Sitting of 27 July 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Regency; Metropolis Improvements (No. 2).—Read a second time:—Civil Bill Courts (Ireland).—Read a third time:—Toll on Lime; Rating Stock in Trade; Municipal Districts (Ireland); Church Temporalities (Ireland); Court Houses (Ireland); Insolvent Debtors (India).
Petitions presented. By Mr. F. Maule, from the Parish of Marnoch, in favour of Non-Intrusion; and from Inverness, against Lord Aberdeen's Bill.—By Mr. Grote, from Inhabitants of London, to reduce the Duty upon East India Coffee proportionably to any reduction on West India Coffee.—By Mr. Baines, from the London Missionary Society, against Idolatry in India; and from Stoke Newington, to the same effect.—By Mr. W. Gladstone, from Clergymen of Ireland, for Payment of Arrears of Tithes.—By Mr. Sheil, from Medical Practitioners of Roscrea, and Nenagh, for increased Remuneration to Medical Witnesses.

IDOLATRY IN INDIA.
Sir R. Inglis, having presented petitions upon the subject of Idolatry in India, said he would take that opportunity to put the question on this subject, of which he had given notice, to the right hon. Baronet, the President of the Board of Control. The right hon. Baronet, on the 26th of July, of the year 1838, said, that as far as it depended upon himself, he thought the time had arrived for the discontinuance of the connexion of the East India Company with the system of idolatry. The right hon. Baronet had stated that an official representation should be sent out, such as would render it impossible for any functionary in India to make a mistake. He wished to know whether such a despatch had been addressed to the government of India—what was the result of such despatch at the different presidencies—whether it had worked well at the Bengal presidency, and worked differently at Madras? And, if so, whether any censure had been passed upon the government at Madras, and whether measures had been taken to stimulate that government to the performance of its duty? And the last question he had to ask was, whether the right hon. Baronet would feel it his duty to give to or withhold from the House a copy of the despatch addressed under his sanction by the East India Company to the respective presidencies?
Sir J. Hobhouse: In answer to his hon. Friend's first question, he could tell him, that not ten days had elapsed after he gave the positive assurance mentioned, ere he did his best, as far as he was concerned, to carry his wishes into effect. On the 8th of August, 1838, a despatch was sent out from the Court of Directors of the East India Company to the Government of India upon the subject, the concluding words of which were these:—
"We further desire that you will make such arrangements as may appear necessary for relieving all our servants, whether Christian, Mahomedan, or Hindoo, from the compulsory performance of any acts that may justly be considered liable to objection on the ground of religious scruples."
In consequence of that despatch having been sent to the government of India, and in consequence of several private recommendations made by himself to the government there, Lord Auckland applied himself at once to the subject of the Pilgrim tax. That tax had been abolished

1025
last year at Alahabad, and he had the satisfaction of stating, that by the last mail he had received the draft of an act of our Indian government for the total abolition of the Pilgrim tax. In answer to the question whether he had any objection to lay before the House the proceedings of the Government in India, he could inform the hon. Baronet that not only had he no such objection, but he should think it his duty, not only for the satisfaction of the curiosity of his hon. Friend and others, but in justice to the Governor-general of India. With respect to the other question, as to the government of Madras, it was his duty to inform the House that the Governor-general of India had addressed instructions to the minor presidencies of Bombay and Madras, in order to effect the objects that had already been brought about at Bengal. He had received a private communication upon this subject from the Governor-general, from which he would take the liberty of reading an extract. Lord Auckland, in a letter dated March, 1839, and which was half private and half public, said this:—
"I know nothing, in Bengal, of such processions as those which the Bishop of London alludes to, nor are there any such, as far as I am aware of, in Bombay. It is only at Madras, where there are two or three native princes resident, who have been dispossessed of power, but left with the style and title of Royattes, that any such processions occur. I will write again to Lord Elphinstone on the subject; and I am sure he is working steadfastly, with every disposition to advance as fast as may be honestly and safely ventured."
This was the answer he had to give to his hon. Friend with respect to the government of Madras. It was his duty, however, to tell the House that information had reached him which satisfied him that the governments in India were carrying into effect the wishes of the home authorities. Before he sat down, he might as well inform his hon. Friend, that there was greater difficulty upon this subject in the way of the government of Madras than in that of the other presidencies. There were in the presidency of Madras many pagodas, having large revenues; and in order to prevent those revenues from being applied to objects other than those which the founders intended, the collection of them had in many cases been taken from the natives and given to British subjects. It had
1026
occupied the anxious attention of the Government how best to transfer the care of these endowments from British subjects to natives, without suffering them to be diverted from the charitable purposes for which they were intended. That was the real difficulty that prevented the adjustment of the question in the Madras presidency, and he hoped that the Government would soon be able to overcome it. On the subject of the attendance of troops at idolatrous processions, he would not trouble the House, as by moving for papers he could convince the hon. Baronet, that the apprehensions entertained by him on this subject were not altogether well founded. The chief complaint related to the attendance upon the Rajah of Travancore, when he went on certain occasions every year to the pagoda of Travancore, and when British troops, as well as native troops, were drawn up to do him honour. He had received a private assurance from the officer commanding those troops, that they did not suppose, they were drawn up to pay honour to an idolatrous or religious ceremony, but merely as an escort for the Rajah. They were not permitted to enter the pagoda, or sacred precincts; on the contrary, they were kept at a considerable distance, in order to show, that they had nothing to do with the religious ceremonies. He would take an opportunity of moving for papers, which he was sure would convey a satisfactory answer upon all the points to which the hon. Baronet alluded, and at all events he trusted, that the fact of so much having been done would be taken as a guarantee, that they meant hereafter to proceed in the same course, until they had accomplished the object they had in view. He would move for the papers in a day or two.
Sir R. Inglissaid, that nothing could be more satisfactory than his right hon. Friend's answer as respected the two presidencies of Bengal and Bombay, and he trusted, that it would be equally satisfactory in another year as far as related to Madras.—Petitions laid on the table.

SUPPLY—FOREIGN DEPARTMENT—QUADRUPLE TREATY.
On the further consideration of the report of the committee of Supply, and on the resolution, that the sum of 127,234 l. granted to defray the salaries and expenses of the Foreign Department, be reduced to 103,234 l.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, he was glad that the discussion that had taken place on this subject, and the delay that had occurred had been productive of such good effects. He still thought, that a greater reduction might be made in the expenses of the Foreign Department.
Viscount Palmerstonhad said, when the estimate was formerly before the House, that he was not answerable for it; it had been made by the Post-office, and had been framed on a calculation of the amount of correspondence which formerly took place. The present reduction in the estimate had been made in some degree in consequence of the stricter regulations which he had introduced, with respect to the foreign bags, in which much laxity had undoubtedly prevailed.
Sir Robert Peelwould ask a question which would not affect the future policy; it was, whether the contingency had arrived which was contemplated in the Quadruple Treaty entered into between this country, France, Spain, and Portugal? Whether the conditions of that treaty had been fulfilled, or whether the treaty was still in force?
Viscount Palmerstonconceived, that the fair meaning of the parties to that treaty was, an engagement to assist the Queen of Spain through the contest that was then going on between the Queen of Spain and Don Carlos. Substantially he believed that that contest was over. Don Carlos had been expelled from Spain, and no less than 27,000 of his troops had crossed the frontier and were now in France. Virtually then, he said, that the engagement was over; but if immediately the same state of things should arise, the spirit of that treaty would require a recurrence to the same steps as were required formerly; the treaty would, as he conceived, be still in force, and the same parties would be equally bound by it.
Sir R. Peel: Then with respect to any intestine troubles, wholly unconnected with Don Carlos, the treaty, he apprehended, was not in operation.
Resolution agreed to.

SUPPLY—EASTERN POLICY.
On the vote of 2.000 l. for additional seamen,
Mr. Humehad objected to the additional number of men to be provided by this vote, and he now protested against it. If any one would read the papers laid on the table of the House, they would see
1028
that Colonel Campbell had distinctly guaranteed to Mehemet Ali the districts which he governed, and yet these seamen were now employed because the noble Lord wished to alter that engagement. He would not divide the House upon it, but he should say "no" to the resolution.
Viscount Palmerstonwould not go into any difference of opinion between himself and his hon. Friend; he would only state one fact. His hon. Friend said, that the papers laid upon the table of the House proved that the English Government had pledged itself to Mehemet Ali to support him in the occupation of the districts committed to his government. He (Viscount Palmerston) wished that his hon. Friend would look at the papers again, because he was satisfied that no engagement whatever of that kind had been made, and that the English Government were not parties to any arrangement with regard to a guarantee either one way or the other.
Mr. Humehad not brought down Colonel Campbell's despatch with him, but it was clear there was in it an assurance of the British Government to Mehemet Ali, after the battle of Koniah, that the British Government would support him in retaining possession of the territories, if he would not declare his independence of the Turkish empire. It was evident that the noble Lord had mistaken the purport of his own instructions, and before the House separated, he would bring the noble Lord's letters to the House, and read them.
Resolution agreed to.

SUPPLY—NELSON'S MONUMENT.
On the resolution for granting 5,000 l., to complete the laying out of the area of Trafalgar-square,
Mr. Greenesaid, that if the Nelson monument were left unfinished, it would be a most unsightly object, and he would, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he could assure the House that he would see if sufficient money had been subscribed to complete the monument, with the ornaments, as they were originally represented to the Treasury?
Sir R. Inglisbegged to be allowed to interpose. If the right hon. Gentleman were called upon to answer the question upon his hon. Friend's statement of facts, he could only give one answer; if the column were left unfinished, he must answer that it would be an unsightly object.

1029
The Nelson committee, of which he had the honour to be a member, had entered into a contract for completing the whole of the column, with its capital and a statue at the top. They had in their hands more than sufficient for this purpose—whether they had enough for all that they would desire to do was another question. But there was no occasion to be uneasy as to the effect of the column when completed.
Mr. Gally Knightsaid, that the Government did not appear to have informed themselves sufficiently as to the probability of the work being accomplished. The estimate was 28,000 l., and that sum had not yet been subscribed. The great objection to the present vote was, that, after the Government had agreed to lay out 11,000 l. for the improvement of the area of Trafalgar-square, the whole work would possibly be spoilt by an erection which the Government had sanctioned by the present arrangement.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwould not object to state that any report emanating from a committee of that House should receive his best attention; but at the same time he must observe that he had declared when the committee moved for by the hon. Member (Mr. Gaily Knight) was appointed, that the Government had pledged itself that the Crown would give the site, and that he would not be a party to the Crown withdrawing its grant of the site. The only objection, as it appeared to him, that could be made to the course taken by the Government, was, whether it had ascertained that all the subscriptions had been actually made. He could not concur in the opinion that this should have been required. Every one knew that in the case of such subscriptions as this they did not always have the whole amount of the money paid up at once, and he thought that it wag not when a monument was to be raised to one of our greatest and best heroes, that the Government should be asked to weigh closely every consideration; and he believed that when the proper time came, parties would not be found wanting to supply any deficiency in a fund collected for this noble purpose.
Resolution agreed to.

SUPPLY—CHINA.
On the resolution that 173,442 l. be granted for the expenses of the expedition to China,
Mr. Gladstonewould not allow the pre-
1030
sent opportunity to pass without calling the attention of the House to, and entering his protest against, the expedition to China. There was now a positive demand on the part of the Government, although somewhat late, for a vote of money in support of an expedition, the objects of which, it was due to the Government and to the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to say, had been fairly and ingenuously declared. The noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, in the early part of the session, plainly stated that the object of this expedition was threefold:—first, reparation for insults offered to the English flag; second, compensation for injuries inflicted on the property of British subjects; and, third, security for our commercial intercourse for the future. The statement of those objects was a challenge to the House, which he, for one, did not in his conscience feel he should be justified in allowing to pass altogether unnoticed. He would leave to the prerogative of the Crown and her Majesty's Ministers the responsibility of the expedition; he would not determine whether, upon the whole, this was a case which justified its objects; but there was one of the three objects enumerated by the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, which, if he interpreted his language right, did appear to call for some expression of sentiment on the part of that House—he meant the object of demanding from the Chinese government a full compensation for the opium surrendered in the month of March, 1839. The noble Lord had used the term "compensation for injuries inflicted on the property of British subjects." According to his interpretation, that meant compensation for the surrender of the opium into which they had been coerced. If he were wrong in his supposition that this was the noble Lord's meaning, he would wish at once to be corrected. If he were not contradicted he should assume that he was right in his interpretation. Setting aside the general policy of the war, let him consider what effect the present expedition had upon the opium trade itself. There were very many persons who took an interest in this portion of the question, and it was right that they, at least, should know how direct had been the influence which this expedition had exercised in the promotion of the trade. A very few figures would place the matter in a clear light. At Calcutta,

1031
during the October sales, the Patna opium produced 437 rupees, and the Benares opium 413 rupees a chest. Between the October sales and the month of January, it became pretty generally known that hostile measures were to be taken against China; and in the February sales the Patna opium, which at the October sale produced 437 rupees, rose to 610 rupees; whilst the Benares opium, that had sold in October for 413 rupees, rose to 550 rupees. The amount of the vote which was proposed was 173,000 l., but it was said the other evening, that this was a mere mite as compared with what the total expenditure was likely to be, and that possibly the charges connected with the operations would equal this sum. Supposing, however, that the armament should be conducted as cheaply as the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given the House to understand—that this should be the cheapest war upon record—what might be the consequence? Pecuniary compensation was demanded of the Chinese; what was to prevent them from saying that they would give the whole of the sum claimed, and afterwards imposing such a tax on tea and silk as should cover the amount? It was the belief of many persons that this course would be adopted, and who, he asked, would then pay for the compensation? The consumers of tea and of Chinese silks, and the British public would be twice taxed, instead of once. They must all feel that the greatest moral responsibility was incurred by those who commenced the war. The cruel waste of human life, the destruction of property, and the deprivation of comfort and happiness which would take place, would demand the most invincible necessity to justify the adoption of such measures as had been commenced. Was there any such necessity in reference to the demand for compensation? Had we any claim to compensation which was founded in justice? It was not his object to cast any blame upon the conduct of Captain Elliott, whose demeanour, in the position in which he was placed, was that only which he could have exhibited, for in March, 1839, affairs had reached such a pass that it was impossible for Captain Elliott, amidst conflicting difficulties, to choose any course not open to just reflection. It was not his intention either to prejudice the character or the name of those merchants who
1032
were interested in the opium trade. He said their character, because he thought it would be making a most ungenerous use of the circumstances which had occurred, if he attempted to implicate them in any discredit which might attach to the trade which they had carried on. Their character stood high in the commercial world, and there were many houses among them not surpassed in any part of the universe for honour, integrity, and enterprise; and it had been more their misfortune than their fault that they had been implicated in this unhappy conflict. Nor was it his intention to prejudice the claim which they had made. It would be monstrous to maintain that the opium merchants should be the sole sufferers by the seizures. Their claims for compensation were not advanced against the Chinese government, but against that of Great Britain, and although that claim had been disowned, he must be permitted to say a few words in support of it. The parties interested in the surrender of opium contended, first, that its value was guaranteed by Captain Elliott, and they were, therefore, entitled to the recognition of their claim. He must say, that he could not exactly understand how it was possible for the Government to continue Captain Elliott in the situation which he held, and to give its approbation of the line of policy which he had adopted; and, at the same time, to disown an act of his—not trifling or of secondary importance, but the corner stone upon which the maintenance of his whole system depended. This was a claim, therefore, he maintained, which was good against the Government, and against all those who approved of the conduct of Captain Elliott; and even supposing the guarantee to which he had alluded not to have been given, he still thought that if the seizure had occurred under the other circumstances of the case, on the ground of general equity, if a petition had been presented to that House, it would have been their duty to have lent a favourable ear to its prayer. Who had been the real gainers by the opium trade? The merchants, it was true, had been the principal parties concerned, and on them the responsibility must rest; but, after all, they had been merely the agents of higher powers, of the imperial authority of the Government; the Indian Government, principally, it could not be denied, but recognised and acknowledged

1033
by the Government at home, and that for a long series of years, not by any particular administration, but through many political changes, and without any variation. The conduct of the Indian Government, it was true, had been fully sanctioned by a committee of the House, but they had not only been the real parties in the opium trade, but the real gainers by its being carried on, for there was no doubt that the greater part of the profit had passed into the coffers of the East India Government. He said, therefore, that the claim, in his judgment, was one which was not to be rejected, but which that House at some time or other would sanction, and would favourably entertain. There was a general notion prevalent with respect to the conduct of the Chinese to foreigners, which, although no man would advance in the form of an argument against the system of dealing with the Chinese, did notwithstanding possess the minds of many men with an impression that because they were inhospitable in their manner of treating other nations, they should themselves also be treated with harshness. He conceived, however, that this notion was totally without foundation. It was impossible not to acknowledge the opinion expressed by Captain Elliott upon this subject, who said that they were the most moderate people upon earth; but he begged also to refer to the remarkable words used by Mr. Jardine, who had been long resident in Canton. In describing the conduct and character of the Chinese in January, 1839, two months before these occurrences, at a public dinner, he said,
"I have been a long time in this country, and have a few words to say in its favour. I must say, that here we find our persons and property more effectually protected by laws than in many other parts of the world. In China a man can go to sleep without a fear of his property or his life being endangered, which are well guarded by the excellent police which is established. Their trade is conducted with unexampled facility, and generally with singular good faith, although there are of course a few instances of a different description, which only the more forcibly bear out my opinion."
If this was the account given of the general conduct of the Chinese as a people, by a person himself the most deeply interested and implicated of all others in the transactions of the opium trade, then he did say that it was ungenerous to attempt to make out a case against them
1034
upon the ground of their comparative barbarity; and he thought that we were bound to trade with them in a spirit of equity, fair dealing, and humanity. Thedemand for compensation for the opium which had been surrendered rested, he concluded, upon this foundation, that the act was an unjust one. It was said that a system of connivance had been carried on by the Chinese governors, by the bribery of the inferior authorities. We, however, were only the offerers of the bribe, and had little right to take advantage of—our own misconduct. Mr. Marjoribanks, before the committee of 1832, attributed the system to the lower, and not to the higher Chinese authorities; but he still maintained that even this had ceased long before the occasion which the House was now considering. It was argued next, that the confiscation of the opium was a penalty not justified by the Chinese law, or by usage. In point of fact, however, when they looked into the real circumstances of the case, they found that the law of China rested upon edict only; and that whatever was declared by edict was law, and that no other law was known. The argument upon the law of China, therefore, failed. Then, with regard to custom, no one could deny that confiscation was the usual, as well as the most natural and appropriate punishment for smuggling, and so far from this custom not being recognised and acted upon in China, it appeared from statements made on behalf of the persons interested in the seizure, that from the year 1821 down to the present time all foreign ships entering the Canton river with opium were deemed and held liable to confiscation, or to be expelled the river, and to be constantly interdicted from trading there. Then it would be a narrow ground, indeed, to take, that although the right of confiscation extended to the Canton river, it was not to be carried beyond that. It was not a question of legal jurisdiction, but if it were, the maritime jurisdiction of China was not confined to the river Canton. The waters of China extended far beyond that, and the opium which was confiscated was found far within their limits. Then it was urged that the measures which had been taken were sudden and unexpected, and of which no reasonable anticipation could have been formed. It stood proved upon the evidence of the witnesses who were examined before the committee that

1035
the policy of the Chinese had materially altered within the last three years, and that in the spring of 1839 it was impossible for any person, except such as were blinded by prejudice or interest, not to see that a crisis was about to take place. An edict of punishment was published against the natives who should be guilty of being parties to the trade, and of banishment against all merchants who should so offend against their laws. These and almost innumerable other acts of the Chinese government sufficiently indicated their determination, and no good reason could be shown for the continuance of the traffic, except that which was founded upon the fact of these parties having got into the trade, and of their unwillingness to withdraw from it, unless it should be absolutely necessary. Mr. Inglis stated in his evidence, that he was convinced, long before these circumstances occurred, that a crisis was at hand, and that he had I informed Captain Elliott of his belief four or five years before; while Mr. Jardine also expressed the opinion, in the month of December, 1838, that the Emperor was in earnest in his declared intentions. The plea, therefore, that no notice had been given was totally worthless, for it was clear that every means had been adopted which could possibly be taken to convey a knowledge of the determination of the authorities to put the law in force, as it had been frequently declared. It was also said that the Chinese, contrary to the law of nations placed in duress a community of innocent foreigners for the purpose of obtaining the goods which only belonged to a portion of them. He thought, however, that it was clear that the general law of nations could not be rendered applicable to China. That law was divisible into that which must be considered to be the law of nature, which was the universal rule by which all mankind must be governed, and that which was more peculiarly the law of nations as resulting from the improvements effected by the civilization of society. China, however, could not be considered to be amenable to the latter portion of the law, because, partially barbarous, she had never admitted its necessity, nor subscribed to its provisions, and the circumstances of this part of the case could not for one moment, be said to come within the line of that rule, which must be looked upon as the universally acknowledged law
1036
of mankind. The merchants had been only, in fact, surrounded by a species of cordon, which prevented their quitting Canton, and which, in fact, amounted to no more than to a refusal of a passport to leave that place. The noble Viscount, he presumed, would admit that there had been no actual imprisonment before the arrival of Captain Elliott. [Viscount Palmerston would not admit any such thing.] Then the noble Lord would deny that which was stated by witnesses before the committee, and he thought that the coble Lord would have done well to have attended the committee in order, that he might have been informed upon this point. There had been no violation of the law of nature or the law of nations on the part of the Chinese. At the time when Mr. Dent's presence was demanded by the Chinese, they used no violence. Their reason for demanding Mr. Dent's presence was declared by Mr. Inglis to be, that be was known to be extremely popular among the Chinese, and that they knew him to be of consequence among his own countrymen. It was a question, then, if Captain Elliot had been out of the way, how far the merchants would have been able to make arrangements for themselves with the Chinese. The remaining point was, how far the person of her Majesty's representative had been insulted by the Chinese, though he was at a loss to understand how, even if that were proved, it could be made a justification for demanding compensation for a trade, if admitted to be contraband. It appeared to him, however, as had already been stated, that the first injustice consisted in terming Captain Elliot the representative of the queen. By the Chinese he had only been received as; a commercial officer, and it was unjust to contend that the Chinese were responsible as if they had known him in the character: of a regularly-accredited diplomatic agent. In the official edicts of the Chinese, on Captain Elliott's arrival, his office was expressly recognised as the same as that of the supercargo of the East India Company, though his rank was known to be different. If Captain Elliott was a consul: only (and he could not be said to be anything higher), the principles applicable to him could not be the same as those that would be applicable to a public minister of the country; and before you argued that he ought to have been treated as the representative of the Queen by the

1037
Chinese, you ought to show that he had been received by them as such. This the official records of the Chinese denied. On the other hand, by making himself a party to the detention of Mr. Dent, and by declaring his intention of defending the opium ships, he had identified himself, in the eyes of the Chinese, with a traffic which they deemed contraband, at the same time that he was not invested, in their estimation, with any diplomatic character. Because Captain Elliot placed himself in a false position, were the Chinese to be debarred from taking any steps which they might think fit in order to put an end to the opium smuggling on their coasts? It might be said, that they had not pursued a right course in their endeavour to do this. It might be said "why did they not take possession of the smuggling ships?" But did any hon. Member believe that the war junks of the Chinese were equal to capturing these armed vessels? He would not stop, however, to inquire whether or not the Chinese had technically put themselves in the wrong. They might have done so in their subsequent proceedings, but what he contended was, that at the time when Captain Elliot threw himself into Canton the policy of the Chinese was not bloody; that their confiscation of the opium did not involve any substantial injustice; and that we had no right to make that confiscation either the subject of a war, or the ground of a demand of the value of the opium confiscated. If the exaction of the compensation was delayed, he was convinced that the time would come when it would be difficult to persuade the British House of Commons to sanction it. He recommended the noble Lord, therefore, to use great speed before the indignation of the country was aroused upon the subject.
Sir John Hobhousesaid that, although the hon. Gentleman was undoubtedly perfectly justified in delivering his sentiments on the present occasion, yet at the end of the speech as at the beginning of it, he had not the slighest conception of the good the hon. Member proposed to attain by it. He did not feel himself called upon to follow the hon. Member through all the topics of his speech. It was in almost all respects only a repetition of the China debate. Since the 9th April, when that debate occurred, a committee had been appointed to inquire into the subject of
1038
compensation, which committee, he presumed, had performed its duties fully, examining into every case for and against any parties. Their labours, however, led to no practical result, for they reported their proceedings only, without any opinion. The hon. Member alleged that one effect of the armament would be to increase the contraband trade in opium. The opium smuggling would go on increasing until the Chinese Government ceased to act in defiance of the determined wishes and habits of the people. Captain Elliott had foretold that the trade would go on increasing until the Chinese had entered into some established relations with us. The opium trade had already been sanctioned by two committees of that House, and by Mr. Grant in 1833, when President of the Board of Control, in a speech to that House on the effects of it. On that occasion the subject was received with perfect quiescence, no Member rising to oppose it but Mr. Buckingham, and he could not meet with a seconder. But if he was unable to comprehend the principle on which the argument of the hon. Gentleman was grounded or the trade itself was based, still more was he at a loss to understand what could induce him to characterise the proceedings at Canton. He could not conceive what had induced him to characterise the atrocious conduct of the Chinese authorities at Canton as nothing more than a mere ebullition, an infirmity of human nature, which might well be pardoned. For his own part, he could not look at those proceedings but with the utmost horror and indignation—proceedings which had led the Duke of Wellington to say, "made every drop of blood boil in the veins" He was surprised, too, to hear the hon. Gentleman say, that there had not been, on the part of the superior authorities at Canton, connivance at the opium trade. The hon. Gentleman might speak upon peculiar evidence, but he took the written records of those who were resident at Canton. No connivance! What did the hon. Gentleman say to the Viceroy himself conniving? He did not mean to say that their participation in the trade was a common every day practice, but that when matters were at a push it was the practice of the highest authorities at Canton to participate in the smuggling. But the hon. Gentleman argued, what objection could be raised to the confiscation of the

1039
contraband article. He admitted that no objection could be raised. But the question was how, and under what circumstances, was it confiscated? It was not the confiscation that was objected to, but the circumstances of severity under which it took place. The hon. Gentleman, however, denied its severity, it was with him a kind of gentle tyranny, a cordon drawn round the British. Yes, a gradual deprivation of all the means of subsistence, and wherever any of the servants were found to be British, shutting them up too. It appeared from the hon. Gentleman's statement that the Chinese authorities required Mr. Dent's appearance in the city, to show how popular he was amongst them; but then it might be said of other of the English merchants there, that they were so popular that the Chinese gave such an earnest of it that they would not part with them. Under these circumstances, it was hardly possible to tell what would have been the extent of their hospitality to the gentlemen he had alluded to. If the hon. Gentleman was not a very serious person, he could hardly have believed that he expected any one to agree with him on the subject. It was urged that this gentleman was a very important person to pass between the merchants and the Canton authorities, but the course that had been pursued was at any rate the best that could have been followed for the safety of that gentleman. The hon. Gentleman said, that the law of nations was not exactly to be applied to the Chinese. The hon. Gentleman was most difficult to deal with, in consequence of the mode that he adopted in arguing this question. He stated that he would not treat them as barbarians, because they were not deserving of being treated in that way; but, at the same time, the hon. Gentleman declared that he did not consider that they should be treated as civilized persons. On this ground the House was told, that the law of nations was not to be applied to them, but the law of nature. He did not agree in this opinion, nor did he think, that the Chinese were unlike any Europeans, or other people, in believing, that they were justified in taking the goods of another people, or their lives, with impunity. The law of nature, however, appeared to be the law which the hon. Gentleman thought was that which influenced the Chinese in their dealings with other nations. Let them, then, take
1040
that law, and he would ask, was there anything in it to justify one man taking the property of another at his will and pleasure? Was there any existing law, or any law that had ever been acknowledged, by which such a principle could be defended? He confessed, then, that he was utterly ignorant of any so called law of nature which could justify the Chinese authorities in the treatment which they had shown to our countrymen. He could not understand under what law men were justified in seizing persons for the purpose of getting possession of property on shipboard 120 miles off, over which they had no control, and thus making them amenable for their countrymen, for the purpose of obtaining the goods of the latter. The hon. Gentleman said, that the preventing the departure of the English merchants from Canton was analogous to the refusing passports in Europe. Could the hon. Gentleman be serious in contending that the conduct of the authorities in Canton, in withholding food and water from the English merchants, was anything like the refusal of a passport from Berlin, St. Petersburgh, or Paris, or any other of the capitals of Europe? [Mr. W. Gladstone: It was equivalent.] He had no objection to take the hon. Gentleman's words, and he was then to understand, that the treatment that those merchants experienced was only to be regarded as equivalent to refusing them their passports. He was justified in saying, then, according to this argument, that if his noble Friend, the Secretary for the Foreign Department, being asked for a passport, instead of doing so, shut a person up in his house, and took means of preventing his being supplied with provisions or water, he would be justified in so doing. If, therefore, he asked for a passport, his noble Friend would not only be justified in refusing it, but in taking care that he should be deprived of the means of getting a dinner. Was this the treatment to inflict on persons who had not infringed the law of the country they were in? Were they to be deprived of their liberty? Were they to be prevented obtaining supplies of food? Were they to have their servants taken from them, and only on special occasions to be allowed to be served with water, and that on the miserable plea urged by the hon. Gentleman? They were at length allowed water, and ultimately they were set at liberty; but that

1041
the treatment they experienced, did not end in their starvation or in the death of many of them, there were no thanks to the Chinese, nor to the authorities at Canton, nor to the tender mercies of Commissioner Lin. That this result was not attained was owing to the perseverance of the man to whose conduct and courage an illustrious Duke in another place had paid a due tribute. The Duke of Wellington had alluded in glowing terms to the chivalrous proceedings of Captain Elliot; and he trusted that, in spite of the denunciations of the hon. Gentleman, the results would turn out to be satisfactory to persons and property. The hon. Gentleman saw that there had been no violation of the law of nations on the part of the Chinese authorities; he would not allude to what the hon. Gentleman said on the last debate as to the conduct which the Chinese would be justified in pursuing; but what had occurred to justify the hon. Gentleman on this occasion in using such language in defence of those people? To use such expressions as the House had heard from the hon. Gentleman, was not only a perversion of language, but flying in the face of every proceeding that had ever been pursued by a free state, or even by any state that might be termed a tyrannical government. Neither his colleagues nor himself were afraid of the feeling or opinion of the country on this subject; for they felt assured that, upon reflection, their vindication would be the same as that which had been passed on them by the illustrious warrior in another place, and that it would be felt that that which they had followed was not only a just course, but that no other could have been pursued than that which they had adopted; and that if they had not taken the steps which they had, they would have been justly branded, not only with not having taken the best course, but with having acted contrary to humanity, justice, and religion. The hon. Gentleman refused to rate them amongst the civilized nations of the world; should this country then bow to them, and suffer such a people to plunder our merchants with impunity, when we would not allow any civilized power in the world to take from any of our people with impunity even the value of a farthing. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to the question of compensation, and stated that his noble Friend had urged these grounds of objection to it at one time.
1042
He would not press that part of the subject; but be felt bound to state that he thought that these merchants were fully justified in asking for compensation from the Chinese. According, however, to the hon. Gentleman, they were entitled to nothing of the kind, and the Chinese would be justified in seizing and shutting up, and depriving of food another 100 of our countrymen without the sacrifice of either humanity, religion, or justice; and, indeed, in treating them in any way they pleased, because they asserted that others of their countrymen had infringed the municipal laws of the country. He did not know that it was necessary for him to say more on this subject, although he knew that he had left many points dwelt on by the hon. Gentleman altogether untouched. With respect to many of them, he had not done so because he had thought that they were amply answered on the debate of the 9th of April; he would then only add, that then, as now, the hon. Gentleman did not show what earthly benefit was to be derived from adopting the course recommended by him.
Mr. G. Palmercommenced by saying that the whole of these transactions from beginning to end were the act of her Majesty's Government, and that the result had been a profit to the revenue of this country through India of l,000,000 l. or 1,500,000 l. per annum. [Sir J. Hobhouse: The average for about eight years has been 900,000 l] No matter what the amount might be, the interests of this country were involved in the revenue of India, and after certain payments that revenue centred in the ways and means of this country. From the documents before the House it could be seen that Captain Elliot had, from the beginning, acted as the great fosterer of this trade, and this was manifest from all his own letters and despatches, commencing from the date of February, 1837. [The hon. Member read long extracts from the correspondence on the table to support the assertion.] Captain Elliot had, in fact, identified himself and the Government in the recognition of it, and except in so far as the Government had refused to pay his bill, still they were as responsible as if they had done precisely that which Captain Elliot had done. He regarded the position of Captain Elliot as that of the representative of this country, and being such, to take care of its trade in the same way as would a consul. And what was

1043
the duly of a British Consul? Why, to take especial notice of all prohibitions as to the imports and exports of all articles stated to be illicit or detrimental to the revenues of the nation to which he was attached. It was his duty to guard against the selfish views of individuals, and to prevent them from causing by violating the laws of the country in which he resided, injury or damage to the shipping and commerce of the country to which they belonged. Now, the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Hobhouse) had endeavoured to separate the Government from this practice of smuggling opium into China. If it were smuggling, this country and the East India Company had been as much parties to it as any other individuals, and what was more, had derived a great portion of the profits of that trade—they were both interested just about in the same way as was the receiver of stolen goods in the product of the commodity. In short, they were all parties together, and were all responsible for the consequences. There was not the smallest doubt but that the trade had been forced on by the Government of this country, to an extent to which this country had no right to enforce it, and the representative of the British Government ought never to suffer under the guns of the ships of his nation & smuggling trade to be carried on in contravention of the laws of the country in which he was by the authority of the Crown invested with authority. He thanked the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Gladstone) for bringing forward this matter, and thus enabling him to disavow and disclaim the course which the Government had taken in this matter, a course which, Sri his view, was a disgrace to the country.
Sir C. Grey: The hon. Gentleman who had brought forward this question, as well as those who took the same views, argued it not upon broad and general principles, but as it appeared, with the object of throwing the whole blame of the war with China, which was now pending, upon the present Ministry. It should seem that the circumstances out of which the present State of things with China arose, had existed before the present Government was formed, and previous to the granting of the charter of 1813 to the East India Company. Hon. Gentlemen would remember who they were that formed the Government at that period, and, perhaps, the noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool
1044
(Viscount Sandon) might have some tradition in his family concerning the protection then given to this trade. When the opium trade was in its nascent trade, it might have been so regulated as to prevent the evils which had since unhappily occurred, and which were greatly owing to the absurd and unsocial policy with which the Chinese people entrenched themselves, but it was scarcely possible from that policy to negociate with them in an intelligible manner, and the consequence was, that for the last ten years the opium trade was in such a state, that no Government of this country could put an end to it without the concurrence of the Chinese government. It would appear that China was desirous of deriving all the advantages arising out of commerce, but, forsooth, the "inhabitants of the celestial kingdom," "the flowery land" would not condescend to treat with us upon equal terms, and the natural consequences followed. How could it be otherwise with a trade so extensively carried on, not only with England but with other European States, and with the United States of America under such undefined and imperfect regulations. As to competition with our force, from all he could learn, if our fleet escaped the storm, he had no hesitation in believing that its operations would at once vindicate the honour of this country, and in the end benefit China itself. According to his view, the first point to be gained was, that the Chinese should in so far be brought to reason as to abstain from issuing edicts, and be prepared to agree to mutual arrangements with other governments. When they so far approached to reason, we should have accomplished a great moral conquest, and our merchants would find ample indemnity and compensation in an enlarged intercourse with a great family of mankind.
Viscount Sandonhad not intended to take part in this debate, as none of the statements or arguments of the hon. Member for Newark had been at all answered; but he wished to say a few words upon what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down. He did not think that the Government would be pleased with the advocacy of the hon. Gentleman, for he had gone so far as to say that the Chinese policy of excluding us from trading with them on our own terms was illegal. He could not imagine in what school the hon. and learned Gen-

1045
tleman had learned that doctrine. Certainly with regard to the attempts made by the French Government to force their trade on the republics of South America, both the noble Lord opposite (Palmerston) and the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had declared, that a war on such grounds was perfectly untenable. They rested their opposition to this war on broad grounds; they saw with regret, this country forced into a war which presented only this alternative—either that the honour of the country should be tarnished by failure, or a great country be compelled to admit a traffic of a most noxious nature, which she was most anxious to repel. That was the broad question at issue. The British Parliament, and the British Government, and the East India Company, had for a long time been encouraging the trade in this noxious article. The Chinese Government had winked at this trade; many of their officers had connived at it, and some, perhaps, shared in it; but at that time the trade was small; the evil, however, grew. It extended itself into the interior of the country; it affected the court, the camp, and the places of education; and it was now contended, that because the Chinese Government had winked at the traffic when it was small, they were to be for ever prevented from taking vigorous measures for its suppression, even when it threatened to disturb the whole social system of the empire. The Chinese Government had given, too, every possible notice of their determination. The discussions in the cabinet were published, and it was known that an opposite policy had been proposed and rejected. The severest measures were taken, and indeed it was not until every measure of severity had been exhausted that they had recourse to that extraordinary proceeding, inconsistent, no doubt, with the ordinary practice of civilised nations, but not more so than the unwarrantable encouragement of the opium trade. The Chinese Government had even urged upon the British commissioner to represent to his Government how essential it was that England should co-operate with them in putting down that trade; and had departed from its usual policy by promising, upon those terms, to enter into an agreement to settle the lawful trade satisfactorily. This transaction had been spoken of as if the merchants who had been shut up at Canton had suffered hard-
1046
ships; but that was distinctly disproved by the statements of Mr. Inglis, who said that, except amongst the young and inexperienced merchants, not the slightest apprehensions were entertained, until the British commissioner had thrown himself into prison, and thus completely identified the Government with the illegal trade. Then, but not till then, a different course was pursued, which it was not necessary for him to defend. He trusted that, whatever might be the result of the present operations, Parliament and the Government would no longer recognise this trade; for so long as the Indian Government retained the monopoly of the growth of opium, and prepared it particularly for the Canton market, and so long as the British Government consented to make a great part of its revenue depend on the dissemination of that poison, they could not honestly and boldly say, "We are free from any implication in this trade." They could not but consider that we were juggling with them. He had not wished to enter upon the question, but he had been surprised to hear the Chinese policy denounced as illegal from the lips of so respectable a legal authority.
Viscount Palmerstondid not wish to prolong the conversation, which was somewhat irregular; but he was anxious that it should not close without some observations on his part. He concurred with his right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Control, in being unable to understand the precise bearing of the hon. Member for Newark's mind on the question, whether those persons who had lost their property by the acts of the Chinese Government, are or not entitled to compensation. In one part of the hon. Member's speech, he seemed to contend that the merchants were not entitled to compensation; but in another part of his speech he contended that compensation ought to be given to them, and that it ought to be given out of the revenues 'dl the country. Whichever was the opinion of the hon. Member, he was at a loss to understand the course which the hon. Member had taken with regard to this question. The hon. Member certainly appeared to entertain a very strong opinion, that the proceedings of the Government towards China were unjust, and ought not to be persevered in, for the hon. Member had staled that opinion very strongly, indeed much more strongly than he could

1047
have expected from any hon. Member, and had put forth principles which he was very sorry to hear expressed in that House. If, then, such were the hon. Member's opinion now, it was to be presumed, that such was his opinion at the beginning of the Session; and, supposing this to have been the case, when his noble Friend, the Secretary for the Colonies, had stated, that it was intended to demand from the Chinese satisfaction for the injuries and losses which her Majesty's subjects had suffered, why had not the hon. Member on that occasion made some motion in the sense of the observations which he had now addressed to the House, instead of reserving this strong expression of his disapprobation till the end of the Session, when it could be attended with no other practical result than to throw discredit on the cause of England. If the hon. Member thought the merchants were entitled to compensation out of the revenues of this country, why had not the hon. Member, when the House was voting the supplies for the year, proposed a vote for granting that compensation? With regard to the question between this country and China, the hon. Member had stated that one ground on which the Government founded its right to proceed against the Chinese was this—that no sufficient notice had been given to our subjects of the course which the Chinese Government intended to pursue. Now, this was not the ground on which the British Government proceeded. It was true, that in point of fact no notice whatever had been given; but if notice had been given, it could not have altered the character of the proceedings which had been resorted to, and which were alike contrary to the law of nations, to the law of nature, and to every principle which should guide the intercourse between man and man. Was it consistent with the law of justice or of nature to seize the innocent because you could not take hold of the guilty, and by their sufferings to extort from others property which you could not otherwise reach? He was never more surprised than at hearing the hon. Member state that to be the law of nature which was the law of banditti, who seized upon travellers, carried them to the mountains, and there starved or shot them, unless their friends sent such sums of money for ransom as the robbers chose to demand. There was no difference whatever in point of principle. Therefore he
1048
was astonished when he heard such doctrines from the hon. Member, who would be the last man to give by his example the least countenance to a principle which would justify the most atrocious acts that had been committed either in ancient or modern times, which would lead to a general corruption of public morals, and which were wholly inconsistent with justice between man and man. The great principles of public morality should never be broken down for the sake of a temporary or party triumph. The hon. Member had talked of the sin of poisoning the Chinese people by sending opium among them; it was as great an offence to poison the public mind by producing a disregard for the great principles on which the welfare of every one depended. The hon. Member disputed the fact of the English having been imprisoned and threatened with starvation; but he thought the statement was fully borne out, and when the hon. Member spoke as if Mr. Dent had been sent for only because they were very fond of his company, their affection seemed to him like that of Isaac Walton for the frog, which he directs his disciples to handle when they put the hook through him as if they loved him, Mr. Dent was very wise in not trusting to their affection. The hon. Member said, that we were not entitled to redress for the treatment to which our commercial representative in China, as the hon. Member called him, had been exposed, and the hon. Member said, that Captain Elliot was not our representative, he being not a diplomatic but a commercial agent. But that argument did not deserve a serious answer. When the British Government appointed an agent to protect the interests of British subjects, and to urge their claims against the Government of the country to which the agent was sent, whether he were called a diplomatic or commercial agent, he was equally entitled to respect, and if outrage were offered to him, the nation was outraged in his person, and was entitled to demand satisfaction, reparation, and redress. The hon. Member said, that according to writers on the law of nations, consuls were not protected; but there were many instances in which they had been considered entitled to protection. He need hardly refer to the dispute between the French Government and the Barbary chief, when the French consul being threatened with execution for some offence—

1049
"Quoted Wicquefort,
And Puffendorf and Grotius,
And proved from Vattel
Exceedingly well,
Such a deed would be quite atrocious."
But did the hon. Member forget, that the proceedings which had been recently taken by the French Government against the Dey of Algiers, and the present occupation of Algiers by France, had their origin in an insult offered to the French consul? The hon. Member had timed the expression of his sentiments rather ill, for if he thought the measures taken against the Chinese for the purpose of obtaining compensation were unjust, he ought to have acted upon his opinions when there was yet time for them to be of some effect, either on the occasion to which he had already adverted, or on the debate which had taken place upon the motion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Pembroke. It was stated in the course of that discussion, that a quick sailing ship might then prevent further mischief. Why was the hon. Member for Newark silent on that occasion? He had made a speech, but had not proposed as an amendment that a quick sailing ship should be despatched. But after denouncing the proceedings of the Government as abominable and atrocious, and inconsistent with humanity and religion, what advice had the hon. Member addressed to the Government? Why, he recommended them to lose no time, and thinking, perhaps, of the maxim, "bis dat qui dat cito," the hon. Member threatened the Government with public indignation in case of delay. Nothing that had fallen from the hon. Member had altered his view of this matter, fortified as he was, not only by a conviction, but by the opinion which had been quoted by his hon. Friend, and by the general opinion of the country, and while he regretted the necessity which imposed on the Government the duty of taking hostile measures against any nation, and especially against one between which and ourselves nothing but an intercourse of a commercial nature had taken place, he felt we should abandon our duty if we hesitated to use those means which the honour and interests of the country demanded.
Sir R. Peelsaid, our relations with China were at present in a very complicated state, and it was possible that the result might be embarrassing in the highest degree. With regard to the
1050
compensation due to the merchants, conceiving that their claims were well founded, and that they were entitled to compensation from some source, he feared that the burthen of compensating them would fall on British trade and commerce. Although we might be able to find sufficient funds for the purpose, and although they might, in the first instance, be procured from the Chinese, it was the commerce of this country which would ultimately suffer. He still thought, the course taken by the Government could not be justified; for while the insults which had been offered to British subjects by the Chinese government were unjustifiable, he felt that the complication of affairs was mainly attributable to the want of proper foresight and precaution on the part of the Government, A series of proceedings had taken place which had ended in acts of violence, but these acts were not to be judged of abstractedly and with reference merely to their own character, but they must be looked at in connexion with the whole series of transactions, and he believed they might have been guarded against had the Government exercised a proper degree of precaution and looked forward to contingencies which might have been regarded as highly probable. He had not heard that part of the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Newark which the noble Lord had commented upon in so harsh a tone, but he felt sure that his hon. Friend was actuated by no other feeling than his own strong and conscientious feeling against the acts of the Government, which he considered to be acts of injustice, and such as were not warranted by the circumstance of the case. He thought that the noble Lord, in denouncing the principles which he attributed to his hon. Friend the Member for Newark, had himself gone a little too far; for the noble Lord said, that it was utterly inconsistent with either law, justice, or morality, for a nation to enforce its demands by seizing on the property of innocent individuals. [Viscount Palmerston: On their persons.] He thought there was no distinction in principle between seizing their property and their persons. The noble Lord compared such a proceeding to the practices of the banditti of Italy and Spain; but how had the noble Lord acted with regard to the sulphur question? Why, he had issued orders for

1051
seizing the property and persons of Neapolitan subjects, so that the noble Lord took the very course that he had denounced without qualification; he seized on the ships, the property, and the persons of individuals who were perfectly innocent, not for the purpose of inflicting wrong upon them, but in order to procure redress from the Neapolitan government. Did the noble Lord recollect the Dutch embargo? He in that case felt himself under the necessity of seizing the property and persons of Dutch merchants, who were as innocent of the cause of dispute as he (Sir R. Peel) was, because it was thought that their detention would be likely to raise such a clamour against the Dutch government as would induce that government to do justice. These in. stances proved that it was necessary to qualify the propositions which the noble Lord had laid down in so peremptory a form.
Mr. Hawessaid, that the hon. Member for Newark appeared to forget that the Chinese government had invited the government of this country to send an officer to take the superintendence of the trade on the expiration of the East India Company's charter. An edict was issued on the subject, and therefore the British superintendent was recognized by the Chinese government. There was no doubt of the brutal and inhuman treatment the representative of the British Government and the British residents had received, and that, he conceived, was a good ground for demanding reparation from the Chinese government. The question was of the greatest importance to our commercial policy. He thought hon. Gentlemen opposite were hardly entitled to say, that a war had actually commenced with China. He hoped that a strong demonstration of the power of Great Britain might be the means of procuring something like justice from that barbarian government. The conduct of Captain Elliot had been characterised by the greatest possible energy and discretion, in circumstances of almost unparalleled difficulty; and for the property which had been unjustly seized, the British Government were bound to exact compensation at the point of the bayonet.
Mr. Humeadmitted the illegality of the traffic in opium, but contended, that from the moment British subjects at Canton were placed in prison to the
1052
danger of their lives the Chinese became the aggressors, and the British Government were bound to insist upon reparation; but, at the same time, he could not think that her Majesty's Ministers had adopted the wisest course in refusing, while they sanctioned the conduct of Captain Elliot, to recognise the claims of the British merchants to compensation. Considering the vicinity of China to the Burmese empire, he could not help thinking, that the peace of India greatly depended on our vindicating British supremacy before China.
Mr. Macleansaid, that looking at the facts of Captain Elliot's imprisonment, and the subsequent proceedings of the Chinese, he was not prepared to say that the Government was wrong in the steps it had taken to vindicate the national honour. But there were many other circumstances attendant on this transaction, which had not been properly investigated, and he did think that there were strong claims in behalf of British merchants, on the Government for compensation. An immense quantity of property was given up by British merchants to Captain Elliot, on his requisition, he undertaking to pay for it, and giving certificates for some portion, and drawing bills of exchange on the Government for the remainder. Yet her Majesty's Government did not intend to recognise this act of Captain Elliot's. He thought this was not fair or just to the British merchant. It might be a delicate thing to admit a claim for compensation to the amount of 2,400,000 l. worth of opium; but it was not a delicate thing for the Government to recognise that British merchants had some claim against them for the destruction of that property, on the destruction of which, the Government founded its own claim for compensation against China. He thought that the Government ought not to do more than exact from the empire of China a just retribution for the injuries received. But what he wished to know was, whether compensation was to be exacted from them for the property destroyed, or simply for personal injury? If the Government did not admit the claim of the merchants on them, they would be placed in a delicate situation when they came to make the demands on the Emperor of China, and, if they did not admit the claim, he thought they would act not only without sufficient consideration for the interests of the mer-

1053
chants, but shake the confidence, not merely of our own merchants but of other nations, in the future acts of our accredited officers.
Mr. Elliotacknowledged the consideration shown in a former debate, by the hon. Gentlemen opposite, to his relative, Captain Elliot, who had been placed in a situation of difficulty and embarrassment. On the present occasion, however, his conduct had been made the subject of one or two attacks. The hon. Member for Essex had charged Captain Elliot with identifying himself with the opium trade, because he had sent to the admiral on the eastern station for a man of war. Now, this proceeding coincided with the advice of the Duke of Wellington, which it had been made a charge against the Government that they had not acted on. The hon. Member had also said, that Captain Elliot had withheld from the merchants at Canton a communication, which he received from the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, cautioning him not to give protection to the merchants engaged in the smuggling trade. In this statement the hon. Member was entirely mistaken, for Captain Elliot published the communication in the papers of Canton. The next charge brought by the hon. Member against Captain Elliot was, that he allowed the opium to be landed under his guns; but if the custom-house officers of the country did not prevent the landing of the goods, what authority had Captain Elliot to interfere? The noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, had distinctly stated that the community in Canton were in no danger until the arrival of Captain Elliot there, implying thereby, that Captain Elliot was the cause of all the risk in which they were placed; and in proof of his statement he quoted from evidence which had been merely obtained with reference to the question of compensation. He (Mr. Elliot) had, in order to put the matter in a right position, cross-examined the witnesses, and the result was, that they admitted that a memorial, setting forth that the British inhabitants of Canton felt both their lives and property in a position of fearful jeopardy previous to the arrival of Captain Elliot, had been signed by all the principal merchants there. He had also felt it his duty to ask several of the witnesses, Mr. Jardine among the number, whether, from any circumstances which had occurred within their experi-
1054
ence, they could form any judgment what the proceedings of Commissioner Lin might be? and they replied that his conduct completely baffled their judgment. After this sort of evidence had been given, it was hardly fair in hon. Members opposite to endeavour to make out a case by garbling evidence.
Mr. Muntzthought the Government would not have been fit to administer the affairs of the country another day, if they had not had spirit to demand reparation for the insults heaped on this nation.
Mr. J. A. Smithcondemned the conduct of the Government with regard to the compensation part of the question. After the conduct of Captain Elliot, he did not see how it was possible to refuse the merchants compensation, whether that compensation was ultimately paid by the Chinese or the British Government. The disavowal of that particular act of Captain Elliot was calculated to destroy all confidence in the agents of the British Government. Captain Elliot's name would be dishonoured, commercially speaking, from one end of the kingdom to the other, and yet he was still retained in his post. The Ministry appeared to have acknowledged all Captain Elliot's acts which they thought tended to their own interests, while they disavowed others when it suited their own purpose. Nevertheless the policy of the Government in the war had his entire and most sincere concurrence. He thought the war was just. He believed that the way to produce a good system of commercial intercourse with China was to exhibit a large British force on that part of the world.
Mr. W. Hobhousethought that the Government could not have awarded compensation for the opium surrendered, because, in giving the orders on the British Government, Captain Elliot had exceeded his instructions, but yet he thought that Captain Elliot was properly retained in her Majesty's service as commissioner, because he had acted in that. instance under duress, and for the purpose of saving the lives and properly of the British community.
Resolution agreed to.

SUPPLY—LONDON UNIVERSITY.
On the resolution granting 5,418 l. for the expense of the London University.
Mr. Humeapproved, in every way, of

1055
the intention of this institution, but he complained of the manner in which it seemed to be resolved to carry its object into effect. He thought that the charter limited too much the places from whence, and the patties who were to be examined. He held that there ought to be no restrictions, but that the University ought to be open to persons from all parts of the kingdom, whereas, as yet, no one could apply for examination for honours unless he came from one of the schools or places of education which had received the sanction of the Secretary of State, with the single exception of medical schools to students from which the admission was in the discretion of the council. In this respect he trusted that the new charter, which it seemed likely must be had, or at least that some modification of the present, would establish a complete alteration. With regard to the management of the University, the scale of expenditure seemed to him to be altogether unwarranted by the number of students to be examined. One of the first acts of the body was to appoint a secretary with 1,000 l. a year, and this was for some time persisted in, contrary to the wishes of Government, though afterwards the salary was reduced to 600 l. a-year. This showed a disposition to extravagance on the part of the council, and the necessity of the Government having some check and control over them. Another of their acts was to resolve, that examiners, with salaries, might be appointed from among themselves. This was most objectionable, being liable to abuse of the worst kind. This had been passed by a majority of seven to two. Letters were written before the day of voting to each of the members of the council to know whether he would agree to be appointed an examiner in case the election should fall upon him. This was a most inconsistent proceeding, but only one member, Mr. Thirlwal, refused, alleging that such an office was inconsistent with his situation as a member of council. He was willing to make considerable allowance for the defects of an infant establishment, but really he thought there was no excuse for the mode in which the examiners were appointed. He had the list of appointments now before him, and he must say that the scale of salary, compared with the work to be done, would be enormous, if the institution were endowed with funds like Oxford and
1056
Cambridge; but, considering that it depended upon the public money voted to it on the promise that it should proceed with the utmost economy, there was gross violation of the principles upon which it was established. The list stated the aggregate sum for the examiners for 1841 to be 3,221 l. There were fourteen or fifteen, and several professors were examiners, in two or three cases each. The professor of chemistry for two days' examination, three hours each day, had 50 l. Professor Henslow had 50 l. for examining in arts, and another had an equal sum for another examination. He did not mean to undervalue the merits of the examiners, who were paid; but he did think that examiners could be obtained who would be content to serve in such an institution for the sake of the honour and reputation the connexion would bring them, without any stipulation for profit. Several professors had 250 l. each, others had 150 l. One professor had 250 l. for twenty-seven hours' examination. The professors of anatomy and physiology had 2502. each for five days' examination, or fifteen hours each. This scale was certainly a great deal too high; but, to be sure, the gentlemen had the power of appointing their own salaries. He was sorry to say anything that might give them pain, but he spoke in the wish to bring back the institution to that sound state in which it should have commenced. Whether it was with the Secretary of State or the Chancellor of the Exchequer the right of control rested, something should be immediately done to put a stop to such extravagant expenditure by preventing the senate from appointing the examiners or fixing their salaries. But most of all he objected that the University should refuse its degrees to students from any place of education. It should be open to all, without any distinction of place, regarding them only according to their acquirements. He was sorry that it was so limited in the number of its students. He was willing to make great allowances for an institution in its commencement; he had no intention to oppose the vote, but he hoped henceforward to see the institution conducted with economy, and with a closer adherence to the principles upon which it was founded.
Mr. R. Gordonwas quite sure the hon. Gentleman did not mean to do any harm to the institution. It appeared to him

1057
that the great complaint was, that the board of examiners fixed their own salaries; but this was in accordance with the original constitution. If gentlemen were brought from a distance, and were induced to give up their professions for some five days, whilst employed as examiners, he thought it not too much, and it was hardly fair in an institution of this kind to estimate the pay by the small number of candidates. In the present year the number of candidates for examination were doubled in medicine, and more than doubled in arts.
Sir R. Peelthought it very absurd that the gentlemen of the senate, out of their own body, should find all the examiners, and themselves fix the salaries
Mr. R. Gordonsaid, the whole number of the senate fixed the salaries, and a certain number were appointed examiners.
Sir R. Peelsaid, there was no authority for their fixing the salaries without the control of the Treasury. He must say, that a more extravagant remuneration for the amount of business done and the number of persons examined, he never saw in an old establishment, or in which the number of persons employed appeared so disproportionate to the number of persons examined. He thought that an infant establishment ought to have an infant number of examiners. He hoped that there would be some alteration in the power given of fixing the salaries. He could only express his heartfelt thanks that, instead of having twenty examiners, they had not forty, and that some of the examiners had been satisfied to take so little pay, considering the power as to the points which was vested in them.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdid not think the remuneration of these gentlemen very high in reference to what they were expected to do. He readily admitted that the salaries were large for the present amount of duties to be performed; but the question was this, they had to form an infant establishment, and he thought that in order to have an establishment whose endorsement should carry weight with the public, they should appoint persons of great weight and character, with the view that the examination might be such as to give a guarantee to the public that the degree was not merely a name.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
On the vote, that a sum not exceeding 5,000 l. be granted to her Majesty for defraying the expense of building a new hall for the general assembly of the Church of Scotland,
Sir R. Peelgave his entire concurrence to the vote. He would take the opportunity of saying, that he deeply regretted the dissensions in ecclesiastical matters which had taken place in Scotland. He had had opportunities of standing in close relation towards that Church, and he felt as strongly as any member of that Church could do, that the public acknowledgments were due to that Church for the services it had rendered. He considered it as one of the most important and useful instruments in propagating true religion, suited to the country in which it was placed, with reference to the past history and present social condition of that country, and calculated to maintain those principles of order and tranquillity which were insecure unless based on a sense of duty. He regretted that a portion of that Church had placed itself in opposition to the State on a question of civil right. The supreme tribunal of Scotland had given its decision, and an appeal had been made to the House of Lords. Upon a question which involved the interpretation of a statute, there could be no authority to act in defiance of a statute law of this country so interpreted. He saw that in Scotland, in reference to this case, allusion had been made to the division of authority which had taken place between the House of Commons and the Court of Queen's Bench. But the cases were quite different. The House of Commons asserted its right upon constitutional principles to interpret its own privileges. This question, which arose in Scotland, was on the interpretation of a statute, and there was no power to place an interpretation on a statute at variance with the regularly established tribunals of this country, and still less to reject a law which had been passed by the three branches of the Legislature. He regretted that the Church had come to a determination, not only to disregard the decision of the House of Lords, but to place a contrary interpretation on it, and that they had not felt the pre-eminent obligation of setting an example to all the subjects of her Majesty in Scotland of paying implicit deference to the law after it had been so interpreted. The Session ought not to pass over without an attempt

1059
to reconcile this difference. It appeared to him that the civil right of presentation was unquestionable, and that the right of the Church of Scotland to judge of the qualification of the party presented was as unquestionable. An attempt had been made in the course of this Session by a noble Friend of his (the Earl of Aberdeen) to compose these differences by the introduction of a declaratory act. He was exceedingly sorry that that bill so introduced into the House of Lords, which had received the sanction of that House by a large majority, on the second reading was not to receive the sanction of the Legislature. He was exceedingly sorry that the Church of Scotland did not take an active part in promoting the passing of that bill, If it had come to that House of Parliament, however unpopular it might have been, that bill should have had his cordial support. He was told that it was decidedly for the Conservative interest, that he should hold himself in favour of the spiritual authority to which the Church of Scotland laid claim. If he had thought that authority just and legal, no one would have more readily supported it: but if he believed that that ecclesiastical authority so claimed was unjust and illegal, he would not, for the purpose of conciliation, give his support to it. But he did not feel, that exemption from the force and operation of the statute law of the land could by any possibility advance the interests of any Church establishment, and he earnestly hoped that public opinion in Scotland during the recess would become more moderate, and that the Church of Scotland would look forward to an early settlement of these unfortunate differences through the intervention of Parliament, or by some other mode. He saw an indication of the disposition of the country to accede to the principle laid down in the bill introduced in another place by his noble Friend, from the petitions in its favour which he had presented to this House. He found that 250 ministers of the Church of Scotland, and, if he was not mistaken, upwards of 1,000 office-bearers in that establishment, had, in a declaration drawn up in most moderate terms—a declaration which afforded to him a sanguine anticipation that early next Session a conciliatory measure would pass—expressed an opinion to the effect, that the measure of Lord Aberdeen would accomplish every thing that the Church of Scotland could
1060
reasonably desire. Such was the substance of the declaration which had received the powerful support and the signatures of men of the highest eminence in the Church of Scotland. At present the question was left in a most perilous situation; the judgments of the courts had been pronounced—ministers of the Church had been suspended, and menaces had been held out that the law, as pronounced in Scotland, and recognised by the House of Lords, would be disregarded. He trusted that those menaces would not be acted on. He regretted that the bill of his noble Friend had not this Session received the sanction of both branches of the Legislature; he regretted that some portion of the Church had taken part in the opposition to that measure; but of this he was certain, that no bill containing terms more favourable to the Church itself could ever pass into a law. The objection in this House to that bill would have been that it was too favourable to the Church. Here there would have been exhibited a wish to curtail the Church of its authority, and speaking of ecclesiastical authority, he could conceive a bill introducing a more popular election in the choice of Ministers, but he was satisfied no bill could pass more favourable to the Church than the measure of his noble Friend. He wished to say nothing that could at all prejudice a conciliatory settlement of this question, but he had thought it necessary, as one who viewed the Church of Scotland with feelings of respect and regard, to say that he could not support the claims preferred by that Church against the law laid down by the proper tribunals of the country. The best evidence he could offer to the Church of Scotland of his regard and respect for it was, to take this opportunity of inculcating upon its authorities a strict obedience to the law; and, above all, 16 express a hope that the obligations imposed upon them would induce them to set an example to those in communion with that Church by their own acts of deference and obedience to that law, as laid down by the constitutional authorities of the country.
Mr. F. Maulewas satisfied that his countrymen would be well pleased that the right hon. Baronet had been pleased to express his attachment and regard for the Church to which they belonged. If that Church had set itself up against the law of the land in matters of civil rights, he

1061
would be the last man to stand up in its defence. But the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland had over and over again declared, that so far as civil rights were concerned, it would bow implicitly to the decisions of the law; but so closely was the possession of benefices bound together with the induction to the cure of souls, that it was scarcely possible for those not acquainted with the constitution of the Church of Scotland to draw a line of demarcation between those two rights. But to those who knew the constitution of the Church, the line was clear and distinct, and to them it was apparent that all the Church and the General Assembly had done was to say, that while on the one hand they obeyed the law as to benefices, still they owed a duty to a higher authority than man, when they inducted to a portion of their Church any individual who had a cure of souls. On this point it was, that the General Assembly had maintained the constitution of the Church of Scotland, and had recognized and upheld—as he trusted they would ever recognise and uphold—the principle of what was called non-intrusion. He and they held it to be a principle of the Presbyterian Church, that no minister should be placed over a parish contrary to the will of the parishioners. If he were, he would be intruded contrary to the principles of the Established Church, and if the right hon. Baronet opposite thought that the bill which had been introduced by a noble Earl into the other House would tend in the slightest degree to remove the difficulties in the way of the settlement of this question, he must tell the right hon. Baronet that he had been misled and misinformed upon the subject. Those who had opposed that bill, had neither shown themselves disposed to seek for further ecclesiastical power, nor to shrink from the duties they owed to a loving and affectionate people. What the General Assembly had contended for was, the right of the people to approve of the minister called to preside over their spiritual interests, and what the bill introduced into the other House of Parliament would have done was, to enable the presbytery veto to override the popular veto. The right hon. Baronet opposite had alluded to a declaration in favour of the measure signed by certain Ministers and office-bearers. Now, before that bill had been introduced, two other measures had been framed, in favour
1062
of which another declaration had been signed, but not put forth, by 2,600 ministers and elders; and a minute of the Assembly, dated May 13th, 1840, spoke of one of those measures being calculated to bring about peace and harmony, and to effect a real and permanent adjustment. This document he found in the newspapers that had been received from Scotland that morning, and the names were printed of every member of that body who signed it, and he found affixed to it the signatures of not less than 383 ministers and 2,254 elders, making together upwards of 2,600 officers of the Church of Scotland. He was anxious to repudiate the use of violent or intemperate language in the discussion of this question, but he could not help feeling that much that had occurred on the part of the Church had arisen from the attachment of many of the members of it to popular rights. He did not, and he was sure that those who signed the declaration he had just referred to, did not wish to maintain any exclusive power, but he was satisfied that the general feeling of the people belonging to the Church of Scotland on this subject had arisen from their belief that the popular rights were mixed up in the exercise of the veto as they were mixed up in other institutions. The right hon. Gentleman expressed a hope that the ministers of the Church of Scotland would show to their respective flocks an example of devoted obedience to the laws of the country, and that they would induce them not to persist in their present opinions. He had no doubt that those clergymen would preach peace and good will to men, and would induce their flocks duly to observe all those matters which they were bound to obey; but if the right hon. Gentleman meant to say that those persons who had gone through so much obloquy, and been exposed to so much difficulty for the conscientious declaration of their opinions, should desert those points which they had contended for with so much zeal and ability, and thus abandon what they sincerely believed to be their sacred duty, he (Mr. F. Maule) felt bound to say that he could not concur in that expectation, He could not help comparing the bill introduced by the noble Earl elsewhere to that which had been passed in such an objectionable manner in 1711, and having reference to the same subject; for the Act of Lord Bolingbroke made a most serious

1063
inroad in the Church of Scotland. He could not forget how that act was passed and by what unfair means it was hurried through Parliament. It was carried through that House; and although at the bar of the other House counsel was heard against it, it was read a second time, committed, reported, and read a third time, all in the course of a week. That Act of 1711 had occasioned more secession and dissent from the Church of Scotland than all other causes together, and had been productive of the greatest evils. If, then, that measure had caused such a mighty rent in the Church of Scotland of that day, he hoped that he might be allowed to caution the right hon. Baronet and the House against following the course that had been adopted with regard to the patronage bill. Let the right hon. Gentleman take care what course he took on this subject, for he might occasion a more severe rent in the Church than was caused by the former bill, and might pull down the establishment. The best means by which the Church of Scotland could be maintained was, in adhering as nearly as possible to its original constitution. He feared, if they adopted the feelings of what was called the moderate party in the Church, and again endeavoured to give them the ascendancy, by means of an Act of Parliament, and thus cause the dissent of a majority in the assembly, the result would be that the knell of the Church would be wrung. He believed that the question in the next Session must come before the House. He believed in another place that on this subject there was little sympathy with the great body of the people of Scotland. It was almost impossible that at the present time this question could be properly settled, but he trusted that by the time that it came before the Members of this House they would have proper grounds on which to proceed. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman, that during the recess, nothing could arise in reference to this subject which the present law was not strong enough to deal with.
Mr. Humesaid, that the question before the House was, whether 5,000 l. should be given for the purpose of building a hall for the use of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and he could not help complaining that neither the right hon. Baronet, nor the hon. the Undersecretary for the Home Department, had
1064
addressed themselves to it, but had diverged into a totally different matter. He could not help expressing his surprise at the General Assembly persisting in resisting the law, and it was a matter of astonishment to him that the Government should come down to ask for such a vote for such a body. Was not this conferring a reward for acting in defiance of the law; and after the question had been so often decided by the courts of Scotland as well as by the House of Lords, it was impossible that they could plead ignorance of the law. These persons called themselves men of God forsooth, but were they not creating and encouraging a resistance to the law? His hon. Friend said, that he was a supporter of non-intrusion, so was he, but he would tell his hon. Friend that he probably was not aware that by the mode in which he was supporting his opinion he was rendering the greatest support to the voluntary system. If this body wanted a hall to assemble in, the proper persons to be called upon to build it were the town council of Edinburgh. He objected, however, to building the hall, because the Church did not include more than half the people of Scotland. If the right hon. Baronet was as consistent on that subject as he was on most others, he would join him in resisting the vote, and he should certainly take the sense of the House against it.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that there was one question which he wished to ask the hon. Under Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman had given his opinion, that the civil law would be sufficient to put down all differences on the subject of the Church. Now supposing certain ministers were to obey the authority of the House of Lords, and that their functions were therefore suspended; was there any mode of affording them redress?
Mr. Fox Maulesaid, it was not fit for him to answer that question. He had no hesitation in re-stating what he before asserted—his opinion that the civil power would be found amply sufficient for the vindication of the law. The ecclesiastical court might have power to visit with its censure any disobedience to its law; but if it departed from its province, the parties affected would have their own remedy.
The Lord Advocatewas sure that the right hon. Baronet did not expect that he should enter on the discussion of a question of such magnitude as that which he

1065
alluded to on such an occasion, and at such an hour as the present. He could not help saying, however, that to charge the clergy as rebels arose from the grossest misapprehension of the case. The Ecclesiastical Court of Scotland never questioned the supreme rights of the civil courts in all civil cases, and their consequences; but then came the pinch of the question—shall the civil court have the power of compelling the presbytery to receive into orders any person who may be offered to them? The Auchterarder case did not go nearly to that extent; and he believed the majority of the judges on that occasion would repudiate such a construction. The conduct of the clergy could not be considered so reprehensible as it was described, when they bore in mind that their view was sanctioned by an able minority of the judges, and by a large portion of the profession. He believed that no measure would give satisfaction to the people, or alleviate the political disorder, which he deeply deplored, that did not give popular control. The late bill did the very reverse of this. It gave the Church the power due to the people, and which they had been taught to expect ever since the Reformation.
House divided on the question that the vote be agreed to:—Ayes 72; Noes 12—Majority 60.

List of the AYES.

Attwood, W.

Greenaway, C.

Baines, E.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.

Bannerman, A.

Grimsditch, T.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Handley, H.

Bellew, R. M.

Hodges, T. L.

Bernal, R.

Hodgson, R.

Blackburne, I.

Hogg, J. W.

Blair, J.

Horsman, E.

Bramston, T. W.

Hoskins, K.

Broadley, H.

Howard, hn. C. W. G.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Ingestrie, Viscount

Brownrigg, S.

Irton, S.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Jones, Captain

Burrell, Sir C.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Campbell, Sir J.

Lockhart, A. M.

Clay, W.

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

Cochrane, Sir T. J.

Morpeth, Viscount

Dalmeny, Lord

Morris, D.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Muntz, G. F.

Darby, G.

Nicholl, J.

Dunbar, G.

Palmerston, Viscount

Eliot, Lord

Parker, J,

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Pechell, Captain

French, F.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Gordon, R.

Pigot, D. R.

Gordon, hon. Captain

Praed, W. T.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Price, Sir R.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J

Rawdon, Colonel

1066

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Stuart, Lord J.

Sandon, Viscount

Style, Sir C.

Sanford, E. A.

Tennent, J. E.

Scholefield, J.

Tufnell, H.

Seymour, Lord

Vere, Sir C. B.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Wilde, Serjeant

Sibthorp, Colonel

Smith, R. V.

TELLERS.

Somers, J. P.

Maule, hon. F.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Steuart, R.

List of the NOES.

Baldwin, C. B.

Thornley, T.

Brotherton, J.

Vigors, N. A.

Duke, Sir J.

Wakley, T.

Evans, Sir De L.

Wood, B.

Hawes, B.

Hobhouse, T. B.

TELLERS.

Hutton, R.

Hume, J.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Warburton; H.

Vote agreed to.

PILOTS.
On the motion that the Pilots' Bill be read a third time,
Mr. W. Attwoodsaid, he had no intention of opposing the progress of the bill. It was intended to allow certain vessels to be relieved under particular circumstances from obligations and expenses to which they were now subjected, and he was bound to say, that he felt that the claim for relief was founded in justice in those cases to which the powers given by the bill were intended to apply, and he was satisfied that those powers would be exercised with due discretion so far as they were under the control of the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade. At the same time, he must observe that when the measure was originally introduced, he had entertained the hope that the President of the Board of Trade would have been enabled to take this opportunity of effecting a material improvement in some parts of the system of pilotage; that he would on this occasion have removed to some extent from an important class of British shipping burthens of a serious and, he must say, oppressive nature which now existed; and would have substituted a direct and positive relief for that indirect mode of avoiding those burthens which had been practically adopted, which had occasioned the necessity of this bill, and without the aid of which the trade of this country must have suffered to a very considerable extent. A large portion of the shipping interest looked with great anxiety to this question, and he hoped it would receive the attention which it merited.
Bill read a third time and passed.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Austrian Treaty; Metropolis Improvement; Marriage Act Amendment; Affirmation; Fisheries; Commerce and Navigation; Registers Evidence Bill.—Read a second time:—Turnpike Acts Continuance; Turnpike Acts Continuance (Ireland); Insolvent Debtors (Ireland); Soap Duties.—Read a third time:—Newgate Gaol (Dublin); Prisons (Ireland); Parliamentary Boroughs; Canal Police.
Petitions presented. By the Bishop of Rochester, and the Earl of Devon, from Peterborough, and the Rev. Sidney Smith, praying their Lordships not to pass the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill.—By the Marquess of Westminster, and Lord Brougham, from Bolton, and places in Cheshire, against the Weaver Churches Bill.—By Lord Portman, from Luton, Bedfordshire, against the use of Dogs in Carts.—By the Bishop of Durham, from the Dean and Chapter of Durham, against the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill.—By the Marquess of Normanby, from the Minor Canons of St. Christ, Canterbury, in favour of the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill.

CHIMNEY SWEEPERS.
The Earl of Haddingtonbrought up the Report of the Select Committee on the Chimney Sweepers Bill, and moved that the bill, together with the amendments, be printed. When the bill was formerly before the House, he expressed a hope that in committee relief might be given to the suffering class of persons—the climbing boys—to whom the bill referred, by the invention of a system of cleansing chimneys with machinery, affording security to the public against danger from fire. He was happy to say that his hope and expectation had not been disappointed, and that the bill, in all its main provisions, would be found to meet the evil that existed, and at the same time afford the protection that was required. The bill as it came from the Commons would have come into operation on the first of January, 1841, but the committee deeming it desirable that the new system should come simultaneously into use in Ireland and Scotland as well as in England, the time of its commencement had been postponed till July, 1842.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that the evidence given before the committee had induced him to change the opinion he originally entertained upon this bill, and he was now quite willing to give it his support. He was satisfied the public could dispense with climbing boys to clean chimneys, although they would be occasionally necessary for the purpose of repairing chimneys.
The Marquess of Normanby, being one of those who had opposed referring this bill to a Select Committee, thought it
982
right to express his gratification at the Result of their labours.
Bill to be recommitted.

ECCLESIASTICAL DUTIES AND REVENUES.
The Order of the day for the second reading of the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill having been read,
Viscount Melbournenever felt himself oppressed with his own weakness and want of ability more than on the present occasion, when he had to bring before their Lordships a question which, without doubt, was of very great magnitude, and of very great importance; which not only involved important general principles connected with Church government, but also many questions of common and of ecclesiastical law, with which he must necessarily be very imperfectly acquainted. He felt, under these circumstances, great satisfaction, support, and consolation, in being supported and assisted by those who had complete and thorough knowledge of the whole of this subject, and who were well acquainted with the present system, and also with that system which was sought to be established, and who would be able to correct any error he might commit, and supply any deficiency in his statement. Upon the present occasion, the second reading of the bill, although there were many details which were of very great importance, and which required their Lordships' careful attention, he should confine himself entirely to the general principle of the bill; which was this—whether their Lordships consented or not to a reduction of the present cathedral establishments, and an application of the fund which would be raised by that reduction to remedy a crying evil, which had been brought before their Lordships in so strong and cogent a manner, and which had a powerful claim upon their Lordships' justice and feelings, namely, the unhappy destitution of spiritual instruction which unquestionably, from various causes, prevailed throughout a great part of this country. These were the general principles that he asked their Lordships to consent to on the present occasion. He must be allowed to remark, before he proceeded further, that there was an error into which the learned counsel who had addressed their Lordships had, no doubt, unintentionally been betrayed in the heat and hurry of their speaking, and in the

983
warmth of their argument. Both these learned gentlemen had staled, throughout the whole of their speeches, that what their Lordships were now called on to decide was, not whether certain reductions should be made in the cathedral establishment, but whether they should be completely suppressed; they had addressed their Lordships as if their Lordships had been called on to abolish them; whereas, all that their Lordships were called on to do was, to make some reductions, and at the same time to leave them amply sufficient for all the purposes for which they were instituted, applying the funds to be raised by the present measure, to remedy that deficiency in the parochial system against which it was one of the first duties of the House of Lords and the House of Commons to provide. In 1835 the Government of which the right hon. Baronet, Sir R. Peel, was the head, advised his late Majesty to make such a recommendation in his speech to Parliament, in the following terms:—
"I have appointed a commission for considering the state of the several dioceses in England and Wales, with reference to the amount of their revenues, and to the more equal distribution of episcopal duties; the state of the several cathedral and collegiate churches, with a view to the suggestion of such measures as may render them most conducive to the efficiency of the Established Church, and for devising the best mode of providing for the cure of souls with reference to the residence of the clergy in their respective benefices. The especial object which I have in view in the appointment of this commission is to extend more widely the means of religious worship, according to the doctrines of the Established Church, and to confirm its hold upon the veneration and affections of my people."
Commissioners were then appointed, and when a new Government succeeded the commissioners were continued, the only alterations made being such as were rendered absolutely necessary by the change which had taken place. The commissioners pursued their labours, and their reports contained all the main suggestions proposed to be carried into effect by the present bill, the principles of which had been already stated to their Lordships. The recommendation of these commissioners respecting the episcopal revenues had been carried into effect—their recommendations in regard to pluralities and sinecures had also been carried into effect, and now their Lordships
984
were called upon to carry out the recommendations contained in the second and fourth report—recommendations which had the authority of both governments, and of the commissioners from whom they had emanated. It had been stated, and strongly impressed on their Lordships by the learned counsel, that these recommendations had been made at a time of difficulty and turmoil, and under fear and apprehension—that they were intended merely to meet the difficulties and exigencies of that occasion, and now that the danger had passed away, they might be disregarded, and that they were not called on to make that sacrifice which in a time of trouble they were prepared to make. He was informed, and believed, that the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) and his colleagues completely denied that imputation; they denied that the commission was formed under the influence of apprehension and fear.
"When I appointed that commission," said the right hon. Baronet, "I did not do so from any temporary motive, or under any apprehension of danger, but from a desire to provide for the religious destitution which existed in some of the largest manufacturing towns in this country, and which I felt it could not be for the interests of the Church of England to allow to exist without making some vigorous effort to remedy it."
On the part of himself and his colleagues he now made the same declaration. He begged to disclaim their acting from those motives. Indeed, they could not very well act from such motives, because they had always contended there was no danger, and that neither the church, nor any of our great institutions of the state, was subject to any great peril or difficulty. But, even if it had been so, he had always held there could be no course on the part of Governments or Parliaments which led more certainly to ruin and destruction than to withhold that concession in a moment of returning security which they were ready to make when under the pressure of danger. He utterly denied, however, that there was on the part of himself and his colleagues any fear on apprehension, or any metus other than that metus qui caderit in constantem virum. They felt unquestionably it was wise to apply a remedy to acknowledged evils and grievances, and which they could not say did not exist; but that was not fear; it was prudence, it was wisdom. It was under that impression.

985
they had acted; and he would say, those measures which it was then wise to adopt on account of this necessity, it was wise for their Lordships now to carry into effect, even though there might be less clamour and noise than prevailed on that occasion. It was almost unnecessary for him to restate that which had been stated before, and which was very clearly and distinctly stated in the reports of the commission; and that was the amount of destitution of spiritual instruction which existed in this country. That had been admitted on all hands, and lamented by all; and, considering the morality of the country, the policy of the country, and the general interests of the country, it was an evil to which it was most incumbent on Parliament to apply a remedy. The commissioners in their report said, in order to give increased efficacy to the establishment of the Church, it was obviously necessary they should attempt to equalize the number of persons attached to different churches, and to add to the number of the churches. They then stated the number of livings in the country, and the population, and the impossibility of providing for that population sufficient means of religious instruction under the present system. And afterwards the commissioners said, the most prominent of those defects which existed in the Established Church was the want of churches and the small number of ministers in the large towns and manufacturing districts of the country, as the present establishment was wholly insufficient for the population, even after every allowance was made for the number of places of worship and ministers in connexion with the Established Church. He thought it was quite unnecessary to argue as to the absolute necessity which lay upon them for doing this. It was hardly necessary for him to argue, that the Church ought to set an example in this respect, or how fitting it was that the Church ought to take the lead in making such an apportionment of the funds at her disposal, as would show her readiness and zeal to emulate and assist them. It was unnecessary for him to detain their Lordships with further argument on this subject, but he would beg them to recollect, that they had heard strong objections to the course they proposed to take by the counsel at their Lordships' bar, to which, if he did not
986
make some allusion, he did not think he should perform his duty, because the general argument of these learned gentlemen went to the root of the question. Their Lordships had been told by counsel, that they had no moral right to interfere; that the case wanted all the grounds and all the foundation which other cases had. Counsel admitted that the same thing had been done on former occasions—that the funds of an institution like the Church had been transferred from one body to another; but then, said these learned gentlemen, this had always been done on grounds distinctly stated, and which had not in the present case been alleged. But the learned counsel must have forgotten, that in making this admission he had cut from under his feet the whole ground of his own argument. Were they to be excluded from all interference with institutions, however circumstances might have changed, or however much their funds might exceed those originally vested in them? The learned counsel said, that they must prove some delinquency in those public bodies before they could properly interfere, as in the case of the Knights Templars. But if institutions were sound, and supported by the spirit of the times, delinquency was not a sufficient ground to interfere. If a bishop committed a crime, he might be punished, but it was no ground of interference with bishoprics. The only case in which delinquency was a reason for attacking an institution, was where, from some defect or vice in its original formation, it could not produce good. Therefore it was, that perpetual delinquency gave them a right to proceed against an institution which produced such fruits; but if the institution was good in itself, an occasional delinquency was no reason for their interfering with it. The other point touched on by the learned counsel was that relating to a surrender; but this brought them back to the original matter, whether an institution was good in itself, and whether it was so under present circumstances. He admitted, that all institutions of this character, those ancient institutions in particular which had been devoted to religious purposes, should be considered with the greatest respect and caution—that they ought not to be intermeddled with rashly, but he could not agree with those who thought they were to remain inviolate, however cogent the

987
reasons which might urge the Legislature to look upon them in a different light. He thought, that such a doctrine was absurd. The learned counsel had also referred to the period of the Reformation. He looked upon that event as the greatest gift that had ever been conferred on this country, but it was not carried by the most justifiable means, and the proceedings that then took place, ought to be looked to very closely before they were adopted as a precedent. By the Act 21st Henry 8th, there were seized 276 religious houses, having an income of 30,000 l., and personal property worth 100,000 l.; a large sum for those times. That Act proceeded entirely on the delinquency of those houses. In the second Act touching this matter in Elizabeth's reign—the grounds on which that Act proceeded being surrender and not delinquency—if the Teamed counsel wanted a precedent, he had one at his hands. He ought to have looked at the 32d Henry 8th, c. 24, and he would there find, that by that Act, the possessions of the knights of St. John of Jerusalem were seized because they refused to surrender, and because they adhered to the Roman Catholic religion. This was the sole cause. Their possessions were seized not from any surrender, or any allegation of delinquency on their part, but because they adhered to the Pope. The learned counsel had gone on to state why he thought this measure inexpedient, by stating a great many duties which he said the chapters ought to perform, and which they might be still called on to perform, with great advantage to the country. He could not agree with the learned counsel—he thought the present bill better than his. Some said it was necessary to maintain the chapters for the purpose of divine worship, but more particularly for the study of theology. This latter point might be a very good thing, but he did not think that it was a thing which they wanted; and as to education and almsgiving, he did not see how the chapters were peculiarly fitted for such purposes; but counsel, besides pleading for a general ecclesiastical council, that the Church might manage its own affairs, wished the chapters to take upon themselves their former duties as a council to the bishop. He was not for that; he was not for limiting the power of the bishop by any body which might fetter him when right and
988
shield him when wrong; he was an advocate of the monarchical principle in the Church as in the State, and for the discretion of one man responsible either in himself or by his advisers. The bishops, he knew, had great power, which it was possible they might use for the purpose of oppression, but it was one great advantage of their sitting in Parliament, that they were responsible and liable to be called to account. The few complaints which had been made in respect of the exercise of that power, was a sure proof that they had exercised it with moderation, prudence, and justice. He did not think there was any sufficient ground for keeping up the chapters either for those purposes which they once fulfilled, or for any duties which they might be hereafter called on to undertake. It had also been urged as an argument against the bill by a right rev. Prelate, on presenting a petition against it, that it was opposed by all the deans and chapters, and the great body of the parochial clergy. He had not had the means of ascertaining the extent of that opposition, but he felt quite certain, that those opposed to the bill were not actuated by any selfish or unworthy motive. He did not believe that self interest is, or ever had been, a characteristic of the clergy of England. He had a high respect for the Church of England, he agreed in the doctrines of that Church; he meant her religious and not her political doctrines. [Laughter] He saw a rev. Prelate had doubts on this point, but ever since the Reformation more than half the political questions agitated in the country had been connected with the religion of the Church of England. He did not agree with those divines who gave up the benefits of the Uniformity Act, or with those who refused the oath to King William and Mary, and continued nonjurors at the time the family of her Majesty ascended the throne. He saw a great deal of violence and obstinacy in this, and a division on points of so little importance to justify it, yet still there was a great abnegation of self interest, and he therefore acquitted the clergy of acting from interested motives, although he might not approve of their conduct. But there were other reasons which might account for their opposition; there was the general spirit of the body. The deans and chapters looked on the measure as a sort of imputation on them that they had neg-

989
lected their duty; but while this strong feeling against the bill existed on the part of the clergy, it at the same time rendered them not the best judges as to the matter in question. He did not think that the Church alone and by herself was celebrated for her legislation. She had not been happy in her efforts in that particular, and he therefore would not be deterred from proceeding with the bill from the disapprobation of the clergy, even if it was as great and as extensive as represented. One great argument for the bill was, that the Church was bound to provide for those who had the strongest claims upon her, and that it went to remove funds which were virtually lost, and applied them where they could produce the greatest benefit and advantage. The learned counsel said, that the Church was divided between its friends and its enemies. He did not know who the learned counsel called its enemies, but if he meant by this term the supporters of the present measure, all that he would say was, that it was not the first time that a body or an individual suffered evil from their friends, and derived some benefit from their enemies. He believed if its enemies proceeded with the bill, and the friends of the Church resisted it, that her enemies would be conferring a support and advantage to the Church which its friends were unwilling and unable to give. The learned counsel had also asked on what principle of common or statute law, they justified themselves for going on with this bill. The statute on which they rested was the religious destitution which prevailed, and the absolute necessity for applying a remedy.
The Bishop of Winchesterhad great difficulty in approaching the consideration of this subject, and he felt that that difficulty was in no small degree increased by the manner in which the noble Viscount had introduced it. He felt the kindness of his expressions towards the Church, and in common with all his brethren felt grateful for the justice the noble Viscount had done to the several orders of that Church, and for his admission, that no case of delinquency on their part had led to the bringing in of the present measure. He doubted whether he had the power to fix their Lordships' attention to a subject of this momentous nature, more especially when he considered the character that had been
990
given to the bill. The noble Viscount had said, that the bill was intended to increase the efficiency of the Church, and to rivet her in the regard of the people. If he could bring his mind to believe, that such would be the effect of the measure now submitted to them, neither the opposition of the right rev. Prelates, nor that of the deans and chapters, nor that of the clergy generally would deter him from supporting it. He admitted, that the bill came recommended to their Lordships by high authority. It purported to be an Act to carry into effect, with certain modifications, the fourth report of the commission on Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues. That commission consisted of eight lay members and five ecclesiastical members. It was his firm persuasion and belief, that of all the persons who sat upon the commission—whether the first or that which succeeded it—there was not one who did not approach his duties with an earnest and serious desire to carry into full effect the wishes of his Majesty, by whom the commission was issued. Above all, he was satisfied, that the most rev. Primate and those of his right rev. Brethren who sat upon the commission, had entered upon their difficult and delicate task with the highest sense of the responsibility which attached to them, and with a most earnest desire to fulfil their duties in such a manner as should be most advantageous for the establishment and for the general welfare of religion throughout the country. Yielding to none in respect for the most rev. Primate, he was still bound to say that, after a most mature and painful consideration of all the provisions of the measure now proposed, he could not but lament that it should have come recommended to Parliament by such high authority in the Church. But whilst he lamented the high authority by which it was recommended on the one hand, he must not forget to remind their Lordships that some authority was still wanting in its favour. There were many of his right rev. Friends—he believed he might say a majority of them who strongly and decidedly objected to this bill. It wanted, likewise, the authority of the universities of the land, both of which had petitioned their Lordships earnestly, but respectfully, praying that they would, not suffer a measure of this description to pass into a law. Again, it wanted the authority of the great body of the clergy;

991
and although the noble Viscount stated that, in his opinion, the clergy were not the best advisers in matters of this kind, yet, in affairs so peculiarly relating to themselves, he could not but think that their Lordships would attach some little weight to their respectfully expressed opinions. The measure wanted, too, the authority of the cathedral establishments. Twenty-two of these institutions had, in the first place, addressed the commissioners, in the next place his Majesty, and finally, both Houses of Parliament against the bill. He must further remind their Lordships, that although the measure came recommended to them by the report of the commissioners, yet it was not founded simply and solely upon that report. In addition to the propositions contained in the fourth report of the commissioners, the bill, also contained certain other provisions which were intended to be embodied in a fifth report from the ecclesiastical commissioners. Now, it was well known, that the draft of that fifth report contained very important additions, some of which had found their way into this bill, and which were much at variance with the principle of the recommendation contained in the fourth report. Under these circumstances, he could not but object to the measure which had been introduced to their Lordships. The noble Viscount did not advert to the character of our cathedral establishments. They were divided into what was popularly called the old and new foundations. The old foundations consisted of prebendaries, residential and non-residential. The new foundations established by Henry 8th, and remodelled by Charles the 1st, contained only prebendaries residential. The residentials in different cathedrals varied in point of number—in some they were as many as twelve, in others as few as four. The whole number of residentials amounted to rather more than 200—about 204, and their duties required a regular daily attendance in the cathedrals for various portions of the year. The non-residentials comprised a much larger body—about 340; and their duties consisted in little more than preaching one or two sermons occasionally in the course of the year. The property of these institutions consisted partly of what might be called property proper, that was to say, of houses or landed estates, and partly of parochial tithes or impropriations—the latter description of
992
property having been given in exchange for real property. Such was a short description of the nature and character of these institutions. What, then, were the provisions of this bill? In the first place, it absolutely suppressed all prebends not requiring residence; and then it went on to reduce the prebends requiring residence to the number of four in each cathedral, with one or two exceptions only, in which five were allowed. Further than that, it dissolved all the corporations of minor canons. And he might observe in passing, that if there were any part of this measure which their Lordships could pass with greater safety than another, it was that part which related to the suppression of the corporations of minor canons. Those corporations were, he believed, the only bodies in the Church who had asked for their own suppression. As far, then, as they were concerned, their Lordships might legislate with perfect safety and propriety. But, to proceed beyond what he had stated: the bill proposed to alienate generally the separate estates belonging to deans, and the members of chapters. Further, it appropriated all property derived from reductions and alienations, and applied it to the augmentation of small livings, or to the endowment of new benefices. It then went on to transfer patronage in certain cases, and under certain conditions, from one body corporate to other bodies corporate, or from individuals to individuals; and, lastly, it provided for an alteration of the ancient statutes of these several institutions, in order to meet the changes which would be effected under its alterations. Such was a short summary of the various measures contained in this bill. The effect of them, if carried into a law, would be to abolish no fewer than 72 residential prebendaries, and 317 non-residential—reducing this class of church dignitaries from 540 in number to about 150. In short, its general effect would be, to take away little less than one-half of the revenues now attached to cathedral establishments. Such was the sweeping character of the measures embodied in this bill. He thought their Lordships would agree with him, that nothing short of the strongest necessity could justify them in acceding to such a measure. Had any such necessity been proved? Had any trial been made as to whether there were not other ways in which the same amount of means might be brought to bear upon the admitted

993
destitution of the Church? This measure was advanced on the plea of expediency? but he did not think it expedient to take this mode of relieving the known and admitted destitution of the Church. At this particular crisis, when there was the most need for a learned and intelligent body of clergy, when the increase of population and the general diffusion of knowledge rendered it imperative that the appointed teachers of the people should take a high stand in the ranks of learning, was it at this particular moment that their Lordships would consent to weaken, impair, and well nigh destroy the nurseries of sound theological knowledge and pure divinity? He trusted that the noble Viscount would not suppose that he went so far as to say that this measure would totally annihilate cathedral establishments. He knew that it would not; but it would weaken and impair them to such an extent as to deprive them of nearly the whole of their usefulness. He believed, that if in an unhappy hour their Lordships should be induced to pass this bill, succeeding generations would have deep reason to regret the severe and injurious blow struck at those venerable institutions to which we owed our Hookers, our Porteuses, and all those learned and eminent divines who had shed a lustre upon our literature, and given an additional sanctity to our Church. He maintained that it was impossible, from the materials of which that bill consisted, to provide a fund sufficient to supply the destitution admitted to exist in the Church, and even if it were possible so to do, then he should maintain that the parochial clergy would not willingly exchange the fair prospect of advancement which they at present enjoyed for the small additional pittance which this bill would extend to them. Then came the question of right, which appeared to him to hinge upon this point—how far the State had a right to interfere with the property of the Church, in the way of redistribution, or whether it had the right to go beyond the point of superintendence? This point appeared to him to depend upon authorities, and he contended that the whole weight of authority went directly against a measure of the character now proposed. In this bill, he found an acknowledgment of the principle that it was right to resume free gifts made absolutely and for ever, and that not by the parties by whom the gifts were made,
994
nor by their representatives, but by another party having no relation nor affinity to them. What right had the Legislature so to deal with property given for certain specific purposes—not by the State, but by individuals for ever? He could not think that their Lordships would sanction this principle. He admitted, that the poor diocese of Exeter, and the populous diocese of Chester should have their destitution relieved, and he was bound to say, that he thought there was no sacrifice that the Church should not make to effect that purpose. But it appeared to him that there was another party equally bound with the Church to make sacrifices to supply the deficiency of religious instruction which existed amongst the vastly increased population in many districts of the country. He maintained that the State itself should be called upon to take its part, and to do its duty in this matter. He complained, that previous to the introduction of a measure of this kind, no appeal had been made to the country. He begged to remind their Lordships of the words of one who was amongst the wisest as well as the most eloquent of statesmen, and who said, "if prescription be once taken away no species of property will be secure when it once becomes an object for indigent cupidity. I see that the confiscations began with the bishops, deans, and chapters, but I do not see them end there." So said Mr. Burke, when he looked back upon that page of history, when the Long Parliament passed a measure of the same description as that now proposed. There could be no greater mistake than to suppose that this was merely a question between deans and chapters on the one hand, and the ecclesiastical commissioners on the other. It was a question in which the interests of the whole Church and State were vitally and materially concerned. Strongly convinced that the bill, if carried, would operate most prejudicially to the establishment and to the general interests of religion, he begged in conclusion to move, as an amendment, that it be read a second time that day three months.
The Archbishop of Canterburyagreed with his right rev. Friend, that this bill involved a question of the greatest importance both to the nation and to the Church; and although he could not but feel some difficulty in standing forward to justify the measure, after the very eloquent speech

995
which their Lordships had just heard, yet he could not say that his opinion of it had been altered in the slightest degree by that speech. He thought on the contrary, that if their Lordships should come to the determination to throw out this bill, the results would be more or less disastrous to the Church, and a great opportunity of satisfying expectations which had been raised throughout the country would be lost. This bill was the completion of a system commenced by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, in obedience to the recommendation of the Crown. The first object they were directed to turn their attention to was the greater equalization of the revenues of bishops, making such arrangements in ecclesiastical property as should diminish the frequency of "translations," and entirely remove the necessity of commendams. That had been accomplished by a bill which their Lordships had passed, involving the principle of the present measure, and enacting the transfer of property from one bishop to another. He might say, therefore, that the principle of the bill had received the sanction of their Lordships. Another part of the measures of the commissioners was the restraint of pluralities, by which the undue accumulation of preferments upon individuals, which had so long been the disgrace of the Church, had been in a great degree removed, and the parishioners had recovered in many instances the right of having their clergyman resident on his benefice. The third point which the commissioners had been directed to consider was the state of the several cathedral and collegiate churches in England and Wales, with a view to the suggestion of such measures as might render them conducive to the efficiency of the Established Church, making provision for the cure of souls, with especial reference to the residence of the clergy in their respective benefices. The evil which this bill proposed to remedy was the great destitution of the benefits of religious instruction, public worship, and pastoral care, prevailing in many parts of the country. It might be proper for him to state to their Lordships the amount of this destitution in some districts, and the absolute necessity which existed of providing a remedy.
"Were no addition made," said the report, "to benefices having a population under 500 souls, 235,000 l. a year would be required to raise ail the benefices between 500 and 1,000
996
in population to 300 l. a year, and the others in proportion."
What a miserable condition was this to which so many of the beneficed clergy were reduced! But the condition in which tire people who were to profit by the ministrations of the clergy were placed was still worse. In London there were four parishes with an aggregate population of 166,000, with church-room for only 8,208, and 11 clergymen. There was one parish containing 799,000 souls, with only 66,000 sittings. In London and Southwark there were 1,147,000 persons who had church-room in the proportion of 1 to 11, with only 75 ministers. The case was equally bad in the provincial dioceses. There were 816,000 inhabitants in 38 parishes in the diocese of Chester, with church-room for not 100,000. In some parishes of the diocese of York there was a population of 402,000 with church room for only 29,000. In part of the diocese of Chester there was a population of 235,000, with the same amount of church accommodation. Throughout all the country the amount of church accommodation varied from 1 to 8 to 1 in 30. What a miserable state was this! Was it not proper that some measure should be taken to provide an improved system of spiritual instruction, and a more adequate supply of church accommodation? What was the method by which the commissioners proposed to remedy this deficiency? The means they proposed to take were not to be found in the destruction of the cathedrals, but in the suppression of a certain number of canonries, amounting to 72, a sufficient number of canons being left for the due performance of the church services, and provision being made as adequate, if not more adequate than before, for the sustentation of those magnificent fabrics. It had been stated erroneously by the counsel at their Lordships' bar, that it was the intention of the commissioners absolutely to destroy those institutions; but there would be just the same means as before for the support of the fabrics, and also additional means in case the ordinary means should fail. This was what the bill proposed. Would their Lordships say, when the cathedrals were reduced to the care of a dean, of four canons, of a certain number of minor canons, with assistants, there being eight or nine clergymen for the performance of daily service throughout the year, that

997
there would be any great fear of the service hot being properly carried on? With respect to non-residentiary canons, the number of them to be abolished was greater; but it was to be observed that many of the canonries were of small value. Some of them were of considerable value; but they must always be considered as sinecures. It could not be pretended that this character was taken away from them by attaching to them the duty of preaching one sermon in a cathedral church in the course of a year, where the holders of the canonry generally did not preach, leaving that duty to be discharged by the residentiary canons. It would really be an absurdity, in a case like this, to talk of a scarcity of clergymen to provide for the maintenance of public worship in cathedrals. He did riot mean in the slightest degree to depreciate the advantages derived by the church from the cathedral establishments, nor even the remuneration for services that was provided by the sinecures of the non-residentiary canons. If circumstances would admit of it, he should be inclined rather to increase than diminish the number of those benefices; but, on the other hand, if they were set against the destitution of religious instruction, which extended not only to populous cities, but to many parts of the agricultural districts, no one could doubt in which of these features of our ecclesiastical establishment an alteration should be made. The right of the state to deal with property set apart by the owners for ecclesiastical purposes, of a particular class, had been questioned. He admitted that such bequests might sometimes be made, not so much for the general good of the community, as for a particular object supposed to be connected with it; but they must consider in what times many of the donations of property to which he had alluded were made. The persons who had made them might, and probably would, if living in the present day, wish to see them applied in a very different manner. A great many of the bishops had founded benefices of the kind of which he was speaking, and were supposed to have done so with their own property, but that property really belonged to the church. Those bishops bestowed for this purpose property which they had confiscated. The endowment of cathedrals was no doubt a very proper application of the money, but still those who had
998
profitted by those acts of spoliation had no right to come forward and say that this application of the money should never be altered. The State was not bound, like the Church, to adhere to the rules of existing law; it had the power of altering them. With respect to the precedents which the counsel at their bar had quoted, he thought their Lordships should be very cautious how they acted on them. Many of those precedents were bad, having been set in times when the true principles of government were not so well understood as now, and when the state of society was very different from that which now existed. But this he must say, that he did not think that enactments inconsistent with justice could be justified by any precedents, and that if a proposed enactment were consistent with justice, they had a good right to legislate on it whether precedents existed or not. He had endeavoured to convey to their Lordships an idea of the poverty of spiritual means which existed, and he would now proceed to state the sacrifices which would be required with respect to the cathedrals, in order to remedy the destitution. Nearly 3,000,000 of our fellow Christians in this country were utterly cut off from the advantages of religious worship and pastoral superintendence. In order to make provision for the supply of those blessings, a number of canonries to which some duty was attached would be suppressed, and a still greater number of non-residentiary canonries, which were in every sense of the word sinecures. There were something less than 400 clergymen, the value of whose benefices was set against the spiritual wants of millions. Now, he would not suppose that the duties of those canonries had been improperly or imperfectly discharged; he would suppose that they had been discharged in such a way as left no ground for complaint. He would also suppose that the appointments had been filled by men eminent for their piety and learning, and who devoted their learning to the good of the Church; and he would ask their Lordships to say whether the benefits so accruing to religion, were to be compared with the one which might be expected to flow from the scheme which the commissioners proposed. His right rev. Friend who spoke last said, that Hooker was an instance of the learning which was secured to the Church by canonries. Why, Hooker had never held

999
such a preferment, or if he had, it must have been one of exceedingly small value. Hooker's exertions in such a cause as that to which his labours were devoted, were not prompted by so low a motive as the hope of obtaining a canonry. Where was the probability that a clergyman entering on the cure of a parish and discharging his duties faithfully would obtain any preferment of this nature? The most learned theologians who had adorned the Church of England, were not to be looked for among the holders of canonries. An objection had been made to this measure, that the sum to be obtained for the purpose of removing the destitution of which he had spoken would be small. The amount, undoubtedly, would be small in the beginning, but it would be something very considerable in the end. The force of example also would do much. Those who had the means of aiding the exertions of the Church would probably do so, when they saw the Church trying to help itself. The funds of Queen Anne's bounty, for the augmentation of small livings, were only 12,000 l. a year, but considerable assistance in aid of that sum was derived from the Pastoral Aid Society, and the Supplementary Curates' Fund. It was said by the opponents of this bill, that it was the duty of the State to supply acknowledged deficiencies. He was of that opinion, but he could not forget that the State might say, and would say to the Church, "Set the example, do something for yourselves." That was the language held by an illustrious Duke whom he did not now see in his place, when he presented a petition on this subject the other evening from the University of Oxford: that was the language which the noble Duke had also held when he was in office twelve years ago. He said something must be done, but that something must come in the first place from the Church. That was also almost the expression of Earl Grey, with whom he had held many confidential conversations on the subject; and Earl Grey continually said, "We can do nothing for you, if you will do nothing for yourselves." That was also the opinion of Sir R. Peel. The motion lately made in the House of Commons on this question, had shown the good will of many persons to this object, having had more supporters than he believed was expected; but it had also elicited a strong declaration of opinion from that assembly,
1000
which he hoped they would be disposed to alter, when they saw that the Church was disposed to make exertions. It had been urged, that the confiscation of ecclesiastical property made in the time of the Long Parliament, and also in France during the revolution, had been ushered in by a proposal to take away only a part of it, and that if their Lordships agreed to this bill, it would form a precedent which those who were lying in wait for the subversion of the Church, would make use of to further their own designs. But when it was said, that this precedent would be ruinous, he would say in return, "Look at what will be the effects of the rejection of this bill." That was the point which he wished to call to the attention of those right rev. Prelates who were hostile to this bill. The first result arising from a rejection of it would be, that the present destitution of religious instruction which was in itself an intolerable evil would remain. Next, let them consider what would be the result to the Church itself. If so many persons remained at present in alienation from the Church, because they knew her not, because they were unacquainted with her doctrines, and because they did not profit by her ministration, the continuance of such a state of things would add greatly to the minority of those who now entertained sentiments hostile to the Church itself. It would increase the prejudices which at present existed against the Church, and which would be increased by giving parties ill affected towards her the opportunity of saying, that "the Church calls upon the country to do every thing for her, and yet the Church will do nothing for herself." He had reason to think, that the good effected by the passing of this bill would be extensive. It would prevent the revival of those prejudices against the Church, which had been removed by many late measures, particularly by the inquiries into the amount of the revenues of the Church, which had shown that those revenues fell far short of the amount stated in many pamphlets, and of what they were believed to be by many strenuous friends of the Church itself. The next measure in point of importance which had tended to the abatement of those prejudices was the appointment of the Ecclesiastical Commission, and its recommendation of a better distribution of the episcopal revenues and of

1001
the abolition of ecclesiastical sinecures. There had been no less a sum than 39,000 l. a year held by bishops in commendam, all which had recently been set loose for the advantage of the subordinate clergy, who now could look for such preferment, and who were therefore so far indemnified for the loss of the other preferment which this bill might be supposed to take from them. The next measure in abatement of the prejudices against the Church was the reduction of pluralities. He had been informed by a gentleman very well affected to the Church of the very beneficial change which that measure had worked in the opinions of the great mercantile body of this metropolis. As a result of that change, he anticipated that a similar effect would be produced on the opinions of the great body of the people of England. Whilst he expected that great good would be accomplished by the passing of the bill, he would not conceal from their Lordships that he anticipated that all these prejudices would revive, not only in full force, but also with tenfold vigour, in case it were rejected. The people of England would say to the heads of the Church, "You held out to us such and such expectations, and now that the pressure upon you is over, you make no scruple to disappoint them." Whilst upon that point he must be permitted to make a passing remark on an observation which had fallen from both the learned counsel who had appeared at their Lordships' bar. He had heard so much to admire in the learning and eloquence of those distinguished gentlemen, and had observed with so much delight the great delicacy with which they had conducted their general argument on this important subject, that he could not but entertain deep regret when he heard them use the expression—"The storm has now blown over." Could any of their Lordships, after hearing what had been said on that subject by the noble Viscount who had that evening spoken first upon it, be insensible to the force and efficacy of his arguments? How could such an idea be entertained by the learned counsel at the bar, that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had made a capitulation, and were now to break it because the danger was over! But the fact was, that the commissioners had made no capitulation. This was a measure which the commissioners had resolved on, taking everything into consi-
1002
deration—yes; taking into consideration the necessities of the Church, and finding that this sacrifice was the only means by which those necessities could be relieved. It had been supposed that the commissioners acted under the influence of terror. Undoubtedly they had seen danger, and had felt it to be their duty, if they could, to remove it. They saw danger, not in the excitement of the moment, not in the passions of the hour, not in transient causes, but in causes which had taken deep root in the public mind, which were then powerfully operating upon it, and which would always, to a certain degree, continue to operate upon it, but in a greater or smaller degree as proper concessions were made or refused by the Church. They sought to remedy the destitution which prevailed, and at the same time to secure the Church, and all the establishments connected with the Church, which would undoubtedly fall along with the Church if by any fatality it should be overthrown. They saw that a mere nominal reform would be at once unsafe and unsatisfactory. They therefore looked at the permanency of what they were about to do. They had therefore consented to reduce the cathedral establishments of the Church to the lowest condition they could bear consistently with the objects which they had in mind—namely, the performance of her duties by the canons, and the sustentation of her venerable fabrics. He believed that the measure which they had framed for that purpose was good in itself, and further he believed that, as the first reforms recommended by the commissioners had already obtained the approbation of the public, the time would come, and that shortly, when the prudence of the commissioners would also be extolled for having recommended this measure to the notice of Parliament. It had been said, that the deans and chapters throughout the country were opposed to it. Nobody could contradict that assertion. But he had said on a former occasion, and he repeated the assertion now, that he did not think that the clergy generally were really adverse to it. He knew that their Lordships had had many petitions presented to them against the measure, but then the question involved in it had never been fairly brought under the consideration of the clergy. The commissioners had been attacked on every side. They had been assailed by argu-

1003
ment, by ridicule, by misrepresentation, and by mis-statement, of facts—in a word, by every artifice which learning and ingenuity could resort to. But the clergy had never heard the case of the commissioners fairly stated, except in the charges of one or two prelates, which had, nevertheless, not met that general perusal which their contents deserved. He had stated the other day that he did not believe that the clergy of his diocese were adverse to this measure. His statement of the opinions of his clergy had since been contradicted. He again repeated it. He had come to that conclusion from the conversations which he had held with a variety of clergymen in his diocese, and he had no reason to suppose that it was erroneous. There had been petitions signed by some of his clergy against this measure, and that from the influence of one individual who was adverse to it, and who had great weight with the clergy in the neighbourhood of his residence. A rural dean had recently called upon him and told him that a great number of petitions against this measure had been sent to him for signature and for distribution among the clergy of his deanery. He said,
"I have every respect for my archdeacon, but nevertheless, I did not choose to sign the petitions, and therefore I told the clergy of my deanery that I would not circulate the petitions, and they told me in return that I did quite right."
He would just state to their Lordships a specimen of the manner in which the petitions against this measure had been got up. A clergyman who was very much opposed to the bill had sent his curate round among his parishioners to procure their signaturess to petitions against it. Twelve clergymen in his diocese had said that they would sign a petition against it if Dr. Such-a-thing would sign it; but Dr. Such-a-thing refused to sign it, and then these clergymen also refused. Had he not then a right to say that the clergy of his diocese were not adverse to the bill? If they had come to him and had asked him whether they should petition in favour of it, he should have said to them, "No; don't petition, leave it to the wisdom of Parliament." On the other hand if they had asked him whether they should petition against it, he should have said to them, 'Do as you please." if it were necessary, he could point out one clergyman
1004
in his diocese who had influenced many persons to petition against this bill. He did not wish to undervalue the petitions of the clergy, but this he must say, that petitions were only valuable in proportion as they were dictated by intelligence. He must likewise observe that the clergy had never had this question fairly before them. They had seen it misrepresented in newspapers and pamphlets, and some of them had become excessively alarmed at what; they conceived it erroneously to be. He; had received from some of his clergy letters of remonstrance as to the violation of his oath as Archbishop of Canterbury, of which they asserted that he would be guilty in supporting a measure which would deprive the cathedral of Canterbury of its rights of property in its stalls and in their revenues. Now, he believed that the oaths taken by the clergy on entering office were taken in subordination to their higher duties, and to their obligations to the laws of their country. He believed that it was provided that oaths of that kind left every one at liberty to do his duty, and to speak his mind as a subject of the realm, and to deliver his sentiments as a Peer of Parliament, and to advise his Sovereign, if he happened to be a Privy Councillor. He believed that such an oath as he had taken as Archbishop of Canterbury did not interfere with any of the duties which he had just mentioned; nor could he believe that an oath was taken either by himself as Archbishop or by others as prebendaries in any other sense save in accordance with these duties. As for himself, he did not think that because he was visitor of the cathedral of Canterbury he was on that account precluded from giving his vote in behalf of a measure which was necessary to the support and preservation of the church and of that establishment of which, under God, he was one of the heads. He could not suppose that any rational person would think him so precluded. Their Lordships should hear the oath. In his case it had been taken by proxy, which he considered to be equally binding upon him as if he had taken it himself—
"You swear in the name of William Howley to maintain the rights, liberties, and privileges of this Church, and to observe all the approved customs thereof, and to cause them to be observed by others, so far as such customs are not repugnant to God's holy word, to the laws of this realm, and to his Majesty's prerogative."

1005
That was the oath which he had taken. Now, all the rights, liberties, and privileges of the Church of Canterbury were era-bodied in the statute, and it was to the observance of their statutes that he was bound; those statutes involved a number of canons. By that oath he was bound to defend the rights, liberties, and privileges of the Church of Canterbury against all unlawful obligations. But that oath, according to the statutes themselves, did not prevent him from either proposing or supporting an alteration in them. Those statutes of the Church of Canterbury were of very recent date. They were drawn up in the time of Charles 1st, by one of the most illustrious of his predecessors, Archbishop Laud. The statutes and customs at that time differed from each other, and Archbishop Laud and the Church proposed to the King an alteration in the statutes to reconcile those differences. Their request was granted, and the present statutes were in consequence drawn up. But was there any such peculiar sanctity in Archbishop Laud's statutes that they were never to be altered? Those who drew them up thought that they might be altered, and a right was absolutely reserved to the Crown to alter the statutes, or to make new ones, if new ones should be required. It might appear to some that a question then arose, whether the visitor was precluded by his oath from advising his Sovereign to make such an alteration. Was he to be considered guilty of perjury, if he gave such advice to her Majesty? And if the statutes were altered, was he to be reduced to the distressing alternative, either of disobeying his Sovereign or of breaking his oath? If he disobeyed the Queen, he clearly broke his oath, because the statues so altered were to be as binding as the old statutes, and obedience was to be transferred to the new statutes. He had intended to have said this on a former occasion, in order to show that he had a right to advocate this measure, even though its tendency were to alter the Statutes of the Church of Canterbury. He repeated that he felt confident, if this measure were passed into a law, in future times it would not be a blot on the history of Parliament, but that the proceedings of the commissioners and the propriety of their recommendations would be universally admitted. They had sacrificed their time and labour and patronage in bringing
1006
about this measure. Looking at the amount of patronage (always a desirable thing) which had been sacrificed by her Majesty's Government in order to carry this measure—looking at the sacrifices which had been made by the Archbishop of York and the Bishops of London and Lincoln, to an immense annual extent, in giving up their smaller prebends, he reiterated the opinion which he had already expressed. Was it that they had no friends to serve, no clergy to remunerate? No; but because they knew that the good of the Church required it—that in sacrificing their own immediate feelings and interest, they were securing permanency to the establishment, and performing a duty for which they could consider no sacrifice too great. He felt quite sure that neither the Government nor the Prelates would have any reason to regret these sacrifices. While he maintained the general expediency of the bill now before their Lordships, he thought that there were certain parts of it which might require amendment, and certain improvements which it would be desirable to introduce. He had presented several petitions praying for the maintenance of these spiritual offices, even though the property should be alienated. What he would propose was, that every bishop should have the power of appointing a certain number of honorary canons, and of giving them places in the choir, but without any share of emoluments, and that he might bestow those places upon those who had given him important assistance in regulating the affairs of his diocese. Perhaps it might be all the better that they should hold these places without emolument. It was important that another provision should be introduced into the bill, but he was not prepared at this moment to state how, for the distribution of the money received. It must never be lost sight of that the great object in appropriating these monies, was to relieve the great destitution which prevailed; yet at the same time they must have reference to the local wants. There were large agricultural parishes which were very inadequately provided with the ministration of the Church, and these it was but proper that they should consider. It was almost impossible for the commissioners themselves to determine the relation which the local claims should bear to the general fund. All the bishops would be members of the commission, and each would very

1007
naturally be anxious for his own particular district. In his opinion it would be better if a certain proportion were allotted to the general fund, and a certain proportion to local wants. The wants of the agricultural parishes could never stand in competition with those places in which destitution of a far more lamentable character prevailed. With regard to sinecures, which were abolished by a clause in this bill, this abolition would probably in many cases give rise to great discontent in the country. Many of these sinecures were held in conjunction with vicarages, where the addition was needed; and the abolition would in such cases give rise to great inconvenience. It was so also in the case of curacies to which sinecures were annexed. His advice would be, that where a bonâ fide surplus was found to exist, it should form part of the fund to be distributed for local purposes. There were some remaining points upon which he must consult before forming any determination. He had nothing more to offer to their Lordships at present, but to repeat his conviction that the commissioners had acted under a deep sense of duty, and had done all in their power for the real benefit of these institutions.
Lord Lyttletonrose to protest against the bill. He readily admitted that the question was one of great extent and difficulty. He would take no exception to the composition of the ecclesiastical commission, nor at all object to the right of the Legislature to deal with this revenue. He would take narrower ground, and show that these chapters had functions, vested in them by various statutes, essential at all times to be exercised, and most essential at the present time. What he held to be necessary was to revive and enforce these duties upon them. This was an argument which might be urged even on expediency alone. The powers to which he referred were inherent in these bodies, they were implied in their statutes, and, though dormant for a considerable period, they were plainly imbued with a spirit of vitality. This was the ground which had been taken in a very able pamphlet by Mr. George Selwyn, and it was strongly confirmed by many of the views put forth in the Rev. Sydney Smith's writings. In the statutes of the cathedral of Ely, he found the canons existing as an independent body—Statuimus canonicos, cum aliis, constitui in ecclesiâ cathedrali. In earlier times, before the Reformation, the canons
1008
were responsible for the superintendence of the clergy. This portion of their duty was performed by the archdeacons. Let it not be said in reply, that there were archdeacons still. Those of earlier times were very different from the archdeacons of the present period. The number was proportioned to the size of the diocese, and they were always members of the chapter—two very material differences. Besides being made responsible for the government of the diocese, an appeal from the whole diocese was vested in them. He held that these duties ought to be enforced at the present time. He was not now pleading for the sinecures of the Church, but for the fitting discharge of substantial and important duties. It had been observed by Mr. Sydney Smith that the canons had been made by the bishops to appear as counsel for the delinquent clergy. This was to a great extent true, and a learned civilian had so stated before the Long Parliament. He held, that with proper regulations, the chapters would constitute a very fitting body to assist the bishop in the exercise of his ecclesiastical jurisdiction. This was one of the very points which had been most contested by the Puritans; and had the answer of Charles 2nd been adhered to by that monarch, very many of them would have returned to the bosom of the Church. That answer was, that "no bishop shall inflict any censure without the assistance of his presbytery." The only chance of approaching to union between the Church of England and the Church of Scotland would, in his opinion, be by restoring the original powers of the bodies with which this bill proposed to deal. In regard to education, those bodies had exercised a most beneficial influence; and in respect to education, there was one particular point to which he wished particularly to call the attention of their Lordships—namely, the education of the clergy. The education of the clergy had ever been one of the main objects of those bodies, and he thought they might still be made conducive to the attainment of that purpose. He would submit to their Lordships that the superintendence of education generally ought rather to be vested in those bodies than in local boards. Their Lordships would also bear in mind that those bodies were instituted for the purpose of keeping up daily worship in the cathedrals; and they would consider whether the decrease in

1009
the number of the chapters would not tend seriously to impair their efficiency as regarded this particular duty. The cathedrals had also been considered as retreats for learned men, and it was well known that persons remained for a long time in the universities as tutors, in expectation of obtaining cathedral preferment. It was said, in justification of this measure, that there were great wants in the Church; what were they? The great want was, that the Church should be felt as a living power, and that she should be in a state of complete organization in all her parts; and that unity and organization could not be obtained unless these bodies to which he had been alluding were restored and rendered efficient for the purposes for which they were originally intended. He contended that the number of canons in each diocese ought to be in proportion to its extent. The noble Viscount near him had said, that the duties to be performed were worthless and unfit for those bodies; but he submitted to their Lordships that the duties performed now were not those originally intended to be performed; and what he contended for was, that the cathedral establishments should be made efficient for the objects for which they were at first established. The most rev. Prelate thought that this bill would be advantageous as setting a good example, but he could not imagine that a measure of confiscation like this could have any good effect. If this bill was to be passed, there was one further consideration which he was anxious to press upon their Lordships. Parliament might have the right of dealing with the revenues of the Church, but he must utterly deny the right of Parliament to destroy the offices themselves to which those revenues were attached. He should certainly, therefore, endeavour during the progress of this bill to have it altered so as to preserve the offices, even if the revenues were taken away. The measure had been introduced by those for whom it was impossible not to feel the greatest respect, and to whom the sincerest gratitude was due; but, looking at the measure itself, it was little consolation to know that it had been recommended by those who were to be considered as the natural defenders of the Church. For himself, when he saw this base act of confiscation, he would not tremble for the Church, but for those who did the wrong, and for the age which could sanction it.
The Earl of Harrowby, having been personally alluded to by the noble Lord who had just sat down, felt called upon to address a few observations to their Lordships in reference to the opinions which he had formerly entertained on this important subject. It was true that he had published a pamphlet, thirty years ago upon this subject, which then engaged very little attention, either on the part of Parliament or the country. This pamphlet, however, was a strictly private communication, addressed to Mr. Percival, with whom he happened to be politically connected, and whose friendship he regarded as a great honour. So little did he consider this slight sketch to be worthy of public notice, that he was only induced to consent to its being published in an anonymous form. Great exertions had been made by Mr. Percival to devise a scheme for the provision of sufficient funds for the erection of places of public worship, and for increasing the incomes of poor ministers; and, at his request, he devoted his particular attention to this subject. He found the task a very appalling one when he came to appreciate the amount of money that would be required adequately to supply the want, and he was very anxious to see this burthen press as lightly as possible upon the public. In looking to the means which the Church itself possessed, he had no intention generally to abolish the chapters; but to make use of the power possessed by the Crown of enforcing the useful employment of the livings belonging to them, With regard to the right of Parliament to interfere in the matter, that was a point which he would not debate at the present moment. He could not help remarking, however, that it appeared to him that the learned counsel who had displayed so much ingenuity and research on this subject at the bar, had confounded the judicial functions and powers of the House with those which were of a legislative nature, and which were wholly distinct, and unfettered by the same rules and restrictions. He believed it was generally admitted that the rights of property of every kind subsisted entirely by virtue of a convention of society, and ought to exist only for the benefit of society. Parliament, in abundant instances, had exercised a right not of alienating or confiscating the property of the Church, but of disposing of it under such restrictions as

1011
were considered better adapted to fulfil the objects with which that property was originally given to the Church. It was only last year that a hill was passed, almost without opposition, altering the disposition of the revenues of the Church, in a Planner which it was conceived would conduce to the advantage of the Church, and the better fulfilment of the objects with which it was endowed. Now, it might be asked, what right had Parliament to call upon the Bishop of Durham to contribute to a fund out of which the Bishop of Exeter was to be supplied with an addition to his revenues? But the fight of Parliament being admitted and acknowledged to apportion the revenues of the Church in such a manner as they considered most conducive to the strength And efficiency of the establishment, and most consistent with justice and sound policy, in what, he would ask, did the present measure exceed the principle which had so been admitted in the measure of last year. Was it conducive to the interests of the Church to allow a great number of parishes to remain in a state of spiritual deficiency? Was it not, on the contrary, a great incentive to that dissent and alienation of feeling which was so much lamented? Before the Church called upon Parliament for any additional funds, he thought that it should be made clear that the Church, by a proper distribution of the property already belonging to it, had done as much as it could to remedy the destitution and evils of which it complained. With respect to the provisions of the first measure, he thought that after the reductions which it proposed to effect in the dignitaries of the Church, there would still remain sufficient to fulfil the objects for which they were established- There would be twenty-six bishops at 4,000 l. and 5,000 l, a-year; twenty-six deans at A minimum of 1,000 l, a-year; 104 canonries, at a minimum of 500 l. a-year; and 1,600 livings, exceeding 500 l.; whilst there wag a great and undue number of poorer livings, diminishing to 80 l. and 70 l. a-year. Let any one compare these endowments with any other liberal profession, and it would be found that the Church did pot at all suffer by the comparison. Taking the army, for instance, he found that amongst a hundred regiments there was not distributed more than 200,000 l. to the officers. There
1012
had recently been 133 officers promoted by brevet at a cost of 47,000 l, And whilst considering these accounts, it should be borne in mind that these officers had paid 210,000 l. for their commissions. Compared with the army, therefore, he did not think that Church dignitaries could complain of being ill-paid.
The Earl of Devonconsidered this to be a measure of deep importance, and he confessed, that his opinion of its grave and paramount importance had been greatly increased by the course which this debate had taken. Their Lordships had been distinctly told if the Government of the day happened to appoint a commission, and that commission expressed an opinion that a great and important change ought to be made in any of the ancient institutions of the country, by which a great mass of property would he taken away from a large body of men connected with that institution, it was one of the functions of the Government to act upon the opinion so expressed. Their Lordships had been told, that the recommendation of the commission was a sufficient ground for them to interfere, without having before them one tittle of evidence upon which that recommendation rested. If it were possible that he could yield to any authority his noble Friend near him (the Earl of Harrowby) and the most rev. Prelate and right rev. Prelates who were members of the commission might be assured that he should be as ready to yield to their authority as any man; but he could only act after seeing what the nature of their recommendations was, and after endeavouring to ascertain what were the grounds on which those recommendations were founded, and if he found that the evidence did not support the conclusions to which the commissioners had come, he felt it his duty to oppose the measure come from what quarter it might. He first looked at the report, and found nothing said as to the nature of the duties of the commissioners. He then looked at the commission itself, and he found, that the commissioners were "to consider the state of the several cathedrals and collegiate bodies, with a view to render them conducive to the efficiency of the Established Church." Having read these words, his first impression was, that he should find in the report some suggestion as to the manner in which these cathedrals and

1013
collegiate bodies could be made to contribute to the benefit of the Established Church, and the evidence supporting that suggestion. The commissioners were required to make a minute and searching inquiry. Had they done so? If they had not, he did not think their Lordships would, upon the mere statement of the commissioners contained in their report, without any proof of their having made such a searching inquiry as was necessarily required in order to fulfil the intention manifestly contemplated by the commission, feel disposed to adopt one of the strongest measures ever proposed to Parliament. If they had made the inquiry, it was still more extraordinary that their Lordships should be called upon to legislate upon the subject without having any evidence whatever of the nature of that inquiry before them. Many commissions had of late years been appointed, and many important alterations in the law had proceeded from the recommendations of those commissioners; but in every one of those cases their Lordships had had distinctly laid before them the grounds and evidence upon which the commissioners founded their recommendations, and thus they had an opportunity of judging of the validity of those grounds. But in this case there was not a scintilla of evidence in support of a measure which dealt with a large mass of property. It had been observed, that "the power of the state was bound by moral considerations, and that the state must act according to justice." But who was to judge, in this case, of that which was considered by the commissioners as justice? He was quite aware that there might be circumstances in which this supreme power of the state to interfere with the rights of property might be justified, but it was the duty of the Legislature to inquire into the ground of that interference. The Legislature was bound, when dealing with cases of this description, to observe the rules and precedents that might be collected from analogous cases, and was not justified in setting itself up to make a precedent, except in extreme cases of state necessity; but this was not an extreme case, and did not justify the Legislature to interfere with a large mass of property in a manner so unprecedented and dangerous. The effect of this bill would be to deter men from ever again appropriating any portion of their property to
1014
the purposes of promoting the interests and the religion of the established church. He admitted that the evil which this bill was intended to remedy existed; he admitted also that it became the church to make a sacrifice to meet that evil; but this bill would deny them the opportunity of doing so. It undertook to do the thing for them. Every man who had read the report must feel that the commissioners had prejudged the question, and that circumstance alone entitled it to less respect as an authority. Those of their Lordships who voted for the second reading would assert as a fact that the endowments which were about to be suppressed were larger than necessary, and that the means thereby obtained could not be employed in any way connected with these cathedral establishments more consonant with the will of the founders, and this their Lordships were called upon to assert without any evidence whatever. Not one reason had been given why this government plan for the department of the endowments should be preferred to a different plan than had been suggested, except that the former would obtain a few thousand pounds more than the latter. He considered the good of religion required the preservation of cathedral endowments. He knew many clergymen who were encouraged to discharge their parochial duties by being connected with the cathedral establishments of the country; and he believed it would be advantageous to the character of parochial clergymen, and add to their efficiency, if these prebends were retained, even although the ordinary endowments were taken away. If their Lordships looked back, they would find that they were acting without precedent, and if they looked forward, they must feel that they were going to set a most dangerous precedent.
The Bishop of Gloucesterhoped their Lordships would allow him to endeavour to satisfy the noble Earl with respect to one particular ground of his complaint against the present measure—namely, that it proceeded without sufficient inquiry The noble Earl had said that the commissioners had not, so far as their Lordships were aware, made any inquiry or examination into the spiritual wants of the parishes, and into the circumstances of the chapters which this bill affected. This must be a misapprehension. The noble Earl would probably recollect that as long as five years

1015
ago there was a very ample statement made of the ecclesiastical revenues, including these chapters and every benefice, great and small, in the kingdom, accompanied also with a statement of the population of the respective parishes, and the patronage they were under, and other circumstances. The commissioners availed themselves of this and of many other particular inquiries which they made into the circumstances of the several cathedral bodies in the kingdom. The result of those inquiries had not only been placed before the House, but before the world, in various popular publications. Many of the almanacs had detailed circumstances of this description. Whatever other imputation, therefore, might be laid on this commission—and it had more than its share—an imputation could not be sustained, that they did not make sufficient inquiry into the matters that came within the duties of the commission. Their inquiries were long and laborious, and exceedingly minute. He was most anxious to clear himself from the charge brought against him as an episcopalian member of that commission. Their Lordships had already heard from the most reverend Prelate—that the episcopal commissioners had violated the solemn engagement they made when they took their respective sees—that they would maintain to the utmost the rights, liberties, and privileges of the cathedral churches as far as they were not inconsistent with the word of God, and with the laws and statutes of this realm. One part of this imputation had been sufficiently answered by the most rev. Prelate. It was made the subject of a publication, which abused the commissioners personally. He read it long ago; but it was mixed up with a multitude of calumnies, and came from a quarter he should hardly like to allude to. But it had shocked him to find in a publication which had been placed in his hand that day, that that accusation had been adopted in its severest form by one of their own order. To him and to all others he gave the fullest credit for their sincerity, but he repudiated the imputation that had been cast upon him. He felt the solemn engagement which he had entered into to maintain the rights and privileges of his own cathedral church; but he asserted that the present bill did not touch one of them. The property of that cathedral church would remain as
1016
it was intended, and on a much better footing, if the recommendations of the commissioners should pass into a law. It had been asked by a noble Earl why the commissioners had neglected that part of their duty which related to the ecclesiastical duties connected with the cathedrals. But they had not neglected that part of the inquiry; for in the present bill there were provisions which would place cathedrals on a better footing as to the chapter duties than they were before. Counsel had said, that the bill dissolved the minor corporations in the same way as Henry 8th did, accept that he alleged, while they gave no, reasons for doing so; but the fact was, many of those functionaries had petitioned their Lordships to pass the bill, and the commissioners had recommended that the minor canons should be merged into the larger ones, because in that case the minors would be better paid. He lamented that the circumstances of the Church and of the country required the suspension, or rather the suppression, of so many canonries. He knew very well that the learned counsel, to whom they had listened with so much pleasure, had said that the worst parts of the existing interests were preserved under the bill. They had said that Parliament had no right to suppress these bodies at all, or if they had the right they could exercise it at the present moment; but if they had not the right to suppress them, they had no right to prevent appointments being made to them in future. But suppose the commissioners had recommended that canonries should all be suppressed, what an outcry!—what lamentations would have been heard!—that they were depriving pious men, in the decline of their life, of their means of support. With regard to the commissioners, he begged to remind their Lordships that they were not self-appointed, and that from their minute inquiries their Lordships had learned the extent of spiritual destitution, which went far beyond what the imagination could have represented—so great, that they felt called on to recommend a measure to relieve it. Their Lordships would observe that the greatest wants of clergymen was in the manufacturing and great towns. Now, very few of the chapters were richly endowed in those districts where relief was most wanted; so that the plan proposed by the learned counsel, of limiting

1017
the operation of the surplus funds to the same district or parish as that in which the cathedral was situated, would not be able to relieve the pressing wants of those who were destitute of religion. The cathedrals of Chester and Ripon, were the worst endowed, yet they were in the districts where the greatest destitution prevailed. The cathedrals held property in various parts of the kingdom; that of his own diocese drew its revenue from as many sources as some of their Lordships did their rentals. It had seven or eight separate estates, and the whole income amounted to between 1,200 l. and 1,300 l. He was quite sure, that if the commissioners had neglected to recommend a substantial measure for the relief of the spiritual destitution, or had they allowed the property of the Church to remain as at present, he was perfectly persuaded that the strong feeling which had arisen in favour of the establishment would not have come into existence, and that their appeals to the country for support would have been utterly fruitless. However that might be, he felt that the commissioners had done their duty to their Sovereign to the Church and to their God.
The Bishop of Salisburytrusted that this would not be made a party question, but that their Lordships would exercise their own judgment and discretion in dealing with the bill. Having witnessed the reformation of their civil institutions he was by no means ignorant that such a reform brought with it a like reform of the polity and outward frame-work of the Church as it stood connected with the State. Such a reformation of the ecclesiastical establishment he had always desired. Although the commission was not framed in such a manner as to preclude objection, yet it was composed of persons in whom the Church could place confidence, and whose recommendations they trusted would be for the benefit of the Church. He would not oppose the present measure on the ground that reform was less necessary in the cathedrals than in the other parts of the establishment; for, although there had been no charges brought against them, yet he admitted that it was but incidental to ancient establishments to deviate from the purposes of their founders. The present measure, however, had not for its object the removal of any abuse; but in professing to reform one part of the eccle-
1018
siastical constitution it disposed of much of its property, while in another part of the Church it conferred benefits altogether incommensurate. He could not help thinking, that it would have been a wiser course, instead of destroying to have reanimated those old institutions. He had had many opportunities of hearing the sentiments, not only of the clergy, but of the people generally on this subject, and his impression was, that if the commissioners had laid themselves as open to suggestion, or had been operated on as freely by circumstances as the community had been, their Lordships would have had a measure to which they could have given their unanimous consent. One of the great objects, if not the chief object, for which the royal commission was issued, was to ascertain the means by which the cathedral establishments could be rendered more conducive to the efficacy of the Established Church. Would that object be in any way achieved under the operation of this bill? The commissioners appeared to have limited the view which they took of the duties imposed upon them almost exclusively to two objects, first, the maintenance of the fabric of the Church, and secondly, the performance of divine worship. Without entering into details, which would be more suitable to the committee, he would merely observe, that the measure now introduced did not appear to him to be calculated to effect the two objects which the committee had in view. Confining himself to his own cathedral, he might remark, that as far as the support of the fabric was concerned, if the bill had been brought on in exact conformity with the recommendations of the commissioners, there could have been no alternative, but that that building should fall into immediate and rapid decay. Fortunately, however, some clauses had been inserted, which had the effect of mitigating in some degree the severe and rigid suggestions of the commission. Upon this point he must bear his testimony to the great fairness, candour, and courtesy with which the noble Viscount (Viscount Melbourne) had listened to all the representations that had been made to him. But even now the funds that would be provided for the repair of his cathedral would fall short of the very moderate means at present enjoyed by the establishment for that purpose. Then with respect to the performance of public wor-

1019
ship, he might observe, that it had been universally held by all those bodies, that the constant presence of some of the dignitaries of the cathedral establishments was essential to the due and suitable performance of the duties of public worship. But this bill proposed to cut down the number of canons residentiary in all cathedrals to such a minimum as would admit of one only being resident at the same time. It assumed that one would be sufficient. It limited the whole number of canons to each cathedral to four, and the chapter of Canterbury had said:—
"We have had at the same time four prebendaries, of whom two were more than seventy years of age, and two more than eighty, and one was such an invalid as to be incapable of duty. What would have been said if we had been limited to those four, with regard to the manner in which the service of the cathedral was performed."
The bill insisted that one should at all tithes be in residence. But suppose that one should be sick—how then was the service to be performed? But independent of this reduction of the resident dignitaries, the effect of the bill would be to take off nearly the whole of those whose duty it was to preach the word of God. Surely, with such enactments as these, it was difficult to say, that the bill provided in any way for the better and more effectual performance of the services of the Church. But though the commissioners had limited their views to these two objects, were they in fact the very purposes for which cathedral establishments were instituted? He maintained, that the higher preferments afforded by these establishments supplied a material deficiency in our universities, by affording a stimulant to the acquirement of theological learning, similar to that which was found in the scholastic professorship of Other countries. The most valuable works in that section of literature had been composed and written by persons after they had been preferred to those offices which the bill proposed to reduce or to destroy. The Scotch Church could not bear a comparison with the Church of England in this respect, for whatever was valuable in theology and divinity in Scotland had emanated from persons connected with the universities, and not from divines holding ecclesiastical offices. It had long been a subject of complaint, that the theological course in our universities was
1020
defective. At Oxford he believed it consisted of only twelve lectures. Exertions were now being made to supply the defect of elementary instruction in theology. Schools of theology and pastoral training had been established in the dioceses of Bath and Wells, and Chichester. That was a reform entirely in accordance with the spirit of the institutions which the present bill proposed to deal with. The passing of the measure would abolish those schools, and make it impossible to carry into effect the original end of their institution. He could not consider any bill a sound measure that overlooked ah end so important as the establishment of efficient schools for the instruction of those who were to be called to the high duties of the ministry. When their Lordships were called on to abolish so many offices of emolument connected with the Church, they ought to look at the new places of emolument which were continually added to the profession of the law. During the last few years it was true, that a considerable number of places had been added to the Church, perhaps not fewer than to the law, bat they were not places of honour and emolument, but, on the contrary, were of small value, obscure note, and brought with them duties Of the most laborious character. He inferred, that if these establishments were reduced, the inducement to enter the service of the Church Would be materially diminished. When a measure, hardly more sweeping in its nature than that now proposed, was introduced into the Long Parliament, the number of students in divinity at the universities rapidly declined, and became at last comparatively insignificant. He feared that the same results would follow now. He was informed, indeed, that already, owing to the agitation and Uncertainty which for some years had prevailed upon this subject, the number of students in divinity at both universities had been considerably reduced. He did not oppose this bill from any wish to retain abuses, or to oppose useful reforms. Nor did he oppose it from any personal motive, for the bill as it now stood would largely increase his patronage, but it would be at the expense of those whom he could not consent to spoil. His motive for opposing it was based upon a conscientious desire to promote the good of the Church of which he was ah ordained minister, and the prosperity of an institution which he

1021
was bound by the most sacred duties to maintain and protect. Would to God that this measure might yet meet with the consideration which was due to it. Willingly, he was sure, would his right rev. Brethren join in consultation with the most rev. Primate and the members of the cathedral establishments themselves, in order to devise some sound and practical reform which, whilst it tended to preserve the integrity of these ancient and venerable institutions, should operate at the same time to render them more efficient for the purposes for which they were designed. If the most rev. Primate and the members of the commission would consent to enter into such a consultation, haply they might together devise a measure of reform really deserving of the name—a measure for each separate establishment, such as to each was most suited—a measure which would make these cathedral institutions not only the ornaments, but the strength and puissance of our establishment—which would make them instrumental in giving us an united and well-governed Church—a learned and pious ministry—a people educated to do their duty to God and man—a measure in passing which, with the unanimous consent of their Lordships, they might feel that they were indeed fulfilling the pious wish of their Sovereign, by making these establishments more conducive than they now were to the efficacy of the Established Church.
The Bishop of Lincolnfounded his support of the measure upon the grounds stated by his right rev. Friend who moved the amendment, and by the learned counsel who had addressed their Lordships in opposition to the bill, namely, upon the ground of necessity—the necessity of removing that spiritual destitution which was fraught with so much peril, not only to the Established Church, but to society in general. It was the duty of a Christian Government to remove the spiritual destitution of the people, and he would ask out of what funds was that object to be effected? Could it not be done without laying new taxes upon the country? He should recommend the abolition of all prebends which were not now devoted to the purposes for which they were originally intended.
The Bishop of Rochesterdeclared to their Lordships, that his oath as a Bishop would not allow him to support the bill.
Their Lordships divided:—Contents 99; Not-contents 48: Majority 51.

List of the CONTENTS.

ARCHBISHOP.

Scarborough

Canterbury.

Thanet.

BISHOPS.

VISCOUNTS

Durham

Canterbury

Gloucester

Duncannon

Lichfield

Gage

Lincoln

Hawarden

London

Melbourne

Ripon.

Middleton

DUKES.

Sydney.

Leinster

LORDS.

Wellington.

Bateman

MARQUESSSES.

Bolingbroke

Cholmondeley

Byron

Clanricarde

Camoys

Headfort

Colborne

Lansdowne

Cottenham

Normanby.

De Freyne

EARLS.

Foley

Cadogan

Gardner

Charlemont

Hatherton

Charlevile

Holland

Clarendon

Kinnaird

Clanwilliam

Lilford

Effingham

Lismore

Erroll.

Lurgan

Gosford

Methuen

Haddington

Montfort

Harrowby

Monteagle

Ilchester

Poltimore

Leitrim

Portman

Liverpool

Redesdale

Lovelace

Say and Seale

Minto

Seaford

Moray

Sudeley

Morley

Saltoun

Ripon

Wharncliffe.

Paired off.

MARQUESSES.

Bute

LORDS.

Westminster.

Brougham

EARLS.

Carrington

Albemarle

Stanley

De Grey.

Keane.

Proxies.

ARCHBISHOP.

Bruce

York.

Huntingdon

BISHOPS.

Derby

Bath and Wells

Leicester

Norwich.

Uxbridge

DUKES.

Durham

Norfolk

Shannon.

Devonshire

VISCOUNT.

Bedford

Falkland.

Hamilton

LORDS.

Northumberland.

Abercromby

EARLS.

Audley

Granville

Barham

Besborough

Dacre

Stamford

Dormer

1023

Dunfermline

Howard de Walden

Ellenborough

Rossmore

Erskine

Segrave

Ebrington

Suffield,

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

MARQUESS.

Carlisle

Ailesbury.

Oxford

EARLS.

Exeter

Devon

Chichester

Shaftesbury

Salisbury

Abingdon

Cork.

Aylesford

Warwick

LORDS.

Delawarr

Sondes

Enniskillen

Grantley

Manvers

Montagu

Verulam

Kenyon

Eldon

Lyttelton

Brecknock

Carbery

VISCOUNT.

Sandys

Strangford.

Ravensworth

BISHOPS.

Rayleigh

Winchester

Bexley

Rochester

Feversham

Bangor

De L'Isle.

Paired off.

EARLS.

Orford.

Digby

LORDS.

Glengall

Colville

Kinnoul

Forester

Mansfield

Tankerville.

Proxies.

BISHOPS.

Onslow

Ely

Plymouth

St. Asaph

Mayo.

Worcester.

VISCOUNT.

DUKE.

Sidmouth.

Newcastle.

LORDS.

MARQUESS

Bayning

Camden.

Rolle

EARLS.

Thurlow

Guildford

Wynford.

Bill read a second time.