rose to move the following resolution, of which he had given notice:—

"That a clause to the following effect be inserted in all the Railroad and Canal bills which may pass through Parliament during the present Session:—And be it enacted, that no bridge or tunnel, or approaches to the same, for carrying any other public carriage road over or under any part of a railroad or canal, shall be made or constructed of less width between the fences, walls, or parapets thereof, than twenty-one feet; nor shall any bridge or tunnel, or approaches to the same, for carrying any other public carriage road over or under any part of a railroad or canal, be made or constructed of less width between the fences, walls, or parapet thereof than sixteen feet, nor in any case less than so much greater width, not exceeding thirty feet, as may be the average width of the turnpike or other public carriage road for one hundred yards on each side of that part of the railroad or canal where any bridge or tunnel is intended to be made or constructed; and that the committee on the bill do report specially to the House that this resolution has been complied with."

He did not mean that it should apply to bridges already built, but only to those hereafter to be constructed.

approved of the principle of the clause, but doubted whether it ought to apply to acts already in progress.

thought, that there was an objection to legislating on these matters one by one when there was a committee sitting on the whole subject of railways; and he recommended, the hon. Gentleman to refer the clause to that committee, as being the best way of duly considering the importance of the clause.

would also recommend the hon. Gentleman to adopt the course pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman.

said, he had much pleasure in acceding to the request which had been made.

said, that towards the close of the last Session of Parliament, he had called the attention of the House to the case of John Thorogood, who was confined in her Majesty's gaol of Chelmsford, under the authority of the Consistorial Court of the Bishop of London, for the non-payment of 5s. 6d. church-rates. On that occasion, after the House had heard the case, it came to this resolution:—

"That it appears by certain papers laid before this House, that John Thorogood, a Protestant Dissenter, has been confined in her Majesty's county gaol of Essex since the 16th day of January last, for neglecting to appear in the Consistorial Court of the Bishop of London, for the non-payment of 5s. 6d., being the amount of church-rate assessed upon him for the parish of Chelmsford; and it is the opinion of this House, that it will be the duty of the Legislature, at the earliest possible period of the next Session of Parliament, to make such alterations in the existing laws for levying church-rates, as shall prevent the recurrence of a like violence being ever again inflicted upon the religious scruples of that portion of her Majesty's subjects who conscientiously dissent from the rites or doctrines of the Established Church."

It was with a view of giving a practical effect to this resolution, and, in order that it should not be a dead letter, that he begged now to call the attention of the House to this extraordinary case. Mr. Thorogood had now been a prisoner in Chelmsford gaol for the non-payment of 5s. 6d. during the last thirteen months. He believed, that a more charitable, a more kind, or a more humane man, did not exist than this person, who was a Dissenter. If it was a fault for an individual to differ from others in political feeling, or in religigious creed, such certainly he believed were the crimes of Mr. Thorogood. Those who had any concern in the election of the Members for Essex well knew that person was a political partisan, but against his disposition or his moral character not one word could be offered, In now submitting this case to the notice of the House he need not occupy its time in going into any of those disputed points with regard to the laws respecting church-rates, or against the powers or jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts, which every one he thought would admit were blots upon the free institutions of the country; but that to which he wished particularly to draw attention was the case of Mr. Thorogood, and he should also submit to the House a measure which he considered would afford a remedy for that individual, as well as others who might be similarly situated. He believed, that those persons who objected to the payment of the church-rates were of two classes—those who belonged to the Established Church itself, and thought that the revenues of the Church were amply sufficient to pay its expenses; and those who, being Dissenters, had conscientious objections to contribute to the ornaments of a worship which was not their own. To the source of the evils which were complained of, he proposed to go, and if he could to stop it, and he should conclude his present address by asking for leave to bring in a bill to effect that object. The provisions of the bill were extremely simple, but he thought that they could be proved to be most just. He proposed, in the first instance, that so far as regarded Mr. Thorogood himself, he should be forthwith discharged from confinement; and that all persons, who should hereafter be proved conscientiously to dissent from the rites or doctrines of the Church of England, should not be subjected to imprisonment for refusal to pay, or nonpayment of the rates. But he should require, in order to give the right to Dissenters to be absolved from the payment of those rates, that individuals claiming to be exempted should make a declaration, that they did conscientiously dissent from the rites and doctrines of the Church, and he believed, that this was a course to which no Dissenter would for one moment object. He would read the form of the declaration which he proposed should be made. The provisions of the bill were, that the person should go before a magistrate in the district of the county in which he lived, and should then make this solemn declaration:—

"I, A. B., do solemnly and sincerely declare that I am not of the communion of the Church of England, as by law established, but I do dissent there from; and I do solemnly de- clare that on that account I object to the payment of Church-rates; that I do not do so from any pecuniary or interested motives, but for the sake of my conscience only."

This declaration having been made, it would become the duty of the magistrates to grant a certificate, and the party being in possession of that certificate might for the space of three years, plead it in bar to any action, suit, citation, or summons, brought on account of the non-payment of church-rates. This being done, he thought it was but fair that the individuals making such declarations should take no part at all in any proceedings of any vestry meeting convened for the purpose of making a church-rate, or, indeed, referring to any question at all connected with the Established Church, and he believed that this was a condition to which the Dissenters themselves would submit. They had no objection whatever to be disqualified, and all they wished was to be left alone in the exercise of their own religious feelings, in return for which they would not interfere in ecclesiastical affairs, which, in point of fact, did not in the least interest them. He had adopted this provision in obedience to a suggestion made in a most able article which appeared in the October number of the Edinburgh Review. It was there said

"The Government has made various attempts to avert these calamities; but opposed, sometimes by Churchmen, sometimes by Dissenters, their efforts have been of no avail. Vestries continue to be scenes of discord more discreditable than the worst of popular elections in the worst of times. There is but one remedy, and that remedy is justice. The Churches belong to the establishment. The worship celebrated within their walls is for members of the establishment. Let vestries for Church-rates be attended by none but members of the establishment; and let the Church-rate they impose be assessed on none but members of the establishment. As a Church establishment and endowed by law, in subordination to the state for all her civil rights, the Church will continue to possess her lands, rents, and other legal emoluments; while the repair of her Churches and the expense of her worship will be defrayed by members of her own communion. The indecent contentions that disgrace our present vestries will be prevented. Rectors will have no longer occasion to stuff their ears with cotton, as some of them do at present, before they venture into the vestry-room. Dissenters will have no pretext to intrude themselves into meetings where the subject of discussion is a Church-rate from which they are exempted; and, if any of them were to show himself there his presence at the vestry ought to subject him to his quota of the tax."

Now, he believed that scarcely any one who had at all attended to the subject would defend or support the disgraceful scenes which were occasioned by the existing law. He would give an instance to the House which had occurred at Margate about four months ago. In the month of October a church-rate was called for, and he would read to the House a report of the transactions attending that meeting as it appeared in the newspapers:—

"The excitement to-day in this town by far surpasses anything ever before witnessed in Margate; everything in the shape of business is at a complete stand-still. The advocates for the rate are exerting themselves with their whole might; every Cobbite is doing all that money and influence can accomplish. The various workmen of the leading men of this party are sent into the Church to vote in dozens; many of them forget their instructions, and upon arriving at the poll table can give no other answer than that they vote for Mr. Cobb, Mr. Rammell, or Mr. Somebody else, upon that side; after being turned from the table for being too stupid to give an answer, they receive a fresh lesson, return, and vote. At the close of the day's poll the numbers were:—For the rate 345, against it 300; majority 45. Saturday morning: Up to two o'clock p.m. the advocates for the rate gained upon the non-raters; at this hour, however, the inhabitants became conscious, for the first time, of defeat; and, vexed beyond measure at the overbearing behaviour of the Cobbites, rose en masse and proceeded to the Church in such numbers that, at four o'clock, the rev. Vicar declared that the majority against the rate was 50. During the evening the greatest joy was manifested throughout the town; bands of music played; guns were fired; and satisfaction was visible in the countenance of nine-tenths of the inhabitants."

He would ask any one whether that was a species of proceeding at all to be approved of? It could not surely be said that the wealth of the Church would be diminished by the exemption of the few Dissenters who would make the declaration which he had pointed out. Every one knew that that wealth was far beyond that of any national Church in the world—nay more, that the Ministers of the establishment of England received more than the Clergy of any Christian Church in the world. Then surely it would not be said that conscience had nothing to do with the question. They could not suppose that Mr. Thorogood, who had suffered imprisonment for 13 months, had any motive or object in the world, except those which were presented by his conscience, for re- fusing to contribute to the wealth of that Church from which he dissented, and he hoped that he should not hear in that House, at all events, the consciences of the Dissenters thrown into ridicule, If the question of conscience was to be discussed, where was that, he asked, of the Rector of Chelmsford, under whose authority and sanction this individual was imprisoned? He could not understand of what materials his conscience was composed, who day after day would call upon his congregation to supplicate mercy from the Almighty upon all prisoners and captives, and could yet be the cause of a captivity like this. But he hoped that it was not necessary for him any longer to detain the House, because he did not think that any opposition would be offered to the motion which he intended to submit to its consideration. He knew that all those Dissenters as well as Churchmen, by whom its provisions had been seen, had given them their approbation, and he trusted that her Majesty's Ministers, when they had also inquired into them, would take this great and important question out of the hands of so humble an individual as himself; but if he were disappointed in this expectation, he should feel it to be his duty, however incompetent he might be, to endeavour to take the measure through its various stages in the House—believing, as he did, that it was founded in justice, and that he should thereby contribute to the happiness and good order of society. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill to relieve from the payment of Church-rates that portion of her Majesty's subjects who conscientiously dissent from the rites or doctrines of the Established Church.

, in seconding the motion, could not help expressing his abhorrence and disgust at the atrocities perpetrated in the course of the collection of Church-rates, for, with whatever respect the Established Church might be viewed in that House, there were great numbers of people in this country who felt a great repugnance to it. In the country to which he himself belonged, there was no passage in their history to which the people referred with so much exultation as to the battles which they waged, not against Popery, but against the tyrannical intrusion of Prelacy into the Church of Scotland. He thought, that a demand for Church-rates came with a very ill grace from the Church of England, when they considered what a wealthy Church it was. They talked about Church extension, but if they wanted it, let them spare something out of their own funds to advance the cause of religion, without corning to others. He hoped, that they would get rid of Church-rates altogether. Mr. Thorogood had nobly led the way, and he trusted that, grave as his sufferings were, he would not be weary of well-doing. He trusted, that Mr. Thorogood would not consent to be released from gaol until an act of the Legislature had put an end to Church-rates. Upon these grounds he seconded the motion.

observed, that there were various questions which were raised by the motion of the hon. Gentleman. The first question was that which was connected with the case of Mr. John Thorogood, and he thought that his case hardly deserved the character given of it by the hon. Gentleman—namely, that Mr. Thorogood was a person suffering conscientiously in a cause which was entitled to the consideration and the support of Parliament. It appeared from the petition of Mr. Thorogood himself, that he had been summoned to appear before the Ecclesiastical Court of London, and that he had refused to pay the Church-rates demanded of him, because he did not choose to appear before a court constituted on rules equally repulsive to constitutional principles and to common sense. Now, he was very sorry to find that any persons should suffer themselves to be imprisoned on grounds like these. He owned he did not think that every and any individual in the country was entitled to say before what court he would or would not appear, whether the demand for which he was sued was made valid by an Act of Parliament or by the common law, and that he himself should be the judge, according to his own views, principles, and opinions, whether he was justified in refusing to pay obedience to the summons of that court. For this reason he thought that it was not a fair representation of the case to state that this man had been detained in prison about thirteen months for his refusal to pay a church-rate of 5s. 6d. It clearly appeared, that Mr. Thorogood was determined to assert a right of not paying obedience to the legal courts before which he was summoned, and to place his defiance on record in contradiction to the law of the land. Now, he did not think that Parliament could be fairly called on, whatever might be its feeling with respect to the propriety of Church-rates, to give a remedy to a party because that party had suffered imprisonment on the grounds which he had mentioned. The petitioner stated, and stated truly, that he was charged with no moral crime, and that the only allegation against him was, that he had neglected to obey the summons of a court. That was just what he said; the petitioner was not charged with any moral crime, but he thought the House of Commons would not say that the summons of a court was to be neglected, and that Mr. Thorogood or any other subject might disobey it with impunity. He did therefore confess, that much as he had beard of the case of Mr. Thorogood, and believing him to be sincere in the principles which he professed, he did not think the case was one which called for the interference of Parliament. No doubt Mr. Thorogood was impelled by conscientious motives; but what was he impelled by his conscientious motives to do? Why, they led him to assert the principle of voluntary payments; and he stated, that he believed the existence of a State Church to be repugnant to the principles of the Holy Scriptures, and detrimental to the cause of religion. He thought he ought not to contribute to its support, and, therefore, he refused voluntarily to pay Church-rates. It might be Mr. Thorogood's conscientious opinion that religion ought not to be supported by the State, but so long as we acknowledged the law by which a State religion was established, so long that law ought to be enforced. But he went further than that: he thought that the Established Church of England was founded on just, and wise, and sound principles. He was not prepared, therefore, to agree with Mr. Thorogood in his theoretical opinions; but even if he could agree with him in his abstract opinions, still he thought that it would not become Parliament to decide, that those who disobeyed the law should not pay the penalty of their disobedience. Thus much, then, for the first question raised by the motion of the hon. Gentleman. There was a further question which it brought forward, and that was the question of church-rates in general,—a subject on which he had at various times stated his opinions. He certainly did think that the question of church-rates was an unnecessary and vexatious source of animosity, and that any method by which the griev- ance which they occasioned might be either diminished or taken away would be a benefit to the Established Church and to the religious establishments of the country. It was with that view that he had more than once assisted in proposing measures which he thought likely to remove that grievance. The first proposal was to abolish Church-rates, and to charge the deficit on the public funds of the country. That proposition was objected to on the part of the Dissenters, who showed that they objected to the charge altogether, and that they would be likely to combine for the repeal of any law which fixed the payment of Church-rates on the public purse. If that proposal therefore had been accepted, the same contest would have been carried on between the Church and the Dissenters, with this difference, that the battle would have been fought upon new ground, instead of upon the ancient law of the country. There was another proposal which had been made by Lord Monteagle, when Chancellor of the Exchequer—that the Church-rates should be made up by an improved system in the management of the Church-lands. That proposition was objected to on the other side of the House, and by the Church of England, and it was consequently, found impossible to carry it into effect. These two measures, then, having failed, he did not see the way to effect a settlement of the question, or by what measure they could altogether, take away the grievance of Church-rates. He thought, that the same jealousy which prevailed betwixt the Church and Dissenters would show itself, not only on the question of Church-rates, but upon all measures which related to the abolition of the Church-rates. He thought there was no measure which could be brought forward for the settlement of this question, which would not be considered as intended to give unfair advantage to one party or the other. This unfortunate feeling of jealousy would prevent the success of any plan which might be proposed. He came next to the plan of the hon. Gentleman, which was this—that a certain portion of the people—that portion of her Majesty's subjects who conscientiously dissented from the rites and doctrines of the Established Church—should be relieved from Church-rates; and the hon. Gentleman proposed, that the mode of testing who were, and who were not, conscientious Dissenters, should be a declaration made to that effect by the parties so tested. He must say, that such a mode would be to him quite unsatisfactory. The hon. Gentleman would ask certain persons to declare that they objected to Church-rates on conscientious grounds. In that plan there was in the first place an obvious temptation to fraud, by giving a pecuniary benefit to those who should make the required declaration. He could well understand that persons who would not take the oaths which were designed for members of the Established Church, or those for Protestants generally, should have the same civil benefits as those of their fellow-subjects from, whom they differed in theological opinions, by making some form of declaration instead. But the object of that arrangement was to give the persons who would be otherwise excluded, equal advantages with the other subjects of the realm; it was saying to them, "This is the oath of the Established Church; but the stringency of that oath shall not deprive you of the benefits which the members of the Established Church enjoy;"—or, "This is the oath for Protestants; but you being Roman Catholics shall not be called upon to take it, but you shall make another prescribed declaration, in order that you may be admitted, not to greater, but to the same benefits as those enjoyed by others." The meaning of that was plain, obvious, and satisfactory; there was no temptation to false representation. But in the case before the House the benefit sought to be conferred by the plan of the hon. Gentleman was greater than that which the members of the establishment enjoyed. It was not a plan for admitting others to the possession of the same advantage with them. It was, in fact, saying to the members of the Established Church, "You must pay rates to the churches; you must pay for the repairs of the church; but if you conscientiously dissent, if you do not belong to that Established Church, if you make that declaration, you shall be free from the claim." Therefore with regard to the 5s. 6d. which every man in the parish might be called on to pay, a John Thorogood, being a conscientious Dissenter, was to be exempt from its payment. That was obviously unfair. And moreover it would work mischievously. A member of the Established Church, perhaps a very lukewarm and almost an indifferent member, seeing those who professedly belonged to the Establishment were each called Upon to pay 5s. 6d. a-year towards its support, and that the Dissenter, being a conscien- tious objector to church establishments, was relieved from that burden, he would be immediately tempted to make the required declaration to relieve himself also. No doubt his hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny, would bring forward some very ingenious and convincing arguments in answer to that observation. But if they said, as they must say, that they meant to maintain the Established Church, and if the laws of the country maintained the Established Church, how could they at the same time set up a law by which a bribe was to be offered to any persons who chose to make a certain declaration, by which they could relieve themselves from their obligation to pay rates in support of the Church? It was impossible to ascertain who those were that conscientiously dissented from the Established Church, and those who might be indifferent to it, by the plan proposed by hon. Gentlemen. But there were other objections to this measure. There was the great and paramount principle, that they ought not, in a measure of this kind, to distinguish between those who were members and those who were not members of the Established Church, when a burden was to be imposed, whether tithes or any other charge, upon the whole of the subjects of the land. The principle on which alone they could maintain the Established Church was, that it was for the common good, and that was a principle which entitled them to ask for that burden to be laid upon all. He owned that he should be sorry to see those times return when those who preached the gospel were obliged to look to the voluntary support and contributions of their flocks. He should be sorry if the lines of Dr. Johnson, with respect to the drama, should become applicable to the ministers of religion—

"The drama's laws the drama's patrons give, For those who live to please must please to live."

He should regret if the circumstances of the Church were to render it necessary to turn those lines thus—

"The pulpit's laws the pulpit's patrons give, For those who live to please must please to live."

He did not think that those who had to maintain the doctrines of the Church from the pulpits of the establishment of this country ought to be left to look to the voluntary contributions of the people for their support, or that they, should be supported only because they were popular, eloquent, or plausible preachers. Disagreeing, therefore, with the petition and the remedy which the hon. Member proposed; he could not assent to the motion. But he would state what, and what only, he was prepared to do at the present time. He had already stated, that if he could furnish a complete and absolute remedy for what he believed to be the cause of the dissensions and disputes between the Church and the different religious sects of this country, he would be most anxious to do so, being convinced that it would not only be advantageous to the establishment, but to the cause of Christianity generally; because when he heard so much of those who were opposing the doctrines of Christianity by infidel opinions and sentiments subversive of all morality, he could not but think it most desirable to end those dissensions and heart burnings which, while on the one hand they diverted the ministers of the gospel from their duty, and prevented them from giving their whole time to preaching its truths, on the other afforded much matter for reproach and scandal against the ministers of the gospel, not only from the open and avowed enemies of religion, but from others who were not influenced by extreme notions on theological subjects. All that be was at present prepared to do was, to provide that some bill should be introduced to Parliament, proposing that the remedy for non-payment of Church-rates should, in the first place, not be by summons to the ecclesiastical courts. He did not think those were the proper places in which the remedy should be sought, because he considered the payment of Church-rates entirely a civil payment, and that the ecclesiastical courts were not therefore the proper tribunals to interpose, but ought to be excluded from enforcing the payment of Church-rates. He thought also, that as it was a civil payment, the remedy ought not to be against the person, but against the goods. He was, therefore, ready to give his assent to any bill by which the remedy should be entirely confined to the civil courts, and be against the goods, and not the person. That was usually the way, he believed, in which the payment of tithes was enforced, and he thought Church-rates ought to be recovered in the same manner. With these sentiments, therefore, while he declared that he was quite ready to introduce a bill which would not take away Church-rates, but prevent the recurrence of a case like that which had just been brought under the notice of the House, he must say that he was not prepared to agree to any measure which would tend to weaken the Established Church. He must therefore oppose the measure of the hon. Gentleman, because it was not founded on sound principles, and, if adopted, it would lead, he believed, to very dangerous consequences.

regretted, that the noble Lord had come to such a conclusion, after having so fully stated the grounds of the grievances of the Dissenters, and that he should contemplate the continuance of that evil which he admitted ought for the sake of the Church to be remedied. He must also say he was very much surprised to hear the noble Lord state he had no sympathy for the sufferings of John Thorogood. Did the noble Lord mean to say, that a person who, for conscientious motives, was placed in a worse situation than that of many persons guilty of atrocious crimes, because not subjected to a longer imprisonment than that to which John Thorogood had been subjected, and whose character was admitted to be of the most exemplary kind, was not worthy of sympathy? What was the position the noble Lord placed himself in? He declared, that he had no sympathy for that individual, and he did not make any distinction between a criminal imprisoned for the most atrocious crimes, and this person who had suffered his imprisonment for conscience sake. The noble Lord had read portions of the petition—he wished the noble Lord had read that passage in which the petitioner said, that he approached that hon. House complaining of a cruel and unjust law. Did the noble Lord deny, that the law was cruel and unjust? [Lord J. Russell—yes.] Then why did the noble Lord concur with the present Earl Spencer, when Lord Althorp, in bringing in a bill to abolish Church-rates? and why, by his own admission, had he been a party to two proposals to alter the law, if he did not think it wrong? Why did the noble Lord propose a plan for transferring the burden of Church-rates to the consolidated fund? That measure was opposed by the Dissenters, no doubt, but why? Because it was not a measure that would have removed the burden, but merely renewed it in another shape. It was very well for the Dissenters and for the country, that they did not accede to that pro position, for had they done so millions would have been added to the consoli- dated fund by this time. Did the noble Lord believe, that the people of England, one half of whom were Dissenters, would go on permitting their property to be seized, and their persons imprisoned, for a tax to maintain the fabric of the Church, already so amply, so liberally endowed by Parliament? It was against paying any tax of the kind that Thorogood and the Dissenters were standing up. The noble Lord did not think John Thorogood entitled to any sympathy. He (Mr. Hume) could tell the noble Lord, that he had the sympathy of the millions out of that House. No great cause had ever been carried without its martyrs: and John Thorogood had been, and would be a martyr in this cause. He had been willing to sacrifice his own comfort and liberty, in order to bring before the notice of that House and the country this unjust law. And the noble Lord, forsooth, was opposed to the plan of his hon. Friend to allow Dissenters to declare their conscientious opposition to the payment of Church-rates and to avoid payment. He said, that it would be holding out a pecuniary bribe to members of the Church to subscribe such a declaration. What! did the noble Lord mean to say, that any man worthy to be called a member of the Established Church would, for the sake of half a crown, or 5s., or 5s. 6d., be induced to take a false oath? Why, on what a slippery footing did the noble Lord place the belief of the members of the Establishment! He really could not help smiling at the position assumed by the noble Lord. The noble Lord wished to maintain the Established Church; yet he told the House, that he had no confidence in the members of that Church, for he believed, that they would give up their faith for the sake of one shilling or five shillings. Was the noble Lord really sincere in putting the permanency of the Established Church on such a footing? What relief did the noble Lord propose to afford to the Dissenters? Why, he said, in these times, when infidel opinions threatened to overturn established opinions, and remove every thing that could tend to promote the respect of the people for the Church, he could not introduce a measure, such as would give satisfaction to one party without exciting the opposition of the other. If it was desirable to preserve the respect of the people for the Church, why did he not remove this fruitful source of discon- tent towards the Church? To change the mode of proceeding from the ecclesiastical to the civil courts—was that to do away with the Church-rate? Did the noble Lord really believe, that the people would allow that impost to continue, or that they would be satisfied with such a compromise as this? The words of the petitioner were that he believed "the existence of a state church to be repugnant to the principles of the Holy Scriptures, and detrimental to the cause of religion; he thinks he ought not to contribute to its support, and he, therefore, refuses voluntarily to pay church-rates." Was John Thorogood the only man now opposing the laws and institutions of the country in regard to the church? What were one-half of the clergy of Scotland doing at the present time? They laughed at the authority of the court of session, and they defied the House of Lords. They claimed to act on conscientious scruples—they threw all other considerations on one side—and they were still determined to resist the intrusion of any person presented by the patrons of livings, and, therefore, as much entitled to those livings as the church were to church-rates. Why did not the noble Lord grapple with these persons? Because John Thorogood was a poor shoemaker, the noble Lord had no sympathy for him, but he did entertain sympathy for the clergy in Scotland. He would tell the House the reason why. John Thorogood was a single and simple individual, but the Scottish clergy formed a powerful party who were tearing the country up. Indeed, proceedings were going on which were disgraceful to the country. He maintained that those proceedings were doing as much hurt to the church as ever John Frost had done to the state. Their language was as violent, and their proceedings were in defiance of the law. What more had John Frost done, or any of the leaders of the Chartists? They had not done so much in openly defying the law, and exhorting thousands to defy it, as these persons had done. He repeated that the noble Lord sympathised with the Scotch clergy because they were powerful, but he did not sympathise with John Thorogood, because he was poor and humble. The noble Lord abolished church-rates in Ireland—why? Because he could not help it. It was now seventeen years since he presented a petition signed by all classes in Ireland, against church-rates. Yet the amount of those rates were not more than 76,000l. per annum. All the arguments used by the noble Lord when introducing the measure for releasing the Roman Catholics from the payment of church-rates, were equally applicable to the present question. Then it was necessary to allay discontent, so it was necessary to allay discontent now. Individuals were imprisoned then—they were imprisoned now. Did the noble Lord mean to say, that he would give relief to Ireland, and refuse it to England? or was it rather that he waited till a little compulsion obliged him to do justice. Relief was refused to Ireland until compulsion was resorted to, and perhaps it would be necessary to resort to compulsion now. Did he mean to oppose the question until it came to the extremity to which it had come in Ireland, or did he mean to give up the principle altogether? The noble Lord talked of being the friend of religious liberty, yet he allowed persecution to take place under his own eyes. He talked of public opinion, and yet set it at defiance, although manifested in petitions presented to this House, and at meetings all over the country. He maintained that the whole public career of the noble Lord had been marked by his advocacy of the very principles which on the present occasion he had failed to support. He was not going to refer to any particular debate in which the noble Lord had spoken against the imposition of church-rates, because he had only to refer to every debate in which the subject had arisen, and in which the noble Lord had taken part. There was not one opinion of the noble Lord that was not in favour of the motion of the hon. Gentleman, Why have recourse to such a paltry, pettifogging, half-and-half measure, while seìzures of beds, chairs, tables, pots and pans, were going on every day under our eyes? He had a list of seizures which had been recently made at Birmingham for church-rates of the most trifling articles, such as blinds and old chairs and tables, all carried into the market-place and sold, in order to assist in maintaining this already rich Church. He entreated the noble Lord not to trifle any longer with this subject. He must either be acting contrary to his recorded opinions, or he must have changed them. But of this he could assure the noble Lord—whatever he might think of a Church Establishment, the course that was now being taken, of persecuting individuals for opinion's sake, would do, and was doing, more to assist the efforts of those who desired to shake the institutions of the country than he was aware of. If the noble Lord wished to make a satisfactory settlement of the matter, let him bring in a bill to settle the charge of church-rates on church property, as he promised, as it was really disgraceful that such a rich Church should impose this burden on persons who dissented from it. He would ask why the noble Lord did not bring in the bill on this subject that he promised? Was it because he had been in a majority of five when he made his proposition? If it was a good and sound measure, he might rely upon it that discussion would soon increase that majority. They had seen many other questions carried in the first instance by as small a majority as this, which were soon afterwards successful. He could only tell the noble Lord that the excuse that he had made that night would be regarded as an insult by many. He deeply regretted the course the noble Lord had thought proper to take; but he trusted that the House would interfere to see an end put to a state of things such as that under which similar persecution could take place.

did not think that some of the observations of his noble Friend in reference to the individual referred to in this case could be justified. Tie noble Lord had assumed that John Thorogood had declared that he would not obey the law; whereas, in point of fact, he was made liable to the severe penalty of it. He also thought that viewing the case in another light, John Thorogood had not been very fairly dealt with; that person said that he thought it a great hardship that he should be sent to prison for non-pay-merit of a church-rate, while persons in such places as Leeds, Manchester, Leicester, and Nottingham were allowed to escape not only without imprisonment, but with impunity, though they refused to pay these rates. Was not the noble Lord aware, that the inhabitants of Sheffield had not paid any church-rates for twenty years? In his view, if any principle of fairness was to be acted upon, the Church should have dealt with the inhabitants of Sheffield as it had dealt with John Thorogood. But no, they did not do so, and they only proceeded against the latter because they knew that he could not defend himself. At Man- chester and other places, when an attempt was made to raise church-rates, the inhabitants were called together, and on the proposition being made to raise a church-rate, it was uniformly met by some person getting up and proposing that the consideration of the subject should be postponed for twelve months. This motion, was always carried, and no church-rate could be levied or enforced, and no person, therefore, could be imprisoned for the non-payment of it. This was the case in the large towns; but, because John Thorogood lived in a small place, where the ecclesiastical laws could be executed against those who dissented from the Church, he had been imprisoned. Was this equal justice? was this a state of things which they should allow to continue? John Thorogood complained of another part of the law; he said, you pass a law to exonerate the Quakers from imprisonment for the non-payment of church-rates: why then should you excuse them and punish me? [Lord John Russell: You can make a levy on the goods of Quakers.] But not imprison them. Why, then, have one law for the Quaker, and another for the Independent? [Lord John Russell: I have attempted to alter the law.] He admitted that; but could not help feeling, that it was rather hard on John Thorogood, that he should be imprisoned for thirteen months for acting upon a conscientious scruple, while others for entertaining similar conscientious objections, were altogether exonerated from such treatment. Again, in Ireland, had not the Legislature exonerated the whole country, not only from imprisonment for not paying church-rates, but from the payment at all of such imposts? The noble Lord said, if this motion was adopted, it would be putting the Church on the voluntary principle; but had they not adopted this principle in Ireland, where all classes were exempted from this payment. The noble Lord said, that the Law was uniform, but the analogy which he drew failed completely in the case of England and Ireland. What John Thorogood complained of was not that you did not send others to prison, but that he was dealt with as they did not deal with others of her Majesty's subjects. Was it not high time that the complaints produced before this House on the subject should lead to a change? The law was in such a state, that he was satisfied, that no Member in that House would conscientiously declare, that he thought that it should remain in its present position. In Notting- ham, Leeds, Leicester, and other large places, the clergy allowed the law to be disregarded, but here they sent a man to gaol for contumacy, and were thus hurrying him to a premature grave. He had within the last few days received a letter from John Thorogood, a short extract from which he would read to the House, in order that the noble Lord might not labour under any misapprehension as to the circumstances under which this unfortunate man was imprisoned. He had had occasion to send him a small sum of money which had been collected for his benefit at Ackworth, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and in acknowledging the remittance, he made these observations:—

"He hoped that the efforts of his friends in Parliament might be successful who were exerting themselves to pass a law to relieve those who conscientiously objected to an Establishment."

He did not require that you should merely liberate him, without passing a general law, but that the recurrence of what he was suffering should be prevented. He did not complain of the ecclesiastical courts. He knew that they were bound to administer the law as it stood; but he complained of the inequality of the law, and that it should be rigorously enforced in one place while it was disregarded in others. He proceeded to say—

"The blessings of the gospel were purchased without money or price; and he was ready to prove, that he had paid more, according to his means, towards the erection of places of public worship than any four of his persecutors."

He added—

"Be so good as to convey my thanks to my friends, who have administered to my temporal necessities; I feel that I shall not require such aid long, as my health is giving way under my imprisonment in a damp prison."

When the rector of Chelmsford said, at least twice a-day, according to the ritual, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them who trespass against us," could he ever pass the gaol in which this unfortunate man was imprisoned without his heart accusing him of his proceedings in this matter; in the case of a man who felt that he could not pay the small sum of 5s. 6d. without violating his conscience, and who was daily sinking under his imprisonment, and would probably in a few months have an end put to his sufferings by death? This was a subject well worthy of the attention of a House of Commons. A right rev. Prelate in another place, had recently dwelt much on the spread of Socialism, and had said a great deal respecting the mischief that was likely to result from it; but he was sure that the case of John Thorogood would do much more injury to the Church as an Establishment, than the doctrines of the Socialists, as the feeling was daily becoming stronger, that the treatment that he had experienced was contrary to Christian faith and practice. They had been told by the noble Lord, that if the motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury was carried, it would be holding out a premium to dissent. This was only an objection similar to those that had been urged against all measures to relieve Dissenters from their disabilities, or for the abolition of church-rates. It was, however, an objection which he trusted would not have any weight in that House, and he would remind his noble Friend, that it had been urged against the measures of Lord Spencer and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, both of whom introduced plans for the abolition of church-rate. The plan now proposed might be liable to objection, but this objection was not applicable to the Dissenters but could only be urged against the Members of the Church. The Dissenters might conscientiously say, that they were Dissenters, and, therefore, should be exempted from the payment of these rates as the bill proposed, but a Churchman could not truly make that declaration to relieve himself from the payment of church-rates. For his own part he did not believe, that any Churchman would, for a few shillings, or for the purpose of escaping the payment of this rate, violate the obligations of his conscience. He did not believe, that for the attainment of such a miserable object any conscientious person would say that he was a Dissenter if he was a Churchman. He repeated, that he did not believe, that any Churchman would be guilty of such conduct, and he was convinced, that no Dissenter would violate his conscience to save a few shillings; he therefore did not think, that this was an objection of much weight. At the same time it was a matter that might be worth considering, and if it should be thought necessary, provision might be made to guard against such frauds in the bill of his hon. Friend. The hon. Member for the University of Oxford, in arguing on this subject on a former occasion, laid down two positions; he contended, in the first place, that church-rates were a contribution on lands and houses, and did not fall upon per- sons; and, in the second place, that the members of the Established Church of England were possessed of thirty-nine fortieths of all the property in this country, and that therefore under the present arrangement, the Dissenters were only called upon to pay one-fortieth part of the amount of church-rates collected. Taking this as the proportion, of 300,000l. a-year, the whole amount of church-rates paid by the Dissenters would only be about 7,500l. Now he would ask the hon. Baronet whether he thought, that the whole nation should be agitated from one end to the other that the Dissenters might be compelled against their conscience to pay 7,500l. a-year church-rates? If this statement was correct, which he (Mr. Baines) did not admit, was it worth while, on the part of the Church, to persist in enforcing church-rates? He would implore the House, and he did not do so in any spirit of sectarianism, but in a Christian feeling, to consider well what was likely to be the result of their proceedings; and he would ask whether it would not be beneficial to the cause of religion, independent of any sectarian opinions, to get rid of these constant contests between the different religious sects, and thus bring them to act together in such a spirit of unison as to promote the best interests of religion generally? If they could settle this question they would confer the greatest benefit on the country; and he knew no mode in which this could be done which was liable to so few objections, as that proposed by his hon. Friend, the Member for Finsbury. He thought that by some slight modification of the plan of his hon. Friend, a system might be hit upon by which the present grounds of complaint, might be got rid of and that thus the best interests of religion might be promoted. It was said of old, "See how these Christians love each other!" but now, in consequence of these contests, the enemies of religion had too much reason to say, "See how these Christians hate each other!" He was most anxious for the settlement of this question; be, therefore, trusted that the House would agree to the present proposition, which was likely to attain that object.

concurred in much that had fallen from the noble Lord opposite in his argument against the motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury. He should not be doing justice to his own feelings if he did not take upon himself his share of responsibility in opposing this motion after the speech of the noble Lord. That speech was cheered by the habitual supporters of the noble Lord, but cheered in irony. He was, indeed, surprised at the observations made by the hon. Gentlemen opposite respecting the noble Lord, to whom the dissenters of England owed more than to any living man for his exertions in their behalf. Disagreeing as he had done throughout his political life with the noble Lord, he felt bound to admit, that by the dissenters, at least, the noble Lord ought to have his advice received with perfect confidence. The noble Lord said that in the case of John Thorogood he could not consent to any proposal for his liberation when his imprisonment arose from his refusal to obey the law, and when he was aware of the consequences of his proceedings. The case, however, was even stronger than the noble Lord represented it, and the House did not seem to be apprised of the circumstances under which John Thorogood appeared before the court, and was imprisoned. In the course of last autumn a letter appeared in the newspapers, which was written by this person, and was dated Chelmsford Gaol, November 23. It commeneed with stating, that a memorial appeared in the papers addressed to Lord Normanby, which contained a paragraph which gave an entirely different ground for his refusal to appear to the citation issued against him from that which was the true one. The letter was addressed to the editor of the Sun newspaper, and the part to which he more particularly referred commenced thus:—

"The paragraph to which I refer is in the following words: 'That he did not appear to such citation because of the expenses that would attend upon such a proceeding.' Sir, it was certainly urged by the gentleman whom I saw at the Patriot office, the secretary of the Church rate Abolition Society, that it would be an enormous expense; but that which alone prompted me to give up my intention to appear and contest the lawfulness of the rate, was the assurance made to me that if I did not appear, more good would be effected to the cause of religious liberty, which I have at heart, than would be effected by my appearance to question the legality of the rate. In addition to this, Mr. Boykett assured me, to use his own words, that they would move heaven and earth in the cause if I should be committed. You, sir, who deserve the best thanks of the friends of religious freedom for what yon have done in the cause, can tell that if it had not been for yourself alone at one time, and a small number of disinterested friends in the country, and more especially my untiring and unsolicited friend, John Child's, Esq., of Bungay, I should have been left in this place forgotten and neg- lected. I am thankful to every friend who has Shown their concern for me; but, sir, I feel that it is the cause of God, and cannot let any erroneous impressions go forth. And I trust, through my extreme sufferings, that another blow may be given to the ecclesiastical oppression, which shall make such trials as mine unknown to succeeding generations. Sir, I forgive my persecutors, as well as those who, by giving me false counsel, have led me into greater difficulty and suffering."

It appeared, then, that John Thorogood was urged on to proceed in the way in which he did against his first intention, and that he had been made the tool of the "Grievance Gathering Society," the officers of which no doubt thought this was an admirable subject for speeches, both within the House and out of it. They accordingly involved this unhappy wight in all his difficulties, and at length got him into prison and left him there unnoticed. In point of fact, then, although this Mr. Boykett presented the memorial to Lord Normanby, it was by him that John Thorogood was involved in his present difficulties, and was sent to prison. He agreed with the noble Lord in thinking that by adopting the proposition of the hon. Member for Finsbury they would be holding out a bonus to dissent; but it was not merely on this ground that he opposed the motion. He would not enter into the question how far all property was the creature of law; but this he would say, that all property was held subject to law subject to all such modifications and impositions as the supreme authority might from time to time direct, without any reference to the opinions of individual proprietors. On the present subject he was convinced that any measure which tended to diminish or take away any of the property of the Church, and, above all, any of this nature, would tend to destroy the nationality of the Church, and therefore lessen its influence. As long as the law said that all property should be liable to this charge, all persons should be as much compelled to pay it as any contribution which the wisdom of the Legislature might impose upon property for the purpose of the state. He was satisfied that it would not be just to allow the exception from this or any other law in the manner proposed. Holding, therefore, these opinions, he was not prepared to agree to the motion of the hon. Member for Fins-bury, He would not consent to such a proposition, as it might have the effect of changing the whole tenure of property as regarded the Church. The hon. Members for Finsbury and Kilkenny talked of the scandal of Church rates, and asked whether the House was prepared to allow these constant contests to take place. In answer to this he should repeat now what he had stated several times before, namely, that there were not more than fifty out of the 13,000 parishes in England and Wales in which these contests were carried on. It was not necessary on the present occasion for him to enter further into the general question of Church rates, or whether the amount raised on the dissenters were as small as the hon. Member for Leeds allowed it to be, or whether the hon. Member for Kilkenny were correct when he said that the dissenters amounted to half the population of England, but should satisfy himself with adding, that as long as the present system of Church rates formed a part of the law, so long was every person bound to submit to it; and the adopting the proposition of the hon. Member for Finsbury would be neither more nor less than giving a systematic premium to those who felt disposed to dissent from the Church. He, therefore, should join with the noble Lord in giving his vote against this motion.

said, he should take the liberty of communicating to the House some little information connected with the case of Thorogood, which, notwithstanding the petitions presented on the subject, was necessary to a proper and complete elucidation of the matter before the House. By an Act of Parliament passed some time before the proceedings in this case, the ecclesiastical courts were deprived of any jurisdiction whatever in church-rate causes where the amount was, in the first instance, under 10l. Those courts could take no cognizance of sums lower in amount. Now, let the House mark the consequence. If, when the church-wardens proceeded against Thorogood, he had appeared, and by appearing acknowledged the mere legality of the demand, and said he was liable, then the claim of the church-wardens would have been dismissed with costs. Hence it was clear, that Mr. Thorogood was the means of bringing himself into the ecclesiastical courts. He had been summoned before two magistrates; they might, if permitted by Mr. Thorogood to adjudicate upon the matter, have levied the amount by distress; and if the defendant then thought himself aggrieved, he might bring the matter by appeal before the quarter ses- sions. When the question came before the court over which he had the honour to preside, a suspicion arose in his mind, that Thorogood must have been previously brought before two magistrates; he had caused some inquiries to be made upon the subject, and he had obtained a copy of a notice served upon the magistrates of Essex by Thorogood, which, with the permission of the House, he should read:—

"To her Majesty's justices of the peace, acting in and for the county of Essex, and particularly to such as act in and for the division of Chelmsford, in the said county.—I, the undersigned John Thorogood, of Chelmsford, in the county of Essex, shoemaker, do hereby give you notice, that I dispute the validity of the last church-rate made, or alleged to be made, for the parish of Chelmsford, in this county of Essex; and I further give you notice, that my reasons for disputing the validity of the same are amongst others as follows:—1. That the rate was granted upon certain accounts for the year preceding, several items of which were illegally charged, and ought not to have been paid. 2. That the said rate was in reality granted for, and expended in, payment of money spent or contracted for by the preceding churchwardens, or otherwise for their reimburse, meat. 3. That no proper estimates for the prospective expenditure were produced at the vestry meeting at which the said rate was granted. 4. That the said rate was improperly and unequally assessed upon the various occupiers of property in the parish of Chelmsford. And I hereby give you notice, that it is my bonâ fide intention to dispute the validity of the said rate in the proper Ecclesiastical Court. And I also give you notice, in consideration of the premises, to forbear giving judgment upon the complaint against me of Thomas Moss, one of the churchwardens of Chelmsford aforesaid, to answer which I have been summoned before you.

"Dated this 9th day of November, 1838.

"JOHN THOROGOOD."

Thus the House must see, that Thorogood brought himself within the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Court, and no power on earth short of his own free will could have produced that effect. He had been cited before that court, and he refused to appear; he voluntarily placed himself in contempt. In such circumstances the court must assert its own jurisdiction. The cause might have been one between husband and wife, where the validity of their marriage was the question in dispute. It might have related to a will, in which the defendant had the will in his pocket and 100,000l. also. How could the court, in such circumstances, avoid committing a party guilty of a contempt? They could not of their own mere motion purge the contempt: the courts were not at liberty to judge whether parties confined for contempt had at any given period endured too great or too small an amount of imprisonment, and therefore he would repeat, that the court had in a case like this nothing to do with consequences which the parties brought upon themselves voluntarily and with full knowledge. An hon. Member near him had said, that the rector of the parish could not pass the gaol in which Thorogood was confined without painfully feeling the injury which he had caused to that individual. Why, the rector had nothing to do with the matter. The rector had no power to institute or to stop proceedings, for the whole affair lay with the churchwardens. It was a mistake to suppose, that the mere circumstance of the practice in Chelmsford and in Sheffield not being the same made the law different in the one place from that which it was in the other. The expences usually defrayed by church-rates might be voluntarily provided for in any parish, but that would not alter the existing condition of the law. So much for general observations upon the question to which the case of Thorogood gave rise; but the House was also called upon to pronounce an opinion with respect to the remedy proposed upon the present occasion. He agreed with his noble Friend near him, that these rates were a source of great injury to the Church; that they occasioned much strife and animosity; and it would afford him great pleasure to see those causes of discontent removed; he should most willingly support any rational measure for redressing the grievance, but he must say, it did not appear to him, that the proposition of his hon. Friend, the Member for Finsbury, would fully accomplish that object, and it was at the same time, as he thought, open to this objection, that it would introduce a test similar to that which rendered the Corporation and Test Acts so exceptionable. They were told, that they might safely appeal to the consciences of Dissenters—that for 5s. 6d. no man would represent himself to be a Dissenter when he really was a member of the Church of England. But let the House recollect, that 5s. 6d. was not the maximum amount of church-rates paid by individuals. Some might pay 5l.—nay, some large farmers might be liable for 50l., and that too at a period of distress. Would any one say, that such a temptation ought to be thrown in the way of any man? The principle was in itself absurd and iniquitous. A man might make the declaration required under the proposed bill, he might still retain his pew in the Church, he might use it and lock it, and might throw upon his neighbours the burden of paying church-rates. He had great confidence in the body of the Dissenters. He had the honour of representing a greater number of Dissenters probably, and more respectable than were contained within any constituency in the kingdom. He thought, that when his constituents fully comprehended the provisions and probable effect of the bill now sought to be introduced, it would not be acceptable to them. He felt persuaded it was one which would not receive their sanction; but even at the hazard of their displeasure he could not bring himself to consent to such a measure. He did not mean to say, that the recommendations of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would afford a full and sufficient remedy for the grievance; it would, however, greatly tend towards its diminution; but if any really good measure were proposed which any rational Member would say deserved support, he should put in his claim to be one amongst the supporters of such a measure.

could not agree with his right hon. Friend in the reasons which he had given for supporting the noble Lord on the Treasury Bench. His right hon. Friend ought at least to vote for the introduction of the bill. It was alleged that such a bill would have the effect of introducing a new test, but that would not be a test of a man's belief, but his dissent from a particular system, and that, as he apprehended, made a very material difference. Whatever weight there might be in the objection of his right hon. Friend, there was nothing in it which could not be obviated in committee: for example, no one need be recognized as a Dissenter who did not produce evidence of subscribing to and attending some place of worship other than one belonging to the Established Church. He had a strong objection to the recommendation of the Commissioners, for he conceived that its effect would be altogether to change the nature of Church-rates. At present Church-rates were in some degree a voluntary contribution; their amount was decided by a majority of the parishioners assembled in vestry. Now, he conceived that every friend of religious liberty must be opposed to converting Church-rates into a statutable impost. The commissioners recommended that the Church-rates should be taken out of the poor-rates, and that the churchwardens should have the same powers and means of recovery as overseers, which would certainly amount to making it a statutable tax. As to the case of Thorogood, he did think that it had a very close bearing upon the measure before the House, and he thought that the imprisonment of that individual would do serious damage to the interests of the Church. The more sympathy existed on his behalf, the greater the injury which the Church would sustain. The recommendation was a very old one, and almost every public man who had spoken on the subject had acknowledged the absolute necessity of settling the question. Many plans had been suggested to remedy the evil; but hon. Gentlemen opposite had resisted them all, with the exception of one, and that was precisely the one which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had recommended, and to which reference had been so frequently made during this discussion.

said, this was a question of the utmost importance, and could not be overrated; but he believed that the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, had not given it due consideration. Much did he regret that the noble Lord was not inclined to allow this bill to be introduced, for he thought that in a short time it would be impossible to collect the Church-rates in any large town, and the feeling against them would grow stronger every day. Let the House consider the obligations the country was under to the Dissenting body, especially in providing instruction and spiritual consolation to the lower classes. In England and Wales there were not less than 8,000 Dissenting places of worship, with congregations, consisting of, at least, 250,000 persons. It was erroneous to suppose that the Dissenters had any feeling against the Church; their objection was not to the Church, but to the payment of Church-rates, and they justly thought that some means ought to be adopted to relieve them from what they considered a most obnoxious tax.

wished, to make an ob- serration in reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Leeds, with respect to the rector of Chelmsford. That hon. Member said, he could not conceive how the rector of Chelmsford could ever kneel down and pray to be forgiven his trespasses whilst John Thorogood remained a prisoner for not paying Church-rates. If that meant anything it meant that he could not pray to be forgiven his trespasses when he did not forgive the prioner. The hon. Member had no right to bolster up a case by such trumpery means as that. He was inclined to suspect, when he heard language of that kind used. He did not wish to use an offensive monosyllable' which it had occurred to him might apply to it. If the hon. Member meant that the rector of Chelmsford could riot kneel down and ask forgiveness whilst Thorogood was in prison, it looked like a Wish to produce a most unfair impression.

explained. He did not wish to bolster up his case, nor did it require it. If he mistook, in thinking that the rector had any connection with the churchwardens in the prosecution, he had not the slighest objection to correct the impression which be had formed.

in reply, observed, that from I he speech of the right hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, it might be imagined that John Thorogood cited John Thorogood before the Ecclesiastical Court, whereas he was cited to appear by the right hon. and learned Member himself. The hon. Member read the Citation, and went on to say, that Thorogood not appearing to that citation, the punishment was inflicted by the right hon. Member himself upon Thorogood. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for the Tower Hamlets, would vote for any rational measure which should be brought in by a Member of the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also stated, that he did not think that this measure would meet the approbation of the leading Dissenters. Now, he had consulted some of the leading members of the Dissenting body with respect to this measure, and they all concurred in thinking that it was not Only just in principle, bat would be found simple and easy in Operation. He Was not surprised at the right Hon. Member for the University of Oxford resisting this measure; but he did not think it ought to meet the opposition which had been presented to it. The House had come to a resolution, that it was desirable to prevent the recurrence of cases such as had been adverted to, and he did not see how, unless they were prepared to stultify themselves, they could refuse to permit the introduction of such a measure as this. At all events, he was Satisfied that those who supported this measure would have public opinion and the opinion of the Dissenters on their side.

said, that it was a considerable number of years since he had first introduced to the House the subject of the motion he was about to make. During that period the business of the Supreme Courts in Scotland had very considerably decreased, and a very large increase had taken place in the salaries of the judges. At the time when the salaries were increased, he believed it had been in the contemplation of the noble Lord, the leader of the House, that the question now about to be submitted to the House should be taken into consideration—namely, whether with a large decrease in the business of the Supreme Courts the same number of judges was still required. It appeared from the returns laid before the House that five judges in the Outer House in 1831–2, had 1,956 causes before them in 1838–9, 1,486 causes, showing a diminution of about one-fourth, or nearly 25 per cent, in the number of causes brought into court. The return for the year 1839–40 showed an increase Upon the year of 72 causes, which, however, did not materially affect that calculation. With respect to the Inner House, it appeared from the returns that eight judges sitting in the two Courts of Review decided 495 causes in 1831–2, whilst in 1839–40 eight judges sitting in the same Courts of Review, decided only 288 causes, showing a reduction of more than two-fifths in their labour. The short period the judges sit in court, and the vacations extending to six months at least out of twelve, would show that one Court of Review would be quite enough for the business of the country; and that uniformity of decisions would by this means be ensured, the notorious want of which, under the present system of two Courts of Review, with co-ordinate jurisdiction, Would be provided against. By the return last laid on the table, the number of causes enrolled last year, for the first time before Lord Moncrieff, (one of the oldest and most able judges of the Court of Session) was only 216; whilst the new judge, Lord Cunninghame, in the same period, had 513 causes enrolled before him, showing an increase of more than double the number by 81 causes, and showing also that one judge did not perform one-half of the duty which another judge could and did perform. With regard to the diminution of the number of judges, it would appear that some diminution might be made, from a consideration of the returns which had been just printed, showing the time during which the judges of the Court of Session sat daily. It appeared that the first division of the Inner House sat, on an average, two hours and forty-nine minutes daily; and the second division two hours and eight minutes daily; making an average for both of less than two hours and a half, or a sitting from eleven o'clock to half-past one. It appeared that the Outer Court sat from four to five hours daily, but, in fact, the average length of its sittings was less that four hours, or from nine in the morning to one o'clock. The five judges of this court who sat about four hours a day, did not go into court more than one hundred and fourteen days in the year. Their vacation was more than six months in the year, and the same might be applied to the Court of Review. It was the universal opinion of his countrymen that the periods for which these judges sat was a great deal too short, and that the length of their vacation was one great cause of the delay and expense incurred in their courts. He had mentioned last session the case of Mr. Jones, which had lasted for four years and one month, or forty-nine months, during which time the court sat only sixteen months. When the length of the vacations was considered, it was not difficult to account for the delay of Mr. Jones's cause. Two occurrences had taken place last year which showed the possibility of diminishing the number of the judges. The Lord Justice Clerk, a distinguished judge, well known and well liked, having been afflicted with a severe complaint, was obliged to abstain from the performance of his duties for an entire session. During that time there was no complaint of the business of the court being badly done, or having fallen into arrear. At the same period a very distinguished judge was also afflicted with a severe calamity, which caused him to quit the bench. During these periods, when there were only three judges on the bench, there was no complaint of inefficiency or delay in the discharge of the public business. This was a good reason why the present vacancy should not be filled until inquiry was made. He hoped the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, would not refuse his assent to the motion for a committee of inquiry. It was of great importance that the inquiry should be conducted by persons in whom the country would place confidence, and that the committee should be chosen in the most careful manner. Any proceeding of the kind emanating from the Government would be more effectual than if it came from a private individual; and therefore he would earnestly beg of the noble Lord to take the question out of his (Mr. Wallace's) hands, and to move the committee himself. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for a Select Committee to inquire into the administration of the law in the Supreme Court of Scotland, with a view to ascertain whether the number of the judges may not be diminished.

said it was not the in- tention of her Majesty's Government to oppose the motion. That House, during the course of the last session, had most generously passed a measure giving the supreme judges of Scotland an increase of salary. They were therefore bound not to withhold from the public any inquiry which might be necessary as to whether the strength of the bench in Scotland was or was not more than was necessary to carry on the business of the courts of Scotland. He (Mr. Fox Maule) would not prejudge the matter by giving an opinion, but he was quite aware that there was an opinion existing in Scotland that there were too many judges for the performance of the duties required. That being the case, it was, in his opinion, far better for the administration of justice, and it would conduce to the credit of the courts themselves, that the public should be satisfied by impartial inquiry that the strength of the bench was not more than the judicial business required. After inquiry the House would be in a position to take steps, if any appeared necessary, for accommodating the bench of Scotland to the business it has to transact. It was not only in reference to the question whether the judges had or had not sufficient business to employ them—that the committee might inquire. In saying that there were other matters for inquiry, he was borne out by very high authority at the Scotch bar. The report of the law commission in 1834, stated explicitly that there was generally increasing dissatisfaction throughout the country with the mode in which justice was administered in the Court of Session. This arose from the intention of the Legislature in the act of judicature, with regard to the mode of conducting the business of the courts, not being fully carried out. The present vacancy need not for some time be filled up, and he saw no difficulty in a committee arriving at a conclusion between that time and the 12th of May, the beginning of the summer session, which might decide the necessity of filling up the vacancy, or lead them to regulate the strength of the court on some other basis. He would not oppose the committee; but if it was agreed to by Government, it ought to be carried on by Government. Under the circumstances, he would propose that his hon. Friend, having made his motion for a committee of inquiry, should leave to the Government the selection of the names. If he did so, it should be his endeavour to select such Gentlemen from both sides of the House as would give an impartial, attentive, and careful investigation to all the circumstances that might be brought before it. The committee would be attended by a member of the Government, and he trusted its proceedings would be such as to warrant the propriety of its appointment in the minds of the judges and the people of Scotland.

said, it was impossible for him to give a silent vote upon this occasion. On several former occasions he had felt it his duty to vote against similar motions, but on those occasions he had not felt it necessary to trouble the House with any observations, and was satisfied to rest his case upon the arguments brought forward by the Government. The hon. Member for Greenock had brought forward a similar motion last year, and he was then opposed by the Lord Advocate and the Attorney-General, and his motion was only supported by the hon. Member for Kilkenny and by another Member. In fact, so little support had the hon. Member for Greenock on that occasion, that he had not thought it necessary to divide the House. He now again brought forward this motion with no new facts or new arguments to support him, or to induce the House to grant a committee. The only new argument was that which had been stated by the Under-Secretary of State, that because the House last year increased the salaries of the judges they should now think it necessary to inquire whether they had over-paid them, or whether their number was greater than was necessary. He thought, that the Under-Secretary of State, in using that argument, gave a triumph to those who last year opposed his bill. It was objected on that occasion by the hon. Member for Greenock, that before that bill passed some inquiry should take place, and he believed he was correct in stating, that the hon. Member for Kilkenny moved an amendment to the effect, that the number of the judges ought to be reduced. He believed, that such an inquiry as the present was unprecedented with respect to the administration of the law either in England or Scotland. The hon. Member had said, that considerable dissatisfaction prevailed in Scotland at the mode in which the business was conducted in the Courts of Session. Now, if there were dissatisfaction, it had not arisen on account of adherence to anti- quated forms, but rather owing to too great a disposition to change. During the last thirty years no experiment had been allowed a fair trial before a new one supplied its place. About thirty years ago the Court of Session was divided into two separate courts instead of one, as it had been before, and that alteration was felt to be a great benefit. A few years afterwards the introduction of trial by jury in civil cases took place. There was a commission issued during the time that his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Bute (Sir W. Rae), held the office of Lord Advocate, to inquire how the law was administered in Scotland. That commission was not confined to Scotchmen, but included some of the most eminent lawyers in this country. The present Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and Mr. Justice Littledale, Sir W. Alexander, the Earl of Devon, and other eminent individuals were members of that commission, and they suggested many improvements with respect to the courts of Scotland. He must remind the House, that five years had not been allowed to pass in Scotland without alterations in the Courts of Justice. In 1830 a most important alteration was made, the number of judges in the Court of Session was reduced from fifteen to thirteen, and a reduction of two Barons of the Exchequer was contemplated. What were the consequences of the reductions then made? Why, that in the temporary absence of one of the judges the greatest inconvenience was felt; and in 1832 a bill was brought in by Lord Advocate Jeffrey to provide means for disposing of the vast arrears of business. A committee was then appointed on the motion of his hon. Friend, the Member for Caithness, in 1834, for the purpose of considering whether any increase should be made in the salaries of the judges, an act of justice which, in his (Sir G. Clerk's) opinion, should have occupied the House many years before., when the duties of the judges were increased by the reduction of their numbers. The hon. Member for Greenock was a member of that committee, and a great object of his in examining the witnesses was to ascertain from them whether, in their opinions, any further reduction of the number of judges could be effected. He believed, that the question was put to every witness examined, and very one stated his opinion that, while the form of procedure remained as it was, it would be impossible to effect any further reduction. Lord Jeffrey gave that opinion, as did also the Dean of Faculty and the Judge Advocate. Lord Brougham, who was also examined, gave his opinion, that the number of judges could not, with safety to the public interest, be lessened. The solitary hostile opinion was that of a young gentleman who styled himself a writer's clerk, and who acknowledged that he was not more than twenty-one years of age. Now, he would put it to the House whether, if they were to grant this committee, they would be likely to get witnesses more able to give a sound opinion than those he had just mentioned. He believed, that, if they were to examine the most eminent advocates of the Scottish bar—if they were to ask the question of the Lord Advocate, that all would agree, that no reduction of the number of judges could be effected without great injury to the efficiency of the court. The committee then asked the Lord Advocate whether the royal commission then sitting was authorised to make any inquiry as to the expediency of reducing the number of judges, and he answered, that such inquiry was not within the scope of the commission. In consequence of this, a second commission was issued in 1834, and that commission, amongst other objects of inquiry, was to ascertain the amount of judicial business in the Court of Session. So far from that commission considering, that the duty of the present judges could be performed by a smaller number, they stated in their report, that the accumulation of business was immense. He would ask, then, whether any reduction of the number of judges was possible? He would ask the House whether, if they reduced the number of judges as was proposed, the decision of the remaining judges would have proper weight with the country. He believed, that, on investigation, it would be found, that four judges would be the smallest number that could constitute a Court of Review. The hon. Member for Greenock had read a statement of the number of hours which the Judges of session sat in a year. But the hon. Member should recollect that the late Lord Advocate had told the House that the number of hours spent by the Judges in court formed no criterion of the amount of their labours; that they were occupied frequently several hours at home in reading over the long written pleadings which came before them; and that frequently, in cases where the delivery of judgment occupied them but half an hour, the consideration of the case in private had occupied them several weeks. The present Lord Advocate also distinctly stated that it would be impossible to reduce the number of judges. He had heard nothing whatever from the hon. Member who brought forward the motion, or from the hon. Member who supported it on the part of the Government, to induce him to alter the opinion he had formed last year. He was very much at a loss to know what new facts had come to the knowledge of the hon. Undersecretary, or the noble Lord opposite to alter their opinions of last year. It was then stated broadly by the hon. Member for Greenock, and the hon. Member for St. Andrew's that the great evils and inconvenience had arisen from the indisposition of two of the Judges of the Court of Session. He believed that afterwards the hon. Member for St. Andrew's stated, very much to his honour, that with regard to the state of one of these judges, he believed that he had been misinformed. They would all recollect the anxiety expressed in the House that those Judges would resign, and that the necessity for that step was urged as a strong reason for providing that a full retiring allowance should be given to them. Now, however, hon. Members thought that the business could be done by a greatly reduced number. The hon. Member for Greenock had also alluded to the small number of cases brought before Lord Moncrieff; but he should have stated at the time from what cause that arose. There was a general expectation that Lord Moncrieff would speedily be called to the inner Court, and consequently suitors did not wish to bring their cases before him. At the same time the other Judges were actually overwhelmed with business, from the number of cases brought before them. The House was aware that it was now in the power of any suitor to choose the Judge before whom to bring his plea, instead of leaving the matter, as formerly, to chance. He thought that, generally speaking, an excellent regulation, but one that in particular instances, such as that of Lord Moncrieff, might produce inconvenience. He would again ask the noble Lord opposite what was the cause of the extraordinary change which had taken place in his opinion since last year? He had observed that the hon. Member for Greenock gave notice of his motion a short time before the date of a most important motion, the object of which was to try the strength of parties. The hon. Member for Sheffield had told the noble Lord that his only chance of retaining the support of his party was to make concessions to them. The hon. Member for Sheffield had obtained the price of his support'—he spoke it to his honour—in the concession of open questions. Hon. Gentlemen opposite might consider that a ridiculous reason for supporting Government, but that was the hon. Member's own affair. He should like very much to know whether the support of the hon. Member for Greenock was conditional on the present committee being granted, because if that was not the reason, he had heard nothing from the hon. Member to show why Government had come to their present resolution. If the Government were really dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Court of session—if they thought there were too many Judges, they should, on their own responsibility, bring in a bill to alter the constitution of the court. He must say, that a committee of that House was not the proper tribunal to prosecute such an enquiry. How were the witnesses to be examined? Who would the Secretary of State call? If the hon. Gentleman summoned the eminent advocates of the Scottish bar, the hon. Member for Greenock would object that they were interested witnesses. From whom, or from what description of witnesses, would they get their information? He trusted they would be something more efficient than the young gentleman of twenty-one. If further enquiry was really necessary, why should not the commission, which had not as yet made its final report, be authorised to make enquiries? He believed, however, that there was no information which this House was likely to receive which it had not already received, and for that reason he should certainly feel it his duty to oppose the motion.

considered, that when her Majesty's Government had determined upon an increase of the salaries of the judges last session, they were now only doing their duty by making an inquiry into the complaints made by him and others. They had returns showing that the business in the Scotch courts had declined one-fourth within the last few years. Now, all that he and others wanted was inquiry. The hon. Baronet opposite had made no objection to a committee having for its object the increase of the salaries of the judges; but he now objected to a committee to inquire whether the number of hours for their sitting might not be enlarged, or the vacancies amongst them not filled up. For himself he was prepared to say that he would not make any reduction, if it were to interfere with the proper administration of justice.

had, he said, given his opposition to the increase of salaries last session, on the ground of the small amount of duties performed by the Scotch judges. If a comparison were made between the salaries of the Scotch and English judges, would it not be fair also to compare the amount of duties respectively performed by them. Why was the House to inquire into the means of increasing their salaries without ascertaining what were their duties? According to a calculation he had made, the first division of the Court of Session only sat thirty-four days: the second division did not sit more than twenty-six days, and the Lords Ordinary did not sit more than forty-seven days eight hours, each, in the whole year. The support of the present motion was the only redeeming apology for their passing the Bill of last session.

, in opposing the motion, observed that the hon. Member for Falkirk had omitted in his estimate of the sittings of the court the taking into calculation the time devoted by the judges to criminal business, as also to jury trials.

said, that the inquiry sought for by the hon. Member for Greenock was one which that House might well and properly entertain. He did not vote for inquiry, because he agreed with the hon. Member for Kilkenny and the hon. Member for Greenock that the result would be to prove that the number of the judges was too great. On the contrary, he had last year voted for giving an increased salary to the judges, because he considered that they were insufficiently paid, and he would now vote for the proposed inquiry, because he was sure that not only were not the judges overpaid, but also that the number was by no means too great. With a fair committee, presided over of Member a by the Government, and uninfluenced by party spirit, he was satisfied that the truth would be elicited, and it would be generally acknowledged that the constitution of the courts of Scotland was of the description and character required, and that the number of judges was not greater than was required for the due performance of the functions imposed upon them.

said, that he was certainly surprised at the grounds upon which this inquiry was granted by the Government, namely, that the result would be to prove that inquiry was wholly unnecessary. He should object to such inquiry, as he considered it no other than putting the judges of the Supreme Courts upon their trial.

said that certainly, while he should vote inquiry, he was of opinion that the result of that inquiry would be to show that the Court of Session had not too many judges properly to discharge the duties that were imposed upon them. His opinion in 1834 was that the judges could not safely be reduced below the number of thirteen, and also his opinion was, that the court was well constituted, and to those opinions he still adhered. The circumstance of the judges of the Supreme Court performing a very large and a very important part of their duties in their chambers, instead of performing them in open court, had led to an opinion among persons out of the profession, that the judges were too numerous; and he thought that the best way to disabuse the minds of the people of such wrong impressions was to have a deliberate and impartial inquiry before a committee of the House.

I do not know who the Gentlemen are that the Lord Advocate has referred to, who ground their support of the increased salary of the Scotch Judges on the increase of business in their Courts. This not the argument I use, for I think it is a most dangerous one. When you place persons in any public situation, judicial or otherwise, you have a demand on all of their time. If not, where would increase of salaries stop? Why, there is not a Bill that passes this House but imposes some additional duties on the Secretaries of State; and yet, how would the House look if they were to come down on each of these occasions to ask for an increase of their salary? The ground I went on was that the salaries of the Scotch Judges were not sufficient to mark the distinction between the bench and the bar, or to secure the services of the best talents at the latter for seats on the former. I thought that the relation of the Judges to the advocates should be such as to secure a due superiority to the former, otherwise they would not meet with the respect to which the bench was entitled; and I thought it due to the country to purchase the highest talent at the bar to place it on the benches, when vacancies occurred. I do not mean to say that the income of the Judges from their office is such as to tempt the two or three of the most eminent men at the Scottish Bar to relinquish their practice, which must be more than the amount of a Judge's salary—I do not say that these gentlemen would be won by this. I speak alone of the average profits of the bar in Scotland, and on that ground I supported the increase of the judicial salary. What surprises me most, however, in this matter is, that the hon. Member for Greenock should think it worth while to bring forward the motion, now that the Government by acquiescing in it will take the nomination of the committee altogether out of his hands. This committee, if I understand right, is to be presided over and composed of men whose minds are already made up on the subject. The hon. Member himself has made up his mind—the Government have made up their minds—he thinks that a reduction in the number of Judges is necessary, they think that it is not necessary. What is to accrue from this contrariety? If the Government have made up their minds, why go into an inquiry? Why not oppose the motion at the outset? Do they see the results to which this course of conduct will lead? The same inquiry may be instituted by any hon. Member similarly disposed as the hon. Member for Greenock, on the self-same grounds, into the judicial bench of England, and thus the greatest injury might be inflicted on the country by unsettling public opinion as to the bench. The hon. Gentlemen opposite said that this inquiry is granted by the Government to satisfy public opinion. Let us see what are the grounds of this acquiescence on their part. "The public," says the learned Lord, "are in error on two points in regard to this subject: first, in the matter of a reduction in the number of the judges; secondly, in the matter of the amount of business transacted before these functionaries." With respect to the number of Judges, he says that there is not a single person in the country who knows anything about the subject who thinks the present number is too great. All the profession whose opinions are worth anything, he says, are of the same view in the matter. The Government, likewise, come to the same conclusion. Is it decent, then, for them to enter into any inquiry on this subject, simply for the purpose of satisfying those who, according to the testimony of the hon. Member, are incompetent to form, an opinion on it? Is it just, I ask, or seemly, to give way to the clamour of a set of persons who, on the Lord Advocate's own showing, know nothing of the subject in question? I cannot conceive, if the mind of the Government is made up on the question, on what grounds they can enter on this inquiry. The hon. Under Secretary (Mr. F. Maule) says he thinks that, as regards the constitution of the Court, the number of four Judges is preferable to three; and the hon. Member who sits beside him says the same; yet they profess their willingness to enter on an inquiry into a subject on which they have expressed so decided an opinion. I repeat, then, that I look upon it as strange and unnecessary on the part of the hon. Member for Greenock to proceed with the motion, when by their conduct the Government, after expressing such sentiments, have taken it out of his hands. But there is another point that I gather from the hon. Member's speech, which is, that some people, according to his statement, think that the Judges of the Court are not sufficiently patient with counsel; that they are rather restive in hearing long law arguments from the bar; and that the written pleadings are not sufficiently attended to satisfy the advocates. Now suppose that charge made in a tangible form, how will you entertain it? How can you ascertain the fact, except by individual examination of the Judges themselves, as well as of the complaining counsel? And would that, I ask you, be decent? Would it be just? The Judges, however, may deny the general allegation; what then? How will you be able to come to a conclusion? But you call the Judge before you—setting decency at defiance—and you press the charge and press him for "his answer. If you do, what will assuredly take place? Why, this. He will tell you that the counsel are so tedious and so verbose that he feels it a duty to the country and the suitors in his Court to cut them short, and so save the public time and public patience. I must say, were I on the committee, that my leaning would be to the Judge in this respect—and I would state that, in my opinion, the Judge in no case discharged his duty better, or more satisfactorily, than when he silenced irrelevant argument, and shut out frivolous speeches, having no bearing on the case before him. I, who recollect a speech of eleven hours in length, delivered during two days at the bar of the House of Lords by a Scotch counsel—[The Lord Advocate—sixteen hours.] The question is, whether the Judges are sufficiently patient in hearing the speeches of counsel; and yet here is the hon. Gentleman correcting my unintentional error in his zeal for the honour of the Scottish bar, by informing us, that the eleven hours which I stated as the length of a speech were in reality sixteen. That I suppose he means to be understood as the ordinary time. Can there be anything imagined more ridiculous than to call on the learned judges, who perhaps have made up their minds about the eighth or ninth, or at most the eleventh hour—to hear the advocate for the remaining portion of the usual time, when it may be that he has only got to the eighteenth head of his subject. Can any one blame him for cutting short this interminable discourse, and thus saving the public time, as well as the pockets of the other suitors in the court? But, after all, what a degrading inquiry it must come to. What is it you propose to do? To drag before a committee of unprofessional people, a judge who wishes to despatch the business of the court, that he may answer why he was so brief with this advocate, or so curt with that other. I am surprised, as I said, that the hon. Member should bring forward this motion under the peculiar circumstances that I have pointed out; and I am the more surprised that the learned Lord, and the Government, should agree to it, after the decided expression of adverse opinion to which they gave utterance ast Session. But I think the House will best consult its own honour, the interests of the public, and the dignity and usefulness of the judicial bench of Scotland, by refusing to accede to it.

in reply, said, he was anxious to have this inquiry, as having respect to the court and to the judges, and as one which would be acceptable. An hon. Member had taunted him with saying that every Scotch Member had his price. He begged to say, that there had been three Parliaments which had seen a Scotchman without a price. Did any hon. Member contradict that. He had been daily in the habit of voting in the teeth of Government, as well as with it, and he would tell the House, that at any rate he was not to be caught with chaff. Which of the two things would hon.' Members give him—half the judges' salaries or their full time? He contended that the public ought to have the judges' full time. He begged to say, that all the judges of the Court of Session were very good and upright men, and all of them very learned in the law, but for want of that practice which the English and Irish judges had, they disliked their duties exceedingly. With regard to the constitution of the Committee, he should be perfectly content if its appointments were in the hands of the noble leader of that House; and if the noble Lord believed that he ought to exclude him (Mr. Wallace) he would willingly be left out of it, as his sole desire was for the public good.

should most willingly concede to the proposition of the hon. Member for Wigan, so far as the returns which would show what quantity of land had been granted to English settlers since the passing of the East India Charter Act in 1832. But the hon. Member must excuse him from venturing upon the other topics urged in the course of the hon. Member's speech. He agreed in the opinion that the returns desired, would show that since 1832, every encouragement had been given to the settlement in India, not only of British subjects, but other Europeans, and he did not doubt that when the hon. Member saw them he would be perfectly satisfied. The hon. Member ought to be aware that the terms of the charter did not compel the East India Company to give encouragement to settlers—all that it required of them, was, to allow settlers to take land in the Indian Peninsula. If, however, the returns were not satisfactory to the hon. Member, he (Sir J. Hob-house) would be ready to afford him every additional information in his power.

said, that on rising to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice, he trusted it was unnecessary for him to disclaim, at starting, being actuated by any feeling at all adverse to the parties involved in the transaction to which that, motion had reference. He had long had the pleasure of a friendly acquaintance with the noble Lord, whose name appeared on the face of the notice, and for that noble Lord he entertained feelings of friendly regard—feelings which he believed pervaded Members sitting on both sides of the House. Nothing but a sense of public duty induced him to bring the matter under the consideration of the House, and if in the course of the discussion, any observation should be made calculated to wound the feelings of that noble Lord, he could only say, he should feel deep regret. He was aware, that according to law, if he had waited until a later period of the Session, some of the papers, for which he meant to move, must be laid upon the Table of the House; but the reason why he forestalled the time prescribed by the Act of Parliament, was, that he considered there were matters in question, which warranted him in entertaining suspicions as to the circumstances of the transaction. Those circumstances it would be his duty to detail to the House in the clearest, and at the same time the shortest manner possible. In doing so, he should best discharge his duty, and meet the convenience of the House, by first stating the simple facts connected with these appointments. In 1834, shortly after the death of Lord Grenville (the last auditor of the Exchequer), a bill was brought in by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Pembroke (Sir J. Graham), founded upon the report of the commissioners on public accounts for remodelling the office of the Exchequer, which Bill ultimately passed into a law. Antecedently to this period, Mr. Henry Ellis, a gentleman admitted to be an active and able officer, held the office of clerk of the pells, and did the whole duty of the office at a salary of 1,400l. The office of Comptroller of the Exchequer, had been created by the Act 4 William 4th, chapter 15, entitled "An Act to Regulate the Office of the Receipt of his Majesty's Exchequer." The preamble of that Act stated, "that a more economical execution of the duties thereof should be adopted." The offices of auditor, tellers, clerk of the pells, and other subordinate offices, were abolished, and a great saving had accrued to the public, expenditure by the adoption of that Act. The second clause provided for the appointment of Comptroller and assistant-Comptroller, and the Act came into operation in the month of October, 1834. Immediately after this, Sir John Newport, then at a very advanced period of his life, being upwards of seventy-eight years of age, received the appointment of Comptroller of the Exchequer at a salary of 2,000l., with an assistant Comptroller under him at a salary of 1,000l., and Mr. Ellis was permitted to retire upon a pension to the full amount of his former salary, viz. 1,400l. per annum. Now, if, he (Mr. Liddell) was desirous to make any accusation against Sir John Newport in accepting this appointment, he might allude to the part taken by that right hon. Baronet in the debates which took place in the year 1810, on the question of the superannuation allowance to the treasurer of the Post-office in Dublin; but it formed no part of his duty to make any accusation against the right hon. Baronet, whose advanced period of life entitled him to respect, and that respect he should receive from him. But, however, the right hon. Baronet at that advanced period of life which he (Mr.Liddell) had stated, received the appointment in question and retained it five years, namely, until the month of September, 1839, when, by some arrangement, very convenient no doubt to all parties concerned, he retired, and was succeeded by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, now raised to the peerage by the title of Lord Monteagle. Sir John Newport naturally declined to give up a good place for nothing, but being specially exempted from a retiring pension by a clause in an act passed after the date of the act he had already mentioned, entitled "An Act to amend the laws regulating pensions for civil officers," he was recommended by her Majesty's Government to the notice of the Crown, and a pension of 1,000l. per annum was given him out of the Civil List—a pension which was no less in amount than five-sixths of the whole sum placed at the disposal of the Crown for the satisfying of all claims of every description which might be preferred in the course of the current year. This one grant, therefore, left only 200l. for the Crown otherwise to bestow in that year. It appeared that at the present moment there were no less than four persons in receipt of the public money, and that this arose from the changes in an office, the duties of which were, previous to 1834, performed by an individual still in the prime of life, at a salary of 1,400l. The first of these persons was Mr. Ellis, who had a retiring pension of 1,400l.; secondly, there was Sir John Newport, with a retiring pension of 1,000l.; thirdly, there was Lord Monteagle appointed to the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer, at a salary of 2,000l, and lastly, there was the Assistant-Comptroller, with a salary of 1,000l. Such he believed to be the simple facts of the case, which he had stated without comment, for upon those facts he was ready to call upon the House to accede to his motion. But he must now claim the attention of the House to the provisions of certain acts of Parliament which had reference to, or were connected with, these transactions. He need do no more than mention the statute 4 Will. IV., chap. 15, to which he had already alluded, to account for the mode in which these changes had taken place. But in the year 1834 another act was passed for the regulation of pensions, compositions, and allowances which required the attention of the House in one or two respects. That act conferred on the First Lord of the Treasury, the Secre- taries of State, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the President of the India Board, and the President of the Board of Trade retiring pensions not exceeding the sum of 2,000l. each, but the act contained a proviso that no such pensions should be granted unless the party should have held one or more of the said offices for a period of not less than two years in the whole, either uninterruptedly or at different times; nor should any greater number than four such pensions hereafter to be granted be in force at the same time. It appeared that Lord Monteagle would have been entitled to receive a pension of 2,000l. under this statute, but he believed that at the time of these arrangements not one of them was vacant, and therefore the noble Lord had felt it more convenient to step into the situation of Comptroller of the Exchequer at once. The 15th clause of that act provided

"That nothing in this act contained shall extend or be construed to extend to, or authorize the adding to such list any offices held under military and naval commissions, entitling the holders of the same to half-pay, or any military or naval allowance in lieu of, or in addition to half-pay, &c, or the Comptroller of His Majesty's Exchequer, or any offices in relation to which the granting of any allowances for past services has been specially regulated by any act," &c.

Therefore, the late Comptroller of the Exchequer, on his retirement, was particularly exempted by this act from his receiving any retiring allowance, and hence it was, that the Government had thought fit to pension him out of the Civil List With what propriety they did so, having in view the spirit of that act, he left the House to determine, after hearing the terms of that particular clause. He repeated again that, under the provisions of the 5th and 6th clauses of Act 1 Victoria, chap. 2, 1,200l. per annum was all that was permitted to the Crown to defray the charge of pensions to any claimant of this class, and he must, therefore, say, it was a strong case that, out of that sum, 1,000l. should be granted to an elderly gentleman who had not performed any great public duties. [Cheers.] From that cheer he inferred that it was intended to make out the claim to the satisfaction of the House; but whether it was satisfactory either to some hon. Members who sat behind the Treasury bench, or to bon, Members on his side of the House, would depend, upon the explanation he supposed was intended to be given. Having now brought the facts of the case before the House, he would take the liberty of referring to the feelings expressed in the House on the debate which took place, when the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Pembroke, introduced his Bill for re-modelling the office of the Exchequer. Giving that right hon. Baronet and the Government of that day full credit for the saving they proposed to effect—giving the present Government the credit or the discredit of the appointments which had since been made, he must read to the House some of the expressions made use of on that occasion by hon. Members who consistently advocated economy on that and all other occasions. It was then strongly urged on both sides of the House that Mr. Henry Ellis was still competent to perform the duties, and that if he was appointed to the office a saving would be effected of the 1,400l per annum, upon which he had now retired. Indeed he (Mr. Liddell) had never heard any valid reason assigned why that Gentleman had not been appointed; but in the course of the debate to which he alluded, the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Hume) said,

"I must confess I see no reason why the Clerk of the Pells should not perform the duties of the Comptroller, by which means an additional saving of about 2,0001. a-year would be effected. He has had considerable experience, and undoubtedly it is necessary that the individual appointed to this office should be thoroughly acquainted with the business."

Lord Auckland had then been named as the future Comptroller of the Exchequer. On the same occasion Mr. Attwood proposed that Mr. Ellis be called upon to fill the office of Comptroller General. Mr. Goulburn said he did not object to the retiring pension, but he thought the justice due to Mr. Ellis would be equally satisfied by making him Comptroller, which at the same time would enable the House to relieve the public from a charge of 1,400l. a year. Colonel Evans said, "If any hon. Member will bring forward the proposition as a substantive motion, it should have his support." In short, a great deal was said about the propriety of appointing Mr. Ellis to the office, and of saving this retired allowance to the public. This view was not followed up, and an ap- pointment was made to which he had already called the attention of the House. Having stated the facts as they occurred; having referred to the Acts of Parliament bearing upon the subject, he must be permitted to draw his own inferences, and these inferences were that the whole transaction partook greatly of the nature of a Ministerial job. Such was the impression which the facts conveyed to his mind, and he thought the circumstances he had stated justified him in asking for the papers for which he intended to move, before the time appointed by the Act of Parliament for their production, and in demanding from those hon. Members who so loudly recommended economy and retrenchment, their support on this occasion. He had implied a censure on the Government by asking for those papers, and it remained now for the Government either to refuse or grant them—in either case, however, the public would draw their own inferences as he had done. The Government had, however, now heard the indictment against them, and he would only add "God send them a good deliverance." The hon. Member concluded by moving "that there be laid before the House a copy of the warrant, granting a pension to the right hon. Sir John Newport. Also a copy of the warrant granting the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer to Lord Monteagle."

assured the hon. Gentleman, that he should certainly hear no complaints from him, that he had brought this question before the House previously to the production of the papers, one of which, at least, he was bound to lay on the table of the House, by act of Parliament, within a short time; so far from offering any complaint, he was most happy that an opportunity had been afforded to him of meeting those insinuations and those accusations which he confessed he had never expected to hear in that House, but which had been faithfully put forward by the hon. Gentleman. And, first, he would allude to the most novel and most extraordinary doctrine propounded, in the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's speech. He said,

"I will move for papers; if you refuse them I will call Upon those Gentlemen who are in the habit of carrying on economical investigations, to join with me for the purpose of compelling their production; but if you, the Government, consent to give, not only the papers but any other information you may happen to possess, for the purpose of elucidation, then we will draw our own deductions; we will take it for granted, because you do not refuse the papers on which may be founded some subsequent motion, that your conduct is the conduct of persons who are guilty of the charges brought against them."

To that doctrine he could not subscribe. There appeared to be three points in the hon. Gentleman's accusation. The first referred to the pension granted to Sir John Newport; and in the course of the hon. Gentleman's speech, he did, in spite of his promise, let slip some words which were calculated to question the services and the general conduct of Sir John Newport. The next objection of the hon. Gentleman, was to the appointment of his noble Friend Lord Monteagle, and the last and most important accusation was the connection which, as the hon. Gentleman argued, subsisted between the appointment of Lord Monteagle and the pension to Sir John Newport; and he, without referring to any precedents to justify such an arrangement, would admit at once, that if this last imputation were correct, the hon. Gentleman had good reason for his accusation. He understood the hon. Gentleman, that he had a grave suspicion that this was a ministerial job; that, in fact, Sir John Newport was bought out of his place by a pension, for the purpose of putting into that same place his noble Friend. To that accusation he gave, as well on the part of the Government as of all the parties concerned, the most distinct and the most explicit denial. Whatever were the claims of Sir John Newport to the gratitude of his country, those who knew him better than the hon. Gentleman opposite, would feel that his word was to be fully trusted. Sir John Newport thus wrote with respect to his part of the transaction:—

"That my intended resignation was entirely unconnected with your appointment, and adopted, on my part, without concert with you or any other person is most certain, and that it arose wholly from those increased infirmities of age which rendered retirement to my native home most desirable, even if I had been obliged to relinquish all claim to the pension which I enjoy, and which the pecuniary embarrassments that have, by parliamentary pursuits, involved heavily a very moderate, and, I might say, a very small private fortune, compelled me to look for very reluctantly."

Thus, three things were fully proved in this letter—first, that Sir John's retirement was unconnected with his noble Friend's appointment; next, that the pension was granted on Sir John Newport's own solicitation, and that it was not offered on the part of the Government, but on Sir John's application in consequence of the state of his health, and of his pecuniary circumstances. He had received from his noble Friend, Lord Monteagle, a complete denial in the same terms. On the part of Lord Duncannon, to whom the application was made, he had the same statement to give; Lord Melbourne had that morning authorised him to confirm this statement. And he himself happened to know, although he had not at that time the honour of a seat in her Majesty's councils, that the retirement of the one officer, and the appointment of the other, were entirely unconnected. He knew not what the hon. Gentleman would require more by way of contradiction or explanation, but if he did, there was in addition the testimony of his noble Friend, the Member for Northumberland (Viscount Howick), who was now unconnected with the Government, and who could confirm what he had said. He did not think that anything further could be stated; but if he could give any further answer, or if any further information were required, he would be most happy to give it. He knew not how he could do more than he had done. He could only meet such an insinuation by the distinct and positive denial of all the parties concerned. He now came to the other points—the grant of the pension to Sir John Newport, and the appointment of Lord Monteagle. The hon. Gentleman had argued as if the pension had been given to Sir John Newport for services in the Exchequer; he looked to certain acts of Parliament which deprived the party acting as Comptroller of the Exchequer of any right to one class of retired allowances, and he said that what had been done, had been done in breach of an act of Parliament. He was prepared, however, to contend that the pension granted to Sir John Newport was equally justifiable and proper, if granted after he had been Comptroller of the Exchequer, as if he had not held that office. It was not, however, for his services as Comptroller of the Exchequer, that the pension was granted. The hon. Gentleman said, that he was unaware of Sir John Newport's services; and it might be so, for Sir John Newport lived in an age which was now historical, and if the hon. Gentleman would refer to the page of history, he would find that Sir John Newport was the intimate friend of Wellesley, of Grenville, and of the other great men who were active Members before the hon. Gentleman entered that House. Hon. Members were apt to forget, that there had lived before them Members as zealous, as industrious, and as active in bringing forward good motions, as the hon. Gentleman opposite himself. Perhaps, therefore, the hon. Gentleman would allow him to refer to some of those services, which, as he thought, justified the grant of the pension. And, first, he must say that he did not understand that it was contended that pensions were not to be granted to persons engaged in the civil service; but if it had been so intended, he would mention several cases in which pensions had been most honourably conferred on persons in the civil service—among them he could refer to the name of Burke, and to the family of Tierney. Sir John Newport had been for thirty years in Parliament, and there had scarcely been an important question agitated in that House in which Sir John did not take a considerable share. On questions relating to Ireland in particular, he took a leading and active part; and he was the most useful in the situation which he held. When he filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer for Ireland, he introduced that great alteration which made the corn trade between England and Ireland a free trade. It had been the fashion to treat Ireland as if she were placed on the same footing as a foreign country, but from that time Ireland was treated as a portion of England, and it had become the granary of this country, receiving back a large portion of our manufactures. Again, Sir John Newport was the first to recommend to the Crown the issuing of a commission of inquiry into the state of education in Ireland, and all the great measures for Irish education had been principally framed on the recommendations of that commission, which Sir John Newport was the first to suggest. His tenure of office was indeed short, but his after life had not been useless. There was scarcely a year in our parliamentary history, in which his name was not to be found introducing measures of utility to both countries. It would be sufficient now to mention one: he introduced a resolution, which he carried against the minister of the day by a majority of one, for the appointment of a commission of inquiry into the fees and salaries received in courts of justice. The labours of that commission had been followed by greet improvements in the Irish courts of judicature, and valuable amendments in the English courts of justice. He had a calculation in his hand, a return which showed that the saving thereby effected for the public had been very considerable; he was told that it amounted to 75,000l. As an Irish member, too, Sir John Newport's course was characterised by great attention to even smaller measures of practical benefit. To him was to be ascribed the introduction of lunatic asylums and the fever hospitals; and, with regard to the tithe question, the recommendations which he had urged upon the then Government, had been carried into effect either by the Government of that day, or by subsequent administrations. Now he must say, that to his mind, services of this kind, extending through a career of thirty years, and which had injured Sir John's private fortune, rendered him" a proper object for the royal consideration; and he thought that if, on the termination of his long and active life, having filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer in Ireland, although he had been subsequently appointed Comptroller of the Exchequer, a pension were granted, it was not ill-deserved; and that it was not a transaction to be charged against the Government in the terms employed by the hon. Gentleman, if the Crown did grant a sum to Sir John Newport when he had arrived at the age of eighty-four years, which" should secure for the remaining days of his life, at least a competency, if not a comfortable provision. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to the amount, and he admitted that it was difficult to say what particular sum was exactly fit in such cases, but he thought he could show that sums much of the same character had been granted as pensions in cases somewhat analogous. He held in his hand a return of pensions granted as pensions for civil services, and he found, among the names of many noblemen or gentlemen, with equal, if not larger amounts annually given, Lord Bexley, 3,000l.; Lord Auckland (although it was not now received), 2,0001; the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goulburn), 1,500l.; the right hon. Stephen Lushington, 1,500l.; the right hon. John Wilson Croker, 1,500l.; the right hon. Joseph Planta, 1,500l.; Mr. Hamilton, 1,000>l.; Mr. Hobhouse, 1,0001.; Sir John Barrow, 1,000l.; Mr. Hay, 1,000l., and so on. He did not mention these names invidiously. He was very far from saying that these pensions had been in any case improperly granted; and he had next to say, that if he had entertained any suspicion with regard to the services of these individuals, he would have felt it his duty to consider that the services they had rendered, had been rendered under another Government—under persons to whom he had been opposed in politics all his life, and that it would be scarcely fair in him to judge of the value of such services. If the Government in whose views they agreed, and under whom they had acted, considered that they had fair claims to their pensions, it was not for those who had been constantly opposed to them, to come lightly to a different conclusion. Last of all, he would notice the appointment of Lord Monteagle. He hardly knew what was the objection which was taken to that appointment; the only one that he could discover was, that Lord Monteagle had stepped into the place without waiting for a political pension. He had only to say, that his noble Friend had never applied for one of those pensions. With regard to the appointment itself, he should be perfectly surprised if any hon. Gentleman should get up in his place, and should venture to tell him that his noble Friend, if not the very best man, was not one of the best men who could have been chosen. His long connection with the finances of the country (Cheers.)—that cheer showed the utter ignorance of the Gentlemen who cheered of the nature of the functions to be discharged. He ventured to say that no man could fulfil the duties of the office properly without a previous knowledge of financial transactions. His noble Friend was as well acquainted with the nature of the business, as any man alive; and he confessed that it appeared to him that the appointment was one of the best that could have been made. But then he was told that Mr. Ellis ought to have been appointed. The same charge of the rejection of Mr. Ellis existed, and indeed it was to be enforced more strongly: when that change in the management of the Exchequer took place, by which 31,000l. a-year was saved to the country. If Mr. Ellis had any claims to the office, they were more powerful at that time than they are now. And yet what had been done by the Government of that day? Lord Auckland was appointed. His appointment was discussed in that House; those right hon. Gentlemen who were now cordially sitting side by side took part in it; his right hon. Friend on the left (Sir James Graham), answered the right hon. Gentleman now sitting beside his right hon. Friend (Mr. Goulburn); the one said that Mr. Ellis ought to be appointed, and the other justified the nomination of Lord Auckland. At any rate there was no secresy about Mr. Ellis's rejection. He was aware that his right hon. Friend would say that they did not at that time discuss the question of Mr. Ellis's appointment as comptroller, but as assistant-comptroller. But when he did so, he was immediately told by his right hon. neighbour (Mr. Goulburn), that Mr. Ellis ought to have been appointed comptroller. It made, however, no difference in principle. His noble Friend, Lord Spencer, who was not in the habit of letting his opinions be hidden, said upon that occasion,—

"With regard to the propriety of the Government appointing Mr. Ellis as comptroller, instead of appointing another individual, I will simply state the grounds on which I think the House ought to leave this matter to the Government. Every man must agree, that the appointment to the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer is an appointment of the greatest importance; and as his Majesty's Government are responsible for the appointments they make, they will naturally nominate persons such as they may think fit for the duties assigned to them. I am most happy to hear from every hon. Member who has spoken (and which meets with my most entire concurrence), that Mr. Ellis is a gentleman deserving of the compensation assigned to him. The question, however, is whether the Government ought to have appointed that Gentleman as comptroller-general or assistant-comptroller. That is a question which it is scarcely possible to argue in this House, it being one which Government have always had intrusted to them to be disposed of on their own discretion and responsibility. Government have a right to make the choice of their own officer free and unencumbered, and I certainly shall decline entering further into this question, upon the principle that it is for the Government, and not the House of Commons to make this appointment."

The construction which he put upon that statement was, that as his noble Friend and the Government of that day had decided not to appoint Mr. Ellis, there was nothing additional in the present case to cause an alteration in that determination; and especially as there did not exist in 1835, any political reason for not appointing Mr. Ellis, who was connected with a nobleman, at that time a cabinet minister (the Earl of Ripon). He was not aware that it was necessary for him to touch upon any other point. With regard to the gravamen of the charge, he had given the only answer that could be given—he had given the most entire and the most distinct contradiction to the insinuation of the hon. Gentleman. To the papers mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, he was perfectly welcome; one of them, the act of Parliament required to be laid on the table; but he could not acquiesce in the construction which the hon. Gentleman put upon their production. He hoped that to all the cases that might be brought forward against the department with which he was connected, he should always be able to give the same contradiction as he did to the present accusation, and certainly he never could agree to the notion that the Government by producing all the documents which might be required therefore admitted the charge.

did not wish to make any observations upon the present question; but he would ask whether there would be laid before the House a copy of the application of Sir John Newport, for retirement, and for a pension, and also a statement of Sir John's services? Because he did not take the services in Parliament as a justification for a pension.

The only ground on which he assented to the motion was, that he was not aware of any application having been made. If the hon. Member moved for the letter it would be necessarily discovered whether it really existed.

said, that he did not mean to move for a letter, which, according to the right hon. Gentleman, did not exist. He only asked if there was any letter. An extract had been read, and he thought, that the House should be put in possession of the date of the letter from which that was taken, which would at once remove all cavil.

said, that it was quite impossible, nor did he understand his hon. Friend, the Member for Durham, to contest the claims of Sir John Newport to some provision. Although opposed to Sir John Newport on political subjects, he could not but say, that his claims to some provision out of the public funds was undoubted, at the expiration of his labours, which were, however, not so much in office as in his place in Parliament, if his circumstances required it. If they asked him, whether (at the age of eighty-four, after the long Parliamentary life of Sir John Newport, in the course of which he maintained the highest possible character, when it appeared from the statement of the right hon. Baronet himself, that his circumstances were embarrassed, and unless it had so appeared he should not have attended to it) he ought to be permitted to retire without a provision, he was bound to state, that it would not have been just or expedient that he should have answered yes. But now the question was whether or not it was expedient to make the civil list available for the reward of public services? He had opposed the limitation of the grant when it was under discussion, and he should have thought that 1,200l. per annum was quite inadequate to meet the claims which would arise in the course of the year. The prima facie complaint now was, that having 1,200l. only with which to meet the demands upon the civil list, to meet every claim which might arise, whether from science, from the arts, or any other source, five-sixths of the allowance for the whole year had been appropriated to one person, leaving only 200l. as the miserable sum which the Crown could appropriate to meet all other claims. He was not one of those who complained of the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown, or who repined at the appointment of Sir John Newport to the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer. He thought, that that office was properly bestowed as the reward of public services in the case of that right hon. Gentleman, but the Government had appointed that Gentleman to the situation when he had arrived at the age of seventy-nine—at a time when they could not expect from him either active or very efficient service, and of the duties of which he would have been incapable if they had been of an active character—it being of the nature of—he would not say a sinecure, but of a most honourable provision, the proper and befitting reward of long public exertions. He would, however, ask why Ministers had now allowed him to retire? Having appointed him at the age of seventy-nine, not having placed him in any political office requiring active service, they had not shown any circumstances which required his retirement. Was the office one of inadequate establishment? Was there no provision made for the temporary absence or indisposition of the principal? There was; for there was a deputy at a salary of 1,000l. a year, empowered to act in such cases. What he wanted to know was, not why they withdrew any reward from Sir John Newport, but why they did not permit him to retain his office, and, if necessary, call upon the deputy to act in his absence? It was perfectly consistent, therefore, in him to admit the claim, and yet at the same time to contend, that the explanation which had been given by the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer was not at all satisfactory. Even if the retirement of the right hon. Baronet took place, however, he must say that the services he had performed were not of that nature which should have entitled him to remuneration from the civil list. He did not believe, that in limiting the fund to 1,200l. per annum, it was meant, that that sum should afford the means of reward for public services like those of Sir John Newport, and he considered, that it would be very bad precedent if a Government, applying their own construction to the services of one of those connected with themselves, drew on that fund to reward his services. He begged it to be particularly observed, that these were not official services. He admitted, that Sir John Newport had rendered great public services out of office. Let them take the case of Mr. Burke. He held office for a very short time, and a pension of 4,000l. a-year was granted to him from the civil list; but that was granted at a time far different from the present, and was taken from the civil list without drying up those sources which were open to other claims. He was, however, now arguing under a different state of things, when 1,200l. was all that could be appropriated to the reward of services, of whatever character. If the Government had contemplated adopting the course, which in this instance they had taken, would they have imposed the limitation which had been adopted? Would they not have extended the power of the Crown, when in the very second year of the regulation, five-sixths of the sum granted were given as a reward for political services? But the Chancellor of the Exchequer had detailed the services of Sir John Newport—services which he admitted were highly meritorious, but which at the same time were not of an official, but of a Parliamentary character. He said, that it would be a dangerous principle to adopt, that mere Parliamentary services should be so rewarded. The limitation of such a principle could not be determined. A powerful party had a friend, not holding any official station, but taking an active part in politics, bringing forward useful measures; but would such a circumstance entitle them to remunerate him from the funds at the disposal of the Crown? The Crown was the judge of official services performed, but it would be dangerous to make it the judge also of those of a Parliamentary nature. Here was a special instance standing on its own grounds, and he thought that that authority which had witnessed the useful and meritorious employment of the person to be rewarded, should also be the judge of the remuneration to be given, and the claims of any person for services performed in Parliament should be recognised and attended to by Parliament, and not by any other power. When the hon. Member for Durham first brought forward this motion, he could have no knowledge of the real facts of the case, and he was perfectly justified in soliciting an explanation, because, supposing the pension to have been granted for the purpose of facilitating any political arrangement, a grosser or more scandalous perversion of authority could not have taken place. If the grant of the pension to Sir John Newport had been made in consequence of any claim or application from Lord Monteagle, which they were bound to suppose was not the fact, after the explanation of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, then he should have considered this one of the most scandalous appropriations of public money possible to be made. He had already given his ample testimony to the merits of Sir John Newport, and he was sure that every one would at once recognise the Very fair remuneration which he possessed; but the ground of complaint was, that the Government had not proved the necessity for his retirement. With respect to the appointment of Lord Monteagle to the situation of Comptroller-general, he for one could not insist on the appointment of Mr. Ellis or any other person to that office; but he thought that, although the duties attending it were not laborious, yet it should be retained to be given as a reward for the most eminent public Services which any public man could tender to his country.

said, that after the explanation which had been given by the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the very few observations offered to the House by the right hon. Baronet who had just sat down, with respect to this pension, he certainly should not think it necessary to make many remarks. The right hon. Baronet admitted, at the commencement of his speech, both that the office was worthily filled by Sir John Newport, and that he did not object to that right hon. Gentleman receiving a pension from the public. [Sir Robert Peel: If his retirement were necessary.] Exactly so: the right hon. Baronet had stated certain qualifications, and the first was, that the pension of l.000l. a-year should not be granted out of the civil list. He thought that it would be exceedingly difficult to lay down a rule of this kind. He had never heard such a suggestion made before, and it appeared to him, that it would be a most inconvenient rule, that having 1,200l a-year for distribution, it should be said that that sum should be given in certain portions, and not according to the claims of the persons to whom pensions should be granted; and he was of opinion, that where a person possessed a clear claim to the grant of a large sum of money, it was the duty of the Crown to grant that sum in the mode adopted in this instance. The main argument urged by the right hon. Baronet who had last spoken was, that Sir John Newport had not been permitted to retire. That was a matter, however, which was entirely dependent upon the particular state of the health of the person who held the office, and it would be impossible for any House of Parliament to lay down a rule in reference to such a question. The fact was that Sir John Newport, in 1838, was attacked with a severe illness, and expressed to Lord Melbourne a wish to retire. Lord Melbourne regretted the state of Sir John's health, and there was a possibility of his illness assuming a more serious character, but he became better, and did not give up the duties of his office. In 1839, however, his indisposition increased, and, after a prolonged stay abroad, he said that he could not return to England with any comfort to himself. The right hon. Baronet had described this office very properly as one of no very great or very irksome labour, but it required an accurate knowledge of financial details, strict attention, and the greatest care that no error should be committed while the comptroller was in the management of the office. He thought, then, that they might easily determine whether a man of eighty-four years of age was well qualified to fill such a situation, and he was of opinion that the First Lord of the Treasury would not be justified in saying to a man in the position of Sir John Newport, who had so long and so faithfully served the public, that he must continue in office, when the effect of his doing so might be to shorten the duration of his life, and even to bring it to a sudden termination. It appeared to him, that the repeated remonstrance of Sir John Newport to Viscount Melbourne was quite sufficient to authorise the step which had been taken. The right hon. Baronet had likewise stated that there was considerable danger in allowing the Crown to become the judge of Parliamentary service. He should say the same thing, if this pension had been granted to a man in the vigour of life, or to one who had taken or was taking an active share in Parliamentary contests. Nobody, however, would make an objection, if a statesman were cut off in the midst of his career, to the Crown's granting a pension to his widow, or to his children, if they stood in need of it. And as Sir John Newport's life had been prolonged beyond the ordinary run of human existence, and as he was unfortunately in circumstances which rendered it necessary to the comfort of his declining life that some assistance should be rendered to him, he was of opinion that there was not the less reason for granting that assistance to Sir John personally, than there would be for granting it to his widow or children. He would not enter into an enumeration of Sir John Newport's long Parliamentary services. He had had the good fortune to act with him for many years, and from family circumstances he happened to know a good deal of his labours whilst in office in 1806. He happened to know, that on the subject of education, on that of the Established Church, on that of Hospitals and Fever-houses in Ireland, Sir John Newport had bestowed great labour. As a proof of it, he would state that no less than nine acts of Parliament were passed, as the fruits of the attention which he had devoted to those subjects during the short period he was then in office. It was not on mere party subjects or mere party struggles that his attention was engaged, but it was on those objects in which he took a deep interest, as thinking that they would promote the interest of his native country. He could not help thinking, that at the end of Sir John Newport's long career, when he stated conscientiously that he could not longer discharge the duties of his office, Lord Melbourne did nothing but what was right and constitutional in recommending that he should have a salary of 1,000l. a-year. The hon. Gentleman who brought forward this motion stated that he was ignorant of Sir John Newport's public services. That statement only showed that the hon. Gentleman had paid but little attention to the Parliamentary history of the times during which Sir John Newport lived, and he thought that it would have been better for the hon. Gentleman, before he proposed this motion, to have made himself acquainted with Sir John's services, than to have made a speech, not indeed of direct attack, but of indirect charge and insinuation against the hon. Baronet's integrity. The other part of the question which arose upon this motion was connected with a totally different subject. It was whether Sir John Newport, being unable to continue in office any longer, the Crown was right in acting upon the advice given by her Majesty's Ministers, and appointing Lord Monteagle to the vacant situation. He was fully convinced that no man was better competent to perform the duties of the office, who would pay more assiduous attention to them, or whose private habits better fitted him for their fulfilment. When the office was first formed, it was proposed that Lord Auckland should hold it, and the Government of the day was so anxious that it should be conferred on him, that they determined that it should be given to him, in conjunction with the situation of Commissioner of Greenwich Hospital; but that was successfully opposed by his hon. Friends opposite. Though it was not an office which required the active services of a Minister of state, and though it did not require continued labour without any absence from the metropolis, still occasions might arise when it would be found highly inconvenient to the public service if it were placed in either, careless or ignorant bands, He could only say that he did not believe that the Government could place before the House the particular services for which the appointment was conferred on Sir John Newport. These were matters which must be left to the general responsibility of the Government, and he must say that upon the whole case there was not a shadow of a charge against the Government for the conduct pursued with reference to Sir John Newport in granting him a pension, or for the appointment of Lord Monteagle to the Comptrollership of the Exchequer.

was not about to enter into the case of Sir J. Newport, but he must say, that the question put by the hon. Member for Kilkenny, had not been answered either by the hon. Gentleman or by the noble Lord. Did the noble Lord mean to say, that there were to be found no means of affording information to the House as to the date of the application made by Sir John Newport? He apprehended the noble Lord must be able to say at least, whether the application was made by letter or not.

could not say whether the application was made by letter or not, nor did he know, as the transaction was in no way connected with the office which he held, whether there were any means of ascertaining the exact date of Sir John Newport's application. All that he knew on the subject was from Lord Melbourne and Lord Duncannon. Lord Duncannon had received the application from Sir John Newport, and had mentioned to Lord Melbourne that Sir John Newport wished to retire. He believed it was frequently the case, that applications of that nature were not made in writing; but he was not able to say, whether the application was in this instance made by letter or not.

Jackson had understood the noble Lord to say, that Sir John Newport was in Ireland at the time the application was made. It must, of necessity, therefore, have been made by letter.

said, that he had asked a particular question of the noble Lord, because he did not wish to offer any opinion on the subject, before he was in possession of the precise facts of the case. He should say nothing now upon the grant made to Sir John Newport, but he must enter his protest against the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, that the House of Commons were to be the judges of the propriety of granting pensions. If that were the case, there would be the greatest corruption, because a strong party in the House might at any time press upon the Government the propriety of granting pensions to any individuals belonging to their party. At the same time, he must say, that having been a Member of the committee which sat to inquire into the circumstances under which former pensions had been granted, he considered, that it was no defence in the present instance, to quote examples of pensions granted under the former practice, as a new rule had been established, and ought to have been adhered to. His opinion, from what he now heard, was, that Sir J. Newport had no right to the pension which had been given to him, and with regard to the transaction being a job, that depended on the date of the application.

remarked, that all he had said was this, that it was laying down a most dangerous precedent to reward Parliamentary services. He did not say, that occasions might not arise when it would be proper to confer a pension for Parliamentary services, when a man had spent his life in Parliament, and was not in affluent circumstances, as in the case of Mr. Burke; but, at the same time, if there were special circumstances which justified a departure from what ought to be the general rule, he thought it was the duty of the Government to lay the facts before Parliament for its consideration.

in reply, said, that he had never denied that public services ought to be rewarded; but what he maintained was, that the reward should be given, not for Parliamentary, but for official services. With regard to the character of the transaction, when he considered that the retirement of Lord Monteagle from the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, was simultaneous with that of Sir John Newport, and that he had not heard the explanation which had since been offered by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he might be excused for saying that the transaction was prima facie suspicious. Having now heard the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman had given, he must say, that it might have been more satisfactory.

said, that perhaps the House would excuse him if he now mentioned a circumstance which had come to his knowledge in the course of the evening, affecting the situation of one of the sheriffs of London—Mr. Wheelton. He understood, that his health had been so much impaired by his imprisonment, that it would be scarcely consistent with the safety of his life, if he were kept longer in custody. He had seen the medical gentleman who attended Mr. Wheelton, and he had assured him, that Mr. Wheelton's health had been very indifferent for some time before he was placed in confinement, and he thought, that if he were kept longer in custody it would endanger his life. The surgeon was in attendance, and ready to be examined if the House thought proper.

, (he medical attendant of Mr. Wheelton, was called in and examined. In reply to questions put by the Speaker, he said, that. Mr. Wheelton had, for the last three months, suffered from congestion of the vessels of the head, and, independently of that, he had a predisposition to disease of that character, his father and mother having both died suddenly. Mr. Wheelton had a very short neck, and from his general frame and habit of body, was likely to be a subject for apoplexy. He had no doubt, that unless very great care was taken of him, his life would be endangered. He could not answer for it, that an attack of apoplexy would not come on even from hour to hour. It was his decided opinion, that his life would be endangered if he continued longer in confinement.

said, he should hope that after the statement made by the medical attendant of Mr. Wheelton, it would be consistent with the feeling of the House that he should be discharged.

suggested, that the motion of the right hon. Baronet should state that Mr. Wheelton's life would be endangered by further confinement.

observed, that after the statement made that Mr. Wheelton's life would be endangered, he should not oppose the motion, but he wished that the statement of Mr. Brookes should be taken down as evidence. It would, perhaps, be enough for the clerk of the House to put down, that Mr. Wheelton's life would be endangered by further confinement.

remarked, that it was distinctly stated that Mr. Wheelton had manifested symptoms of the disorder with which he was now threatened before he was placed in confinement, and that they had been aggravated since. He confessed, that after the statement made, that the sheriff's life would be endangered by his further detention, he, for one, would not continue him in confinement for a single hour.

again called in, and the evidence he had given was read to him by the clerk at the bar.

asked, if the evidence as read to him by the clerk, had been correctly taken down?

then moved, "That it having been stated by W. Broaches, esq., medical attendant on J. Wheelton, esq., that in his judgment Mr. Wheelton's life will be endangered by further confinement, the sheriff be forthwith discharged from the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms attending this House."

wished to have it understood whether the sheriff was to be discharged on payment of his fees in the usual way, or otherwise.

stated it to be his opinion that persons in custody of the Sergeant, who had been ordered into confinement by the House, and whose health, it was stated, would be endangered by further confinement, ought to be at once discharged by the House without payment of their fees.

ordered to be discharged without paying his fees.

rose in pursuance of notice, to move that all divorce bills be referred during the present Session to a select committee of nine Members. He stated, that he considered this course the best calculated to give satisfaction to parties concerned in such cases, and to the House, as the details would be subjected to the examination of a committee of Members, some of whom, as Sir E. Sugden, and Sir C. Grey, had held judicial offices.

said, that the Government ought to have removed this inquiry from the House long ago. The House had already too much business to attend, and ought not to be burdened with what was only the mockery of a judicial inquiry. He would remove divorce cases altogether from the House, and with the view to the more mature consideration of some means of getting rid of them, he would now move that this debate be adjourned to any day within a fortnight most convenient to the right hon. Gentleman.

hoped his hon. Friend would not press the adjournment, as the plan which he proposed was admitted to be better than that which at present existed.

had no objection to try the plan of a select committee up stairs on divorce cases, but he would not take from the House the power of inquiry at its bar in such cases where it might deem such inquiry necessary. He had no doubt that in most cases the reference to a select committee would work well, but the fact that the House reserved to itself the power of going into a severe scrutiny, and of examining the parties at the bar, would operate as a salutary check on fraud and collusion. Indeed, one great object of Parliament keeping to itself the decision in such cases was intended to guard more strictly against cases of fraud and collusion. If the House was to continue to be a party to an act of Parliament, it ought not to delegate its right of inquiry to a select committee in all cases, but should reserve to itself generally the power of inquiry at its bar in cases where it might have ground to suspect fraud and collusion.

concurred with the right hon. Baronet in thinking that the House should reserve to itself the power of inquiry generally whenever it saw it necessary. He thought it of the utmost importance that all divorce cases should be by act of Parliament.

had very strong objections to sending the inquiry, in cases of divorce, to a secret tribunal. He had understood that to be so from the observation of one speaker, but he could not say which. He would object to any inquiry with closed doors. [No, no.] Well, then, he was to take it that the inquiry was to be open. But to this he would object. The giving to Parliament exclusively the jurisdiction in divorce cases was to give to the rich an advantage, such as it was, from which the poor were excluded. It seemed to be an assumed axiom that Parliament, and Parliament alone, was to decide in such cases; but that would be making the law unequal; it would be making one law for one class, the rich, from any advantage of which the poor would be excluded. To that he would not be a party.

would maintain, when the proper time came for the discussion, that it was necessary to reserve to Parliament the right of ultimately deciding on divorce questions.