House ought always to keep in view, when dealing with these subjects, the objects for which the institutions were established—namely, the diffusion and propagation of

609
religious truth. Unless this were had in view, to use the language of Burke, "the hoary head of inveterate abuse would not obtain reverence nor conciliate respect."
Mr. Bainesexpressed himself in favour of the second reading of the present bill, which proposed an application of the sum of 130,000 l. a year to reward those who were the principal labourers of the Church, and particularly so, as that amount was not taken from the funds allotted to the payment of those who did labour. He did not think that the application of the funds of cathedral livings was by any means a new principle. It had been very strongly adopted by Bishop Burnet 130 years ago, and his sentiments upon that subject, to which he (Mr. Baines) would take the liberty of calling the attention of the House, were remarkably in unison with those of the framers of the present bill. His words were:—
"We hear much of the poverty of some livings but nothing of the wealth of others, but take it on the whole, no Christian Church has a better provision, and if the lands belonging to deans and chapters who are of no more use than abbots and monks were divided amongst the poor clergy in every diocese, there would be no just cause of complaint unless that bishops daughters do not go off so well as they do now, with a good sinecure. And if bishops themselves were brought to an equality of revenue, as well as functions, it would prevent the great scandal given by commendams and translations that are daily increasing."
That was the language of Bishop Burnet. The Bishop of Llandaff (Dr. Watson) in his letter to the Archbishop of Caterbury proposes an equalization of bishoprics and large church livings on vacancies, as a great benefit to the establishmen. He also expresses his wish to see appropriated as they become vacant one third of every deanery, prebend, a canonry of the churches of Westminster, Windsor, Christchurch, Canterbury, &c, for the same purpose mutatis mutandis, as the first fruits and tenths were appropriated by the 2nd and 3rd Queen Anne, and he expresses his decided objection to commendams. The noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire (Lord Stanley) had also professed himself an advocate for the principle of present bill, for in his address to his constituents, in North Lancashire at the last general election said—
"That he thought the wealth of the Church ought to be appropriated to raise the livings of the poor clergy, instead of being devoted to
610
purposes comparatively useless. He shared this opinion in common with those of every class in society, and he thought that by deducting from the wealth of the large livings, and adding to the poorer, the Church would be placed in a situation to be more available for the instruction of the community."
These authorities which he (Mr. Baines) quoted he conceived to be tolerably high in favour of the principle of the present bill, and particularly so as their devotion to the cause of the Established Church could not be doubted. He would in conclusion say, that the ecclesiastical reforms which had been introduced by the noble Lord the Secretary for the colonies, had been of the utmost service to the Church, at the same time that they were calculated to give much satisfaction not only to Dissenters, but to all classes of religionists.
Mr. Goulburndid not rise to reply to the elaborate eulogy which the hon. Member for Leeds had pronounced on the noble Lord, nor to enter into the disputed questions in reference to this subject. When, however, so much praise was lavished on the noble Lord, it was only fair to remind the House of the simple fact, that this measure in reality originated in the commission which had been appointed during the administration of his right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth. Having supported the principle of this bill on two former occasions, it was necessary for him only to say, that it should have his cordial support so far as principle was concerned. If he understood that principle, it was that a portion of the funds of the cathedrals should be rendered available for the purpose of more extended parochial instruction, and although he admitted that cathedral dignities were something more than ornamental—that they had been of real value to the Church Establishment—he still, having before his eyes the dread of those calamities which religious destitution entailed, thought such an application of those funds desirable in every point of view. They all knew the baneful consequences which resulted from religious ignorance, and how such a state of things was calculated to spread infidelity and disaffection. To counteract these great evils, it was essential that the pure doctrines of the Church of England should be more extensively promulgated among the people, and it was on that ground that he should give his support to the second reading of this bill. For his own part, he did not think 130,000 l. anything like commensurate to the exigency of the case; and he would go further and

611
say, that for the suppression of an evil of such magnitude, of which all parties complained, the public ought to come forward with a liberal hand. He did not mean to state that a better arrangement than the present might not have been made, but on this point he would say no more at present, but reserve to himself the right of making any practical amendment which he might deem prudent at some future stage of the bill. He could not, however, resume his seat without expressing his regret that the noble Lord had not made the same arrangement with respect to the cathedral church of Ely, that he had made in reference to the cathedral establishment of Christ Church.
Mr. Liddellhad very strong objections to the bill, although he would not go the length of opposing it in its present stage. The principle of the bill had not, in his opinion, been quite correctly stated by some hon. Members, for it not only provided for the suppression of a large number of dignities, but it also provided that, after those dignities should be suppressed, the revenues derivable from them were to form a common fund for the augmentation of poor benefices throughout the country. To that principle, if unqualified, as it was in this, although not in former bills, he had no hesitation in giving his most determined opposition, should he be the only Member in the House to vote against it. His reason for not opposing the bill in its present stage was this, that the 56th clause, which enacted that the property to be derived from the suppression of those dignities was to form a common fund for the augmentation of poor benefices generally, contained a promise to this effect—"unless urgent cause be shown for exclusive appropriation." Upon the faith of Parliament in adhering to the spirit and letter of that proviso, did he abstain from opposing the bill in its present stage. There were, however, words at the end of that proviso, which diminished much the confidence which the qualification of the principle of the bill created —namely, "due regard being had to the spiritual wants of other dioceses." He therefore gave notice, that in committee he should move that these words be struck out, because if a system of comparison were to be instituted between the spiritual wants of one district and those of another, the spirit of the bill would, in his opinion, be greatly violated. The bill proposed an important change in the diocese of Durham, one of the most important in England, to
612
which he must object, certain as he was, that in the case of that diocese an urgent case could be shown for exclusive appropriation, on the grounds of inadequate endowment, extensive spiritual wants, and the most judicious and beneficial management of the revenues by the present dean and chapter of Durham. He begged of the House to consider, that they paid over 11,000 l. a year to the revenues of a new see. The present Bishop of Durham had paid over towards the construction of a bishoprick in Yorkshire, which had property amounting to 1,800 l. a year, nearly 40,000 l. He would now say a word with regard to the case of the University of Durham. The 28th clause provided that such arrangements should be made respecting the deanery and canonries in the cathedral church of Durham, and their revenues, as, upon inquiry and consideration of the act for appropriating part of the property of that church to the establishment of a university, and of the engagements subsequently entered into by William the late Lord Bishop of Durham and the Dean and Chapter should be determined on. Now, he did not know whether the object of that clause was to get rid of those engagements, under the pretence that the university was established before those engagements were entered into, but he could not avoid saying that it was open to that interpretation; and he hoped that no consideration would prevent those engagements from being fulfilled, virtually at least, by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Considering the great increase which was going on in the population of Durham, and likewise in that of other dioceses, he objected to the abstraction of the revenues of that diocese, already in a state of spiritual destitution for the purpose of contributing to the spiritual wants of other parts of the country. In Newcastle, with a population of 50,000 therewere but six churches, which was one church to 8,000 souls. With regard to benefices, he had always been of opinion that 300 l. a year ought to be the minimum income, and yet there were no less than thirty-four benefices connected with the Dean and Chapter of Durham, and containing large populations, the income of each of which was under that amount. He could not help adverting to the fact of the munificence of the Dean and Chapter of Durham, in contributing from their revenues to the augmentation of small livings, and the endowment of new places of worship. They had, as he had already stated, applied 110,000 l. to the University of Durham.

613
Since the Archbishop's Enabling Act, which gave them the power, they had contributed no less than 120,000 l. towards the augmentation of livings. They had appropriated to these objects in the whole no less than 400,000 l., besides acts of private munificence. He assured the noble Lord and the House that he approached this question without any party feeling; but, knowing the necessities of the diocese of Durham, he should resist the abstraction of one farthing of its revenues for any other purpose than was strictly connected with the spiritual wants of the diocese. He approved of the introduction into this bill of the 57th clause, yet he was not quite satisfied with the security it gave. The present Bishop of Durham, though an estimable prelate, had been appointed by the noble Lord, and the Dean of Durham, was also Bishop of St. David's, and therefore interested in another diocese. He should be better satisfied if the commission included the two archdeacons of the diocese. One of the main reasons which prevented him from opposing the bill was that which had been stated by the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn), namely, that considering the moral and spiritual wants of the community at large, unless the church gave up some portion of its revenues it would be impossible to call upon the state to contribute. When that sacrifice had been made, and when the church had come forward and had done all in its power voluntarily to aid this object, he should then consider that the state had no excuse for not taking into consideration the whole subject of the spiritual destitution of the community, and by relieving this great evil, so much complained of, contribute essentially to the prosperity of the empire.
Mr. Lawsaid, that looking at the title of the bill, which purported that it was to carry into effect the fourth report of the commissioners of ecclesiastical revenues, he could not but recollect that that report contained propositions most objectionable. The principle embodied in the bill, that of diverting church funds to the purpose of general education, it was impossible to correct in the machinery. He was, therefore, compelled to oppose the bill in its present stage. He agreed with his right hon. colleague (Mr. Goulburn) in the necessity of giving to the chapter of Ely, if not the whole of the stalls, a greater number than four. The same objection applied to other chapters. If these reductions were forced
614
upon the church, the wants and claims of each chapter should be attended to. If the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford pressed his motion to a division, he should divide with him against the bill. It was a mistake to suppose that the university he represented had changed its sentiments upon this subject, as might be seen in an able petition which had been presented to the House, and he should betray his trust if he did not offer the best opposition in his power to the further progress of this bill.
Sir T. D. Aclandshould give his vote with so much difficulty and reluctance if the question was pressed to a division, that he must state his reasons for the course he meant to adopt. If he believed, with his hon. Friend (Sir R. Inglis), that it was impossible to deal with the subject at all, or to interfere with church revenues, he should be bound to refuse to vote for the second reading of this bill; but when they spoke of tile principle of the bill, they ought to give the largest and widest interpretation to the principle, when the main and professed object of the promoters of the bill and that of the friends of the church were the same. If the latter consented to the second reading of the bill, it was in the belief that they could deal with the details in the committee. The hon. Member for Nottingham had said, that it was better to have this bill than none; but if no better reason could be given, nothing should induce him to consent to the bill. There were, however, many other means of effecting the same object. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Durham had mentioned one, the distribution of 120,000 l. by the dean and Chapter of Durham amongst the incumbents of small livings. This was his justification—that very many of the true principles were shadowed out (he did not say embodied) in the bill, and upon those principles he hoped that they should be able to work.
Mr. Bellentirely concurred in all that had fallen from his hon. Friend who had spoken so recently; he could confirm all his statements, and he would further observe, that the spiritual destitution in that portion of the county of Northumberland which he had the honour to represent was very great indeed, and it had been materially augmented by the increase of collieries and manufactories. While alluding to Newcastle, to North Shields, and the neighbourhood, there was one very important fact which his hon. Friend had

615
omitted to mention, and it was this—that after leaving Newcastle and following the banks of the river Tyne to North Shields, a distance of seven miles, there was but one church, although within that space the population amounted to upwards of 20,000 persons. He would add, that the collieries were extending themselves to the north and east of Newcastle, and perhaps hon. Members might not be aware that no colliery of any extent was opened out without bringing with it a population of from 500 to 1,000 persons; and although the bishop of the diocese and the dean and chapter, landowners and coal owners, had done much to provide for the spiritual wants of the people generally, yet it was quite impossible they could do all that was required. He was sensible of the great liberality of the bishop and dean and chapter generally, and he too would enter his protest against the surplus revenues of the diocese of Durham, supposing the bill to pass, being appropriated to any other object than the spiritual wants of that particular diocese. If he thought any other course would be adopted, he for one should vote against the second reading of the bill.
Mr. Slaneysupported the bill, as one of the best and most practical measures which could be introduced for strengthening and extending the usefulness of the Established Church. At the same he hoped the noble Lord would not adopt the suggestion which had been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, to limit the application of the funds to the particular locality in which they might accrue.
Lord Teignmouthwished the noble Lord to postpone the measure till after Easter. The delay which had already taken place had resulted in a decided progressive improvement of the bill. The principle of locality had only been faintly arrived at in the original measure, but now due regard was to be had in all cases to the diocese in which the revenues should arise. The bishop of the diocese was now to be allowed to sit as commissioner upon all cases occuring within his own diocese, while all the bishops of England and Wales were ex officio to be members of the commission. These were decided improvements in the bill. The chapters also had been consulted, who were the best qualified to give direction as to the mode in which these surplus revenues should be distributed. There was another chapter he was also anxious to consult—
616
the chapter of accidents; he wished to see what new lights might arise, what new events might take place, to modify the present scheme, and render it more favourable and effective for all the purposes of an Established Church. He particularly approved of the principle of localising the funds accruing under this bill, and recommended that halls should be appropriated to large parishes until the spiritual wants of the people were provided for. Although opposed to some of the provisions of the bill, he could not vote with his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford.
Colonel Sibthorpregretted to see the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies introduce such a measure as this to the House. He considered the noble Lord the child and offspring of the Church, his whole family being dependent on Church property for everything they had, yet he had shown throughout the most decided enmity to the Church. He had no confidence in the noble Lord. He would trust him with his purse in private life, but he had no opinion of him as a politician or a Minister.
Lord John Russellwas glad to hear the assurance of the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln, that he would trust him with his purse, he hoped he would have no objection to extend the same confidence to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in case he should make a demand upon it. With respect to the bill now under the consideration of the House, putting aside the objection of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, that Parliament should not interfere with subjects of this nature, he had been asked by the hon. and learned Member for Exeter, what was the principle on which this bill proceeded. He thought they might introduce a bill of this nature on two grounds. Supposing from the lapse of time the cathedral establishments had become ill adapted to the purposes for which they were intended, it was perfectly competent to Parliament to propose such amendments as would adapt them to the present times. But with regard to this bill, there was another and stronger reason for the interference of Parliament. Revenues had formerly been set apart for ecclesiastical purposes to which there was now little or no duties attached, while there existed a want of religious instruction in many populous places which called

617
loudly for the consideration of the Legislature. It was therefore necessary to find some mode by which that want could be supplied. It was, then, upon these two grounds that he thought a bill of this kind ought to have been introduced, and it was for those reasons he now asked the assent of the House to the principle upon which it was founded. He did not ask the House to consider the principle of the measure as the only one which could be adopted, and in committee other plans could be brought forward and investigated. He only wished that the House should express its opinion that some measure of the kind was necessary. For his own part, after full examination and after consulting those best qualified to judge on such matters, he had come to the conclusion that certain cathedral stalls ought to be suppressed. He could not, however, agree with the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, that those stalls ought to be attached to large and populous parishes. He did not think that such a course was advisable. He thought it was desirable that there should be men in the church of different capacities, and engaged in different pursuits, who, however, would all alike add to the respectability and dignity of the establishment, although in different ways. One person might, for instance, be attached to a large and populous parish, whose time would be employed in visiting his congregation and that person might be also an eloquent preacher. Another person might have no talent for eloquence, but he might have an extensive knowledge of theology and be highly qualified for the elucidation of the sacred Scriptures. Both those persons would add in their different ways to the respectability and usefulness of the church; but if the stalls were added to the large parishes, they would lose either the eloquent preacher or that sound learning which contributed to the dignity of the establishment. He therefore could not consent to the proposition of the noble Lord. With respect to the suppression which had been alluded to, that was a question upon which he would not enter until the proposals of the commissioners were laid before the House. If Dr. Spry and the Dean of Ely, and the Dean of Chester had no objection to their proposals being laid before the House he should not oppose that course, as he should at the same time submit the answers which had been sent to those pro-
618
posals, when the House would have an opportunity of comparing the two schemes. For himself, he considered the scheme originally proposed by the commissioners to be the best, and he believed the Archbishop of Canterbury had arrived at the same conclusion. He did not know that it was necessary to enter further at that time into the provisions of the measure. He was glad, however, to find, that the qualification which he had introduced with respect to Christ Church had met with, the approbation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth, but he must say, that he thought the principle which had been acted upon in the case of Christ Church would fail if it was extended to Ely. He trusted the bill would pass in the present Session.
The House divided: Ayes 87; Noes 11: Majority 76.

List of the AYES.

Abercromby, hn. G. R.

Hoskins, K.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Hughes, W. B.

Adam, Admiral

Hume, J.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hutton, R.

Baines, E.

James, W.

Barnard, E. G.

Lambton, H.

Barry, G. S.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Beamish, F. B.

Lushington, S.

Bell, M.

Maule, hon. F.

Bernal, R.

Melgund, Viscount

Blair, J.

Morris, D.

Blewitt, R. J.

Muntz, G. F.

Bolling, W.

Pechell, Captain

Bowes, J.

Peel, Sir R.

Brocklehurst. J.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Brodie, W. B.

Philips, M.

Brotherton, J.

Pigot, D. R.

Buller, E.

Polhill, F.

Busfeild, W.

Power, J.

Clay, W.

Pusey, P.

Collier, J.

Rice, E. R.

Craig, W. G.

Rundle, J.

Curry, Mr. Sergeant

Russell, Lord J.

Davies, Colonel

Salwey, Colonel

Ewart, W.

Scholefield, J.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Seymour, Lord

Filmer, Sir E.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Slaney, R. A.

Fitzsimon, N.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Fort, J.

Stansfield, W. R.

Gaskell, J. M.

Stewart, J.

Gordon, R.

Stock, Dr.

Goulburn, U. hn. H.

Teignmouth, Lord

Hall, Sir B.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hastie, A.

Tufnell, H.

Hector, C. J.

Turner, E.

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

Vernon, G. H.

Hindley, C.

Vigors, N. A.

Hobhouse, Sir J.

Wakley, T.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Wallace, R.

Hodgson, R.

Warburton, H.

619

White, A.

Wyse, T.

Wilbraham, G.

TELLERS.

Williams, W.

Parker, J.

Wood, B.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

List of the NOES.

Adare, Viscount

Morgan, C. M. R.

Baker, E.

Richards, R.

Christopher, R. A.

Sibthorp, Colonel

East, J. B.

Williams, R.

Estcourt, T.

TELLERS.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Holmes, hon. W. A.

Law, E. C.

LORD SEATON'S ANNUITY.
Lord John Russellmoved the Second Reading of Lord Seaton's Annuity Bill,
Mr. Humehad given notice that he would, when the House was in Committee on this bill move that the grant be limited to one life. He objected to Peers being made when the persons raised to that dignity were not possessed of an independent property equal to the maintenance of the rank which was conferred upon them. Now he understood that Lord Seaton had not an independent fortune, and therefore, as he had been made a Peer, the Government now proposed to give him 2,000 l. a year for his own life, and for two other lives. He objected strongly to such a course, for in the end the heirs of persons who in this manner were created Peers became dependent on the Crown, and he contended that no Peer ought to be dependent on the Crown. Why did not the Government create Peers for life? In his time he had seen many lawyers obtain the Peerage who had much better been made Peers for life only, for their families in the end became dependent on the public for support. He had moved for a return in connexion with the subject of pensions; and from that return he found that a pension had been granted to Arthur Onslow, a Speaker of that House, and that pension had been granted for his own life and the life of his son. Now, would the House believe it, that in consequence of that grant Mr. Speaker Onslow and his son had actually obtained 158,884 l. of the public money? A pension was given on the 5th of April, 1817, to Lord Colchester and his son, for their lives, of 4,000 l., and the money received by them up to the date of the return, which was the 7th of August, 1832, amounted to 57,750 l. On a former occasion he had shown, by a list in his possession, that, 14,000,000 l. of the public
620
money had been expended in this way, calculating interest and principle together. The House would be surprised at the statement of one or two items, which he had extracted from the list, Sir J. Blanquiere had a pension of 1,072 l. granted him in 1794, and at the date of the return he had received 133,223 l. of public money, principal and compound interest included. Another individual received a pension in 1783, a pension of 356 l. for the life of himself and brother, and not less than 81,350 l. had been paid on account of it. A pension for three lives, granted in 1771, of only 300 l., had yet cost the country, principal and interest included, not less than 130,000 l On account of these circumstances he protested against the principle of granting pensions, and he thought it would be much better to reward Lord Seaton for his services by a sum of money at once.
Bill read a second time.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of Sutherland, and the Marquesses of Westminster, and Lansdowne, from a number of places, for, and by Earls De Grey, and Yarborough, the Marquess of Londonderry, Lords Fitzgerald, Ravensworth, and Prudhoe, from a great number of places, against, the Total and Immediate Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By the Duke of Argyle, the Marquess of Lansdowne, and Lords Strafford, Lurgan, and Prudhoe, from a great number of places, in favour of NonIntrusion.—By Lord Redesdale, from a number of places' against the Grant to Maynooth College.—By the Marquesses of Westmeath, and Londonderry, Lord Colchester, and the Earl of Wicklow, from a very great number of places, against the Irish Corporations Bill.—By Earl De Grey, and Lord Prudhoe, from several places, for Church Extension.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, IRELAND.
The Marquis of Westmeathsaid, he rose to present several petitions against the Irish Municipal Corporations Bill. The first to which he should call their lordships' attention was from the guild of shoemakers of the city of Dublin. That petition, which was couched in very

545
energetic, but very effective language, he begged leave to read to the house. The petitioners stated, that in their opinion the bill which had been introduced was calculated not to reform, but to destroy the corporations of Ireland. They regretted to see various revolutionary measures brought before Parliament under the specious name of Reform, the effect of which must be the destruction of various ancient rights and privileges. They energetically protested against the violation of their rights, which they would not allow rudely to be torn from them and given to others, whether friends or foes, who had no claim whatsoever to them. The petitioners demanded of their lordships to consider, if corporation property were not protected, how long private property would be safe? They denied the right of any authority under Heaven to despoil them of their property—not only to despoil them of that which they had derived from their ancestors but also to deprive their successors of their birthright. The argument which was made use of in support of this proceeding was nothing more than the plea of the plunderer who forcibly possessed himself of the purse of the weaker party. If such a measure were carried, the petitioners felt convinced that it would be another "heavy blow and great discouragement" to Protestantism in Ireland, and they therefore earnestly prayed their Lordships not to allow this bill to pass into a law. The noble Marquess then proceeded to say, that these petitioners plainly told their Lordships that they had no right to pass this bill. They boldly used the words "no right." That was a phrase and an expression which, he believed, was to be found in the mouth of every Englishman who saw those rights or that property invaded which justly belonged to him. The noble viscount must have heard it from his schoolboy days up to the present hour. It was familiar to every Englishman. It
"Grew with his growth, and strengthened with his strength."
And the same sentiment was expressed by the petitioners, who saw their rights recklessly invaded. He, for one, was astonished that any set of men should expose themselves, by an act of legislative duty, to be addressed in language such as that. He should feel himself degraded if any body of men could justly address him in language of that description. The
546
measure to which the petition related appeared to him to be an act of political gambling—as if the destinies of a people were to be taken up, and any set of men who happened to be in power were at liberty to play with them as if they played with a pack of cards. He was struck with this view of the matter when the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland brought up this bill. Joy was beaming on his face when he brought up this wicked, mischievous, and plundering bill. The noble Lord, he believed, thought that he was doing a good act, for there was a great deal of difference between school attainments and statesmanlike ability, which knows how to distinguish between a wise and a vicious measure. Now, he would maintain that the bill which had been thus brought up to their Lordships' House did not receive a statesmanlike consideration. It was introduced to satisfy agitators—he would not more particularly say whom—and to keep Ministers in their places, reckless of the rights and privileges of the people who were immediately affected by it. He felt that if he, as a representative peer of Ireland, did not openly speak his mind with reference to this measure, which was calculated to convert the metropolis of that country into a scene of turmoil and dissension, he would be guilty of a gross dereliction of a sacred duty, and therefore he had trespassed thus far on their Lordships' attention.

THE ADMINISTRATION.
The Marquess of Londonderry, on putting a question to the noble Viscount, and in stating to their Lordships the grounds on which he felt himself called upon to pursue the course he was then adopting, would not carry their memories back to the declarations of the noble Viscount on the appropriation clause, to the history of that measure or to the conduct which the Government, with the noble Viscount at its head, had pursued respecting it; neither would he bring back to their recollections the lectures which that noble Viscount had thought it his duty to deliver in their Lordships' House, as to the principle on which a Government ought to act, or as to the power which a Government ought to possess, to carry on efficiently the business of a great country; but he would shortly draw their Lordships' attention to what he thought was of great importance—the

547
intentions of the noble Viscount as to the principles on which the Government of the country was in future to be carried on. He would draw their attention to what happened in May last, to the declarations made by the noble Viscount in that House, and to the consequences which had followed such declarations. Their Lordships would remember that in the beginning of May the noble Viscount (Melbourne) found it expedient to come down and declare his intention of resigning the Government of the country, finding himself no longer supported by that confidence in another place which he thought essential to carrying on his Administration. How much greater confidence was placed in him at the present moment the noble Viscount might, perhaps, hereafter learn. The noble Viscount, however, came down to the House early in May, and announced his resignation. At the end of the same month (he believed the 31st) he also came down to this House, and, though it was not very regular to refer to speeches or to quote opinions which had been delivered, yet, as many instances of that practice had occurred during the last week—especially on the important subject of the Corn Laws —and as he was very desirous of showing what were the principles then expressed by the noble Viscount, he trusted that the House would pardon him for reading his declarations on that day. He found that the opinions which he would now read were expressed by the noble Viscount opposite on the day to which he alluded. Lord Melbourne stated—
"He would never stoop to diminish the difficulties of Government by any abandonment of principle on his part. *** Although a warm and anxious friend to all measures which he really believed to be measures of reform, he was not prepared to adopt measures contrary to his feelings, opinions, and conscience, for the sake of gaining the support they might conciliate. The accusations to which he should be most sensitive of all were those of having deceived any one, or of having given a notion that he professed opinions which he really did not hold and maintain."
By this honourable declaration it was clear that the noble Viscount did not wish to deceive the Conservatives or his colleagues. In that sense it was understood by himself and by the noble and illustrious Duke (Wellington) behind him, who got up and said—
"Let the noble Viscount persevere in the
548
course he has resolved upon taking, and then let him trust to the good sense of this country for support."
The noble Viscount did not reply, and seemed to accept the interpretation. But what had since happened? They found in the month of June a noble Lord (son of the noble Earl, the father of the Reform Bill), and high in the confidence of the Administration, seceding from them because he was not prepared to vote for further changes. Lord Howick said, "The Members brought in were of a description, by their avowed political sentiments, to produce an opposite effect from that to which the changes ought to have been directed." And he also said, "That he did not expect the House of Commons or the people to support the projected measures." Upon that the noble Viscount, instead of acting up to the principles which he had previously professed, fortified his Administration by the introduction of individuals, of talent and respectability no doubt, but of men tainted with principles entirely different from those which the noble Viscount had given them to believe were his own. Now, what were the declarations of those individuals? The first of these persons then introduced into the Administration was the Secretary-at-war, and they found him on his election at Edinburgh, in January, speaking to this effect:—
"He admitted that he advocated the ballot. There were, however, other points on which material difference existed. He, himself, was for enfranchising every man who held a house to the value of 10 l.; but he would not confine that qualification within a given district. He was for extension beyond the boundary of parliamentary boroughs, but looked on pecuniary qualification as necessary,"
Now, this Gentleman who advocated the ballot, and who had expressed such opinions, said in his famous letter from Windsor, "I have the same opinions as a Minister I had as a private citizen." Now, differing so entirely on important questions with the noble Viscount and many other Members of the Administration, of what avail could be his services in the Administration? He must be on all great subjects merely a sleeping partner. The next appointment under this system was that of a person of great influence in Ireland. He was placed in a most important situation—the Vice-Presidency of the Board of Trade. Now

549
this individual was notoriously hostile to almost every recent decision of the English Legislature. He was notoriously hostile to the union between the two countries, and he was notoriously hostile to the Protestant interests; but to the former he was more particularly hostile, so much so, that it could create no surprise that the inhabitants of Londonderry, and of all places throughout Ireland, should feel the greatest alarm. This Gentleman, at a meeting in Dublin, in January, 1831, declared,—
"If the union is not repealed within two years, I am determined that I will pay neither rent, tithes, nor taxes. They may distrain my goods, but who will buy, boys? Mind, that is the word, who will buy? I don't tell any man here to follow my advice, but, so help me God, if I don't do it, you may call me Sheil of the silk gown."
The opinions which Mr. Sheil entertained might be shown also by the proceedings of a meeting, the report of which he would read to their Lordships. At Mr. Sheil's election for Tipperary, Sept. 16, 1839, according to the Dublin Evening Post, Archdeacon Laffan said,—
"As I have mentioned the Lords * * I hope they will not drive the people to a line of conduct the bare reflection upon which makes one shudder. When the pressure from without —the tide of popular indignation—the soul of the long suppressed but irresistible flood of a nation's wrath would sweep away every vestige of this lock-up house, and the dreadful and appalling shout should be heard from millions of British subjects—when' Delenda est Carthago would be the motto to demolish this sink of hereditary legislation—this Sir, I dread must and will be."
In Mr. Sheil's speech which immediately followed, that Gentleman at once fully identified himself with Archdeacon Laffan in all the sentiments uttered, for he said—
"You have heard Archdeacon Laffan, with that just assent to all that he has said which his character is sure to command."
Mr. Sheil also referred to what he termed the "factious proceedings of the House of Lords," and desired his auditors to "remember with what facility that House was coerced into acquiescence on the Reform Bill." The man who uttered such sentiments had been made by the noble Viscount the Vice President of the Board of Trade. They however, did not agree in opinion.
550
With Mr. Sheil, also, on the Corn-laws and on many other important questions, the noble Viscount was entirely abroad. The Lord Privy Seal was the next appointed. With regard to that noble Earl, as he was the great champion of the Exaltados of Spain, and as he had received great distinction from them, he (the noble Earl) conjectured that was ranged with the Radicals in this country: His absence made his speeches rare, but he found on the second reading of the Electors Removal Bill, that the noble Earl said—
"I hold it to be impossible that you can maintain the finality of any measure, even though it should be the most excellent that human ingenuity can devise at the time it is adopted."
The noble Earl therefore was a non-finality man, and this declaration showed that he entirely differed from the noble Viscount. From these various opinions their Lordships could see of what materials the Government was formed. He felt, therefore, justified in asking the noble Viscount to tell them whether he agreed in the declaration which the noble Viscount had made on the 31st of May, and to which he had taken the liberty of recalling his attention? He wished to know whether the noble Viscount concurred in those undefined changes which were advocated by many of his colleagues, or whether he still maintained the doctrine of finality which he had formerly avowed, believing that some check should be placed on the desperate attempts of dishonest agitators to overthrow the oldest and best institutions of the country? He was desirous of being informed whether all the questions of importance which agitated the country were to be one and all open questions? He would not object to one question being left open, on which every Member of the administration might be allowed to express his own opinion without reference to his colleagues; but all the questions which demanded the opinion of the administration were open questions. Were the different Members of the Government on all subjects allowed to act independently of each other? He felt confident that never was a Government placed in such a degraded situation. The whole Cabinet consisted of persons with publicly avowed and openly declared different opinions. On what grounds, then, he would ask, did such an adminis-

551
tration stand? On what support, on what confidence, did the noble Viscount maintain his position? When the noble Viscount jeered at him on his congratulation, some time ago, on the success which the noble Viscount and his colleagues gained, and the support they met with in the House of Commons, he then thought that they had received enough defeats and sufficient disgrace; but almost every week since had added to the number of their defeats and increased their disgrace. He would read to their Lordships a curious abstract, which he wished to go forth to the world. He was desirous that the people of England should know, and should not be allowed to forget, the defeats with which the Government swaying their destinies met. He was desirous that that should take place though neither he nor they could do any good, for the Government had shown that they were determined to remain in office until the end of the world. He would read to their Lordships an abstract of the defeats which the present administration had suffered:

Ministers in minority.

Commons.

Lords

Session 1835

4

times

11

times.

Session 1836

11

18

Session 1837

9

5

Session 1838

21

4

Session 1839

8

11

Session 1840 (to March)

5

—

—

—

58

49

So then, during these years the Government had suffered 107 defeats. But this was not all. He would read to their Lordships the number of bills introduced by them, and which, though fostered by their protection, had fallen to the ground. The period to which he referred was during four sessions—from 1836 to 1839, both inclusive—
Abstract of Bills brought in by Lord Melbourne's Government and not passed through Parliament.

Session 1836

29

1837

21

1838

34

1839

28

Total

—112

These documents would show that he had not risen on light grounds to put the question to the noble Viscount, and to remind the country of the description of Government by which they were ruled. He called on the noble Viscount to say, whether in the declaration which he made in May, he had intended to deceive both
552
his opponents and his friends, and to adopt the principles of that infusion into the Government which had caused the se-secession of his best and firmest supporters? He thought that he had said enough to show his clear right, under the circumstances of the case, to put these questions to the noble Viscount, and begging pardon to the House for the trespass which he had made on their time, he trusted that they would think with him that he had made out his case.
Viscount Melbourne.—My Lords, it certainly is not my intention to answer many of the observations which the noble Lord has just made to the House. I apprehend that it was not expected by the noble Lord himself that I should do so; but lest it should appear a want of courtesy on my part to noble Lords, I think it my duty to reply to what I consider the main object—the question, which I collect and gather from the observations of the noble Lord. I beg leave in reply to say, that unquestionably I intend to adhere to all declarations of principles and opinions that were ever made by me; but it does not appear to me that either the appointments to which the noble Lord has adverted, or the measures which we have taken, are in the slightest degree foreign to, or inconsistent with, any of those declarations of principles and opinions.
Subject at an end.

PROCESSIONS (IRELAND.)
The Marquess of Normanbytook that opportunity of stating that he had made inquiries upon the subject of the placard, to which his attention had been called on a former evening by a noble Duke opposite. It appeared that the stipendiary magistrates had applied to the Lord-lieutenant for instructions on the proceedings which they were to adopt with regard to the procession which was announced as about to take place on St. Patrick's-day. The Lord-lieutenant informed the magistrates that there was nothing in the nature of the Temperance Society which rendered a procession by its members illegal, and, therefore, he recommended the magistrates not to interfere; except, of course, for the purpose of taking care that none of those accidental disturbances took place which might arise from the assembling together of a large body of people. With respect to the placard itself, which stated that the meeting was held by the permission of the

553
Lord-lieutenant, thereby seeming to imply something more than a mere refusal to interfere; it appeared that the issuing of that placard was not the act of the society, but merely of an individual member. The colours used in the procession were red and white, as he understood, and not tri-coloured, or emblematic of any party feeling. Having said thus much with reference to these processions, he must say, he thought them an unwise mode of carrying out what would doubtless be a great improvement in the habits of the country, and to which he looked with great interest, as tending to a moral amelioration of the people. A noble Friend opposite had asked him a question a few evenings ago with reference to a procession in Dublin. He had since written to Ireland on the subject, but, not having yet received an answer, all he could now say was, that his noble Friend, the Lord-lieutenant, had stated in a letter to him that he was standing in the streets a portion of the time that the procession passed, and, from what he observed, his impression was, to use his own words, "that he must say he had seen nothing in Ireland which had given him so much pleasure as this procession and peaceful triumph of sobriety and good order, there being nothing in the character of it to mark any party feeling." His hope was, that this subject might be allowed to go on for the moral improvement of Ireland, and if there could be anything in that country that was entirely unmixed with politics, it was this.
The Earl of Wicklowcertainly participated fully in the opinion which had been expressed by his noble Friend, with regard to what might be expected from temperance societies in Ireland, and was far from sharing in any of those apprehensions which he knew were felt by some with respect to the subject of those processions. He had read some of the addresses of Father Mathew on these occasions, and must say, that he had found nothing in them but philanthropy and good-will, There was an impression, however, that in the procession which had been alluded to, banners had been made use of which were emblematic of party; and when it was understood that the noble Marquess seemed to make light of the wearing ribands of different colours in Ireland, what was there to prevent Orangemen from wearing that colour which was the emblem of their party? There could be no harm
554
in the colour of any particular riband, but, as different coloured ribands were the badges of party in Ireland, the evil was not, indeed, in the mere use of them, but in its holding out an encouragement to others who were opposed to the parties wearing them, and who thought themselves ill-used if certain ribands were allowed to be used by some, whilst those which were emblematic of their own particular party, were suppressed. He hoped that the consequence of these processions might not be an attempt to renew others which the Government of the country had properly done so much to prevent.

PRIVILEGE.—BILL TO AUTHORISE PUBLICATION.
The Lord Chancellor, in moving the second reading of the Printed Papers Bill, said, that in asking their Lordships to give their assent to the principle of the bill, it was unnecessary for him to ask their Lordships to express an opinion on the question of privilege, which had been so much agitated elsewhere. In doing so, he should feel great difficulty, and he should feel no less difficulty if it were necessary to ask their Lordships, in giving their assent to the second reading of this bill, to express any opinion inconsistent with the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, which had been so very much connected with this question. The question of privilege would remain untouched by anything which the bill proposed. So far from attempting to review the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, the measure now before their Lordships provided simply for the application of a remedy to those inconveniences which had been found to result from the state of the law there laid down. He was well aware that those who were advocates for privilege in its highest extent had thought that what was proposed to be done by the bill was something like an abandonment of principle. But he apprehended that on consideration of what was proposed, it would be found that it left the question of privilege entirely untouched. Either House of Parliament might have power to the full extent claimed by any of its members, and yet it might be necessary, in order to carry into effect their privileges, that an easy, quiet, peaceable, and effectual remedy, should be provided for putting the privilege into operation. It did not

555
at all follow, that because Parliament passed a law to that effect, its previous powers were destroyed. It did not take away from the Houses of Parliament the means of enforcing that for which they contended. The question was not whether they did or did not possess the right, but whether it were or were not expedient that some mode should be prescribed, by which this object could be attained, that the right should be put in operation. Therefore any one who contended for privilege in the highest sense would not find the bill at all interfere with what he was anxious to establish. Those who contended that the privilege did not exist, would find that the bill only proposed a legal mode of enforcing that which it was declared ought not to be enforced by ordinary means. The question was really independent of the contest about privilege, which was not at all involved in the present measure, and of which he should say nothing. Their Lordships were not called upon by the bill to pronounce on that question at all; but, assuming the law as laid down in the case decided in the Queen's Bench to be correct, upon which it was unnecessary for him to express an opinion, the question was, whether, under existing circumstances, it were or were not expedient that some remedy should be applied to the difficulties which had been found to exist. He could understand, that if there were any individual who thought it unnecessary for the exercise of the functions of the Houses of Parliament, that they should Lave the power of printing or publishing any papers at all, such a person might object to the provision of the bill, inasmuch as it professed to give facilities for the exercise of those rights or privileges as they might be called. He need not occupy their Lordships with arguing the proposition that such rights were necessary, because he apprehended that no man conversant with the usages of Parliament would contend that it was possible for the Houses of Parliament to exercise their important duties without the power of printing and publishing to some extent. If the Houses of Parliament must have the power of printing and publishing to any extent, their Lordships would necessarily come to the conclusion, that the power of limiting that right could not be confided to another tribunal. A great part of the difficulty felt by some individuals upon this subject, a rose from their not accurately under-
556
standing the legal operation and meaning of publication. In common parlance, publication was the act of a bookseller in selling a work. But their Lordships were not to be informed, that almost any communication to any individual, was a publication. It was hardly possible that there could be printing without publication in the legal acceptation of the term. It might take place if an author printed his own work, but where an agent was employed, there was publication; therefore, there might be legal publication in the simplest operation with regard to any paper with which the House might think necessary to deal. There was great misconception as to the course which had been at all times adopted by the House of Commons in reference to publication. With respect to their Lordships' proceedings, he had not had an opportunity of inquiring, but the House of Commons had exercised the right of publication for two centuries. The selling of papers had long taken place, though it had not been always in the same manner and form. Through that whole period, no doubt, the orders were applicable to particular papers. The difference in the extent of the circulation, however, made no difference in the legal question. In point of fact, the order of the House in 1835, which regulated the present mode of selling papers, had not added to the circulation. It had rather diminished the circulation as compared with the period immediately preceding. He thought that he could satisfy their Lordships, that unless the Houses of Parliament were to be prohibited from printing and publishing at all, he might confine himself to printing only; all power, jurisdiction, or control, as to the mode in which the right was to be exercised, must be confided to the House itself. If it was not to be so confided to the House itself, or if any limits were to be imposed upon the exercise of the discretion of the House in printing or publishing, then the object of the bill would fail—conflicts would necessarily arise. No one would dispute the necessity of printing and publishing in certain cases. Many instances might be adduced in illustration. He would only mention one. Suppose the House of Commons found it necessary to prepare articles of impeachment against a public officer. The more gross and direct the violations of duty complained of, the stronger would be the illustration. It was

557
perfectly impossible that the House of Commons could carry out such a measure without printing and publishing, in the legal acceptation of the term. It would be a part of their regular proceedings. They could not print their charges, or exhibit their articles of impeachment, without giving ground for an action. If the action was brought, the Hou6e of Commons would have to choose between permitting judgment to go by default, and damages to be assessed, and permitting the officer of the House, against whom the action was brought, to plead, and to prove in justification the subject of the impeachment. The result would be, that their Lordships, when they came to investigate the matter of impeachment, would find a verdict one way or the other. It was obvious that that could not be endured. The present state of the law involved inconveniences which it was absolutely necessary to remedy. It was obviously necessary that there should be protection for officers against actions. The right of publication was, in fact, conceded. Who were to be the judges of it? Suppose it to be exercised on any question, whether of necessity or expediency, or of Parliamentary usage, it was quite obvious than any other body than Parliament could not judge of the necessity, expediency, or Parliamentary usage justifying the act which the House of Commons might think necessary to adopt for the benefit of the public. In stating this, he was asking for no more than was conceded to tribunals of infinitely less dignity, and infinitely less entitled to the confidence of the public than the two Houses of Parliament. He might illustrate this by going to inferior tribunals, but he would call their Lordships' attention to instances which occurred before the higher tribunals of the country. His proposition was this—that if either House of Parliament ought to exercise the privilege, it must be the judge of its own privilege: that was to say, of the extent and manner in which it was to be exercised. If it was to be submitted to another tribunal it would cease to be privilege. It might be law, but not privilege. It was quite impossible that Parliament should prescribe or anticipate all the circumstances in which a privilege of this sort ought to be exercised. Whenever it was found essential to the interests of the public that any species of jurisdic-
558
tion should be exercised by a court, the court itself was permitted to judge of the circumstances under which it ought to be exercised. It was his duty to preside over what might be called the officina of libels. Two or three thousand bills were annually filed in the Court of Chancery. One half of these were libels, and would subject the parties to actions unless protected. It frequently happened in those cases that litigants did not confine themselves to stating some grievous case against the party opposed, or to the subject matter of the contest, but indulged their fancy and their venom, in stating what had no reference to the subject matter. Although these statements were unnecessary for the purpose of litigation, and were improper to be made, yet no other court could take cognizance of them. The Court of Chancery itself, upon complaint made, investigated the matter on its own authority, without permitting it to go elsewhere, and if it appeared that scandalous matter had been introduced, not pertinent to the matter in issue, the court took upon itself to make compensation to the party injured, by expunging what had been improperly introduced. There were a great variety of courts which had the power of committing for contempt. It was a necessary power. They could not exercise their functions or perform their duty to the public without it. It might be abused. A court might not exercise that cool judgment by which it ought to be directed, but no other court could interfere. The party might sue out his habeas corpus and might be brought before a higher tribunal, but if the court which committed him had jurisdiction to commit for contempt, the higher court would leave him to that jurisdiction, however improperly it might have been exercised. Another familiar instance of jurisdiction, was the Court of Chancery having care of property, and necessarily employing many agents. If matter of complaint arose against the agents in the exercise of their functions, the suitors could not apply to any other jurisdiction than the Court of Chancery. Whatever their misconduct might be, though it might entitle a party to ask compensation by action in an ordinary case, still the Court of Chancery did not permit the suitor to resort to any other tribunal; but inquired into the injury complained of itself, and awarded compensation, or

559
punished the officer if the case was made out. This was essential to the exercise of its functions, and it illustrated the principle, that the necessity of a particular jurisdiction being conceded, it immediately followed, that the exercise of that jurisdiction must be left to that court, or tribunal, or assembly to which it belonged. It was indispensably necessary, both from the nature of the duties the Houses of Parliament had to perform, and the analogy of all courts, that having the power of printing, the discretion as to the extent and manner of exercising it must rest with them. The decisions of the Court of Queen's Bench established this—that the party against whom an action was brought for libel was not protected by showing that he had published it by order of the House of Commons. Precisely the same question might arise upon a publication of their Lordships' House. Their Lordships ordered papers to be printed and published. He omitted the sale, because it had nothing to do with the consequences of the present state of the law. Suppose their Lordships to exercise their privilege by appointing an officer to publish a document. Then, as it stood decided, the officer could not be protected from the action of an individual complaining that the document was a libel by showing that he acted by an order of their Lordships. But their Lordships could not exercise their right of publication without employing some agent, and, therefore, the question was left in this singular predicament. The right of the House was acknowledged, at least it was not questionable by any body, but any one through whose agency it might be exercised, was liable to action in obeying their Lordships' order. Therefore, unless priming and publishing were to be prohibited, it was necessary to protect the agents appointed to perform their duties. The bill proposed to give that protection. It assumed the accuracy of the law laid down. The consequences of that law were such as to hamper and interfere with the ordinary functions of Parliament, and the bill proposed a simple and effectual remedy, and at the same time, a remedy the least likely to lead to any conflict between the high authorities of the state that could be devised. The mode of remedying the inconvenience was by making the authority of either House of Parliament a justification of an alleged libel.
560
That principle might be carried into effect in various ways. It might be carried into effect by declaring that the authority of the House should be a justification, and that the party against whom the action was brought ought to plead that he was acting under the authority of the House. That course might lead to protracted litigation. The question could not be decided until a jury had ascertained by a verdict whether the fact alleged was true, namely, that the party had been acting under the authority of the House. It was quite immaterial to the party complaining how the matter was done. If he was to be barred by the authority of the House, it was immaterial to him how it was accomplished—whether at an earlier stage or after an action had been tried. But it was very material if it was the object of Parliament to provide a remedy for the present state of the law, and to avoid, if possible, those unfortunate conflicts between different authorities in. the state. There were two other modes suggested of carrying the same principle into effect, which bore a close resemblance to each other. One was, that an order or certificate of the publication having taken place by order of either House of Parliament should be sufficient, on being brought into court, to make the court stay the proceedings. The court should be obliged to stay further proceedings in the action upon a certificate that the subject matter arose under the order of the House. If nothing more was said, the enactment would of course require an application to the court, and it would require the act of the court to stay proceedings. This plan, therefore, might bring the two authorities, although not to the same extent, into collision. The bill proposed what was not quite the same, but what was very much like this plan. It proposed no application to the court, but simply, that on a certificate of the authority of the House being brought to the officer of court, the production of the certificate being fortified by affidavit, the officer should at once stay proceedings in the matter. This mode of proceeding would allow the object which was desired, and was less likely to bring the two great authorities into contest than any other. It did not differ much from the other plan to which he had referred, but seemed less likely to lead to an injurious contest. There was no ground for complaint against this plan, and he was

561
not aware of their being any objection to it. It was quite clear, that it could not be considered any disrespect to the court, because there were very many instances in which the same thing was done, and in which it was the business of the officer of the court to stop proceedings without any application to the judges. He trusted their Lordships would be of opinion, that the provisions were expedient to remove the possibility of collision, which, if it occurred, must necessarily prevent the good which it was the object of the bill to effect. So far as related to the prospective effect of the bill. It also proposed to stay any actions which had been brought since the commencement of the Session, or now pending, for the exercise of the jurisdiction of the House of Commons, under the name of privilege. He apprehended their Lordships would have no difficulty in acceding to that part of the bill, because it was quite obvious that if actions were permitted to proceed, it would be a violation of the order of the House of Commons, and a violation of what their Lordships would declare, if they passed the bill, ought to be the right and privilege of the House of Commons. There was one further object, which did not immediately grow out of the subject of printed papers, though it was connected with the same history. Their Lordships were aware, that there being an order of the House of Commons against proceeding in an action, the attorney was guilty of a violation of that order of the House. This case was made the subject matter of another action, and though this was an action of a different kind, it was so connected with the former action, that he believed their Lordships would find no difficulty in the proposition for staying both. He understood that a petition had been presented by a noble Lord, praying that the individual referred to might be heard at their Lordships' bar, but this was a question which would more properly come into consideration at a future stage of the measure. If he (the Lord Chancellor) were asking their Lordships to enable the House of Commons to do that which they had not done before, no doubt this would be a very serious demand, but all he was asking of their Lordships was to give effect to that which had been the practice of the House of Commons for, at least, the last two centuries. That this practice of that House was a right course
562
was shown in the fact, that during that period no action had been brought, no complaint made against the House of Commons. The public had always acquiesced in what had been done, and he (the Lord Chancellor), therefore, apprehended that their Lordships would at once admit, that the present proposition was very different from one tending to introduce a new system. The case was simply this. That a difficulty having arisen, and the law being such as not to enable the House of Commons to exercise their duty without incurring much inconvenience in certain cases, it had been deemed advisable to place the matter on, such a footing, by legislative enactment, as would enable that House to exercise their privileges without any such inconvenience, and to protect their officers, a matter equally important to both Houses of Parliament. The noble and learned Lord concluded with moving that the bill be now read a second time.
Lord Denmanwas anxious to take the earliest opportunity of saying, that he thought their Lordships would best consult the public interest by acceding to the motion of his noble and learned Friend. It was impossible that any one could have brought the measure which was the subject of that motion before their Lordships in a more candid and considerate manner than his noble and learned Friend had done. But the nature and tone of those discussions which for the last four months had occupied the public mind would make it appear not unnatural for him to offer a few observations to their Lordships, for the purpose, he trusted, of removing the misconceptions which appeared to have generally prevailed on this subject, to rescue persons who had done nothing but their duty, from that undeserved censure to which they had been subjected, and to state the only grounds which, upon his view of the case, justified the adoption of a great, an extraordinary, but at the same time, a temperate measure. He would proceed at once to state the facts on which so much misconception had prevailed. An action was brought more than three years ago, and came on for trial in the Court of Queen's Bench, where he had the honour to preside. But he would take the liberty to observe, that that was not the first proceeding of importance in the case. On the very day before that upon which the cause was to

563
be tried before a jury, the House of Commons entered into a debate upon the subject in dispute, which debate appeared early the next morning in the public prints. Not only upon some preliminary proceedings in the course of that action, but upon an order made by some of the judges, the House of Commons had thought fit to entertain a debate whether or not they should interfere with the usual course of the law. He must state at the very outset his strong conviction, that if anything of that kind was to be permitted in this country, there was an end to the boasted freedom of the subject, and the independence of our legal tribunals. If, whether by a King's letter, or by a resolution of either House of Parliament, or by the intrusion of any great authority of the State, such an interference was to be permitted with the courts of justice of this land, he repeated, that they would be divested of all credit and stability. The trial came on, the individual preferred his action for libel, and the officer of the House of Commons was defended by most able counsel. After the cause was opened, it was clear that there were several defences. In the first place, it was a question whether the publication complained of was a libel at all or not, and then, if there was any other justification than that pleaded. He had great doubts at the time whether it were a libel, and he expressed those doubts very strongly, and thought, from the nature of the discussions which took place, it was extremely to be questioned whether it were a libel or not. The Attorney-general thought fit to give up that point, and then the question was, whether the justification of the truth which had been pleaded was or was not made out satisfactorily to the jury. It was made out satisfactorily to the jury under the charge which he thought it his duty to lay before them, not at all concealing his opinion, that the justification was made out. The jury came to that conclusion, and the defendant was acquitted on that ground. But the learned Attorney-general thought it his duty to put forth another defence, arising from certain resolutions passed by the House of Commons in the years 1835 and 1836, in the former of which they determined that they would make all that they printed and published for the use of Members accessible to all mankind at the lowest price. Secondly, they de-
564
termined that this sale of papers so printed and published should take place under the authority of the House of Commons. Here alone it was that a difference arose between his noble and learned Friend and himself. When his noble and learned Friend said, that nothing had been done but what had prevailed for upwards of two centuries, he must take the liberty of saying, that what had been done was entirely novel and unsupported by custom. The effect of the general resolutions of the House of Commons appeared to be, that privilege was to be exercised, not in reference to an act of indiscretion in any particular case, but for any public purpose, and in the discharge of any one of the functions imposed by the constitution upon the House of Commons. It therefore struck him, that the only ground of justification was to state, that the House of Commons had the power, in the name of privilege, to do whatever they chose to call by that name, and in consequence of the course which was taken by the House of Commons, and by his learned Brother, he felt it to be his duty, on the part of the people of England, to take the ground he had taken, and to say, that he did not admit the name of privilege as claimed, and would not give it the name of law. He might have expressed his opinion too warmly and too largely, but that the doctrine he asserted was right he was firmly persuaded at that moment, and he felt, that if he had thrown a doubt by any delay upon a proposition of this importance, which was so clear to himself, he should have betrayed that duty which he was placed in the court over which he presided principally to discharge. Was he right in supposing, that that was the ground on which alone such resolutions could be defended? A committee of the House of Commons met to consider this question, and framed a most learned report; they entered into a full discussion of all the authorities on both sides, on both the history and the law of the question, and they came to these conclusions: first, they stated the necessity for the publication of papers: secondly,
"That by the law and privilege of Parliament this House has the sole and exclusive jurisdiction to determine upon the existence and extent of its privileges, and that the institution or prosecution of any action, suit, or other proceeding, for the purpose of bringing them into discussion or decision before any court or tribunal elsewhere than in Parliament,

565
is a high breach of such privilege, and renders all parties concerned therein amenable to its just displeasure and to the punishment consequent thereon;" and thirdly, "That for any court or tribunal to assume to decide upon matters of privilege is inconsistent with the determination of either House of Parliament, and is a breach and contempt of the privileges of Parliament."
Was that, then, the justification for their publishing those documents, as though they must have a right to sell all that they printed because they had a right to do all that they pleased? He did not understand that to be the law of England. He wished most sincerely that those Gentlemen, who he was sure felt a strong conviction of the truth of what they were stating, having reasoned it out in their report as they had done, had refrained from using language involving menaces and threats against the legal tribunals of the country, which could not have any effect upon their decision. He believed that if such language could induce the courts of law to form any different opinion from that which their own sense of justice and and conscientious view of the law indicated, the House of Commons would deplore such a result. In consequence of those words, of which he had no doubt the individual took advantage, a second action was commenced; and in this second action the sword of truth was thrown away, and the sword of power was resorted to; and those resolutions were brought before the court as laying down the law of the land. In the first instance he was bound to give his opinion upon the law upon which he was desired to direct the jury; in the second place, the judges were bound to give their opinion in the demurrer raised to the second action. Therefore did he repel with indignation the insinuations which had been thrown out elsewhere, that the judges had come as volunteers into this question, and that they came to assert a power in this case which they declined to exercise in another. The judges were called upon to act; they had no choice of remaining quiet and indifferent, but they were bound to deliver their opinion on the question when it was brought before them. He would not enter particularly into the meaning of these resolutions of the House of Commons; but it seemed to him that if they were the law of the land, the people of this country had been mistaken for years and centuries in think-
566
ing that they lived in a land of freedom. For if the House of Commons could say—"We are the sole judges of the existence and extent of our privileges," it was but the power to create privilege, in spite of the law, and, as soon as the law was passed, to dispense with it and supersede it, and that, in fact, the country must be ruled by their privileges. That was the extent of privilege claimed by the other House of Parliament. But when had their Lordships claimed such privilege for themselves? On one of those great occasions when the question was mooted—in the case of "Ashby v. White,"—a resolution was adopted by their Lordships' House, which remained on the journals, and never had been repealed, and which expressly stated that neither House of Parliament had power to create any privilege but that which was authorised and supported by the law. How utterly inconsistent was that with the practice of the other House of Parliament! How different was that resolution from the resolution adopted by the House of Commons! Why, if both Houses of Parliament enjoyed such powers as were claimed by the other House, they would clearly be beyond all control, except at that unfortunate moment when they might happen to come into collision with each other. He wished to know at what period in the history of this country and its constitution this power was first founded, of either House of Parliament strictly having the entire control and managing power of its own great resources with respect to privileges. In following up this question it would be necessary to give some degree of consideration to various circumstances and incidents which had transpired in past times. Now, as to the right of either House of Parliament declaring its own privileges, there was a remarkable example in the time of James I., that it did not exist, because there was an unfortunate man named Floyd, who, for speaking some light words of the Elector Palatine and the Electress, was sentenced by the House of Commons to lose his rank in society, to be scourged, to be pilloried, to be imprisoned, and to have his fortune confiscated. Now, see the difference of the conduct of the House of Commons in that day. The House of Lords said to the House of Commons, "This is no business of yours, this is our business; we will take upon ourselves to punish this individual; you have no right

567
to do so." What was the answer of the Commons? That either House of Parliament was the judge of its own privileges? No. On the contrary, they said, "You are quite right." They made a submissive apology, and only desired that their Lordships would not make the sentence on the delinquent less severe than they had made it. The same sentence was in the same terms passed, and carried into effect. Now, suppose the House of Commons had carried this sentence into effect, what would have been the result of going into a court of law? If he had sued his habeas corpus, and the return had been a general warrant far contempt, he must undoubtedly have been returned to his imprisonment. But supposing in the case of confiscation the question had arisen as to the disposal of property, notwithstanding the confiscation by the House of Commons, he apprehended there could be no doubt that the property would have been restored to the unfortunate man. But then, when the sheriff came to restore the property, what would become of the sheriff? He would be imprisoned in a dungeon, and made the object of the base buffoonery of those servile retainers of power, who never love it until it acts with injustice, tyranny, and oppression. He confessed that he could scarcely express himself on this subject without feelings which he was anxious to repress. The man Floyd was represented in that very House of Commons, which recommended the House of Lords to pass that severe sentence upon him which they had first imposed. If it were said he was only an individual, and an individual must suffer for the good of the people, he would ask, how had this privilege operated with respect to the great mass of the people? Because, if there was one right above all others in which the great mass of the people were interested, it was that of petitioning Parliament upon the conduct of the great public officers of the country. In the time of Charles II., a more enlightened period than that to which he had last referred, certain subjects of the Crown thought it not convenient that Parliament should be called at the time proposed, and they petitioned the King not to call the Parliament together, in the exercise of a most undoubted right. As soon as the Commons met, they said that this was a breach of privilege. "Because you thought," said they, "that the Crown
568
would do wisely not to summon us together, for this you will be sent to gaol." Accordingly, one of the most important cases upon record arose. It was quite plain, that if that privilege of petitioning was to be interfered with, it would very soon follow that the House of Commons would punish a voter who had voted for an unpopular candidate among themselves, or they might inquire who voted for local officers, and punish them, or what newspaper a publican was in the habit of taking in, and punish him for not taking a different one, or do anything else that their jealousy might suppose to be dangerous to their privilege. In consequence of that decision of the House of Commons, one of the King's subjects was arrested by the sergeant-at-arms, imprisoned, and money—about 30 l. (no small sum in the time of Charles 2d)—was extorted from him. An action was brought for false imprisonment, and for the extortion; the latter act no one accounted a lawful one. The jurisdiction of the House was pleaded, a demurrer was taken, and the judges overruled the plea. After the revolution, and after the passing of the Bill of Rights by the convention Parliament, the two judges of the land who had decided the case, and awarded damages to the plaintiff, were brought to the bar of the House to account for their conduct in so doing. It was disgusting to think that two honourable Magistrates of this country should have been called upon to answer for what they had done, when they had done nothing but their duty, and there was no pretence for exposing them to any such investigation, nor was any privilege at all invaded. But if the right to petition was a high breach and contempt when no Parliament was sitting, how much greater must be the contempt of petitioning when the Parliament was sitting, and to state in the petition any disapproval of the conduct of Parliament! A petition was presented in the reign of King William, requesting the Parliament to aid the King with more power against France, the petitioners thinking that not enough had been done. The petition came from Kent, and contained language which was, perhaps, rather strong, but not very extraordinary. The gentlemen who presented it were some of the grand jury of the county of Kent, and they were actually sent to gaol as persons who had been guilty of a breach of privilege. They were defended by the

569
most popular of all writers in those times, De Foe, and by Lord Somers, who wrote a tract on the right of petitioning, and a remonstrance against the treatment which the petitioners had received. He did not mean to repeat the statements of those writers, but to advance some general arguments in support of his opinion on this question, in answer to those who had impugned it in another place. In one of the resolutions in which this unlimited power was claimed, it was asserted to be necessary to contend against the Crown on certain occasions, and to prevent the Crown from being too strong for the people. But what would be the consequence, supposing, instead of contending against the Crown, it was to contend with the Crown and against the people, which was the case for a long course of years, during the whole of the latter part of the 18th century? During the whole of that period, the popular party in this country were constantly contending against the unwarrantable assumption of power by the House of Commons. Every one must recollect the language of Lord Chatham, with which he would not trouble their Lordships, for he was quite sure that after that they would be unwilling to listen to anything coming from himself, when that great man condemned the conduct of the House of Commons, and asked to what end they had been so long contending, if that arbitrary power which had been placed in the hands of the Crown, was now to be transferred without diminution to other holders. Lord Chatham spoke most strongly against delegating such power to a popular assembly, and then the great popular writer of the day, "Junius," took up the argument, and pointed out the fatal consequences which would ensue if such power were consigned to the possession of an irresponsible body. What he was now saying had reference to the pretensions set up by the House of Commons of an exclusive right to judge of their privileges, and thereby to create privilege. It was necessary to make a stand in the courts of law against assertions of that description, when they were put forward; and in the case of Sir F. Burdett, in 1810, it was remarkable that the number of those who wished to prevent any appeal to the law on the subject of the committal of his hon. Friend amounted to no more than fourteen. There were only fourteen persons who thought that it was not a fit and proper thing to
570
submit the exercise of the privilege to the decision of those courts which were bound to know privilege as well as every other part of the law, and which, on that occasion, decided in favour of the privilege. He was aware that it had been supposed that the great popular party on that occasion took the high privilege ground, and so some of them certainly did, in their declarations; but when the matter came to be considered, they found that it was impossible, consistently with justice, to prevent that course from taking place, and for this reason—that it was possible that the warrant itself might have been exceeded by the officer who executed it, and therefore injustice would have been committed by not allowing Sir F. Burdett to question all the acts committed by that officer under colour of the warrant, which would only justify him in going all necessary lengths for the execution of justice. On that occasion, however, there were some great exceptions to the list of liberal Members of Parliament, who supported the doctrine of privilege in its utmost extent. Lord Erskine, who was then in that House, Sir S. Romilly in the other House, and Lord Brougham, at that time also a Member of the House of Commons, took a most decided part against the notion that privilege should supersede law. He mentioned the last name more particularly, for the purpose of asking whether there were any room for making it a matter of accusation, when that celebrated man, the prop of popular rights, and the ornament of the popular cause, delivered that opinion in the House, and afterwards defended and illustrated it in the case of Lord Wellesley, and whether any motive could possibly be attributed to him for taking such a view of the subject, but that of a general regard for the constitution of the country, and the rights of the subject! He had felt so painfully certain of the collision into which he was likely to fall, in consequence of the doctrines which were maintained by the supporters of privilege, that on the day when he had been called upon to deliver judgment in the case of Stockdale, he had, in the confidence of friendship, communicated to him his apprehensions of the situation in which he was likely to be placed, and his sentiments respecting it; and it was with great comfort he recollected that Lord Brougham stated it to be his opinion that the doctrines which he (Lord Denman) had explained, were such

571
as were necessary to be laid down, and that the language he had used was such as was rendered absolutely necessary by the nature of the case. This great power, this large and indefinite assumption of pronouncing on privilege, was not claimed by the present bill. He had the satisfaction of thinking that the House of Commons did not put forward their claim to the protection of printed papers on any ground of that description, because if they had still persisted in this assertion of extravagant privilege, now that it had been brought into question and contradicted in a court of law, they would not come to complain of a mere impediment being thrown in the way of the circulation of a few papers, but to complain that the constitution had been violated, and that the infraction of its principles must be stopped. On the contrary, they came forward to claim a remedy for a very small portion of the inconvenience that now existed. These were the observations he had to offer on the first part of the judgment of the court; the second part of the judgment was of a totally different character. The question was as to the existence of the privilege of publication in point of fact, and certainly there was no more comparison between the importance of those two questions than there was between the existence of a free constitution and the particular mode in which certain details should be brought into operation. This part of the case did not at all vary the problem of law as to the right of the courts to judge of privilege, but placed the matter on a footing entirely different, reducing the question to one of fact, which might be doubtful, and on which persons might decide differently, according to their own view of the evidence. He, for his part, must say, that in the antiquarian controversy which was opened in the course of the able and elaborate argument delivered before the judges, the historical research which was produced appeared to him to fail altogether of making out the point sought to be established. To him it appeared completely unsatisfactory, as it did also to his learned brothers on the bench, who he was sure were as unbiassed as any judges who had ever sat in a court of justice, and who examined every statement and argument with a degree of study, of care, and of self-restraint, such as any man who was called upon to exercise the judicial office might well be proud of. He would ab-
572
stain from entering into any review of the arguments on which the conclusion announced in the judgment of the court was founded; indeed, the length of the judgment was an objection which he knew could not be got over. It was such, that he was quite certain the great majority of those who condemned it had never read it; and it was also true, that it was a judgment overruling an argument of the greatest ability and research, which took up no less than sixteen hours; so that the necessity of entering at length into the arguments adduced by the counsel necessarily imposed that character on the judgment. He found that to one subject not less than seventy-six paragraphs of the argument were devoted, and there were 100 on another. Without reference to that argument the judgment could not be clearly understood. From what he had read of the late discussions respecting privilege, although he had not had the opportunity of following them fully, the question as to the protection of papers seemed now to be put on rather different grounds from those on which it was made to rest before the judges. The ground on which it was claimed seemed now to be, that the House could not do without it, that they could not legislate wisely without possessing it, always remembering that the privilege of indiscriminate sale, of unreserved publication, and wide circulation, was claimed without reference to any peculiar case, or any particular function to be executed. He had most carefully endeavoured to find why the House should exercise such a privilege, and what were the functions which required it, and had not been able to discover. The reasons alleged appeared to him such as would not bear out the proposition for a moment. It was said, that the House must satisfy the people of the grounds on which they passed laws. Was it to be said, that the House was to proceed on ex parte statements, on statements made by parties who had an interest in the matter to be decided on statements proved to be false? Was it satisfying the people of the grounds of their legislation to expose written slander to sale and circulation throughout the kingdom? They were told that the House of Commons must be able to vindicate their own conduct to their constituents. Was that to be accomplished by slandering absent individuals, by the indiscriminate sale of printed calumny? The House of

573
Commons declared that they were averse to go to their constituents and tell them that every petty court in the kingdom had a right to judge of the existence and extent of their privileges. The House of Commons said, that it was their duty to inquire into all delinquencies, and no doubt in all the circumstances for which they possessed that power, they must possess the power of vindicating their judgment. Was that to be done by the premature circulation of evidence taken ex parte? Was it not rather, at least according to the principles of English law, conformable to practice that enquiries of this kind should be secret, and not brought forward before the party accused was fully informed of the charge against him? It was said that the House, among other high duties it might have to perform, might be called on to deliberate on the best mode of excluding the heir apparent from the succession. He asked, was it the proper mode of doing so to poison the public ear by false statements with respect to facts, false not on political grounds merely, but in them-selves? Here again history afforded a very remarkable example of the dangers to which an abuse of the privilege of publication might lead. They all knew that one Dangerfield, in order to recommend himself to the House of Commons, in the reign of Charles 2nd., had deposed before the House a mass of the most enormous falsehoods, which the House thought proper to circulate through the country, and sell for the benefit of their informer. Was that the mode in which their Lordships would proceed if called upon to legislate with respect to the right of the heir apparent? Certainly the very contrary mode would be that which their Lordships would adopt. It had even been held out, by way of an argumentum ad hominem, and an argumentum ad absentem too, that the House might proceed against the judges themselves. Would they do it without hearing them—without giving them an opportunity of rebutting the slanders thrown out against them? He would tell them in what way those inquiries ought to be conducted, because he had had experience of them. It happened to to him, when a Member of the House of Commons, to bring the conduct of a certain judge in the principality of Wales under its notice, unwisely, perhaps, with the view of inquiring whether he were fit to be continued in his high office. He
574
had not sought to prejudice that judge's cause by ex parte statements, but had called upon him for his defence. He had communicated to him the nature of the charge, had appointed a counsel and attornies to cross-examine the witnesses against him, and had allowed him to bring fresh witnesses of his own, and then he had left it to the House to proceed and say, whether or not it was a case for their interference. That was the way, he took the liberty of saying, in which not only every judge, but every public officer, against whom an accusation was brought, ought to be treated by the House of Commons. But if they wished to take the course of abusing the privilege of indiscriminate sale, he saw nothing but mischief likely to arise from it. As an example of this, he would refer to a document which he was sorry to trouble and disgust their Lordships by even alluding to. A petition was presented in the year 1836, after the resolution for the sale of papers was passed, against the present Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, whom he would not affront by pronouncing a panegyric upon, one of the most honourable and excellent men who ever lived, denouncing him as the most fraudulent, corrupt, and malignant offender, that ever disgraced the bench. The course he had pointed out was that which he had no doubt which their Lordships would think ought to be pursued; but what other result but mischief could be expected to flow from indiscriminate publication and sale? Statements made in such petitions as that to which he had referred, could do no harm if they were investigated, but, being made upon no responsibility, they might, when circulated through the country, prejudice the characters of unoffending persons with those who were ignorant of the facts. The case of Stockdale was itself a remarkable instance of the mischief of indiscriminate sale. The inspectors of prisons found a book in Newgate which they considered to be obscene and immoral, and they stated their opinion in their report to the Secretary of State. The Court of Aldermen were affronted, and answered that it was not an improper book, but a scientific work. This was too bold. They might have asked to see the book, or the inspectors might have said, that though a scientific book, it was yet improper for a prison, and, therefore, that the objection of the court was groundless.

575
But they said, instead of that, "We will prove the infamy of the book by proving the infamy of the man;" and that man, it must be observed, might have been one of their Lordships, or one of the most respectable persons in the Queen's dominions. It might have been a young man rising into notice, who might have been utterly ruined and undone, his reputation blasted, and prospects of advancement cut off on account of this very book. In the case of Polack, that gentleman came before the committee of the House of Commons on New Zealand, and gave an opinion as to what was the course best to be taken with respect to that island. Another person came before the committee and said, that he was not to be believed on his oath, and thus, when a witness came before a committee of the House, his character was made public property for every enemy to fire at, and the slander was circulated throughout the country at the charge of three halfpence. With regard to the accuracy of the judgment which had been delivered., he was satisfied that never was there a court more willing to acknowledge any errors they had committed, or more willing to bow with the utmost deference to the superior authority of another court. It had been said, that in coming before the court, the parties were only binding themselves for a time to a species of arbitration. That was not a just view of arbitration, for the office of arbitration might be declined, but the judges were bound to decide the cause according to the best of their own judgment. He had seen lately that a return had been ordered of the number of judgments in the Court of Queen's Bench taken to a court of error, and the number of rehearsals, he supposed, for the purpose of showing that the Court of Queen's Bench was a very fallible body—a proposition which its members were at not all disposed to contradict. That return showed, that during five years twenty cases had been removed by writ of error, and in ten of these the judgment had been reversed. This was not, perhaps, a thing to be much wondered at, when it was considered that not less than 6,000 judgments were given in that court in the course of five years. He thought, however, it was clearly proved, seeing that half the judgments were reversed, that the courts of error were not particularly reluctant to examine or reverse the judgments of the Queen's Bench.
576
He asked, then, if the judgment in the case of Stockdale was complained of, why was it not taken there? That judgment was treated by some persons as if it were something altogether absurd. Would ten judges in the Court of Exchequer Chamber have hesitated to examine that judgment, and if erroneous, to reverse it? Would their Lordships have hesitated to do, as if it had been brought from the Exchequer Chamber to that House? And if the judgment of the Queen's Bench had been in favour of Hansard, would the House of Commons have prevented all appeal, either to the Exchequer Chamber or to the House of Lords? They had not done so in the Burdett case. Their Lordships would certainly not have been unwilling to establish their own privilege, which was said to be at stake with that of the House of Commons. Why, that decision was unquestioned, and had thereby become law. He must, with all deference, express his opinion as a Member of Parliament, that many things had been most unfortunately advised in the course of these proceedings, because in the second action no counsel appeared for the defendant, so that not only had there been no truth pleaded, but there was no one to make any statement for the defendant in mitigation. On the third occasion, neither privilege was pleaded, nor truth, and the consequence was, that the damages were increased from 100 l. to 600 l. He did not wish to speak on the subject of the imprisonment of Stockdale, because he had had recourse to law, or of the attorney, because in the exercise of his profession he had undertaken the defence of his client, or of the attorney's clerk, because he had executed the orders of his master, but he did wish to say one word with respect to the sheriff, because it did seem to him if they were called upon to give, even by implication, the smallest degree of confirmation to what had been done to this functionary, that it was utterly impossible to receive this bill at all. The sheriff had received the money of the defendant, but he was bound to pay the money over to the plaintiff, and was in fact as much the plaintiff's trustee as any of their Lordships' bailiffs who had received the rents of his employer's estate. He would have been punished by the court if he had declined to pay over the money which was levied by its authority, and the court again had no right to decline to attach, him. The

577
sheriff was desirous of complying with the wish of the House of Commons and restoring the money to the defendant, but it became the duty of the court to see that the money paid to the plaintiff as his due, and for obeying the order of the court the sheriff had been forced to undergo greater penalty than, he believed, the majority of convicted felons in this country endured. He confessed that he thought the state in which the case at present stood rendered it highly reasonable and proper that the legislature should interfere. It was most fit that they should consider whether the interposition of the legislature should not be resorted to to prevent more actions being brought, or even to stop those already commenced. As to the grant of compensation to the plaintiff, it would take much argument of counsel to persuade him that 700 l. was not full compensation for all the injury that had been suffered. The claim for protection to printed papers was now made chiefly on the ground that, in point of fact, publicity was already given to such documents. Debates were published on the morning after they took place, and the proceedings before committees were communicated to the world in the same way; and in all cases half publicity was mischievous. Looking at the necessity of the case, it was infinitely better that publicity should be given to such proceedings, guarding against its abuse. It was impossible for that House, or for any other court, to inquire as to the exercise of discretion in publication by the House of Commons, but he considered that the House of Commons had come under an engagement to look strictly after the exercise of this power. The committee of 1837, on the publication of printed papers, said—
"To prescribe any positive rule upon such a subject is manifestly impossible. The invariable adherence to such a rule might protect public delinquents from a disclosure of their misconduct, or prevent the notoriety of facts important to the ends for which inquiry was instituted. It appears, however, to your committee (and they think that the practical experience of Members will support the conclusion to which they have come), that it would not be difficult, on a mature consideration of each case wherein the exercise of a discretion may be called for, so to apply it, in the great majority of instances, as completely to reconcile all proper regard for the character and feelings of individuals with the faithful and effectual discharge of public functions. The more essential the privilege, the more urgent the necessity
578
for an exclusive and unfettered authority in deciding upon the exercise and the limits of it; the more important and the more becoming is it to take as much precaution as possible against the infliction of individual injury or unnecessary pain to private feelings."
He thought that when the House of Commons came to ask the assistance of the House of Lords in passing a bill to make such publications as he had referred to legal, it was in effect an undertaking on the part of the House of Commons that they would exercise a discretion in every such case of publication, and that they would take care that no pain should be inflicted or injury done to individuals, or at any rate, if any injury were inflicted, that the cases in which such an injury was done should bear so small a proportion to the general number of cases, that no objection could be made to the privilege in general. On the grounds which he had stated, therefore, he approved of this bill; but at the same time he must say that he entertained strong objections to some parts of the machinery of the measure. Why, he would ask, should the officer of the House of Commons come to the officer of the Court of Queen's Bench, and stop the proceedings which had been commenced in that or any other court by the production of a certificate from the Speaker of the House? He thought, if they might judge from what was said elsewhere, that the object was to insult the courts of law, as if they were not fit to be trusted with any powers which might be brought to bear against the House of Commons. Now, he asked their Lordships whether the judicial authorities deserved such a stigma? He thought it a most unseemly thing that, as provided by the bill, they were not to know what was going forward, and that they should find on a sudden all their proceedings paralyzed by something which had not come to their knowledge. He thought that when the bill was in committee, something might be done to provide against this defect, and that instead of a certificate it might be found practicable to introduce some provision by which all proceedings of the House of Commons should bear the stamp of authenticity at once, so that the proceedings in any action calling them in question might be stopped at any stage. He trusted that their Lordships would not assent to any thing which would imply a censure on the Court of

579
Queen's Bench. Then there was one part of the bill to which he thought it right to say that he should find it impossible to give his assent, and that was the clause for staying the action brought by Mr. Howard against the officers of the House of Commons. He could not say what wrong had been done to Mr. Howard, and he knew that some excess had been committed, which might come into question on a new assignment, and therefore he could no more see why Mr. Howard should be prevented from suing and endeavouring to obtain a remedy, than why any man's freehold should be taken away by a vote of the House of Commons. He must also say, that he thought that this bill ought to have gone further, and that it ought to have protected every individual who published a report or proceedings in consequence of the authority for publication given by the House of Commons. He thought that every newspaper publisher and every bookseller became for this purpose the officer of the House, and he could not conceive what objection there could be in point of principle, to the extension of the protection to these individuals. If, for instance, there were extracts published, from a report published under the authority of the House of Commons, he should say that there could be no objection to leaving it to a jury to say whether the extracts w ere made bonâ fide or not, and if the publication was clearly not malicious, then the jury might be directed to find a verdict for the defendant. There was another point which he could not help mentioning, and it was this. It struck him that it would be a most important improvement in the bill, if, whenever the plaintiff in a case of libel had failed on account of a justification pleaded and established, it were provided that he should never have the right to proceed against any other individual for the same libel, but that the defence established in the one case should be a bar to all other actions. He had now troubled their Lordships at some length, and in a manner which he was sure was unworthy this great subject, but he had thought it his duty, in the best way he could to bring before their Lordships the considerations which had weighed with him in dealing with this question, and he trusted that he had said enough to prove that the Court of Queen's Bench had done nothing which deserved to be
580
visited with any kind of stigma; and he could not help thinking, that, however their Lordships might exercise the highest of all their attributes, that of wise legislation, those attributes would be appealed to in vain, if privilege were allowed to supersede the law, or if the laws, when made, were not to be carried into execution by fearless and independent judges.
Viscount Melbournefelt great satisfaction in finding, from the general tone of the debate, that no objection was entertained to the second reading of the bill, and he trusted that the same disposition would prevail throughout its subsequent stages, and that their Lordships would be able to carry the bill, with whatever amendments might be considered necessary, into a law. He expressed this satisfaction, because, whatever might be their Lordships' opinion on the proceedings and transactions which had led to the present state of things, it was impossible not to feel that the collision which had taken place between the House of Commons and the Court of Queen's Bench, had been followed by consequences which imperiously called for the interposition of the supreme legislative authority of the state. It appeared to him that such a course was necessary, if they had a regard to the dictates of prudence, and in that point of view he could not help thinking, and he trusted that their Lordships would think with him, that Parliament was imperiously called upon to effect a settlement of this great, this difficult, and, he must add, this most dangerous question. It was in the highest degree natural, and to be expected, that his noble Friend the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench, who had borne so great a share in these transactions, should take this opportunity of vindicating his own conduct, and that of the Court of Queen's Bench, and of stating the grounds on which he and his brethren pronounced the judgment which had been called in question. He knew how difficult and delicate a thing it was to express any opinion upon the existence of a privilege which had been held, and solemnly held, by the judges of the land, to have no foundation in law. His noble and learned Friend, who was not now present (Lord Brougham) had told their Lordships, in one of the last speeches which he had addressed to them, that it was a matter of the greatest delicacy, and even of im-

581
propriety, to find any fault with a decision pronounced by the judges of the land. His noble and learned Friend carried that proposition a little further, and said that their Lordships had no right to find fault with the part that counsel had taken in the discharge of their duty. At the same time it must be remembered, that the judges of this country might not always be, and had not always been, infallible. They were not infallible in the time of Charles 1st, when the question of ship-money, so important to the liberties of the country, was brought under their consideration, and he believed that when the matter came afterwards to be argued, it was agreed, on all hands, that their judgment was not only constitutionally and theoretically wrong, but also legally erroneous. Now, there was no remedy for that judgment, except in Parliament. He thought that Parliament was perfectly right in reversing that judgment, and in declaring that it ought not to be acted upon; but he had always felt that Parliament went a great way when it made the judges criminally responsible for that judgment, because that must have been on the assumption that the judgment was corrupt, which it was impossible for any man to be convinced that it had been, for no man could penetrate into the motives of another. But not only were the judges liable to error and mistake, but there were occasions when it was absolutely necessary to pronounce an opinion upon their decisions, although no one would be ready to do so, unless it were absolutely necessary that that opinion should be pronounced. Now, notwithstanding all the arguments of his noble and learned Friend, he humbly thought that it was due to the privileges of Parliament, and due especially to the other House of Parliament, to say that in his opinion, this privilege of publication was absolutely necessary for the conduct of the public business of the country, and that it was the privilege of both Houses of Parliament, both upon precedent, and upon the reason of the case. His noble and learned Friend said, that the other House of Parliament claimed to establish the right of indiscriminate sale and entire publication. Now, if the Houses of Parliament could not publish generally and make what was published a legal publication, it was impossible that they should publish for the use of their own Members. He said, that without this
582
privilege it would be impossible to carry on or transact the public business of the country, because, if the reports of committees or other proceedings of either House which might contain libellous matter were published for the use of Members, the utility of the publication would be destroyed, if such a publication would subject the party publishing to a prosecution. He asserted, therefore, that it was perfectly impossible that the business of the country could be transacted unless these powers and privileges were possessed by both Houses of Parliament. His noble and learned Friend had stated many cases which had occurred in former times, such as that of the Kentish petition, in which the privileges of Parliament had been grossly abused. Undoubtedly the privileges of Parliament, as well as the prerogative of the Crown, had been abused; but he trusted, that in future, if this privilege, or any other privilege of Parliament, should be abused, it would lead to the consideration and the curtailment of that privilege. But here there was no allegation of that kind; and no abuses of this privilege had been proved to have taken place recently. He quite agreed with his noble and learned Friend in his opinion upon the steps which had led to the commencement of this business, because he thought that the insertion of Stockdale's name was quite unnecessary, and that it would have been quite sufficient to say that improper books had been introduced into the prison which were of an obscene nature; anything more appeared to him quite superfluous. At the same time he thought that no great injury had been inflicted; he did not speak with respect to the character of the man; a libel was a libel, and every one knew was as much a libel when published of the most profligate individual as of the best and highest character in the country. He knew that the case was so in point of law, but it was not so in point of reason. Before, however, their Lordships took away from Parliament such a privilege, it ought to be shown that Parliament was able to do without the privilege. Now, he had no difficulty whatsoever in holding that this was a necessary privilege for Parliament o possess: and with respect to the manner in which that privilege had been vindicated, unquestionably it was not the fault of the sheriffs that they had been imprisoned, when it came to a question between the

583
Court of Queen's Bench and the House of Commons, which was a new authority, and he owned that he did not think that the sheriff's ought to have taken upon themselves to decide the question of right, or to have done anything out of the ordinary course of business. But at the same time the House of Commons must stand by their privileges. The House of Commons would have been wanting in their duty if they had acted otherwise, and if they had resorted to harsh means for the purpose of enforcing or vindicating their privileges, the fault was not owing to them, but to the unfortunate circumstances of the case. The House of Commons possessed no other means of enforcing their privileges, and it was admitted that those means were inadequate to their object. Mr. Burke had pointed out this long ago, and he told the House they had nothing but a Sergeant-at-Arms with his mace, and that they possessed no powers of an executive character. Still it was necessary, in his opinion, that these privileges should be supported and maintained; but at the same time it was most desirable that the present state of things should be put an end to, and he hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would go into committee, in order that a final remedy might be found for the dangers which it presented.
The Duke of Wellingtonentirely concurred with the noble Viscount in the hope with which he had concluded, that their Lordships would go into committee upon the bill, in order to frame such a measure as would tend to put an end to the unfortunate situation in which the courts and the House of Commons had been placed for the last two or three months, if not for the last two or three years. He thought, however, that the noble Viscount seemed to entertain some objection to what had been laid down by the noble and learned Lord in respect to the censure which he supposed to remain on the Court of Queen's Bench. Now, in his opinion, one of the principal merits of the bill was, that it cast no censure on the Court of Queen's Bench. The bill left the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench exactly where it found it, and no censure at all was passed upon any part of the transaction, so far as the Court of Queen's Bench was concerned. In his opinion this measure was founded on the necessity that the two Houses of Parliament should enjoy great and extensive
584
privileges, and that each of them should have the means of judging of and vindicating its own privileges. It was obvious, from what had passed lately, that these means did not exist, and therefore it was that this bill was necessary, and it was for that reason that he was disposed to vote for the second reading of the bill, and to go into committee upon it, in order to render the bill as perfect as possible. But he certainly agreed with what was said by the noble and learned Lord who spoke with so much ability—the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench—when he stated that the origin of this unfortunate state of affairs was the resolution passed by the House of Commons in the year 1835, that the papers of the House should be printed and sold under the authority of the House. Now, it was true that papers had been printed and published by the authority of the House for many years previous to that period, but they had never been sold before, and he did not think that one instance could be found in which the papers had been sold by the authority of the House. It was true that they had been sold by the officers of the House, but it appeared in evidence that they were not sold by its authority. Now, he must say that he agreed entirely with the noble and learned Lord in thinking that this resolution for the sale of papers by the authority of the House was that which had created and occasioned the difficulty arising out of the recent discussions which had taken place. He likewise agreed with the noble and learned Lord in thinking that neither this bill, nor any proceeding of the House of Commons, nor any intention indicated from any such proceeding, had manifested any disposition in that House to give the public and individuals the security which might be derived from arrangements which they might adopt with respect to the sale of their papers. They did no such thing. The resolution of 1835 remained as it stood originally, and they would commence to-morrow, if this bill should have passed, with these papers, inflicting the same grievances which had already been sustained, without any remedy to the subjects of this country for the injuries which had been occasioned by the publication of these papers. The noble and learned Lord had stated, likewise, what was perfectly true, when he stated that the last report of the commit-

585
tee of the House of Commons upon printed papers had avowed, that not only had no attempt been made to give any security to individuals in respect to the sale, but that all attempts that had been made in order to give security against libels being published in the reports of committees had failed altogether. The report said, it was true, that there were only two instances in which parties had been libelled in these reports; God knew how many more there might be, but they admitted that two cases had occurred. One of these was the case of Stockdale; the other was the case of a libel on a most eminent and respectable individual, the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. He wished, as indeed everybody wished, that the House of Commons should have the power of printing and publishing its papers. But what he wanted to do was this—that when it proceeded to the sale of them the law should take its course. As to the printing and publishing of papers, he had no objection, until it came to the point of sale. The sale ought not in his opinion, to be made by the authority of the House—it ought to be made by individuals, and they should be responsible for what they sold, as they were previously to their passing of the resolution of 1835; and up to that time it must be admitted that the House of Commons and the House of Lords had the advantage of all their privileges quite as much as they had ever had since. He looked a little further into this question than the mere matter of libelling individuals. He considered all this as the effect of printing and publishing, and the public was interested in its being understood that the House of Commons and the House of Lords were not to be the sellers of libels against individuals. He remembered reading, with great satisfaction, the history of a great case which was pleaded and argued at considerable length some years ago in this country— he meant the case of "The King v. Peltier," in the Court of King's Bench. That was the case of an action brought against an obscure individual like Peltier for a libel which he had published upon the Sovereign of a neighbouring country, with whom we were then in a state of peace and amity. Now, he asked their Lordships whether, supposing in the course of the late Polish revolution, the libels, some of of which they had seen printed in this
586
country, and others of which they had heard spoken in the other, and he believed in that House of Parliament, reviling, in the strongest terms, the Sovereign of Russia, had been stated in the petitions or in the proceedings of the House of Commons, and had been printed, published, and sold by its authority—he asked their Lordships whether such a proceeding would not have been calculated to disturb the peace of this country and of the world at large. [Hear!] In short he asked their Lordships whether it was desirable, that there should be an opportunity of publishing and selling, on the part of the two Houses of Parliament, libels against the Sovereigns of all foreign countries in Europe? He was one of those who considered that the greatest political interest of this country was to remain at peace and amity with all the nations of the world. He was for avoiding even the cause of war, and of giving offence to anyone, and of seeking a quarrel either by abuse or by that description of language which was found in these libels. He was against injuring the feelings of any Sovereign against whom individuals had taken offence, and against whom they sought to publish libels under the sanction of Parliament. Let them state what they pleased in their private capacity, and let them be answerable for it individually, as Peltier was. What he wanted was that Parliament should not, by the combined privilege of publication and sale, run the risk of involving the country in the consequences of a discussion on such subjects, and in all the mischiefs and inconveniencies which might arise from it. Under these circumstances he hoped that in the committee on the bill, some means would be found of leaving the publication by sale in the state in which it was under the common law previously to the resolution of 1835. The noble and learned Lord, in the course of what he had said that evening, had suggested a mode—for the noble and learned Lord's mind went with his on this subject without any communication having taken place between them—which would go to a total alteration of the law of libel. It might be proper that that law should be altered. He gave no opinion on that point at present. What he insisted on was this, that this House and the other House of Parliament should not become libellers by the authorized sale of their papers. Let either House of Parliament

587
print or publish in their votes, or in their reports, what they pleased, but let neither of them proceed to sell them. Let us leave it to individuals to sell them, and let those who profit by the sale, be responsible for the consequences. He should certainly vote for the second reading of the bill, and would go into committee upon it, with a view of amending it.
Lord Wynfordwas understood to concur in all that had fallen from the Duke of Wellington, as to the sale of Parliamentary papers. He expressed his concurrence in the first clause of the bill, but he must withhold it from the second, as it was an ex post facto law. He hoped and trusted that it would not pass. He also justified the conduct of the sheriffs, who were bound to look to the Queen's writ, and not to the resolutions of the House of Commons.
Lord Gageregretted that the course now adopted at the eleventh hour of settling this question by legislation had not been adopted at the first hour during the last Session. He was far from objecting to the retrospective part of this measure —he was only sorry that it did not redress the past; for the law had been wrested into an engine of plunder by an individual who deserved no sympathy. He thought that the main fault of all these transactions ought to rest in a quarter which had not yet been attacked—he meant the juries who had assessed the damages. To give such damages as 700 l. in such a case was utterly indefensible in the case of a person like Mr. Stockdale. He looked upon their verdict as a verdict given from political feeling against the House of Commons. From that verdict had arisen much of the inconvenience now felt. He concluded by expressing a hope that their Lordships would pass this bill without curtailing any of its material enactments,
The Marquess of Buteagreed with the noble Duke, and the noble and learned Lord who had spoken last but one, that further provisions were necessary to give to the subjects of this realm that protection to which they were entitled, and which was more particularly called for by the manner in which the privileges of Parliament had been exercised during the last few years, He did not wish that remark to attach exclusively to the House of Commons; but this he must say, that the House of Lords had exercised their privileges less annoyingly to their fellow
588
subjects than the House of Commons. No one could take up the volumes of evidence printed by the two Houses of Parliament without seeing that the House of Lords was much more cautious than the House of Commons in striking out the names of parties who were likely to be injured by the publication of their inquiries. What had rendered the House of Commons so bold of late years it was not for him to say; but the matter was most glaring, and what rendered it most offensive was, that the name of the Member asking the obnoxious questions was now invariably printed. When he saw hon. Members calling before them parties filling high judicial stations, and compelling them to answer questions which must injure individuals, he must confess that he thought that no privilege of Parliament ought to shelter those who put such questions. He thought that they ought to be liable to actions in a court of law.
The Lord Chancellor, in reply, read an extract from the report of the committee on printed papers, showing that the papers of the House of Commons had been regularly sold from the year 1690 to the year 1777. It appeared from a statement of Mr. Nicholl, that from the year 1729 to the year 1777, his predecessor, Mr. Bowyer, and himself, had, after deducting the expenses, accounted to the Speaker for the profits which they derived from the sale of them; that up to the year 1772 the profits amounted to a sum of 240 l. a year on the average, but that from the year 1772 to the year 1779 the sale gradually diminished in consequence of the proceedings of the House being regularly detailed in the newspapers, so that at last, instead of producing a profit, it was accompanied by a loss. Whereupon the Speaker transferred their account to the Treasury, by whom it was paid. This established the fact, that up to the year 1779 the practice of selling the papers published by the House of Commons existed. There could, therefore, be no doubt that the papers printed by the authority of the House of Commons were sold with its full knowledge. His noble and learned Friend had spoken of the present sale of papers by the House of Commons as an indiscriminate selling. Now this was not the fact. There were two committees to superintend the printing of papers before their sale. No paper could either be printed or sold without the consent of these two committees

589
being previously obtained.—Bill read a second time.