Sitting of 4 February 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Inland Warehousing Spirit Licences (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By Mr. Power, from Wexford, for an Extension of the Franchise, and for Corporate Reform in Ireland.—By Mr. W. Ellis, from Leicester, and Mr. Hume, from Tooting, for an Inquiry into the Principles of Socialism By Mr. Villiers, Mr. Hume, and Sir G. Strickland, from several places, for the Total and Imme
1218
diate Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Mr. J. Parker, and several other Members, from a number of places, for Church Extension.—By Mr. Colquhoun, from Selkirk, against her Majesty's Ministers By Mr. Maule, from several places in Scotland, against the Intrusion of Ministers into Parishes in opposition to the Parishioners,

PRIVILEGE.—STOCKDALE V. HANSARD— MR. HOWARD.
The Deputy-Sergeant-at-Armsstated that a messenger from the House was at Mr. Burton Howard's, but he could not be found, and his wife said, that he was in the country.
Mr. Humewished to know whether Mr. B. Howard's son had been directed to attend? He understood from his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury that some further evidence would be laid before the House on that day, and it appeared to him to be trifling with the House.
Lord John Russellsaid, that after the report that had just been made by the Sergeant-at-Arms, and the fact that when the messenger went to the house of Mr. Howard he was informed that he was gone to Hull, he thought it hardly possible that, if Mr. Howard had been willing to obey the order of the House, he being an attorney and having an office in London, should not by this time have heard of it. The right hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, whom he did not then see in his place, had stated most correctly the constitutional doctrine as to the orders of the House, namely, that all persons were bound to be aware of them and to obey them. But one would not wish to press that doctrine in any case, where with no intention to evade it, the party might not be aware of the order having been given. He thought, however, that there was in this case sufficient to show that Mr. Howard wished to evade the order of the House, and therefore that there was sufficient to entitle him to move the House to order that Mr. Howard do attend at the bar of this House, and that the Sergeant-at-Arms do take him into custody for that purpose.
Sir E. Sugdensuggested, as a milder course, that the House should come to a resolution that service of the order of the House at the house of Mr. Howard should be considered as good service on Mr. Howard. That was a mode of service sometimes adopted in the Courts of Law under similar circumstances. Allowing that to be a good service of the order of the House, in case Mr. Howard did not obey it, the Speaker would, of course, issue a general warrant against him.
Mr. O'Connellconsidered, that, it would be extremely inconvenient to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Member for Ripon, because, if it were held to be technically necessary to serve these documents at the house of Mr. Howard, it would, in point of fact, be overthrowing the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, that every person was bound to be aware of the votes of that House.
Sir B. Inglisprotested against the doctrine laid down by his right hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire, on this subject. The noble Lord, taking up that line of argument, had stated, that every subject was bound to know the votes of the House of Commons. Why, within the last five-and-twenty years, the votes of the House were not delivered even to Members, till four or five days after they were passed? and yet, if every subject were bound to be cognizant of, nay, pay obedience to those notes, it mattered not when those votes were printed, or whether they were printed or not. The law required that every person should be cognizant of and pay obedience to the statutes of the realm, and why?—because in early times the statutes were proclaimed and published by the sheriffs at the market-cross on county days; and, in later times, have been printed by the King's Printer, and circulated through every court and session in the country, independently of the indirect publicity which all legislation necesssarily involves. No such publicity, however, had ever been given, neither was it yet given, to the votes and proceedings of the House. And therefore it was, that he held it to be an act of the grossest tyranny that the House should come to a vote at one o'clock on a Tuesday morning, and should hold that at nine o'clock of the same day, that vote was as well known to and as firmly binding upon, all her Majesty's subjects, as if it were an act of Parliament. [" Cheers."] Why, the House was demanding a physical impossibility in this. If there were any truth in the doctrine that all the people of England were bound to know the votes of the House of Commons, they were as much bound to know those which passed on Monday at nine o'clock on the Tuesday, as at the same hour on the Saturday following, or at any other later period.
Lord John Russellthought the best method of wording the motion would be, "That Thomas Burton Howard be taken
1220
into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms and brought to the bar of the House, and Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant for the apprehension of Thomas Burton Howard accordingly."
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that it was unnecessary to enter into the speculative question whether the votes of the House ought to be considered as known by every subject in this land. It appeared by the evidence of their own messenger, that on Monday last a demand was made for Mr. Howard at his own house—that his wife stated that he had gone to Hull—that the messenger went to Hull—and that no tidings of Mr. Howard were to be collected at that place. Now, Mr. Howard was a London attorney; he had an office in London; he had clerks in London; he had a house in Norfolk-street; and considering the parties among whom he lived, it was impossible to pretend that he had not had ample notice of the order of the House, and if he had had such notice it was equally impossible to deny, that he was at this moment setting the order of the House at defiance. The order had been already left at Mr. Howard's dwelling-house. Could any man rise up and say that he believed Mr. Howard had not received notice of it? It was only requisite that the party should have due notice of the order. If he had that, and did not attend to it, surely it became the House, to take due notice of the contempt with which Mr. Howard treats it.
Mr. Sergeant Jacksoncould have wished that the House had before refrained from those speculative assertions of right which had led the House into its present embarrassment. He entered his humble, yet decided protest against the doctrine that this House was to place its resolutions on a level with the statutes of the realm, and that its votes were to have in point of law the same publicity as the statutes of the land, which were not complete until they had received the assent of the three estates of Parliament.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that he should not give his vote in favour of this motion on the ground that the votes and proceedings of the House of Commons were presumed to be known by all the subjects of this realm. He did not think that there was any necessity for him to give an opinion on that question at present. If he had a conviction in his own mind that a person was throwing obstructions in the way of public

1221
justice, and was thereby obstructing the purposes of the House, he should feel himself at liberty and quite justified in adopting a more summary process to compel his attendance. He could not help recollecting that they had had Mr. Howard at their bar ten days ago on this very question of privilege. Mr. Howard then offered an explanation—nay, more, made an apology—for his conduct in bringing this action. On that apology he was discharged. Immediately afterwards another notice of action at the suit of the same plaintiff was served on the printer of the House by this self-same Mr. Howard. Yesterday week, nine days since, the messenger of the House waited on Mr. Howard with a summons from the Speaker to attend at bar. That summons must have been communicated, must be known to Mr. Howard, who is himself an attorney, and who has clerks, who know the necessity of marking when process of any sort is delivered to them. He contended that these facts bore upon the face of them the presumption that there was an intention on the part of Mr. Howard to defeat the justice of the House by keeping out of the way of its summons. The next step, therefore, which he (Sir R. Peel) would take, would not be to commit Mr. Howard, but to compel him to attend at the bar of the House to give evidence. He contended that the Speaker issuing his warrant to compel such attendance on the part of Mr. Howard did not deserve the title of an act of injustice.
Sir R. Inglisadmitted that if to defeat the House of Commons were to defeat justice, Mr. Howard unquestionably was guilty of that offence. Unfortunately, however, the two things were not identical; and he thought that Mr. Howard was perfectly justified in removing himself to a distance from the tender mercies of the tyrannical majorities of the House of Commons. Mr. Howard was not a witness, but a party; he was not summoned as a witness; and he had a right to judge whether he ought to be summoned for such a purpose as that for which he was wanted.
Mr. Goulburncontended that if the House should acquiesce in the doctrines of his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, it would be prevented from exercising some of its most important functions in future. His hon. Friend the Member for Oxford had said that Mr. Howard had a right to judge for himself
1222
whether the House were justified in examining him on this matter. Once admit that doctrine, and every witness would have a right to argue with the House as to its right to examine him. If such a principle were admitted, how would the House ever get through the business which came before it? He certainly should vote in favour of the motion that the Speaker be directed to issue his warrant to bring Mr. Howard to their bar.
Mr. Shawdeclared his intention of voting for the motion of the noble Lord, on the grounds stated by the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge. He held that every one was bound to attend the summons of the House, to be examined at its bar. He had no doubt that Howard knew of their summons, and was purposely evading it.
The Speakersaid there was a precedent for the course now proposed, to be found in the journals for the 30th of March, 1831.
The clerk read an extract from the journals, from which it appeared that one Satchell, having attempted to evade the order of the House by absconding from his home, was apprehended at length by the Sergeant-at-Arms under the warrant of the Speaker.
Motion carried.

DISCONTENT AMONG THE WORKING CLASSES.
Mr. Slaneysaid, that in venturing to rise for the purpose of addressing the House upon this subject, he felt that it might be asked why he ventured to bring it forward. He felt, indeed, the necessity of claiming the indulgence of the House, but he assured them that he was acting under a deep conviction of the importance of the question. He was not about to enter into a discussion upon the subject of existing discontents, but he proposed to consider the causes of those discontents, which had prevailed more or less amidst a great proportion of our fellow countrymen, among the densely-peopled districts of the kingdom, for many years. He should first show, that such discontents had existed, and had continued for a very long time. In 1812, great dissatisfaction was exhibited in four of the midland counties of England, and at that time some people, who were called Luddites, broke into lawless outrages in parts of Lancashire, Yorkshire, and Cheshire. They went about armed, and presenting a

1223
formidable appearance; there were oaths, by-words, and training of bodies of men, and at that time the murder of a most respectable manufacturer took place. In 1815 there were strikes among the working classes of the Tyne, and the surrounding districts, accompanied by great disturbances. In 1817 there was a general ferment amongst the working population, in many of the districts of the kingdom, which eventually assumed a political form, so far, that meetings were held in contravention of the law, and it was in the year 1819 that that unfortunate occurrence took place at Manchester, which to this flay was viewed, on all hands, with the deepest regret. Dissatisfaction was exhibited in various places, and prosecutions were instituted, a circumstance which sufficiently showed the magnitude of the evil which Government had to subdue. In 1820, a rising of many persons took place in Derbyshire, and, headed by a man named Brandreth, they marched into Nottinghamshire, and there, being met by a peace force, they were put down. Their leader, and several others, were tried for high treason, and their conviction having taken place, they were executed. After the panic of 1826, strikes, accompanied by great violence, took place; and, in 1829, meetings of the united trades having taken place, the effect was extremely injurious to the well-being of the inhabitants of the places where the assemblies were held. In 1826, too, similar meetings were held, and riots broke out in Bolton, and other northern towns. In 1827, there was great activity exhibited, and a general meeting of the trades and delegates was held in the Isle of Man, with a view to the convenience of persons going from England, Ireland, and Scotland, when rules and regulations were laid down for certain purposes, and printed. In 1830, the French Revolution occurred, and was soon followed by that in Belgium, and, for two years afterwards, agitations took place, which assumed a political turn, and terminated in the Reform Bill. Since that period, several large strikes had taken place in London and elsewhere; and the strength and power of the working classes were ostentatiously exhibited by a procession of 40,000 men through the metropolis. In 1836 the Working Men's Association took place, and a great meeting was held at the Crown and Anchor, which was succeeded by others at the British Coffee-house, at
1224
which eventually the principles of the Charter were determined upon. In 1838, those principles were widely disseminated. The means for obtaining the charter were, at first, what was called "legal agitation;" but afterwards, many misguided persons betook themselves to effect that by terror, which they despaired of producing in a peaceful manner. Riots subsequently occurred at Sheffield, in Montgomeryshire, and elsewhere, and he thought that, upon this statement of circumstances, he might venture to assert, that for a very long period past, a spirit of dissatisfaction, he would not say disaffection, had existed among the working classes. He had no intention of speaking in harsh terms of those persons who were denominated Chartists, however mischievous their projects might be to themselves or other persons; for he thought that he had sufficiently shown that the feelings of discontent which prevailed among them, as well as other persons, was of no recent origin, but had existed during several years past. He begged now to call the attention of the House to what were the real causes of this discontent; it might be stated differently on opposite sides of the House; and while hon. Gentlemen on the other side might declare, that the agitation was produced by the existence of new political rights created by the Reform Bill, or, by want of sufficient precautions on the part of the Government, Gentlemen who sat near him might assert, that they arose from a neglect duly to extend the franchise, or from a neglect of the prayers of the petitioners to the House, for an alteration in the existing corn-laws. He asked the House, however, to lay aside the consideration of those questions until they should be brought under their notice by specific motions in reference to them, and he thought that he should be able to show that it was not from these causes, but from others of a more permanent nature, that the discontent which existed was in a great measure attributable. He conceived that the primary causes of dissatisfaction were the monopolies in the manufactures of the country, and the discovery of new machinery—the effect of which was to deprive many persons of work, and consequently of the means of living. In the year 1793, the workmen who dwelt in towns, and densely-peopled places, were to the agriculturists, as one to two, but, in 1840, the proportions were reversed. He found that the increase of

1225
the population during the last forty years had been—in Manchester 109 per cent., in Glasgow 108 per cent., in Birmingham 73 per cent., in Leeds 99 per cent., and in Liverpool 100 per cent.; while the manufacturing or town population had, in the same manner, increased in proportion to the agricultural population. —In Staffordshire three to one, in Warwickshire four to one, in the West Riding of Yorkshire twelve to one, in Lancashire ten to one, and in Middlesex I twelve to one. He had shewn, therefore, the vast changes which had taken place in the character of the populations of these districts, that immense masses of people were congregating in small and confined spaces, and he should now proceed to exhibit to the House, that notwithstanding those alterations in the positions of the people, the Legislature had paid little attention to the question of their convenience for many years past. He thought that the inconveniences of the people might be divided into three heads: first, the want of legislative provision for the preservation of their health, and the comfort of their houses; secondly, the want of provision against the fluctuations which constantly occurred in the commerce of the country; and, thirdly, the want of religious instruction and education. With regard to the social condition of the people, he should refer first to the metropolis itself, and he begged to call the attention of the House to the 4th and 5th reports of the poor-law commissioners—books of undoubted authority upon a point of this description, which admirably pointed out the existing miseries of the population of the poorer districts of London, described their state of poverty and dependence, the wretched hovels in which they lived, and, in short, gave such a report as could not be read by any one without the deepest regret. He begged next to allude to the state of the handloom weavers, many of whom, pressed down by poverty, were obliged to dwell in houses tainted with fever and sickness, which, it was reported, was never entirely removed from them, and he declared his belief, that if that House were to make proper exertions, all those evils which existed, and all those discontents which were exhibited would eventually be removed. To shew what was the state of the poor, he would refer to Liverpool, In 1839, there were 7,860 cellars in that city, inhabited
1226
night and day, which were dark, damp, confined, ill-ventilated, and dirty. 39,000 people inhabited them, being one-seventh, of the whole population of the town, and one-fifth of the working-class. These statements, and others which he should bring before the House, were made on the authority of the Statistical Society of Manchester, from whose publications he quoted them. In Manchester, and Salford also, a considerable portion of the population inhabited cellars, the greater portion of which answered the description of those at Liverpool. Out of 37,000 habitations which were examined, no less than 18,400 were ill-furnished, and 10,400 altogether without furniture. In Bury, the population of which is 20,000, the dwellings of 3,000 families of working men were visited. In 773 of them, the families slept three and four in a bed; in 209, four and five slept in a bed; in 67, five and six slept in a bed, and in 15, six and seven slept in a bed. In Newcastle-upon-Tyne a similar investigation took place. In the parish of All-Saints and another, the residences of 26,000 poor persons were examined, and those who saw them gave a most appalling account of the misery, filth, and want of air which prevailed. The total population of the town is 64,000, and the dwellings of the great majority of the inhabitants were badly ventilated, dark, and unwholesome. As a consequence of this, he would observe that there had been no less than 2,600 criminals of all kinds in Newcastle during the past year. The proportion of female criminals was much greater than in, any other place. Indeed, the sewerage and drainage of the streets in which the dwellings of the working-classes were situated, were almost wholly neglected. The working population of Leeds was 61,000; 383 of the streets were reported to be good and middling, but 224 were declared to be very bad. Half of the latter were covered with lines, on which was, hung wet linen, so that no carriage of any description could pass through them. In the north-eastern districts of the town, where resided 15,400 working people, 38 streets were without sewers. A consequence of this neglect was, that the deaths of infants were at Leeds much greater in proportion than in any other town; and in the report of the registrar of deaths, Leeds was designated the most unhealthy town in the kingdom. He now came to the

1227
evils suffered by the working population, in consequence of the reduction of wages. He was of opinion, that it was greatly in the power of the working classes, aided by the Government, to prevent by timely precautions those evils. What was the condition of the artizans of Sheffield? The trade of that town had very much declined. Part of it was gone to the Continental manufacturers, and what remained was dependent on the American market. One part of the misery of the Sheffield artisans was caused by their own violence. Their strikes, and the violence that had accompanied them, had been a main cause of the trade being drawn elsewhere. They took no precaution whatever against fluctuations of wages, and the distress that must accompany them. The committee of 1837, reported that their opinion was, that in the manufactures of cotton, woollens, hardware, linens, and even silks, the average wages paid to workmen, had been such as if duly spread over the whole of a given period, would have sufficed to shield them from want, and to keep them in comfort. Had due precautions been taken, they would never have had any occasion to rush into violence on a fall of wages, or a scarcity of work occurring. The Legislature ought, in his opinion, to give the working men the opportunity of ensuring themselves against those fluctuations. Never was there a time when such provisions were more necessary. The committee in the case of the handloom weavers, declared it as their opinion, that their distress had arisen from the introduction of the power-loom. From this fact, a solemn warning ought to be deduced. If the power of steam produced this effect on the hand-loom weavers, it would produce in time the same effects in other manufactures. Was it not, then, high time to take steps to provide against the forthcoming evil? Up to the year 1834, no means had been afforded by the Legislature to these persons for joining in associations to save their wages, so that they might be sure of an allowance in the event of any contingency happening to them. The Benefit Societies Bill gave to them some of these opportunities. But the usefulness of the benefit societies was confined to the contingency of sickness; no means were provided by the act in question by which a poor man might lay up a store to provide against the time
1228
when he might be out of work. No means were provided by which he could ensure a safe deposit of his money, secured against all chances of fraud. An act had, however, since been passed, which opened to them more facilities than had hitherto been possessed by them, but that act was not sufficiently known among them to enable them to avail themselves of it to any extent. Nevertheless some very admirable applications of that act had been made. The fishermen of Brighton and Lowestoft had entered into associations to provide against the loss of their boats and other similar contingencies. Similar associations had been entered into for mutual insurance of the lives of cattle: but generally speaking the act was not sufficiently known, and had therefore not been generally made use of. He was quite sure that if the working classes were aware of it, they would be willing and anxious to avail themselves of its provisions, and of the facilities it afforded them for providing against all contingencies. In one large manufacturing town an association was formed for the purpose of inducing the lower classes to avail themselves of it. Many ridiculed the plan as not likely to take effect. It was said, that the working classes would neglect to avail themselves of it—that they would rather spend their money in beer, than provide against an evil day. But what was really the result? Why that sixty persons joined the society the first year, 160 the second year, and so on until at the end of five years, 700 families had embraced that mode of providing for the future. See what would be the effect of the general adoption of such a system for the prevention of want. Now, if a misunderstanding arose between the masters and their workmen about wages, the latter at once proceeded to violence. If they were able to fall back on such a fund as that which he desired to see established, they would not be driven to violence or intimidation, but would have time quietly to digest the question, and leave room for coming to an amicable arrangement, without the necessity for strikes. They would also receive assistance from their society while there was a scarcity of work, and thus avoid all those misfortunes which now attended any temporary stagnation in the demand for labour. There were now many additional reasons for the adoption

1229
of such a system as this. There was a greatly-increasing competition in some of our manufactures, on the part of Switzerland, Germany, and Belgium. Seeing the evil as they did beforehand, they were I bound to provide against it in time. Another powerful reason for at once grappling with the subject was the constant and increasing immigration of Irish. The change in the mode of holding tenements in Ireland had given rise to such an extensive system of clearing, that thousands of miserable individuals were driven over to this country to obtain a subsistence. They came over the rivals of our own labourers, and unless we contrived to lift them up, assuredly they would pull us down. He had a comparative statement of the number of Irish who had come over to Liverpool between 1836 and 1839. Many of them were, no doubt, Connaught men, who returned as soon as the harvest was over. From March, 1836, to March, 1837, the number of those who arrived at Liverpool was 74,240; of those 50,400 returned—leaving 24,000. No man could doubt the effect of such an importation of labour on our own labouring classes. Between March, 1837, and March, 1838, 45,500 arrived, and 41,200 returned, showing a less number remaining, but still a considerable number. From March, 1838, to March, 1839, upwards of 45,000 arrived, and upwards of 39,000 returned, still leaving 6,000 labourers behind to compete with our own labourers. The Irish residents in Liverpool were, according to the statistics which he relied on, about 40,000, although some were of opinion, that the number was much greater. In Manchester the Irish residents amounted to 60,000, and in Glasgow there were 50,000, besides great numbers in the different villages adjoining. In Birmingham there were from 20,000 to 25,000. In Leeds there were not less than 10,000. Could any one, looking at these facts, in conjunction with the present condition of the working classes, doubt that the legislature was bound to afford them the means of insuring themselves against future want? He maintained, that it was the duty of the Government to take the lead in such a measure. He thought also some mode might be provided by which settlements might be effected between masters and workmen, without those resorts to violence which now attended
1230
their disputes. In France there was a Conseil de Prud'hommes, by which questions of wages were decided. He (Mr. Slaney) would suggest the appointment of arbitrators, whose decisions should not be absolute on either party, but persons in whom the working classes would be likely to confide. He thought that in most cases the working men would be ready to abide by the decisions of those arbitrators. He thought also it would be worth considering, whether or not it would be advisable to send out a number of educated, intelligent, practical persons, whose business it should be to inquire into the condition of the poor in those densely-peopled districts, and to suggest measures for its improvement. He thought they should hold out some inducement or bonus for the formation of provident societies of the kind, that he had described. The principle was acted upon now in the case of savings' banks, where they gave a somewhat larger interest than was paid in the funds. Again, the religious instruction of the people was most disgracefully neglected, and no steps had been taken by the legislature to provide the means for their accommodation at the Churches, for the purpose of their attending divine worship. In the diocese of Chester the want of Church accommodation was particularly felt. For instance, at Manchester there was church accommodation for 26,000, while not less than 108,000 of the poorer classes in that town could not attend divine worship in the Church, as there was no room for them. Nearly the same proportion existed in four out of five of the large towns; and, consequently, the great built of the population had no means of attending divine worship. He did not wish to speak in a derogatory tone of the instruction given by other religious communities, but he thought that it was the duty of the House to see that the means existed to enable the great bulk of the people to attend religious worship in the Churches; but the free seats in those sacred edifices in the large towns, in seven cases out of eight, and above all in the metropolitan districts, was not in any proportion adequate to the wants of the community. He would ask how they could expect to deter these persons from the commission of crime, when they took no steps to provide for their adequate moral and religious instruction? Ten years ago he moved for a

1231
Committee of that House to inquire into the best means of providing useful education for the poorer classes, and into the present state of education in the large towns. The Committee was formed from both sides of the House, and investigated the subject with great care and attention, without regard to any party considerations; and the result was, that a report was produced, which contained some valuable information on the subject. In one part of their report, the Committee state, in reference to the state of education in the metropolis, "that it appears as a general result, that in the five parishes situated along the Strand and round Charing-cross, which may be considered as holding a mean station between the more opulent parishes of the west and the poorer and more crowded parishes of the north-east and south-east of London, that some sort of daily instruction is afforded to about one in fourteen of the population, instead of one in eight, as is desirable, and that afforded to one third of the scholars is very indifferent." The Committee examined evidence respecting the populous parish of Bethnal-green, situated to the east of London; the population in 1831 was stated at 62,000, and must since have probably increased. It appears from the report of the Spital Fields School Society and other evidence, that less than 3,000 children are educated. The Bethnal-green committee state, that after making allowance for such as must at all times be prevented from attending school, there are at this moment from 8,000 to 10,000 children in Bethnal-green alone, not only without daily instruction, but for whom no means of daily instruction are provided. The Committee hold it to be an established fact, "that, in that one parish thousands are growing up uninstructed in their duty, either to God or man." And when it is added, that this "is only one parish out of many, and that the neighbouring parishes are almost as poor and as destitute of the means of education as this," they think they have established a claim to all who are interested in the welfare of London. It appears, therefore, as a general result, that in this populous parish less than one in twenty of the population have daily education, instead of one in eight. The Committee were not able, from the want of accurate returns, to examine with the same minuteness into the state of other districts of London. After giving a num
1232
ber of returns respecting the larger towns, the Committee gave the following as the general result of the state of education in these towns:—" That about one in twelve receive some sort of daily instruction, but only about one in twenty-four an education likely to be useful. In Leeds only one in forty-one; in Birmingham, one in thirty-eight; in Manchester, one in thirty-five. The evidence of several of the most intelligent witnesses referred to in the report, describes in strong terms, the misery and crime likely to arise from the neglected education of the children of the working classes in populous places." The Committee are fully persuaded, that to "this cause (embracing the want of religious and moral training) is to be chiefly attributed the great increase of criminals, and consequently, of cost to the country." He trusted, that the time was not very distant before a complete remedy would be afforded to this great evil, and that even the present Session would not be allowed to pass over without some remedy being applied to this lamentable state of things. Besides the other remedies that had been suggested, he thought that they might at once take care that such aid should be given in all parts of the country, so that the means of attending religious instruction was afforded to all those who were compelled to work six days in the week He would not go into details respecting the increase of crime, but he would merely state, that it appeared, from the returns made to Parliament of the committals for crime in England and Wales that in the twenty years(from 1810to 1832) the committals increased fourfold, whilst the population increased thirty-two per cent. These returns furnished most valuable information on this subject, and clearly showed the lamentable effects of the ignorance, and consequent crime that is spread so generally in the country. Even as a measure of economy it was desirable that the Legislature should take some steps to check the progress of crime. It was stated in the report of the commissioners on the constabulary force in the country, on the authority of a return made to the municipal council of Liverpool, that the cost of crime in that town was estimated at 700,000 l. per annum, and those who inquired into the subject declared their conviction "that immense as this sum is, it is not exaggerated, but, on the contrary, is much understated," A number

1233
of details were given with the view of, showing the accuracy of this statement. Now, the sum which was annually expended in the correction of crime in one town only, was ten times as much as he should require to carry into effect many improvements that would operate most beneficially on the working classes. Was the House aware of the enormous sums annually expended for the prevention of crime? It was stated in the report to which he had just referred, that the expense of a rural police for England and Wales, together with the cost of management and other charges, might be taken at 450,000 l. The expense of the Metropolitan Police was 260,000 l. per annum. The expense of the police in the various boroughs, chargeable on the borough funds, was 100,000 l., and the amount for the City of London corporation police was 40,000 l., making a total of 850,000 l. for the charge of police. In addition to this, the charge on the county rates for prisons, prosecutions, &c, was 352,000 l.; or not deducting the 80,000 l. paid out of the consolidated fund in aid of the county rates, the amount would be 432,000 l. There was also the sums annually voted from the Consolidated Fund for the maintenance of prisoners, convicts, &c, amounting to about 380,000 l. These sums taken together, amounted to not less than 1,662,000 l. paid annually for the prevention of crime, He did not mean to assert, that they would save the whole of this amount by the education of the people; but a very considerable proportion of it would no longer be required for this purpose. But besides this large expenditure, there was also the expense of a great number of voluntary associations for the prosecution of criminals. There was also a large expense for the additional military force that was necessary in consequence of the turbulence of the population in those districts where the people were the least educated; and, in addition, there was also the loss attendant upon those persons wasting their time in criminal indulgencies instead of being engaged in profitable labour. He regretted to find that a great increase in the consumption of spirits had taken place within the last few years, and he found by the returns that in little more than thirty years the consumption of gin had increased from 9,000,000 of gallons to 29,000,000; and that, while thirty years ago the annual consumption of gin in
1234
England was only one gallon a year to each person, now it had increased to one gallon and a half each. At the present time the amount of duty paid on spirits consumed in this country, was not less than 8,250,000 l. It was greatly to be regretted, that the Government drew such a revenue from the demoralization of the people, and he lamented that some steps were not taken to diminish the facilities that now existed by which spirits were put almost within the reach of almost every poor person. The consumption of spirits had also greatly increased in Ireland and Scotland, and more especially in the latter country, where the annual consumption of spirits within the last thirty years had increased from 2,700,000 gallons to 6,300,000. He was satisfied that the only remedy for this state of things was the moral education and the religious instruction of the people; and he feared if they did not at once take effectual means for this purpose that crime would go on increasing with fearful rapidity. They should regard the signs of the times, and should take warning of the events that had recently occupied their attention, and educate the people; and when they had exerted themselves, and done all in their power in this respect, if the people chose to listen to bad advisers, the legislature would have the satisfaction of knowing that it had done its duty. He knew that the matters which he had alluded to, were distasteful to Members on both sides of the House, for he found that they, more especially since the Reform Bill, preferred party questions to practical measures of improvement like the present. The hon. Member concluded by moving that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the causes of discontent amidst great bodies of the working classes in populous districts, with a view to apply such remedies as the wisdom of Parliament can devise, or remove as far as possible any reasonable grounds of complaint, in order thereby to strengthen the attachment of the people to the institutions of the country.
Mr. W. Smith O'Brienfelt great pleasure in seconding the motion of his hon. Friend. He was convinced that the adoption of some such course as that now proposed, would show to the working classes that that House was not indifferent to their condition, but sympathised with them, If an inquiry were resorted to, it

1235
was probable that some of the intelligent artisans that would be examined might throw out suggestions that would tend to improve their moral and physical condition. He believed such to have been the case with respect to an inquiry into the condition of the hand-loom weavers. In the first place, a committee was appointed to inquire into the condition of this class of persons; and after the subject had been investigated before them, a commission was appointed, and the result of the examination had been some extremely valuable reports, which he was convinced would lead to the production of much good, and to the ultimate improvement of the condition of the persons who were the subject matter of the inquiry. He could not help expressing his deep regret at observing the state of alienation that prevailed amongst the working classes throughout the country towards the constitution. This feeling probably prevailed through a greater portion of these classes in this country than in any other enjoying free institutions. As a proof of this, he would refer to the petition that was presented to the House last year on the subject of the charter, signed by upwards of 1,200,000 persons. He feared that one of the effects of the Reform Bill had been to draw a distinction between the middle and working classes, and had excited feelings of jealousy in the latter classes, such as they never entertained before. That bill took a considerable portion of power from the aristocracy, and transferred the representation to the middle classes; and the working classes, who had exerted themselves greatly to promote the success of that bill, finding themselves altogether excluded from the franchise by its operation, entertained the strongest feelings of dissatisfaction, and he thought that the only means of allaying those feelings would be by greatly extending the elective franchise. He was of opinion that the ballot would be found to be unnecessary if they greatly enlarged the franchise, for large constituencies would always be able to protect themselves. The influence of agitators for the charter manifested the want of education in the people; and this should be another reason for more generally diffusing it. Instead of voting the small sum of 30,000 l., it was the duty of the Government to render to every one, as a right, the means of attaining a good and sound education, There was probably no
1236
instance on record of a country of such wealth doing so little towards promoting the intellectual amusements of the people. In countries of a much inferior character, there was hardly a large town which did not possess its picture gallery, its statue gallery, and its botanical and zoological collections, but all matters of that kind in England were done by private associations, and no one could enter them unless as a matter of favour. He was convinced that it would be in this as in other countries—that if the legislature provided the people with the means of rational enjoyment it would drive them from intemperate habits, and make them intelligent and moral beings. Was it not awful to think that the commitments for crime in the country amounted to 100,000 a year? He believed that in no other country, where there was such an extent of property, was there such a large proportion of the population entirely dependent upon labour for the means of subsistence, and in case of want of employment resorting to the poor-laws. He found that in France there were nearly a million of small proprietors of land, who, in case of calamity, might fall back on their little property, but nothing of this kind was known in England. With her extensive colonial possessions, such a thing as a permanent distress on the part of a large body of the people should not be known, for if emigration was placed on a proper footing by the Government, this evil would be completely remedied. He regretted that the hon. Gentleman had not made his inquiry of a more extensive nature. An investigation into the subject of currency, and its effects upon the condition of the people was highly necessary. The Corn-laws also required close investigation, as having much to do with the existing discontents of the people. He hoped that both sides of the House would support this motion: it was no party question, but a question how best the happiness and prosperity of the humbler classes could be promoted, and he trusted that the House would show the working classes that their interests were a matter of consideration with the representatives of the people.
Mr. Lambtonopposed the motion. It was too indefinite, he thought, to be productive of any beneficial results. Unhappily a great deal of delusion prevailed amongst the working classes throughout all parts of the United Kingdom; they

1237
were grossly deceived by the writers who were most popular amongst them, and his remedy for that would be an improved system of national education; no doubt the hon. Mover was also a friend to national education; it formed, however, but one out of fifteen of the various objects to which his proposed inquiry was to be directed. His inquiry was to go back to a remote period, and to embrace almost every portion of our existing legislation: the Corn-laws, the currency, the elective franchise—all were to be subjects of inquiry by the committee. It was a committee to take cognizance of subjects so various and so extensive, that he very much doubted the propriety of its being proposed by any individual Member; and, without meaning the least personal disrespect to the hon. Mover, he must say, that if at all brought forward, it should be by a Member of the very first eminence. His own opinion, however, was, that a motion of this kind should be made, if at all, by the Queen's Government. He must further observe, that if such a committee should be appointed, it ought to include the Members for Durham and for South Northumberland.
Mr. Humeagreed that a subject so vast and important ought to have been introduced to the House by her Majesty's Government, for he did not think that any person unconnected with the Government would be able to bring before the House at once, in a condensed form, the information which it was desirable to obtain. As to the motion before the House, he thought that the hon. Member for Durham must think this a sufficient ground for inquiry. The hon. Member had no doubt read her Majesty's Speech, in which her Majesty stated that she could not see, without deep concern, that a spirit of insubordination and disobedience to the law had begun to manifest itself, and had broken out into open violence. Her Majesty further stated, that the commercial embarrassments which had taken place in this and other countries were subjecting our manufacturing districts to severe distress. He thought, then, that they ought to inquire into the causes of the discontent and distress that prevailed. Would the hon. Member for Durham say, that, after the paragraph in her Majesty's Speech to which he had now called his attention, the House would do their duty unless they inquired into the causes of this distress?
1238
He would also remind the House of the petition presented last year, and signed by 1,258,000 persons. The parties who signed that petition stated what were the causes of their distress and discontent. Would any one tell him that the manner in which that petition was disregarded by that House was not calculated to increase the discontent of the great bulk of the people? Whatever might be the causes of discontent, he thought that the inquiry ought not to be limited. He did not agree with the hon. Member who stated that the people were ignorant. If the hon. Member attended a meeting of the people in the manufacturing districts, he would find that his opinion on that point was erroneous. The way in which the working classes supported the Reform Bill showed that they entertained large expectations of an improvement in their condition. He (Mr. Hume) must say, that the noble Lord was himself one of the causes of the present discontent, for the noble Lord had stated when he brought forward the Reform Bill, that "the ancient constitution of this country demanded that no man should be called upon to pay taxes for the support of the State, who did not contribute either by himself or his representatives to the imposition of these taxes." He believed the noble Lord was sincere in the expectations which he had excited, but after seven years the people complained that they had been disappointed, and they have been denied a remedy. The House supported monopolies which checked commerce, and produced distress. Therefore he thought that the House was bound to institute inquiry. The working classes were not incensed against our institutions so much as against the abuses of those institutions. And it was his honest conviction that no inquiry as to their situation could really be beneficial, which did not embrace the great questions of such monopolies as the Corn-laws, and of the extension of the franchise. The Government had been' accused by Sir James Graham of being favourable to Chartist principles. He wished they were more favourable to those principles than they were; they would thereby increase the peace and the contentedness of the people. He certainly blamed the Chartists for the means they adopted and the language they had used in seeking for those measures, but though they might have acted in a manner which

1239
he did not approve of, yet the principles were not thereby influenced, and he hoped the noble Lord would not altogether deny any advance towards what the great mass of the people required. He thought that Corn-laws and an extension of political privileges were proper and appropriate subjects for inquiry, and he trusted they would not be forgotten. Was it to be supposed that the people could be contented whilst five out of every six individuals were deprived of their political rights and had no more to do with the making of laws than the negroes in the West Indies had before the passing of the Emancipation Act? If they persevered in opposing the demands of the people, complaints would continue to increase. For his part, he should not be inclined to agree to the appointment of the committee, if it did not consider fairly and fully the evils under which the people were suffering; and in that case he hoped the noble Lord beneath him would appoint one of his colleagues to take care of that committee. He hoped they would thus be enabled to ascertain those means by which they could bring back that allegiance and good-will which formerly prevailed where now there was distress and discontent
Mr. Inghamwould by no means attempt to follow the hon. Member for Kilkenny through the desultory series of contentious and exciting, as well as irrelevant topics which he had thought proper to name. He wished the committee which had been proposed by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury, from motives so benevolent and laudable—he wished that committee to apply itself to objects of really practical utility. It had been truly stated that the working classes were not generally aware of the facilities given by recent acts for the establishment of friendly and saving-bank institutions, in a manner calculated to enable them to avail themselves easily and with effect of the salutary plan of depositing. Could the lower classes be induced to avail themselves more generally of such institutions, the result would be highly beneficial to the community, for the acquirement of property gave the possessor an immediate and powerful interest in maintaining allegiance to the laws. The allotment system was calculated to produce no small benefit to the labouring classes. As to the right of primogeniture, it was so inseparably associated not
1240
only with the laws, but with the habit and feelings of the people, that even if abolished from the statute book, it would be maintained by voluntary consent. And he believed that, anxious as the people might be to possess landed property, they would not generally disapprove of the law of primogeniture, and that they would prefer transmitting their estates to their eldest sons, in contradistinction to the minute subdivision of land in vogue on the continent, especially in France. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury had alluded to the state of crime in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and he could state that the return to which the hon. Member had alluded was not at all truly indicative of the state of crime in that town. It had been framed by the police, and the offences embraced all those which were offences against the police regulations, such as blowing a horn in the place where such was prohibited by the police. A great cause of the number of offences reported, was to be found in the fact that every repetition of any of the slightest description was put down separately, as for instance, in the case he had mentioned, every blast of the horn would be reckoned as a separate offence. He was of opinion that the committee ought not to extravagate into the wide field which had been recommended.
Mr. Brothertonconsidered that the best mode of improving the industrious classes was by educating them; and their condition was to be ameliorated by a reduction of taxation. He considered it of the highest importance that the people should be furnished far more than they were with the means of education, for much of the evils in their condition arose from intemperance. If they were better instructed, and if they were temperate in their habits, it could not be doubted that they would have many comforts which they did not now enjoy. He could not but remark on the enormous increase of intemperance which had recently taken place. He believed that a people were much more taxed by their vices than by the Government. Fifty millions annually were sunk—lost— in the crime of intemperance. How soon could the people attain comfort and content, would they but discard the habits of intemperance. Whereas the consumption of ardent spirits was dreadfully on the increase. It had augmented from 9,030,000 l. to 50,000,000 l. within the last twenty or thirty years. In England

1241
the consumption was seven pints to every man, woman, and child; in Ireland thirteen; in Scotland, twenty-three. In England the cases of insanity were one in a thousand; in Ireland, one in 800; in Scotland, one in 450. Thus it was plain that insanity was the result of ardent drinking. From all the inquiries he had made, he was sure that intemperance was a main cause of crime. And he was convinced that the people themselves must be the chief authors of their own improvement, which must always principally be the result of amendment in their moral habits.
Mr. Villierswas sure the proposer of the motion before the House would not wish that motion to be the cause of a practical delusion, and he would therefore beg to suggest that its terms should be altered. When a committee was moved for to inquire into the general causes of the discontent which prevailed, expectations would be raised which would be disappointed if the inquiry was limited. He believed that it was the intelligence, not the ignorance, of the people, which was the cause of the discontent; and if relief were denied, the House ought to be ready to prove that there was no cause for discontent, and that the laws were equal and good, and were properly administered.
Lord J. Russellconfessed that his difficulty in regard to the present motion arose, in the first place, from the terms in which it was expressed; and in the second place, from the arguments of those who had supported it. As to an inquiry into many of the objects which had been alluded to, he felt, that as a responsible Minister of the Crown, he should not be justified in agreeing to that inquiry, as he could not see any remedy that could be proposed. If, however, an inquiry was instituted with the view of collecting facts relative to the state of the people in the manufacturing districts, such an inquiry might be productive of important results, and he should be inclined to agree to a motion for the appointment of a committee with that object. But such was not the object of the proposer of the present motion. The hon. Gentleman said, that the committee should enquire into the causes of the discontent prevailing amongst the masses of the working classes; and the hon. Member for Kilkenny, and other hon. Members said, that the committee should inquire also into the effects of the poor
1242
laws, and of the corn laws, and in regard to the operation of the laws of primogeniture, and the laws which regulated the mode of voting. Now, certainly these were important questions, and in his opinion rather too important to be discussed and decided by a select committee of that House. As to the question of an extension of the suffrage, for instance, he might disagree with the hon. Member for Kilkenny on that subject; but it was not likely that he would be satisfied by the evidence which might be brought before the committee of the correctness of the hon. Gentleman's views. That evidence was not likely to be such as to enable the House to act upon it. He did not think that Parliament could decide in such a way upon the important questions which had been alluded to, and he therefore thought that the arguments of the hon. Member for Kilkenny told against the motion. This was unquestionably a matter which the House was not to treat as a trifle; but it would be anything but satisfactory to the people at large, to bring these subjects forward before a select committee. He had frequently before stated to the House, that in many of the manufacturing and mining districts, where a large population had grown up suddenly, there had not been adapted to that population with sufficient care the means of preserving order and providing adequate instruction. With regard to Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, and Birmingham, though they might have from time to time to complain of lamentable occurrences, yet the state of the population was much more satisfactory than in the large manufacturing villages, as he might describe them, where there was a great and dense population, but nothing like local government of any kind. It very often occurred that the growth of a disposition to turbulence by no means kept pace with the growth of the population, and, if they were only to take proper care of the growth of these districts, security, peace, and good government would be found to prevail as they increased in extent. The metropolis contained, within a small space, a greater number of human beings than any authentic accounts informed them of having been collected together in any former period. At the same time it furnished an example of an orderly population, conducting themselves as well, if not better, than any other population of the same extent, of which there was any

1243
record. Though this was the year 1840, yet they were unquestionably much safer, with regard to riot and disorder, than in the year 1780, when the population of London was not nearly so large. Still there was a great deficiency of religious instruction in the metropolis. As to the crowding of the population within a small space, and the production and reproduction of typhus fever, he thought that a committee would throw a good deal of light on that point. If his hon. Friend were so to amend his motion, as to confine it to these practical points, he would be quite satisfied. As to the general questions involved in the hon. Gentleman's motion, he did not think that a select committee would be the proper place to state the remedies.
Mr. Briscoeobjected to the manner in which the hon. Member had shaped his motion, inasmuch as he suggested remedies, while he at the same time moved for a select Committee to inquire into the cause of these grievances. One of the great grounds of complaint among the people was the inequality of taxation, inasmuch as they were impressed with the belief that most of the articles of necessity consumed by them were more heavily taxed than the luxuries of the rich. Now, if they were mistaken on that point, it would be the duty of the Committee to undeceive the people, or to suggest a remedy where they were right. He was of opinion, that in the agricultural districts, there was a greater portion of distress prevalent than even in the towns. To his personal knowledge, there were large masses of the agricultural population living on potatoes. He did not know how the House could better employ its time than in considering the deep-seated and wide-spreading discontent that at present existed among the working classes. He hoped therefore it would receive the early and anxious attention of the House.
Mr. Wakleythought the motion was of so extraordinary a character that the House would not have listened to its details for more than a very few minutes. He believed if a Committee was appointed in accordance with its terms, that Committee might sit for thirty years without coming to any practical or satisfactory result. He sat upon a Committee for two Sessions involving only one point included in the hon. Gentleman's motion—theworking of the Poor Laws—and without investigating the twentieth part of the subject, they made a report, which was not, and
1244
could not be satisfactory to any one. Why, the proposed Committee would be a Committee sitting on "the miseries of human life."—The working classes knew well the sources of their present discontent, and they knew that the House also was aware of it, but that they would not take the matter seriously into their consideration, not having either the disposition or the capacity to apply the remedy. The people knew that there was excessive taxation, that there was a system of Corn-laws which made food 40 or 50 percent, dearer than it ought to be, that there had been a profligate expenditure, and cruel and useless wars which had entailed an enormous National Debt upon the country. Now, to none of these would the House venture to apply a remedy. If the Committee was appointed, he was satisfied that it would be productive of nothing but disappointment and delusion, and he should therefore oppose the motion.
Sir H. Verneythought the hon. Member had introduced too many subjects into his motion, which it would be impossible for any Committee to investigate, and he was, on that ground, inclined to vote against it. He should, therefore, move as an amendment, on the suggestion of the noble Lord, that a select Committee be appointed to inquire into the condition of the working classes in the populous manufacturing and mining districts.
Mr. Bainesthought the original motion involved subjects too large to be grappled with by a select committee, but in the manufacturing towns there were many evils interfering with the comforts of the poor, and the health of the inhabitants, particularly with regard to the state of the sewerage and the cleansing of the streets, which required legislative interference, and without which it was found impossible to put them in such a state as to conduce to the objects contemplated by his hon. Friend. It was also very desirable, but he did not know how it could be effected by Legislative enactments, to promote provident habits, and to induce them, when they were in full work, to make provision for those periodical returns of want of employment to which they were so frequently exposed. If, however, any suggestions could be made in a select committee to induce such habits as would effect this object, important public advantages would be derived from its labours. As to religious and

1245
moral instruction, which had also been adverted to by his hon. Friend, and which was so much required, he was happy to say, that the town missions were effecting much good in this way, by visiting the dwellings of those who either from want of proper clothing, or from disinclination, neglected to attend places of public worship, and were only to be reached by the labours of the town missionaries, or by the visits of serious and benevolent individuals. If encouragement could be given to persons so employed by any facilities that might be afforded to them, much benefit would accrue to vast numbers of poor families who had hitherto been left in a state of deplorable ignorance as to their moral and religious duties. The only other general topic to which his hon. Friend, the Member for Shrewsbury had alluded, was the education of the children of the poor, though he (Mr. Baines) was happy to say, that considerable attention was now paid to this subject in the great manufacturing towns in the north of England. Yet there was still much room for improvement, and if in the select committee proposed, any measures could be suggested by which the instruction, of the rising generation could be made more general in those densely-peopled districts, it would tend essentially to the repression of crime, and the elevation of the character of the labouring classes of the people. With these views he very cordially seconded the amendment of the hon. Baronet.
Mr. Slaneywas satisfied with the terms of the amendment.
Mr. Wakleywas sorry that the noble Lord did not rise after the amendment. In the mining districts the people were in a state of commotion. In the agricultural districts they were in distress, but they were quiet; yet the object of the committee was to inquire into the mining and manufacturing districts, thus treating the agricultural population with neglect. Nothing could be more unjust than the amendment. If there was to be an inquiry into the condition of the labouring classes, it should embrace the labouring classes generally, and especially those who had shown most patience under suffering.
Mr. Humesaid, it should be understood whether the inquiry was to be into the civil or political condition of the people. The noble Lord had better allow no committee at all than a partial inquiry.
Lord John Russellsaid, his reason for objecting to the motion of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury was, that it would lead to inquiries into political grievances, and the suggestion of political remedies. As to the civil condition of the working classes, he had no objection to an inquiry, but he thought it not wise to institute inquiries into their political condition.
Mr. Humeasked whether it were the intention of the noble Lord that the committee should inquire into the price of provisions, and the Corn laws?
Lord G. Somersetasked whether the committee were to have the power of inquiring into the causes of the disturbances in Monmouth? Did the noble Lord conceive any committee so appointed as this, could be conducted without involving inquiry into political matters? He should be glad to have a committee with a definite object, civil, political, or economical; but he objected to a committee so appointed that some members might object to the introduction of political subjects, and others might wish them to be introduced.
Lord John Russellsaid, it was not at all impossible for the committee to inquire into the condition of the mining districts without going into political matters. If the noble Lord could suggest any more specific words, he was ready to agree to them.
Lord G. Somersetsaid, he now understood that the committee were to inquire into everything.
Mr. Slaneywould withdraw his motion, and bring it forward in a different shape.
Sir E. Knatchbullhad never, in his experience, seen the House of Commons in such a position. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury had brought forward a motion in a two-hours' speech, and the Government had not been prepared with any conclusive proposition on the subject. Any stranger who should have come into the House an hour ago, and tried to discover who were the Government Members, would be led to suppose they were the hon. Member for Kilkenny and those about him. The motion was of too vague and indefinite a nature, and such an inquiry should be superintended by the Government, which, in thus abdicating its functions, gave another decisive proof of its imbecility, which was felt from one end of the country to the other.
Lord John Russellsaid, the hon. Mem

1247
ber for Drogheda had communicated to him a motion of this kind, and had stated that the object it had in view was connected with the well-being of the working classes, and not with any political object. He said he could not undertake to bring forward such an inquiry, but he had no objection to an inquiry into those objects. When other hon. Members said, they had political objects, he had declared that he was willing to agree to one object, and not to the others. He did not conceive that this was a state of things which ought to call for the strictures which the right hon. Baronet had made. His hon. Friend, the Under Secretary for the Home Department, had agreed to sit on the committee so appointed, and if he attended the committee, this was all the Government was bound to do, and he could not conceive that the Government, because it showed a readiness to acquiesce in a motion for inquiry in that House, deserved the invectives of the right hon. Baronet. He should hardly have been able to account for such an ebullition, if had not been for a recent disappointment, and defeat.
Amendment and original motion withdrawn.

INDIAN LABOURERS IN THE COLONIES.
Mr. V. Smithmoved for leave to bring in a bill to extend to the British colonies in the West Indies, the act 5 and 6 William 4th, for regulating the carriage of passengers in merchant vessels.
Lord J. Russellsaid, there was a subject of very considerable importance on which he wished to take this opportunity of stating his opinions. He did not think it would be necessary for him to bring a motion regarding it regularly before the House, but the subject had engaged the attention of Parliament in the Session before last. He was speaking of the introduction of Hill Coolies into some of our colonies. Inquiries which he had made into the condition of some of that class who had been transferred to our colonies, led him to believe, that though in some of the estates of Demerara they had not materially suffered, yet on the whole the experiment in that colony had been unsuccessful, and considering the very great length of the voyage, the chance of their being without a knowledge of the country to which they were going, and the difficulty of carrying into execu
1248
tion any provisions for their interests, permission should not be given for their emigration to Demerara or the West Indian islands. With respect to another branch of this practice, the emigration of labourers from India to the Mauritius—the inquiries he had made, and the report he had received from the Mauritius, had led him to a different conclusion. In the first place, there had been introduced into that colony, in the course of three years, about 20,000 persons from India. It did not appear, as far as his inquiries had gone, that these men had been sufferers. On the contrary, they had received good wages, had been very well treated, were perfectly aware of the conditions on which they had come to the Mauritius, and able to enforce them on their masters. The intercourse between Calcutta and the Mauritius was very considerable, and by means of the ships which went and came, the Indian labourers had the means of communicating with their friends, and informing them of their condition. Many of these persons had engaged themselves for five years, and many more were now willing to engage themselves, not for five years, because that was not now allowed, but for a certain term. According to the regulations now enforced, it was not possible for the labourers to leave their employment, go to India for a short time, and then return, as many of them would wish to do. It had been proposed to him, that labourers should be allowed to go to the Mauritius, and engage themselves for a service, or as it was sometimes called, an apprenticeship of five years. To that he had objected, thinking that the present Order in Council, limiting the service to one year, was reasonable, and that if the labourers were satisfied at the end of the term, it would be far better that the engagement should be renewed from time to time, than that a contract should be entered into for so long a time on their first arrival. Besides which, no real comparison could be made between the situation of apprentices, and that of these labourers. The apprentice, after a certain time, might become a master workman, but these men were merely hired as labourers for a certain time, and there was no excuse for making that time of very long duration. But fixing the term at only one year, and taking all imaginable precautions, similar to the terms of the bill which his hon. Friend had asked leave to introduce, and

1249
sending out strict orders to India, that there should be agents or protectors who should take care that bargains were not made by the labourers without a knowledge of their real nature, and that parties; should not take them away without letting them know where they were going, it did seem to him perfectly fair, that labourers from India who earned very small wages, should be allowed to go to the Mauritius, where they might earn higher wages and improve their condition. Of course, it would be a very great object to the proprietors of estates in the Mauritius to obtain this supply of labour, but he would not be for allowing it, unless it appeared clearly, that it could be done without injury to the labourers, whose case formerly excited great interest, both in that and; the other House of Parliament. He did not mean to propose any measure on this subject, but it was the intention of Government to relax the actually existing: prohibition with respect to the emigration of labourers from India to the Mauritius. He had thought it necessary to make this statement to the House, believing, that 'when Parliament was sitting, it would not be right to take any course without communicating it to the House.
Mr. Humethought, that the noble Lord should not have proposed a measure of so much importance, without giving the House an opportunity of discussing it.
Mr. Goulburnthought it was extremely difficult to deal with the statement made to the House by the noble Lord. If the noble Lord were to suppose, that the House had sanctioned his proposition, they would be placed in a very awkward situation. It would be more satisfactory, he thought, that the House, before expressing its opinion, should wait for the promulgation of the Order in Council, which it appeared to be the noble Lord's intention to issue. At the present moment he was not prepared to say, that the noble Lord was wrong in his arrangement, but he wished to be allowed to reserve his opinion to some future opportunity.
Lord J. Russellin explanation said, that it had not been his wish to call for any discussion on the subject at the present moment, but as it would be necessary to put in motion the prerogative of the Crown he thought that it would be desirable, that the House should be in
1250
formed what was about to be done before the steps were actually taken.
Leave given to bring in the bill.

COPYRIGHT LAW.
Mr. Sergeant Talfourdsaid, in rising to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the present law of Copyright, he did not think it necessary to detain the House with any observations in favour of a measure which had already been three times before that House, and three times sanctioned by its approval. Under these circumstances he thought it unlikely that any hon. Member would deem it necessary to oppose such a bill in that, its preliminary stage.
Mr. Wakleysaid, the hon. and learned Sergeant had observed, that he did not deem it necessary to address any observations to them in moving for leave to bring in a bill such as he had stated, which had already been before the House for three sessions successively. Now, whatever might have been the opinion of that House of the bill in question, it had excited in the public mind abroad sentiments of no small alarm. The hon. and learned Gentleman had brought forward that measure with great eloquence indeed, but he should be permitted to say, that great as was that eloquence it was no argument in favour of the bill he proposed, nor had the hon. and learned Gentleman convinced him of the justice or necessity in any manner of interfering with the present law of copyright. What was it the hon. and learned Sergeant wanted to establish by that law? What was it he expected to do? Did he think thereby to benefit the cause of literature, to serve the community at large, or confer any advantage upon the authors generally? There had been two Parliamentary committees appointed upon this subject. One in the year 1813, and the other in the year 1818. The consequence of the first had been the introduction of the bill of 1814, which had added fourteen years to the term of the right of copyright. It had been previously only fourteen years; the new law had made it twenty-eight. He should be glad to know whether the hon. and learned Sergeant had taken the trouble to read the evidence taken before those committees. It would appear from his gesture of assent that he had read that evidence—["Hear, hear!" from Sergeant Talfourd]. Well, then, supposing the learned Sergeant had read it, it was a reasonable supposition

1251
that he could have no objection to the appointment of another committee. In the evidence taken before the committee in 1818 it had been clearly pointed out to every person, that it was wholly unnecessary and supererogatory to legislate again on that subject or to extend the period of copyright. What had Dr. Clark, Mr. Rees, and Mr. Taylor said in their evidence upon that subject? The latter had observed, that he scarcely ever had heard of a very expensive work having been republished during his thirty years' experience in the trade. All had agreed, that the prolongation of the time would not be of that advantage to the authors whom the hon. and learned Gentleman was desirous of promoting, He considered, that a question of the present kind not only involved the consideration of the interference with the property of those who had a large sum of money sunk in the printing trade, but also, considering the great spread of education of late years, involved a question of the diffusion of knowledge in this kingdom. But he could easily believe, after the eloquence with which this matter had been advocated, and the manner in which the sympathies of hon. Members had been roused and enlisted on behalf of one or two destitute authors, that the House would be anxious to inquire in what respect a new Act of Parliament should be framed for the purpose of extending the period of copyright from what it now was. Now, notwithstanding the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to extend the copyright to sixty years beyond the life of the author, he seemed to consider, that this was almost a compromise of the great question in which he was involved. Why, he supposed they should have the learned Sergeant requiring them, if they agreed to that, to extend it to a perpetual copyright. Now to support his present bill ought not the hon. and learned Sergeant to show the House that the cause of literature was in decay, or that works of value were not issuing from the press. That the learned Sergeant had not shown; neither had he shown, that the demand for printed works was less than before. If the learned Sergeant were to ask any publisher or author they would tell him, that their chief anxiety was not for the time they devoted to their work, but the appetite for literature which the public mind had acquired. Now, if an author wished to
1252
write for the people 100 years hence, they could not compel him to change his fancy, nor could they control his designs. He contended, that the hon. and learned Sergeant had failed to show, that the effect of the present law had been to prevent the production or issue from the press of standard or excellent works. What had been the practice when copyright had been really of less value than it was now. What had Roger Bacon, what had Shakspeare got for their works? They had other incentives to write besides the mere remuneration they received. The greatest works ever produced in this country had been produced when copyright had been of considerably less value than it was now. What had Milton received for his "Paradise Lost?" Milton might not have been so great a poet as others of modern date; but, without wishing to depreciate the talents or the labours of others, he did say, that if they then passed a law to diminish the present diffusion of publications, they would inflict on the cause of literature the greatest evil it could receive. The hon. and learned Gentleman having thus failed to make out a case on one side, and he (Mr. Wakley) believing, that there were some who thought with him, that an investigation ought to take place into the matter previously to legislating upon it, he trusted that the House would agree with him, that it ought to appoint another committee to inquire, before they proceeded to interfere with the business of men who had embarked many thousand pounds in the printing trade. He would say nothing on that occasion of the disappointment of certain authorities, because certain men never would believe the public thought enough of their merits. It was the statement of the publishers, that the expense of printing, of late years, had much increased, but the great and serious evil was the increasing rapacity of authors. He hoped the noble Lord at the head of the Government in that House would state his opinions upon the subject. Two Sessions ago the noble Lord had said, that a case in favour of the bill had not been made out, and this declaration gave great satisfaction to the people out of doors. He should on all these accounts move as an amendment to the motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, "that a select committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the existing laws of copy

1253
right, and to report thereon to the House."
Mr. Humeseconded the amendment. He said it was twenty-one years since any inquiry had taken place on the subject. Any man who read the report would be convinced that the opinion of the committee was against any alteration of the law; and he therefore submitted, after the contests they had had, if the learned Sergeant were so satisfied, he could make out an overwhelming case (which he had not done) in favour of his bill, he could have no objection to the appointment of a Committee. He was bound to state that the communications he had had, and the opinions he had seen since last year, proved at least that there was a great diversity of opinion. His own opinion was well known. All, therefore, he should say was, that in the midst of so much difficulty, with such difference of opinion, and on a question which was of so very much importance, the matter should be examined in committee. It would not take long, and if the learned Sergeant would not submit to an inquiry, he must submit to opposition, as he had stated on a former occasion. His objection to the bill was, that it would make books dear. He would, therefore, submit to the hon. Gentleman, that it would be better for him to yield on this matter with a good grace. He cared not who formed the committee, and he would rest the whole proceedings with it, because, in his opinion, it was impossible to make out a case for the bill. He should, therefore, second the amendment.
Mr. Sergeant Talfourdtrusted, that he should receive the sanction of the House in declining to be drawn into a discussion on the general principles of the law of copyright. He considered that the proposition made by the hon. Member for Finsbury was made only for the purpose of obstructing the progress of the measure, and he should certainly accept of no advice from him, or the parties with whom he acted, after the course which had been taken by them in the last Session of Parliament. There never was a case so weak, so nugatory, so trifling, made out for the House refusing to allow the introduction of a bill which had been laid three times on the Table of the House, as that which the hon. Member for Finsbury had presented. As to the committee of 1818, he himself had stated two long years ago,
1254
that he would be bound by the statements made before that committee, and that he would be contented to legislate on the testimony given by the publishers themselves, who were then most hostile to a copyright bill. Now, the present measure had been three times discussed, and not one question of fact was in dispute. He would concede, that there was a difference between them in point of principle. The question was whether an author having committed to paper the thoughts he had conceived and cherished in solitude, should have any property in them, or whether they should become that of the public, whether an author communicating his inspirations to the world should only demand of the public the produce of their immediate sale, or look at large unto posterity for the reward of works which might not receive immediate attention from the public. Those were the principles on which they had to legislate; and were not these matters on which every scholar and thinker had equal power on forming his judgment? Every fact which the hon. Member for Finsbury contended for should be admitted. He would admit, that Mr. Tegg, the publisher, for whom the hon. Member appeared, had made a fortune of 200,000 l. by publishing, and that Sir Walter Scott did not make much by creating his immortal productions. The hon. Member for Finsbury should have that admission; and he would also concede that the works of popular and living authors might be had extremely cheap. The hon. Member should also have admitted, if he pleased, what he had alluded to on a former occasion, in a humourous manner, that the best works were produced anterior to the existence of copyright. He rested his statement of its necessity now chiefly on the claims of the authors and booksellers who had petitioned the House in its favour, while few had petitioned against it. These were all the facts on which the House could be called on to legislate. He had heard no one of them disputed. When the question was introduced two years ago, a committee had been moved for and negatived, and it was unusual to bring forward such a motion again as an obstruction to the bill being laid upon the Table of the House. But when the question was put, whether it should be referred to a Committee of the whole House, or to a Select Committee, the Attorney-General and the hon. Member for Ripon,

1255
who then opposed it, but he trusted would no longer do so, both stated their conviction that there was no case for a Select Committee, and that to propose it was only to obstruct the bill. If there really was a case made out for a committee, not upon the present bill, but upon the copyright laws generally, why, then he trusted the House would so far protect this measure as to allow it to be laid on the Table, as it was not a question of detail, but a great question both of expediency and justice. He should at least feel it his duty to resist the amendment, and he was prepared to meet the consequences of that resistance at any rate: if he had to contend with any unjust opposition he should be able to meet it before the House far better than with a Select Committee.
Mr. Warburtondisputed the proposition of the learned Sergeant (Talfourd), that an invasion of copyright in perpetuity was an invasion of private property. Literary property was private property only so long as the manuscript remained in the private possession of the author, but when it was published it became, to a certain extent public property. It was no injustice therefore to deprive the author of perpetual copyright in his works. The state gave to authors a certain protection for their works, and they were bound, on the other hand, as an equivalent for this protection, to see that the public had the advantage of having the work published at a reasonable rate. But the hon. and learned Sergeant denied altogether the argument drawn from public expediency. After such a denial, ought he to be allowed to bring in a bill upon such a principle? The proposed sixty years after the death of an author would, counting from the time of the publication, run on an average to a hundred. Could such an extension be justified? The bill of Anne, which allowed only fourteen years, required that the Archbishop of Canterbury and his assistants should limit the price at which works were published, so that the public might not be shut out from all advantage. That time at present was for twenty-five years, which of course would be much Monger if the authors were long-lived. Then, again, if an author amended his works before his death, as every man careful of his fame would be likely to do, there would be an additional extension of twenty-five years to the most correct edition. On these grounds he should feel
1256
bound to oppose at every stage a bill such as this, founded, as it avowedly was, on the principle of perpetual copyright, and he would oppose it on the paramount plea of public utility.
Sir R. Inglissaid, that he would not deny the right of the hon. Gentleman to oppose the introduction of any Bill; but he did think that the hon. Gentlemen opposite were not dealing fairly or justly in the present instance. It was in the recollection of the House, that they had already given leave to four hon. Members that night to bring in Bills on different subjects, and on referring to their motions, as they stood upon the paper, he could not bring himself to think that the claim in any one of those cases, was equal to that involved in the motion of his hon. and learned Friend. That House had, on three former occasions, sanctioned the principle of this Bill, which could not be said of any of the four cases to which he had alluded, and therefore, without entering into any discussion of the merits of the question on the present occasion, he did trust, that the hon. Member for Finsbury, and his hon. Friend the Member for Bridport, would, if only from a feeling of courtesy to his hon. and learned Friend, not refuse their acquiescence in the motion for the introduction of this Bill.
Mr. O'Connellhad voted before with the learned Sergeant, and saw no reason why he should not do so again; but a considerable impression had been made upon him by the observations which he had heard, and under all the circumstances, he thought it would be better for the hon. and learned Gentleman to accede to the proposition for a committee, where the objections could be more fully considered.
Viscount Howickhoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would acquiesce in the motion for a committee, as otherwise he should feel himself called upon to vote with the hon. Member for Finsbury, but not with a view to obstruct the bill. During the last two or three years, serious objections had been taken to the present position of copyright, and there was no doubt that the existing law called for alteration. The present system afforded the greatest protection to light and ephemeral compositions, whilst works of labour, research, and diligence, which could only win their way gradually into public favour and circulation, were not sufficiently protected. By canvassing the matter in

1257
committee, means might be devised of affording protection to the author on the one hand, and to the publisher on the other.
Lord Mahonwould advise the hon. and learned Gentleman to take the opposite course to that recommended by the noble Lord, and not agree to refer the bill to a committee. It was evident that the objection of the hon. Member for Finsbury was to the principle, not the details of the bill, and no committee could meet either his objections or those of the hon. Member for Bridport.
Mr. Laboucherefelt some difficulty as to the mode in which he should act. He approved of the suggestion thrown out by the noble Lord (Howick), and he must say that if the measure of the hon. and learned Gentleman was not greatly altered it might be productive of mischief. Still there would be something ungracious in the House refusing to grant leave for the introduction of the bill.
Mr. Hobhouseshould support the proposition for referring the whole question of copyright to the consideration of a select committee up stairs, as the only means by which it could be justly settled.
Mr. Sergeant Talfourdsaid that, with all respect for those who had spoken against this measure, yet not having heard any suggestion but what showed that the arguments adduced against it were arguments upon its principle, and of unmitigated hostility, which would not be likely to be removed by any inquiry that might take place, and supported as he had been by those hon. Members who had assisted him in bringing forward this measure, he felt bound to divide the House on the subject, and he should most respectfully abide by its decision.
The House divided on the original question—Ayes 75; Noes 53: Majority 22.

List of the AYES.

Acland. T. D.

Curry, Sergeant

Aglionby, Major

Darby, G.

Attwood, W.

Filmer, Sir E.

Attwood, M.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Bailey, J. jun.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Baring, F. T.

Gladstone, W. E.

Barneby, J.

Gordon, R.

Beamish, F. B.

Goulburn, H.

Boldero, H. G.

Graham, Sir J.

Bramston, T. W.

Greene, T.

Broadwood, H.

Hamilton, C. J. B.

Bruges, W. H.

Hawkes, T.

Codrington, C. W.

Henniker, Lord

Cresswell, C.

Herbert, hon. S.

1258

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Perceval, Colonel

Hodgson, R.

Pigot, D. R.

Howard, F. J.

Pigot, R.

Hughes, W. B.

Polhill, F.

Jermyn, Earl

Praed, W. T.

Lubouchere, H.

Pringle, A.

Law, hon. C. E.

Rolleston, L.

Litton, E.

Round, C. G.

Lockhart, A. M.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Lowther, J. H.

Russell, Lord J.

Mackenzie, T.

Shaw, right hon. F.

Macleod, R.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Mahon, Lord

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Miles, W.

Steuart, R.

Miles, P. W. S.

Stewart, J.

Morpeth, Lord Visc.

Strickland, Sir G.

Morris, D.

Thompson, Mr. Ald.

Neeld, J.

Verner, Colonel

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Waddington, H. S.

O'Connell, M.J.

Whitmore, T. C.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Oswald, J.

Winnington, H. J.

Packe, C. W.

TELLERS.

Pakington, J. S.

Talfourd, Sergeant

Parker, J.

Inglis, Sir H.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Muskett, G. A.

Blake, M.J.

O'Brien, C.

Blake, W. J.

O'Brien, W. S.

Briscoe, J. I.

O'Connell, D.

Brocklehurst, J.

Phillips, M.

Brotherton, J.

Power, J.

Busfeild, W.

Pryme, G.

Currie, R.

Richards, R.

Duke, Sir J.

Salwey, Colonel

Dundas, C. W. D.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Ellis, W.

Stuart, Lord J.

Ewart, W.

Stock, Dr.

Gillon, W. D.

Strutt, E.

Greig, D.

Style, Sir C.

Harcourt, G. G.

Tancred, H. W.

Hawes, B.

Thornely, T.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Vigors, N. A.

Howard, Sir R.

Wakley, T.

Howick, Lord Visc.

Westenra, hon. H. R.

Hutt, W.

White, A.

Hutton, R.

Williams, W.

James, W.

Wood, G. W.

Jervis, J.

Wood, B.

Langdale, hon. C.

Worsley, Lord

Loch, J.

Yates, J.A.

Lushington, C.

TELLERS.

Marshall, W.

Hume, J.

Muntz, G. F.

Warburton, H.

Leave given to bring in the bill.

SPIRIT LICENCES (SCOTLAND).
Mr. Gillonmoved for leave to bring in a bill to enable persons holding licences, to sell beer, spirits, and other exciseable liquors, to obtain a renewal of their licences from the excise in Scotland.
Mr. Pringlesaid, he felt bound to take the very earliest opportunity of opposing

1259
the motion. A measure of precisely the same nature had been several times brought before Parliament by the hon. Member for Falkirk, and as often rejected. Last session, a bill which he brought in at the commencement, he suffered to remain on the book till the month of August, and, without giving Members, who came down night after night for the purpose, he then withdrew it without even discussing it on a second reading. The bill would take away from the local magistrates in Scotland that salutary influence and check which they at present held over the morality of the country, and he therefore should take the sense of the House against the introduction of the bill.
Mr. Gillonsaid, that last year he had been prevented by indisposition from proceeding with the bill until so late a period as to render it impossible to pass it through this House and the other House of Parliament. The hon. Member opposite had entirely misrepresented the objects of the bill. It retained all those salutary provisions to which he had referred, and only went to relieve the wholesale and retail dealers in spirits from the hardship of being obliged every year to get a certificate of character from the magistrates before they could obtain a renewal of their licence from the Excise. To this they were exposed, even though they had conducted themselves in a manner consistent with the laws, and though no charge had been made against them. They were now subject to the caprice of magistrates, who, in frequent cases, used their powers for political purposes. The bill was to relieve the wholesale and retail dealers from such grievances.
Mr. Lockhartthought the power of the magistrates to refuse licences a very useful check. If the hon. Member could show any instances of a licence having been improperly refused, it ought to be inquired into. As far as his experience as a magistrate went, he had never known any application rejected, unless the case happened to be one of a very aggravated nature.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwould not oppose the introduction of the bill, but lie would not pledge himself to take away the power of granting licences from the magistrates.
Leave given.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of Clarendon, from Ayrton, and four other places, and by the Marquess of Westminster, from three places, for the Total and Immediate Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By the Bishop of Exeter, from three places, against the Doctrines of the Socialists; and by Lord Teynham, from Mrs. Margaret Chapelsmith, for an Inquiry into the same.—By Lord Redesdale, from a place in Denbighshire, against any further Grant to Maynooth College; and from another place, against the Importation of Foreign Corn into Ireland.—By Lord Brougham, from a number of places, for Pardon to the Monmouth Prisoners.

FROST, WILLIAMS, AND JONES.
Lord Broughamsaid, he had to present to their Lordships three petitions from three individuals in similar circumstances—viz. John Frost, Zephaniah Williams, and William Jones, prisoners in the county gaol of Monmouth, who had been convicted of high treason, setting forth various facts relating to the trial, and the ultimate decision on the objection taken, and complaining, that not being aware of the law, they were not informed of that which now turned out to be the law, and were, therefore, prevented from taking the objection in what was now said to have been the proper time; also solemnly declaring, that the Judges had expressed the same opinion upon the trial as they afterwards entertained, and that, therefore, if the objection had been taken in due and proper time, the petitioners ought to have been acquitted, and praying their Lordships to interfere to obtain mercy for them. He believed, that a great error had gone abroad respecting these proceedings. It was a great mistake to suppose the fifteen Judges constituted a tribunal known to the law of the country. It was not so. They were merely consulting on the subject as any other individuals learned in the law might have done, and had not an atom of jurisdiction, because they had not heard the cause tried. Such consultations used to be in the dining-room of the Judges, and he had argued causes there before their Lordships after dinner. The case of Lawless was so argued, but the judgment was not given until next spring, when it was delivered at the Assizes in the Court where the cause had been tried by a single Judge. It was altogether a mistake in
1160
the petitioners to say the two Judges retained their opinion, for having heard the opinion of the majority, they now believed they were wrong. He hoped the point on which the objection was taken would be made the subject of legislative enactment, as there ought not to be the slightest doubt whatever on that matter.

PRIVILEGE—STOCKDALE v. HANSARD —THE SHERIFFS.
Lord Broughamhad to present a petition from two individuals placed in a situation of peculiar difficulty and hardship, and in circumstances strange, unprecedented, and alarming; he presented to their Lordships a petition from William Evans, and John Wheelton, Esqrs., Sheriffs of London and Middlesex, and the petition appeared to be presented to the House, not merely in its Legislative capacity, but as the highest Court of Judicature known to the laws of these realms, and from officers of a court on whose judicial decisions their Lordships might have to sit in judgment, as also upon the conduct of the sheriffs as officers of that court over which their Lordships' House had unquestioned jurisdiction. The petition was to this effect— and in regard to the great hardship of this case, and in regard to the high and paramount importance of the subject, and in regard, he would venture to add, to the respectful, touching, and submissive nature of the appeal made to their Lordships, he would venture to engage for the statements of the petition that attention which their Lordships always gave to the petitions of every class of their fellow-subjects, when those fellow-subjects bore towards their Lordships the relations which he had taken the liberty to point out. The petitioners addressed their Lordships as the Supreme Court of Judicature of the country, and they asked for justice according to law, and he for one must say, that in his experience he knew of no justice—he knew of nothing called justice, unless it was justice according to the law —the known and established law of the realm. The petitioners said, that by divers charters the office of sheriffs of the city of London, and the county of Middlesex, were vested in the Lord Mayor, commonalty, and citizens of London. That the sheriffs were elected by the livery-men of London in Common Hall assembled, and were compellable to serve such office under the penalty of a heavy

1161
fine. That on the day of the last annual election, the petitioners were elected and took upon themselves the duties of the office, the consent of the Crown being given to their appointment by the Cursitor Baron. And previous to entering on the office they took the oath that they would truly serve all the Queen's writs, according to the best of their skill and knowledge, and that, pursuant to that oath, they had duly executed all the Queen's writs which were directed to them. The petitioners then set forth, that a writ of inquiry was directed to them, in consequence of the verdict of the Court of Queen's Bench, that judgment was entered, and a jury empanelled to assess the damages in consequence of the default of the defendant, that the writ of inquiry was executed before one of their officers, the under-sheriff, and the jury returned a verdict of 600 l. damages. The petitioners then set forth a resolution of the other House of Parliament, asserting, that by the law of the privileges of Parliament, the House had the sole and exclusive jurisdiction to determine on its privileges, and that the institution of any suit or action, for the purpose of bringing those privileges into discussion in any other place than Parliament was a high contempt, and rendered the parties amenable to punishment. So that the Chief Justice who tried the case, the Judges before whom the demurrer was argued, the counsel who argued the demurrer, and the solicitor who instructed those counsels, were punishable for enforcing the law of the land, provided it brought in question the alleged privileges of the House of Commons. The petitioners then proceeded to state that instructions were nevertheless given to the Attorney-general to appear and defend an action in which the rights and privileges of the House of Commons were brought into question, notwithstanding that after a discussion of three or four days the House had resolved that parties were punishable for bringing actions which involved the question of privileges, or the alleged privileges of the House of Commons. Instead of proceeding, in the first instance, to punish the breach of privilege, they appeared, according to the statement taken from their own books, to have made themselves parties and accomplices to that which eight-and-forty hours before they had declared to be highly Culpable, Well, then, Mr. Attorney-ge-
1162
neral was instructed to plead, and a demurrer was put on the record. Now, that was as much as to plead that they admitted the fact as to the position in which the parties stood to each other. But they denied that the publication was beyond the privilege of the House. Why, that raised the whole question. It brought the whole matter before the Court of Queen's Bench. It entitled the Judges of that Court to become parties to the question, which could not be if the House of Commons had not instructed the Attorney-general to plead—thus putting it to the Court to decide upon the question upon which the House of Commons and the plaintiff were at issue, the Attorney-general having been ordered to bring the question of privilege before the Court of Queen's Bench for its decision—whereas, eight-and-forty hours before, the House of Commons had declared it to be a highly punishable offence for any individual to question the privileges of Parliament. The petitioners further set forth that the question was fully argued, and that the judgment was given for the plaintiff. On that occasion the Court allowed the demurrer—that is, disallowed the plea set up by the Attorney-general, acting under the orders of the House of Commons. They then set forth, that the aforesaid proceedings were liable to be reviewed, and that, if there were any error in the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, that might be brought before the other Judges sitting in the Exchequer Chamber as a Court of Error, or before their Lordships' House sitting as the highest Court of Appeal. But that no writ of error had yet been prosecuted; and further, that as the House of Commons had allowed the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench to stand without appeal, as far as the petitioners knew the law of the land, the privilege must be held to offer no defence. The petitioners then state, that after the writ of inquiry had been executed, and judgment had been given—after the execution had been taken out, and a levy made to the amount of the sum in question, the fruit of the sale of the property of the defendant in the suit—they state that in consequence of that amount being in their hands to be made over according to a writ of fieri facias and having been levied by them in obedience to that writ which they had sworn to obey, the House of Commons, as appears by their printed votes, passed a resolution,

1163
stating that it appeared that an execution in the case of Stockdale v. Hansard, had been levied to the amount of 640 l. by a sale of the property of the defendant in contempt of these privileges of the House, and that such money now remains in the hands of the sheriffs of Middlesex—that said sheriffs be ordered to refund the said amount forthwith to the defendants. Then the sheriffs had a writ directed to them—the Queen's writ issued by the authority of the Court of Queen's Bench, which they were bound to obey, and which they had also sworn faithfully to execute. That writ had called on them to pay the money, not to the House of Commons, but to the plaintiffs. Accordingly when they had been ordered to pay the money to the defendants, contrary to their oaths, to their duty, and to their office, they refused to do so, but kept it for the parties to whom it was due by the law. They, not having expressed their intention to comply with the order were committed by the Sergeant-at—Arms to custody, where they still were. They humbly submit that the order was invalid in point of law, and an infringement of the rights of the Crown, inasmuch as it was an infringement on the rights of the party as decided on by a Court of Law. They then set out that a writ of Habeas Corpus had been applied for, for, the purpose of bringing them before the Court of Queen's Bench—that they were brought up, and that the writ of Habeas Corpus was returned, because the warrant did not set forth specifically the grounds of their commitment, but merely set forth generally that they had been confined by an order or warrant of the House of Commons, for a breach of privilege and a contempt of that House, without stating in what that contempt consisted, so that it was a matter of course they should remain in custody, because they could not tell why they had been committed. If any Court chose to conceal the cause of its writ, or to wrap its warrant in general terms, no other Court had then the power to inquire into it by going further into the case than the warrant had set forth. These were the grounds on which the Court of Queen's Bench had proceeded, and which would have equally applied to any other Court—would equally apply to a writ from the Court of Common Pleas. No matter how absurd the grounds on which the warrant had been issued, there was nothing to be done when the ground of it had not
1164
been stated. The Court of Queen's Bench had accordingly been prevented by the nature of the warrant in question, from proceeding any further. The prisoners were still in custody, and had no prospect of being released, and they, consequently, wished to throw themselves on the protection of the House. They concluded their statement as follows:—
"Wherefore, throwing ourselves on the justice and protection of the highest court of judicature in the realm, your petitioners humbly pray your Lordships' House to afford them such assistance in the circumstances of the case as to your Lordships' House will seem fit, to the end that the petitioners, being officers of the law, and sworn to execute it, in obedience to a writ to them directed, may not suffer in their persons for the necessary discharge of their duties according to their oaths, and which, if they had failed to do, they would have been liable by the law to the severest punishment."
He had not, the noble Lord proceeded, stated the whole of the case, but had merely given the substance of the complaints of those parties. He had now only to add, that he felt anxiety, and, he should say, sorrow at their unhappy lot, because of the peculiar circumstances of the case, and in the relation in which their Lordships stood to the other House of Parliament, viz., as a co-equal and not inferior Chamber of Parliament, on a point of privilege, he did not see, however great their inclination might be, to rescue those gentlemen from the embarrassments of their position,—he did not see how their Lordships could proceed in the case. Every man who had examined the nature of the proceedings would find proper and just palliatives in the conduct of the sheriffs. He therefore, for fear he should exceed that measure of opinion which could be drawn by any one who had inquired into those proceedings, and for fear he should, on the other hand, fail in stating that opinion, he would only refer to them and say, that those proceedings, and such proceedings, whatever may be their nature, left the sheriffs remediless in their Lordships' House. They could afford them no protection it was true, but they were bound to listen to the prayers of those petitioners. He might observe, that if no petitions were presented, unless when it was thought they would be of use, much of their Lordships' time would be spared. He wished to express the feeling which he entertained with respect to the powers

1165
of the House, because he found that they might be precisely in the same situation in which the other House was now, and that that other House had claimed for their Lordships the same privileges which they had claimed for themselves. God forbid, however, that he should ever be called upon to act on that precedent. God forbid that their Lordships, the highest court of justice in the kingdom, and an assembly of rational men—should be ever called on, he would not say to imitate the proceedings adopted elsewhere, but to take such steps as had followed from the prosecution of such proceedings. He would not say one word on the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, which had been given after the fullest arguments, not only on the part of counsel, but after the fullest arguments on the part of the Bench itself, to justify its decision. If he were now to state what was his opinion on the law of the case, he should be doing what would be presumptuous as well as superfluous; presumptuous, because the Court of Queen's Bench had decided the case; and superfluous, because the House of Commons had acquiesced in that decision. He had other reasons, however, for not giving his opinion. He might be called on hereafter, as a Member of their Lordships' House, to be a judge on the matter. The other House might be influenced perhaps by opinions from without, to change their determination, and their Lordships might then have a different course to adopt; and he knew not but as another House had, in the course of forty-eight hours, changed its own course, and its own sentiments, and as it had come down and descended from high privileges to the constitutional law of the land—for all that he knew their Lordships' judgment might yet be appealed to, and it might be to reverse the decision adopted elsewhere. He would not make any observations on the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, and he would add, that whenever their Lordships might be in the same situation as the other House, they would have the consistency and the manliness, in the first place, to act on Thursday, according to their declared and solemn decision on Tuesday. In the next place, he hoped they would avoid saying that whoever went to law, in such a manner as to bring their privileges in question, before that court of law, should be considered guilty of a breach of privilege, and then ordering their own servant
1166
to go to law, and to place a plea on record in that very court of law, pleading their privileges, and thus bringing those very privileges under the cognizance of the court—and then saying, that the Court of Law was guilty of a breach of privilege, for deciding on the very question which they themselves had brought before the court. He hoped also that they would have the manliness and the courage, and the justice, if any officer of any court of law, be it high or be it low, should obey the order of his lawful superiors, the courts of law, and should bring any act of his in obedience to their orders, and to the obligation of his oath, or any act which they might deem a breach of the privileges—he trusted they would have the courage, as well as the justice, to proceed against the originators, and not against the agent, to attack the master and not the servant, to commit the Judges, not the Sheriffs. If the Sheriffs had not obeyed the orders of the court, they might have been committed— they were bound to obey the orders of the courts of law, and they had only done their duty according to the law and the obligation of their oath. He trusted that that House would never take advantage of persons under such circumstances; but he also hoped that if that had been done, and their Lordships had committed offenders—for if they were not offenders, then those who had commuted them were guilty of offence—then he hoped that they would not suffer persons to come in procession to compliment the prisoners on having set their authority at defiance, and to congratulate them on this martyrdom to their principles, even in their own cells; he trusted they would not suffer them to receive these congratulations for having disobeyed the law of Parliament, and preferred the law of the land, under the eye and within ear-shot of the House itself. He ventured to hope that they would pursue a courage more consistent with their own dignity, and with justice, and that they would not be led astray by any other example, be the party ever so exalted, or ever so powerful; although, with regard to this power, he ventured to entertain very grave doubts. One word more as to the administration of justice. The Sheriffs were in custody, and of the hundred of writs which were issued, not one could be executed by themselves. All these writs must be executed by the

1167
Under-Sheriff, who held his appointment under the Sheriff, which appointment was revokeable at pleasure, and the Sheriff was answerable for every act or omission of the Under-Sheriff; for every misfeasance of his—for every non-feasance of his, to the utmost extent of his fortune, and if his fortune was not sufficient, then in his person. It was one thing for a man to sleep comfortably when out of prison, able to superintend his own servants, to know what they did, and to give them orders; and it was another thing for a person when locked up between four walls, and having no control over his servants, except the Under-Sheriff chose to come and communicate with him. Therefore he did anticipate if the Sheriff were not let out of prison the day after tomorrow, he might revoke the appointment of the Under-Sheriff, and then there could be no writs executed. A great deal of trash had been talked about the Coroner executing writs—he doubted if the Coroner might be trusted—but he could execute a writ in one case, and in one case only, and that was when it was to be served on the Sheriff himself. All writs were directed to the Sheriff, and not to the Coroner. The writs went to the Sheriff, he returned that he could not execute them, because he was detained in custody by the House of Commons. The consequence would be dreadful—there would be a complete end to the administration of justice, and in that case, he thought matters would be soon reversed, and instead of the Sheriffs petitioning the House of Commons to release them, they would see the House of Commons petitioning the Sheriffs to appoint an Under-Sheriff. Neither House of Parliament—for he applied the same rule to their Lordships that he did to the House of Commons—could long stand, unless they were very clearly right, and the Judges were clearly wrong, a conflict with the highest Judges of the land, or succeed in an attempt to commit their almost sacred persons to custody on a question of privilege. The Houses of Parliament would not be able to withstand the host of petitions from suitors of the courts. The whole administration of justice would be stopped and paralysed. These observations he thought it was his duty to make in presenting the petition in the case of these individuals, because he felt that in this case, unfortunately, their Lordships had not any opportunity
1168
of deriving information from other sources.
Viscount Melbourne: I need not say one word as to the reception of the petition which my noble and learned Friend has just presented. Of course it is known to all your Lordships, that every person who complains of a wrong done, and all persons who conceive that they are suffering under an injury, have the undoubted, the undisputed right to state that injury, and to ask redress at the hands of the House. But, at the same time, I feel it my duty to rise and say, that I do not at all agree with, or acquiesce in, the observations of my noble and learned Friend. It is impossible to mistake or misapprehend the scope, the meaning, the force, of his observations. It is impossible not to feel that those observations contained a complete and decided censure on what we know by their votes to have been the course pursued by the other House in vindication of their just—in vindication of what they considered their just—privileges. Now, my Lords, considering the nature of that question—the quarter in which it has arisen—the parties who are principally engaged in it —I think that my noble and learned Friend would have acted more wisely, more prudently, and with more propriety—admitting, as my noble Friend does, that this House has not the power to interfere—if he had altogether abstained from making the observations which he has just addressed to your Lordships.
Lord Broughamsaid, his noble Friend was perfectly right in the interpretation which his noble Friend had put on what he said. He had expressed that opinion, not on the point of law in dispute, but on the conduct of the parties in this instance, which was a perfectly different matter: but if there were any risk or danger attending what he had said, of any interference of this House with the other House of Parliament, it was his comfort to think that that House could not be damaged at all by it. It was himself alone that could suffer. It was very well to say, and he knew that he was nominally protected in what he might say in his place in Parliament; but there was nothing to prevent the House of Commons directing the Sergeant-at-Arms to take him into custody as he was getting into his carriage —voting him guilty of a breach of privilege—committing him — and, when he

1169
sued out his habeas corpus, concealing the special contempt for which they had committed him, contenting themselves with stating, in general terms, that he had been guilty of contempt, but concealing the fact, that that contempt consisted in making a speech in his place in Parliament, and in that case, he must remain in custody until the prorogation. That was the manly course that had been pursued with regard to the sheriffs; they had concealed the grounds of the commitment, and thus they were prevented from obtaining any redress.
Petition laid on the table.

VOTE OF THANKS TO THE ARMY OF THE INDUS.
Viscount Melbourne: I rise to bring forward the subject of which I have previously given notice. Some days have elapsed since that notice was given; but I have deferred bringing the subject forward, that your Lordships might have the opportunity of reading the papers which have been laid upon the table of the House. I feel convinced that the perusal of those papers will induce your Lordships to concur with me on the subject, and agree with me in the resolution I am about to propose; and will also relieve me from the necessity of addressing many observations on that resolution. I know not whether your Lordships have read the mass of important matter which has been laid upon the table; but I am sure that you are acquainted with the principal events relative to the affairs of India—of the expedition across the Indus—of the attempt of the British army to relieve Candahar and Cabool —to drive Dost Mahommed Khan from a country, the dominion of which he had usurped—to place that King on the throne who was entitled to it, and who was favourable to British interests. If your Lordships have read the papers, I am sure you will see sufficient reason to agree with me in the resolution I am going to propose, from the facts which are there stated, and sufficient reason also, that, merely in relation to the subjects to which they refer, I am strictly absolved from now entering on any political considerations. I shall, on the present occasion, entirely refrain from the consideration of all political matter, and shall confine myself exclusively to the military account of that expedition, which has been brought to so happy a termination by the Government of India, and by
1170
the officers and men serving under it. If there were not sufficient reason on political grounds, considering the nature of the undertaking, the object which it had in view, and the consequences which it has produced, I should still believe, that an unanimous vote would be given by your Lordships in favour of my motion; and I should think it, knowing the strong difference of opinion which is entertained on the subject, in the highest degree unjustifiable and reprehensible now to call on your Lordships for your sanction of the Government in India, and connected with it, of the Government at home, I will not do so. I will strictly confine myself to the motion of which I have given notice, that the thanks of this House be given to the Government of India, and to the officers and men composing its army, for the signal victory recently achieved by them. This, I believe, is the course which has always been adopted. When the thanks of Parliament were moved to Lord Wellesley, for the exploits recently performed by him, and for the victories which he had so triumphantly gained—and when resolutions to that effect were proposed, both in this and the other House, many opinions existed, both unfavourable to the Administration, and strongly opposed to the conduct of Lord Wellesley. Such opinions, I am proud to say, have since that time entirely passed away, and he now sees every shadow which dimmed his glory removed and dissipated. His name now shines out in its proper relief, and, with a fame the most unsullied, he stands forward amongst the many great men who have conducted the affairs of India—he the greatest of them all—having performed the most high, the most prudent, the most beneficial services which a subject could render to his sovereign or a citizen to his country. In 1819, a series of events took place, arising from apparently so insignificant a cause as incursions of predatory hordes of banditti, assisted by some of the native princes, hostile to the interests of Britain. Affairs began to assume a serious aspect, and to be considered of serious consequence to the empire. That combination was entirely put an end to and dispelled by that great man, the Marquess of Hastings; and Mr. Canning, in moving the thanks of the House of Commons to that nobleman for his services, confined himself entirely to the military portion of

1171
the expedition, and did not ask the sanction of the House to the general policy of the Government. He entered very fully and with great minuteness into a defence of the British empire in Hindostan, justified the means by which that empire had been obtained, and the manner in which it had been extended. It is not necessary for me to enter into that question at present. On it many erroneous notions have vanished, and sounder opinions have prevailed. It is not necessary for me to enter into such a question, more than to say this—that whatever opinion may be entertained respecting the justice of the measures adopted at the foundation of the British empire in India, now it will be admitted on all hands that the strength and power of England, in political influence and commercial prosperity, are directly and intimately blended with the affairs of India—that the maintenance of her dignity, carrying along with it the dearest considerations, can only be procured by good order and good government; and on that alone can depend the support of those countries and that multitude of inhabitants which the decrees of Providence committed to our care. It is my intention, then, to confine myself to the military part of the affairs of India, and I shall be enabled, therefore, to abridge the observations which I shall feel it to be my duty to make. It is not for me to deal with military matters—to describe marches, and give the full particulars connected with sieges. These are matters with which I am little acquainted, and which I shall be little able to explain or illustrate; but yet I can judge, as can every one, of the difficulty of this undertaking—of the courage with which it was executed—of the success by which it was attended—and of the advantages and benefits by which it was followed. Considering the magnitude of the undertaking, the difficulty necessarily attached to the transports, the uncultivated and unknown nature of the country—considering also, that in India the nations by whom they were surrounded were, though not openly hostile, yet were by no means friendly, on whom it was necessary to keep a watchful eye—and considering that the Governor-general was prepared for every species of hostility, it is impossible not to feel that from the manner in which the expedition was begun—from the manner in which it was carried on,
1172
how the transports were provided, and everything that was necessary attended to —the whole affair conducted on so large and so difficult a scale of operations, it was impossible not to feel that the Governor-general, and the army, deserved the gratitude and the thanks of the House. It is not my intention to pretend to state the details of the operations of that march. It is impossible to speak of them in higher praise, or in a stronger or more emphatic manner, than in the words of the Governor-general himself. I will read an extract from his report. [The noble Viscount here read the extract alluded to. It very briefly expressed the Governor-general's high admiration of "the soldier-like conduct of the troops—of the gallantry, and at the same time the apparent comfort of the soldiery."] The noble Viscount proceeded:—Your Lordships know the manner in which this expedition was conducted, and the brilliant success with which it was attended; and you all know, my Lords, of the memorable exploit of the taking of Ghuznee. With respect to that exploit, I can use no language more emphatically descriptive, than that adopted by Sir John Keane in his despatch. The noble Viscount read the following despatch:—
"TO THE RIGHT HON. LORD AUCKLAND, G.C.B., &c. &c.
"My Lord,—I have the satisfaction to acquaint your Lordship that the army under ray command have succeeded in performing one of the most brilliant acts it has ever been my lot to witness, during my service of forty-five years in the four quarters of the globe in the capture, by storm, of the strong and important fortress and citadel of Ghuznee yesterday. It is not only that the Affghan nation, and, I understand, Asia generally, have looked upon it as impregnable, but it is in reality a place of great strength, both by nature and art—far more so than I had reason to suppose from any description that I had received of it, although some are from officers in our own service who had seen it in their travels. It is, therefore, the more honourable to our troops, and must appear to the enemy out of all calculation extraordinary, that a fortress and a citadel to the strength of which for the last thirty years they had been adding something each year, and which had a garrison of 3,500 Affghan soldiers, commanded by Prince Mohammed Hyder, the son of Dost Mohammed Khan, the ruler of the country, with a commanding number of guns and abundance of

1173
ammunition and other stores, provisions, &c, for a regular siege, should have been taken by British science and British valour in less than two hours from the time the attack was made, and the whole, including the governor and garrison, should fall into our hands."
It is impossible Viscount Melbourne continued to add anything to that testimony, as that anything that I could say, could enhance the merit of so glorious an exploit. Considering the manner in which the whole expedition was begun—considering the preparations that were made—considering the manner in which it was conducted—and considering the complete success by which it was crowned, I move, that the Governor-general, and the officers, and the men serving in India, are well and fairly entitled to the gratitude of this House—the highest testimony to their merits. I think they justly merit the thanks of Parliament, and I therefore propose the following resolution. The noble Viscount then read the motion, the effect of which is, that the thanks of the House be given to Lord Auckland, the Governor-general; Lord Keane, the commanding officer; to Sir Willoughby Cotton, and the other officers and men who composed the army of the Indus; and that the resolution of the House be transmitted to Lord Auckland in India.
The Duke of Wellington: My Lords, considering the relation in which I have stood throughout the greatest part of my life, towards those officers and a great part of those troops who are now thought deserving of your Lordships' approbation, your Lordships will forgive me for the presumption of offering myself at this early period of discussion to claim for a few minutes your attention. My Lords, I cannot sufficiently express my approbation of the prudence, foresight, and discretion of the noble Viscount, in offering the observations which he selected for the address which he has just made to your Lordships in proposing this motion. My Lords, it is perfectly true, that this House has for some time had under its consideration, a vast number of the papers which might be the means of giving a knowledge of the political arrangements which have occurred in India, which have rendered necessary this war, and which have been carried into effect by the expedition which has been so gloriously achieved. There may be, and it is thought that there is, throughout the country a great difference
1174
of opinion on those political arrangements. I agree entirely with the noble Viscount, that it was not desirable to ask for our sanction to these political arrangements, when the motion only was for a vote of thanks to those who have succeeded in carrying those arrangements into effect. When we are called upon to express our approbation of the manner in which the exploit was performed, it is not the time to give our opinion on the policy which rendered necessary the adoption of such measures. It is certainly fit that the House should consider that policy on a different occasion; but let us all now refrain either from opposing or agreeing to that policy, and let us consent to nothing but what is necessary for the occasion. My Lords, I have the greatest pleasure in bearing my testimony to the excellence of the military measures, and of the manner in which those measures were carried into effect by the officers and the privates. Having been during a great part of my life employed, under the direction of superior authority, to carry into execution measures of this description, I am perhaps capable of judging the method which a Government can adopt by planning and carrying into effect such measures, and I should be the last man to doubt the expediency of expressing our approbation of those political servants who have assisted in planning and carrying into execution arrangements necessary to the execution of great military operations. I have happened to have had frequent opportunities of noticing the arrangements made for the execution of great military enterprises, and I must say, that I never knew an occasion on which the duty of Government had been performed on a larger scale, on which more adequate provisions had been made for all the contingencies which might have occurred, or in which more attention had been paid to the wishes of the officers, the comforts of the soldiers, and all those considerations which are likely to make a war successful. It would be presumptuous in me to say more, than what I have happened to have known by accident of the arrangements made preparatory to the campaign now under your Lordships' consideration. In respect to the military service, I will not say more than has been already stated by the Governor-general. I am well acquainted with the officers who directed and performed the exploit of the taking of Ghuz-

1175
nee, and I will assert, that there are no men in the service who deserve a higher degree of the approbation of their Sovereign, or who are more entitled to the gratitude of Parliament and the country, and that there has been no occasion since I have been in connection with such ser-vice where any exploit has been performed in a manner better calculated to gain the approbation of Parliament. I shall have the greatest pleasure to give my voice in approbation of the motion of the noble Viscount.
Lord Hillsaid, that he could not allow this opportunity to pass by without expressing his great satisfaction at finding that his gallant Friend Lord Keane, and the troops under his command, had acted in such a manner as to call forth this mark of approbation from their Lordships—an honour which he knew would be duly appreciated by every individual of the army. He begged to return his thanks to the noble Viscount for having brought forward his motion, and for the very handsome manner in which he had been pleased to express himself regarding the conduct of the British troops.
Motion carried nem. con.

MR. WILBERFORCE.
The Bishop of Exeter,on rising to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice, said, he would in the first place set right a point which had been left a little in doubt by the noble and learned Lord near him (Lord Brougham) on a former evening. It related to the reference the noble and learned Lord had made to the name of Mr. Wilberforce, as having approved of the principles of Mr. Robert Owen. He had received a letter from a relative of that venerable man, who had seen, through the only means open to him for information, the testimony of Mr. Wilberforce claimed by the noble and learned Lord in favour of Mr. Robert Owen. His correspondent stated, that by reference to entries in the diary of Mr. Wilberforce's life, he had found that Mr. Wilberforce had not that opinion of Mr. Owen's excellence which the noble and learned Lord thought ought to be deduced from certain words supposed to have been spoken by Mr. Wilberforce. His correspondent said, in emphatic words, "I well remember his indignation at Mr. Owen's having mistaken his universal kindness of demeanour for a bare tolerance of those pes-
1176
tilent speculations of the philosopher." Again, referring to the motion to refer Owen's plan to a committee, Mr. Wilberforce himself had recorded, "I was forced to speak against it on the Christian ground that they would exclude religion from life, and substitute knowledge in its stead." He quoted from page forty-six of the fifth volume of the "Diary."
Lord Broughamhad spoken of ten years before the period then referred to.

SOCIALISM.
The Bishop of Exeterwould now proceed to address himself to the subject of which he had given notice, and possibly it might be most convenient if he at once stated the terms of that motion—viz., that an humble Address be presented to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty would be pleased to command, that inquiries should be made into the diffusion of blasphemous and immoral publications, especially as to the tenets and proceedings of a society established under the name of Socialists; who were represented in petitions presented to this House to be a society, the object of which was by the diffusion of its doctrines to destroy the existing laws and institutions of this country. He had stated the terms of the motion with which he should conclude, in fairness to the noble Marquess and the rest of the Government, because he was aware that those terms implied some doubts upon the conduct of the noble Marquess in reference to this subject. He frankly owned that he had those doubts, and that he did not think it safe for the cause he presumed to advocate to leave the question in their hands without some impulse being given to it by an expression of opinion on the part of their Lordships; and he would proceed to tell the House upon what grounds that opinion had arisen. It was founded upon the language used on a former occasion by the noble Marquess at the head of the Home Department; it was founded upon the letters of the noble Viscount at the head of the Government: and also upon the course which had been taken in respect of matters brought directly under the consideration of the Government. It would be in the recollection of the House, that when he before addressed their Lordships on this question, when he very feebly described the horrors of the system of Socialism, he had called on the noble Marquess to in-

1177
stitute inquiries, and upon those inquiries to proceed to execute the offenders if he found offences against the laws had been committed. The noble Marquess on that said,
"That he would inquire, but that he regretted the right rev. Prelate had interfered, instead of leaving the matter to the good sense of the country. He regretted that the right rev. Prelate had taken the course he had, for though he would make inquiries, yet he did not anticipate that it would be thought desirable to adopt such measures as, he gathered from the right rev. Prelate's speech, were by him thought necessary to be forthwith adopted."
Upon these grounds, he thought there was little hope that her Majesty's Ministers would be ready to enter upon an inquiry with that dispassionate view of the question which he should have expected. If the noble Marquess had said, that he would pursue that inquiry honestly, deliberately, and with an earnest wish to obtain the truth, and upon it to act—if he had disclaimed any intention to shrink from inquiry or to render it ineffectual, but on the contrary had said he would act openly, boldly, and fairly, their Lordships would have been spared the trouble of listening to the present Address. But it was not the conduct of the noble Marquess alone which caused these doubts in his mind as to the disposition of the Government on this subject. It appeared from a publication of the Socialists, in the New Moral World, No. 65, of the 23rd of December last, that at a meeting of the members of the branch of Socialists at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, a memorial to the Home Secretary was adopted; that the secretary for the branch had received a letter from Mr. Phillipps, the Under Secretary of State, expressing the willingness of the Home Secretary to lay the memorial before the Government. The nature of that memorial he did not know, and he only mentioned the fact to show that the objects of the Socialists were well known to the Government, and that he had not been the first to inform the Government of their existence and their proceedings. Even these, however, were not the only grounds on which he had been induced to fear that there was not much eagerness on the part of the Government to inquire into the matter. He held in his hand a copy of a letter addressed to a person still higher in the Government than the noble
1178
Marquess (Normanby) near him—he meant the noble Viscount at the head of the Administration—so long ago as the 13th of July of last year, by a clergyman who subscribed his name to it, and who had given him (the Bishop of Exeter) permission to mention, if necessary, his name and address publicly. He did not feel it desirable to do so unless required, and he therefore would only read his letter and the letter he had received in reply. The letter was directed to Viscount Melbourne, and was as follows:—
"Having observed in the papers, that at a recent levee, Mr. Robert Owen, the Socialist, as he is pleased to call himself, received the very prominent distinction of being presented to her most gracious Majesty by your Lordship, personally, as the head of her Majesty's Government, the object of which presentation is stated in the Court Circular thus:—'Robert Owen, from the Congress of Delegates of the Universal Community Society of Rational Religionists, soliciting the Government to appoint parties to investigate measures which the Congress proposes, to ameliorate the condition of society,' I take the liberty of forwarding to your Lordship a copy of one of the numerous works issued by the society, of which Mr. R. Owen is the accredited representative, and, in fact, founder. It is the only one I have seen; but I am assured by those who have seen more of their publications, that it is a fair average specimen of their general character and tendency. I have, therefore, felt it my duty to send it to your Lordship, to put you on your guard as to the nature of the people whose chief has already received such an unusual mark of distinction and encouragement at your hands; for I am quite certain that your Lordship could not have been aware that the person introduced into the presence of our beloved, pure, and maiden Queen, was the organ of the society, who, under the specious name of 'Rational Religionists,' repudiate the revealed word of Almighty God, and by way of 'ameliorating the condition of society,' disseminate systematically, works of such disgusting obscenity, and so demoralizing in their tendency. Should your Lordship think fit to honour me with any notice of my communication, should be happy indeed to think I had been the means of giving timely information on a subject of vital concern to the public, that no further encouragement is likely to be afforded to a society of such a character, or any member of it; and that your Lordship has received, without taking offence, what I have felt it my duty as a clergyman thus to state."
The Marquess of Westminter.Did the letter come from Birmingham?
The Bishop of Exeter: It certainly did not come from Birmingham, but he believed from some part of Wiltshire, and

1179
he would give the name of the writer if the noble Marquess desired it. Here, then, there was an instance of a country clergyman taking that very course which the noble Marquess the other night had lamented the clergymen at Birmingham had not taken. This clergyman in his letter gives the title of a book published by the society of Socialists. Though he (the Bishop of Exeter) might be laughed at, he would not read to the House that title. It was a book that had before been put into his hands One passage of it had been placed before his eyes, but he had never since permitted his mind to be polluted by again looking at it. If the noble Marquess looked at it, he would be convinced that it was much better to leave it under the decent veil of obscurity. Suffice it to say, that the title was given in the letter, which also stated, that it was published by four booksellers in London, and was to be had in all great towns. He would now read the answer which the rev. gentleman received. It was dated Downing-street, the 15th of July, 1839.
"Rev. Sir,—I am desired by Lord Melbourne to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 13th of July, stating your objections to Mr. Owen's presentation at Court.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
J. HOWARD."
He called the attention of the House to this, because nothing could be more strange than for a Government professing to ask for, nay, to demand information, even to turning clergymen into policemen, should have presumed to have returned such an answer to such a letter. He did not mean to make any strong remarks on the indiscretion of the noble Viscount in presenting Mr. Owen, but he only referred to that fart to show his grounds of an increased doubt as to the intentions of her Majesty's Government. But he (the Bishop of Exeter) was not the only person who had those doubts; there were other persons, who knew more of her Majesty's Ministers, who were of the same opinion. In their own publication, the Socialists had given an account of the proceeding at the opening of their new building at Huddersfield, on Sunday, the 3d of November last. On that occasion, an address was made by one of the lecturers—a person of the name of Fleming; and, contrary to the usual course of that individual, that address was conceived in guarded and delicate terms, and he put forward the prin-
1180
ciples of the system in more decent language than usually was his practice. But in that address he said—
"Crowns and kings are the creations of man; they had a beginning in his ignorance and weakness, they will have an end when that ignorance is dispelled, that weakness is changed into strength. The mysteries of priestly dogmas are also 'creatures of a day;' they have arisen, flourished, and died. Some are already dead, without hope of resurrection. Everywhere their mortal origin is clearly discernible; their final termination may be easily predicted." "Hitherto all legislation and constitution-mongering has proceeded upon the assumption that man is a free agent, and justly responsible to the powers by which he is originally formed, and to his fellow-men for his feelings, convictions, and actions. Religion, law, commerce, education—in short, all the institutions of society, have been based upon this supposed free agency of man. That this is an error equal in magnitude to that of taking two and two to be equal to five, is capable of demonstration to all who prefer the substantial and incontrovertible evidence of facts to the specious but baseless theories of imagination. Fortunately, we live in an age and under a Government when the free expression of opinion upon these subjects is permitted, and when those who advocate changes in social, ecclesiastical, and commercial policy, neither have locks put upon their mouths nor fetters on their limbs."
In the evening of the same day Fleming introduced the following observations:—
"The priesthood frightened them to death by their bugaboos, and then made them pay tithes and church-rates to save them from the Devil."
He then took a Bible in his hand, and said, he "would prove, according to that book, that God was a fool and a liar." He then went through a mock ceremony of infant baptism, took the child in his arms, and repeated some jargon over it, giving it its name.—[Viscount Melbourne. —Was that Mr. Owen.]—No: it was Mr. Fleming, one of the persons who said, the Government permitted such things. But these were not the only persons who had this confidence in her Majesty's Government. They had that night been told by a noble and learned Lord, whom he regretted not to see in his place, that there were 8,000 signatures attached to a petition from Birmingham, praying for inquiry into the principles of Socialism, not signed entirely by Socialists, but by many amateurs, he believed. If there were 8,000

1181
subscribers to this petition from Birmingham, he was sure there could not be a stronger argument of the vast necessity of taking a decided course to put a stop to these proceedings. But what had been the effect of what had passed at these meetings which had been held? He had it on the authority of a person who was present on Sunday last, February 2nd at one of their lectures, delivered at the Socialist Institution, Birmingham,
"That the lecturers Mackintosh and Murphy declared, that they had the assurance of men in office in Birmingham, who had signed the Socialists petition, that they would do all in their power to defend them if proceeded against by the Government, which seemed to inspire them with fresh courage."
Now such was the opinion of the Socialists here. In America there was a similar confidence that all was going on well for the cause of Socialism in England—that the Socialists were sure not to meet with any impertinent interruptions from Attorney-generals or other officers of state. He would read to their Lordships an extract from an American paper which he had taken from the Socialists' paper, the New Moral World;—
"Never has there been a reformer who succeeded as Robert Owen seems likely to succeed. No reformer ever opposed so thoroughly every existing institution and prejudice of mankind, and yet escaped the fangs of the law, the death of a Socrates, the imprisonment of a Galileo, or the clerical abuse of a Paine. While Carlile, Taylor, and other opposers of religion, that have not gone one tenth so far, have been fined and imprisoned to their utter ruin; while Mackenzie and Papineau have been driven from Canada into exile, and a reward offered for their heads; while Stephens, O'Conner, and O'Brien, have been fined, imprisoned, or put under heavy bonds, Owen, who has opposed the whole organization of the present moral world, still roams abroad in all the locomotive power of liberty, even under a protecting act of Parliament" (he believed the Friendly Societies Act), "establishing an institution that will eventually explode every existing government and institution among mankind. The great secret by which he is effecting all this is his superior knowledge of human nature, his superior amiability of conduct, and his superior charity of sentiment in addressing the interests, the prejudices, and the sensibilities of mankind."
These extracts showed what impunity was expected for these individuals; and this general expectation of impunity on the part of offenders themselves and of their friends made it, he thought, pecu-
1182
liarly necessary that their Lordships should know that her Majesty's Ministers did not entertain the sentiments which were here ascribed to them. In saying this, he did not really think that her Majesty's Ministers could intend to favour those persons: the imagination never entered his mind; he only meant to say, that they acted as if they favoured them—that they so acted that the individuals themselves must consider the conduct of the Government to imply favour to them. He could not be surprised at the individuals feeling so; he certainly thought that the whole conduct of Ministers showed a deadness of feeling on this subject, which it was absolutely necessary for their Lordships to contravene. He had said, that he would not obtrude on their Lordships any fresh instances, unnecessarily, of the blasphemies and immoralities set forth. He ventured to think that enough had been said on a former occasion to be his excuse; and unless he saw some intimation of a wish that he should prove this part of the case, he thought he should better consult their Lordships' wishes by abstaining from it. The state of things, however, which existed was dangerous; the open defiance of God—the open defiance of His power— the personal insults offered by man to the Supreme Being, braving his vengeance— which occurred in the lectures of the paid lecturers of this society, were absolutely horrid. He had heard of more than one instance. He had heard of an instance of a female lecturer, not absolutely defying her Maker, but putting forth all the horrid and abominable pollutions of this society. But he must call the particular attention of their Lordships to one instance, and also the attention of her Majesty's Ministers to the periodical paper of this society. Whatever might be said of the other publications of this society, that they did not reach the impenetralia of Downing-street, that paper must reach Downing-street, or at least must reach the officers of Stamps. The noble Marquess (Normanby) shook his head. He would tell the noble Marquess how that paper must reach the Stamp office. By an act of Parliament, all newspapers must go to the Stamp-office; and he was able to say, on the authority of a person who had entered the Stamp-office that day, that the New Moral World did go to the Stamp-office. He therefore said that the Government had no right to be ignor-

1183
ant of that journal. That publication abounded in principles of the most tremendous nature; the audacity, however, of their exhibition, had been on the decline within the last few weeks. He could not conceive how it could be possible for any Minister of the Crown of England to have stated that it was difficult to put a stop to these publications, and to the progress of the society. Whatever else might be said of the difficulty of prosecuting for these things, those difficulties and those dangers did not exist in respect of the papers of which he was speaking—the periodical papers and newspapers. The law of the land had wisely armed Government with the means of putting down such publications without bringing them often before the attention of the people. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships, that about three years ago an act passed lowering the price of stamps on newspapers; they would also recollect that the decent part of the public press were much alarmed, lest the consequence should be to give countenance to publications of a mischievous character. He had it on the authority of a gentleman that the noble Lord, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not now present, but he would nevertheless state the fact, and perhaps some noble Friend of the noble Lord would tell him of it—he had it on the authority of a gentleman who was the chairman of the deputation of provincial newspaper proprietors, who appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion to reduce the duty on stamps and amend the laws relative thereto, that
"He had had several interviews with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Spring Rice, on the subject, when he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) assured him that one great inducement to reduce the duty on newspapers was to put down the unstamped press, by making the duty so low that the fair-dealing tradesman should be placed on a level with him who avoided it. But what was more important, that he intended; under the advice of the officers of the Crown, to insert clauses in the intended act to give those powers to Government which would enable them to suppress the unstamped press."
Those powers the Government now possessed, and if their Lordships referred to the 19th clause of that act, and to the 22nd clause, which enabled the granting of warrants to search for unstamped newspapers and concealed papers, they would find the power there set forth.
Viscount Melbourne.Are these newspapers unstamped? Do they go to the Stamp-office?
The Bishop of Exeterdid not know; he was told they went there. He had got several there, if the noble Lord wished to see them. He had never seen one of those papers that was stamped; and when he told their Lordships that they were sold for 2d., he was quite sure that they could not pay the stamp. But supposing they were stamped, and came within the cognizance of the Government, it could have no difficulty in ascertaining their contents, and he was sure it was the duty of the Government to proceed against them. If the Government ascertained their contents, it must admit, that these periodical publications were the most blasphemous and obscene that the pen of man ever penned. A single conviction would enable the Government to take the strongest course against such publications, it could seize the presses and all the copies, besides inflicting enormous penalties to which the parties were liable. If they were stamped, they might be very easily punished at law. He must say, therefore, that all the observations they had heard of the difficulty of proceeding against those publications fell to the ground. The objection also that prosecution gave publicity fell to the ground, because by these proceedings these publications might be restrained or suppressed by law, and a great part of the injurious matter which they contained would be done away with. Would their Lordships permit him to say what Socialism was? He had spoken of it generally as a scheme of blasphemy and immorality, but in very many instances where it had polluted the minds of individuals it was not found absolutely free from other things. Socialism and Chartism went very much together; but where they did not go together, and where it did not absolutely produce the effect of making all who had access to it, believers of its foul doctrines, even there they found it produce very ruinous effects. A clergyman at Birmingham told him,
"Socialism as such is not much increasing; but infidelity is, through the Socialist missionaries, the bitterest enemies of revelation and all established institutions. Their publications are fifty or sixty in number; no fewer than half a million were dispersed in May last, and the circulation of them is greatly increasing. Mere exposure of them will have done harm unless they are put down by the strong arm of law,"

1185
In that he concurred. He had a personal feeling on the subject. Whatever might be the vote of their Lordships that night, whatever might be the conduct of her Majesty's Ministers, he should not reproach himself for the course which he had taken. He had stood forward from a sense of duty, and made known to the Government of the country what was due in the deplorable state of society which existed, and to which he now ventured earnestly to call their Lordships' attention. Though he felt rejoiced that he had taken a step of which his conscience approved, yet he should feel most unhappy if, after having taken that step, with a view to induce their Lordships to urge Government to take steps to put a stop to these proceedings, he should not be successful. A clergyman of Leeds told him—
"Though I do not fear the advance of Socialism, properly so called, I look with horror to the fact, that they (the Socialists) are preparing and circulating the most horrible books and tracts, many of them written in a style so specious, as not to disgust the reader, and oftentimes with a kind of pretence to science."
They allured the more decent and intelligent operatives by having scientific lectures given at their places of meeting. A Dr. Epps, a lecturer on physiology, had given lectures in one of the Socialist institutions in this great town, calculated to impose on the minds of all. But their Lordships would do very little good by expressing their opinions of, or punishing, or even putting down, this society: for, if put down, the wickedness of men's hearts would lead them into some other mischiefs, unless they had recourse to those sanative measures which alone would put an end to this subject. A friend of his, writing from Birmingham, said there were 180,000 souls, and that their number was annually increasing to an enormous extent; and of these 180,000 souls, there was only church room for 24,000. While this was the case, could they wonder that the wickedness of man should be thus prevalent? It they were in earnest to put it down, they must be prepared to go to the full charge of it on the country—the country which called itself Christian. He went to the full extent of saying that the country ought to be put to the charge of giving to the inhabitants of large towns the means of knowing that there was a God, or they (the people) would make them feel, to their cost, that there was a
1186
devil—a devil in man. He might adduce to their Lordships extracts to show their doctrines from their own book. The London and Westminster Review of April, 1839, says—
"Owenism, in one form or other, is at present the actual creed of a great portion of the working classes."
Among other expedients to spread their doctrines was the circulation of their paper, the New Moral World. In a report of the Central Board of the Congress it was said,
"It is of the utmost consequence to the welfare of the association, that the organ between it and the public should be not only improved in its quality and capabilities for giving intelligence, but also that its publication be so conducted as to insure an increased circulation."
Its circulation was not less now than 2,000.
"There should be established in each branch a tract committee, whose business it should be to circulate them in every possible way—by gifts, loan, or sale. It may be safely stated, that upwards of half a million copies of various publications explanatory of our principles have been issued during the past year, of which about 360,000 have been published by the Central Board and London Tract Committee."
And here he had to state that two clergymen in different parts of England, one in Staffordshire and the other in Suffolk, on conversing together, found that each had had packets of tracts distributed in the streets of their towns, advocating the principles of the Socialists. Now they had put another tremendous engine in force; they had established
"Social day and Sunday schools upon the most improved principles, in which facts only shall be communicated unmixed with sectarian principles."
But they did not confine themselves, as he had already said, to irreligion and immorality; they embodied amongst their number many Chartists. In the new community, established at East Tytherly, on Sunday, January 26, 1840, the following proceedings took place. Mr. Finch, who, he must say, was a man of considerable property connected with the trade of Liverpool, and who was understood to be one of the individuals who tendered 10,000 l. towards the cause of the Socialists, was the governor of the new establishment in the county of Hants, and he

1187
attended on the occasion. He spoke on the authority of two gentleman named Brindley and Tomkins, who said:—
"The proceedings commenced with their 10th hymn, sung to a sacred tune—a parody on one of the hymns of the church service. Mr. Finch then read, as is usual with them on the Sunday, what they call a portion of Scripture. Could not tell what book he pretended to quote; but it was to the disparagement of Christianity, showing how little it had progressed compared with the various heathen systems. Another hymn was then sung, the 32nd in their book, to a sacred tune. The lecture was next given. He said he would take for his text that portion of what was called the Gospel which declared 'He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved, but he that believeth not, shall be damned.' Gospel signified good news, glad tidings. He would show that the Gospel of the New Testament contained the worst news for man that could be brought him. It represented God as taking delight in damning men throughout eternity, as roasting and frizzling them alive in hell for ever. He was a fierce and cruel God. It spoke also of a devil; but did they believe such nonsense? Did they ever see a devil, or smell a devil, or chew a devil? Then it also told them of a heaven, where the few that reached it were to be engaged in singing and shouting, and falling on their faces and blowing trumpets throughout eternity, who would want such as a heaven as that? He (Finch) believed the whole thing was a fiction. Socialism the only true gospel and he that believes this gospel will be saved from all future want, and care, and toil. The Gospel of the Christians was a mock Gospel. He said much to excite them against their employers and persons of property. Told them, 'They produced all the things which those persons consumed:' that 'they were kept in pining, want, and wretchedness, while the others were rolling in wealth, and living in idleness.' He again referred to the Bible, spoke of David with many obscene expressions, and then ridiculed the psalms which, 'that hypocrite wrote:' said 'the Bible was a most filthy and immoral book;' that 'for one God saved, it told them the devil damned twenty.' 'He could not believe in a God damning us for what he had made us to do and be.'"
He repeated, that he felt himself bound to produce this specimen of what had taken place in the new establishment. That detestable establishment must be put down; it could not be endured, or the Government ought not to be endured, if it tolerated that society. He would now give a specimen of the articles in the New Moral World, published so late as the 25th of January last. Speaking of the new establishment in Hampshire, this paper stated:—
1188
"Success is certain, and an ever increasing happiness is in store for all the poor hell and poverty tormented victims of error and misery. Continue your determined opposition to the old world, its habits, its customs, its religions, its institutions."
It was a common thing for Chartists and Socialists to meet in the same rooms, and the leaders of the one body frequently assisted the leaders of the others on public occasions. For example:—
"At the Socialist Institution, Birmingham, the female Chartists meet every Monday evening, and the male Chartists every Tuesday evening. At Bradford, the Chartist leader Barker is also an adopted advocate of Socialism, and was sent by the Socialists to oppose Mr. Brindley in his lectures there. At Halifax and other towns in the north it has been the same. The Socialist newspaper, and the Northern Star, the Chartist paper, are both printed at the same place, by Hobson, Leeds. At Dudley, they frequently used the same room as the Chartists, the two bodies being nearly co-extensive."
The Socialists, in the commencement of their career, put forth (as is commonly the case) the political or economical features of their system, keeping back their religion until the former shall have made their impression—unless compelled to produce them by an opponent in dispute. Mr. Cook, the leader of the Chartists, in Dudley, was also the leader, of the Socialists. Cook has been lately committed to Worcester gaol for his support of Chartism. The Socialists also ran down every passage in the Scriptures which taught the duty of subjects to their rulers. In a speech delivered by a Socialist, a charge was brought against the Christian religion because it sanctioned the division of men into classes of higher and lower, master and servant. Such principles do these people entertain in opposition to all earthly government, and as for heavenly government, they cast that aside as too contemptible to be considered for a moment. That such doctrines were productive of evil, their Lordships could hardly entertain a doubt. He did not mean to inflict upon the House a large number of cases showing the evil consequences of these doctrines, but he felt it to be his duty to state a few:—
"At Birmingham, a man who, previously to his becoming a Socialist, was a good husband and good parent, after he joined the Socialist body, became so brutal and immoral in his conduct, that at length his wife, having remonstrated with him, he threw her out of

1189
the window, and her life was for some lime despaired of. The man was apprehended, tried, and found guilty of the offence, and sentenced to transportation for life." "At Liverpool, a Socialist now stands committed on a charge of murdering an infant child of his by his own sister."
The noble Viscount said, that this was merely a charge. He only stated it as a charge; he did not say the man was guilty, but there was such a primâ facie case against him, that the magistrates had thought it their duty to commit him. He was only showing the tendency of these doctrines to produce crime, and though the noble Viscount might hug himself on the notion that the man was not convicted, he had yet enough of indisputable cases to give to the noble Viscount. He had on a former occasion detailed to the House the suicide of a poor apprentice at Wolverhampton. Since then he had received from the uncle of that youth a letter, from which the following was an extract:—
"I would to God that those who advocate the diabolical doctrines of that arch fiend Robert Owen, could feel even for a brief period the agony—the hopeless, unmitigated agony—which fell upon our family circle from the enacting of the recent horrible tragedy. They might then, perhaps, ask their own hearts how that devilish doctrine deserved the specious appellation of 'Socialism,' which, by inculcating the principle of the non-responsibility of individuals, tacitly justifies such terrible acts as my poor nephew's self-destruction—acts that would shake all society to its base, and by teaching men to live and die only for themselves, would (putting aside higher considerations) destroy at one fell blow all truly' social' principles and feelings. Even the poor deluded boy of whom I write felt somewhat of this; for he says, in his letter to his parents, after speaking of his own disgust of life, 'You will perhaps reproach me for not thinking of your sufferings, but I have weighed them against my own, and have struck the balance in my favour.' What can declare with louder tongue than this, the in-famous character of Socialism? This boy, only fifteen years old—not sixteen, as stated —had been from infancy an exceedingly loving boy; between him and his parents the most glowing affection, as well as the most bound, less confidence, existed; yet he could coolly prepare for them their deadly grief, whose power and extent he must well understand— he could thus readily, to save himself merely the trouble of life, inflict on them, and on all his relations, a wound no time can perfectly heal. Oh, my Lord, the fatal poison had changed a confiding, kind, heart, into a cold concentration of selfishness."
1190
That was the expression of the feeling of a near relative of the unhappy youth. In the neighbouring town of Coventry a case somewhat similar had also occurred, in consequence of these accursed doctrines. He would read the deposition taken before the coroner:—
"On the previous evening the deceased told me, that he had been to the Socialist Society, and that he coincided with them in many things, and gave me some papers, which I now produce; they are entitled Social Tracts —Man the Creature of Circumstances. No. 4. The Religion of the New Moral World. I expressed my wonder at his going; he said that he went from curiosity. Yesterday he told me, that he had accompanied a person of the name of Norman to a house in Coventry, and that he (Norman) had a glass of gin, and he (Staveley) a glass of gin and milk. Staveley did not appear to me to be intoxicated, but rather in a stupid state. Staveley did not believe in Christianity, and he has often threatened to cut his throat.—Verdict, 'Temporary insanity.'"
The Norman mentioned in the deposition was emissary of the Socialists. He would only give another instance of the fatal effects of these doctrines. At a trial at Worcester there happened to be on the jury a Socialist, and he was said to have held that the party accused of crime ought not to be punished for doing that which he could not help, and he found another person on the jury weak enough to agree with him. He had this story from high authority; and he knew that the circumstances occurred with the directions given to parties by the Social works, for in the New Moral World he found the following passage:—
"Under the present distressed circumstances of the operative classes, when the influences which surround them are of a nature to stimulate them to actions—conventionally named crimes—it seems peculiarly appropriate to republish the following paper; we recommend the reasoning it contains, to the serious attention of all whose position may place them in the jury box."
And then came the following passage:—
"With these convictions, and after long experience of the inefficiency of a system of blind vengeance, injurious alike to the well-being of the state which sanctions, and to the offenders who are compelled to become criminals by the associations with which they are environed, and from which the society that punishes offers them no means of escape, no refuge—I cannot conscientiously lend myself to punishments which all experience has proved

1191
inadequate to reclaim offenders or to repress crime."
Such was the doctrine addressed to jurors: they were told to care not to forward the laws of the land, and not to punish acts conventionally called crimes. He thought he had stated enough to get rid of any of those common objections to the punishment of such doctrines which were urged on the last occasion he had the honour to address their Lordships. One of those objections was certainly not common place, but of a very rare and singular character; it was what he could not have expected to be said by any man, and least of all by the prime Minister of her Majesty. Their Lordships would recollect, that the noble Viscount at the head of the Government said, that he could not agree with those who argued that doctrines, because they were absurd, might not be mischievous; he admitted, that the subject was full of difficulties; but he added, that this unrestrained and unpunished press was a great experiment. So that, in fact, the religion and morals of the country were to be left to take their chance in the working out of this great experiment. The noble Marquess at the head of the Home Department did not talk in that way; he had confidence in the good sense of the people, and he said, that if anything would give currency to these pernicious doctrines it would be persecution. By whom had persecution been suggested? Had he (the Bishop of Exeter) ever intimated a wish, that any course should be taken excepting that of the enforcement of the laws, which it was the peculiar duty of the noble Marquess to enforce? He had never recommended any other course; but that was persecution. The noble and learned Lord (Brougham) went still further; but he should not allude to what fell from that noble and learned Lord, because he had left the House. He was not surprised at the noble and learned Lord's absence, for he probably did not wish to hear of these matters again. He must be permitted to say, that there was a wide difference between blasphemous and seditious publications, and in the danger to be apprehended from punishing them. He admitted, that the prosecution of a seditious libel must at all times be matter of grave consideration. It was essential to attend to the state of public feeling at the time, so that it might not be exasperated by
1192
seeking for convictions, when there was not a reasonable chance of obtaining them. But such considerations did not apply to blasphemous publications; and the Government never could be justified in permitting with impunity—if they could prevent it—the diffusion of any opinion, blasphemously injurious to that God by whom princes reigned and decreed justice. These Socialists believed in no religion, which was the sole foundation on which the Government stood. The whole frame of society rested on religion. Every judicial proceeding, every security that bound man to man, depended on the sanctity of an oath. Therefore on no occasion ought blasphemous publications, if they could be prosecuted with effect, to be passed over. He said this with confidence, because his statement was consistent with reason, and also with an authority, which he should presently cite. This was a matter which had been before under their Lordships' consideration. An Act passed in 1819, to which considerable exceptions were taken at the time, as it inflicted a punishment almost unknown to the law of England, viz. that of banishment, when a party was twice convicted for blasphemous publications. What was the line of argument pursued on that occasion by the party in opposition? Was it that the Government should not prosecute? No. They said to the Government, "Why propose this unprecedented measure, this innovation on British jurisprudence, until you have exerted all the powers of the existing law?" In the debates on this bill, Lord Grey reproached the Government for not enforcing the old law against blasphemy, instead of asking for new laws. He complained that such publications had not been prosecuted, as they ought. Lord Erskine, too, said,—
"The controversies of the numerous sects of Christians, however widely differing from the doctrines of the national church, were completely and rightly tolerated. Nothing in such discussions were considered to be blasphemous; but as to direct and indecent attacks on the truths of the Christian religion, on which the whole constitution of the state was founded, they were severely and justly punishable by the law as it stood, and ought to be most rigorously enforced. The poor man surrounded by his children crying for bread, when he had none to give them, would have no other consolation than by looking forward to the hope which Christianity afforded. How cruel, then, how intolerably

1193
wicked, to disturb such pious faith, and to disqualify the people for the performance of their duty to the state. He would support, nay, go before his Majesty's ministers in putting down such pernicious publications; nor was there the smallest difficulty in accomplishing it. This was most clearly proved in the total suppression of another species of libel, formerly most destructively prevalent, and equally injurious to morals as blasphemy itself. When he came first to the bar, obscene publications, ruinous to youth of both sexes, were as openly exposed to sale in London as at the Palais Royal in Paris; but a private society, without even the aid of the great resources of the Crown, completely succeeded in putting down this odious nuisance. The existing laws he himself had found triumphant against them, when he represented that body in the Court of King's Bench, and they were now never seen and scarcely ever heard of."*
The noble Marquess (Lansdowne) near him, also gave to the debate the benefit of his authority. His Lordship
"Complained that they were called upon to pass this bill without any information of the inefficiency of the existing law—nay, on the contrary, the documents laid on the table proved, that not merely no extraordinary energy, but that not even common steps had been taken to check the shocking licentiousness that had tainted the press; and that it was not until December, 1818, that any steps had been taken at all."†
These sentiments were delivered, not merely in the excitement of debate, but were embodied in a protest against the second reading of the bill, and the first reason of that protest was as follows:—
"Because we believe that by a seasonable exertion of the laws, as they at present exist, the press cannot be abused to any bad purpose, without incurring suitable punishment.‡"
This protest was signed, among others, by Lords Grey, Erskine, Vassall, Holland, Minto, and Lansdowne. In the House of Commons the objections to the bill were mainly founded in "the want of due energy of the Crown officers in exerting the existing laws." He need not remind their Lordships that these, were the sentiments of Sir J. Mackintosh, of Sir S. Romilly, and all the great friends of the liberty of the press. He would appeal to another and more recent authority. In a debate which took place in the other
* Hansard, vol. xli. p. 708.
† Ibid. p. 713.
‡ Ibid. p. 747.
1194
House, on last Friday, Lord John Russell was reported to have said, that
"No complaints of the disturbed state of the country had been made last session, when he was employed day by day in providing against the dangers that then threatened it He was inclined to ascribe those dangers to the existence of a large and uneducated population in those great cities, which had sprung up within the last 100 years, exposed to the temptations of an advanced state of society, and the violent language of an inflammatory press. It was difficult, then, to stop the excitement created by large meetings and an inflammatory press."
After speaking of the six bills of 1819, he added, that
"He had been bred in a different school; he had been imbued with the principle slated by Mr. Fox—that on the recurrence of such disorders it was necessary to put the law in force, to proceed against the parties amenable to law; and that there was something in the strength of the law, and the vigour of the constitution under which we lived, sufficient to meet these disorders without violence to the liberties of the country. In that belief he had proceeded; he had followed the views of Mr. Fox, Sir S. Romilly, and Sir J. Macintosh."
He was glad to find that the Attorney-general in this country still had power and the Crown still possessed some prerogative. An ex officio information had been filed last term against an individual for a libel, and such being the case, he was sure that if the learned Attorney-general were to see the slightest portion of those sentiments which he had found in these books, and part of which he had read to their Lordships, that learned person would feel it his duty to proceed against the authors of them—he was sure that the learned Gentleman would not be permitted to proceed against Mr. Feargus O'Connor, and to leave unnoticed the detestable and impious libels which were now put in circulation by means of this society. He (the Bishop of Exeter) had stated to their Lordships great authorities in support of his views; he had still great authority to offer—the authority of experience, which shewed that the adoption of measures by the Government would be successful, and that the discussion of the subject in their Lordships' House was not without its utility. On Sunday, January 26th, a Mr. Hawkes Smith, a lecturer of this society, who had given 50 l. in aid of its funds, had addressed, a meeting of the body in terms of

1195
warning and caution, in consequence of the notice which had been excited to their proceedings; and on Sunday evening last, in another meeting, as he had been told, on the authority of a person who was present, the lecturer spoke with more than usual caution, and gave notice that the lecture on Sunday evening was illegal and would be discontinued in future. Having said so much, he thought he had shewn, on the highest grounds of reason, of the authority of the greatest men, and of experience, the propriety and necessity of the course he advocated; for as the slightest apprehension of the execution of the law was sufficient, as he had shown, to check the mischief, so the due execution of the law would certainly put an end to it. He had in his hand the first act of her present Majesty's reign—the proclamation for the encouragement of piety and virtue, and for the preventing and punishing of vice, profaneness, and immorality. It ran thus:—
"Victoria Regina.—We, most seriously and religiously considering that it is an indispensable duty on us to be careful above all other things to preserve and advance the honour and service of Almighty God, and to discourage and suppress all vice, profaneness, debauchery, and immorality, which are so highly displeasing to God, so great a reproach to our religion and Government, and (by means of the frequent ill examples of the practices thereof) have so fatal a tendency to the corruption of our loving subjects, otherwise religiously and virtuously disposed, and which, if not timely remedied, may justly draw down the Divine vengeance on us and our kingdom; we also, humbly acknowledging that we cannot expect the blessing and goodness of Almighty God (by whom kings and queens reign, and on whom we entirely rely) to make our reign happy and prosperous to ourselves and our people, without a religious observance of God's holy laws—to the intent, therefore, that religion, piety, and good manners may (according to our most hearty desire) flourish and increase under our administration and government, we have thought fit, by the advice of our Privy Council, to issue this our royal proclamation, and do hereby declare, &c.; and we do expect and require that all persons of honour, or in place of authority, will give good example by their own virtue and piety, and to their utmost contribute to the discountenancing persons of dissolute and debauched lives, &c; and for the more effectual reforming all such persons who, by reason of their dissolute lives and conversations, are a scandal to our kingdom, our further pleasure is, and we do hereby strictly charge and command all our judges, mayors;
1196
sheriffs, justices of the peace, and all our other officers and ministers, both ecclesiastical and civil, and all other our subjects whom it may concern, to be very vigilant and strict in the discovery and the effectual prosecution and punishment of all persons who shall be guilty of excessive drinking, blasphemy, profane swearing and cursing, lewdness, profanation of the Lord's day, and other dissolute, immoral, or disorderly practices."
This was the first act of her reign, done by the Queen, with the advice of the noble Viscount, and he (the Bishop of Exeter) now called upon the noble Viscount to take those steps which he then advised his Sovereign to command himself and all other officers of her Majesty to put in force. The right rev. Prelate concluded by moving that an humble address be presented to Her Majesty in the terms which the right rev. Prelate stated at the beginning of his speech.
The Marquess of Normanbythought it perfectly consistent with those feelings of disgust which he expressed on a former occasion, at many of the circumstances and much of the language introduced to their notice by the right rev. Prelate, and which expressions of disgust he then repeated—he thought it perfectly consistent with those feelings of disgust, if he endeavoured to convince their Lordships that the right rev. Prelate had stated no grounds for the very extraordinary step which he had called upon their Lordships to take on this occasion. The right rev. Prelate founded this proceeding upon what he called doubt and distrust of the conduct of Government on this subject, and he thought he should be able to prove, that the right rev. Prelate, in the few isolated statements from letters, which he called evidence, which had been adduced, had made out no case, and had stated no grounds for this proceeding. The right rev. Prelate had, he would not say perverted, but certainly misrepresented, although, no doubt, unintentionally, the language which he had addressed to their Lordships on a former occasion. The right rev. Prelate stated, that he had concluded by saying, that he did not think it probable that he should feel himself called upon to take those steps which the right rev. Prelate had recommended. Now, he begged their Lordships to recollect what was the tone of the right rev. Prelate on that occasion, and what were the steps recommended. There was no question for their Lordships to decide as to what Government ought to do when illegal acts

1197
committed by this body were brought to their notice, for, on the very first occasion he gave the most distinct assurance that Government would take proceedings when such illegal acts were brought to their notice. But the right rev. Prelate called upon their Lordships to proceed against these societies, as being illegally constituted. The right rev. Prelate admitted, that as far as the constitution of the society in question was concerned, as far as their known rules and regulations were concerned, that society was not illegal. [The Bishop of Exeter: No, no !] Their Lordships would recollect the strong horror and detestation which he expressed, and which he felt at the doctrines of Socialism, as they had been described by the right rev. Prelate, and he had also stated that the attention of the Government should be directed to the subject; but, at the same time, he explained that the Government of this country was not a government of centralization, that these things might occur in distant parts of the country without their necessarily coming to his notice; and he further added, that he considered that it was the duty of the local authorities, of those who were intrusted with the local government and with the preservation of the peace of their districts, to warn the Government of what took place, and to represent the nature of such publications as those described by the right rev. Prelate. The right rev. Prelate stated, that at the conclusion of his observations on the last occasion, his tone was altered. He utterly denied, that his tone had altered from beginning to the end of the discussion. His tone might vary according to the different parts of the subject; but it had never altered upon any occasion as to the feelings which he entertained with regard to the doctrines of the Socialists, and the necessity of putting them down, provided their doctrines went to the extent which the right rev. Prelate had represented. But he admitted he might have used a different tone as to the wisdom of the course pursued by the right rev. Prelate, in the manner in which he brought this matter before the House; and he might have addressed himself in a still more different tone as to the accuracy of the right rev. Prelate's information, the fairness of his inferences and the charity of the imputations which he had thrown out. The right rev. Prelate had alluded, as a proof of the indifference of Government on this subject, to the statement of a person of the name of Fleming,
1198
made at Sheffield. If a delegate at Sheffield chose to address a meeting, and for the purpose of advancing an object, stated what there was no foundation for, was that a ground upon which this motion of the right rev. Prelate was to be justified? The right rev. Prelate charged the Government with having received an address from Newcastle. The right rev. Prelate did not read the answer. All he would say was, that if such an address had ever been received from such a body, there was merely a formal acknowledgment, as otherwise the matter must have come before him. The right rev. Prelate also stated, that because a prompt acknowledgment had not been returned to a letter from a clergyman on this subject, by his noble Friend at the head of the Government, that that was a proof of the way in which the clergy would be received if they followed the course, which, on a former occasion, he had recommended. He should have something more to say upon the subject of that clergyman, with reference to whom that recommendation had been made, as his reason for repeating his opinion, that that reverend gentleman would have best done his duty, if he had represented these circumstances to the Home-office at the time they occurred, instead of withholding them for six months for the use of the right rev. Prelate. He begged here to refer to the case of Mr. Pare. He had stated on the last occasion, that Mr. Pare had been appointed by the registrar-general to the office of superintendent registrar of Birmingham, before he had any ostensible connection with the Socialists, and before he held any office under that body. He understood that Mr. Pare had been recommended to the registrar-general by a majority of the guardians of the poor by 64 out of 93, he had been recommended by several most respectable persons, of all political parties, and, amongst the rest, by the two Members for Birmingham. Mr. Pare having been called to town in consequence of what had occurred in that House, he had put three questions to him—questions naturally arising out of the circumstances that had occurred. He asked Mr. Pare whether he had been present at any meeting when the question discussed was the existence of a God—whether the truth of the Bible had ever been a question at issue at any such meeting, and whether he had heard the circumstances alluded to by the right rev. Prelate, namely, that one of the ques-

1199
tions discussed and put to a division was the responsibility of the murderers of Lord Norbury, and the answer was, that they were not responsible. To all these points, Mr. Pare gave a distinct and specific denial. He told Mr. Pare, that although his answer tended to clear his moral character, yet that it should not influence his decision on the ultimate question, as to whether he could permit a person holding the office of, superintendent registrar, also to take upon himself the office of vice-president of such an association. He told Mr. Pare, that without entering into the question as to whether the system of such a society tended to upset and destroy the frame-work of society or not, his opinion was, that a person who was ostensibly put forward as associated with others in the propagation of such opinions as appeared to be entertained by that society, was not a proper person to be employed by those who were determined to maintain the existing order of Government. He would come back to the question respecting this clergyman, to whom the right rev. Prelate had alluded, and he must repeat, that he did not think that that reverend clergyman had done his duty. Why did not that gentleman communicate with his diocesan, or with the Government, if he were present upon those occasions to which he had alluded, and cognizant of the proceedings that had taken place? He was sure, that all their Lordships who had heard the right rev. Prelate's defence of that clergyman, would have imagined that he was a person of the most retiring habits—a minister of the gospel who had been dragged unwillingly forward on this occasion—one who had felt it his duty to watch in secret—and one who would feel that he was risking utter destruction if he exposed himself to the vengeance of those Socialists whose proceedings he denounced. What would their Lordships say when he said, in the face of the right rev. Prelate, and without fear of contradiction, that this very clergyman was the opponent lecturer of Mr. Pare on the occasion to which he referred. [The Bishop of Exeter: Mr. Pare presided.] He was the opponent of Mr. Murphy, but the terms of the contest were arranged between the clergyman, Mr. Foy, and Mr. Pare, and what was more, Mr. Pare was actually invited upon that occasion, to take the chair by Mr. Murphy and a friend of Mr. Foy. He did not defend the conduct of Mr. Pare, he thought such conduct was most improper in a person holding his office, but he did say, that he
1200
considered that he was justified in the observations he made on a former night, that Mr. Foy would in the first place have done his duty by abstaining from taking part in such proceedings; and in the next place, that it was his duty to have communicated at once to the Government such facts as it now appeared had then come to his knowledge. It was not to to be said, that clergymen were to turn police, or to act as spies, but he did not see, that it would be more unbecoming in Mr. Foy to do so, than to act as he had done; first to take part in the proceedings of those persons, and then withholding information from the Government, to pursue the course which he had thought proper to adopt. He conceived that Mr. Foy had been a party in the scene which he himself condemned—he had joined in the exhibition which was got up between him and another person, and he had consented to take a part in it. The right rev. Prelate had condemned the Government for not having information upon those subjects, because he said they were to be found in stamped newspapers. [The Bishop of Exeter: No, no!] The obvious meaning of what the right rev. Prelate had said was, that the Government must have known what was in these papers, because they went to the stamp-office. [The Bishop of Exeter had distinctly said they were not stamped.] He left it to the right rev. Prelate to explain what was precisely his charge against the Government upon this point. Although he thought that there was exaggeration with respect to the doctrines of the Socialists, yet upon the most mitigated view of them, it must be admitted, that they were such as no one could look upon without horror and disgust. They appeared to be so even by the documents which had been placed in his hands, for his justification by Mr. Pare and he must say of them that they were such as called for the serious attention of the Government. He found amongst those documents a "Report of the proceedings of the Fourth Congress, held at Birmingham." That was given as a justification of Mr. Pare, and though it was true, that there was nothing insulting to religion reported in the publication, yet there were sentiments put forth with respect to the established faith which he said were not proper, and that the person entertaining such sentiments should not be countenanced by the Government. The question proposed at this congress was to the effect, whether hereafter there should be admitted into the commu-

1201
nity of national religionists persons who did not profess its principles, though, they acted up to much of its practice. A long debate ensued, in which Mr. Pare took a part, and by which it appeared that Mr. Pare was against admitting persons belonging to the Christian religion. It appeared by the same report that Mr. Owen was more inclined to admit persons professing the Christian religion than Mr. Pare. Although the language was not that which would at once shock the reader, yet the entire report showed that the principles of the society were such, as that the persons who maintained them should be marked, at least so far as to be discountenanced by a Government, which wished to uphold the established religion, the existing faith, and the social relations of life. Where doctrines such as the right rev. Prelate had described were promulgated in the different parts of the country, he recommended that the persons in authority there should act in pursuance of the excellent advice which had been given by the noble Duke opposite to his neighbours in the county which had the good fortune to have him as Lord-lieutenant. The right rev. Prelate had stated, and it was to be hoped erroneously, that the system was likely to make great progress. He did not think so. It had been a great length of time promulgated in this country, and it had not made that advance which the right rev. Prelate had apprehended. The right rev. Prelate was very likely to be misled, if he took his authority from the books of the disciples and propagators of this system, to exaggerrate their influence and progress had been their constant and uniform practice. It would be found in the book of the New Moral World, that as long ago as 1836 there had been an address from Mr. Owen to King William 4th., in which the prosperity of the society was much boasted of. That was the language of Mr. Owen, who was very sanguine, though as he believed there were as little grounds for his being sanguine as for the paper which had been put into his hand yesterday, which was called a manifesto of Mr. Owen's principles. In that manifesto it was stated by Mr. Owen, that great encouragement to his plans had been given by the late Sir Robert Peel, and it was also stated, which ought to be mentioned in justice to the present inheritor of the name, that upon Mr. Owen spending a day with the late Sir Robert Peel, that gentleman suggested that they would see what impression would
1202
be made upon the present Sir Robert "after dinner," and Mr. Owen afterwards admitted that the present Sir Robert had not sufficient experience to compass such a subject. He might quote the authority of the present Sir Robert Peel in favour of the course pursued by the Government. That right hon. Gentleman had said very lately he would not prosecute Mr. Owen; that is, Mr. Owen not doing an illegal act, he did not feel disposed to prosecute him for the extravagant opinions which he was promulgating. He did not, then, see any probability of any Government being successful if induced to take the course which the right rev. Prelate recommended, of a general prosecution of the society for its illegal constitution. He found that there was some little difficulty in tracing out the connection of one publication of the Socialists with another. He held in his hand a tract, in which the abominations of Socialism were exposed. It was written by a Mr. Barker, who had taken every opportunity of opposing these persons, and from his pamphlet this consolation was to be derived—that Socialism was not on the increase. So lately as last December, Mr. Barker said that all their plans had failed, and that all who had joined in them were losers by them. In London he himself believed that Socialism was decidedly on the decline; although, since the right rev. Prelate had addressed their Lordships, the meetings of the Socialists had been more numerously attended. He had received this information from very competent authority—that of the police. The meetings were more frequently held than they were some years ago; yet the whole number of Socialists was not so great as it had been at that period. When the right rev. Prelate gave himself credit for having given a check to the Socialists, it must be admitted that he had also given them very much importance, as the meeting at Manchester proved. In a letter read there, it was stated that if they had books on Socialism at hand, it was requested they should be sent up to the writer, as no doubt there would be a great demand for them, in consequence of the speech of the right rev. the Bishop of Exeter. Such was the opinion of the Socialists themselves. He must add that at the office at which he was at the head, there had been no reports received from clergymen or magistrates, to show that there had been an increase of Socialism throughout the country. He ought to add that he had received from the chairman of

1203
a quarter-sessions, which perhaps it would not be convenient at that moment to mention-—a parcel of tracts addressed to clergymen of all denominations, containing gross and ribald attacks upon the Christian religion, and all creeds. He had at once referred them to the professional authorities; and he had now to add, that these blasphemous libels were under the consideration of the law officers of the Crown. That was the first official information that had come to the Home-office of the prevalence of publications of this kind, and such were the steps that had been taken in consequence. Such steps, too, would be taken as often as the occasion required; and such the Government was prepared to pursue. Under the circumstances, however, he did not conceive that the right rev. Prelate had made a special ground for any extraordinary interference on the part of their Lordships. The motion of the right rev. Prelate, he perceived, had been altered from a direction to proceed with a prosecution into one of enquiry. If they had a committee, these parties should appear before them to defend their doctrines. He entreated them, then, to leave the case of these persons to be dealt with according to law. If those persons violated the law, they would be prosecuted. If they did not violate the law no inquiry that they might institute would have any other effect than long discussion, to give too much publicity to doctrines that were most objectionable, and which never could meet with encouragement from any portion of an enlightened population.
The Archbishop of Canterburyhad no intention of entering into a discussion of this question that night, and at that late hour, as he was sensible that nothing he could say, could add to the force of that very clear and very full statement which had been made by his right rev. Friend, or that he could add to any of the arguments in the statement which was so powerfully illustrated by his more than usual eloquence; nor should he endeavour to add to the horror with which their Lordships must have heard that statement; but he should think himself wanting in his duty if he could suffer that opportunity to pass without expressing his thanks to the right rev. Prelate for the exposure of those doctrines. The right rev. Prelate was certainly entitled to the thanks of the country, for the eloquence and the ability with which he had called their Lordships' attention to this most important subject, for most important he did maintain it
1204
was. He said so, whatever might be the smallness of the numbers of this society. He admitted that their numbers were small, as compared with the population; but they were not small as compared with their beginnings a few years ago. At the beginning of their proceedings was the individual whose name had been so often mentioned that night. That individual he was sure, entertained the very same sentiments then which he did now; but he did not go so far in developing them. Many were then convinced that he was influenced by disinterested motives; but then he carried his opinions so far, though they did not go the length taken by the Socialists, that it was evident the tendency of his doctrines was to subvert the existing order of things, and all the institutions of society. The ideas of that individual appeared to be so absurd and extravagant that no one thought they could be carried into execution. They were considered as the extravagant speculations of an individual, which never could obtain any number of followers or converts. Yet, now, in what situation did they see him? There was a speculative enthusiast, who stood almost alone and unsupported but a few years ago, and who was now able to carry his schemes into execution. He stood at the head of an association, which was formidable from its principles, if not from its numbers, and which threatened to overthrow religion, and to spread its moral pestilence over the country. That speculative enthusiast had become the leader of an association that possessed means for purchasing estates in Hampshire and other places—that had money at command, not only to hire, but to erect suitable buildings for delivering their doctrines—which was able to establish itself in country places, and to infect the largest towns with its pestilent notions; and not only that, but which had missionaries that were of course remunerated, for they were employed in going over the country disseminating its pernicious tenets. That society, too, had a general congress, which met every year, at which all its preachers, to the number of fifty or sixty attended, made up their accounts, and reported all that took place in different parts of the country. If such had been the progress of the society or association, or whatever it was termed, in the course of a few years, how was it possible to assert that it would have no further exten-

1205
sion, more especially when they considered what the doctrines of the society were, and that the missionaries were active, and, in many instances, intelligent—persons by no means deficient in intellectual cultivation; and then the doctrines they preached appealed to the passions. There was to be a community of property, and a community of women, and every moral obligation was dissolved—there was to be no such thing as duty; everything was to be influenced by necessity; and every motive that could influence the heart of man, by his having a belief in future rewards and punishments, was to be put an end to. How were they to limit the evil that had been done? How were they to stay the evil that it might produce? Let them consider what must be, the effect that must be produced on unlearned and ignorant men, when they were told to despise all those instructions which were most calculated to influence the human mind. They did not know how many converts had been, or might be, obtained, not only amongst the lower, but perhaps amongst the higher classes of society; and then they were to bear in mind, that every convert made by these persons was a man lost to all those considerations which could make him a useful member of the state, and that he was deprived of all that could make him happy here, or insure his happiness hereafter. It did appear to him, by the admission of the noble Lord who had spoken last, that all the doctrines attributed to the society were proved. He desired no better evidence than what the noble Marquess stated, although it was given in softened language. The admission of the noble Marquess showed that no injustice had been done to the persons who were the subject of the present discussion. When such as these were the general principles of the society, and when they saw it already established in so many large towns, it was enough to strike one with horror; for instance, to hear that a petition Was presented from 8,000 persons in Birmingham, avowing these principles. What stronger argument could be produced by the noble and learned Lord who presented that petition, and which, purporting to be a defence of the case, and intending to do away prejudices, yet showed that a number of respectable men had joined the society? The noble Marquess had admitted that the doctrines of
1206
the society were detestable and obnoxious, and the increase of them was to be looked on as a very great evil. But the question was, how were they to put a stop to it? What was to be done? He said, by the most merciful execution of the law. And for the course which the noble Marquess told them he had adopted in the one case, he was entitled to the thanks of the country. But then, at the same time, it was said that the publicity given to these matters, was rather calculated to do harm than good. He did not agree in that proposition. When an obscene person published a blasphemous or obscene work, the prosecution of him might draw notice towards him, and produce a sale for his book, which would repay him for the punishment he suffered. Such was not the case here, where he conceived, the exposure of the doctrines themselves would be useful, by exciting horror against them; for,
"Vice is a monster of such hideous mien,
That to be hated needs but to be seen."
There was no father of a family, nor any right-minded citizen, who considered Christianity as the basis of the prosperity of the country, who did not join in the reprobation of these doctrines. He believed, then, that the exposure that had taken place, though it might occasion a few meetings to be more numerously attended than usual—for whatever was the subject of discussion, it attracted curiosity for the moment—yet he still believed that the exposure itself would be the cause of general good. But so, it had been said, that it ought to be followed up by a due administration of the law, with respect to the publications of the character described by the noble Marquess; that was an opinion in which he coincided. Then, an objection had been made to prosecutions—that they created sympathy for those who suffered—that when a man was prosecuted, and suffered the penalties of the law, the people of the country would pity him. He agreed in that; for if a man were prosecuted for mere speculative opinions, or for private discussions—for instance, discussions between rival sects, or on religion itself, and that it was followed up with any animosity, and that it assumed the character of persecution—then it would be justly and deservedly hateful in the eyes of the people of this country. But in the present case he believed that, if

1207
they proceeded justly, lawfully, and with moderation, their proceedings would be approved of by the great body of the people, and all the sympathies of the people would go with the authorities who brought such persons to justice. With respect to the forbearance that had hitherto been exercised, he said nothing. He could only repeat what he had said before, that he thought the right rev. Prelate was entitled to the thanks of their Lordships and of the country, for the exposure he had made of the principles and proceedings of this association; and also for the very able observations he had made upon the course which he thought the Government ought to pursue.
The Bishop of Llandaffshould not have taken any part in this debate, but for the allusion which the noble Marquess had made to the presence of a clergyman of the Church of England at the meeting of the Socialists at Birmingham, where the most impious and horrible doctrines were proposed for discussion, and openly maintained. That clergyman was described by the noble Marquess as being a party to the transaction. Indeed the construction which the noble Marquess seemed to put upon the conduct of the rev. gentleman was, that he was a particeps criminis in the misdoings of the meeting. Nothing could be more opposite to the rev. gentleman's conduct; because, instead of appearing to take part with the meeting, or to agree with them, or to act as a spy upon their proceedings, with the view of privately giving information where he thought it might tell against them, he openly and boldly opposed their doctrines upon the spot, and did the utmost in his power to resist the evil they were calculated to engender. He would only add, that if argument and reason were not sufficient to prevent the inculcation of such odious and dangerous doctrines, he hoped the law would be put in force.
The Marquess of Normanbybegged to explain. All that he had stated of the clergyman to whom the right rev. Prelate referred was, that he was a party to the discussion. He was informed that the rev. gentleman had arranged the form and manner of the discussion. He was, undoubtedly, opposed to the principles of the Socialists, but he came forward to argue against them. He took a prominent and conspicuous part in the proceedings. Mr. Murphy was the chief on the one
1208
side; this rev. gentleman the chief on the other; and it was at the request of both, that Mr. Pare took the chair.
Viscount Melbournehaving fully expressed his opinion upon this subject on a former occasion, should not have felt it necessary to trespass again for one moment on their Lordships' time, but for one or two allusions that had been made to him in the course of the debate of that evening. The right rev. Prelate, as an additional reason for charging the Government with neglect upon this subject, had referred to a very brief reply which he had given to a clergyman who had sent a letter to him, enclosing the title of one of Mr. Owen's pamphlets. He had answered that letter according to his usual custom, and if the charge of discourtesy could be maintained in this instance, he feared it would equally obtain in many others. But he wished it to be understood that when he replied to letters of this description, it was not to be supposed that previous to his reply he had taken full cognizance of the matter to which such letters might relate. In this instance, after all that had occurred, he did not know that he could blame himself for not having departed from his usual practice; because it would seem that if he had answered the letter more fully his reply would have been used by the reverend gentleman to whom it was addressed, and very probably have been brought against him in that House. With whatever justice he might be accused of having acted discourteously, he certainly did not think he could be charged with having acted unwisely, in the answer he had given. What had occurred would certainly teach him additional caution in his correspondence with gentlemen of that character. With respect to the general question, he had only to say, as he had stated on a former occasion, that he thought these opinions of the Socialists in the highest degree dangerous, and every way deserving the most serious attention of the Government. The right rev. Prelate, however, had a great advantage over the Government in bringing the subject forward; because the Government could not argue the question without appearing to sanction the system, and the man by whom it was propounded. This they had no intention of doing. The doctrines of this Mr. Owen, as far as they related to religion, were improper, licentious, and,

1209
dangerous; he hardly knew whether they were illegal. When the most most rev. Prelate said that Mr. Owen and his disciples told the people, "You are all in a state of the most helpless misery, because our system is not adopted," he begged to remind the most rev. Prelate, that Mr. Owen, in addressing the people in that manner, was pursuing only the same course as every other person who had a favourite doctrine to advance. Mr. Attwood attributed all the ills of the country to the metallic currency. Mr. Attwood said to the people, "You are all in a state of wretchedness and misery, because you won't adopt my system of paper money. Rouse yourselves, therefore, and determine to act with me." Mr. Oastler again ascribed all the distress and degradation of the poor to the operation of the new Poor-law Bill. He told the people that that Act was an act of injustice, and that, therefore, they had a right to resist it. It was the fault of the present day that people would lay down a remedy for every 'grievance, and then, by every means in their power, endeavour to force it upon the Government. That was the evil of the present day; and the Socialists, in that respect, were not more chargeable than other persons, and other sets that had sprung up in the country. He (Lord Melbourne) was not now arguing the subject, nor did he mean to hold that the doctrines of Socialism were not, in the highest degree, dangerous. Neither did he mean to say that they ought not to be seriously attended to; but he doubted the wisdom and prudence of the course which their Lordships were now invited to pursue. Upon that point he entirely agreed with his noble Friend the Secretary of State. He thought that their Lordships, by the course they were pursuing, were encouraging these men—encouraging the system—and promoting the views of its authors. He could not conceive anything which more than this notice would act as a greater encouragement to them. He was said to have given a great impulse to the system by introducing Mr. Owen at court. He certainly very much regretted that he had ever done so—it was an imprudent act. But what were their Lordships about to do? Why they were going to introduce Mr. Owen at court a second time. They were going to bring Mr. Owen before the court again, and in a manner which they might depend upon it
1210
would give him and his sect a much, greater and stronger encouragement than any that he had given them. Their Lordships' address asked for inquiry. Why, that was the very thing that the Socialists themselves asked for. All their petitions asked for inquiry: inquiry was all they desired. Their Lordships, by agreeing to this address, were exactly answering the purpose of the Socialists, and promoting their ends. If their Lordships, by the word "inquiry" meant only that the attention of the Government should be directed to the subject, no great harm could result from the address; but if they meant anything like issuing a commission, he could only assure them that they would be playing directly into the hands of the Socialists, since there was nothing that that sect more desired. It would give them a better opportunity than they could by any other means obtain, of expounding their doctrines, and making them known to the whole world. Therefore, he was strongly of opinion that the course which their Lordships were pursuing, was an unwise and impolitic course, and calculated only to give strength to the party whom it was sought to put down. At the same time, if the right rev. Prelate should persist in his motion, and their Lordships should seem inclined to support him, he should not take the sense of the House upon it.
The Duke of Wellingtontill lately had known nothing whatever about these Socialists. His attention was first directed to them by a petition which was sent to him to present to their Lordships' House having reference to the presentation of of Mr. Owen at court by the noble Viscount at the head of the Government. He declined to present the petition, because he knew nothing about the matter, and did not choose to embark himself in the support or discussion of a subject of which he had no knowledge. Having intimated this to the petitioner, he received a communication in reply, containing a full statement of what Socialism was. By this means he obtained a knowledge of the system; he saw some of the books published by the society, and became aware of the doctrines they advanced; and, having obtained this information upon the subject, he must say that the right rev. Prelate had not in any way exaggerated the viciousness of the system. It appeared to have spread itself over a

1211
great part of the country; and, upon inquiry, he found that it had taken root rather extensively in the county in which he resided. In Hampshire they had purchased 800 acres of land, and established a large institution. In reference to that institution, he had that day presented a petition to their Lordships which contained statements regarding blasphemy, regarding the Holy Scriptures, regarding God Almighty, regarding all the great points of our belief, which in his estimation demanded a most serious inquiry. When he read that petition, which he did as soon as it was placed in his hands, he felt it to be his duty as the Lord-lieutenant of the county, to call the attention of the county magistrates to the facts which it set forth. In the same way he maintained that it was the duty of the House of Lords and of the Government, now that the facts were brought before them, to take some steps in the matter. The doctrines of Socialism were rapidly gaining strength— were rapidly spreading themselves over the whole of the country—they had got beyond the point at which one could say "the thing will fall to pieces: take no notice of it." That was one way of treating an affair, but Socialism had got beyond that point. Some step must be taken. The people must be made to understand that neither the legislature nor the Government looked upon this institution in any other way than with disfavour —that they were determined to discountenance it—and that wherever, in the promulgation of its doctrines, there should be a breach of the law, that breach of the law should be punished. If the Government would undertake the matter, and institute such an inquiry as they thought fit, he should be willing to leave it in their hands; at the same time saying that, as a magistrate, a public man, and a Lord-lieutenant of a county, he would do every thing in his power to assist them in carrying on their inquiries, in order to bring this system to an end.
The Marquess of Lansdownewas induced, upon the ground stated by the noble Duke, not to oppose this motion. He thought that these discussions had come to a pass that made it expedient that some inquiry should take place; he thought that they had come to such a pass that it would operate mischievously upon the country, if it were supposed that the vices of the system of Socialism had
1212
been brought under the attention of the Legislature, and that the Legislature had turned an indifferent ear to them; more especially if there were persons in the country who might be found capable of asserting that the motive of the Legislature, in turning an indifferent ear to the detail of those vices, was founded in a disposition to afford any countenance to the abominations, which, with the noble Duke, he freely owned the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter) had not overstated. But when he said this, he begged it to be understood that he acquiesced in this inquiry solely upon the ground of others having taken upon themselves the responsibility of giving a degree of publicity to these proceedings, which he thought it would have been most desirable that they should never have acquired. He believed that in other countries systems no less atrocious, no less deserving of condemnation, had, by the pursuit of a totally different policy, been allowed to die away, and had died away more rapidly than he was inclined to apprehend would be the case under what he might call a more active mode of treatment. He did not know whether the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter) had polluted himself with respect to the doctrines of other sects, as from conscientious motives he declared he had polluted himself in studying the doctrines of Socialism; but he could tell the right rev. Prelate that if he had studied the doctrines of St. Simonism— [The Bishop of Exeter: I have not.] The right rev. Prelate shook his head and said, that he had not. He did not profess any particular learning in those doctrines, but he knew sufficient of the opinions, very widely propagated for two or three years in France, to be aware that the doctrines of St. Simonism went the full length of the doctrines which the right rev. Prelate had now so justly stigmatized. Those doctrines were widely promulgated in France for several years, but no interposition was made on the part of the law: and at the present moment if the sect existed at all in France, it had fallen to the lowest possible ebb. Nay, the very doctrines which the right rev. Prelate now condemned—those very doctrines under the direction of Mr. Owen himself—under the impulse of that mischievous activity which carried that individual to the United States of America—fell in the course of a very few years into the greatest disre-

1213
pute. So much so, that they were now hardly to be found in the northern states of the union, and in the southern states they were not to be found at all. In short, there was that in the experience of this, and of many other such abominable delusions which occasionally infected society, and exercised a momentary influence upon it, that might well occasion all men in their capacity as legislators and citizens to pause, before they resorted to active measures and attempted the repression of that, which from the effort at repression, was often found to gather additional strength. He thought that any act on the part of the Government which tended to create an opinion in the public mind that there was a class of persons marked out by the law as fit objects for punishment, if by any chance they could be found tripping, very often produced a reaction in favour of those persons, and enabled them to prosecute their views with greater effect. He said, therefore, that there was room for much consideration upon this subject before any active steps were resorted to. With respect to the particular instances which had been adverted to by the right rev. Prelate and the noble Duke (Wellington), in which this particular doctrine of Socialism had assumed in one sense of the word a more formidable shape by the occupation of land and formation of a colony, he could only say that he was aware that such attempts had been made. There was no doubt that a colony, founded upon these highly objectionable and improper doctrines, had been founded upon the borders of the two counties of Wiltshire and Hampshire. Having the honour of being the Lord-lieutenant of the county of Wilts, he had thought it his duty to institute an inquiry as to the existence of such a colony, and he found that it really existed. But he had the satisfaction of stating that it did not at present consist of more than thirty or forty persons; and he understood that the condition of admission to the colony was, that each individual should pay a sum of 20 l— a very good mode, he thought, of preventing a too rapid increase of the members of the colony. And he rather apprehended that, when a short time had been allowed to elapse, and the poor persons who had been duped into paying their 20 l. into the hands of some artful and designing individual, found that they had lost their money, and obtained no substantial good to compen-
1214
sate them for the loss of it, they would be more effectually cured of Socialism than they could ever have been by any proceeding on the part of the Attorney-general. He confessed that when he saw persons professing these abominable, wicked, and impious, but fortunately impracticable doctrines—when he saw such persons placing themselves in a position by which their doctrines were brought into public view—a position in which the unsound-ness and fallacy of those doctrines became manifest, not only to their neighbours and to the rest of the world, but ultimately to the eyes of the deluded members of the sect themselves—when he saw this, he owned he rather rejoiced that Socialism had selected a spot of earth for its establishment, and thus put itself in a position to convince, by an unsuccessful experiment, not only its authors but all mankind, of the impossibility of modelling society in any principle so odious and abominable. He did not regard these Socialist colonies, therefore, with the apprehension that seemed to be entertained by the right rev. Prelate and the noble Duke. He thought that they were more likely to expose the fallacy of the system, and to break it down more effectually and more completely than any step that could be taken, either by their Lordships or the Government. Conceiving, however, that it was important that the Legislature should not be understood to exhibit anything like indifference to the existence of such opinions as those professed by the Socialists, but on the contrary, that it should mark by any act in its power its utter detestation and reprobation of them, he was led upon that ground, and that ground alone, to acquiesce in the motion of the right rev. Prelate.
The Bishop of Londonwas anxious to say a very few words in reference to a misapprehension which seemed to obtain in the mind of the noble Marquess (Normanby), with respect to the publicity which he conceived would be given to the mischievous doctrines of Socialism by the discussion of them in that House. It was perfectly true that that effect would follow to a certain extent and in certain classes of society. One consequence of these debates in their Lordships' House, particularly of the eloquent and luminous exposition made by his right rev. Friend (the Bishop of Exeter) of the principles and practice of Socialism, undoubtedly

1215
would be, or he should rather say had already been, that those doctrines would be better known to the upper and middle classes of society than they had hitherto been. He (the Bishop of London) was far from considering that an evil. On the contrary, he conceived it to be a most beneficial effect, resulting from the debates which had taken place in that House and elsewhere upon the subject; because he was convinced that there was as yet so much of good in the heart of this country, that, if once the well-educated classes of society—those who possessed a just influence upon public opinion—combined together to express their detestation of certain mischievous doctrines, those doctrines could not long obtain. Therefore, if no other good were to result from the able and eloquent exposition of his right rev. Friend, this would be one for which their Lordships and the country ought to be grateful. But there was another kind of publicity to the augmentation of which these discussions in Parliament did not tend, and which in itself was widely different to the publicity to which he had just been adverting. He was afraid that these pernicious doctrines enjoyed the worst kind of publicity. They were well known and often canvassed by the great bulk of the public—not those who were commonly called the public, but those whose numbers were greater than any other class of the community, and upon whose good principles, and correct views and feelings, the safety of society mainly depended. The Socialists had an authorized publication of their own, of which upwards of two thousand were distributed through the country, lint they had also other organs not professing to be in their pay—periodical publications not professing to emanate from the press of the Socialists, which yet exercised a most baneful influence upon the community. There was one weekly publication which he believed enjoyed a more extensive circulation than any other now issuing from the press in this kingdom; and he grieved to say that, if common report spoke true, the joint proprietor, if not the active editor of the paper, was a magistrate of no inconsiderable influence in the metropolis. The doctrines advanced in that paper with a malignant activity against everything good and virtuous, were of the most infamous character. It was a paper which he would venture to say could not have escaped the
1216
notice of the Attorney-general, and which he asserted without hesitation ought to have been over and over again the subject of prosecution. This was only one of the periodical papers, not ostensibly connected with the Socialists, which were conspiring to diffuse their pernicious principles and practices throughout the country. He was convinced, however, that this kind of publicity, instead of encouragement, would receive a very salutary check from discussions such as that which had taken place that evening. The lower orders of the community in this country—he used the term in. its ordinary sense—were not yet so far fallen into the delusions which had been spread for them as to be insensible to the great weight and influence of the united opinion of all the learned, and wise, and pious in the land. He would, therefore, beg to remind the noble Marquess, that if the Address now moved should be presented to her Majesty, the effect produced would not so much depend upon the Address itself as upon the answer that might be returned to it. The manifest concurrence of the majority of their Lordships' House in the principles laid down by his right rev. Friend (the Bishop of Exeter) would of itself be a noble and effective testimony to the people of this country, and particularly to the deluded multitudes who were the victims of that sect—that the highest branch of the Legislature, he might say the Queen's Majesty herself, for her Majesty spoke in that House through the voice of her Ministers—would not longer sit quiet to witness the promulgation of doctrines so infamous, so pernicious, so abominable; but that they would stretch the shield with which the arm of justice was furnished—for he would always rather speak of the shield than the sword of justice—to protect the uneducated, the unenlightened, and, therefore, possibly the misguided portion of the community from the worst enemies that could assail them. He could not resume his seat without alluding, for a moment, to what had fallen from the noble Marquess respecting the danger of adopting any course that, in the estimation of the people, should assume an appearance of persecution towards a particular sect. He could only say that if that argument were good for anything, it would apply with equal force to every kind of prosecution for every kind of offence. Were their Lordships to be told

1217
that there were no criminal acts, no offences against society but sedition, and treason, and blasphemy. He had been taught by the authors whom he had read upon the constitution of England, that immoral, scandalous publications were equally liable to prosecution with publications that were seditious and treasonable. That doctrine at least was held by Blackstone, and at a more subsequent period by Sir James Mackintosh, who observed that the fault of the day was, the not making a sufficient distinction between seditious and treasonable publications, and those which were blasphemous and indecent. If no other result should follow from the discussion of that evening than the knowledge of the opinion, he sincerely trusted he might say the unanimous opinion, which that august assembly entertained upon the subject, it would have a most beneficial effect upon the country, and he trusted would lead to the desired result of stemming and turning the tide of indecency and blasphemy which now threatened to inundate the country.
The Bishop of Exeterwould not detain their Lordships by any reply. He would only say, in justice to the clergyman that had been alluded to in the debate, that so far from having supplied him (the Bishop of Exeter) with information at the proper time for his political purposes, that rev. and most respectable person had not supplied any information until directly applied to. He had heard of Mr. Pare and his proceedings, but, as authority was of course necessary, he had made the application. That respectable clergyman otherwise would not have come forward. He would only add, that the inquiry now sought for was different to that asked for by the Socialists themselves—it was to inquire in the first place into the diffusion of blasphemous and immoral publications—not whether they were right or wrong, but into the facts, that the Government might do their duty.
Address agreed to.