presented a petition from Wapping, praying to be permitted to take meal and flour now in bond out, convert it into biscuits, and return it into bond so that it might be exported as biscuits. The petitioners, after stating that the business of biscuit-baking, formed a most important branch of manufacture at the seaports of England, proceeded to set forth the depressed state of that trade. They attributed the great failing-off to the operation of certain acts of Parliament lately passed, by which most of the shipping engaged in the British colonies were supplied by the Americans or other foreigners. They were of opinion, that if the recommendation contained in the petition were carried into effect, the trade, which was now almost entirely engrossed by foreigners, would be restored to this country; that a great increase of British labour would necessarily take place, and that above all, the paramount interest of British shipping would be greatly benefited by bringing flour here, and carrying the biscuits away to supply our colonies and dependencies, as well as by obtaining biscuits at a much lower rate. It was unnecessary for him to say one word in that assembly upon the importance of affording every support to the shipping interest; the commercial prosperity of the country being so intimately bound up with it. By the evidence given before the Committee last year, it distinctly appeared, that of all the interest in the country, the shipping interest was in the most depressed state. By the Reciprocity Act of 1826, the shipping interests had been deprived of all protection by throwing the trade open to the competition of all nations that would consent to pay the duties. He should not have given notice of his intention to present this petition but for the great advantage the shipping interest, in his opinion, would derive from the recommendation contained in the petition. Depressed as that interest was, it was, perhaps, the only mode in which relief could be afforded without any infringement of the other great interests of the country, while, at the same time, it would be a further extension of the great principles of free trade, the general adoption of which alone could benefit the depressed commerce of the country.

said, he felt as much sympathy for the shipping interest as the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets; but he thought the way to have the biscuit-baking trade re-stored to this country, was to prohibit the importation of foreign manufactures. At present biscuits were admitted from all parts of the world at an ad-valorem duty of twenty per cent; and he was informed by an intelligent correspondent, who had been many years a miller and baker, and who had gone over to Dantsic to establish a baking trade, that biscuits could be baked there at 10s. per cwt., and, after paying a duty of 2s., could be sold for 13s., at a profit of 1s., whereas, notwithstanding the low price of agricultural produce in this country, they could not be manufactured here under 18s. per cwt. He thought it time such an indirect evasion of the Corn-laws was put a stop to.

said, many of his constituents were in the same situation with respect to biscuit-baking as those of the hon. Member who presented the petition. They found it impossible to continue their manufactories while such superior advantages were enjoyed by their continental neighbours, for which, however, he and they saw no other remedy than a repeal of the Corn-laws. Unless that took place, protection to a great extent must be afforded them which would injure other trades.

said, the Petition was a most unfair one, and hoped that its prayer would not be granted. The Repeal of the Corn-laws would be nothing better, in his opinion, than a species of political swindling.

said, that the present price of biscuits was 14s. per cwt., whereas, if the prayer of the petition were to be granted, biscuits could be made at 8s. per cwt. The boon, therefore, to the shipping interest would be of the greatest importance. If that boon were not granted, all the branches of trade connected with supplying biscuits would depart from this country.

was confident, that the landed interest had no desire whatever to interfere with the shipping interest, but were perfectly ready to give it every fair consideration. He, for one, thought, that the shipping interest had been very harshly treated by what was called free trade, acting on the principles of which had been productive of great injustice. A large portion of the carrying trade had already been driven by that means from this country. If the boon sought for could be granted without encouraging fraud, so far from the landed interest interfering to prevent the shipping interest obtaining that advantage, they would readily forward that object.

said, it was now proved, that the Corn-laws had not paid the National Debt, nor enabled the landed interest to discharge the mortgages and incumbrances on their property. They had, therefore, been most inefficacious. In fact, they did not protect the farmer, and they ruined the manufacturer. The Corn-laws had acted most delusively and destructively to the landed interest. He wished for fair and remunerative prices, such as would give the labourer what he ought to receive,—namely, 15s. a-week for his labour. But those laws would not give that price; money laws only would do it. He begged to remind the hon. member for Harwich (Mr. Tower) who said, that the Repeal of the Corn-laws would be political swindling, that during the last sixteen or seventeen years the prices of corn had greatly fallen. During the three years ending in 1819, the price of wheat was 10s. a bushel, and the working and labouring classes were much happier than at present. In 1819, when we altered the monetary system, and had recourse to bullion payments, the agricultural prices fell; and what was the reason? It was because that House adopted measures which took away the money from the pockets of the great mass of the people. Those measures had the effect, in a great degree, of closing millions of hungry mouths, and prevented our produce from being received by the foreign markets. That system went on, with little intermission, from 1819 to 1822, in which year Lord Castlereagh introduced in that House five measures again affecting the value of money; such as the measuse for authorizing the issue of 1l. notes, and the increase of loans by the Bank of England, which gave a temporary relief to the burthens of the people. When, in 1825, the Bill of 1819 was put in force, again our ports were nearly closed, and the agricultural prices had been going down ever since, although the population, subsequently to 1811, had increased thirty per cent. He acknowledged that agricultural prices were ruinously low; he wished to raise them; but he denied, that it was possible to raise them by creating an artificial famine. The proper way would be, to fill the people's pockets with money, so that, having the means of purchasing, they should be enabled to gratify their wants, and fill the hungry mouths of themselves and their children. The hon. member for Harwich must know that, having adopted the continental measure of value, they could not possibly, by any Corn-laws, prevent agricultural prices from falling to the continental level. This was a fact as certain as that day and night followed each other. They were not cut down yet to the continental level, but they were driven down by a power they could not resist. He would say, that it was as certain as the day and night, that to the continental level they must fall; and in two moments he would give proof of it. They could not expect that gold could be kept in this country when it acquired a higher value by being sent to the other side of the channel. He would say, that, if they wished to keep gold in this country, they must build up a wall so high, that a cuckoo could not fly over it. They must not only prevent wheat from coming in, but they must prevent gold from going out; but knowing, as they must, that gold would seek the market where its value is highest, they must acknowledge, that, if it commanded more at one side of the Severn than the other, it would most certainly go to that side where it would command most, and, in the same way, on the other side of the channel. Gold, like water, would find its own level. He had foretold the consequence of the measure of 1819; and he was sure, that those who then sanctioned that measure would, if they had known the consequences, have had their arms drawn from their bodies, before they would have consented to pass it into a law.

saw no connexion between the question of currency and the subject under the consideration of the House. The simple question was, whether the shipping interest of this country was to receive the benefit of biscuits manufactured here on the same terms as they could be manufactured by foreigners? It was a question of the greatest importance, not only to the shipping interest, but to the country at large, and one that the Government ought to take under their serious consideration. He gave the prayer of the petition his cordial support.

was surprised, on reading the prayer of the Petition, that a discussion should have arisen upon such a variety of subjects, when the House had merely to consider the propriety of permitting bonded corn to be manufactured into biscuit, and returned again into bond. He could assure the House, that the subject had received from the Board, to which he had the honour to belong, the best attention it was in his power to give. It might be advisable to permit flour to be ground in bond, or to be baked into biscuit in bond; but he must fairly say, that the question was so surrounded with difficulties, and the practice, if permitted, would open such a door to fraud, that no means yet devised to prevent it was sufficient to induce him to propose such a measure to Parliament. They had the experience of former years to prove the consequences of such an alteration. A measure had been introduced by Mr. Huskisson to allow wheat to be ground into flour in bond; and the effect was, that fraud to a very considerable extent took place. The same result would be produced in this case, but much more extensively, as it would be more difficult to prevent the biscuit coming into home consumption than the flour. Nevertheless, admitting the extent of the difficulty, and the probabilities of fraud, if any further attention to the subject could suggest the means of conceding the boon without danger, no man living would be more happy to attempt it than himself. With regard to the consumption of foreign produce by the shipping interest, the House was aware that the Customs' Act contained a clause, authorizing the Treasury to allow ships to take provisions out of bond for consumption; but the shipping interest considered this as no boon, and had at first refused to avail themselves of it, although they had subsequently changed their minds on the subject. Different interests had interfered, and that clause had not been acted upon in regard to flour, though it had in some other articles. If the parties interested could agree among themselves, he should be happy to meet their wishes by bringing the provisions of the Act into operation.

brought down the following Message from the Crown:—

'WILLIAM R.

'His Majesty acquaints the House of Commons, that, having taken into his consideration the present state of the Most Honourable Military Order of the Bath, he deems it proper that measures should be taken for regulating and limiting the number of the members of the several classes, as well as for the purpose of relieving persons, upon whom, in future, this distinction shall be conferred, from the payment of fees and charges, as authorised by the existing standards and regulations. His Majesty makes this communication, in the perfect confidence that his faithful Commons will direct due in- quiries to be instituted as to the losses to be sustained by the respective officers interested in the fees, and enable his Majesty to award to them such compensation as may be judged expedient.'

, in moving for leave to bring in a bill to repeal the Act of 52 Geo. 3, c. 155, in so far as it related to the assembling of twenty persons, besides the family, for the purpose of religious worship in a private house, said, that in the year 1812, at the request of the Wesleyan Methodists, an act was very properly passed, the 52d Geo. 3rd, repealing the 13th, 14th, and 17th of Charles 2nd, and also the 22nd Charles 2nd, commonly called the Conventicle Act. The second clause, however, of the Act of Repeal restricted the number of persons assembling in a private dwelling-house for worship, exclusive of the family, to twenty. That clause of the Act was continually violated; more especially in districts where there was a want of public accommodation for the purposes of religious worship. Persons assembled in a greater number than twenty, were rendered liable to the penalties prescribed by the act,—penalties serious in amount, and one-half of which would go to the informer, and yet there were many places where the violation of it was necessarily habitual. What he wished to do was, to restore to every man the right and privilege which he possessed by the common law of the land, to assemble as many persons as he pleased in his dwelling-house for the purposes of worship and religious instruction. The House was not to imagine that this part of the act had been allowed to lie as a dead letter. In some instances it had been very improperly, and with great impolicy, carried into force. It had been enforced, for instance, against Lord Barham, who had religious worship performed in his servants' hall by more than twenty persons. Under the existing law, the minister might talk as long as he pleased to a congregation so assembled—the congregation might, if they pleased, talk sedition or blasphemy with impunity; but the moment that he and they committed an act of worship or adoration, they were liable to the penalties prescribed by this act of Parliament. He concluded by making his Motion.

entertained great doubts as to the policy of passing such a bill as that now proposed by the hon. Member. He would not, however, oppose its being brought in. He must, at the same time, say, that it was a measure which would, at a future stage, require the serious consideration of the House.

begged the House to bear in mind, that this was not a measure for the relief of the Protestant Dissenters, but for the relief of the members of the Established Church. He would not give it any opposition. It was for the House, however, to consider how far it was expedient to put an end to the regulation in question. He would frankly state, that the Methodists and Dissenters of England did not complain of it. The operation of the proposed bill would be to relieve the members of the Church of England from a regulation of their own Church.

observed, that the bill was intended for the relief of all parties. There would be a provision in it, reserving to bishops and other ecclesiastical authorities, the spiritual powers which they at present possessed in reference to all assemblies of members of the Church for the purposes of religious worship.

, in rising to call the attention of the House to the existing laws for the relief of the Poor in England, said, that most undoubtedly the Motion which he was about to introduce for the consideration of the House, was one of as great importance as any that had ever been submitted to its notice. The present state of the Poor-laws of this country had long been a subject which had occupied the attention and engaged the minds of the ablest men in it, and various attempts had been made from time to time by persons very conversant with their operation and effects to amend those laws, to remedy the evils, and to correct the abuses engendered by them; but hitherto unfortunately all such attempts had uniformly been unsuccessful. Such was the state in which his Majesty's Ministers, when they came into office, found the present system of Poor-laws. They found, that for many years complaints had been made as to the mode in which the administration of the Poor-laws had affected every class more immediately connected with or interested in the soil,—the landed proprietors, the farmers, and the poor themselves; they found that the administration of the Poor-laws had been injurious in its operation to every one of those classes; but, most of all, it had been injurious to the labouring classes themselves. Such being the case, his Majesty's Ministers thought it their imperative duty, as a Government, to apply themselves at once to this question, and to consider what course they ought to pursue with a view to remedy the evils connected with it—evils of long standing, and of serious injury to the country at large. After giving the subject that consideration which its importance demanded, they felt, that the best course to adopt in the first instance was, to issue a commission of inquiry. There had been already, they were well aware, many committees of inquiry in that House upon the subject, and a great mass of information had been in that way collected with regard to it. But such a mode of proceeding, it was obvious, always carried this defect along with it—that all such information being collected from gentlemen who had come up generally as volunteers to give evidence on the subject, each prepared with his own particular system as the grand remedy that ought to be adopted, it was greatly deficient in facts, while it was abundantly contaminated with opinions and theories. They had collected a vast deal of valuable information as to opinions on the subject, but not so much as to the facts connected with it; though he need not remark, that the latter species of information was by far the more important of the two, and was indeed indispensably necessary to guide the Legislature to anything like a sate and sound system of reformation. Under these circumstances, his Majesty's Government thought that the best mode was to issue a commission to make inquiries in the country districts of the south, in order to ascertain what was the cause why in some parts of the country the Poor-laws were considered a benefit by parishes, while in others their operation had been ruinous and destructive, and why, in some agricultural districts, certain parishes existed in which the Poor-laws appeared to do no harm at all. In issuing such a commission of inquiry, his Majesty's Government conceived that this benefit (no small one) would at all events be reaped from its labours—that having a general view of the state of the Poor-laws and of their administration, and a large body of important facts connected with that administration, thus laid before the country, those parishes throughout the kingdom, where injurious effects had arisen from their operation, might profit by the experiments made in other parishes where different effects had followed, and might adopt the improvements which the examples of such parishes suggested to them. He would confess, that he himself had been one of those who, in the first instance, thought that the experiment of issuing a commission would be able to carry them nothing further than this, which, however, he conceived would be in itself a great benefit for the country—namely, the exhibiting the proofs how an improved management had produced an improved state of the Poor-laws in certain parishes, while in others bad management had been productive of the most calamitous results. He was ready to admit, that, having experienced the failure of so many attempts of the Legislature to remedy the defects and abuses of the Poor-laws, he had not been sanguine that any legislative attempt which he might make would be more successful. It was under these circumstances, and with a view to guide the Legislature in its decision on this important subject, that the commission of inquiry had been issued; and he was borne out in saying, that the report of that commission was a most valuable document. It had shown to the whole country what was the state and operation of the Poor-laws in different parts of it. It had shown to the country what great improvements might be made in that state by exhibiting the trial and consequences of alterations and improvements in the administration of the Poor-laws in various parishes, while it furnished at the same time a frightful picture of the horror and misery occasioned in other parishes by the mismanagement of those laws. Even in that respect, leaving other considerations for the present out of account, the Report of the Commissioners would be productive of the greatest advantage to the country, and to no class more advantageous than to the labouring population. He believed that, in fact, it had been already productive of much good; he believed that the Report of the Commissioners—that was to say, the abstract of the evidence collected by them that had been published last session—had already operated in the most beneficial manner. It had been disseminated throughout the country; gentlemen in various districts had profited by the examples and facts which it furnished, and already improvements in the administration of the Poor-laws had been effected in several parishes. He must say, how- ever, that the principal advantage produced by the Report of the Commissioners was this—that it had exhibited such a picture of the bad effects of the Poor-laws in many districts of the country, that he did think it had now become the bounden duty of the Legislature to interfere and endeavour to remedy an evil fraught with the most destructive consequences to the whole community. He had already said, that the effects of the Poor-laws had been injurious to the landed proprietors, injurious to the farmers, and, above all, injurious to the labouring population. He would now assert, and he would appeal to the facts detailed in the Report of the Commissioners for the confirmation of what he stated, that the effect of the Poor-laws tended directly—he meant to say, that the present administration of the Poor-laws tended directly—to the destruction of all property in the country. It had been said, that this would lead to an agrarian law—it would lead to worse than that. An agrarian law was the division of property, but the present state of the Poor-laws in this country tended to the destruction of all property. He could not conceive any thing more fatal to the very class for whose benefit those laws had been enacted, than to allow them to go on in their present destructive course, without an attempt on the part of the Legislature to put a check on them. He begged, however, that in making that statement, he should not be understood as expressing his disapprobation of a well-regulated system of Poor-laws. So far from that being the case, he was of opinion, that a well-regulated system of Poor-laws would be productive of great benefit to the country. He was aware that he was now expressing an opinion contrary to the more strict principles of political economy. Indeed, those principles went further, for they even prohibited, the exercise of private charity itself. The more strict principles of political economy implied that every man should be left to provide his own subsistence by his own labour—that he must know what his family cost—that he alone should provide for them; and that he ought to make a provision for the calamities which sickness and misfortune might bring upon him out of his previous savings. Such was the doctrine of political economy. But as long as we were accessible, not only to the feelings of religion, but to the dictates of humanity, we must be convinced that the support of those who were really helpless, and really unable to provide for themselves, was not only justifiable, but a sacred duty imposed on those who had the ability to assist the distressed. It was, therefore, to the abuses of the system of Poor-laws, not to the system itself—it was to the bad administration of those laws, not to their principle—that he objected. For a long period of years, the administration of the Poor-laws was free from the evils and abuses now connected with it. He believed, that he was correct in stating, that the present bad effects experienced from the administration of the Poor-laws dated their commencement from about the beginning of the present century, and that they originated in measures intended for the benefit of that class of the community—the labouring population—to whose interests and welfare they were now most destructively opposed. A feeling at that period had got abroad, that discontent existed amongst the working classes of the country, and a principle was then adopted in legislation, which, though no doubt well intended, and though it might be said to be a very humane principle, had been productive of the most baneful effects. He was now alluding to the 36th George 3rd, in which the principle was laid down, that the relief to paupers ought to be given in such a manner as to place them in a situation of comfort. Now, however we might wish to place all our countrymen in a situation of comfort, to give such relief as that described in this statute, was, he considered, the duty of private charity, and should not be provided for by a compulsory rate. The effect of this law was, to give the Magistrates the power of ordering relief to be given to the poor in their own dwellings. That had been followed up by the Magistrates acting upon the same principle, which was so consistent with every good feeling of human nature, that it was impossible to blame them; and yet it was a great mistake, though originating, undoubtedly, as he had already said, in the best feelings that animate mankind. The consequence of it had been, to lead from bad to worse. All feelings of independence on the part of the labourers had been almost entirely extinguished in many parts of the country, and the result had been, that, instead of placing the paupers in a state of comfort, all the labouring population in many districts of the country had been reduced to a state of deplorable misery and distress. That the present was a question of extreme difficulty no one who had given it the slightest or the most cursory attention could for a moment doubt. The length of time during which the operation of this system had been going on, in its consequences producing throughout whole districts of the country that distress which it was intended to relieve, rendered it impossible to expect that at once, or by any rapid measure of legislation, we should endeavour to counteract the evils engendered by it. The greatest caution was undoubtedly necessary in dealing with such a question; at the same time, the present system could not be allowed to continue. The consequences to which it tended were so frightful—the dangers incurred by leaving it as it was were so urgent and so great, that the Legislature was bound boldly to meet the difficulties of the case, and, while they acted with the utmost caution, to adopt right principles, and unflinchingly carry them into execution. They had the advantage, in legislating on this question now, that they were not working entirely in the dark, because, in many parishes in the country, a good system in the administration of the Poor-laws had been already adopted and acted upon. They could see how the system, improved and well-regulated, had worked in those parishes; they could see the advantages which had been there derived from it, and they were thus enabled to refer to experiments already made, to guide them elsewhere in the work of reformation. He was ready to admit, that it did not follow, that, because such experiments, tried in isolated and individual parishes, had been successful, that, therefore, the same alterations, if adopted all over the country, would be attended with equal success. It was obvious, therefore, that to legislate successfully on this subject, to benefit by the examples already set, and the experiments which were now witnessed in successful operation, the House must act gradually, introduce the improved system into different parishes step by step, ascertaining its effects in its progress, and thus more certainly insure its final success. He was aware that there were many difficulties in following such a course, because they could not expect to find, in all parishes, the same zeal and ability which had caused improvements in particular parishes. To force improvements, which had been voluntarily made in one place, into another, very much enhanced the difficulty of legislating on the subject. He believed, that the number of parishes in which an improved system had been already, either entirely or partially, adopted, amounted to 100. In Berkshire, it had been adopted in two parishes; in Buckinghamshire, in one; in Cornwall, in one; in Devonshire, in one; in Dorsetshire, in one; in Hertfordshire, in three; in Lancashire, in one; in Nottinghamshire, in fifty-four; in Suffolk, in twenty-four; and in Brecon, in one parish. It appeared, therefore, that the experiment had been tried in every part of the country—in some districts, even, which had been extensively pauperized; and, in every one of them, he believed, the experiment had succeeded as far as it had been already tried. Notwithstanding such facts would justify them in acting on such an experiment—so generally, and, in so many different places, tried with success—yet still he would say, that they should proceed with the greatest caution. If they should attempt, in an Act of Parliament, to fix a time when an alteration of the present system should take place, they might find themselves placed in this difficulty—that it might be fit to direct a change of the system at an earlier period in some parishes than others; that, in some districts of the country, though the evils inseparable from the present system had already begun to show themselves in all places, they had not yet reached the height in some which they had in others; and, certainly, it would be impossible, at once, to apply the same system to parishes almost pauperized, and parishes where the evil was not so pressing, nor the distress so great. The course which, under such circumstances, he was about to recommend to the House for its adoption, was, he was free to admit, an anomalous one, and one which went to establish a new and a great power in the country. He would, however, ask the House to consider the alternative which they had between the measure he now proposed and leaving things as they were. He would again entreat the attention of the House to the frightful consequences of the present system, if it should be allowed to go on as it was proceeding. If it should proceed in its course of destruction for the future as rapidly as it had hitherto done, and that rapidity was likely as it went to be accelerated, what would be the result? At present some parishes had been actually abandoned, so heavy was the pressure of the rates, and so great the evils of mismanagement. The consequence was, that the neighbouring parishes were compelled to support the poor of the deserted parishes, they, too, would soon be reduced to a similar situation, and this pauperism would stride with increased and every-day increasing rapidity throughout the land. He felt justified, therefore, under the circumstances, in submitting the present measure to the House. It was a measure he conceived, at all events, grounded upon prudence and caution. It was absolutely necessary that there should be a discretionary power vested in some quarter to carry into effect recommendations calculated he hoped, to introduce sound principles and the fruits of salutary experience into the administration of the Poor-laws. The principal subject then for them to consider was, where that discretionary power should be placed. If they vested it in the local authorities, or in the local magistracy, however well intentioned they might be, deprived as they would be of those sources of general information and comparison open to a board of Commissioners, and however excellent their motives, biassed as they must be by local prejudices and local feelings, it was plain that such a quarter would not be the fittest one to invest with a discretionary power for carrying the measure into effect. It was therefore his intention to propose, that his Majesty should be authorized to appoint a central board of Commissioners, vested with such power for that purpose. It would be necessary to invest the Board with extraordinary power, to enable it to accomplish the object proposed, but that power would be subject to the constant control of the Parliament and the Executive Government. There was one part of the administration of the Poor-laws which, however difficult it might be to effect, yet was essentially necessary, and without which no discretionary power ought to be extended, and that was, to fix a day (and that day he should propose, in the measure he sought to introduce, to be in one of the summer months of the next year, when the agricultural labourers would, of course, be in full employment), when the allowance system, as it was called, should entirely and altogether cease. He was aware of the great difficulties which might be suggested to this proposition, but having for many years acted as a magistrate in a county in which the allowance system had been adopted, from his own experience of its operation, he was perfectly satisfied that so long as that system was permitted to exist, it would be impossible to carry into effect any suggested improvement, or to bring the Poor-laws into a better condition. The present was not the first time by many that he had advocated such a measure in his place in Parliament, for the purpose of preventing persons employed by individuals receiving parochial relief. He had supported a Bill which had been repeatedly brought before the House by his hon. friend the member for Shrewsbury; indeed, he had ever thought that such was the first step necessary to bring the Poor-laws into a proper state. He begged the House to consider on what grounds it could be thought that such a change could produce that difficulty and danger which he had reason to believe was so feared by some hon. Members. He admitted, that at first sight the proposition might appear difficult to adopt, but it was well to bear in mind that the payment of labourers as much by the parish as was paid by their employers was, in many and innumerable instances, wholly derived from the parochial funds; so that the farmer gained an advantage which he ought not to gain—namely, that of receiving assistance for the payment of those whom he employed. Against any difficulty which might be opposed to the abrogation of the allowance system he would set off the advantage to be derived by the farmer from obtaining independent labourers, and if he lost a little money by paying full wages instead of employing men paid partly by the parish and partly by himself, he thought the advantage of having superior labourers, and his work better and more cheerfully done, would be found fully to compensate the pecuniary loss. He thought no man could doubt but that the change in the system would be productive of benefit and advantage to the labourers themselves. It was possible it might appear to some hon. Gentlemen that the agricultural labourer, having at present an addition from the parochial funds to the amount of the wages paid by his employer (that addition being regulated according to the number of his family), the effect of taking away that assistance would make it impossible for him to maintain himself and family. He (Lord Althorp) did not think such would be the case, for he believed, nay, he felt confident, that as the labourer regarded the parochial assistance now added to the wages he received from his employer as making the total wages to which he was entitled for his labour and industry, a very short time would elapse after the removal of that assistance before wages would rise to an equivalent amount, and as soon as that was the case, the situation in which the labourer would be placed would be infinitely preferable to that in which he at present stood. He repeated, therefore, that before it was possible successfully to proceed with the amendment of the present system of Poor-laws, whatever difficulty might appear, it was absolutely necessary to get rid of this most leading error—the allowance system—an error which was the foundation of almost all the evils arising from the existing system. Having stated thus much, he again came to the consideration of the discretionary powers with which it would be necessary to vest the Central Commissioners. He need not say, that an immense advantage would be obtained by the establishment of an uniformity of system throughout the country, and therefore he proposed, that the Commissioners should have power to make general rules and orders as to the mode of relief and for the regulation of workhouses, and the mode of relief afforded therein. He admitted, that these were great discretionary powers to be given to any body of men, but he should propose, as a check against any abuse, that before any such rule, order, or regulation so proposed by the Commissioners should be valid, it should be submitted to the Secretary of State, and remain forty days, and it could only be brought into action if during that period an Order in Council, issued for that purpose, did not prohibit it from being carried into effect. He observed some hon. Gentlemen seemed to dissent to this portion of the proposition; he admitted, that by this measure he was asking for extraordinary discretionary powers, but at the same time he must contend that it would be utterly impossible to carry an improvement in the present system of Poor-laws into effect without acting upon great discretionary powers. If any hon. Gentleman would find a better authority in whom to vest these powers, he should be happy to attend to any suggestion to that effect; but as he believed no better or more competent authority could be established, he hoped the objection would not be generally supported by the House. To return to the powers which he proposed to vest in the Board of Central Commissioners; they would be enabled to make general rules and regulations subject to the approbation, or, he should rather say, the non-disapprobation of the Secretary of State and the Government, in the manner he had already stated—to have power to make specific rules and orders for the regulation and mode of relief of the poor in separate districts and parishes—to form unions of parishes in order to make larger districts—to arrange classifications of poor in the same or different workhouses, and also to have a general power of control in such unions as might be established without their consent, and to dissolve unions which might now exist. As to the unions when formed, each parish in such unions must maintain its own poor, or contribute to the general fund the proportion of expense which it had heretofore borne itself. He did not mean to say, that it was not intended to empower individual parishes, if they so thought fit—that was to say, if the vestries in each parish should agree to such a proposition—to make a different arrangement, but he thought it was desirable that parishes should have power to unite for the purpose of parochial settlements, and for the Poor-rates altogether. Such a power, however, ought not to be vested in the vestries of parishes themselves, as such a body could not be considered competent to form satisfactorily or safely such unions. He should also propose, that the Commissioners should have authority to suggest to parishes or unions of parishes the propriety of adding to their workhouses, or of building new workhouses, as circumstances might require. In the present state of the agricultural interest of this country, he should be sorry to place in the power of any body of men the authority of compelling the expenditure of any large sum of money, but he at the same time should wish that the Central Commissioners should be invested with power to call the attention of parishes and unions to the state of their workhouse establishments, and to suggest to them the propriety of adding to those formed, or building, separate or distinct establishments. He should also propose, that in certain cases a difference should be made in the constitution of parochial vestries. At present these bodies were composed of rate-payers and no one else, and in many instances the means of a large expenditure was inflicted on those who had no vote in the vestry. He should, therefore propose, that with respect to raising permanent sums of money, such as for the purpose of facilitating emigration, and improving and building workhouses, the landlord as well as the occupier of land should have a vote in the vestry. It was only equitable that such should be the case, because where the occupier had not been long in possession of a farm, and had very little interest in the expenditure, it was most desirable that the permanent interest in the land should have a vote in these cases. He had already stated, that from the conclusion of the last century up to the present time, the Magistracy of this country, though acting with very good feeling of humanity, had in the administration of the Poor-laws fallen into considerable mistakes, and he had himself, in his own situation of a Magistrate, not unfrequently felt bound to act upon bad and erroneous principles in this respect. With this view he should propose, that justices should not in future have the power of ordering parochial relief to persons in their own houses—he meant outdoor relief to the poor. This would not be an alteration of the present law, but would be a restoration of the law to the state in which it was previous to the year 1796, a period since which the abuses in the management of the Poor-laws had very considerably increased. He had now submitted the main and principal part of the propositions which he had to propose for the adoption of the House. The House would now see, that the effect of this measure was, to stop the allowance system—to deprive the Magistracy of the power of ordering out-door relief—to alter in certain cases the constitution of parochial vestries—to give large discretionary powers to the Central Commissioners—and to carry into operation further regulations which might be found essential, in order to improve and bring into a good state and condition the present system of laws regulating the relief of the pauper portion of the community. There remained, however, two other subjects to which he should also wish to call the attention of the House. The first point was with reference to the existing law of settlement. He need not say to those who were acquainted with the subject, that the present law was most complicated in its character, involving great litigation, and consequently considerable expense, to every parish in the country. In addition to these evils, a still worse effect arose from the present law; he alluded to its interference with the free circulation of labour. The worst portion of the law was that which gave a settlement by hiring and servitude, but he was inclined to say, that every mode of acquiring a settlement ought to be abolished except only those of birth or marriage. With regard to the mode of fixing birth as the test of settlement, he should say, that the children should follow the settlement of their parents until they attained the age of sixteen years, and that after that period their settlement should be fixed at the place of their birth. To the proposition as to settlement he only anticipated two objections. The first was the hardship which would be inflicted upon an individual who had quitted the place of his birth in early life, and in another parish supported himself for a long series of years by his own industry, by his removal when fallen into want and decay, and thereby become chargeable on the parish, to the place of his nativity. He was aware that such might be the case; but he did not think, that when a man had supported himself in a distant parish from that in which he was born, by his industry and labour to an old age, it would be likely that he would be so destitute of friends that his removal would be permitted. The other objection was not intitled to so much weight as that to which he had alluded. It was generally considered that the best labourers were those who did not belong to the parish in which they exercised their industry, and that the effect of making birth the test of settlement in all cases would be, that such labourers would always come back to their own districts. From his own experience he could say, that he had seen as good labourers in the parish of which they were natives as those who did not belong to it; but even if the latter were the best servants, as was supposed, he did not think that any man would speculate on a settlement sixteen years hence, and on that speculation abstain from his giving employment to those whom it would be most to his advantage to have in his service. He, therefore, conceived the fears which might be entertained from a change in this respect were merely imaginary, and, in his opinion, the advantages to be gained by the removal altogether of local settlements otherwise to be acquired, were so great as completely to counterbalance the objections which he had anticipated. One of the advantages to be gained would be the complete simplification of the system; the apprehensions at present entertained by the farmer of hiring a man for longer than fifty-one weeks lest he should gain a settlement would be abolished; the removal of his clothes from the house of his employer within that period for a day would become unnecessary, and, therefore, it would follow that the farmer would not hesitate to take the labourer best calculated to suit his purposes, and consequently the labourer who best deserved it would obtain employment. These advantages were of themselves important; but to them must also be added the immense diminution in the expenses of litigation on questions of settlement, because by simplifying the law the difficulty of proof which at present prevailed would be almost entirely removed, while, at the same time also, it would give a freedom to labour which would be beneficial to the whole population of the country. He had also already spoken of another alteration in the present law, with respect to orders of removal, and of appeal therefrom. He would propose that it should be provided in the measure he hoped to introduce, that no order of removal should take effect until a copy of that order, and of the examination upon which it had been pronounced, should have been served upon the authorities of the parish to which the removal was contemplated; and he should further propose that every notice of appeal should set forth the precise grounds upon which it was to be sustained, and also that it should be provided, that on the trial of such appeal before the Quarter Sessions nothing should be pleaded or discussed, and no points raised beyond those stated in the notice given in the manner he had suggested. He need not say, that the first of these measures would have a very considerable tendency to prevent litigation, inasmuch as the parish which was sought to be burthened with the maintenance and support of a pauper would be enabled to ascertain whether or not it was properly chargeable; whereas, under the present state of things, it was well known that removals of paupers were made under mistake, and those mistakes were not discovered until the appeal was brought before the Quarter Sessions. The second regulation which he proposed also was calculated to prevent litigation, because by such explicit statement the parties sought to be affected would be enabled to judge whether they had any prospect of success by opposing, and if not, the order would necessarily be abandoned. Such would be the case as to the amount of litigation between individual parishes; but he must remark that by the change he proposed, the advantage would be still greater by the union of parishes, which would diminish considerably the number of pauper removals. There still remained another point bearing upon the subject of the existing Poor-laws, and on which, though he had long felt considerable difficulty, he felt himself forced to come forward on the present occasion to state the opinions entertained by himself and the Government: he alluded to the law as it now stood relating to illegitimate children. On this topic he did not hesitate to say, that the present state of the law in this respect was a direct encouragement to vice and immorality, and that the effect of imprisoning the reputed fathers of illegitimate offspring, frequently the finest young men in the country, was to demoralize and corrupt them, and the consequent mischief and injury inflicted upon the whole community was incalculable. He begged hon. Members to consider the state of the law as it at present stood. If a woman chose to swear, that she was pregnant of an illegitimate child, the party whom she charged upon oath as the father was ipso fasto liable to be committed to prison until he could find security for the maintenance and support of the child. Now, hon. Members must know the difficulty to which a labourer in husbandry so situated would be exposed, and that difficulty in finding securities not being surmounted, the effect of the law was the committal at once of the individual to prison for five or six months, there to be associated with the very worst characters. He would, therefore, take away such a power of imprisonment, and at the same time make the mother liable for the support of her child, in the manner and mode of a pauper widow. He felt most completely the difficulty and delicacy of the subject, but he was equally confident that it might be proved to demonstration the proposed change, so far from increasing demoralization, would be in every manner beneficial to the country at large. He believed he had now gone through all the various important topics which would be embraced by the Bill which he hoped to have the honour to introduce. He was fully aware of the importance of the measure—no man felt that more strongly than he did, but he believed—nay, he was confident—if it was successful, that the benefits to the country would be very great. He was, however, aware of the fact, that by the proposition he had now submitted, the Government exposed themselves to the opposition of those who pretended to be the friends of the labouring poor; he, however, would fearlessly assert that the measure he had proposed was designed principally for the benefit of that portion of the population of the country; and they would, he was satisfied, be the gainers by the measure if it were successful. He confidently anticipated that it would have the effect to restore the British labourer to that degree of independence for which he was once proverbial, and to raise him from the condition of a pauperized slave. So far from the labourer being apprehensive as to the effect of the abolition of the allowance system, he believed he would hail it as a great boon. The labourer ought to be remunerated for his industry according to his own merits, and not on a scale regulated by the number of his children; by this change, therefore, the advantage would be given to the most industrious and meritorious. At present no difference existed between the good and the bad, both were in the same situation as to remuneration, if such could be called the subsistence derived from the abuse of these laws. It had been said, that poverty ought not to be visited as a crime. In that sentiment he most entirely agreed; but it was impossible to prevent it as a misfortune. In every attempt which had been as yet made to remove that misfortune, instead of confining it to those who suffered under the chilling hand of poverty, the misfortune had been extended to almost every other class. It was with these views, and in the hope that the House would give it that calm and deliberate attention which the momentous importance of the measure demanded, he should conclude by moving "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the law relative to the relief of the poor in England and Wales."

was understood to compliment the Government for having undertaken this arduous task, but, at the same time to complain that the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had not taken that large and comprehensive view of the difficulties and nature of the Poor-laws which the present occasion demanded, nor pointed out the means by which those difficulties were to be removed. The noble Lord had seemed to impute to the mal-administration of the existing laws all the abuses which prevailed, but had not uttered a single syllable in opposition to the principle upon which those laws were founded. The causes of distress had not been touched upon by the noble Lord—a most important question to bring to the consideration of the subject of the Poor-laws. He would not trouble the House with the effects which had been produced by the change in the currency, but must remark that much of the distress and the evils arising therefrom were to be attributed to the alternations between poverty and distress, which had afflicted this country, and caused much of the pauperism complained of. He must also express his regret that in calling the attention of the Legislature to the state of the Poor-laws, in England, the noble Lord had not referred to the want of similar provisions for the relief of the poor of the sister kingdom, the population of which sought employment in the manufacturing towns, such as Manchester and Glasgow, where the great majority of labourers were from Ireland, and the market of labour was thus glutted and overstocked by the want of relief to the pauper population of Ireland. He had anticipated that the noble Lord would have afforded some hope on the present occasion that a measure of relief for the poor would be extended to the United Kingdom. He was disposed, however, to believe that the plan of the noble Lord would remedy some of the disorders, the inconveniences, and the evils consequent upon the present system of administering the Poor-laws, but he did not think that any measure could be effectual which did not comprehend some uniform plan of relief for the poor of the whole empire.

would bear his humble testimony to the effective and impressive manner in which this question had been brought before the House and the country by the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer). From the measure the noble Lord intended to introduce, the country would have to date a new era of happiness and prosperity, and it would be deeply indebted to the present Government for bringing it forward. The report on which the noble Lord had based his intended Bill, was drawn up in the most able manner, and no praise was too great for the talent, zeal, and industry which had been exerted by the Commissioners who drew up that report. He differed widely from the hon. Member opposite in thinking that the noble Lord ought to have mixed up the question of Poor-laws in Ireland with the present plan. Let the amended system first be tried in England, and then, if the practical working of it were attended with beneficial results, a similar system might be with firmness and consistency, introduced into Ireland.

begged to congratulate the House on the measure which the noble Lord proposed to bring forward, and he thought that no passage in the speech of the noble Lord was more deserving of approbation than where he said that the alteration was principally intended, not for the benefit of the landlord and the capitalist, but for that of the labourer and the agriculturist. This was a sound view of the subject. It was one of the means of increasing the productive powers of the country. He looked upon this, and upon the commutation of tithes, as part and parcel of one great legislative measure now going forward for the improvement of the country. It was a most wholesome measure, and those who opposed it were the most bitter enemies of the people. He was aware that a clamour might be raised—that the passions of the people might be excited against this great, difficult, and delicate measure, but he thought it was proved to demonstration that this measure would not injure the poor man, but on the contrary tend greatly to his advantage. He begged pardon of the House for the imperfect manner in which he had touched upon the subject—he should hereafter be ready to enter upon it more fully, and meanwhile he would give the Motion of the noble Lord his humble but earnest support.

had paid a great deal of attention to the subject, and as it happened that in the course of the last year he had formed a plan nearly coincident with that proposed by the noble Lord, he should of course give the present Motion his earnest support. The administration of the Poor-laws in America furnished a good example of the efficiency of the plan. Those Poor-laws had been introduced into every state but one, and it was found that in those states where a strict workhouse discipline was kept up the practice worked uniformly well, and on the contrary, that in the states where these wholesome regulations had been departed from, the practice had uniformly worked badly. He would venture to recommend that one of the Commissioners should be a Member of that House that he might be enabled to communicate information to the people. On one point he must observe, that he thought that the proposed alteration of the laws respecting bastardy would not be altogether palatable to the people of England, though he thought it would produce the best results. Nothing could have so demoralising an effect as a system under which a woman with three children was a fortune to any working man who married her, and one with six was absolutely a great heiress. He had nothing further to do on that occasion than thank the noble Lord for the admirable manner in which he had brought forward his admirable proposition.

said, that as a guardian of the poor in a parish which relieved eight or nine thousand paupers weekly, he felt himself entitled, without presumption, to speak with some authority upon this subject. He fully approved of the general principles which had been laid down by the noble Lord, except as to one point, that which related to the appointment of a Central Board, with powers to ride over those bodies who had administered the present Poor-laws well, and were therefore better qualified than any others could be for administering a system intended to remedy their defects. Where the laws had been improperly or viciously administered it would be well to apply a controlling power: but with such bodies as that to which he belonged he was sure that any alteration limiting or abridging their authority would be injurious. He denied the soundness of that principle which said, that the poor had a right to claim sufficient for their sustenance at the hands of the State. On the contrary, the true principle of Government was, that the ruling power was bound to protect every man in the full enjoyment of the fruits of his own labour, and it was a perverted principle which allowed another man who could not support himself to come upon his neighbour's means. The Legislature must, therefore, return to the sound principle of abolishing all regulations, whether in the shape of labour-rates or in any other form which would give relief out of doors; and then, with a proper management of the workhouses, he would undertake to say the labouring classes would soon be restored to their independence and to the station which they had a right to occupy. With regard to the proposed alteration of the Bastardy Laws, he thought that would operate as a direct premium upon vice and immorality. By the present law young men were deterred from incurring the liabilities which it imposed, but when they were taken away he thought there would be no sufficient check upon them, and the hardship of throwing upon the woman the maintenance of her offspring would lead to still worse crimes. He was convinced of the necessity of some measure, and was grateful to the noble Lord for the Bill; but to those parts he had alluded to as objectionable he should offer tire strongest opposition in his power.

said, that if there were any one thing more necessary than another to the complete success of the measure, it was the uniformity of the plan proposed. In every instance the overseers of a parish should have the power, when a sturdy pauper came before them and demanded relief, and said, he would do this and he would do that, to hold up an act of Parliament over him. Indeed the whole success of the measure depended on the system of discipline maintained in workhouses. With respect to bastards, he thought it clear enough that young men were not deterred from—what he meant was, let the woman know the responsibility and the penalty, and she would take care not to run the risk of either. In the metropolis, under the present system of administering the Poor-laws, some women drove a regular trade in illegitimacy. If a woman got one bastard, it was well; she got an allowance for the support of the child, and she went on to increase her family and her means; and by the time she had furnished the parish with half-a-dozen children, she made quite a little fortune for herself. His hon. friend (Sir Samuel Whalley) did not seem to know the state of the law in Scotland on that head. There the responsibility rested with the woman, and although this state of the law did not entirely prevent the birth of illegitimate children, yet it led to this—that a woman very rarely, if ever, had a second illegitimate child. His own opinion was greatly in favour of this point, and he hoped his hon. friend would reconsider his opinion on that part of the subject.

said, one of the necessary consequences of the plan of the noble Lord would be, the appointment of a Registry of Births. He approved generally of the measure, but it would be necessary to make some alteration in it, so as to make provision for the settlement of paupers.

approved of the plan of the noble Lord, and anticipated the happiest effects from its adoption throughout the country. It was extremely desirable to set at liberty as much as possible of the labour of the lower orders of society, in order that it might be brought into the most suitable market under every possible advantage. He believed, that would be the consequence of the measure of the noble Lord. He begged to thank the noble Lord and the Ministry for the measure. The question of Poor-laws was no party question. The lower orders in different parts of the country could not fail to perceive, that this was a measure in which they were specially interested, and that it must prove highly beneficial to them. The existing system of Poor-laws did much to pauperize the working classes. It was a very injurious provision in the present system, that the labourer might be partly supported by the wages he received from his master, and by the allowance granted him by the parochial authorities. That was one which must be done away with. It was of the utmost importance to the beneficial working of any system of Poor-laws, that every labourer be paid either solely by his master, or by the Officers of the poor. The noble Lord would be aware, that he had recommended this as a necessary provision in the Poor-law system some years since. There was another provision in the plan of the noble Lord of which he also very much approved. That feature was the one which related to bastardy. The present law on that head was very injurious to the mothers of illegitimate children, as well as expensive to the community. The necessary tendency of it was, to blunt the feelings, and deprive of all sense of shame, the unfortunate women to which it applied. It dragged them and their misfortunes before the public gaze, and made them reckless in future. The female sex stood much more in need of protection in this respect than our own; and the effect of the alteration in the Law of Bastardy would be to afford them this protection. He thanked the noble Lord for bringing forward the measure, and he sincerely hoped it would be productive of all the good effects which were anticipated from it. There was one suggestion which he would throw out, before he sat down, and that was, that he thought it would be much better to have the plan divided into two Bills, as there might be some hon. Members who might highly approve of certain principles and details in it, who might yet disapprove of others. By that means their objections to it as a whole might be done away with. This, however, could be done afterwards. The measure could be brought into the House in the first instance in the shape of a general Bill, and then be divided into two Bills.

did not rise for the purpose of going into a general discussion of the question. He simply rose to express his concurrence with the hon. member for Middlesex as to the necessity of establishing one uniform system of Poor-laws thoughout the country. He was satisfied, too, that without a Central Board such a uniformity could not be established; and he therefore looked upon that Board as a necessary part of the plan. From what he had seen in his own parish, he trusted that the plan of the noble Lord would be attended with the happiest effects.

thanked the noble Lord for the system of Poor-laws which he had that evening brought forward. He highly approved of the plan; but he was afraid, that hon. Members generally were not aware of the difficulty that would be experienced in carrying that plan into effect. The part of the measure which he most approved of was that which related to the establishment of a Central Board of Commissioners, to administer the law in the respective parishes throughout the country. The Magistrates had at present a most unpleasant and difficult task to perform; and he, as one, would most willingly throw from his own shoulders, to those of the Commissioners, the responsibility which rested on the Magistrates in the administration of the Poor-laws. Little would he envy them the office of administering those laws. The applications for parochial relief had of late become so numerous—the expenditure so heavy—and the abuses so great—that most Magistrates would be glad to be relieved from the responsibility which rested on them in reference to the Poor-laws. It had been said by an eminent Statesman, that we had outgrown our institutions. This was particularly true as regarded the workhouse system. He was glad therefore to find, that the workhouse system was to be extended, and that the allowance system was to be discontinued. It had been very properly stated by the noble Lord, that though there might be a seeming harshness in carrying this regulation into effect, yet there was reason to believe that some means would be found to give assistance to those paupers who were really deserving of charity. He hoped that any landed gentlemen or farmers who might constitute part of the Board of Commissioners, would say to those able-bodied paupers who applied for relief, "We can't give you parochial aid, but we will try to find you employment. He was glad that the Board of Commissioners were to superintend the management of the workhouse. He had himself seen many instances of gross mismanagement under the present system of Poor-laws in workhouses. He had no doubt, whatever, that that Board would administer the proposed system to great advantage. With respect to the regulation relative to bastardy, all he would say was, that in enforcing that regulation great caution would be necessary. Before he sat down, he begged to call the attention of the noble Lord to one thing of great importance, which he had omitted, and that was the necessity of appointing an Auditor of the parish accounts. If an Auditor were not appointed, great abuses would inevitably occur. The public money would be squandered away in a very improper manner, and matters would get into disorder. They would most probably find, when too late, that their money had been mis-spent. They might then shut the door when the steed had been stolen. He again begged to express his approval of the measure generally.

also approved of the proposed system, and expressed the great pleasure he felt at the unanimity of the House composed of Gentlemen who differed on almost every topic that came under their notice. He trusted it would restore the English labourer to his old station of independence, when the best workmen would be the best paid, and the best behaved man would be the best off. This it was well known was not the case at present. He was entirely in favour of the Central Board and of the new system for the management of workhouses, in which he especially praised the arrangement by which the several classes would be separated, the old and helpless being placed apart in a state of comparative comfort, the able-bodied compelled to work, and the children provided with the means of education. He was only sorry, that the noble Lord had not adopted a recommendation of the Commissioners to the effect, that the owners, instead of the occupiers, of small tenements should be rated.

was anxious that means should be devised for employing the labouring poor in the cultivation of the waste lands of Great Britain and Ireland. Every Englishman ought to be considered as having a right to cultivate his native soil, and live by his own industry.

wished to say, that he was in favour of the principle of having the owner instead of the occupier of small tenements rated.

suggested, that it would be well to have the law relating to settlement carefully considered and totally remodelled. He was sure that the country would be deeply indebted to the noble Lord for abolishing settlements by hiring and service. The noble Lord seemed dis- posed, however, to confine the right of settlement to the place of the man's birth. He apprehended that it would be well to have two circumstances either of which should constitute a right of settlement—birth or actual possession—not occupancy of land or tenements in a parish.

expressed his hearty concurrence in the measure proposed by the noble Lord.

said, he felt it his duty not to surfer the question to go to a vote without expressing his thanks and gratitude to the several hon. Gentlemen who had addressed the House. As to the observation of the hon. member for Marylebone, who hoped, that the Commissioners would not interfere with parishes that were well regulated, he had to say, that he hoped they would not. The only mode in which he trusted they would deal with such parishes would be by following their example. When a parish was really well regulated, it need not entertain the slightest apprehension of interference upon the part of the Commissioners. He further had to state, that additional Commissioners would be necessary to communicate between the country and the Central Board. He did not propose that any Magistrate should have the power of ordering relief beyond the bounds of his own parish; and where vestries were too small, and parishes inconsiderable, it was intended to unite them with other parishes.

asked the noble Lord his intentions respecting the Labour-rate Bill?

was understood to state in reply, that although on a former occasion he had expressed his assent to the principle on which the Bill was founded, yet that now, having a project for an effective Reform of the Poor-laws in progress, he did not think it desirable to touch the measure respecting which the hon. Gentleman had made inquiry. [An Hon. Member asked whether it was intended that all parishes should have a workhouse?] It was intended that the Central Board should have a large discretion on this point. He could not now say positively whether it would be proposed that every parish should be compelled to have a workhouse, but he certainly thought it most desirable that such should be the case. He was sanguine enough to hope, that there would be very little difficulty in inducing parishes which had no workhouses to supply the deficiency by building or hiring them, which would be the least expensive arrangement.

said, however good the Bill was, and he had no doubt that it was brought forward with fair intentions, and would relieve many of the evils now complained of, yet he thought the Bill would be much improved if there were introduced a clause in it empowering parishes, if not rendering it incumbent on them, to give employment to the adult and well-conducted labourers. Such a clause he thought necessary to be introduced; for if the willing labourer could not get employment what was to be the result? He would not starve, and if he got no work then he would adopt a course that would not be, perhaps, very consistent with either law or public safety. The extra parochial labourer should undoubtedly have some asylum afforded to him in employment, if not in relief. It was necessary to give the labourers employment if it was designed to keep them amenable to the laws and to preserve social order. If any principle of coercion were introduced into the Bill he would oppose it.

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the Game-laws. He was gratified that it would not be necessary for him to detain the House, as the present Bill was similar to the one he had introduced last year on the amendment of the Game-laws. He thought the subject was an important one, as it concerned various classes of society, rich and poor. He had understood, that many persons were anxious to support the measure, who did not imagine it would have been brought on so soon. The present Game-law was one of gross injustice, inasmuch as it deprived the holder of the land from any dominion over the game. Under the old law, the occupier had the power of giving the game to any one he pleased. But he was deprived by a clause in the Act lately passed of that fair power. The landlord alone being made the legal owner, if a man held a large tract on a lease of three lives, he could not, under the present Act, notwithstanding the valuable interest he held in the land, give any power over the game, but the landlord could, in despite of the tenant, come to the ground and dispose of the game. That illiberal clause was introduced in the House of Lords, for the purpose of impeding and neutralizing the Act; and it was adopted by the House of Commons through necessity, in order to secure the whole Bill. It might be said, that a tenant might reserve to himself (and was empowered to do so) a stipulation in his lease to shoot over the land, and that in that case he could not be prevented. But the fact was, that the tenants had not at present any such power; at least he had not, after numerous inquiries on the subject, been able to hear of any such instance of that power given to the occupiers. Every one knew how unwilling tenants were to stipulate for anything more than would yield them immediate profit from the produce of the soil, especially if the prejudices or feelings of the landlords were interested. There was a common reservation in leases for landlords to have the privilege of sporting over the tenants' grounds; but that was very different from usurping the whole power. By the last Act the landlord had received a right to come on the land, which he had not before. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal sec. 7 and 8 of 1st and 2nd William 4th, cap. 32 (Amendment of Game-laws), and sec. 30 of the same Act.

seconded the Motion. He considered the clauses which it was proposed to repeal committed a gross injustice. The Lords should have been ashamed of themselves to introduce such clauses.

said, that however anxious for an improved system of Game-laws, he should state that the hon. Member had not clearly explained, or minutely detailed, the objects of his Bill. It was a very rare case in which a person, properly qualified, was prevented from killing game. It was no new thing for landlords to reserve to themselves the power over game. They always did so; and by the late Act the tenants were not prevented from killing game. Why should the House be called upon to change the law; because, forsooth, there might have been one or two cases of hardship? Game was never the property of the occupier, but was, according to the ancient laws and usages of the country, acknowledged to be the property of the landlord. He did not like the old Game-code. He was glad it was repealed. But then there should be some moderation, some policy and justice, too, in the process of abrogation. The hon. Mover would place game at the disposal of the occupier. He was sure, that never had been the law, and the hon. Member would have as good a right to place trees at his disposal. Game was as much the property of the landlord as trees were. Neither was ever intended to be made a source of direct profit to the tenant. He would object to the Bill.

was understood to say, that the Legislature had not intended, in passing the existing law, to confer any new rights on the landlords; and, therefore, in as far as the Bill would only go to restore to tenants the rights they had before possessed, he should not object to its introduction.

hoped the House would bear in mind, that the question did not at all involve the Game-laws in general, but was simply whether or not the 7th section of the existing Act should be suffered to continue in force, when it operated as an ex-post-facto law, and deprived a large body of men of a right which they had long enjoyed. He cordially supported the Motion.

rose to make the Motion of which he had given notice, relative to the admission of Dissenters to take degrees in the Universities. He said, that with the permission of the House, he would commence by reading his Motion, which was to the following effect:—"That an humble Address be presented to the King, requesting his Majesty to signify his pleasure to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge respectively, that those bodies no longer act under the Edicts or Letters of James 1st, 1616, 'by which he would have all that took any Degree in schools to subscribe to the three articles of the 36th Canon;' with the exception of those proceeding to Degrees in Divinity; nor to require the declaration, namely, 'that I am bona fide a member of the Church of England;' nor any other subscription or declaration of like effect and import." The hon. and gallant Gentleman proceeded to say, he considered that this question had been something complicated by the previous debates which had taken place on the subject. He would endeavour to simplify it. To him it appeared to be merely whether our ancestors who passed these laws a century and a-half ago, were wiser than ourselves. The right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, and the right hon. Gentleman, the Secre- tary of the Treasury (Mr. Spring Rice) had, in the previous debates on this subject, afforded some interesting illustrations of his present view. James 1st, the author of the Edicts and the Letters which were the subject of his proposed Address to the Crown, was the author also of a work on Demonology. As another proof of the fallibility of our ancestors, he might state, that a great philosopher, who lived in the reign of Elizabeth, and who was accounted the "wisest of mankind," (Bacon), that eminent individual believed in witches, and that they ate men's flesh. If such errors as these belonged to that age, surely they ought not to be deterred from examining into Acts taking their origin from that period. Amongst the other errors of the time, he would number the Acts, the mischievous power of which he now proposed to get rid of—he meant those imposing as tests the thirty-nine articles, and other matters. Those subscriptions might be easily known to have been originally intended for Churchmen; for a length of time, very wisely, they were not demanded of everyman taking a degree. The second article of the 36th Canon clearly proved, that it was not intended this test should ever be imposed on any but those seeking ordination. He would read that article to the House:—"That the Book of Common Prayer, and of ordering of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, containeth in it nothing in it contrary to the Word of God, and that it may lawfully so be used, and that he himself will use the form in the said Book prescribed in the public-prayer, and administration of the Sacraments, and none other." As to the original intention with respect to this test, there could not be a doubt; but this, as well as the other articles, were now imposed on all persons seeking degrees, whether to become Churchmen or not. Such a proceeding he held to be decidedly objectionable, and he hoped the House would consider it an error requiring to be rectified. It had been asserted that it would be dangerous to remove those tests, because the consequence would be, the admission of Dissenters to the Universities; and the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, had professed himself alarmed lest Scholarships and other University honours should be given to improper persons. He thought, however, the consequence would be, that still more proper persons would be admitted than at present. After the alteration had been made which he advocated, the tests would be imposed on people who had some consciences. Consciences were now, in many instances, violated in submitting to these tests. Indeed, the grievances arising from these restrictions were very generally felt, and even complained of by many clergymen of the Established Church. It had been put forward in a document issued by the Associated Clergy in 1772, that the Thirty-nine Articles were not in every respect consonant with and agreeable to the Word of God; and if this opinion was uttered by Churchmen, was it to be wondered at that Dissenters should be unwilling to subscribe them? These tests could not be defended upon any principle which stood in the way of their repeal. If James 1st acted on his own authority in imposing them, what was there to prevent the present Sovereign from exerting a similar power in their repeal? It had been objected that the proceeding in the present Motion should have been in the form of a Bill, and not of an Address. Such an objection was merely technical, and for his part, if the proposition was fairly entertained, he had no particular attachment to either form of proceeding. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution which he had stated in the outset of his observations.

rose, to propose as an amendment, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to grant to his Majesty's subjects generally the right of admission to the English Universities, and of equal eligibility to degrees therein, notwithstanding their diversities of religions opinion; degrees in divinity alone excepted. He had not been aware of his hon. friend's intention to proceed, or he would at once have given way; but he felt that it would be better to proceed by a Bill, and under this feeling alone, he submitted his Motion to the House. He founded his Motion on the simple proposition that our Universities were national establishments; and, as such, that his Majesty's subjects of all denominations, were entitled to resort to them for their education. This seemed, he would say, so simple—so unanswerable a proposition, that he thought he should only weaken it by any attempt to give strength to it beyond this general statement. But, it might be asked, if the fact were really so obvious, how came it that such a different practice prevailed, and that that practice had so long existed? That question admitted of a ready answer, seeing that, at the period when these laws were first framed, the non-conformity to the Established Church was by law a crime. When every man was required to conform to the religion established by law, it was only a natural course that every man should be required to conform to the law of the land. It was not possible to admit men to the Universities, who, by the existing law, were regarded as criminals. He thought, however, that toleration should have been introduced into the Universities as it had been into the legislation of the country. It was the general feeling that no difference should exist in civil privileges or power, on account of religious opinions. If this, then, were acknowledged, his appeal to the House must, he thought, be unanswerable. The present system of the Universities was one which was defective, inasmuch as it involved a practical injury to those who were intended for the profession of law or of physic. In Scotland and Ireland no such inconsistencies existed as those which prevailed in this part of the empire. What he asked was, that the Dissenters should receive a reward for their successful studies at the Universities; and after having gone through their different courses of instruction, be intitled to acquire the honours of those Universities. This subject had excited much of the public attention, in consequence of the petition recently presented to the House from distinguished persons of the University of Cambridge, praying for the admission of Dissenters to degrees in the arts, medicine, and law. He was delighted at the progress which liberal opinion had made, and he would express his gratitude to those individuals for the manner in which they had acted. He would not attempt to reply to the remarks of the distinguished Members connected with tile Universities upon the occasion of the presentation of the Cambridge petition, because if the House indulged him so far as to allow him to bring in the Bill, he should have future opportunities of commenting on the subject. He would continue to bestow upon those remarks the attention which they deserved; but his present impression was, that they did not bear upon his view of the case, as the matter affected the right of the people generally. He was not aware that in proposing the Amendment he had sug- gested, he was supporting any sectarian views, or doing anything hostile to the interests and welfare of the Established Church. On the contrary, he was persuaded, that if his Motion succeeded, it would add to the stability of the Church. He did not propose to change the regulations in respect to persons taking degrees in divinity, nor did he think that a matter of practical importance; he did not ask to change the system of education at the Universities, he left that as at present to the colleges themselves; he would also leave all the religious exercises to be continued as at present; all that he asked was, that the Dissenters should have access to degrees, after they had gone through the course of studies required by the system of the Universities. An objection had been taken to the admission of Dissenters, upon the presentation of the Cambridge petition, on the ground that the English Universities were differently constituted from others. It had been argued, that the pupils were required to be domiciliated in the University to which they belonged generally, but it seemed to him that this argument made the other way. Where residence was required, they must have religious instruction; but that could not be enforced where residence was not required. Whatever obstacle that might appear to throw in the way in theory, he was satisfied that it would not be felt in practice. If the House acceded to what he required, he was satisfied they would not do anything injurious to the existing establishments.

said, that the question then submitted for the consideration of the House, was one of such importance, and of so much interest to his constituents, that he hoped the House would consider that fact a sufficient apology for his taking up the time of the House. He must, in the first instance, complain of the assertion of the hon. member for Lancashire, who had stated, that if the degrees in arts were conferred on Dissenters, they would be bestowed on persons of more conscientious feelings than those who now enjoyed them. He begged to state, in reply, that there were no men more honourably entitled to those distinctions than the Gentlemen who now enjoyed them. He objected to the propositions of the mover of the original Motion, and of the Amendment, because the effect would be, to introduce Dissenters into the Universities. Therein consisted his objection. The University to which he belonged was a place of religious education; and if it were intended that Dissenters should be introduced into the Universities, he knew not how it would be possible for the religious education of the Church Establishment to be carried on within the walls of the Universities. Were Gentlemen who were disposed to grant the right sought for by the Motion before the House, prepared to say that Professors of Theology should be engaged of every different persuasion?—or were they prepared to say that Dissenters of all denominations were to violate their consciences by attending the Theological Lectures? He apprehended that neither of these things was contemplated. Then what would be the practical effect if this Motion were carried? Why, that no religious education at all would be given. This must be the effect of the system, and against that he would hold up his hand, and he hoped that all those who were attached to the Established Church would not consent to such a change in the institutions of our Universities. The effect of the present Motion, if carried, must be to deprive the Universities of those advantages which they held for the benefit of the Established Church, and, consequently, to injure the Church. Hon. Members, in discussing the present question, might take up whatever grounds they thought proper, and might assume that the pretexts put forward formed the actual reasons on which those claims rested; but he could not conceal from himself that the whole character of the proceedings out of doors upon that subject, was pregnant with evidence that the objects of the Dissenters were not limited to mere admission to the Universities, were not confined to a removal of the grievances which affected them as Dissenters, but aimed at a separation between Church and State, and that with nothing less than a dissolution of that union, would they ever be satisfied. He had at that moment in his possession, a passage spoken by one of the most able and influential men connected with the Dissenting body at Hull, which he would, with the permission of the House, read, it said,—"There are those who have contented themselves in their petitions to Parliament, with only asking for the redress of their griev- ances, and saying nothing of the dissolution of the union between Church and State. There are men, who, we think, have gone a little too rashly forward and demanded the immediate dissolution of Church and State. What we desire is somewhat between these two extreme points. I think we are prepared to go rather further than we did in our memorial. In this view of the case, our petition goes somewhat further than our memorial did. It does not, indeed, pray, as some others have done, for the immediate dissolution of Church and State, but looks forward to the accomplishment of that great and glorious object." That view of the wishes and expectations of the Dissenters might, he would contend, be received as coming from one who spoke the sentiments entertained by the great majority of those classes who refused to assent to the doctrines of the Church of England; and with such evidence before them, he professed himself incapable of comprehending how the Members of that House could shut their eyes to the fact, that the aim of all the petitions hitherto presented to Parliament was to bring about such changes as were likely, if not certain, to end in a dissolution of that Union to which Dissenters were necessarily adverse. Most assuredly he had as yet heard nothing to remove from his mind the conviction that the Universities, once opened to persons not belonging to the Church of England, would soon cease to be places of religious education,—a change which he should regard as abolishing the uses of the Universities, and defeating the purposes for which they were instituted. Complaints had been made frequently on the part of the Dissenters of the necessity under which they were placed, while residing at the University, of attending Divine Worship according to the forms of the Church of England. A pamphlet which he held in his hand, contained some observations to which he could not avoid calling the attention of hon. Members, as expressing his own feelings more eloquently than he could express them. One passage was as follows:—'As a part, then, and portion, 'and by far the largest portion of goodness, and as the means of producing goodness, we cannot consent to part with our religion. For this reason, twice a day we assemble for public prayer, not as a mere form or rule of discipline, but because those who framed our statutes, and many, if not all, who conform to them, believe, that the duties of the day are nothing, but as consecrated by God; because, though a careless discharge of such an act deadens and hardens the heart, a right and faithful attempt to fulfil it is one of the best means of perfection.' Concurring, as he did, with the writer of that pamphlet, he could not bring himself to consent to any measure in that House the effect of which would be to break down the Establishment. He could not consent to that by any means, or upon any terms; and, least of all, through the instrumentality of the Universities. Why should they, for the sake of the principle contended for on behalf of the Dissenters, forego fir the future all those advantages which the Church had, up to the present moment, conferred upon the people of England? The Dissenters had places of education for themselves; and viewing the subject as he did, it was impossible for him not to feel, that it would be madness to consent to the proposition then before the House. But, said the Mover of the Amendment, the candidates for admission to the learned and liberal professions of law and physic say, that the regulations of the University ought not to exclude any man from the pursuit of those professions on account of his religious principles: to that the answer was very short and simple. Let the persons possessing the right to admit to those professions modify their own regulations, and not call upon the Universities to abolish theirs. He was aware it had been said, that in Ireland and Scotland the Universities admitted Dissenting students; and it was asked, why might not the English Universities do the same? But the analogy did by no means hold, for it formed no part of the system of the Universities in those parts of the United Kingdom to require, even of their students belonging to the Established Church, attendance at chapel, or even residence; they were, therefore, not to be considered in the light of places of religious education. He did not impute any design, at the present moment, to the Dissenters of overthrowing the Church Establishment, though he believed that that would be the ultimate effect of acceding to their wishes. He repeated, that he did not impute to them now any such design, for he admitted, that many of them were deeply impressed with the necessity of maintaining the Established Church as the best preservative of that liberty which they so highly prized; and that was a sentiment cherished, not by one or two sects, but by the greater number of persons belonging to the various denominations into which non-conformity had divided itself. For these several reasons, then, he entertained an earnest hope, that the Motion might not be pressed upon the acceptance of the House; and that, if it were, it might be rejected.

said, it seemed to him, that the hon. Member did not appear clearly to understand the nature of the question before the House. The hon. Member first expressed his fear that, if the Dissenters were once permitted to enter the University of Oxford, the utter ruin of the Established Church would be the inevitable consequence; and yet, in the same breath, he stated, that he was acquainted with a great body of Protestant Dissenters who were most anxious to preserve the Protestant Church, and were ready to protect it as the best means of securing religious freedom. He would just ask the House, how it was possible to reconcile those contradictions? He would ask, too, why it was, that they were to refuse equal admission to the Dissenters, when even the great advocate of the monopoly of education had stated his conviction, that a great body of these Dissenters were anxious to support the Established Church. It was an incontrovertible fact, that these Universities were great public establishments, protected by Charters and specific Acts of Parliament; that these establishments held their Charters and their possessions, which having formerly belonged to Roman Catholics, had been conferred on, or secured to, the Universities by the Legislature. But it should be recollected that the object proposed was the enlargement of the field of literature; and the question for consideration was, whether facilitating this object by the admission to equal advantages, with other candidates for college honours at Oxford, would have the effect of overthrowing the Established Church? He hoped the Established Church was placed upon too broad and solid a basis to be shaken by any measure such as that before the House, to which he was anxious to give his most hearty and cordial support. In doing this he felt, that, instead of endangering the Establishment, he was rendering it more secure; for it was by receiving all who would come near her, into her bosom, by removing all cause of jealousy and discontent, that that Established Church could plant herself in the affections of the people, and grow by peace and concord into deep-rooted security. The unison of feeling, the removal of jealousy and discontent, would be an increase of security for the Church. It had been said, and said rightly, that a boy going to Oxford was called upon, at the age of sixteen, at a period when he was perhaps totally ignorant of the nature, nay, even of the very name, of the Thirty-nice Articles,—a boy of sixteen was called upon, as his first act, to sign his belief in those Articles! He deprecated that practice, which was as offensive to the ministers of the Church of England, as it was insulting to the Dissenters,—operating as an exclusion for them; he considered it a solemn mockery, an unjust imposition upon the human conscience, which ought not to be permitted in any instance, much less in the case of youths of sixteen or seventeen, who must be incompetent to form a decided opinion upon such matters. Nor need it be wondered at that such an opinion was generally formed and expressed, when it was recollected, that some of the most learned, the most wise, and the most religious men of this kingdom had expressed their doubts with respect to the meaning of those Thirty-nine Articles. But, to come hack to the other part of the question. Was it to be wondered at that the wealthy and respectable Dissenter should be anxious that his sun should be educated, and participate in the same advantages with those young persons with whom it was probable he was to associate in after-life. He was entitled to look for a participation in such education as a right. Why was it, that he was debarred from the enjoyment of it? Let it be remembered, that it was to the Dissenters that we were indebted for the reign of the present family upon the Throne; and yet their descendants were to be shut out from an equal enjoyment of rights with their fellows. At Oxford no Dissenter could be at all admitted; the Thirty-nine Articles met him on the threshold, and conscience stopt him short, and all access was denied him. At Cambridge it was somewhat different. He was admitted to study. There he might toil and labour, but no matter what his labour,—no matter what his natural advantages and chances of success,—no matter how pure his moral character,—when he was ready to obtain the honours he had toiled for, and presented himself to receive them, his answer was,—"No; although you bear the poison of dissent about you, yet thus far we have borne with and fostered you, but you must go no further,—all honours are denied you." Was not this, he would ask, adding insult to injustice and injury? Was it not degrading to be thus turned from the door of that place where he had laboured hard, where he had formed friendships, and aspired to honours, and sent into the world with all the sourness of disappointment, and disgrace of having these marks fastened upon him? And why all this oppression and degradation? Just because he had the honour and conscience to say, that he could not, in justice to his feelings, subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles. It was said, that the Professors of Divinity could not continue their lectures if Dissenters were to be admitted into our Universities. He should like to know why not? Why might they not, in such an event, double their labours in order to preserve those committed to their care? How could the Dissenters interfere with this duty? But it was said, that difficulties would arise upon the admission of Dissenters into Oxford. It was asked, what was to be done with them when first admitted? His first answer to this question was, "That which had been hitherto done with them so far at Cambridge." It was not necessary that the doctrines of the Church of England should be inculcated upon them if they did not wish it; but that was no reason why they should not be inculcated upon others. He knew not what were the present practices at Oxford; doubtless they were much changed since he was there; but his latest recollections told him, that the College attendance at chapel was a mere matter of form, or rather choice, except on Sundays. Why, then, might not the members of the Church of England be obliged to attend chapel, and the Dissenters a place of worship more consonant to their own feelings, on those days? When he recollected the great wealth of the University of Oxford, when he recollected that the great donors of these riches were Roman Catholics, and that now their enjoyment and distribution had passed into the hands of members of another religion, —that of the Established Church,—he was at a loss to conceive that any refusal of eligibility to equal honours should be refused to the Dissenters on the ground of difference of religion. They had been told, that application might as well be made to the heads of the departments of law and physic to alter the regulations upon which they admitted students, as to the Universities, for the proposed alteration. But, why should they do this, when the Universities themselves were the original cause of the evil complained of, and, therefore, the most proper persons to grant the remedy? The two professions, in fact, committed no injustice; they only took the degree of the University as a test of proficiency; and the fault lay in the University; which, whatever proficiency a Dissenter might have acquired, refused, on account of a religious opinion, to grant him the degree. It was, therefore, for the Universities to make the required alteration. The best security for the Protestant Church, he would observe, in conclusion, was, to lessen the distance between that establishment and the Dissenters; to conciliate all his Majesty's subjects, and to use her utmost endeavours, in peace and good-will, to improve the general well-being and the whole frame of society.

wished to enter his protest both against the Motion and the Amendment before the House, as well as against the opinions which had been expressed by the hon. and learned Member. The House stood at present in a very peculiar situation, having before it two Motions, each affecting deeply the interest of the Universities, and differing entirely from one another if not in substance, yet in form. They had, moreover, a speech from the hon. and learned Gentleman, who professed to support one or both Motions, in which he took a view, differing very widely, in many respects, from the views of the proposer of the Motion. Few Gentlemen who had the good fortune to hear the speech of the hon. Member who introduced the Motion, would, he thought, after that, be inclined to support it; or, if he supported it, would, at least, not support it on the grounds which the hon. Gentleman advanced. That hon. Gentleman thought it right to correct the errors of James 1st and Elizabeth, and one of his means of doing so was the abolition of a declaration, required at Cambridge from persons taking degrees, that they were bonâ fide mem- bers of the Church of England, which was not imposed till 1772. He had a strong feeling against both the Motions of the hon. members for Lancashire and Ashton, but he had not the slighest hesitation in giving his vote against that of the hon. Member for Ashton. He would now come to the Motion of the hon. Member for Lancashire, who relied very much on a petition presented from certain individuals of the University of Cambridge. With regard to that petition, he should reserve himself, and he requested the House to reserve its opinion, till he should have the opportunity of presenting an opposite petition, containing an authentic record of the opinions of a large body of the resident members of that University, nowise inferior to the other petitioners in rank, talent, or in liberality of sentiment. The hon. member for Lancashire grounded great part of his argument on the fact, that the Universities were national establishments, and he concluded that they should be thrown open to all persons who chose to enter them. But, he would ask the hon. Member, was not the Church also a national establishment? And ought not the hon. Member, in consistency, to propose that, as the Church was a national establishment, that also should be thrown open to all; and that not only degrees in Divinity should be conferred upon the Dissenters, but that they should share in all the emoluments and advantages which, under the present constitution of the Church, was confined to the Establishment? If the Dissenters were entitled to share in the honours of the Universities, there was no reason why they should not share in their emoluments. The hon. Member appeared to him to be a little inconsistent in his statements. He proposed that all religious observances should remain as they were. But how would the Dissenters like this? How would they like the compulsion of attending the observances, and submitting to the discipline of a religion from which they differed? The hon. Member seemed to intimate dissent, but he (Mr. Goulburn) had taken his ext act words, viz.—"That there should be no change in the course of study, and that all the religious exercises at present observed should be continued." One of the objects of the Bill, therefore, comprised the attendance of the students at the Theological Lectures.

denied, that he had said anything about Theological Lectures, and protested against the language he had used being made to bear the strained construction put upon it by the right hon. Member.

The hon. Member said, that the Dissenters should adopt the system of education now pursued in the University. He would notice an argument used by the hon. and learned Member, who contended, that because the rights and privileges of the Universities had been secured by Acts of Parliament, that because the Legislature had confirmed their title to the privileges and property which they possessed, it had, on that account, a right to deal with them as they thought proper. It, surely, was a very curious argument, that because Parliament had confirmed a pre-existent right, it should, therefore, destroy it. That argument was particularly curious coming from a learned Gentleman. By admission to the honours of the University, the Dissenters would obtain a share in the governing power. By Act of Parliament is given to the governing power of the Protestant Universities the right of presenting to advowsons possessed by one class of Dissenters, viz. Roman Catholics; and yet, by the Act now proposed, the precaution thus established would be entirely overthrown, and to Dissenters would be given the power of appointing to the livings and benefices of the Church Establishment. If the object of the Universities was merely the advancement of literature, he might not have been so very scrupulous, but he felt that the system of education pursued at these Universities was the only system which it became a Legislature to encourage—viz. knowledge combined with religion. Thus, and thus only, was instruction sanctified, and thus only could they hope to correct the evils which too frequently spring from knowledge unaccompanied by religion. [A laugh.] Some Gentleman had thought proper to laugh at the attendance at chapel; but he denied that the attendance was nominal. It was anything but what it had been often compared to, a mere roll call. The conduct of the youths who attended on those occasions, was such as every man must approve, and he doubted not that to most of them, the deprivation of that sacred privilege would be a source of great dissatisfaction and grief. The hon. and learned Member asserted that the University of Cambridge treated Dissenters with peculiar severity; that it opened to them all the avenues to learning; that it gave them every facility for obtaining instruction in all the various departments of human knowledge; but that when they had arrived to that point at which they might reasonably expect the honours due to high literary attainment, those honours were unjustly refused them. But let him call the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman to the consideration of what would be the fate of the Dissenters, if unfortunately the Bill proposed by the hon. member for Lancashire should pass into a law. If a clever, able young man, introduced into the bosom of the University, but entertaining religious opinions different from those of the Church of England, were called upon—as the Bill proposed by the hon. member for Lancashire would call upon him—to join in the public worship prescribed by the Church, in what situation of punishment would he be placed? If, as had been stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, such an individual conscientiously resolved to worship God in his own way; if, as had been stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, he was an honest man, to the denial of University honours would be added the punishment of a privation of University instruction. It was true, that the education at the University was not confined to lectures, and that no student who was not intended for Holy Orders was compelled to attend the theological professors. But still religious opinions did form a part of the University examination. Since he had last addressed the House he had obtained a copy of one of the examination papers, and he found, in the examination on the Gospels, this question—"Can you rescue the following passages from the Calvinist, the Presbyterian, and the Papist's interpretation of them?" Now, did the hon. member for Lancashire think, that to put such a question to the young Dissenter would contribute to the concord of the University? He was sure, that if the experiment were tried, it would fail in discord. They might go on with the Bill, and they might compel all the students of the University to attend religious instruction, but he did not believe that such a course would be attended with any beneficial effect. He did not believe, that they could admit Dissenters into the University as such, unless they previously abolished all religious ob- servances. This was not his own opinion simply, it was not the opinion of any bigotted member of the Church of England, but it was the opinion of a set of men, the founders of a University intended for the education of all classes of his Majesty's subjects, without regard to their religious principles. He held in his hand a copy of the "London University Calendar," a book which was sanctioned by the name of a noble and learned Lord in another place, and by the name of the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell), and by several members of his Majesty's Government, and he would read from the introduction of that work a passage, in order to show what the opinion of the founders of the London University was as to the practicability of such a plan as that now proposed. That passage was as follows:—'The capital is the most convenient situation for all those young men who are sent to the country for education, on account of the greater probability of their finding connexions interested in their welfare, and greater facility for adopting a style of living suited to their circumstances. But it was also felt, that in a country where the people embrace so many different opinions in matters of religion, an University which should be open to all persons of all persuasions, must be so constituted as to avoid any possible interference with religious belief. The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge supply ample opportunities for the education of the clergy of the Established Church. It is manifestly impossible to provide a course of professional education for the ministers of religion of those congregations who do not belong to the Established Church. It is equally impossible to institute theological lectures for the instruction of lay students of different religious persuasions, which would not be liable to grave objections; still less (say the able founders of the London University) is it practicable to introduce any religious observances that would be generally complied with. In the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, the students removed from the superintendence of their parents and guardians, are placed in colleges, or new domestic establishments, where it is necessary that religious instruction should be provided. When students do not reside within the walls of the University, but live in the houses of their parents or guardians; or, in the case of those who come from a distance, live in houses selected by their friends, with such precautions for the safety of their morals and of their religious opinions as will naturally be adopted on the occasion, no such provision is required. The religious education of the pupils, therefore, must, in such circumstances, be left to domestic superintendence, being the same provision which, at present, exists for that important object, in all cases, except those of under-graduates at Oxford and Cambridge during their residence in college.' He entirely concurred with the noble Lord opposite, and the other individuals who signed that Report, in thinking, that it would be impossible to retain religious observances in a University open to persons professing different religious beliefs; and he would add, that, in his opinion, education unaccompanied by religious instruction, would be pregnant with the most mischievous results. If any confirmation of this fact was requisite, let them look to the learned men of other countries. It had been too frequently urged as a reproach against them, that however eminent in science, in literature, and in arts, they were not only deficient in religious feeling, but were the most active propagators of infidelity. But let the House look at the English Universities, and they would there find, that the men who were most distinguished for their learning and science, were also the most distinguished for their sound divinity, and were the most zealous advocates for that Church which their labours so greatly contributed to illustrate and maintain. Let them look back only at the last two years, and see what zeal and assiduity had been manifested by the ablest men at our Universities, to show the necessary connection between the progress of science and the progress of religious knowledge. And after such a proof of the benefit of the existing system, ought they to turn round upon the Universities, and declare that to that system there should be an end? He felt some surprise and regret that none of his Majesty's Ministers had hitherto thought proper to deliver their sentiments on the Motion before the House. He knew not what course the right hon. Gentleman opposite meant to take with respect to it, but he could not believe that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), after signing the declaration which he had read to the House, would give his support to a proposition which would have the effect of ruining the system under which the Universities at present proceeded. He trusted that the Ministers would be prepared to oppose the proposed scheme, and he should sincerely rejoice to find those to whose hands, for a time, the destinies of this kingdom were committed, supporting a system under which the Universities had hitherto existed with such great national benefit—a system which had advanced the national glory—which had maintained the national safety, and which, if persevered in, would tend, under the blessing of Providence, to preserve the institutions, to redound to the honour, and to increase the prosperity of the country.

said, he should have thought it unnecessary, on the part of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, to ask him and his friends, what their opinion was on the question before the House. The great essential principle on which his Majesty's present Government were disposed to proceed, with reference to it, had more than once been unequivocally stated. He had no hesitation in declaring, that with respect to the principle on which education ought to be conducted in our Universities, he perfectly concurred in every word contained in the petition from the University of Cambridge, which, in his opinion, embodied, in the most moderate and clear terms, the soundest argument in favour of a system equally advantageous to the interests of learning and of religion. It had been said, that no necessity had been made out for such a measure as that now proposed. His answer was, that the necessity for continuing the existing restrictions ought to be shown by those who were the advocates of them. They ought to show why those who were desirous of enjoying all the advantages of an education at the University should not be permitted to do so, and should not be allowed to receive all the honours due to superior literary and scientific attainment and yet follow the dictates of their own conscience in religious matters. It was but a few years ago that no man could be promoted to the rank of a General in the Army, without previously declaring himself a member of the Church of England. That restriction had been abolished. He held, that the same principle was applicable to the subject under the consideration of the House. The right hon. member for the University of Cambridge had introduced some confusion into his argument by saying that because the Church of England was national, therefore Universities which were national, must be also exclusively Church of England. The distinction, however, was clear and obvious. The honours and degrees of the Universities were civil, not ecclesiastical distinctions. Undoubtedly Church preferments were of a different character; and before they were conferred, an inquiry ought to be made whether the person on whom they were to be conferred entertained opinions conformable to those of the Church of England. But when a man asked for a degree, it was to certify his proficiency, not in theology, but in arts, in law, or in physic, with none of which had his religious opinions anything to do. They had no more right to inquire into his religious opinions, under such circumstances, than they would have to examine a person appointed to a Bishopric as to his medical or legal opinions. He should not have been so much surprised to hear the opinions which had been expressed by the right hon. member for the University of Cambridge, if he had been the member for the University of Oxford, because Dissenters never having been admitted into the latter University, an impression might have existed that difficulties would stand in the way of admitting them without interfering with the religious discipline of the University. But in the University of Cambridge all those difficulties had long been surmounted. Dissenters of all denominations had long been freely admitted into that University. At the present moment the son of the Earl of Surrey, and many other Dissenters, were at the University of Cambridge. With respect, therefore, to the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, although it would be easy to meet them by arguments, they were best met by the facts which proved that no practical inconvenience had resulted from the admission of Dissenters into the University of Cambridge. The only difficulty was when they were about to leave the University. They were then told, that although they had been there for three or four years, and although they had acquired what proficiency, soever they might in the various studies of the University and had adhered with what re- gularity soever they might to the regulations of the University, they should not receive the degree to which their proficiency in knowledge and their good conduct fully entitled them. He did not wish again to enter upon the historical question which had been debated on the petition. He would merely observe, that the fact was, that by the Reformation in this country, and by the Edict of Nantz in France, at the beginning of the 17th century, in the great Universities and Colleges both of England and France, there was no denial of a degree on account of religious belief. If, therefore, the House should agree, in its utmost extent, to the Bill of the hon. member for Lancashire, they would not be establishing a greater degree of liberty than was found practicable at the begining of the 17th century. But it was asked what good would there be in making this change? He was surprised at that question. That the Protestant Dissenters were sincere, conscientious men—that they were the firm adherents of the succession of the House of Hanover—that they had ever been loyal to the throne—that they had contributed mainly and greatly to the establishment of the Constitution of this country,—and that they did at present inculcate religion on a vast portion of the people in the manufacturing districts of the country, to whom the Church of England was unable to give religious instruction, was undeniable. But he heard it said the Protestant Dissenters were sour and narrow minded—they had not the ability, and learning, and openness of mind of members of the Established Church. This was the continual charge against the Dissenters; and when there was an opportunity of mingling Protestant Dissenters and Churchmen, of bringing them by similarity of pursuits in learning and literature to abate somewhat of the harshness of polemical disputes, and to get rid of the dislike which was apt to be engendered between Dissenters and members of a dominant Church—when there was an opportunity of doing this,—they were asked what was the advantage of it? He was convinced that the greatest good would result from it—he was convinced that by admitting Protestant Dissenters to these great establishments (and the higher his opinion of the learning of Oxford and Cambridge, the greater was his desire that Dissenters should share in it), they would be willing to abate somewhat of their hostility to the Church, a great principle of religious liberty would be conceded, and no possible inconvenience could follow.

said, the noble Lord expressed his adhesion to the Motion in language pretty nearly, if not entirely, the same as that in which one of the noble Lord's colleagues expressed his adhesion to the prayer of the Cambridge petition. The least extensive, however, of the two propositions submitted to the House that night embraced a far wider and more important change than any suggested in the Petition. Either of the two propositions, if adopted, would completely overturn the constitution of the Universities of this country. Technically speaking, no legislative measure could be made to rest on either of the propositions submitted to the House that night. The obvious and more direct course would be to repeal so much of the Act of Uniformity as bore upon the question. If the Bill now proposed passed into a law, the necessity would still remain of taking the Oath of Supremacy and the Oath of Allegiance. The hon. and learned member for the Tower Hamlets stated, that the Universities were national institutions, though he limited the claims of admission into them, by saying that they should be open indiscriminately to all professors of Christianity. If it was the right of the subject generally to enter the Universities, and take degrees, (for to this extent the principle of the hon. and learned member for the Tower Hamlets seemed to go), how could they fairly and conscientiously exclude from the same benefits that class of his Majesty's subjects professing the Hebrew religion. He did not see how they could stop short, if they were once to make this inroad on the constitutions of Oxford and Cambridge. It was not without good and sound reason, that the regulations which it was now sought to get rid of, were originally established. All experience, from the earliest time up to the present day, sufficiently proved, that unless those intrusted with the education of youth communicated religious instruction upon some fixed and definite standard of belief, the objects of religious instruction could never be attained. How was it possible to convey such instruction in any other way? If pupils were perfectly free to differ from their instructors, to entertain and to avow what tenets they pleased, and to maintain their own opinions, there must be immediately an end to anything like religious education, and the greatest confusion and inconvenience would follow. If pupils might dissent from their instructors—if they might believe and avow whatever doctrines they pleased—they might also teach them, and thus turn the University into one scene of confusion and polemical contention. The hon. and learned member for the Tower Hamlets said, the Universities were national institutions for education, from the benefits of which no man should be excluded on religious grounds. If this doctrine were correct—if they were free to alter the constitution of these institutions,—what was there to prevent them from interfering in the same way with any Corporation in the country? What was there, for instance, to prevent them from placing in jeopardy the property of a canal, and totally altering the constitution of a Canal Company, or of any other Corporation? Having before spoken of this question, and having experienced much attention and indulgence from the House, he was unwilling to trespass again upon their kindness, and should not do so, were it not for the peculiar situation in which he stood with respect to one of the great bodies to which the Motion referred. The hon. member for the Tower Hamlets complained, that the articles were signed at the University of Oxford, by young men not more than sixteen years old and he then added seventeen or eighteen, (a very important difference was made by two years at that period) in ignorance; but who were to blame for that ignorance? Not the University, whose rules did not require them to come so early, but their parents or their tutors. But in truth such he believed was not the case. He had before stated, on the authority of a tutor of Oxford, who had attended upwards of 400 young men, that a very large proportion of that number, not less than nineteen in twenty, had read the articles, and were generally acquainted with the elements of theology, before they came to be matriculated. The hon. and learned member for the Tower Hamlets had argued, that if the different sects were admitted, an additional motive would be imposed on the divinity professors, to the more diligent and faithful discharge of their important duties. But if, in rival schools of theology, young men were taught not to pursue their studies in quietness and peace, humbly endeavouring to serve God, and unitedly to ask his blessings in the prosecution of their studies; but night and day to marshal themselves against each other,—Calvinist against Armenian—Papist against Church of England-man,—Baptist against Independent,—each sect calling itself religious (not to mention any of that class of British subjects who were not even Christian in name)—the moment the Universities were made the theatre for such discussions, so little tending to promote either sound learning or religious education, its glory would have departed, and its usefulness, as a national establishment for the protection of Christian morals and doctrine, would for ever cease. The hon. member for the Tower Hamlets had insisted not merely that the property of the Universities had been either created or secured by Acts of Parliament, but that the latter portion of it had been bequeathed by others than Protestants. A distinguished person some years ago had discarded history as an old almanack; and the noble Lord had also conveniently declined to pursue historical argument on the present occasion. He would not now repeat the details which he had entered into formerly, but he would state, without fear of contradiction, so far as arguments founded on fact were worth any thing, that the endowments of the Universities were, in by much the larger portion, the bequests of Protestants of the Church of England; and if any identity of religious opinion could constitute a claim for admission, it could not be maintained by Roman Catholics, and still less by the Protestant Dissenter. The latest of all the foundations, Downing College, opened in the memory of some of those whom he had then the honour to address—in the present day—in this age of light and liberality, as gentlemen were fond of describing it,—was founded strictly and exclusively for those professing the faith of the Established Church. On what grounds, then, of right or reason could Parliament call on those Gentlemen who were associated in that College for the promotion of the objects and interests of the Church of England, to compromise their own opinions and principles, and open their doors to the admission of persons who professed every shade of religion or no religion, perhaps, whatever? In the large majority of the original foundations, the fellow-ships, scholarships, and studentships, were limited sometimes to relatives of the founders, to the parishes in which they lived, the counties of their birth, the dioceses of which they had been made prelates; and, in no single instance, he believed, was it ever left uncertain what the destination of the endowment of a given benefactor should be. It was always, however, subject to other limitations,—to promote the service of God in the Church. It was always to promote the cause of religion, and, in the great majority of cases, with special reference to some locality or hereditary interest in certain parties. Unless the Parliament was prepared to unsettle and destroy all the foundations of every species of property in the kingdom, they could not, on any principle of reason or justice, call on the present possessors to relinquish the rights on which they held their privileges to make room for those who had nothing in common with the founders? Much of the property thus left had been undisturbed for three centuries; and was the trust to be now withdrawn from the body by which it had been so long and so faithfully administered? The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) said, as they had no right to examine a Bishop as to his proficiency in law or physic, neither should they question a lawyer or physician as to his proficiency in religious studies. His answer to this was, that law or physic was not necessary to the education of all, but religion was. It was not necessary for a Bishop to be a lawyer or a physician; but it was necessary for the interests of society that all should be instructed in the will of God, and be made wise unto salvation. How was this to be done, if the compromise now proposed should be adopted? It was not instruction merely in the dogmas of religion that was to be considered in their Universities, but that habitual, that daily and hourly, intercourse with observances and duties, which connected religion with all the concerns of life, and thus fixed it lastingly on the heart and the affections. He did not object to the Dissenters educating their youth in the highest degrees of human learning; but he called on them not to desecrate those walls which for three centuries had been hallowed by the prayers and praises of the reformers of England, who had maintained the pure episcopalian form of government which he hoped was now permanently established, by admitting men of all religious, who would either convert them into the arena of turbulent disputation, or, which, perhaps, would be even still worse, deprive them of the guardianship of Christian faith and hope; which, once withdrawn, would render the age of peculiar temptation more critical and dangerous than ever, and deprive the State of England of that continued accession of Christian and good subjects which it had been the honour and privilege of the Universities of England to supply. Now, one word as to the power of Parliament to effect this object. He was well aware that, in every State, a supreme power must exist either in a King, in a King and two Houses of Parliament, or in an oligarchy. He admitted the power of Parliament in this case, but denied the right. They might pass a law to repeal the Act of Uniformity; they might induce the Sovereign to send down letters to the University of different import to that of James the 1st; but even the power of Parliament could not force the governing bodies to admit Dissenters, for the grounds of admission or rejection would be still within the discretion of those bodies. Like every Corporation, they were free to fill up vacancies in their body as they pleased. Suppose the Act of Uniformity to be repealed, and the necessity removed of declaring uniformity to the doctrines of the Established Church, what more would follow but merely the admission of Dissenters within the walls of the University, but not into her Colleges? Admit them as members of the governing bodies, and then the character of the University was at once overturned. The right hon. member for the city of Cambridge (Mr. Spring Rice) held out a threat the other night, that certain grants now made by Parliament to the Universities might be withdrawn, if they refused compliance with such a measure as that proposed; at least his right hon. friend was understood to have held out such a threat. He had a much better opinion of the governing bodies of both Universities than to suppose for a moment, that they would sacrifice their principles for any pecuniary considerations. In such a case they would not hesitate as to the course they would and ought to pursue. He was thankful for the indulgence extended to him, and should not have trespassed so long, but that he felt very deeply the importance of the subject. He, as well as a large majority of the inhabitants of this coun- try, felt a deep interest in the existence and prosperity of the Established Church, and for that reason he should oppose both the propositions.

said, that the proposed measure would not interfere with the discipline of the colleges, but would merely go to remove the tests which were now imposed upon Dissenters in taking their degrees. Whatever regulations the Universities might choose to adopt for their internal discipline, would be left to their own discretion. He would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite, that no religious education was given by the Universities, as Universities—at least, by the University of Cambridge, with which he was best acquainted. He was now speaking of the time when he had himself graduated. He was aware, that since then an examination of a religious character had been introduced; but though of a religious nature, it could not be said, by any means, to partake of a doctrinal character. It was only such an examination as required students to be acquainted with the language of the Gospels, and the history and evidences of the Christian religion. If he wanted a confirmation of this assertion, he could refer to the authority of one of the greatest ornaments of the present age—Professor Sedgwick, who, in a letter lately written by him, backed this declaration by an appeal to the subjects of examination, and stated, that there was nothing in them in which any Dissenter could object to be examined. If then it could be proved, that the Universities, as Universities, did not teach the doctrines of religion to their students in the same sense in which they taught mathematics and other courses of learning,—as they taught physic to those who went out in medicine, and civil law to those who went out in law; if, he said, they did not teach religion in this way,—if the student never heard of the Thirty-nine Articles, or of the doctrines upon which they were founded from the University, as a University, until he was about to take his degree; he said it was an injustice to the Dissenters to turn round upon them at the moment they presented themselves to take their degrees, and to say, that they should not reap that reward which their talents and their diligent study deserved, and should not go forth to the world with the credit which a degree at the University conferred. This was a civil disqualification—a civil disability, which he wished to see removed, as it imposed upon the Dissenters the necessity of either foregoing the benefit of an education at the University, or of appearing there as individuals of an inferior and degraded class. Much as he valued education at the Universities, he should be the last man in the world to advise a dissenting parent or guardian to send a youth to the University to be situated as he must be situated there, and exposed to influences which must be most injurious and fatal to him, in consequence of his feeling that he belonged to an inferior and degraded class.

said, that at the outset of life he had been deprived of the benefits of an education at the University, by the operation of the very law which the House was now discussing, and his feeling of discontent and disappointment was never stronger than when he saw the learning and talent displayed by persons connected with the Universities. The hon. member for the University of Oxford represented, that one of the grievances of which the Dissenters complained was the obligation to take the Oath of Allegiance. In this he was sure the hon. Baronet was mistaken, for his own intercourse with the Dissenters was very great, and he had never heard that they considered the Oath of Allegiance as a grievance. He must beg leave to remind the hon. Baronet, that there was a time when the Dissenters were more willing to take the oath of allegiance than the learned body which he so well represented; and he must also beg leave to remind him, that the views of that learned body were enlightened upon the subject, not by polemical discussions—not by the labours of any casuist who took pains to examine the question minutely; but their doubts were removed by General Carpenter and a troop of horse—a mode of conviction which the Dissenters never required when their allegiance and their loyalty to the House of Brunswick were put to the test. The Dissenters were, in fact, always too ready to forego their own claims in favour of claims which, though not more just, might be of more cogent urgency. Although he agreed with the hon. member for Oxford, that a large proportion of the Dissenters of this country were in favour of an Establishment, and would be sorry to see the foundations of the Church sapped, yet he must call his attention to the fact that that feeling, instead of increasing, was on the decrease amongst that body, and it could only be restored by following up the principle of the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, removing distinctions which were, perhaps, petty in themselves, but not the less irritating because they were petty, and placing the Dissenters upon a level with the members of the Church of England. He hoped the Motion of the hon. member for Ashton would receive the support of the House.

only wished to state two facts. One of them was in answer to an argument of the hon. Baronet opposite, in which he had been pleased to say, that a great proportion of the Colleges in our two Universities were formed by Protestant founders. Now, so far as regarded the number of colleges, the hon. Baronet was evidently in a mistake. Of the sixteen Colleges at Cambridge, twelve, and of the nineteen Colleges at Oxford, thirteen, were founded before the Reformation. There was one peculiarity about the statutes of all those Colleges to which he wished to call the attention of the House, and that peculiarity was, that they were declared open to all. In making them exclusive establishments, the intention of the founders had been grossly violated. At this moment there was a disposition among the Protestant Dissenters to do all in their power to conciliate the Establishment, and that disposition had never been more strikingly displayed than on a very recent occasion, when the noble Lord below him brought forward his proposition for the commutation of tithes in England and Wales. Never was a proposition announced which was more calculated to give stability to the Church, and never was there a proposition to which the Dissenters had offered less opposition. The Dissenters, therefore, had a right to put in their claim for a reciprocity of kindness from the Church. He would not trespass further on the attention of the House than to remark, that as the colleges were formed for all, they ought to be enjoyed by all; and that, in limiting their students to one sect, the original intention of their founders had been violated.