Sitting of 4 August 1854

Preamble
NEW WRIT.—For Cockermouth v. Henry Aglionby Aglionby, Esq., deceased.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Consolidated Fund.
2o Legislative Council (Canada); Customs.
3o and passed—Militia Pay; Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (CANADA) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. FREDERICK PEEL,in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that its object was to enable the Legislature of Canada—if it desired to do so—to alter the constitution of one of its branches—namely, the Legislative Council, and for that purpose to repeal or alter the section of the Imperial Act for the Union of Canada, passed in 1840, which had reference to the manner in which the Legislative Council should be appointed. The Bill had been introduced into the other House of Parliament by the noble Duke lately at the head of the Colonial Office (the Duke of Newcastle), and this was the reason that the measure had not reached that House at an earlier period of the Session. It was, however, some time since the attention of Her Majesty's Government was called to the subject of this Bill. About the middle of last year the Government received two addresses from the Canadian Legislature—one from the Assembly, and the other from the Legislative Council. The address of the Assembly requested that the power which it was proposed to give them by this Bill might be conferred upon the Legislature, while the address of the Council remonstrated against such concession. The address of the Assembly pointed out the importance of introducing the elective principle into the constitution of the Upper House, and suggested a plan by which the Council might be rendered elective. The Assembly of Canada, at the time the address was passed, consisted of eighty-four members, but the number had since been raised to 130; these members were divided between two parts of the province which used to be called Upper and Lower Canada; the constituencies which returned them embraced a very large portion of the whole adult male population, and be believed that no popular assembly could more fairly represent public opinion. The address was adopted by the Assembly at the invitation of a member of the executive Government,
1320
and the following was the most important passage which it contained—
"We, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of Canada, in Provincial Parliament assembled, humbly beg leave to represent to your Majesty that, under the circumstances in which the province of Canada is placed in a social, political, and economical point of view, we are humbly of opinion that the introduction of the elective principle into the constitution of the Legislative Council would not only impart greater weight to that important branch of the Legislature than it can have under existing arrangements, however judiciously the selection of its members may be made, but would also ensure greater efficiency in carrying out that system of government which obtains in the mother country, and has been happily introduced into this province."
That paragraph was not adopted without a division, but it was carried by a majority of fifty-one to fourteen, showing that four-fifths of the Assembly were in favour of this change. Looking over the minutes of the proceedings, he thought he might say he doubted whether there was a single member of the Assembly who really objected to the enactment of such a measure as that now before the House. The address of the Legislative Council was, as he had intimated, of an opposite character, and remonstrated against the concession of the power which would be conferred by the Bill. He fully allowed that all proper weight was due to the representations of the intelligent and experienced men who had seats in the Council, but their opposition was only natural, inasmuch as under the scheme which was proposed by the Assembly in their address, these gentlemen would be deprived at intervals of a greater or less number of years, of the seats which they now held for life. It appeared to Her Majesty's Government that the application of the Assembly was a most important one, and that they were bound not to act with precipitation, but to consider the subject carefully and deliberately. Now, the importance of this Bill did not in any way arise from its involving any innovations in colonial administration. The principle of the Bill was one which, on several occasions in the course of the last few years, the Home Government had recognised and acted upon in relation to the government of our Colonies. The importance of the present Bill arose from the application of this principle to that colony, which was the first in importance among all the great colonies of this country. The effect of this example would most assuredly be felt, not only in the adjoining provinces of British North

1321
America, which possessed constitutions similar to that of Canada, but, in all probability, in the Colonies of Australia, where, at this moment, the question of the constitution of the upper of the two Legislative bodies, which it was proposed should share between them the functions of legislation, in place of the existing Legislative Councils, was a subject of public deliberation and debate. The fact that the petition of the Legislative Council of New South Wales expressly desired a constitution corresponding not to the British constitution, which was supposed to be the model of all our colonial constitutions, but to that of the province of Canada, showed, he thought, the importance of any measure of this kind. The address of the Canadian Assembly, to which he had before referred, reached Her Majesty's Government at so late a period of the year, that they did not feel justified in introducing any measure on the subject during the last Session. They determined, therefore, to consider the question during the recess, and to avail themselves of the visit paid to this country by the Governor General of Canada, the Earl of Elgin, to consult with him personally as to the course he would recommend. He thought the House would agree with him that no person could be better qualified than Lord Elgin, by his political experience, his intimate acquaintance with the affairs of Canada, his experience during the period of six or seven years for which he had presided over the Government of the Colony, and, above all, by his entire freedom from any party conflicts in the Colony, to afford valuable information on this subject to Her Majesty's Ministers. One of the most prominent features of Lord Elgin's administration had been, that since the introduction into Canada of responsible government he had abstained from identifying himself personally with any party in the province, and he had cordially co-operated with any Government, no matter who its members might be, possessing the confidence of the Assembly, in promoting the welfare of the Colony. The Government accordingly consulted with Lord Elgin, whose opinion entirely confirmed the statement that noble Lord made when be sent to Her Majesty's Government the address of the Canadian Assembly—
"I feel it my duty, in transmitting this address, to state that I know of no expedient which is so likely to impart to the Legislative Council the influence which it is most desirable that it should
1322
possess as the substitution of the principle of election for that of nomination by the Crown in the appointment of its members."
The present measure, then, came before the House as the expression of the public opinion of the people of Canada, supported by the approval of the Governor General, and with the sanction of the other House of Parliament. The object of the Bill was to enable the Legislature of Canada to alter the fundamental basis of the Legislative Council. The Bill did not propose to make the Legislative Council an elective body, but merely provided that it should be competent to the Canadian Legislature, either to retain the Legislative Council as it now existed, or to alter its constitution as they might think fit. It might be asked, perhaps, why the Crown, in the exercise of its prerogative, could not confer the power sought to be given by this Bill, without the intervention of Parliament? When the Crown granted constitutions to conquered colonies it might, he believed, impose restrictions upon the powers of the popular assemblies which it created, but it had not been usual of late years to impose such restrictions; and when representative institutions were granted to the Cape of Good Hope especial care was taken that full and unlimited control over their own constitution should be given by Order in Council to the popular bodies then created. The constitution of Canada was, however, a Parliamentary constitution, and therefore it was necessary to apply to that House to sanction the powers which this Bill would give to the Legislature of Canada. If the Crown conferred representative institutions on a colony, the popular assemblies had in every instance, as a matter of course, full control over the institutions thus given. Thus the colony of New Brunswick had its constitution from the Crown, and it might at any moment make its Legislative Council elective if it pleased, subject to the exercise of the negative of the Crown on the acts of its Legislature. He mentioned New Brunswick because on a former occasion Earl Grey, when Colonial Secretary, stated to the Lieutenant Governor of that province that the Government of which he was a Member had no objection to the introduction of the elective principle into the Legislative Council of the Colony. But the explanation of the necessity existing in the present case for coming to Parliament was, that the constitution of Canada was a Parliamentary constitution, and had been so

1323
from its origin, having been established and regulated by the Acts of 1774, 1791, and 1840—the first conferring legislative powers on the Governor and a Council nominated by himself; the second dividing Canada into two parts, and creating a different constitution in each, one a Council named by the Governor, the other an Assembly chosen by the people; the third reuniting Canada, and amalgamating the two Legislatures into a Council nominated by the Crown, and a popularly elected Assembly. It was not competent for the Colonial Legislature to exercise any powers except those expressly given by those Acts, and that of 1840 did not confer power to alter in any manner those of its provisions which had reference to the Legislative Council. It might be asked whether there was any instance of Parliament granting a constitution to a colony, and, at the same time, conferring upon the Colonial Legislature which it created power to alter or to destroy the arrangement proposed by the Imperial Parliament. He begged to remind the House of a recent instance in which this course had been pursued. The Act which conferred constitutions upon the Australian Colonies granted to them full power to alter the constitutions provided by that Act, and to adopt, if they thought fit, the elective principle. When the Act of 1840 was passed for the union of the two Canadian provinces a strong reason existed for withholding the powers which would be conferred by this Bill. At that period great disunion and political confusion prevailed in Canada. A contest had long been prevailing between the French Canadians and the British mercantile party, and these contentions resulted in the rebellion of 1837. In 1838 the Imperial Parliament deprived Lower Canada of the free institutions which that Colony had enjoyed since 1791, and when, in 1840, Parliament was again called upon to legislate for Canada, it was felt necessary to proceed very cautiously with regard to the restoration of free institutions, in consequence of the distrust which existed in the loyalty of a portion of the population. There was, however, no reason at the present time for entertaining the slightest distrust of the Canadian population, and the loyalty of the French Canadians was undoubted. He conceived, therefore, that, as every colony of this country, with the exception of Canada, possessed those powers of dealing with its own legislative institutions which would be conferred by this Bill,
1324
Parliament could not now hesitate to grant such powers to the Canadian Legislature. In framing this measure the Government had not adopted the recommendations offered by the Canadian Assembly as to the details of the measure. No doubt it was wished that the scheme proposed in the address should have been taken as its basis, and a draft embodying its provisions had been subsequently forwarded by the Canadian Government, but it was judged better to leave the whole question to the Legislature of Canada, and to restrict the scope of the Bill to granting them the power of making the Council elective if they chose to exercise it. It was not improbable that the practical result of the measure would be to make the Council elective, and many persons were apprehensive, that the authority of the Crown in Canada might be endangered if both branches of the Legislature became elective. He did not in any degree share those apprehensions; on the contrary, he thought it probable that if the Council were made elective, it might become a more conservative body than it ever was. On referring to the history of the Canadian Legislature, it would be found that the Crown had not, in reality, derived any authority or influence from having the nomination of the Council, and that it had not thereby succeeded in retarding any measure originating with the Assembly which might be supposed to encroach on the authority of the Crown. The Legislative Council had, in fact, been condemned from its commencement. In 1791, Mr. Fox proposed to make it elective, and though this was resisted by Mr. Pitt, yet a time was anticipated when the change would be required, and actually accomplished. In 1828 a Committee of the House of Commons, appointed, on the Motion of Mr. Huskisson, to consider the state of affairs in Canada, which were then complicated by the conflict that had long subsisted between the French and English parties, recommended that the number of nominee members in the Council should be diminished. There was a want of inherent power in its constitution which made it incapable of opposing any effective resistance to the Assembly, and this could only be given to it by making it elective, or at least letting it be understood that its constitution was completely under the control of the colonists themselves. But it was not to be anticipated that the Council should ever become the rival of the

1325
Assembly, which would retain in its hands the power of the purse. He would now advert to some circumstances which were said to form a reason why the Bill should not be adopted. The Government of Mr. Hicks, which had held office in Canada since 1848, had recently been defeated in the Assembly, and had advised Lord Elgin to dissolve the Assembly and call a new Parliament. During the last Session two measures had been passed, one raising the numbers of the Assembly from eighty-four to 130, the other giving votes to persons possessed of a very small amount of property. The Canadian Government had not thought it desirable to avail themselves of the power given by the Imperial Act passed last year for settling the question of the clergy reserves until the measure increasing the constituency should be passed; but the Assembly had come to a resolution in favour of dealing with the question immediately. He did not think these circumstances formed any ground why they should not pass the present Bill. It made no difference, as far as this question was concerned, what might be the number of the members of the Assembly, or of the voters who elected it. Differences of opinion might prevail under any circumstances, but the great advantage of the present Bill would be, that, instead of there being a contest between a party in Canada and the Home Government, to withhold a power which the colonists ought to possess, the question would become one between political parties in the colony itself, where its details would be settled. It was further proposed by the Bill to repeal those clauses of the Act of Union of 1791, providing that the Colonial Legislature should not have power to alter the property qualification of its members, that the number of members of the Assembly should not be increased unless a majority of two-thirds in each House concurred in favour of doing so, and that certain Colonial Acts should not be confirmed by the Crown until they should have been laid on the tables of the Houses of Parliament for thirty days. He felt persuaded that the measure, if passed, would give increased steadiness to the course of legislation in the Colony, render the Council a really conservative body, capable of acting as a check or balance to the Assembly, and remove elements of future disturbance from the relations now happily subsisting between the mother country and the British North American Provinces.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he should not shrink from the duty of objecting to the second reading of this Bill in spite of the present discouraging state of the House. He objected to the Bill, first, because it was one sanctioning institutions of an extremely democratic character in the important province of Canada, and secondly, on account of the manner in which it had been brought under the consideration of Parliament by Her Majesty's Government. In the first place the House of Commons was called upon to consider a Bill of this moment for the first time on the 4th of August. He took exception decidedly to the statement of the Duke of Newcastle in another place, and of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, that this was only a permissive Bill. Had the Canadian Assembly merely requested power to make the Council elective, and had the Bill given only such permission as was given in the case of the Australian Government Bill, it might have been fair to make this statement; but the fact was that the Canadian Government had devised a specific scheme, which in his mind was one of an extreme democratic character. They sent it over for the consideration of the Imperial Government, and then Her Majesty's Ministers brought into Parliament a Bill to enable the Canadian Legislature to carry out that particular plan. To bring forward such a measure at such a date as they had now reached, was a course not decorous or respectful either to that House or to the Canadian Legislature. The Bill had been on the table for five weeks. Why had it not been read a second time before? Why had Government waited so long? It was brought down to that House on Friday, the 30th of June, and this was now Friday, the 4th of August. He had really thought that the Government had considered it wiser, considering what had since taken place in the Colony, to drop the Bill altogether; but very greatly to his surprise, it had again been placed upon the Orders of the Day, after having long disappeared from them. He would put it to the noble Lord the President of the Council whether the Government were acting respectfully either to the House or the Canadian Colonies. Look at the state of the House. [There were at that time some twenty Members on the Government, and about ten on the Oppo-

1327
sition benches.] Was that a House in which to introduce a Bill of such importance? Since the Bill came down from the House of Lords, the Legislative Assembly of Canada had been dissolved, because they evinced a determination to deal at once with the great question of the clergy reserves, after themselves virtually admitting that they were not a fair representation of the Canadian people by passing the Act to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, for the extension of the representation. Amongst the papers lately laid on the table he found a despatch from Lord Elgin, expressing an opinion that the attempt to settle such a question in a Parliament which had been already declared by its own vote to be an imperfect representation of the people, was a course of proceeding obviously open to serious objection. He must express strong disapprobation of the course taken by the Duke of Newcastle, as Secretary of State for the Colonies, in reference to this whole subject. The Bill was founded on the address of the Assembly, which, as well as that of the Council, reached this country in the month of July last, and were laid on the table before the end of the Session on the Motion of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright). He recollected no other instance of such addresses having been laid on the table without the covering despatch, and could only explain the withholding it by the fact of no answer having been sent, or of the answer being of such a nature that Ministers did not choose that it should be known to Parliament. [Mr. FREDERICK PEEL: The despatch was not asked for.] That was, of course, the explanation offered by the Government, but he did not think that that was a sufficient answer, or that the omission of the despatch was justified by the custom of Parliament. He could only account for it in two ways—in the first place the despatch had not been answered; and in the second the Government, he suspected, were not very anxious to let Parliament see that despatch. He had a great respect for Lord Elgin, but the despatch in question was marked by a characteristic for which, on more than one occasion, he had had to find fault with the noble Lord. Its substance was this: "I think the measure most objectionable and surrounded with grave difficulties; but you had better pass it." That was a very convenient course for Lord Elgin, and might relieve him from very great difficulty, but he did not
1328
think it would be held very satisfactory to the public either in this country or Canada. It must be a matter of great doubt whether such an elective council as the Bill contemplated would work for the benefit of the people, or consistently with the plan of responsible government established in Canada. He (Sir J. Pakington) considered that the Duke of Newcastle had acted very improperly in not having so much as acknowledged the receipt of that despatch for eleven months. The noble Duke said that, as Lord Elgin was coming to England, he wished to see him personally before replying to the despatch. The noble Duke ought not to have waited for Lord Elgin's arrival; but when his Lordship did come, the noble Duke did not even then answer it. Lord Elgin was here at the beginning of the year, and yet the despatch was not answered till the 26th of May. He appealed to the House whether the noble Duke bad treated so important a colony with the respect it deserved? And what had been the result of the noble Duke's conduct? The Assembly—considering, in the words of the old proverb, that silence gave consent—proceeded to draw up the draft of the Bill which they sent over to England for adoption. And even when the noble Duke did answer the despatch, did the House ever see such an answer? It contained four paragraphs. The first two acknowledged the receipt of the two addresses. In the third he stated that the Government intended immediately to introduce a Bill giving the Legislative Council such powers to alter the provisions of the Union Act as would meet the object of the address if the Legislature, on reconsideration, considered it desirable to persevere. In the fourth paragraph, he stated that they would also deal with the law requiring Bills of a certain character to be laid on the table of the House in the same Bill. And this was the answer which, after ten or eleven months' gestation, the noble Duke had produced to satisfy the people of Canada! But he should like to know what the noble Duke meant when he said that he proposed to introduce a Bill to effect the object of "the address," seeing that there were two? After nearly a twelvemonth's interval, at the end of June the Bill was laid upon the table of the House of Lords by the noble Duke, who appeared to think that, as he had taken so much time himself, the Houses of Parliament ought to have as little as possible. The Bill was opposed

1329
by a noble Earl in a speech of singular ability, and was supported by the noble Duke in a speech characterised by as signal a want of success. The noble Duke said that he (Sir J. Pakington) had also produced a colonial constitution in which the Upper Chamber was an elective one. This was the second time on which he had been invited by the Government to share their responsibility with them, and the construction he put upon this repeated attempt to fix him with complicity in the acts of the Government was, that they were not quite sure that those acts would bear examination; for if they were satisfied with their measures he was afraid the last thing they would think of would be to invite him to share the credit of them. The noble Duke said—
SIR GEORGE GREYrose to order. The right hon. Baronet had alluded to the speech of the Duke of Newcastle on the second reading of the Bill in the House of Lords, and he held in his hand a newspaper which professed to give a report of the debate.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he did not hold in his hand a newspaper, and he had never alluded to the House of Lords.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, it was very irregular to allude to debates in the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman might allude to proceedings in the House of Lords, but not to debates there.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was always anxious to pay the greatest respect to the decision of the Chair, but in this case he could do no more than render a literal obedience to the ruling of the right hon. Gentleman. He had never named the House of Lords, and he thought it would be an extreme measure to prevent him from doing what he had seen done over and over again. All he would say, therefore, was that the Duke of Newcastle was in error in supposing that he had anything to do with the Cape constitution, that constitution having been drawn by Earl Grey. The only thing which he had to do with that constitution was to write a despatch, in September, 1852, advising that proceedings with respect to it ought to be suspended till the end of the Kafir war. When that war did close, and when he was preparing to consider what course he would take with regard to that constitution, the Government of which he was a Member left office. But he had been very much concerned in the formation of another constitution, namely, that of
1330
New Zealand; and on that occasion he had divided the House against a proposal for an elective Upper Chamber, and had been supported by a large majority. He did not mean to say that he would not, under any circumstances, allow of an elected Upper Chamber, for even in the House of Lords the principle of election was recognised. But he did not see any objection to the principle of a nominated Upper Chamber; on the contrary, he thought it might be made a useful check upon the action of the Legislative Assembly. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) said that the subject had been discussed in New South Wales. During that discussion, Mr. Wentworth—a gentleman who had earned for himself great colonial distinction, and who was certainly not of any aristocratic or high conservative principles—made a very remarkable speech. He said that the two Chambers at the Cape were more duplicates of each other; and that the effect of the new constitution would be to hand over the Government of the Colony to the vagabond Hottentot party. But even the Cape constitution was not nearly so democratic as that proposed for Canada. The Lower Chamber in Canada it was proposed should be elected for six years, one-third going out every two years; whereas the Lower Chamber at the Cape was elected for ten years, one-half going out every five years. Again, the Cape qualification was an unincumbered real property amounting to 2,000 l., or personal property amounting to 4,000 l.; but in Canada the qualification was to be the simple possession of property to the amount of 1,000 l. What was this new Council in Canada to do? It was to be elected by the same constituency as the Lower Chamber. That he objected to. The qualification was only to be that the members were to be possessed of property to the amount of 1,000 l. But there was another and important distinction which he thought highly objectionable, because it struck directly at the independence of the body. It was, that if they exercised their legitimate powers, and refused for two consecutive Sessions to pass the measures which had passed the Lower House, they should be liable to a dissolution. The institutions they were going to sanction were far more democratic even than the institutions of the United States. The most valuable part of the institutions of the United States was the Senate. They were not elected by the same constituency as the Assembly, but by a system of double elec-

1331
tion, and the result was, that they got a most valuable body of legislators of the highest class; and every one acquainted with the institutions of the United States must be aware of the difference of character which attached to the House of Assembly and to the Senate. Recollect that in America they had not what we call responsible government. The Ministers were independent of the Senate. And recollect the Senate was not liable to dissolution, but they were elected for six years, and during that six years they exercised a veto on the legislation as great as that of the House of Lords. They were not subject, as the proposed Council was in Canada, to be dissolved, if for two years they resisted the more popular assembly. Then there was another change—he meant the facility that was given by this Bill to frequency of changes of institutions in Canada. If Her Majesty's Ministers thought the Canadians were going to establish for themselves a good and sound system of Government, why should they leave that Government exposed to change at any moment on the mere impulse of popular feeling? This was not the course pursued in the United States, where the constitution very wisely provided against hasty changes in the public institutions. The former constitution of Canada guarded against such hasty changes, by requiring the consent of a large proportion of the Legislature to any alterations in the constitution; and he wished to know on what ground this principle had been abandoned? He thought it was impossible that such a constitution as was proposed to be established by this Bill would really effect the great object of a second Chamber—namely, that of establishing a check between the executive power on the one hand, and the popular branch of Legislature on the other. How was it possible that an effective check could exist where the two Chambers were elected by the same constituency, and when the Upper Chamber was liable to dissolution if it resisted for two successive Sessions the will of the Lower Chamber. The opinions expressed by the noble President of the Council (Lord J. Russell) in 1840 were directly in opposition to such an arrangement. He (Sir J. Pakington) thought it was impossible that the system of party government—or, as it was called in the Colonies, responsible government—could be carried on with two Chambers, constituted in the manner proposed by this Bill. If they had two bodies, both claim-
1332
ing to spring from popular election, the one continuing for four years and the other for six years, they might have one House opposing and the other supporting the Executive Government, who, under such circumstances, would find it extremely difficult and embarrassing to carry on the system of responsible government. He also entertained a very strong feeling that, in thus sanctioning by their legislation democratic institutions of this character for the Colonies, they were not really meeting the wishes of the colonists themselves. He did not believe that the colonial subjects of the British empire had any desire for democratic institutions. This question had arisen in New South Wales, where the constitution of the Upper Chamber had been fully discussed by men who were most anxious for the maintenance of public liberty. Since 1844 the colonists of New South Wales had repeatedly urged upon the Government their desire to have certain concessions made to them, and those concessions were ultimately made by the late, and confirmed by the present, Government; but it was required, as a condition of these concessions, that the residents of New South Wales should remodel their constitution. A Committee was appointed by the Legislature of New South Wales to consider and report upon the draught of a constitution, and the feeling of the people was in favour of a nominated Upper Chamber. [Mr. LOWE: No!] That was rather an unusually flat contradiction, but he thought the extract he was about to read would bear him out in what he had just stated. The Committee stated—
"As regards the constitution of the Legislalative Council, your Committee consider the House is pledged to a constitution similar in its outline to that of Canada. … But the Committee are of opinion that the offer contained in their declaration and remonstrance necessarily includes a nominated Legislative Council in the first instance; and from this offer, independently of the question whether they are strictly bound by it or not, they see no reason to depart. They desire to have a form of government based on the analogies of the British constitution."
M. de Tocqueville had taken precisely the same view with regard to the constitution that was required for Canada. He believed it would be found that a great proportion of the Canadian people would be unwilling to adopt democratic institutions, or to depart one iota beyond what was unavoidable from the constitution of the mother country. He thought the error which had marked the Canadian

1333
policy of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) was, that it had always had a tendency to elevate that portion of the colonial population who were least attached to the British Crown and to British institutions, at the expense of the most loyal portion of the population, and those who were most anxious to preserve the British connection. He had traced this principle in the noble Lord's policy for many years, and he found it still pursued. He thought the cause of this policy was the mistake which many persons made in confusing democracy with freedom. He would always be prepared to resist and to oppose democracy—he meant, of course, extreme democratic institutions. At the same time he readily acknowledged that the democratic element was one of the greatest blessings this country had ever enjoyed. He held that no country could be free and prosperous without a large infusion of that element; but he believed that, if the principle was pushed too far, and if extreme democratic institutions were adopted, neither the interests of freedom nor the real happiness and welfare of the people would be promoted. He would not advise the Government to oppose what was proved to be the fixed and decided wish of such a population as that of Canada; but he counselled them not to go out of their way to encourage extreme democratic institutions, and to give to such institutions the sanction of the British Parliament. What the colonists desired, and what Parliament was bound to give them, was full power to manage their own affairs. If the Parliament wished to conciliate the affections of the colonists, and to cement their attachment to the Crown of England, let them respect the rights and freedom of the colonial population. He believed that if they offered to our colonists the most democratic and republican institutions, the colonists would reply that they were still the subjects of the Queen of England—that intervening seas had not diminished their attachment to the institutions of their fatherland; and that, adopting the noble language of a distinguished colonial statesman, Mr. Wentworth, they would declare that they rejected the unwelcome boon. He would not call upon the House to go to a division; but he wished to place upon record his entire dissent from the course which the Government had taken upon this subject, because, in his opinion, this Bill would give the sanction of the British Government to the establishment of institutions in Canada
1334
which would tend, surely and certainly, to the separation of that Colony from this country, and which, neither before nor after the period of that separation, could possibly conduce to the welfare, the happiness, or the good government of the Canadian people.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he conceived this Bill was only extending to Canada the same principle which the mother country had recognised and acted upon with respect to other of her colonial possessions, and therefore he considered it was almost a waste of time to prolong the debate. At the same time he wished to express his extreme dissent from the views which had been expressed on this subject by the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington). It appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman opposed this measure because he objected to the Reform Bill, which had been approved by the Canadians, and that he consequently was in favour of the existing state of things in Canada. But he (Mr. Adderley) would appeal from the right hon. Gentleman's views on that point to those who were smarting from the existing state of things there, and to the wishes of the Canadian people themselves. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman, on what grounds this country could possibly interfere to oppose the wishes of the people of Canada as to a reform in their constitution? He conceived the question before the House was not whether the Reform Bill which was proposed by Canada was a good one or not. Indeed, if there was one fault which the Government had committed in reference to this measure, it was that both in the measure itself, and still more in the debates which had ensued upon it, they had entered into the details of the subject, seeing that they had proceeded on the principle that the Canadians would choose their own constitution. He would submit to the House that the broad question which the House had to consider was, whether this country could insist on a different Reform Bill from that of the Canadians themselves. Could the right hon. Gentleman point to one solitary instance in the history of colonial legislation where a constitution which had been made to order in this country had ever succeeded or taken permanent root in the political institutions of the colony for which it was designed? He (Mr. Adderley) did not believe such an instance was to be found. It would seem that if the right hon. Gentleman was now in power as Colonial Mi-

1335
nister, his object would be to suppress the wishes of the Canadian people, and to send out to them a constitution similar to that of the mother country.
SIR J. PAKINGTONsaid, he must disclaim any such wish, and he could not help complaining that the hon. Gentleman was misrepresenting the arguments he had used.
MR. ADDERLEY: The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that England had a mission to spread monarchical institutions over all the world. He (Mr. Adderley) believed that during the 200 years in which England had been engaged in colonisation, the result of all its achievements in that way had been to spread as great a variety of political constitutions all over the globe as any nation had done ever since the world began; and the kind of constitution which they had never succeeded in establishing was just that which the right hon. Gentleman was desirous of seeing adopted in Canada. He (Mr. Adderley) would rather say, let us trust to that spirit which loves its own institutions, which goes out with every band of emigrants that leaves this country for our distant dependencies, and which would ever adapt itself to the local circumstance with which it had to deal, and which were but imperfectly understood in this country. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that it was desirable to imitate the House of Lords in constituting an Upper Chamber for Canada; but he (Mr. Adderley) would tell him that the House of Lords was not so easily imitated. That House sprang from a root the like of which he would not find in the Colonies; there were not materials for the constitution of a Chamber on any such principle in a new colony, where the population was always of an essentially shifting character; and to found anything like an hereditary peerage under such circumstances was absolutely and simply impossible. He contended that a nominated Chamber was a mere duplication of the Crown, and nothing more. He would say, in conclusion, that he was most anxious that nothing should be done which was likely to endanger the connection subsisting between this country and the Colonies; and he would now give notice that, at the very earliest moment of the next Session, he should venture to bring the question before the House, whether it was wise or politic to be alluding to the separation of the Colonies from this country as a possible contingency,
1336
and whether it was not practicable to draw our distant dependencies into closer connection with the mother country.
MR. HUMEsaid, he could not but express his great satisfaction at the present state of affairs in Canada. Five and twenty years ago he proposed the adoption of the very course which was now being pursued towards that Colony, and everything that had occurred since showed that he was right. Every attempt to counteract the progressive principle had failed. Since representative government was extended to her, Canada had doubled in prosperity, and he had no doubt that her career would continue to be progressive. They were now asked to pass a Bill giving Canada power to alter the existing constitution, and he could not conceive anything more likely to lead to a happy result. The connection between this country and the Colony would last as long as, and no longer than, they made it the interest of the colonists to be associated with them. In the present state of the world they could not expect to keep their dependencies without the tie of interest; but, on the other hand, it was impossible that the colonists could enjoy greater advantages than they possessed in association with England, and with English capital and English protection to assist them. They were now adopting the true mode of making the Colonies of England strong and powerful. He entirely differed from the right hon. Gentleman in his appreciation of the Duke of Newcastle, for, in his opinion, the course pursued by the noble Duke throughout this matter had been in a high degree praiseworthy.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he understood that the right hon. Baronet did not intend to divide the House, and, such being the case, and no Member having supported the right hon. Baronet's views, it was quite unnecessary for him to trespass for more than a few moments on their attention. The right hon. Baronet insisted, as one objection to the Bill, upon the late period of the Session at which it came before the House; but the measure had only been delayed, in common with other business that had come down from the other House, in order to enable the House of Commons to dispose of measures which had to be transmitted to the House of Lords. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill had come down to them supported by the sanction of a large majority of the House of Lords, whose support of the measure fully confuted the alle-

1337
gation of the right hon. Baronet that the Duke of Newcastle had not efficiently prepared and advocated its provisions. As to the details of the Bill which had come over from Canada, he held, with the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley), that the House had nothing whatever to do with them, although, from the right hon. Gentleman's speech, it might be supposed that the House was absolutely in Committee upon that measure. The real question before the House was, whether, Canada having made the immense progress she had made in wealth, population, and fitness for self-government, there was any valid reason for withholding from her those privileges which were enjoyed by almost every other British colony of altering her own constitution, with the concurrence and consent of the Crown? Canada was now the only important British colony which did not possess this privilege. Was the House prepared to withhold the concession from Canada? In Australia our colonists knew how to exercise the privileges which Parliament had conferred upon them, and had they any more reason to distrust the Canadian colonists than to distrust the Australians? The right hon. Baronet denounced the contemplated constitution as democratic and republican, but the main point to be considered was the result that would be attained, and not the particular mode by which the Canadians would attain it. The question was, whether by the change proposed the Executive Council would secure that respect and weight and confidence with the people which the nominated Council had failed to secure, or which would enable it to operate more effectually as a real and valid check against inconsiderate popular impulses and hasty legislation? This end obtained, the mode was matter of less moment, and might safely be left to the good sense of the colonists. The feeling of Parliament had long been in this direction, and the effect upon our Australian Colonies and upon our North American Colonies of such principles had been most beneficial. He believed that the change, so far from tending to the separation of our Colonies from the British Crown—a separation which none could more earnestly deprecate than himself—would, on the contrary, tend to cement the attachment of the Colonies to the Crown, and to render the connection between them of far greater interest and value to both. The union of the two provinces and the introduction of a respon-
1338
sible Government under the auspices of Lord Elgin, had already operated most beneficially, had lessened the differences between the two races, and united them in a feeling of warm attachment to the British Crown, and he had the fullest confidence that the present measure would largely tend to strengthen and perpetuate the connection between this country and that Colony which Lord Durham had justly denominated one of the brightest ornaments of the Imperial Crown.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he wished to express his entire concurrence in the provisions of the Bill before the House. Whatever might have been the shortcomings of the noble Lord the President of the Council towards the Liberal party in this country, the noble Lord had always been firm to the Liberal party in the Colonies. In one, and only one, respect he concurred with the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington), namely, in the regret which he felt at the late period of the Session at which the Bill had been brought under their consideration; but that was no reason for objecting to it when it did come. The object of the measure was not to establish a new constitution for Canada, but to remove impediments which had hitherto prevented Canada establishing a constitution for herself, and he thought the Canadian people had shown themselves worthy in every respect of being intrusted with the management of their own institutions.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: At this hour, Sir, I shall not occupy much of the time of the House; but, having introduced the Bill of 1840 for the union of the Canadas, I think it incumbent on me to say that I heartily approve of the present Bill. I think it was advisable to have imposed restrictions at that time; but from the moment the leading men of the Colony were disposed to say that the affairs of the Colony would be better managed by an elective Legislative Council than by a nominee Council, I cannot see what possible interest we can have in preventing them from making the contemplated change. I entirely concur in giving them this power. Whether or not they are wise in asking for it, and whether they will make a wise use of it, are totally different questions. This, however, we do know, that since the Union Act, which I had the honour to introduce, was passed, Canada has made very great progress, and that there can hardly be found anywhere, even among the young communities of the Unit-

1339
ed States, a community in which population and wealth have increased so rapidly, or in which there has been such a great increase of every improvement that accompanies civilisation. With regard to the question of an elective Council, of course the Legislature of Canada will have to consider the difficulties to which they will be exposed. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) is, I think, not mistaken in saying that it is a totally different experiment from that of the United States. There is certainly a danger with an elective Government and an elective popular Assembly, that the two Legislatures may not agree, and in that event the progress of Government must become exceedingly difficult. The only experiment which I know of the kind has been made in Belgium. It has succeeded hitherto, but once or twice I have watched the progress of Belgium with some anxiety, lest there should be a stop which might seriously injure the prosperity of that country. However, I believe that with regard to this question, as with regard to the clergy reserves, we ought to allow the great province of Canada to consult its own interests. I believe the colonists can judge far better than we can what is for their benefit, and I most readily consent to a Bill by which they will acquire the power.
MR. HENLEYsaid, it was clear, from the noble Lord's own admission, that he had strong doubts as to the wisdom of the concession which the Canadians had sought. The noble Lord seemed to lay down the principle that what the colonists chose to ask they were entitled to have—a principle which would have operated just as well in 1840; but to his (Mr. Henley's) mind, the strong reason for giving the privilege to Canada was, that it had been given to all our other leading Colonies. He was quite of the opinion that the House had reason to complain of the late period at which this measure had been introduced.
MR. LOWEsaid, he wished to explain that the reason why he had said "No," when the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington declared that the people of New South Wales were in favour of a nominated Upper Chamber was, that the people had petitioned against such a Chamber from every town and district of that Colony.
MR. F. SCOTTsaid, he also must complain of the late period of the Session at which so important a measure had been introduced to the notice of the House. It had been urged as an excuse for having
1340
brought the Bill forward at so late a period of the Session as the present, that the Government had to introduce a number of other important measures. But what, he would ask, were those important measures? None had been passed in the present Session which could justify the Government in having recourse to the excuse to which he had just adverted. He objected also in the strongest manner to the opinion which had been expressed by the right hon. Baronet the Colonial Secretary, that the House ought to agree to the Bill, because it had received the assent of the House of Lords. But such a recommendation of a Bill, whatever might be its value at any other time, was of far less force with respect to the present Bill, when it was well known that, had its consideration been delayed but a few days, the intelligence received from Canada would have been of such a nature as most materially to affect the decision at which the House of Lords had arrived on the subject. The Bill appeared to him to be mainly founded on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly of Canada. But no importance could be attached to the opinion of that Assembly, for the Governor General had thought proper to dissolve the body, because it had proved itself unable, in his opinion, to deal satisfactorily with even minor and far less important matters. The right hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. V. Smith), when speaking of the advantages of this Bill, had said that it would be of the greatest possible utility, as giving a second Chamber to the Colony, which would check the action of the Lower Chamber. But no great value could be attached to such an argument, inasmuch as this new Chamber was to be formed actually of the ingredients of which the Lower Chamber was constituted. He was surprised that the Ministers of a monarchical Government should suggest to a colony the adoption of a plan which would establish a second Chamber not even possessing the same check which existed in the case of the neighbouring republic—that they should propose, in fact, a measure more democratic than that of a republic. It had been said also that the Colonies should be looked at with a possible view to their ultimate separation from this country. But if that were so, was it not the duty of this country to give them monarchical institutions, and endeavour so to establish those institutions, that when the Colonies were separated, they might

1341
become distinct monarchies rather than rival republics, for the larger the number of republics which existed in what were now our Colonies, the greater would be the danger to the monarchy at home? He therefore protested in the strongest manner against passing a measure of this kind at the present period of the Session, and without that amount of discussion and careful consideration which its importance required.
MR. BIGGSsaid, he felt greatly obliged to the Government for having brought forward this Bill; for he believed that a greater piece of practical statesmanship had never yet passed the Legislature of this country. The House might depend upon it that if it did not legislate and keep pace with the growing wants and opinions of the colonies, our valuable Canadian possessions would be alienated from us and thrown into the arms of the United States. He knew of no measures more likely to bring about this result than the stringent forms of Government advocated by hon. Members on the opposite side of the House. This Bill was nothing more than a proper concession to the colony of Canada, and, if passed, he believed it would ensure peace and the most beneficial results. He believed that the Bill, if passed, as he was sure it would be by an overwhelming majority, would form a most interesting bond of union between the colony and the mother country, would produce an immense amount of good feeling, and would increase the loyal attachment of the colonists to the Crown.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 2o.

USURY LAWS REPEAL BILL.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. CAYLEYsaid, it was his intention to move that the House resolve itself into Committee upon this Bill that day month. He must complain that the Bill had been introduced at this late period of the Session without any preliminary inquiry, and without any full and clear exposition of its grounds; and he maintained that there were many reasons why they should not proceed in this hasty manner to deal with a question of so much importance. This was not the first time that the same question had been brought under the attention of the House. There was
1342
an idea, after 1825, that in the panic which occurred in that year the commercial interests might have got money directly from legitimate resources, at a more reasonable rate of interest, if the usury laws had been repealed as regarded bills of exchange. An inquiry took place preceding the renewal of the Bank Charter Act, in 1832, and the Committee decided that it would be expedient to repeal the usury laws as far as regarded bills of exchange of three months and under. In 1833, a Bill was passed to that effect; but in 1836 another commercial panic took place, and in 1837 a Bill was passed to extend the law of 1833 to bills of exchange of twelve months and under. The question was again raised by Lord Lansdowne in 1841, upon which occasion the late Lord Ashburton stated that the relaxation of the usury laws had been of great benefit to the lender, but had not conferred an equal advantage upon the borrower. A Select Committee was then appointed to consider the subject, and that Committee reported in 1842, but refused to declare any opinion. The parties called before that Committee were all of them persons connected with the moneyed interest, with the exception of Mr. Cooke, of the firm of Truman and Cooke, large dealers in Mincing Lane, and of Mr. Graham, an official assignee connected with the Court of Bankruptcy. Mr. Cooke stated that in his view the relaxation of the usury laws had been extremely favourable to the capitalist, but extremely detrimental to the borrower, and he therefore considered that it had operated very badly. Mr. Graham declared that the relaxation of the usury laws had raised the rate of interest to those parties who had afterwards become bankrupts, or, in other words, to the most needy persons. But that was not all. In his evidence before the Committee which sat in 1847, Mr. Horsley Palmer, who had been Governor of the Bank of England, and who had recommended the Bill of 1844, which the Committee was then considering, stated that he had never known such fluctuations in the rate of interest and discount as had taken place since the passing of the Bill of 1844, and his statement was corroborated by Mr. Cotton and Mr. Tooke. Now, if the laws as regarded money were more free, it would be quite fair to contend that the capitalist should be at liberty to deal with his commodity as he might think fit, though reasonable doubts might be suggested whether money,

1343
considering all the functions it had to perform, did not differ somewhat widely from every other kind of property. But the laws as regarded money were not free. The monetary laws of this country were based upon the most restrictive system; and he must contend, from the evidence taken before the Committee of 1847, that the great commercial panic of that year did not arise from the operation of any natural law, but from the operation of artificial restrictions, invented and applied by the Legislature. Mr. Samuel Gurney stated before the Committee that the scarcity of money in 1847 was artificial and not real, and was caused by the absurd and whimsical provisions of the Bank Act of 1844. What was the House now asked to do? Why, it was asked to extend the system of legislation which was now connected only with bills of exchange and promissory notes to all transactions as regarded land. He maintained, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no right to put the landed interests into the same category with the unrestricted moneyed interests, until he had altered the laws which created artificial periods of scarcity and of pressing demands for money. The natural tendency of money was to become cheaper, and if Acts of Parliament, and not the natural laws of money, produced those periods of scarcity, they had no right to make the rate of interest free until they took the present restrictions away from money. Until they had reduced the expenses of the transfer of landed securities, it would be most unfair to put the poor yeoman or country shopkeeper in the same category with those the transfer of whose securities cost a mere trifle. The proposed repeal of the usury laws might suit the interests of Lombard Street, Threadneedle Street, and St. Swithin's Lane, but it did not necessarily follow that it would equally suit the interests of the commercial, manufacturing, and shop-keeping community, or that it would be equally advantageous to the landed, railway, and mortgage interests. The present Bill would most injuriously affect raily debentures and mortgages to a most enormous extent. They ought to make money free, if they made interest free, or if they kept money restricted, which was the effect of the Act of 1844, they ought to keep interest restricted too. The system now in operation was one which produced, by Act of Parliament, those periodical periods of scarcity
1344
which drove the industrial interests to Lombard Street for relief. Augustus was said to have found Rome brick and left it marble. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had found Lombard Street a limited monarchy, and he seemed to desire to leave it a grinding despotism.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day month, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.
MR. HUMEsaid, he agreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. Cayley) that any restriction, such as that imposed by the measures of 1844 and 1845, must be attended with unalloyed evils. His hon. Friend had spoken of the effect of the usury laws upon landed property; but had he forgotten that the witnesses examined before the Committee, of which he was a member, proved that the usury laws subjected landed proprietors to a rate of interest of occasionally as much as ten per cent? Before that Committee, and before the Committee of the House of Lords, the bulk of evidence showed it would be most beneficial to have free trade in money; and he hoped the time was not far distant when every one would believe as he believed, that, as in sugar and coffee, so in gold, individuals should be left to buy in open market at the current prices, without legislative interference. However, the subject was one that required great consideration, and upon that ground probably it would be better that the discussion should be postponed till next year, when the monetary question would be brought fully before the House.
MR. WILKINSONsaid, that these usury laws were originally intended to benefit the landed interest exclusively; but they could not any more regulate the price of money in the market than they could the price of hay or any other article of commerce; neither could they compel persons to lend their money, whether they would or not, at any fixed rate of interest.
MR. MALINSsaid, that the usury laws having been repealed as regarded personal securities, it would be perfectly ridiculous to attempt to reimpose them. But how stood the case between land and personal property? If a person deposited a quantity of sugar or coffee as a security for a loan of money, the lender of that money might legally take 40 per cent interest for its use; but, as the law now stood, if a person lent a sum of money on security of land, it

1345
would be illegal for him to receive more than 5 per cent interest. If he sought to recover more, the contract would he vitiated. The question then resolved itself into a distinction between the two kinds of property, personal and landed property. Was it right to make that distinction? Now he wanted to know whether it afforded any protection to the owners of land? So far from it, he believed it to be a great detriment and a great injury to the land, because the value of property depended much on its facility of transference from one to another. In consequence of the state of the law they had money panics, and the rate of interest bad run up, within the last forty eight hours, to 54 minimum. They knew that in 1847 the minimum of the rate of interest was 8 per cent. When money was suddenly wanted, and the borrower had nothing but land to offer as a security, by the law that was the worst description of property that could be held, because it was illegal for the owner of that land to give more than 5 per cent for the money, while, if the same party had had goods, he could have got money readily, being at liberty to give whatever rate of interest might be required of him. The lenders of money turned away from land, and lent their money on personal security at 8 and 10 per cent. So far, therefore, from benefiting land by these usury laws, they imposed a great injury upon it; they rendered it the least available of any species of property in the money market when the professed object of the law was to make it the most available. So far, therefore, from conferring any boon upon the landowner by these laws, they were putting restrictions upon him. It was said by the hon. Member for the North Biding of Yorkshire (Mr. Cayley) that this measure would be very detrimental to the small landholders. He confessed he was unable to see that. The small landowner either got his money or not; if his security were available he got it, if it were not available he did not. It was quite a mistake to suppose that land was the only available security. He had himself been engaged in a case where a young man had, upon personal security, given 30 per cent interest, and to which the Court of Equity saw no objection, since the Legislature had established the law that upon personal security, unaccompanied by a deposit of deeds relating to landed property, the parties were at liberty to make what contract they pleased. The result of his experience and
1346
of his observation in his profession was, that instead of the proposed change in the law doing any injury to the land, it would confer a great benefit upon it. Any measure which assimilated the law affecting real and personal property was, in his opinion, a good law, and therefore he gave his most cordial support to the present measure. It would have the effect of doing away with a great many lawsuits in cases where money had been borrowed, and in which no questions could possibly have arisen if land security had not formed a portion of the transaction.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he objected in the first place most particularly, to the time at which the Bill had been brought I forward. At this late period of the Session it was utterly impossible the subject could receive that attention which its importance required. In the second place, he objected to the Bill because it was intended to alter that which had been the established law for a very considerable time, and that in so altering it they would affect bargains which had been made under the existing law, which could not be done without inflicting injury on some persons who were parties to those bargains. He was apprehensive that the proposed change of the law would very seriously injure one class of persons—he meant the small landholders throughout the country. They Lad purchased their property on certain terms, and had borrowed money for the purpose of effecting the purchase on certain terms. Now, what would be the effect of this law upon them? There were in all parts of the country solicitors who, as soon as this law came into effect, would say to their clients who had lent the money to these freeholders, "You see that the value of money is raised by this new law, and you must raise the interest on the money you have advanced to these persons, and not be content with 5 per cent." He had no doubt that a great deal of this sort of thing would go on among the smaller holders of land in this country. Upon that ground, therefore, he objected to the Bill. Again, who, he would ask, had called for this Bill? Had the necessity for making such a great change been proved? On the contrary, the measure was totally unasked for, and was altogether a voluntary change from a system which had lasted for many years. He considered it dangerous at any time to make these changes, but more especially so at the present moment, when they were in a state of war, and

1347
when it was impossible at any one moment to know what would be the state of the money market or the rate of interest. By this measure they would subject a large body of persons who were now exempt from those changes, without notice, to become liable to all the influences and fluctuations which would necessarily take place in the money market when the provisions of the Bill came into operation.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he considered that, as the small landed proprietors almost invariably paid the full rate of interest, that rate would be increased if this Bill were passed. There had been many transactions on the faith of the interest on land not being greater than 5 per cent, especially in the case of members of freehold land societies, and the repeal of these laws would, therefore, injuriously affect those persons.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.
In reply to a request from Mr. CAYLEY, to make the Bill experimental, by limiting its operation to two years,
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, after the experiments they had already had, and after the cautious manner in which the change had been introduced with respect to other securities, he thought the time was come to take a decisive step, either to confirm or abolish these laws. This Bill would tend to promote freedom of trade in money, and as it had been unanimously passed by the House of Lords, without objection or alteration, he confessed he should be very sorry to see anything done which might have the effect of interrupting the House of Lords in that career, and which would do no credit to that House.
House resumed. Bill reported.

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, he wished for some information as to the new working of the department, because the efficient working of the machinery of the present Bill would depend very much upon the person who might be appointed to carry it out. He also wished to know whether the "small pipe" system of drainage was to be continued, and what influence the persons named in the Bill as constituting, with the President, "the General
1348
Board of Health," would exercise over the President himself.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, the constitution of the Board of Health, under this Bill, would be precisely that of other second class departments. There would be a President, who would be solely responsible for the administration of the Board, and there would be, besides the President, certain ex officio members, who, however, would have nothing to do with the business of the department, and whose only use would be, in the event of the absence of the President from London, or of his inability from any cause to attend to the business of his office, to do any ministerial act which might be required on an emergency. With respect to the question of pipe drainage, as the drainage of the metropolis was not at present under the General Board of Health, that Board pronounced no opinion whatever upon it. With respect to the gentleman who might be appointed hereafter to the office of President of the Board of Health, he could not be expected to answer his hon. Friend's question, for he really did not know. He hoped, however, and was convinced, that it would be a person of whom his hon. Friend would approve.
MR. EVELYNsaid, he must complain that, while the defects in the existing law in reference to the public health had been admitted by Her Majesty's Government, and legislation on the subject had been promised, nothing had yet been done. They were now told that there was to be an inquiry next Session. So they were told always. Everything was postponed to that shadowy period, and in the existing Session nothing whatever was done. Would the grievances of which the people had complained be in the least remedied by this Bill. One of those grievances was that the present Act was long and unintelligible. Would that be improved by the measure now before the House? So far from that, it would be made worse, for those who wished to know the law, would have to study this Bill also, and there would thus be a code of health extending to 162 sections. Another grievance was, that there was no scrutiny established, so as to test the bonâ fides of the signatures to the petitions which were sent up for the application of the Act. That also was left untouched. Another grievance was, that the law was not of universal application—that it was not brought into operation in every town and village in the country, but was applied

1349
only where the General Board of Health thought proper. The result was, in many cases, a great depreciation of property, for the moment a town was placed under the Board of Health, there was a rumour that some pestilence prevailed there. It was a grievance also that local self-government was preserved only in appearance, for the 119th section of the Bill placed the whole of the local boards completely under the control of the General Board, so that they could not stir hand nor foot—could neither levy a rate nor even appoint a surveyor—without the consent of that Board, which made what terms with them it pleased, and thus an engineering monopoly was created, most injurious to the sanitary improvement of the country. None of these evils had been redressed, or were proposed to be redressed, by this Bill. He thought the members of the local boards should be responsible, not to the General Board, but to the inhabitants of the district for which they were appointed to act. He considered the proposal of the Board of Health in reference to the water supply of the metropolis anything else than adequate for the purpose required, and he should conclude by expressing a hope that the inquiry which was promised next Session would lead to some better result than the addition of another to the number of Parliamentary "blue books." It would be well to give a careful consideration to the common law as bearing upon these subjects, and to see whether, by declaring the common law, allowing it to be carried out, and supplying what was defective, they might not do better than they had done hitherto.
MR. MITCHELLsaid, that the Bill gave the. Board too much power over the local officers. Another objection was that it did not give power over the City of London. The deaths from cholera had increased from twenty six to 133 last week. He had no doubt the increase took place from this cause. The mud and filth which was caused after rain was swept up into heaps, where it was left to evaporate. When dry it became pulverised, and was again spread over the metropolis. Now, evaporation could not take place from those heaps without carrying with it malaria, and this was one of the frightful sources of cholera and other diseases. Some people thought a dirty state of the streets was healthy. He was told by a lady that fogs were good for health, but he did not believe it. In no other city or metropolis, except London, were the streets swept by
1350
beggars, not even in Dublin, which was the land of beggars. Then, again, the graveyards in the metropolis were most prejudicial to health. Westminster Hall and that House received such a smell from the opposite graveyard of St. Margaret's that there was sometimes no bearing it. The state of things was worst at night, and the untrapped gratings added to the evil. Any one who walked over St. Margaret's might see holes for the rats and dogs. He put his umbrella into some of them. He measured the size of some, and found them to be eight inches by sixteen [Laughter.] This might be a laughing matter now, but they would not laugh when the cholera came home to them. On this very day there were nineteen deaths from cholera. The greatest number of deaths occurred in the filthiest part of the town. He had, therefore, felt it to be his duty to state these things to the House.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, it was right that the new Board should be made aware of the system which had been practised by the old Board, and of the feelings of the public with regard to its proceedings. It had been said that provisional orders, such as the old Board had issued, and which he considered inexpedient, were less expensive to the ratepayers than local Acts; but the local Acts which had been referred to in support of that proposition, such as the Brighton Act and the St. Pancras Paving Act, had nothing to do with the question. The expense of sending a man down merely to take a survey of Brighton previous to a provisional order had been 198 l. During the last five years the Board had incurred very great, and, as he considered, unnecessary expenses, and had only applied the Act to a comparatively small number of places. He admitted that the principle of the present Bill was received with almost universal favour, but hoped that some inquiry would take place in order to show the new Board the faults which the old one had fallen into, so that it might avoid them. No town ought to be brought under the operation of an Act so stringent as that of 1848 without ascertaining the sense of a bonâ fide majority of its inhabitants; but if the present system of bringing it under the control of the Board on the petition of one-tenth of the number was to remain, no place would be safe.
MR. PHILIPPSsaid, he believed that a petition signed by one-tenth of the inha-

1351
bitants of a place could be got up for or against any subject, especially if the names of the persons signing the petition Were not to be verified, and, in his opinion, no town ought to be bound by such a minority.
MR. COBBETTsaid, that all the petitions presented to that House, complaining of the conduct of the Board of Health, asked for an inquiry into the circumstances of their being brought under its operation, and alleging, at the same tune, that it had been by deceptive means. He wished to have a complete understanding from the right hon. Baronet the First Commissioner of Works, as far as could be given, that the measure, during the year it would be in force, would not be brought into operation in any particular town unless the petition for it was genuine, and was signed by a majority of the ratepayers, and also that before any permanent measure was passed, it should be referred to a Committee of Inquiry upstairs.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, he must remind the hon. Gentleman that the Bill was not to amend the Public Health Act, but to constitute a new Board, and it would be extremely awkward for him to make any statement affecting the manner in which towns ought to be brought under the operation of the Public Health Act. All he could say was, that when provisional orders for such a purpose were brought into that House, it had always been his principle not to ask the House to confirm them where a decided majority of the ratepayers opposed the introduction of the Act, and he had no reason to suppose that that principle would be departed from. With regard to the other question, it would be the duty of the President of the new Board to propose a Bill next Session for the amendment of the Public Health Act, which would, no doubt, be referred to a Committee, and witnesses examined on it.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, he believed that very unhealthy exhalations arose from the water in some of the parks. In particular he was informed that on very still nights there was a very unpleasant smell from the water of the Serpentine; that the sentries on duty often complained on the subject, and that the inhabitants of the houses in the immediate vicinity, in Bayswater and Westminster, were frequently obliged to close their windows. He was further told that this smell was caused by a great quantity of putrescent mud which lay at the bottom of the water,
1352
and that the evil might be removed by cleansing cut the mud and introducing fresh supplies of water in the form of a continuous running stream.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he was ready to admit that the First Commissioner of Works had been opposed to provisional orders being confirmed for putting the Public Health Act into force in towns where its introduction was opposed by the inhabitants; but he must yet complain that after such an expression of opinion in towns, the Board of Health should have insisted in putting them in the provisional orders in question.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 (Salary of the President of the new Board to be 2,000 l. a year).
MR. HENLEYsaid, he must object to the amount, as too large; he thought 1,500 l. sufficient; he would not, however, divide the Committee on the question.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, the President's tenure would not extend beyond that of the existing Government; for which reason the salary was fixed at a larger amount than it otherwise would be. The duties, too, were of a highly responsible nature, and even in that point of view he did not consider 2,000 l. a year excessive.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he would point out that the salary of the new President greatly exceeded that of a Lord of the Admiralty, who worked exceedingly hard, being engaged morning, noon, and night. He hoped, considering the amount of the salary, that the work would be well done.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, he did not consider that the proposed salary was too much, as the duties of his office would occupy the whole time of the new President.
Clause agreed to, as were clauses up to Clause 8 inclusive.
Clause 9.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he doubted whether Mr. Chadwick's length of service had bean such that he ought to be laid upon the shelf if anything presented itself upon which he could be employed. Mr. Chadwick had in many respects rendered considerable service, and might again be employed in the public service.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, he fully agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that Mr. Chadwick ought to be employed again in the public service if possible.
Clause agreed to, as were the remaining clauses.
House resumed.
Bill reported, as amended.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE (No. 2) BILL.
Order for Committee read; House in Committee.
Further progress resumed at Clause 4.
MR. DIGBY SEYMOURsaid, he hoped the Bill would not be advanced further; for, looking to its principle and the manner in which it was drawn, it did not reflect any credit on legislation. It was, besides, unnecessary, as it professed to give a bore summary process for recovery of sums due on bills of exchange when the process under the existing law was sufficiently rapid. Many of its details were also very objectionable. He objected also to the proposed registry, as well as to the provision which took away the conduct of process under the Bill from attorneys, and vested it entirely in notaries. It also created this anomaly—that whereas the provisions of the Bill affected Ireland and Scotland, as well as England, a person in Scotland or Ireland defending a suit must come to this country for the purpose of doing so, He found that there were sixty-two Amendments by hon. and learned Friends of his, which alone was a proof of the imperfection of the Bill, and was an additional reason why no attempt should be made to pass it this Session. There was another reason for delaying this Bill. It proposed to give a more summary process for execution on bills than now existed; and it was the opinion of several gentlemen, whose opinions were of weight, that it should be accompanied by some measure which dealt with fraudulent transactions in bills of exchange. Such a Bill he had introduced in May last, and, after long delays, it had received a third reading that evening; but, in consequence of the Resolution passed by the other House it bad no chance of becoming law this Session. He thought that the two Bills ought to go together, and if one of them was to be cast into the limbo of next Session, the other ought to accompany it. He should, therefore, move Quit the Chairman do leave the Chair.
MR. GEACHsaid, he thought it undesirable that the House should legislate without further inquiry. The operation of this Bill upon the small tradesmen and shopkeepers of the provinces, who might fall into temporary difficulty, would be to drive them into irretrievable bankruptcy.
1354
There were abundant means of recovering bills of exchange; there might, he would allow, be vexatious pleas, but they were, he believed, very few. He objected more particularly to the Bill because it gave a great advantage to holders of these bills over every other kind of debt. The effect would be, that it would be impossible that my creditor, with a due regard to his own interest, should show any forbearance, because he would not know whether, if he did not put the law into force, the next creditor who had it bill backed would exercise the seine forbearance. He thought the Government ought not to give their aid to a Bill of this kind not introduced by themselves, and ought not to back it up with the majority at their command. He begged, therefore, to support the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Sunderland (Mr. D. Seymour).
MR. MASSEYsaid, he also should support the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Sunderland. This Bill had a very important effect upon the law of bankruptcy, because it seemed to him that it affected very deeply and very closely the law of fraudulent preference. The main cardinal policy of our bankruptcy law was to effect au equal distribution in the property of the bankrupt among the whole boy of his creditors; but if you passed a Bid of this sort, which favoured one species of security, enabling the holder of that security to realise immediately his debt, you induced every powerful creditor to come down upon, his debtor, and to insist upon his giving bills. Possessed of these bills, the creditor would immediately realise them; he would seize upon the property of the debtor, and would thins, in point of fact, obtain a fraudulent preference. Now, he thought it was too much to expect the House, at this period of the Session, to consider the provisions of a Bill which went to change the whole bearing of the bankruptcy law of this country, and which would affect persons in almost every condition in life. Without saying, therefore, that it might not be expedient, at some future time, to provide a more summary remedy for the recovery of money upon bills of exchange, he was certainly of opinion that this measure went too far, and that its provisions were too crude to meet with their approval.
MR. MUNTZsaid, he looked upon this as one of the most unjust and oppressive Bills that ever was introduced into that House, and for his part saw but one reason

1355
for bringing it forward, which was to create ate a job. Somebody or other, no doubt, wanted to appoint a registrar. Who wanted this Bill, and who asked for it? There was no difficulty now in recovering upon these bills of exchange, but this measure would make anybody liable in six days to be made a bankrupt if he did not take up his bill. It was one of the grossest jobs ever attempted to be palmed upon the public, and he should certainly, therefore, support the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. D. Seymour).
SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid that, so far from the Bill having been got up in a hole or corner, it had emanated from several influential public meetings held in the greatest seats of commerce in this country—such as London, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, and Bradford. These meetings were universally in favour of obtaining a more summary remedy on bills of exchange than at present existed. In consequence of these meetings, the bankers of the City of London formed themselves into a body, and it was from them that the Bill emanated. The measure had passed through as severe an ordeal as it could undergo; it had passed through a Select Committee of the House of Lords, attended by the law lords, who were unanimous in thinking it was a measure which was sound in principle, and which would be a valuable addition to the English law. The Bill merely proposed to effect this—that, whereas by the law of England at present, a person was enabled to set up false defences with regard to bills of exchange which set the creditor at defiance for months, these false defences were now prevented and a summary remedy provided. The object of the Bill was to prevent any debtor, who had got no defence whatever, from interposing any delay between himself and his creditor. Was this a reasonable principle for the Legislature to act upon? The Bill had no doubt met with legal opposition, but he had been occupied with law reforms for many years, and he found that the lawyers were not, as a body, favourable to law reforms. This was certainly not an attorney's Bill, and it would most probably hate the effect of diminishing the business of attorneys upon bills of exchange. Was it not a good end to aim at, to enable parties to call in the assistance of a court of law in the most speedy and economical manner possible? The Bill was not the visionary creation of some theorist, but it followed
1356
the example of one of the most practical countries in the world—namely, Scotland—where it had worked most beneficially for 150 years. The same summary process was also in operation in every commercial country in Europe. At the same time, if the Committee should think fit to reverse the resolution which was come to by the House the other day, he was prepared to how to their decision, and kiss the rod with humility.
MR. JAMES MACGREGORsaid, he must contend that the practice as to bills of exchange in Scotland was not adapted to the circumstances of this country. The system of banking there was quite different to that here. In Scotland a paper currency prevailed, banking was carried to a great extent, and bills of exchange did not circulate as they did in England. They were absorbed by the banks, which endeavoured to replace them by 1l. notes. It was the paper of the banks which passed from hand to hand, and not tradesmen's bills of exchange. The trade of a country like England could not be carried on upon the stringent principles which this Bill laid down. When the great convulsion took place in our commerce with the United States, if a process like that provided in this Bill had been adopted, no one could tell the ruin that would have been produced, or where it would have stopped. The commerce of the country he felt assured did not require such a measure; and if meetings had been held in its favour in different commercial cities, the parties who agreed to it ought to be stated, that they might be known. If the Bill was to be proceeded with, it ought, at all events, to be referred to a Select Committee.
MR. GLYNsaid, the Bill had not been introduced without the concurrence or knowledge of the mercantile body—indeed, the subject had occupied the attention of the mercantile world for some time past. The principle of the Bill was good, but he could not help thinking that the scope and tendency of it were not sufficiently known, and he should, therefore, recommend the hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill to accept the expression of feeling on the part of the Committee as an evidence that suitable legislation at the proper time would meet with proper consideration.
SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, after what had occurred he should be sorry to take up the time of the Committee by proceeding further with the Bill, and there-

1357
fore with the permission of the Committee he would assent to the Chairman reporting progress, with a view of withdrawing it for the present.
MR. CAIRNSsaid, he thought that, under the circumstances, the advice of the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Glyn) was extremely sound. The Scottish principle of summary execution appeared to him unobjectionable; and he hoped that some time or other it would become law in a carefully considered measure. He would suggest, however, that the question should be taken up by the Government.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the vice of the Bill was, that it would inflict more inconvenience on trade than was foreseen; as the supporters, keeping but one object in view, lost sight of the inconvenience of issuing executions against every man who did not take up his bills at once. The matter was of much importance, and required great consideration, and though it was said that meetings had been held in favour of the Bill in several great towns, yet it did not appear that much benefit had been derived to the discussion from the circumstance, as several of the representatives of the largest towns were evidently against the Bill. He thought as the measure did not appear to be well understood, it would be by far the wisest course to postpone it.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsail, the mercantile community of the City of London certainly did petition in favour of the Bill, and a great meeting had been held in its favour. The decision to which the hon. Gentleman had come—namely, to postpone the Bill—was the right one. Judging from the opposition likely to arise, both to the principle and some of the details, it did not appear possible that the Bill could go through the House that Session. But he thought the principle of the Bill ought not to be condemned, and he hoped the Chairman would be allowed to report progress, and that would only be postponing the Bill for this Session.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, the Bill had been approved of by practical persons in England, and by a Scotch lawyer of eminence, Lord Campbell. It was monstrous that a man entering into a negotiable contract, such as a Bill of exchange, could put another man, to whom he agreed to pay a specific sum of money on a particular day, to the delay of several weeks, even when he had no real defence to set up. He was surprised that any mercantile man could oppose the introduction of the
1358
law of summary jurisdiction. He had no doubt had the hon. Member (Sir E. Perry) gone to a division he would have carried his measure two to one. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would introduce a similar Bill next Session, not only for England, but for Ireland.
MR. MURROUGHsaid, he objected to the Bill because it was uncalled for, and bore the stamp of amateur rather than practical legislation. It had been said that this was not an attorney's Bill; but he doubted it, for as the law now stood, judgment might be got in an undefended action in sixteen days at a trifling expense, whatever might be the amount of the Bill, but this would not be the case if the measure passed. The Bill was not fitted for the meridian of this country, and every practical man knew it would not work.
MR. MALINSsaid, he also must enter his protest against the Bill, as there was in the law as it now stood abundant means of recovering upon Bills of exchange. He had heard great complaints of the Bill, and had been requested by many commercial traders to oppose it. The remedies were ample, and the Bill was objectionable in principle and in detail. He was glad, therefore, it was disposed of.
House resumed.
Committee report progress; to sit again this day month.

BANKRUPTCY BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 1.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to point out that a great reduction might be made in the present number of Commissioners and Registrars in the Court of Bankruptcy, which was much greater than the amount of business required. There was no reason why there should be five Commissioners in London with salaries of 2,000 l., and five Registrars at 1,000 l. a year. The whole amount of salaries paid in the Court of Bankruptcy was 59,795 l.; besides this, 21,879 l. was paid for compensations, 2,600 l. for annuities, and 6,316 l. for expenses; making in all 90,590 l. He thought it would be a great benefit to the country generally, if all these Commissionerships and other offices were abolished, and the business thrown into the county courts. The Judges there were perfectly competent to undertake it, and in most instances their time was not now fully occupied. By this means, too, a sav-

1359
ing to the country would be effected of the 50,795 l. at present paid in salaries in the Court of Bankruptcy.
MR. GLYNsaid, the question of throwing the business of the Court of Bankruptcy into the county courts had been carefully considered by the Commission which had lately sat to consider the subject of the bankrupt laws, but the result to which they came was, that the business of the Bankruptcy Court was entirely unsuited for the county courts, and that the proposition could not be advantageously carried out. He admitted that the expenses of the Bankruptcy Courts were very high, and would still remain so even after the present Bill was passed. The present measure did indeed embody several important suggestions which were made by the Commission of last year. It was, however, but a small instalment of what must hereafter be clone fur the reform of these courts. For instance, it removed many of the obnoxious penal provisions which the present bankrupt law contained, and it gave the Lord Chancellor and Lords Justices power from time to time to introduce regulations with a view to the reduction of the cost of bankruptcy proceedings.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that perhaps it would be satisfactory to the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) if he informed him that the present Bill was a mere sectional part of a projected reform in the whole law of bankruptcy. The question was connected with the important inquiry into the best method to be employed for the consolidation of the Statute law.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that the present Bill admitted that there was no necessity for more than one Commissioner in country districts, and he did nut understand why five Commissioners and five Registrars should be required for London.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he thought that when a vacancy occurred, that would be the proper time fur bringing on the question as to whether or not it should be filled up. It would be unreasonable to expect that any of the learned gentlemen now holding those offices should be deprived of his office because the business of the Court of Chancery had fallen off.
MR. MURROUGHsaid, he was of opinion that there never was a greater mistake committed than the appointment of the country Commissioners. It was a notorious fact that the large body of creditors resided in London, or in the large
1360
towns, and the greatest inconvenience had been caused to them by the local courts of bankruptcy. To transfer the business in bankruptcy to the county courts would, he thought, be to commit as great an error as was committed when the county Commissioners were appointed.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he thought that some provision ought to he introduced into the Bill to diminish the number of Commissioners and Registrars in London when any vacancy should occur.
Clause agreed to, as were also the remaining clauses.
MR. MURROUGHsaid, he would now move to insert in the Bill the following words—
"In order to facilitate the proof of debts, the Lord Chancellor may, by order, appoint one or more of the ushers of the Court of Bankruptcy in London, or any usher of any district Court of Bankruptcy, a Commissioner or Commissioners for the purpose of administering oaths or taking affirmations for the proof of debts in such courts respectively."
He thought it desirable that when the Commissioners were engaged in the despatch of the regular business of the Court, their attention should not be distracted by the necessity of administering in open Court oaths to a number of individuals, who might with great convenience be sworn by one of the ushers.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he thought it important to administer oaths with the greatest possible solemnity, in order to secure respect for thorn; but to allow a mere servant—for such the usher was—to administer the oaths, would assuredly be regarded as a degradation of the function. There was, however, no necessity for legislation on the subject, as by a recent alteration of the law all solicitors in bankruptcy were made special Commissioners, and could receive affidavits.
MR. M URROUGHsaid, that the circumstance of a solicitor being enabled to receive affidavits out of Court did not meet the case he had in view, which was that of a vast number of witnesses appearing in open Court and requiring to be sworn. With regard to the objection that the usher was a mere servant, he looked upon that officer to be no more a servant than the judge's clerk in the superior Courts.
Amendment negatived.
House resumed; Bill reported, as amended.
The House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Militia (Scotland); Militia Pay; Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes; Militia Ballots Suspension; Public Revenue and Consolidated Fund Charges (No. 2).
2a Duchy of Cornwall Office.
Reported—Bribery, &c.; Stamp Duties.
3a Medical Graduates (University of London).

TRANSPORTATION—TICKETS OF LEAVE.
LORD ST. LEONARDS LORD ST. LEONARDS rose to call the attention of the House to the present system of granting tickets of leave to convicts. The question, "What are we to do with our convicts?" was one of the most important social questions of the day. Previous to the introduction of the system by which transportation was in effect abolished, the practice, as their Lordships were well aware, was, after keeping a convict in prison in this country for a certain time, to send him to one of our colonies under sentence of transportation, but with a ticket of leave, which assured them of the means of earning a subsistence. The advantages of this system were numerous. In the first place, the convict was cut off from his old associations, and could not therefore in the new country to which he was transported come into contact with his former comrades or be led into the commission of crime by their companionship
1294
and example. In the next place, he found himself, on his arrival in the colony, under the control and supervision of the Government of the colony to which he was consigned. He was certain of being provided for, because, if no other employment offered itself, he was employed on the public works at good wages and liberal rations. He had at the same time perfect liberty to engage in private service whenever he found an opportunity; and such an opportunity was sure to offer itself almost immediately, because the demand for labour was always much greater than the supply in the colonies to which he was sent. He was employed at a fair rate of wages, excellent rations were insured, and he had a good prospect of bettering his condition. At the same time there was no objection to the granting of those tickets of leave, inasmuch as there were numbers of persons in the colony desirous of the services of convicts, and who took them with the full knowledge of their being ticket-of-leave men. He had thus every prospect of bettering his condition; and it was not unfrequent for men who went out in this capacity to become tradesmen, or in some instances to accumulate large property. Under this system there was, therefore, no impediment to the granting of tickets of leave. They had not the effect of turning a man loose into society without any means of living, or without the Government having any check upon him. On the contrary, he was sent to a new part of the world, where he was sure at once to meet with full encouragement for his labour and with full employment. Circumstances had, however, arisen, which had rendered it necessary to abolish convict transportation, and to substitute penal servitude for it. No one could find fault with the Government of the day for this change in the mode of punishment, because as the colonists had refused any longer to receive our convicts, it was clearly impossible to send them there. It was, indeed, a little singular that while the colonists as a body refused to receive our convicts, there was always an ample demand on the part of individuals for the labour of such of these men as were sent. When the late Government was in office, the subject of the change to be made in the mode of punishment necessarily occupied much of their attention, and it was their determination still to retain transportation as far as possible. They did not, indeed, intend to

1295
attempt to force convicts upon any colonies which objected to receive them; but they desired to keep some remote island as a penal settlement, and thus to maintain both the terror and, to a limited extent, the use of transportation. Under the system adopted by the present Government, convicts, after remaining in prison for a certain time, received a licence to reside in any part of the United Kingdom or the Channel Islands, under such conditions as the Crown might think fit to prescribe, the licence being subject to revocation at the pleasure of the Crown. Now, when their Lordships considered the great difference in the state of things under which tickets of leave were formerly granted and those under which they had been granted since the late Act was passed, he thought they would see how difficult it must be to bring the old system to bear upon the new state of things. After the Act was passed there was no penal colony where a convict could be sent to, and where he would be subjected to the inducements to lead an honest life which he (Lord St. Leonards) had already described; on the contrary, he was let loose, without any check or control, into a field where the demand for labour was much less, and where no human being would employ him if it was known that he had a ticket of leave. The Government had no means of employing him on Government works. Let them just consider in what a different position an unfortunate man turned loose in this country was from one who was sent to a colony under the old system? As he had already said, such was the unhappy condition of society here, and such was the unwillingness to give employment to a convict, that he must start with a falsehood. He must conceal his real condition, and invent some story as to where he had been and what he had been doing. Nor was it only to his employer that he must give this account of his past life. No man could go to work with his fellows in any workshop or manufactory without giving an account of himself; and if he gave a false account, he was almost sure to be discovered. An unfortunate man in this position was, therefore, almost without resources, and could hardly be expected to continue in the paths of honesty. Then with regard to the course to be pursued towards these men, it was no doubt difficult for the Government to decide what should be done. As their Lordships would remember, a short time ago, considerable
1296
discussion took place with respect to the case of a convict named Brown, who had been discharged with a ticket of leave, who stated that he was dogged by the police, who prevented his getting or keeping work by telling his employers that he was a discharged convict. On inquiry, the reverse turned out to be the case, and that the man had returned to his old habit of misconduct—but contrast the situation of such a man in this country with that of the ticket-of-leave men in a convict colony. They used to be under the control and protection of the Governor, and their ticket of leave, being a proof of good behaviour, obtained them employment instead of being a disqualification for employment, as in this country. It was, however, no doubt very difficult to know what to do with respect to these unhappy men, for if they were to be protected from interference on the one hand, society must also be protected on the other. He had not the slightest intention to bring any charge against the Government for the manner in which they had administered the present system; but he certainly did wish that he could say that they appeared to have applied themselves earnestly and seriously to the discharge of the duty imposed upon them. He had lately moved for certain returns stating the number of tickets of leave granted, and the number which had been revoked; also the number of convicts who had been convicted of any crime after receiving tickets of leave. From those returns it appeared that 1,200 tickets of leave had been granted during the last year; yet it was stated that no communication had taken place between the Home Office and the prison authorities with respect to the ticket-of-leave men committed for fresh offences. It also appeared that no condition was attached to the grant of these tickets, nor any regulations made with regard to the conduct of those holding them. It was, indeed, notified to such persons that the power of the Crown to revoke these tickets would be exercised in case of misconduct, and that if they wished to retain the privilege they enjoyed they must prove themselves worthy of it, Now, if this notification was intended to be considered as a condition attached to the ticket of leave, it should have been placed on the back of it, and then the convict would always have it present to his mind whenever he looked at his ticket. But,

1297
then, in order to make this of any value, the Government must have power to carry into effect these threats—for so he must call them. But how, under the present system, could the authorities know whether these men—over whom they exercised no surveillance—led a vicious or a virtuous life? Why, when he asked for a return of the number of convicts who, after having received tickets of leave, had been since convicted of any crime, what was the answer? That the Home Office had no means of answering the question. But, who should have the means of answering the question, if the Home Office had not? It was evidently utterly impossible for the Home Office to judge of the operation of the ticket of leave, or to act upon the conditions on which it was said these tickets were granted, unless they were in a position to trace the conduct of their holders. It was the duty of the Home Office to exercise a general superintendence over the criminal jurisdiction of the country, and have an account of every conviction of ticket-of-leave man as soon as it took place. There had, in his opinion, been no system; and if there had, he should be glad to hear from the noble Duke what the system was, what the checks were, and what benefits were likely to arise from it. In round numbers there had been 1,200 tickets of leave issued since October, 1853. According to that rate 150 convicts a month had been turned loose upon society; and the question was, whether the country could absorb that amount of such a population without any provision being made for their control. He was strongly of opinion, that if a man were to have any chance in this country, they must not have a detective policeman always at his heels to warn people against trusting him; but, on the other hand, they must have some system and some means of enabling that man to earn an honest livelihood before society would generally adopt him or receive him as a labourer or servant. It appeared to him that what was necessary was, not to grant them tickets of leave, but that some place should be provided, which he believed could be provided, that would become a substitute to a certain extent for the colonies to which they were accustomed to transport them; and where the Government would have some means of providing employment for the men when they were first discharged—for it should be recollected that at present they discharged them direct from the
1298
prison gate into the general population. Let it be remembered that there was no probation, and that many a man would act well in prison, and while under control and under the eye of authority when he knew the consequences of doing so would be his emancipation, who would not, when turned loose on society, have the courage to resist his former habits and practices. What a man's conduct had been in prison was no satisfactory test of what his conduct would be when turned into society; it was necessary to have some system established by which they could have their eye on them, because they should have some check over them in letting them loose on the world. Considering the temptations and difficulties to which these ticket-of-leave men would be exposed, it was not at all surprising that they should sometimes relapse into their former habits; and he thought the man was entitled to great credit who, liberated from prison with a ticket of leave, won his way back to an honest position in society. By putting the convict through a certain state of probation they would be then able to recommend him to employment, and many a man would take a convict from the public works who would not otherwise be disposed to engage him, and when he had once got employment he might hope to redeem himself. He had received some very affecting letters from men who had been discharged with tickets of leave under the present system, and who related the difficulties they experienced in the attempts to earn an honest livelihood, and they would really very much surprise the House if he were at liberty to read them. He had a letter from a man, who, having received a ticket of leave, was desirous to go to his brother in Australia, but he was told it was contrary to the rule, and he could not go to Australia. He (Lord St. Leonards) could not see why a man who had a connection in Australia, and deserved a ticket of leave, should not be allowed to go there as well as remain in England, Ireland, or Scotland; but he was denied the liberty of going there, simply because he had a ticket of leave, and he got the ticket of leave from the very Government who denied him the permission to go. There was a case of a man whose brother proposed to give him the means of earning a livelihood by driving a cab; but when he went to Scotland-yard and asked for a licence, they said they could not give him a licence because

1299
he was a ticket-of-leave man. What was such a man to do? When he had the honour of being a Member of the late Government, nothing pressed more upon him than the difficulty to which he called their Lordships' attention, and he never could quite see his way; but he was sure that their Lordships would be of opinion that it was a question to which the Government ought to direct its most serious attention. He had no doubt the noble Duke opposite was desirous of doing all he could with reference to the adoption of some plan to remove the difficulty; but if a satisfactory plan should not be agreed upon, he (Lord St. Leopards) should think it to be his duty in the next Session to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the whole question. In the meantime he hoped that the Government would take the matter into its serious attention, and prevent the necessity of such a motion on his part.s
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: I can assure the noble and learned Lord that it was quite unnecessary for him, in the course of the observations which he has made to the House, to say that he had no desire to make any complaint of the Government in reference to their management of this matter; the whole conduct of the noble and learned Lord in the House with reference to the ticket-of-leave question affording quite sufficient proof of that, if he had not made the statement himself. I only regret that there is no Member of the Government in this House in more immediate connection with this particular question, and able to answer more in detail and more satisfactorily the observations that have been made by the noble and learned Lord. At the same time, having held the seals of the Colonial Office, and being the individual to advise the total cessation of transportation of our convicts to the colonies with the exception of Western Australia, I do feel a special interest on that account in the success of this great and most important experiment, and undoubtedly feel a large share of responsibility attaching to it. The noble and learned Lord had stated very fairly and accurately the circumstances under which transportation had been, with reference to many of the colonies abolished, and with reference to Western Australia diminished; and he said that the late Government had under consideration the question of adopting the system of transportation in some group of islands—but I do not know
1300
whether he meant the Falkland Islands or not. In the course of the discussions which took place on this question last year, I ventured more than once to point out to your Lordships that, although you might undoubtedly continue the system of transportation, that is to say, a system of removal of culprits from this country to some other spot, it was impossible to continue the system of transportation of late years adopted so long as the communities in our colonies were unwilling to receive them. Undoubtedly you might adopt a system in the Faulkland Islands similar to that which had been carried on in Norfolk Island; but by adopting a system of transportation such as it was in the early days of that colony, and which, after a trial, was repudiated by the whole community of the colony, you would be engendering, and not correcting, crime. Such a system cannot be carried on in the Falkland Islands, or any other island belonging to this country. But I apprehend that the whole value of the system of transportation as it was carried on, existed in the very practice to which the noble and learned Lord referred, when he contrasted the system of ticket of leave in this country with the system in the colony, where he said there was a system of surveillance over the convicts intermixed with the pure population of the colony, and the population untainted by crime, with whom they might become intermixed at the termination of their period of punishment. But New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land desired to be relieved from any further importation of convicts, and the only spot now available is Western Australia. When therefore these countries repudiated the system on moral grounds, it became impossible for this country to continue transportation on the former system, and in my opinion it would be most unwise and, I may use the phrase, wicked to renew such a system under any circumstances. I do not say that in the course of time there may not arise other colonies young in origin, and extending probably over considerable districts of country, where—as West Australia does at present—for the financial advancement and establishment of the colony, they may be willing to accept convicts; and if such a state of things should arise, there will, I am sure, be no indisposition on the part of the Government to take the matter into consideration. But I cannot hold out any expectation to the country that colonies which have been already

1301
established will ever be found willing to accept convicts, and I trust that this country will never be found anxious to thrust them upon them, if such willingness to receive them does not exist. Such are the circumstances under which the present system was adopted. My noble and learned Friend stated that it was necessary in this or some other system to consider whether no new penal settlement could be established; but he was not quite correct in drawing the contrast between this country and the colonies so far as the position of the latter is concerned. My noble and learned Friend seems to be under the impression that these men, on receiving tickets of leave, are at a loss to find employment by which they might earn an honest livelihood. I do not know what particular instances have been brought to the attention of the noble and learned Lord; but he will admit that the cases drawn to his attention from the philanthropic disposition he has shown, in this House and elsewhere, on the subject, are likely to be cases of hardship, and therefore it is unfair to form an opinion from the individual letters that no doubt have been laid before him. The noble and learned Lord says that so great must be the dearth of private employment for those ticket-of-leave men, that it was desirable to establish a system of public works on which the convicts might be employed. I can assure my noble and learned Friend that it was intended, if there was any difficulty experienced in finding employment for them from private persons, that provision should be made to employ those convicts on public works until they could find employment. I can assure him that every attention has been paid to the demand for labour, with the view of employing them on public works if employment with private individuals could not be found for them; but such has not been, and is not at present, the case; and unless the necessity does arise for the adoption of a different course, I think it far better for the community at large to provide employment rather than to adopt a system of intermediate employment on public works. The noble and learned Lord said that the measure adopted by the Government was a mere gaol delivery, and that the convicts were periodically turned out of the prisons to find their way in the world, without any system having been adopted to prevent them returning to vi-
1302
cious courses, but I can assure the noble and learned Lord that he is mistaken, and when he shall read the reports that are about to be presented to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he will see that there has been a system adopted. He seems to think that at the termination of the period of imprisonment they are merely released with those tickets of leave; but the fact is, that about a month before the time a convict is about to be released, either owing to his conduct in prison, or from the duration of his period of imprisonment having expired, a letter is invariably written by the chaplain of the gaol to individuals pointed out by the convict himself in their neighbourhood from whom he thinks it likely he might receive employment; and I am happy to say—and I say it to the honour of the individuals—those letters from the chaplains have been in the great majority of instances answered in the affirmative, and the convict has succeeded in obtaining employment. When those answers are unfavourable, steps are taken for finding employment for those individuals with other persons besides those pointed out by the convicts themselves, and up to the present time, as far as could be ascertained, the convicts who had been released had found no want of employment, with the exception of a few who have resorted to their old vicious habits. When convicts are released, they are taken by the officers of the prison to the railway and supplied with clothing suitable to the class of life they heretofore occupied and are again about to adopt, their fare is paid, and they are sent to the spot where they expect to find employment. As regards the sum to which they are entitled on their release, amounting sometimes to about 5l. or 6l., the whole of that sum is not paid to them immediately, but a part is kept in reserve and paid to them occasionally, which has the additional advantage of continuing to a certain extent, without the aid of any watch or police, a certain degree of guard over them, and shows a continuance of the interest felt in them. These are only a few of the points of what I may call the system that has been adopted, and I mention them as the best way of correcting the erroneous opinion under which the noble and learned Lord has laboured, that no system has been adopted, but that the convicts are thrown upon the wide world without a chance of procuring employment. I be-

1303
lieve the cases referred to by the noble and learned Lord, in which the convicts have resorted to their vicious habits are exceptional; and when we consider that out of 1,200 convicts who have hitherto been released, so far as we know, much less than I per cent have resorted to vicious habits—I do not mean to say that that is exactly the result, but we must argue from what we know—we must admit that that is certainly an extraordinary small proportion. It is so small that I cannot hope that it is likely to continue. It may extend on some future occasion to 15 or 16 per cent; but when the proportion is so small as at present, it would be only fair to say that the system has not met with that utter want of success which many persons anticipated at the commencement. The noble and learned Lord said there were no conditions attached to the licences granted to convicts, and he had been surprised to hear the noble and learned Lord say that it would have been right for some notice in writing to be given to the convicts. The noble and learned Lord had been misled, for the fact was, the system which the noble and learned Lord suggested had been adopted, and upon the back of the document given to the convict were certain printed conditions, under which the ticket of leave was granted. No blame attached to the noble and learned Lord for having taken this objection, and he was only happy to inform the noble and learned Lord that the case stood much better than was supposed. My noble and learned Friend has referred to the number of convicts that have been set at liberty and reconvicted; but when I last saw Colonel Jebb I put the question to him for the purpose of ascertaining the number again convicted. He said it was impossible to state accurately without investigation, and without knowing the names of the Judges and of the magistrates; but that, so far as information had been obtained, there was an extraordinarily small number of reconvictions. The noble and learned Lord has alluded to a special case, such as I am not surprised should raise a feeling of great interest in his mind; but, at the same time, it would be unfair to judge of the system from this case. The noble and learned Lord has referred to a ticket-of-leave man, who had the means of going to Australia, and he asked why he should not be allowed to go there? Why, for no other reason
1304
than this; it was felt when the Act was passed last year, that if the Government did anything from which it was to be inferred that they were doing indirectly what they would not do directly, they would be offering an insult to the colonists, and that the colonists would have a right to complain. Therefore, the tickets of leave are confined to the United Kingdom alone, and if there is to be any watch at all maintained over them, that is necessary. We have no right to let them into the world at large, or permit them to go into the Colonies or to foreign countries, and if we did, the Colonies and foreign countries would say they had a right to complain. To maintain, however slightly, a system of watchfulness over them, that watchfulness must be exercised by the authorities at home, and, therefore, it is necessary that the ticket of leave should be confined to the United Kingdom. A great objection has been urged to the system, on the ground that the convicts were left to be watched by policemen and were looked upon with suspicion, and were unable in consequence to find employment. I think it right, to remove any misconception that may exist as regards the police authorities, to assure the noble and learned Lord that instructions have been given to the policemen not to follow men who have tickets of leave, but, on the contrary, to render them facilities for obtaining employment. Whilst on the one hand it is desirable that we should keep up, as far as possible, some acquaintance with those men, it must not be done by policemen dogging them, but by the adoption of a mode with which no one is better acquainted than the noble Earl opposite, who has paid some attention to this subject, and by which we may keep up an acquaintance with those people. The noble and learned Lord may be sure that this question will not be lost sight of, and we shall have in this particular instance the assistance of a most able man, whose whole soul is wrapt up in the subject—I mean Colonel Jebb. If this great experiment can succeed in any man's hands, I am sure it will in his; and I am sure that every exertion will be made by him to justify this and the other House of Parliament in making this great experiment with respect to convicts in this country.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he did not disbelieve that very great exertions had been made to render this experiment successful,

1305
but he despaired of its ever being made so. Though only 1,200 convicts had been as yet discharged, there were thousands convicted every year, and they must be dealt with. Was it possible to expect that year after year those exertions to obtain employment could continue and be successful? They would find in this country, as had been found in other countries where transportation was unknown, that the number of convicts would greatly multiply, and that to try to reform them in their own country would be impossible. He had no doubt that every exertion had been made, and would continue to be made, to diminish the evils of the system; but what had been stated by his noble and learned Friend with regard to persons who obtained tickets of leave was quite true—namely, either that it would be known they had been convicted, and they would not be employed, or they must conceal by a lie their own former history; and in the latter case their previous character was always liable to be discovered at any moment, and they would be obliged to fly from one part of the country to another to avoid exposure. In his (Lord Campbell's) experience, when sentence of transportation was pronounced in open court, it not only made a deep impression on the convict himself, but upon all who heard it; and that sentence exercised more influence in producing good conduct than the actual infliction of the punishment itself. On the contrary, when a prisoner was sentenced to four years' penal servitude, be viewed the sentence with comparative indifference. In the first place he did not understand what it meant, and he next flattered himself that he was not to be sent out of the country, but was to be kept imprisoned for a few years where his confinement would probably be abridged, and that in the meantime he would only have some easy work to do that would give him very little annoyance. He had another remark to make with respect to the effect of the system of transportation upon industry. It was calculated that in the Australian colonies as many as 40,000 persons who had formerly been transported were now honestly and usefully employed in situations in which they maintained their families respectably; and there could be no doubt that if these persons had remained in England they must have led a life of continued crime, bringing lasting misery upon themselves, and preying upon the property of the country.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYcon-
1306
curred in much that had fallen from the noble and learned Lord who spoke last, but thought that great difficulty surrounded the question on every side. The persons who were generally sentenced to transportation were not prisoners brought up for their first offence, but mostly belonged to a class of criminals who were thoroughly initiated into a course of vice and crime. The reform of the offender was a consideration that ought not to be overlooked, and one quite as important as was his punishment. There could be no doubt that a person who had passed through a term of penal servitude, even if disposed to lead a new life, had very great discouragement to encounter in his endeavour to gain an honest; and such persons were often compelled to resort to their old courses, and were the means of inveigling younger persons into the same vicious career. The ticket-of-leave system was, however, as the noble Duke stated, only an experiment; and he hoped that after it had had a fair and sufficient trial, the whole subject would be brought under the review of Parliament.
LORD ST. LEONARDSbriefly replied. He said that the explanation of the noble Duke was satisfactory as far as it went, and he felt assured that the question would receive additional consideration from the Government during the recess.

NATIONAL EDUCATION—ADJOURNED DEBATE (SECOND NIGHT.)
Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned Debate [July 24] on the proposed Resolution read.
Debate resumed accordingly.
LORD BROUGHAM: * My Lords, I have certainly but faint hopes of being able to fix the attention of your Lordships upon an adjourned debate, however important the subject; and the rather because when I moved these one and twenty Resolutions. I abstained from reading them, that I might spare you the fatigue of hearing the statements repeated which had formed the substance of my address to the House: They were thus only printed in the Votes; and with all my respect for your industry in performing legislative duties, I can hardly believe that you devote much time to the perusal of those records of your proceedings; so that it is very much to be questioned if any one of your Lordships has become acquainted with a single word of these Resolutions. [The Earl of ABERDEEN: Don't take that for granted.] My

1307
noble Friend opposite (the Marquess of Lansdowne) and my noble and learned Friends near him (Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice Campbell) objected to my withdrawing the Resolutions when I had moved them, and they refused to have the previous question upon them put, lest it might be supposed that the House had disagreed with them. But as I could hardly expect so many important propositions, some of them statements of fact, others of principle, could be agreed to without further discussion, in concert with my noble Friends, the course was taken of adjourning the debate. I do not purpose to revive and continue it at present; but one of the Resolutions, the seventeenth, together with the provisions grounded upon it, in the Bill now on your table, is of such paramount importance that I must crave your indulgence while I open the great question to which it relates—that of the difficulty found to beset the subject of popular education on every side, and meeting us at each step of our progress, from the religious differences existing in this country. For my own part, I have always held the opinion, from which I will not say I have been driven by compulsion, but by compulsion I certainly have been driven most reluctantly to modify or qualify its practical application, that the true mode of educating the people is to provide the means of secular instruction, and keep religious instruction apart from it; or at least teaching in schools those truths on which all sects are agreed, and leaving those truths on which they differ to be taught by the parents of each child, the pastors of each sect.
In a community like this, filled with various religious classes, and whose religious zeal is happily so fervent—I say happily, because whatever dissensions it may engender, and whatever difficulties it may occasion, its warmth at least proves the strength and sincerity of religious conviction—it has always appeared nearly impossible to plant schools in which the children of various sects may be taught, unless their instruction is confined to secular learning, while their religious teaching is left to their parents or their pastors. But this principle by no means excludes whatever security may be required for their receiving that instruction at home, and for their attending the church to which their parents resort, supposing their attendance at the school service or school church dispensed with. This is the opinion, and with this qualifica-
1308
tion rather than exception, which I have ever held, and in common with men whose great worth was not more remarkable than the strength of their religious feelings, so that it is grounded on anything rather than indifference on this most important matter. I refer to my lamented friend the late Duke of Bedford; but I may besides cite those who also bore the foremost part in the kindred, nay, identical controversy of the British and Foreign Bible Society, Mr. Wilberforce, Mr. Whitbread, Zachary Macaulay, William Smith, who differing with them on many other points, agreed on this, and agreed with them also in being a truly pious man.
At first, and I may add for very many years after the system of schools for all was introduced, it was no part of the plan that any care should be taken for religious instruction, because the difficulties were found to be all but insuperable, of combining that with secular teaching; and it was found almost equally difficult to exact any security for religious instruction out of school, unless some such instruction should be connected with the school teaching. Still, as the extreme importance of obtaining some such security was admitted on all hands, I was induced to insert a provision in the Bills of 1837, 1838, and 1839, which had received the entire approval and support of the Government (Lord Melbourne's), and I have introduced it into the Bill now on your table. It requires that all schools to be either planted, or assisted by the rate which the municipal bodies are authorised to levy, shall be open to all classes, teaching no catechism, compelling no attendance at church service, where parents either object to the catechism or the service, but requiring satisfactory proof that the religious instruction and attendance on divine service is cared for by the parents or guardians in their own way. When we consider the division of the community into so many sects, we at once perceive the absolute necessity of some such principle governing our provisions for popular education, if, indeed, we are not led at once the full length of adopting the peremptory separations of secular from religious instruction, on which, however, I repeat, the general sense of the country, and of Dissenters as well as Churchmen, has pronounced a sentence of condemnation.
But the religious divisions to which I advert are well calculated to make us feel all the difficulty of combining the two kinds

1309
of instruction in one system. On one side we have the Establishment and its schools, where the Catechism is taught, the Liturgy used, and attendance on the Church service required; and here there is no difficulty, because the hundreds of thousands of children attending these schools, and answering to the millions of Churchmen, belong to one body, all professing a religious belief which is one and the same. So it is sometimes said, there being the Dissenters on the other hand—let schools be provided for their children, where no Church Catechism, Liturgy, or attendance is required, but the instruction is given according to their dissenting views. And nothing could be more easy than such an arrangement if the sects, like the Church, were one and the same; but, unfortunately, they are five and thirty —twenty-seven British and eight foreign; there are divisions and subdivisions: thus, when we speak of Methodists as a sect, we are speaking of nine sects; for there are the two great divisions of Arminian and Calvinistic, and the Arminians are subdivided into seven, the Calvinists into two. So the Baptists are five sects, not one; and thus, when we speak of Methodists and Baptists as if they were two sects, we, in fact, are speaking of no less than fourteen, which, with the Roman Catholics, the Presbyterians, the Independents, the Unitarians, and others, make in all five and thirty different persuasions. True, some of these subdivisions only differ from each other by slight variations, or shades of diversity in opinion; and hence, if we had no experience to guide us, we might that their repugnance to each other, their determination to keep aloof, their mutual repulsion as it were, would be feeble in the like proportion. But, alas! alas! it is just the other way. The nearer they approach in doctrine and discipline, the wider is their severance in feeling; the more alike their religious belief and political structure, the more they disagree, the greater is their mutual repugnance. It seems to be the law that governs religious dissensions and spiritual animosity. The Odium Theologicum seems, like gravitation, only that it is repulsive and not attractive, to act inversely as the distance, or even in a higher proportion to the proximity of faith. To establish anything like a common action among the zealots of these sects is manifestly impossible. Nothing could satisfy, or indeed appease them, but the establishment of schools for each of
1310
the different persuasions, a thing utterly impracticable.
Happily, however, the same spirit does not prevail in all the denominations, or at least among all the members of each. There is the most satisfactory evidence that a great proportion of Dissenters avail themselves of the instruction afforded by the Church schools, and it is probable that far more of each sect send their children thither than to other dissenting seminaries. If we take the census returns framed upon the Church attendance on the 31st March, 1851, we may reckon 8,000,000 as the number of persons belonging to the Establishment; 5,700,000 as those of all the 35 sects, leaving about 4,200,000 not professing to join with any denomination. It has no doubt been said that those returns are of questionable accuracy as regards the proportion of churchmen to dissenters, and a Right Rev. Friend of mine (Bishop of Oxford) lately adduced facts to illustrate this position. But admitting all that can be alleged in support of this argument, the estimate of the number of Dissenters on which I am grounding my inference, will not be affected, because there is the margin of 4,200,000 to be distributed; and it must be granted that a certain proportion of these belong to the sects. I will allow by far the greater number to the Church, but I think were my Right Rev. Friend here, he would admit that increasing the number of 8,000,000, shown by the returns, to the extent of 9,000,000, and diminishing by that addition the 5,000,000 of Dissenters, we cannot add the whole 4,200,000 to the Church, giving it above 13,000,000. It is manifest, therefore, that nearer 6,000,000 than 5,000,000 must belong to the sects, or about 5,700,000. Now, in this population, what is the proportion of children attending schools? By the statements which I made the other evening, and for the reasons then urged, it appears that there should be about 700,000. But the returns don't show above 240,000 attending the dissenting schools, leaving more than 450,000 who must receive their education elsewhere. The great desire of Dissenters to obtain instruction for their children is undeniable; it has at all times most honourably distinguished them; they were the earliest in the field as promoters of popular education; and the number of children which I have just stated, must therefore receive education either at pri-

1311
vate seminaries or at church schools. At private seminaries, it is evident that only the children of the wealthier classes can be taught, and as these attend school much longer than others, there must on that account be an addition made to the number which was taken upon the general average for all classes. So that nearly the whole 450,000, certainly 400,000, are to be regarded as attending the National or Church Schools. This is a fact of the greatest importance, and it is hard to say whether there results from it more credit to the wise liberality of the Church or of the sects; for it shows on the one hand, that generally speaking, no attendance or instruction is enforced, which can offend conscientious scruples on matters of importance, and it proves on the other hand, that the mere name of the establishment, and the connection with it of the patrons and teachers, does not raise a prejudice sufficient to outweigh the Dissenter's desire of education for his child. We may thus derive very great comfort from observing that the good sense of the greater number both among Churchmen and sectaries, prevails over the bigoted violence of zealots, leads the one class to keep open the doors of their schools to all, by forbidding any compulsion, either as to catechism or divine service, and keeps the other class above the folly of indulging in groundless prejudices, rather against the name of an establishment than its substance.
But upon this wise forbearance, as the cardinal point, hinges the power of that establishment to benefit those without its pale. Its schools can only be accessible to all by the exclusion of whatever shuts their doors against conscientious Dissenters. Yet it is lamentable to reflect that while the Church has thus distinguished itself, those who had originally taken the lead against all exclusive views, all dogmatic tests, all observances which could by possibility introduce disqualification on religious grounds, have lately departed widely from these wise and tolerant principles. With the British and Foreign School Society, I have been intimately acquainted, I may say connected from its commencement in 1810, under another name; indeed I presided at the preliminary meeting held to found it, attended by W. Allen, Joseph Fox, Thomas Clarkson, and others, who had stood by Joseph Lancaster in his great difficulties. In the following spring, the Duke of Bedford pre-
1312
sided over its first public meeting. Under his auspices, and those of the Duke of Kent, father of Her Majesty, one of the most zealous and useful friends of the Institution, it gathered strength; and its fundamental principle, that which distinguished it from the National Society, soon after established, was the rigorous exclusion of all differences on religious grounds, the severance of secular from religious instruction, the repudiation of whatever could by any possibility operate as a test—the principle embodied in its motto of Schools for All. Judge then of my astonishment when I lately heard that steps had been taken to shut the doors of this Institution against Unitarians, and deprive them of its benefits by requiring the acceptance of religious dogmas to which they cannot assent. Among the sects to which I have adverted, the Unitarians are in point of numbers nearly the least conspicuous; they amount to little more than 60,000; but they are for the most part in easy circumstances, and for their character and habits much respected. They make great exertions for the education of their children; but their poor, though not numerous, are in want of the means of instruction, especially in some parts of the West of England. Applying to the teachers connected with the Society and its officers, the pastors of the Unitarians have found that in its schools religious doctrines are required to be taught to which no conscientious Unitarian can subscribe. To such an extent has this departure from its fundamental principles proceeded, that I hold in my hand the opinion given by two learned friends of mine, the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas when he was Attorney General, and Mr. Bolt, the eminent King's Counsel, who being consulted upon the statement of the Society itself, signed by its Secretary, pronounced without hesitation that the Society is guilty of a constant breach of trust in dealing with the funds given or bequeathed to it on the faith of its original or fundamental principles, but now applied to support schools from whence Unitarians are excluded by the religious dogmas taught, by the test thus exacted from teachers, the standard of supposed orthodoxy to which the scholar must conform; and this by the Society which plumes itself upon rejecting all manner of exclusion, arrogates to itself the peculiar function of holding schools for all, and is constituted, both in its patrons and in its members, most chiefly of Dissen-

1313
ters from the National Church. So much for the tolerance of those who charge the Church with exclusive principles; so much for the fancy that intolerance is confined to establishments.
I have heard it once and again affirmed that Unitarians are not Christians; and some in their unreflecting zeal—some even of those whom I sincerely respect—have gone so far as to call Socinianism a halfway house towards infidelity; forgetting that a half-way house, from the nature of the thing, ex vi termini, must be as well from as towards—either to infidelity, or from infidelity to Christianity; and accordingly I have known eminent converts from the superstitions of the East who were Socinians. But when misguided men of more zeal than knowledge would thus distinguish the Unitarian from the Christian, whom, I will ask, do we fondly cite as our highest authorities when we are engaged in defending our religion against its infidel adversaries? In arguing with these upon the evidences, how often has one said, "What better would you have than that which satisfied the greatest masters of science, the great luminaries of law? Who was ever a better judge of legal evidence than Hale, of moral evidence than Locke, of mathematical and physical evidence than Newton?" And yet Locke at one time laboured under grave suspicion of Unitarianism, groundless, perhaps, though he was at the least an Arian. But that Newton was a Unitarian is quite certain. [Lord CAMPBELL expressed some dissent, saying he was an Arian.] No—as thorough a Unitarian as ever attended Essex Street Chapel. My noble and learned Friend will find this clearly proved by Sir D. Brewster from examination of the Newton MSS. which, that learned person says, leave not the shadow of a doubt upon the subject. Your Lordships, indeed, are not Unitarians; I question if there be one in this House. [Lord CAMPBELL: There have been.] Certainly there have; the Duke of Grafton and others; with them we may not agree; but assuredly their errors are not to be corrected by denying that Sir Isaac Newton was a Christian, or Dr. Lardner—he to whose writings the defence of our religion owes so great an obligation, that they form a large proportion, nay the very foundation, of Dr. Paley's celebrated work. With these eminent men you may differ; you may keep aloof as wide as you will from them; but it is not by denying the Christianity of Newton and Lardner
1314
that you can turn Socinians aside from their track. Neither of their heresies nor of far greater than theirs, have I the least dread. I have no alarm for the truth—no fear of error. Let truth be left to the attacks of its enemies, error to the care of its friends, and I have no apprehension of the result. But one thing I do fear; one thing does alarm me; and that is persecuted error. That fills me with apprehension; for well I know that whether openly persecuted or secretly oppressed—cruelly treated or subjected to injustice, annoyance, and vexation—it straightway becomes formidable. Maltreatment gives it the only chance of success, makes it by degrees wear the garb of truth, and ends by usurping her place. I hope and trust that the notice taken of that grievous mistake into which the men I allude to have been betrayed—well-meaning men but overzealous, and without knowledge to temper and guide their zeal—may lead them to regain the right path from which they have strayed to correct the abuse which they have countenanced.
It is my confident hope that the Bill on your table, giving effect to the Resolution which I have been discussing, will receive the sanction of your Lordships, and that effectual means may thus be afforded, of giving where they are most wanted the blessings of education to all classes, without regard to their religious persuasion. We hear of maladies breaking out in certain districts detached one from another. The great evil of ignorance is also found to exist dispersed; and I would apply to it a sporadic remedy by giving our municipal bodies the power of planting schools at the cost of the communities subject to their government, but schools open to the children of all, whether Protestants or Catholics, Churchmen or Dissenters, and kept open by rules preventing all compulsory teaching of catechism, all compulsory attendance on divine service. This has been found easily effected in the North, upon the principles so wisely and so liberally laid down by Dr. Hook; for, at Edinburgh, I know that the children of various sects receive religious instruction in the same place at different hours, from different pastors, while they receive secular instruction at the same hours from the same teachers. But wise by the experience of my noble Friend in the Home Department (Lord Palmerston), who has unfortunately been frustrated in his attempts to improve our police, by the jea-

1315
lousy of corporate towns, I have provided that the municipalities shall have the most uncontrolled management of their schools, subject only to having the rating power withdrawn by the Education Committee of the Privy Council for a breach of the conditions on which it had been granted, such especially as the cardinal one of keeping the schools open to all classes. If they choose to change the fundamental rules, they must rely on other funds than the rate. I look forward to this measure as yielding a fair promise of successfully grappling with the religious difficulty, as it has been termed, which has hitherto obstructed our course. But I also look to my noble Friends who in the Privy Council administer the distribution of the grants for education, and I expect that they too will continue to put down all exclusive plans on the part of those who receive this aid, under what name soever they may approach the Committee, and will sternly discountenance such proceedings as I have been under the painful necessity of describing and denouncing—proceedings taken in violation of all principle, in display only of intolerant bigotry, and in furtherance of its unlawful designs.
LORD CAMPBELLmerely rose to express his disapproval of the manner in which, as his noble and learned Friend had said, the Unitarians had been persecuted. He (Lord Campbell) was not aware that Sir Isaac Newton was a Socinian; he had always believed him to have been an Arian; he believed, however, that the Socinians numbered among themselves many men of good education, of great attainments, and of irreproachable lives. Though this sect laboured under what he conceived to be a lamentable error, still they were Christians, and ought to be treated as such. Until the repeal of the Statutes of William III. Socinians had laboured under various disabilities, and were not entitled to all the privileges of the Act of Uniformity, but now they were placed on the same footing as the other religious sects, and, though hoping that they might see their error, he yet trusted that, while they continued in their error, they would be treated as Christian brethren, and not, as they had been, as something worse than infidels.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that, as he had on a former occasion replied to the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham), he should now only trouble their Lordships with a few observations. With regard to the principle laid down by the noble and
1316
learned Lord as to the propriety of not making the Catechism compulsory in the case of children of other communions or creeds in the same school, no one could feel more strongly on this than he (Earl Granville) did; as he did not think that there could be any doubt as to the immense advantages resulting in the one case, and the immense disadvantages in the other. His noble Friend could, with him, affirm that great difficulties in apportioning the grants of the Privy Council had arisen in certain small villages in which, in the schools established, the Church Catechism was made a compulsory part of the instruction of the children. In many of these instances, the Dissenters had made application for funds for the purpose of setting up a school in opposition to the Church school. This had given rise to much difficulty, as the Government thought that in these villages one school could amply supply their educational wants, and that it would be an absolute waste of money to contribute towards the establishment of two schools. The children, therefore, in many of those villages did not avail themselves of the means of education afforded to them, which they otherwise would do if instruction in the Catechism were not made compulsory. He was happy to be able to state that there were many of the schools connected with the National Schools in which the Catechism was not made compulsory. He had that evening been informed by a clergyman, who had laboured in the schools where the Catechism was compulsory, that he was much struck with the disadvantages arising from such a system, and that he was most anxious that a Bill should be introduced, that in those schools to which the Privy Council grants were made, instruction in the Catechism should not be compulsory. He would venture to make a suggestion to his noble and learned Friend with reference to school books, which at present were not so cheap nor so good as they might be, considering the great demand there was for them. The greatest improvements in school books had been introduced into Ireland by the Irish Board of Education. He would suggest that the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, or some society of that kind, might render most valuable aid to the educational cause by introducing cheap and efficient books. He believed that this would not prove unprofitable, for the Irish books sold in England lately had absolutely doubled their former sale; and,

1317
were this subject to be taken up by a society, it would give a most useful stimulus to publishers.
LORD BROUGHAMwas extremely glad that his noble Friend had in his remarks entered into the subject of the care required to keep Church schools open to all classes, and he (Lord Brougham) had, he believed, rather understated the degree in which this had been already acted upon. The statements which he had this night made from the returns seemed to show how prevalent liberal views were among the patrons and directors of Church schools. He could not, indeed, refrain from a hope, grounded upon the conduct both of Church and sects, that it might be found possible to arm municipal bodies with the absolute discretion of making rules for schools under the Bill, although he had added a provision somewhat tending to narrow this discretion. He thought it extremely possible that the Dissenters being represented as well as the Church in the town councils, a compromise might be come to, and schools with different rules supported by the rate, so that different denominations might in name, as well as in substance, be suited. Considering the number of sects, this, no doubt, would depend upon their members exercising great forbearance, as he hoped they might, for the sake of promoting education. But, for the present, he deemed it advisable to frame the Bill as he had done. He would add, that he also agreed with what had fallen from his noble Friend as to school books. The Society for Diffusing Useful Knowledge, to which his noble Friend referred, had laboured, and he might say successfully, to provide books for popular instruction, but almost entirely for adults. After many years of such exertion, and in which, as he stated the other day, it had succeeded not only in bringing down the price of books, but in causing several hundreds of works to be prepared on subjects not before treated of at all, or not treated of in a satisfactery manner, it had found that, partly by such publications of its own, and partly by the stimulus given to other societies and to individual authors, the great work seemed to be nearly done for which it had been instituted, and for two or three years past it had rested from its labours. He did not, therefore, see how it could act upon his noble Friend's very proper suggestion; but he trusted that some other society might be found to perform the highly useful duty in question.
1318
His noble Friend was quite right in referring to the caution necessary, both in justice to the bookselling trade, and in order not to frustrate the object in view, both of which considerations made it most improper for Government to interfere in publishing school books. The Useful Knowledge Society was incorporated by charter in 1837; but when he framed that charter be took care to insert a prohibition against the Society deriving any profit whatever from its publications. Accordingly the gain upon one work which yielded profit was applied to pay the expenses of other works which could only be published at a loss; but no gain whatever could be received by the Society upon the balance of the accounts. To a voluntary and unincorporated society, wholly independent of the Government, undertaking the important office of preparing and publishing good school books, there could be no objection from any quarter; and he agreed with his noble Friend that this would be most useful. The Society to which reference had been made was quite aware of this great want, and had repeatedly referred to it in the course of its publications, and of its proceedings. He rather thought a Committee had been specially appointed on the subject, either upon his own, or the Vice President (Lord Althorp's) suggestion. That no interference of the Government can be allowed in any way, is perfectly evident. The least approach to a censorship of the press, which such interference must lead to, is never on any account to be tolerated. None but the enemies of education, as well as liberty, could entertain such a project for one instant.
Debate further adjourned, sine die.

OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL.
The Commons Amendments to the Amendments made by the Lords, together with the Commons Reasons for disagreeing to some of the said Amendments, considered (according to Order).
The Amendments made by this House to which the Commons have disagreed, not insisted on.
The Amendments made by the Commons to the Amendments made by the Lords, so far as Clause F., agreed to; and the Amendment in Clause F., to leave out ("kept Two Terms or") in Folio 2. Line 10, objected to; and, on Question agreed to; and a Message sent to the Commons, to acquaint them therewith.
House adjourned to Monday next.