rose, in pursuance of a notice which he had given, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to secure the inviolability of letters passing through the Post Office. He felt that it was a reproach to the Government under which we lived, as well as a reproach to those free institutions which we felt a pride in possessing, that any Member of that House should be under the necessity of bringing forward a Bill, the object of which was to secure the inviolability of correspondence in this commercial country. In submitting this Motion to the House, he should abstain from introducing anything which could by possibility bear a personal or individual application. It was with the system he was at war; and that system he felt it his duty, if possible, to destroy. Whatever Government had originated this assumed power, and whatever cause was assigned for its assumption, he had the highest legal authority for stating that there was no law to justify the exercise of that power. The subject was during the last Session brought before Committees of that House and of the House of Lords. The Committee of the House of Commons had not in their Report stated whether the exercise of this power was legal or not; although it had stated that the law on the subject was the same in 1814 as it had been in the reign of Queen Anne, but had not said what that law was. The Committee of the House of Lords, however, had expressed itself more clearly: it went a step further, and described the terms of the provisions of the Act of the 9th of Anne, c. 10, and stated, that the Act of Parliament of Anne led to the supposition that the power had been fully recognised in the Secretary of Slate, and that from an early period it had been recognised by the Acts of Parliament. That was all which the Committee of the House of Lords said on the subject of the law; it did not state that there was any law to justify the exercise of the power; it merely stated that the power appeared to have been recognised, and that its recognition was sanctioned by old usage; but he had the best authority for stating that there was no law to justify the exercise of that power. There had been no proof given to the House that such a legal authority existed, nor had there been any proof given that at former periods such practices took place as those which had happened recently in this country. Letters might have been stopped in the Post Office; but there was no proof that at former periods private letters were opened, and forwarded to their proper destination after the examination of their contents at the Post Office. There was, he maintained, no proof that such a system of fraud and forgery as that had been practised by former Governments. It had even been shown that letters stopped in the Post Office were used in a court of law; but that had failed in establishing the legality of exercising that power; for the question as to where was the warrant under which the letters were opened and detained was not allowed to be asked in court, so that the question as to the existence of a legal authority for opening those letters had not been proved in that case. It could not be ascertained who opened the letters—to whom the power was delegated; it was only ascertained that the letters had been opened, and they had, therefore, nothing before them to establish the fact that they were opened and detained in the exercise of a legal authority. The Act of Anne had been cited as an authority by the Committee of the House of Commons; but the Act which was at present in force on the subject of the detention of letters in the Post Office was the Act of the 1st of Victoria, which repealed the Act 9th of Anne, but it neither added to nor diminished the power with respect to the detention of letters, leaving that in the same condition in which it was before the passing of the Act; and, he repeated it, he had the highest legal authority for stating that legally no such power existed. All that was done by the Act was to relieve the servant of the Post Office from a misdemeanor in detaining or opening any letters. It left the legality of the warrant totally and entirely untouched, just the same as a constable who produces his warrant is exonerated from all responsibility as to the legality of that warrant. The same thing might be said of the orders that were given for the admission of strangers into the gallery of that House. If a stranger in that gallery were to be apprehended for breach of privilege in listening to their debates, be would produce the order as his protection. Yet it was clear that the power of admitting strangers to be present at their debates was not possessed by any Member of that House. But admitting that the Government possessed the power of opening letters, the question the House had to decide was, what advantage they had obtained by its exercise. They all knew the difficulties in which the present Government had been placed; and they all knew the ill feeling which had been created by the exposures in that House with reference to this subject. It might, indeed, be said that there ought to be some means of control over the correspondence of persons engaged or about to engage in treasonable plots, if such correspondence were forwarded through the Post Office. If there was any benefit of that nature to be derived from it previously, he would ask any rational and sensible man whether, after the disclosures which had been made, a man engaged in a treasonable correspondence would not be an idiot or a fool to send that correspondence through the General Post Office. He said, therefore, after the exposures which had taken place, that the value or utility of this practice had been destroyed. If this system was to be of any value at all, it must be practised with secrecy and fraud. There was no middle course. They must either stand by the present system, or abolish it altogether. Why should they not expunge from the Statute Book the Art giving this odious power, if it existed? Such a power existed in no other country. One of the Articles of the Belgian Constitution protected the correspondence of the Belgian people. The power of opening letters did not exist in the United States, nor in Canada; but it was preserved in Ireland, in England, and in Scotland. It was not exercised in our Colonies, although it was exercised in this country. It did not exist in France. Monsieur Guizot had declared in the French Chamber, that in law, and in fact, the correspondence of the French people was inviolable. [Laughter.] Right hon. and hon. Members opposite might smile, but that declaration had been made in the French Chamber by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. If letters of individuals in this country were opened, they were opened without any responsibility on the part of the person so acting, and the individual whose letters were opened had no redress. There was no responsible person in the Post Office; and if a person asked who it was that opened his letters, he was unable to get that information, so that he did not know where to apply for redress. When that power was questioned before in the House of Commons, Sir Robert Walpole said, "It was a power which ought to be exercised only in a time of a great internal danger." It had, however, been increased since that period, and was extended from criminal to political offenders. If the powers were confined to criminal warrants, perhaps there might be no such objection to its use; but it was not confined to those warrants. It was stated on a former occasion that letters had been opened by Lord Sid mouth, and he was able to state to the House that the nobleman alluded to had refused to exercise that power in a case where a banker required its assistance in order to obtain the address of a clerk who had committed forgery. He (Mr. Duncombe) had it from a banker in the city of London, that he applied to Lord Sidmouth to issue a warrant for opening the letters of a clerk who had committed forgery, and had gone away, as the banker was anxious to ascertain his address, in order to effect his apprehension; and the answer of Lord Sid mouth was that he would never issue such a warrant unless in a case of high treason. He again applied to Lord Sid mouth, and asked leave to see the superscription of a letter in the Post Office, without detaining it, in order to find out the address of the clerk; Lord Sidmouth then stated that he would send an answer in the evening. He did send that answer, and it was to the effect that he considered the Post Office so sacred he could not allow even the superscription of a letter to be seen. It might be said in defence of this power, that it was necessary for the detection of criminals; but he (Mr. Duncombe) believed that, with the means for the detection of criminals which the Government possessed, without this power, it was not necessary to apply it for that purpose. The Government had been asked to show the warrants under the authority of which the letters had been opened. But those warrants had not been produced. It was true that warrants of the Duke of Newcastle and of Mr. Pitt had been brought forward; but the House had no means of ascertaining if those warrants were the models after which the warrants issued by the present Government had been formed. Were the warrants issued by the present Government framed after the model of those issued by Mr. Pitt and the Duke of Newcastle? [Sir J. Graham: They were not.] Of what use, then, were the warrants of Mr. Pitt and the Duke of Newcastle? For his part, he looked upon this power of opening letters as inefficacious; and he believed that, in addition to its inefficacy for the purpose for which it was intended, it was calculated to demoralize the servants of the Government in the Post Office, and all those who were connected with the opening of letters. He could not give a stronger instance of the demoralizing effects which the exercise of such a power had on those who were engaged in the Post Office, than a notice which was put up in the Post Office some months ago, after the discovery that some letter-carriers had opened the letters addressed to certain sporting gentlemen, and that notice he would read to the House. It ran thus:—

"The Postmaster General having had papers laid before him relating to the gross conspiracy which has existed among certain carriers, and having ascertained that Lang, Bell, and Saunders, have been in the habit of opening the letters of sporting gentlemen, his Lordship is pleased to dismiss them the service."

The defence, or rather the plea in mitigation, which those letter-carriers would set up in case of a prosecution, would be that they had only done what their superiors had done. It would be proved that those letter-carriers opened letters addressed to certain sporting gentlemen, for which offence they were liable to transportation; but they would plead in mitigation of their sentence that they had only done that which they knew had been practised by those in authority over them. That was the course which had been taken with respect to those transactions in the Post Office; and he had mentioned them on this occasion in order to show the demoralizing effect of this system on the servants of the Post Office—a system which had the effect of preventing the infliction of an adequate punishment on those men for an offence which they would allege was of a similar nature to that course which had been sanctioned by the Prime Minister. Those men ought not to have got off with such an inadequate punishment; they ought to have been severely punished. A Committee sat on the subject of opening letters, and the Gentlemen who composed it made a Report, from which it was impossible to say whether they were for or against the practice of opening letters in the manner and to the extent which had been complained of. It was impossible from the Report to ascertain whether they were for or against a continuance of that power. It was stated, forsooth, amongst other arguments, that such a power would be calculated to prevent a Minister from forming any exaggerated idea as to the danger, in case of any outbreak or disturbance. Now he would ask the House to imagine how such a result could be produced by the exercise of this power? Suppose the Secretary of State to have read an account in the Morning Herald, or some such paper, the organ of such a Minister, that a dangerous conspiracy existed, and that an outbreak was to be apprehended, and that in consequence of such a statement he resolved, on coming down to the House, to ask for additional powers to meet that anticipated danger—if, when he was about to set out, a messenger from the Post Office came to him and said, he found out, by the letter of one of the conspirators, that it was a very trivial affair—perhaps a conspiracy of the Conservative Operative Association, in that case the Minister would not ask for additional powers, but would put the letter and the Morning Herald at the back of the fire. And yet such a contingency was one of the reasons assigned for the continuation of this power. It had been also said, that if this inviolability were secured, the Post Office might be made the vehicle for the conveyance of treasonable correspondence; but that would apply equally to all modes of transit; and it was at best but one of sentiment—it would apply to railroads, to omnibuses, and to taxed carts. If he said to a person that he would carry letters for him to Edinburgh, and that subsequently another person represented to him that there might be treason conveyed by those letters, would it be a defence for his violation of confidence, in case he opened them and found nothing wrong, to say he feared he might be subjected to punishment for carrying a treasonable correspondence? But as the law stood at present, if a treasonable correspondence were sent through the Post Office, there was as perfect a power to seize it as there was to seize papers on his (Mr. Duncombe's) person, or in his desk, if they contained anything treasonable. The Goverment had great advantages in the way of preventing and detecting crime, without resorting to this power; they had the rural police in almost every county; and in every borough and city they had the metropolitan police. What did they want more? If they wanted further assistance, they had it in a loyal and affectionate people; if they were wise, they would rely on that means of safety; and they would find it a better mode of securing the safety of the Throne and the country than could be obtained by the use of all the dirty powers which they now exercised. Let them pass the Bill which he would introduce, and there could be no room for any mistake in future as to the extent and legality of this power; for it would effect an unconditional repeal of it, if any such power existed under an Act of Parliament. This power of exercising fraud and forgery could not be ameliorated; it must exist in its present shape, or be discontinued altogether; and he was not to be made a fool of by leave being granted to bring in a Bill, and then having it frittered away, or strangled, in some of its subsequent stages. He was not aware that the Government intended to bring in any Bill on this subject; he asked leave to introduce a Bill which would have the effect of making this power cease altogether. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would rise in his place and say, that as this was a power of so odious a nature for a Minister to exercise—a power so repugnant to the best feelings of a free people—he would take the question into his own hands and say, the law shall at once be expunged from the Statute Book. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take that course with the expectation, aye, and the clear understanding, that any ill feeling or suspicion, whether just or unjust, which before existed, should now and for ever be buried in oblivion. If that course was followed, and hereafter any Foreign Minister, the agent of any foreign despot, should sneak to the door of the Secretary of State, he would be able to say to the agent that the power of opening letters was no longer in existence; that whatever redress or protection the laws of England or of nations permitted he was willing to give; but with regard to the use of treachery he must deny any assistance; and he could say, pointing to his (Mr. Duncombe's) Act of Parliament, that such treachery as had before been exercised was no longer at the command of a Foreign Power. With those views and those objects, he should conclude by moving—

"That Leave be given to bring in a Bill to secure the Inviolability of Letters passing through the Post Office."

seconded the Motion. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department had stated that Mr. Mazzini was an unprotected foreigner—that he would inquire into the statements made with respect to that gentleman, and that if he found himself misinformed with respect to him, he would make every reparation to Mr. Mazzini. He was quite sure, from the well-known character of the right hon. Baronet, that he would make the necessary inquiries, and would take the earliest opportunity of making reparation to Mr. Mazzini, if he found that the allegations with respect to him could not be substantiated. Some documents which had relation to Mr. Mazzini had been laid on the Table of the House; and he would ask the right hon. Baronet, if those documents contained the only matter upon which the charge against Mr. Mazzini, of being connected with certain proceedings in France, rested? The only charge contained in the despatch of Sir A. Foster to Viscount Palmerston, was one containing very vague allusions; and he would ask if there were any particular statement to authorize that vague charge? The passage to which he (Dr. Bowring) referred, in the despatch of Sir A. Foster, was as follows:—

"The Austrian Minister professes to have got hold of a number of letters of instructions from Mazzini, who was expelled from Genoa, and is head of the secret tribunal, author of the atrocious murders lately committed at Rodez."

In this case, it appeared that no charge was brought forward against Mazzini, and that the Austrian Minister only professed to have got hold, of the letters. He would ask the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) if he had taken steps to ascertain if such letters were in existence, and if their contents had been communicated to our Government, and whether any further information had been obtained with respect to this calumniated, and, as the right hon. Baronet had himself called him—this unprotected foreigner?

Sir, I will commence the observations which it will be my duty to address to the House by first noticing the questions put to me by the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion. Upon a former evening I stated — and stated with accuracy—that until the hon. Member for Finsbury mentioned in this House an article in the Westminster Review, which contains a defence of a portion of Mr. Mazzini's conduct with reference to a transaction brought by me under the notice of the House, I was not aware of the existence of such an article. I then stated, that it would be my duty to make inquiry, in order to the removal of certain doubts respecting that portion of the case in which Mr. Mazzini was concerned, and to which I had alluded. I should have been most happy to embrace the first opportunity of declaring that my doubts had been removed; and I certainly did, in the first instance, endeavour to inform myself upon the subject. I inquired, and from the best authority, with respect to an article in the Moniteur, whether any prosecution had been instituted against that paper by Mr. Mazzini. From the best authority I learned that a prosecution had been threatened, but had never been instituted; and from the same high quarter no notice whatever was conveyed to me of the prosecution now said to have been instituted against M. Gisquet, for the republication of the article. Since that statement was made by the hon. Gentleman, I felt that it was my duty to make further inquiries in respect to that transaction. It is due to myself to say, that I only heard of that article on Tuesday last; and since then I have not received any additional information on the subject. As soon as I receive any, I shall feel it my duty to redeem my promise and to lay it before the House; and I shall make as frank a statement as to the impression on my mind as possible, after a full inquiry. Having said this, I think I may relieve the House from hearing any further observations upon that part of the subject. As to the other part of it, painful as these discussions have been to me on many former occasions, I am bound to say, that the hon. Member for Finsbury, in introducing a grave question—a question of great importance—for the consideration of the House, has done it on the present occasion in a manner as fair and dispassionate as I could desire. And certainly, however painful my experience has been when I have had to follow the hon. Gentleman on former occasions, I feel comparative ease in following him now when the debate is stripped of all personal and acrimonious topics. I am far from contending against many of the positions of the hon. Gentleman; on the contrary, they have my entire approval. For instance, I agree with him, that upon this question no middle course can be taken. This power must either continue as it is, or entirely cease. I do not believe that it would be useful to maintain this power, unless secrecy is preserved; and if the power he continued, I do not think the exercise of it can be materially altered. To these leading observations I entirely assent. I need hardly state to the House, that the hon. Gentleman has treated this subject in a manner which has almost seduced me from my strict line of duty. I admit at once that this power is an immense and odious power—one that is viewed—and justly viewed—with jealousy by the people of this country; and if it were consistent with my sense of public duty, after the painful experience I have had, to accede to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, nothing, I assure him, would exceed my delight in doing so. But I am forced to consider this question with reference to the public interest, and to the public interest only. First of all, I must venture to treat of the law of the subject; and here I must state that I differ from the hon. Gentleman. I altogether dissent from the proposition that this power, such as it is, was first given by the Statute of Anne. I contend distinctly that the inverse is the true state of the fact. No doubt the opening of letters is a great moral offence, when committed by parties to whom they are intrusted in confidence. But prior to the Statute of Anne it was part of the Royal Prerogative to carry letters; and I believe it was notorious at that time, that the Government, from time to time, whenever grave suspicions arose, did, without hesitation, open letters; and prior to the Statute of Anne, so far from its being a legal offence, such opening was not only not a misdemeanor, but it did not even form a ground for a civil action. The Statute of Anne created the misdemeanor; and it also created the exemption in favour of the Crown. It was made under the Statute of Anne, as it is now under the Statute of Victoria, a misdemeanor to open a letter, except under a warrant by the Secretary of State. Now, if this is the clear interpretation of the law upon this point, as I conceive it to be, the effect of a simple repeal of the Statute would be, that the opening of letters in the Post Office would not only not be a misdemeanor, but it would be no offence cognizable by law. The effect of the present Statute, therefore, is a restraining effect generally; while, at the same time, it makes an exception—a single exception only—on behalf of the Executive Government, allowing letters to be opened under the warrant of the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman has stated fairly the general purport of the Report of the Committee. He says, the people of this country object to the violation of their correspondence; and this Report states expressly, that except under the warrant of the Secretary of State, the correspondence of the people is inviolate. The Report goes on to state that the average number of warrants issued in the last twenty-two years is eight a year; two-thirds being connected with criminal offences, and not of a political character. Therefore, it appears from that Report, that the average number of warrants per annum, issued for opening letters of a political character, does not exceed two or three in each year on the average during the whole of that period. The Report also states, that there has been a great alteration and improvement in the check kept in this department of the Post Office since the time of Lord Spencer, in 1806. All the warrants are carefully preserved. Is there no other check? No Secretary of State can now issue a warrant without three persons as well as himself being cognizant of it—two Under Secretaries and a confidential clerk. Besides these checks each original warrant is kept; and every warrant issued by me was produced from the Post Office before the Committee. I gave an account seriatim of the reasons which led to the issue of all the warrants signed by me. Now, it appears to me, that this is a matter not so fit to be made the subject of enactment as of regulation, and there are certain regulations which, on the part of the Government, I am willing to adopt. I admit, that while in criminal cases a record has been kept of the peculiar nature of the reasons for issuing each warrant, such has not been the case with respect to political warrants; and, feeling the force of the desire expressed by the head of the Government, the three Secretaries of State are prepared to make a regulation that the reasons and grounds on which every political warrant is issued shall henceforth be recorded in a book kept for that purpose; and that record shall be signed by the Secretary of State. I do not think the regulation can be carried further. Is it for the public interests that this power should be treated as if it never had existed? I cannot think that it is safe or expedient to treat this power as if it never had existed. If it were the first time the question had arisen as to whether this power should be given or not, I might hesitate in deciding that it would be wise to bestow it. But this power having been intrusted to the Executive Government from the earliest period; bearing date even prior to the Revolution, and being exercised from the time of the Revolution downward; being confirmed by the practice of the best of times; not having been abused—for the Committee tell you so—and not being exercised from personal feelings, or from political hostility, but for the public interest—I say it is quite another thing that the House should now declare that this power—so established and so exercised—should no longer exist; and that the General Post Office should be made a safe and inviolable medium in future for the transmission of correspondence, whether foreign or domestic, of the most treasonable and dangerous character. The hon. Gentleman says, the rule to be effectual must apply to railroads and other conveyances. The great distinction is, that the Post Office, necessarily for the public good, is placed under the Royal authority and the control of the Executive Government; and it is too much to expect that that part of the Royal Prerogative, conducted by the responsible servants of the Crown, should be made the medium of communication in the promotion of violent and treasonable designs against the safety of the State, and against peace and good order. I do not wish to dwell upon what the hon. Gentleman has said about the inviolability of letters in the Post Offices of France and Belgium, and other countries. But in answer to that observation I would mention a fact which I have mentioned before, because I hope the House will not lose sight of it. In France, and in every country in Europe except in England, there is a check on the power of admitting foreigners; also there is vested in every Foreign Government the power of sending them out of the country when they become troublesome. In this country no such power exists. I do not ask for the renewal of any such power. I was opposed to it when it was in force; and upon the whole I do not think its renewal desirable. If you allow them to come here, however, and if they abuse your hospitality, you have no power of removing them; therefore I do not think it is too much to have some check upon their correspondence, lest this country be made the focus of political plot and intrigue for the disturbance of the peace of Europe. Having given the subject my best consideration, I have come to the conclusion that it is for the safety and advantage of this country that this power should be retained in the limited form I have described, though I do not set very great value upon it, nor lay very much stress upon its use or maintenance. Indeed, were this the first time it was about to be proposed, I do not think I should be willing to vote for it. But, looking at all the circumstances of the case, particularly with regard to aliens and their foreign correspondence, I must repeat that I cannot, consistently with my sense of duty, support the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. I entirely agree with the hon. Member that any Bill merely to amend the law would be illusory, and that if any enactment on the subject is to be made, the most intelligible and direct mode of proceeding is by way of a Bill to repeal entirely the power at present vested in the Government; but it is with reluctance that I am bound to say on the part of the Government that I cannot give my assent to the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury.

I agree in the observation of the right hon. Gentleman, that nothing could have been more fairly stated than this case has been by the hon. Member for Finsbury. He has brought it forward as a constitutional question. He has staled the arguments which may be fairly urged for the abrogation of the power at present possessed by the Government for the opening of letters, and has called upon the House to consider whether a legislative enactment for its abrogation may not be passed. I find myself in the situation of neither agreeing entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury, nor with the right hon. Gentleman who has last spoken. I think that there is great force in one observation made by my hon. Friend, to the effect that the exercise of this power having been much questioned, and discussed both among the public and in this House, is no longer of the same utility as in former times; and that there now is a sort of notice given to all persons, who may be supposed desirous of using the Post Office as a vehicle for the carrying on of treasonable and seditious correspondence, not in future to attempt to make use of that department for such a purpose. Let me however say, that with respect to the law of the subject, my reflections and investigations, as far as they could proceed on any authority, have led me to the same; conclusion as that arrived at by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It appears to me that the Act of Anne was framed entirely with a view to provide a penalty and a punishment against clerks and other persons engaged by the Post Office, and not to cripple or take away any power which the Crown previously possessed. I have asked several Gentlemen engaged in legal affairs what sort of criminal proceeding could take place, supposing that a private individual, intrusted with a letter, so far betrayed the trust as to open it; and I have been unable to find that there is any power of punishing such a party. The purpose of the Act of Anne was to give the public a security that their letters should not be opened unauthorizedly by persons engaged by the Post Office, and at the same time to reserve to the Crown the power which was considered established and recognised. If this were so, it was not, of course, necessary to confirm this power by Act of Parliament; but it was only requisite to refer to it indirectly. In the course of the discussions which have taken place on this subject, it has been urged that this power ought in future to be used with more formality and precaution, for the sake of the liberty of the subject, than have hitherto been shown in its exercise; and a noble Friend of mine (Lord Radnor) who has adverted to this subject in the House of Lords, is prepared to propose—I do not know whether he has done so yet—that in all cases of opening letters there should be information on oath, on which the warrant should issue. I understand, also, that it is the opinion of a person of high authority, Lord Denman, that there should be this control laid on the issue of warrants for the opening of letters; and, considering the discussions which have taken place, and how desirable it is that all powers of this nature should be brought as much as possible into a legal and definite form, I think that this restriction should be placed on the power of opening of letters. But my hon. Friend (Mr. Duncombe) seems to go beyond this. He considers that letters in the Post Office should have a peculiar inviolability, and that persons carrying on treasonable and seditious correspondence should have a security given them by the Bill which he proposes to bring in. I cannot, therefore, vote with him for the introduction of that Bill; but if a Bill comes down from the other House, or should be introduced in this House, such as proposed by Lord Radnor, I am prepared to give my vote in its favour. Such a Bill would have one effect, which I, differing from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, think would be beneficial. I take it, that if a restriction of the kind I have referred to were imposed, there would then be no danger, if any representations were made by the Minister of a Foreign Power that letters should be opened for the purpose of preventing insurrection in a Foreign State, that the power of opening those letters would be exercised. I look upon the opening of letters for such a purpose as an unjustifiable use of the power of the Crown. I do not mean to say that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in the course he pursued, did not act on what he conceived to be a sense of duty. I do not mean to say that he acted from corrupt or improper motives; but from a feeling that the public interests were to be served by the line be adopted. But I think that such a use of the power as would oblige the Secretary of State to give assistance to Foreign Powers for the purpose of quelling insurrections in Foreign States, without reference to any degree of tyranny which may prevail in those States, ought not to be maintained; and, therefore, I should not wish to see the power possessed by the Secretary of State exercised in such cases. I have now expressed shortly my view with respect to this power; and I cannot give my vote in favour of the proposed Bill of my hon. Friend; but I shall be ready to impose on the use of this power such a restriction as I have already stated, and such as, I understand, has the authority of Lord Denman in its favour.

entirely approved of the course which his hon. Friend had taken. He agreed with him that there was no medium, but either to abrogate the practice altogether, or to allow it to remain as at present. Having been a Member of the Committee appointed to inquire into this subject, he must say that, it being admitted the Government were in possession of this power, or, at least, the practice being established on the part of the Secretary of State of opening letters, he must give credit to the British Government generally that for the last twenty-two years the power had been exercised with so much forbearance that on an average only eight warrants for opening letters had been issued in the course of a year. And, whatever the practice of Foreign Governments might be, he thought that foreigners, knowing this was the practice amongst us, would concur with him in this opinion. Something had been said about the authority on which the power of opening letters rested; and he supposed it would be admitted that that practice rested either on the Prerogative, on Common Law, or the Statute of Queen, Anne. There were, indeed, various writs issued by the Edwards and the Henrys on this subject; but if they were examined, it would be found that, with one or two exceptions in the course of a century, they were writs issued by the Crown at the instance of Parliament to search persons coming into or leaving the country, on suspicion that they carried with them Papal bulls or other ecclesiastical documents. Nothing, therefore, could be founded upon that. The Tudors and the Stuarts had issued writs more nearly resembling the present practice; but no person would draw constitutional precedents from those times. As well might it be contended that the examination of prisoners of Slate by torture was legal, because it had been practised by the Privy Council down to the meeting of the Long Parliament; and Fortescue and other writers, who had written in praise of the English laws, because it did not allow of the use of torture, had their names appended to some of the Privy Council warrants, authorizing torture to be used against prisoners of State. Then with regard to the power resting on Common Law, where were the volumes of the jurists, or the decisions of the judges, on which they could venture to justify the exercise of this power. There was, indeed, one obiter dictum of a judge, but it was made after the Statute of Queen Anne was passed. Therefore, he did not think they could found much upon that rule; so that if it existed at all it must exist by Statute. In looking into some papers which had been published by Bishop Hoadley, who wrote articles in the Intelligencer newspaper, justifying the administration of Sir Robert Walpole and his conduct in the trial of Bishop Atterbury, he founded his justification of the Government in opening the letters of that Prelate solely on the provisions of the then recent Act of Queen Anne being used in the suppression of correspondence. He thought this opinion of a contemporary showed that the Act was really the ground on which the Crown exercised its right. He had no doubt whatever that in the opinion of those who passed the Act it was the only foundation on which they could exercise such a right. It had been stated as one reason why the power should be retained, that the Government could, in this way, not only exercise control over the correspondence of the natives of this country; but that, unless such a power was maintained, they could not control the conduct of the various foreigners who resided here. Now, he should like to ask whether foreigners were the only persons who interfered in the affairs of foreign nations? They had amongst their own body individuals who had taken an active share in the proceedings, both civil and military, of foreign nations; and what reason was there that they should exercise this power in the case of foreigners, which did not apply to the case of natives of this country? He thought, therefore, that this argument of the right hon. Gentleman went too far. He contended for the total abolition of this power—being persuaded, after the exposure which had taken place, that if parties had a treasonable correspondence to carry on, they would take good care not to send it through the Post Office. In the next place, he thought it clear, from the Reports of the Committees to both Houses of Parliament, that neither in criminal warrants nor in political warrants had information been obtained, by opening letters, which was of any importance. The practice was a breach of public morality; and to continue it, there ought to be made out in its favour a strong case, proving that it had been productive of eminent public good. But what was the fact? There was positively no proof whatever that any good had ever been effected by the practice; and he would say that in a case which was altogether exceptionable, which was a breach of the great maxims of public faith and morality, they ought to abrogate it altogether when it was shown, as in this case, that it was not of that utility on which alone an argument could be founded in its favour.

could not give his vote in favour of his hon. Friend's Motion without stating, in a few words, why he did so. He thought his hon. Friend had rather, in his generosity, made a larger concession to the right hon. Gentleman opposite than was altogether discreet. He admitted that the power of opening letters could not exist at all except in its present state. Now he for one, could not agree in that opinion. He believed the power of opening letters might usefully exist, and safely exist, provided the system of secrecy were put an end to. He believed that if they would not resort to the practice of resealing letters, or of defacing post marks—if it were known in what way letters were opened, he believed that such a power might be usefully and safely exercised. But if his hon. Friend should carry his Motion, and the Bill were to be brought in, it would be competent for any hon. Member to propose a clause placing the exercise of the power under such restrictions. He would vote for a clause of that kind, and on this simple ground, that though, by the existence of such a law, they would not obtain the advantage of spying into a man's secret actions, yet they would prevent the Post Office from being used as the medium of carrying on a treasonable correspondence; for then no man engaged in carrying on a treasonable correspondence could use the Post Office as a vehicle of transmission, without the risk of a warrant being issued, by which his correspondence would be seized and used in evidence against him. On the other hand, if they said that they must either have the power as it was, or not at all, he, for one, was perfectly prepared to say that they should not have it at all. He was prepared to say that the danger of abuse in the present form of the power was greater than the advantages that would result from its use. He said that the present system of forging seals and of defacing post marks were what the hon. Member for Shrewsbury had said of another subject — an organized and legalized hypocrisy. It was falsehood — practical falsehood—carried on under the authority of the Government. To that he objected, as demoralising and discrediting to the Government. He held the opinion expressed last year by the noble Lord the Member for Dorset—that what was morally wrong could not be politically right. He believed that that opinion was true. He was prepared to carry it out to the utmost — it was morally wrong. It could not be defended on any ground of morality — to reseal letters with forged seals, to deface their own post office marks, showing the day and the hour on which the letter was put in, so that the parties might not suspect it had been opened—that was falsehood—it was morally wrong, and could not, therefore, be politically right. No doubt it was true that the exercise of this power might sometimes detect plots and conspiracies. Who doubted it? Who doubted that by the employment of these vile and treacherous means they would sometimes arrive at important information? That was precisely the argument that might be used for the employment of spies. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh had truly said, on a former debate on this subject, that precisely the same argument might be brought forward to justify the paying a man to offer himself as a servant to one of those foreigners whose conduct was suspected, and to report to Government all his proceedings. Precisely the same argument would tell in favour of the one case and the other. In both cases there was falsehood—deliberate falsehood—practised under the sanction of Government, enabling them sometimes to obtain information which might prove useful. He did not deny that there were some advantages in such a case; but he believed that in the long-run the advantages would be found to be all on the side of open and fair dealing. He would not, for the sake of any temporary advantage, sanction a system of fraud and forgery. Therefore, if he were driven to choose between the exercise of the power as it now stood, or to part with it altogether, he would say that his choice was made—he would part with it although. But it was a great fallacy to tell the House that by supporting the Motion of his hon. Friend, it necessarily implied that the power ought to be parted with. It was quite competent to introduce a clause allowing letters to be opened by warrant from the Secretary of State, if the letters were not to be resealed. He was told that it was the practice in Foreign nations so to exercise the power—that in Austria, in particular, letters which were opened were resealed with the Post Office seal. Let the House follow that example—let them not farther adopt a system of fraud and forgery, which foreign nations repudiated. For these ample reasons he for one had no hesitation whatever in voting for the Motion.

thought the country was indebted to the hon. Member for Finsbury, for the courage and tact he had displayed throughout the discussions of this question. He could not understand how the noble Lord the Member for Sunderland, who had laid down the principle that the power was rather a disadvantage than an advantage, could yet consent to continue that power to the Government. The question ought to be, had they any proof that the practice was of advantage at all? Had it been productive of any public good? He knew of none; he had heard of none. The right hon. Baronet had not alleged that any had been produced. Then, why should they continue the power? He denied that this power was exercised under the Prerogative of the Crown; would the Prerogative fine him 5l. for sending a letter by a private hand? The whole of the Post Office was established by Acts of Parliament, and by Act of Parliament it ought to be regulated. The agitation of this subject had damaged the right hon. Baronet both in his public and private character. ["Oh! oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite might not think so; but that was his opinion, and a large portion of the people of England thought with him. He urged the House to make its legislation on this subject as satisfactory to the public as possible, and retaining the power as it at present stood would not be satisfactory to the community at large. He should certainly support the abolition of a power which he was satisfied no honest Minister would have recourse to.

was sorry to hear the determination of the right hon. Baronet. He was convinced the country would not be satisfied with that decision; it would not be satisfied with the retention of this power by the Government. The noble Lord the Member for the City of London had said, that he (Mr. Duncombe) appeared to think letters passing through the Post Office ought to have some peculiar privilege over all others. He had never said anything of the sort; what he stated was this—that if they took away this power the Government had assumed, but which he denied it possessed, then letters passing through the Post Office would stand exactly in the same position as papers in the writing desk of any individual, liable to be examined under a search warrant issued on oath. If they were apprised that a treasonable correspondence was passing through the Post Office, they would still have the power of seizing it. One Member of the Committee (Mr. Warburton) had spoken that evening; no other Member of it had condescended to give an opinion on the question; he had a right to assume, therefore, that his hon. Friend had expressed the opinion of that Committee. No other Member of it had come forward. He saw the noble Lord the Chairman of that Committee (Lord Sandon) opposite; had he given any reason for the continuance of the power? The noble Lord had not. He might be accused of a "prurient curiosity" in submitting such a question to the noble Lord; but he would ask him whether he thought such a power ought to be continued? It was impossible this question could stop here; a high authority had stated, that this power was not a legal one; and when the petitions of these foreigners were presented to the House the right hon. Baronet had said, if the parties were aggrieved, let them indict those of whose conduct they complained. These individuals were poor, and had not the power of seeking legal redress; but if there was law or justice to be had, he (Mr. Duncombe) would test this power—he would prove that his letters had been detained and opened, and he would try whether it had been done by law or not. If Lord Denman and Lord Campbell said this was not a legal power, and if the Government required a bill of indemnity for what it had done, he did say the right hon. Baronet was not justified in telling the House he had acted in strict accordance with the law. The Law Officer of the Crown was present; he should like to hear his version of the law on the subject. If possible, he would take him into the Court of Queen's Bench; the hon. and learned Gentleman should there defend this law, and then the extent of it would be tried. The right hon. Gentleman said last year, let the individuals who complained indict the parties who had detained their letters, and then the warrant would be produced. He would see whether it would be produced or not, by carrying the case into a court of justice. He had hoped the House would have entertained the question, and that there would not have been that anxiety to stifle this discussion. He had observed during the speech of the hon. Member for Kendal, hon. Gentlemen evidently had more consideration for their dinners than for the reasonable wish and desire of the majority of the people of this country that this odious and iniquitous power should be extinguished.

said: Three years are past since first I called the attention of this House to the practice of interments in large towns. My suggestions were in the outset little attended to, even much laughter was excited: the idea was by many deemed novel, if not visionary; but at length, with some reluctance, a Committee was granted by the House to investigate the question. When the evidence of parties acquainted with the practice of intramural interments was brought before the Committee; when the evidence of medical men, the first in this town, was given, the members of whom the Committee was composed were astonished and shocked at the abominations disclosed; and they came to the unanimous resolution to recommend the abolition of interments within large towns and populous districts. Since that period petitions without number have been presented, and the shocking practices prevalent in the grave yards of the metropolis have appeared in various forms before the public, and excited equal indignation and disgust. It is neither my inclination nor my intention to enter into any statement of the customs of ancient times; I will only observe, that from the time of our Saviour and of the early Christians, until corruptions entered into the Church, no interments in churches or in towns took place. All the early Christians were interred out of the precincts of the living. Not to take up the time of the House, I will at once proceed to the Report of the Commission, the Ecclesiastical Commission, which is as follows:—

"The practice of burial in the church or chancel appears to us in many respects injurious, in some cases offensive, in some instances by weakening or deteriorating the fabric of the church, and in others by its tendency to affect the lives or health of the inhabitants. We are of opinion, that in future this practice should be discontinued, so far as the same can be effected without trenching on vested rights."

Now, Sir, by whom is this signed? Not by any Members of Parliament hostile to the Church, or desirous of innovation; not by any Members of the Opposition, but by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the following names: Durham, London, Wynford. Lincoln, Tenterden, C. N. Tindal. Now let us see what say the Committee of this House when it gives its Report:—

"Resolved (1842)—That the practice of interments within the precincts of large towns is injurious to the health of the inhabitants thereof, and frequently offensive to public decency."

On what is this Report founded but on the most shocking evidence disclosed of the manner in which the remains of the dead are treated, and of the unhealthiness of the practice of putting the dead amongst the living. When Sir B. Brodie is asked, "Do you consider the state of the grave yards in the metropolis as one cause of fever and disease?" his answer is, "I have always considered that as one cause." What states Dr. Chambers? "I have no doubt," he answers, "that fever called typhus, even in the cleanly quarters of London, owe their origin to the escape of putrid miasma. I should presume that over-crowded burying grounds would supply such effluvia most abundantly." When this last Report was alluded to by me in this place two years ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department declared he was not yet satisfied; that Le must require further evidence; and a Special Commission was issued to a very able and intelligent gentleman, Mr. Chadwick, to investigate the subject. What says his Report?—

"That all interments in towns where bodies decompose, contribute to the mass of atmospheric impurity injurious to the public health."

This able Report is so well known, and has been so generally perused, that I need not comment on it any longer; but I will next proceed to the last Commission on the Health of Towns, whose Report was published early this Session, which says—

"Amongst other causes of the deterioration of the atmosphere in towns, our attention was called to the practice of interring the dead in the midst of densely populated districts. Instances have been brought before the Commissioners of the great evils arising from the condition of the grave yards in several large towns, Shields, Sunderland, Coventry, Chester, York, &c., and we deem it right to draw attention to the existence of such complaints."

Now, Sir, it may seem that quite enough has been said by the Commissioners on the Health of Towns, and by the Committee, to satisfy the most incredulous that the nuisance exists; but my right hon. Friend still doubts, he is not yet satisfied: like St. Thomas, he is still incredulous. I cannot help thinking my right hon. Friend does not like to believe in the nuisance, because it may be very difficult to remedy the same. One of the Popes in days gone by, when told the earth moved round the sun,—that such was discovered by Copernicus, said, "It may be true, and I believe it, but I shall save much trouble to myself if I say I do not believe it, and I will persist that such is not the case." Now the right hon. Gentleman says the people are still desirous to continue the custom of interring the dead in the midst of the living; but I confess I am at a loss to see what portion of the community is so desirous. Not the upper class. I am sure the middle classes are not; and I see no appearance in the lower class: on the contrary, I have presented petitions signed by thousands against interments in towns, and none have appeared except from a few interested persons, speculators in grave yards in this metropolis in its favour. What says the gentleman who is Principal of Clement's Inn? I will just read his letter to the House.

seconded the Motion. He considered the subject one of great importance; and he waited with some anxiety to see what part the Government would take with respect to it. Nothing, he thought, could be more disgraceful to them in that House than that their time should be engaged in party contests, instead of being devoted, as it ought to be, to the public welfare. In no country in the world—neither in Germany, nor Spain, nor France—was this practice continued. Surely the exposure that had now taken place, the details contained in the letter written by a person on the spot, the knowledge that had been obtained, the evidence of their own Committee, as well as the accurate details given by Mr. Chadwick, must prove the necessity of exertion on this truly important question. He had read over, with great anxiety, the details given by Mr. Chadwick; and having done so, he could not allow himself to think that his hon. Friend would have occasion again to trouble himself on this subject. The Government, in appointing a Commissioner, had excited expectation, which, now that they had information, he was sure they would not disappoint. Let them remember, that whilst they had been occupied in mere party squabbles, inquiries directed by themselves had proved the people in the towns to be living in filth, in squalor, and in misery, that were almost incredible, had they not been so distinctly proved. It was discreditable to them, as a nation of civilized and Christian men, that these things should be. They were shocked at the descriptions of the inhabitants of savage nations putting each other to death; but how much more shocking was it to think that in a civilized country like this—as it had been proved by facts that could not be contradicted nor denied—that by their own ignorance and apathy they were causing the death of thousands of their fellow-citizens — that by their neglect they permitted to be enervated their labouring classes, upon whom the strength and stability of the country depended; that they permitted them to have bad food and bad air—to live in filth, poverty, and misery, when their first duty ought to be to remove all the causes that led to their depression and degradation. He would recommend hon. Members to read Mr. Chadwick's little book on the subject, in every page of which they would find full evidence of the magnitude of the evils complained of. And he would recommend those hon. Members who were desirous of improving the condition of the working classes, and increasing their health and comforts, to deal with those evils, and, if possible, to devise a remedy for them, as a more practical means of accomplishing their object, than by interfering between the master artisans and the workmen, when in a healthy state, to limit the hours of labour. In one page of Mr. Chadwick's work was a long and important statement as to the practice in France, and the experience of that country as to the effect of interments in towns on the sanatory condition of the people; so that this evidence rested, not upon what had occurred in this country alone, though that he thought was conclusive enough, but also on the experience of foreign countries. Professor Brande had stated that much of the well water in London—many of the wells being in the immediate vicinity of churchyards—was contaminated, and rendered unwholesome by water from the neighbouring graves mingling with it. Eighteen years ago, he (Mr. Hume) moved for a Return of the number of churchyards in the metropolis, their superficial extent, and the number of bodies interred in them in each of the previous ten years. Let any hon. Gentleman look at this Return, and recollect that ever since interments had been going on at the rate of 1,000 a week, and say whether the practice was not sufficient to disgust anybody. Talk of savage manners and brutal practices! Could there be a more savage practice than this? And not only was it to be deprecated on account of the disgust and horror it was calculated to excite; but more so on account of its fatal effects upon the health of the people, especially the working classes, who were most exposed to its influence. Dr. Reid had spoken of the extent of the evil arising from the miasma of graveyards. He had detected deleterious gases escaping from graves twenty feet deep, and stated that he had found the ground in many churchyards perfectly saturated with carbonic acid gas. He thought, for the sake of decency itself, even if the more important consideration of the health of the people did not require it, some assurance should be given by the Government that they would turn their attention to the subject, with a view to devise some remedy for the evil. Hon. Gentlemen, who could reside where they pleased, and command what accommodation and comfort they required, might not be aware of the consequences of the practice which it was the object of the hon. Member for Lymington to put a stop to. It was the labouring classes who felt the evil in its full force—those who were compelled to live in narrow courts and alleys, and were obliged to crowd together in single rooms and in cellars; those whose condition was in itself sufficiently miserable, without having added to it the sufferings which arose from this most deleterious and disgusting practice. Those philanthropists who, anxious to improve the condition of their fellow-man, employed thousands and tens of thousands for the benefit of people in foreign countries whom they knew nothing of, might turn their humane intentions to the position of their fellow-countrymen at home. He agreed with the hon. Member for Lymington, that a case against the practice of interment in towns was made out. Why, then, should the Government hesitate to propose a remedy? The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) shook his head; intimating thereby, he supposed, that the difficulties in the way of passing any such measure were insurmountable. Let the right hon. Baronet but bring forward a Bill on the subject, and he would pledge himself that it would be carried. He was sure no man in that House would be found to oppose such a Bill on the plea of vested rights. If there were vested rights, pay them and get rid of them; but let justice be done to those large masses of the community who were less fortunate than themselves. He trusted the right hon. Baronet would adopt the course recommended by the Commissioners who had investigated the subject, and not allow trifles to prevent them. He seconded the Motion of his hon. Friend with great pleasure.

said, the hon. Member for Montrose had expressed a hope that he would hear something from him that would be satisfactory to the hon. Member for Lymington, and those who were anxious that, the Government should take this matter into their hands with the view of proposing to Parliament some measure of legislation on the subject. He was, however, afraid, from what appeared to him to be the exaggerated views entertained on the subject, that he should disappoint him. His hon. Friend the Member for Lymington had stated that when the case was first brought forward by him, some years ago, it was received by the House with derision, cheers, and laughter. He thought his hon. Friend's memory in this respect was not quite correct. He had heard the subject frequently discussed, and never on any occasion did he remember its being received with any violation of decorum. No Motion on the subject had, he believed, been met in that House (as his hon. Friend seemed to suppose) with levity and neglect. His hon. Friend had accused him, not certainly in direct terms, but still he had intimated in a manner not to be misunderstood, that he had been guilty, in dealing with this question, of supineness, timidity, and negligence, and that he was courting a spurious popularity; and his hon. Friend had gone still further, and had charged persons in his position, and Members of the House of Commons, with being from their situation disposed to despise the claims of the lower orders. Now he could assure his hon. Friend that he was influenced by nothing but a sense of duty in the course he felt bound to follow in regard to this matter. He was fully alive to its importance, and to the wants and feelings of the humble classes in regard to it; and it was because he was so alive to their feelings and wishes, that he hesitated to pledge himself to bring forward any such measure as that suggested. The experience of foreign countries had been referred to, and the practice in these countries with regard to the interment of the dead had been compared with that which existed in this country. Now, in the first place, he must say that the customs of foreign countries were not applicable to the consideration of this question with us. In foreign countries there was no hesitation on the part of the people in large cities to adopt means for the more rapid decomposition of human remains. Burning, lime, and other devices were had recourse to for that purpose, which in this country would not be tolerated. Then, again, with regard to the feelings of the poor themselves, it was no easy or safe matter to declare at once by Act of Parliament that people should no longer be buried in those places in which the remains of their kindred lay. This was not a mere question of expense—it was not a question of mere outward decorum; warm feelings in reference to this subject of the interment of the dead obtained in the hearts of the people—feelings that were entitled to respect, and which must not be lightly nor unnecessarily violated. His hon. Friend the Member for Lymington had said that the practice prevailing in large cities in regard to the interment of the dead was abhorrent to human nature, created disgust, and in the opinion of foreigners classed us with barbarians; and he had further called upon him, on considerations of the public health, to devise and submit to Parliament some measure for putting an end to the practice. He was aware that the question was one connected with the public health, but he was not prepared to admit that the public health was endangered. He believed it was an undoubted fact that there was no metropolis in Europe in which, looking at the density of the population, the public health was preserved so well as in London. The hon. Member for Montrose had stated that health was impaired by a residence in the neighbourhood of churchyards. Now, he had very high authority, and he believed he should commit no impropriety in naming it—that of the Bishop of London—for stating that that was not the case. The right rev. Prelate had informed him that when he was rector of Bishopsgate he resided in the rectory, which was immediately contiguous to the churchyard, and that during that period, himself, his wife and family, which was a large one, never enjoyed better health. Then there were the rectories of St. James's and St. Giles's, both contiguous to churchyards; but he did not believe any complaint of ill health on the part of the residents as resulting from that contiguity had ever been heard. Again, in the immediate vicinity of that House there was a churchyard; but he had never heard that the houses in Great George-street, or the other houses near St. Margaret's churchyard, were unhealthy; on the contrary, he believed there was no part of the metropolis in which the health of the people was better preserved. His hon. Friend had called upon the House to affirm a mere abstract Resolution. Now, what he wanted to see was the Bill by which his hon. Friend proposed to meet the evil of which he complained. No man was more competent to embody his views in the shape of an enactment than his hon. Friend. He had acted as the Chairman of the Committee by whom the inquiry had been made—he had bestowed great attention on the subject—an attention which he regretted to say that he had not been able to pay—and his hon. Friend was consequently most competent to determine what the remedial measure should be. It was to be regretted, therefore, that his hon. Friend had not at once brought forward a Bill upon the subject. At all events he should say the House ought not to proceed in this matter by an abstract Resolution; a mere abstract Resolution, such as that now proposed, would be rather an impediment than an aid to legislation. What, therefore, he entreated of his hon. Friend was, that as the pioneer of the Government he would not press his Resolution but at once bring in his Bill. Let them look at the importance of the subject in reference to what the Resolution called upon the House to pledge itself to. Was it wise, in a deliberative assembly like that House, when the remedial measure, in the shape of an Act, was still doubtful—was it prudent at once to declare, by this Resolution that interment in cities and towns was injurious to the public health—a breach of public decorum inconsistent with the social and religious feelings of the people, and with a due regard to decency? Now, he for one was not prepared to affirm that interment in towns was inconsistent with the public health, or opposed to the social or religious feelings of the people; nor did he believe that any new legislation was necessary to check those infringements of public decorum and decency which had been stated. With regard to the case that had been recently brought forward of the Spafields burial ground, he had thought it necessary at once to institute a prosecution; and that matter was now pending. At the instance of the Government the parties accused of the offence had been prosecuted, and before a judicial tribunal the case would be fairly heard; and if the facts were proved to be as alleged, he had no doubt that the law was sufficiently strong to grapple with the abuse. Again, with regard to what had been alleged in respect to Enon Chapel, he believed the law was already strong enough to deal with that case also. His hon. Friend had said that there were very strong feelings upon the subject in the public mind. But let them proceed to pass a Bill of a stringent character, prohibiting absolutely interment in cities and towns—adopting Mr. Chadwick's suggestion, for instance—and they would find that public feeling would be excited to the greatest degree, and if they did not take care would be grossly violated by their enactments. Then with regard to the suggestions of the various Commissioners which had been alluded to. In the first place, the Ecclesiastical Commission report only as against interments in churches. Then came the Report of the Sanatory Commissioners, which glanced at the subject incidentally, it was true, but did anything but propose a specific remedy. Mr. Chadwick alone was the person who recommended that burials within the precincts of towns should be prohibited. He admitted that the great question of the health of the people in large towns was about to be dealt with by the Government in a comprehensive manner, by the Bill of which his noble Friend had given notice, and which was now all but prepared, and would be submitted to Parliament at an early period in the present Session. But such had been his feeling in the matter, that though he admitted interment in cities to be intimately connected with the health of the people, yet he thought the subject was so marked and so distinct, and disconnected from all other causes productive of temporary disease, that he had thought it expedient to keep it out of the scope and operation of that Bill. But, to return to the Report of Mr. Chadwick; he agreed that that Report was most laborious, able, and comprehensive, as to the evils he described; but then, as regarded the remedial measures suggested by Mr. Chadwick, he was bound to say that nothing had convinced him more of the extreme difficulty of dealing with the subject than those very propositions which Mr. Chadwick made. His hon. Friend had stated that there were not fewer than a thousand burials within the precincts of this metropolis every week throughout the year. Now, what was Mr. Chadwick's proposal? It was neither more nor less than this—that all the arrangements for interments which were now conducted by upholsterers and others should cease to be left in the hands of private individuals; but that all the arrangements should be in future confided to the Government, and, in point of fact, that the Government should undertake the burial of the people; that they should fix the scale of expense, and that burial places should be provided at the distance of not less than four or five miles from the metropolis, the charge to be met by a parochial assessment. Such was the proposal of Mr. Chadwick. The hon. Member for Montrose had admitted that gradually, without the force of legislative enactment, the inclination of the public led them to adopt burial places outide the towns rather than in the churchyards within them, and that ample facilities were given by private companies for that object. Now, he (Sir J. Graham) would say, take care lest, by a compulsory enactment, they interrupted that course of feeling, which, if left to itself, would remedy the evil. He believed the adoption of the Report of Mr. Chadwick, viz., the abolition, by Act of Parliament, of all interments under the direction of private individuals, would interfere with that feeling, and that such a proposition, if the Government were to embody it in a Bill, whatever success it might meet with in that House, out of doors would encounter great general condemnation. It had been said, that amongst the most determined opponents of any change in the practice of burials in towns was the Church. He did not believe that to be the fact. On the contrary, he believed the Bishop of London had turned his attention to the subject, with a view of introducing a measure directly to accomplish the object which his hon. Friend had in view; but he felt that the utmost caution was necessary in dealing with the question. If he could satisfy himself that the particular measure to which his attention had been directed was safe, and might be adopted without occasioning difficulties still greater than the evil it was intended to remedy, he would not oppose it; but having given to the subject the fullest consideration in his power, he was not prepared to say that, as at present advised, he could hope to be able to introduce a measure that should be worthy the attention of the House; and until he could do this—though he should be at all times prepared to bestow his best attention to the measures of others—it would be impossible for him to undertake on the part of the Government to bring in any measure on the subject. Let us have some Bill, said the hon. Member for Montrose; but the question was what measure would be most likely to meet the difficulty. His hon. Friend said, confirm these Resolutions, and pledge yourselves to legislate. While he was not prepared to give any pledge on the part of the Government to bring forward a specific proposal on the subject, it would be most inexpedient to affirm those Resolutions, the effect of which could only be to excite public attention and public expectation to the utmost on a matter of great delicacy and great difficulty, and upon which there was much feeling in the public mind, without any particular result. His hon. Friend the Member for Lymington, had said, that if the Resolutions were carried, he should himself be prepared to bring in a Bill to carry out his views. He could not see that it was in any way necessary to pass these Resolutions as a preliminary step to the introduction of the Bill. His hon. Friend's Bill must stand or fall on its own merits, independent of any Resolutions; therefore the passing of the Resolutions could have no effect on his hon. Friend's Bill. At the same time he saw great difficulty and inconvenience in approving such a declaration as that involved in the Resolutions. And while he was quite ready to give full consideration to his hon. Friend's Bill when brought in, having made that declaration, until the Bill was before him he must decidedly oppose the adoption of the Motion of his hon. Friend.

agreed with the right hon. Baronet, that there was great difficulty in adopting the Resolutions proposed; for though he would go far to further the object of the hon. Member for Lymington, he could not accede to all the dogmas contained in those Resolutions. With regard to his right hon. Friend's speech—if he meant to say that there was no danger to the public health, arising from the interment of the dead in cities, or within the walls of towns—that was a proposition which the evidence of all medical and scientific men showed clearly was not tenable. He was surprised that the right hon. Baronet should give currency to such a belief and such a doctrine. When his hon. Friend opposite stated the number of burials in the metropolis at 1,000 a week, he did not know whether he included the burials in the cemeteries from the metropolis. [Mr. Mackinnon: Yes.] If so, the statement was much exaggerated; for if the interments in the various cemeteries at Stoke Newington, Hampstead, Kensal-green, Fulham, and other places, were considered, it would make a considerable reduction in the number of burials that actually took place within the town. The mischief of the system was felt principally by the lower classes, who could not avail themselves of the cemeteries. Let any man look at the burial ground on the right hand going out of Clare-market to Lincoln's Inn, or the churchyard of St. Ann's, Soho, and the number of other burial grounds in those densely-populated streets and alleys, which it was the misfortune of our poorer brethren to be compelled to inhabit, and say whether health was not likely to suffer from their contiguity. As his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham) had said, he was willing to put the strong arm of the law in force against the practices — the disgusting practices they had heard of at Spafields, and the dancing cemetery in Fetter-lane, and that he would do the best he could to devise means for relieving the poorer classes, he would advise his hon. Friend the Member for Lymington to abandon the subject and leave it in the hands of the Government, who alone could combat the evils and effectually put a stop to the disgusting details which had been described. He agreed with his right hon. Friend that they must not wholly blame the Church in this matter. There were many burial grounds attached to Dissenting chapels, in which the evil was equally great; and in regard to which considerations of a sectarian and religious feeling interfered to prevent a remedy. It was not just to say that it was the ministers of the Established Church only who presented a difficulty to the adoption of a remedial measure. He contended that it was necessary to close the burial grounds abutting upon the city of London. He believed that such a proposition would not meet with that amount of opposition from religious feeling which would prevent its being carried into effect. Some measure might be framed in communication with the authorities of the parishes interested, which might prove of great benefit to those classes of society whose rights were not so well advocated as they would wish to see them.

was afraid that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary left but little hope for the hon. Member for Lymington. While country after country had felt the necessity of discontinuing the practice of interring their dead in large towns, we had alone kept up the usage. In France, public cemeteries were now removed from the neighbourhood of towns; in Spain, the same object had been for the most part accomplished. In many cities of Germany, and also in Denmark, a similar progress had been made. In the Oriental world, cemeteries were removed from the neighbourhood of human habitations; everywhere public opinion seemed to have made progress, but here, where they still refused to carry out the object sought for. Could anything be more distressing than the accounts of the manner in which human bodies were treated in our burial places? The Report, so often quoted tonight, gave them many painful instances of the kind. One of the witnesses examined before the Committee, gave the following evidence. He was asked—

"What are the matters objected to that are of common experience in our burials, when the corpse and attendants have arrived within the churchyard?—In certain seasons of the year, when the mortality is greater than usual, a number of funerals, according to the present regulation of the churchyards, are named for one hour. During last Sunday, for example, there were fifteen funerals all fixed during one hour at one church. Some of these will be funerals in the church; those which have not an in-door service must wait outside. At the church to which I refer, there were six parties of mourners waiting outside. My man informed me, that all these parties of mourners were kept nearly three-quarters of an hour waiting outside, without any cover, and with no boards to stand upon. The weather last Sunday was dreadfully inclement. I have seen ten funerals kept waiting in the churchyard from twenty minutes to three-quarters of an hour. I have known colds caught on the ground by parties kept waiting, and more probably occurred than I could know of. It is the practice on such occasions to say the service over the bodies of children and over the bodies of the adults together, and sometimes the whole are kept waiting until the number is completed. Even under these circumstances, the ceremony is frequently very much hurried." How many are there in some parochial burial grounds to be buried at one time?—Sometimes fifteen."

Again, Mr. Dix was asked—

"In the crowded districts is the funeral ceremony often impeded?—Besides the state of the parochial burial grounds, the mode of performing the ceremony is very objectionable, in consequence of the crowd and noise and bustle in the neighbourhood. I have had burials to perform in St. Clement's Danes burial ground, when the noise of the passing and the repassing of the vehicles has been such that we have not heard a third of the service, except in broken sentences."

The middle and higher classes were resorting to extra-mural cemeteries for the interment of the dead. But the reason of the great resistance which was opposed to these cemeteries by other classes was, that monetary interests were often involved. In many instances large fees were payable to the clergyman. There was one case in which the clergyman who officiated in a town burying ground had strenuously opposed the proposition for extra-mural interment. Now, upon referring to the Report, he found that this rev. Gentleman was in the receipt of fees to the amount of 892l. 7s. 8d. accruing from the present practice. Here was his opposition at once explained. Now, he (Dr. Bowring) would be disposed to buy the clergy off. He would not deprive them of their fees. Were they to assure the clergy that they would lose nothing by the change, he had no doubt but that many of the difficulties which at present stood in their way would be subdued. The present state of things was disgraceful. Let any body visit any of our crowded churchyards, let him see the foul and fearful places in which human mingled with its native clay—let him compare these with the churchyards of Turkey. With the latter no revolting associations were connected; on the contrary, they were the sites of healthful recreation. The present state of our burial places was one which should not be allowed to continue; and he would warmly support any proposition for improving our practice in regard to the interment of our dead.

said, he was a Member of the Committee which had this subject under consideration two years ago, and he certainly had hoped that the Government might have been able to introduce a measure in accordance with the recommendation of that Committee. Conversant as he naturally was with the details of the question from having paid much attention to it when serving on the Committee, he must acknowledge that he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had exaggerated the difficulties of the subject; but he did think that his right hon. Friend had in some degree underrated its importance. For his part, he could conceive no question more closely connected with the health and well-being of large towns. They were told that the Government had other measures in preparation to improve the sanatory condition of towns — measures for better drainage and ventilation and a more abundant supply of water, which were calculated to be of great advantage; but they were trifles in comparison with the subject now brought tinder consideration. What availed it to introduce a better system of ventilation, if the air they sought to introduce had first passed over an infectious churchyard? And what availed a better drainage, if mouldering infection were condensed on the surface; or a better supply of water, if the water came corrupted and tainted in its course? He maintained, therefore, that this question was one of the very greatest importance to the health of towns, and, great as the difficulties were, he could not think them insuperable when he remembered that this was the only capital in Europe—for it was not allowed even in Constantinople to bury the dead within the walls—where such a system was permitted to continue. He could not agree with his right hon. Friend in treating so lightly the argument founded on the example of foreign capitals; for what they had done gave the sanction of experience to the course he was advocating. He could state that in the Committee further evidence had been again and again offered in corroboration of what was the universal opinion of that Committee; but the evidence was considered already sufficient; they had no doubt whatever as to the existence of the evil; the only difficulty was as to the appropriate remedy. His right hon. Friend seemed to think that there was no strong public feeling on the subject; but he believed that his right hon. Friend was mistaken. He had, for instance, that evening presented a petition from the inhabitants of Paddington, signed among others by his hon. Friend the Recorder of London (Mr. Law), one of the Representatives of Cambridge University, the right hon. Member for Northampton, and by other several Members of Parliament and persons of note, expressing regret that the recommendations of the Committee had not been followed up by some legislative measure, and declaring their conviction of the necessity of such a measure. He still hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Home Secretary would apply his attention to this subject; for no question could be more deserving of his consideration, and nothing could give him a stronger claim on public gratitude than bringing forward an effective measure for remedying the existing evils. Considering the nature and extent of the private interests involved in this question, he did not expect much good from local measures or Private Acts of Parliament; he believed that nothing but the strong arm of the Government could apply an efficient remedy. Yet still so far as private legislation went, he was ready to afford it every aid in his power. With respect to the Motion before the House, he must confess that he could not give his entire concurrence to the terms of the Resolution which had been proposed by the hon. Member for Lymington. That hon. Gentlemen had done him the honour to consult him on this subject; but the terms of the proposition then suggested by the hon. Member differed materially from those of the Motion now before the House. He was quite willing to vote in favour of a general Resolution to the effect that interment in large towns was injurious; but his hon. Friend had introduced a Resolution containing strong terms, which he for the first time had heard—terms which, in his opinion, ought to be avoided, and which had properly been objected to by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State. He had another objection to the Resolution in its present shape. He had already expressed to the hon. Member for Lymington his conviction that it would be better, in the first instance, to confine legislation on this subject to the metropolis, or at most to a very few of the largest cities: and if the measure was found practically effective in the metropolis, it might afterwards be extended to other less populous towns. He was not, therefore, at present prepared to give his concurrence to any measure of this nature relating to other than the larger cities and towns, not because he wished entirely to exclude the smaller towns from its operation, but because he considered that it was advisable, in the first instance, to proceed step by step, and not to make legislation on such a subject too extensive. Though he could not concur in the terms of the Resolution before the House, yet he felt all the importance of the question, and he should never cease when an opportunity occurred of urging it by vote and voice on the attention of Her Majesty's Government.

said, It was along time since he had heard a speech with greater pain than that with which he had listened to the right hon. Baronet opposite. He deeply regretted that on a subject which involved no party principles, the right hon. Baronet should be found to countenance so many unworthy and noxious prejudices, and to throw the weight of his high position and eminent administrative ability into the scale to aid in distracting public improvement, and assist private interest in delaying measures no less needed, in his opinion, for the health and comfort, than for the decency and morals of the country. The right hon. Baronet had made statements which were neither borne out by facts nor consistent with the opinions of those best qualified to judge. He begged pardon for taking up the time of the House; he had not intended to speak upon this question, and would not have done so but for the speech delivered by the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Baronet had most confidently asserted that it was the universal practice on the Continent to accelerate decomposition by artificial means; but in refutation of that statement he would refer him to a passage in the very admirable Report which had been so frequently quoted. He there found that at Frankfort, Munich, and other places where much attention had been paid to the subject, the general rule was not to allow the interment of more than one body in each grave, because this course insured the more regular progress of decomposition. There was no mention of any artificial means being used there to accelerate it. He was aware that at Naples, where burials were generally conducted with little feeling or decency, quicklime was thrown in with the body; but, generally speaking, in the cemeteries on the Continent no such practice prevailed. In Austria, indeed, some such law once existed; but it was now either repealed or had become obsolete. The right hon. Baronet, to shew that graveyards in cities were innoxious, had most unfortunately instanced the churchyard of St. Margaret's. But Dr. Reid, in his evidence, had stated that the most deleterious exhalations proceeded from it, which sometimes extended even to the House of Commons. The right hon. Baronet had said, on the authority of the Bishop of London, that residences close to churchyards in towns were generally not unhealthy; but in the Report, amidst much other evidence, was recorded the case of a clergyman whose house was near a full churchyard, and whose family suffered severely from the effluvium proceeding out it. He did not complain so much of the right hon. Baronet declining to legislate upon this subject, while he had so many other measures upon his hands, though it certainly appeared to him (Lord Ebrington) that, intimately connected as it was with the public health, this subject merited the attention of Government as much as some of those with respect to which they had proposed measures, as of his discountenancing the desired reform, and clinging to the practice of interment in towns. He (Sir James Graham) had spoken of this as a question which did not attract much public attention, and in which the community at present did not take much interest; he (Lord Ebrington) thought that the numerous cemeteries established in the neighbourhood of the metropolis and of the other large towns sufficiently disproved this assertion. In the town which he represented, so intolerable had the nuisance become, and so sensible were the inhabitants of the physical and moral evils it occasioned, that some of the most enlightened and benevolent of them, including the rector, actuated by a desire to remove these evils rather than by the hope that it would prove a profitable speculation, had determined to set up a cemetery company at Plymouth; but until the subject was taken up by the Government, he believed no effectual remedy could be applied: at least no remedy which would meet the case of the labouring classes, who could not afford any additional expense in interments. He would conclude by thanking the hon. Member for bringing the subject before the House, and recommending him to modify his Motion as the noble Lord had advised; if, however, he kept it in its present form, he (Lord Ebrington) would still cordially support it.

While he fully admitted the importance of the subject, was deeply impressed with the conviction that they would be doing very wrong to underestimate the difficulties connected with it, and with which, in taking any legislative step, they would have to contend. He remembered, upon a former occasion, a Bill upon the subject had been introduced; but that measure had been arrested in its progress through Parliament, and he did not now see any symptoms of the probability of more cordial support being given to any measure which might be introduced, than that which the Bill which had failed, had formerly experienced. He had heard it stated to-night that it was from the Dissenters that the chief opposition to any measure for the prevention of the burial of the dead in large towns would most probably emanate. He would, however, beg leave to call the attention of the House to that part of Mr. Chadwick's Report which contained the Resolutions passed at a large meeting of Dissenters upon the point. They stated that the meeting would hail with much satisfaction the adoption of any means to correct the abuse of any practices connected with burial grounds which could be satisfactorily established. So much for the anticipated obstacles to be thrown in the way of any reform of this nature by the Dissenters. But was the House aware of the extent of the vested rights which, were they to take the subject in hand, they would have to interfere with? And that was not the whole evil. They would have to interfere with proprietary chapels, containing vaults from which no injurious exhalation could possibly arise. If they meant to prohibit by law all intra-mural interments, they would have to deal with these private chapels. A good deal had been said as to the practice of burial in foreign countries. But were they prepared to adopt anything like the regulations incident to the system practised by these countries? The system of burial abroad was the subject of regular police regulation; and if they meant to establish that custom here—extra-mural interment—they must be prepared also to submit to the establishment of the custom of police regulation. A tariff of charges would require to be drawn up, and stringent rules regularly enforced. The advantages resulting from the establishment of cemeteries he would not underrate; but he would remind the House of some of the regulations prescribed to cemetery companies in the Acts constituting them. Many of these regulations were highly insulting and offensive to Dissenters; and unless they were prepared so to legislate with respect to these cemeteries as to make them acceptable to all classes of the people, he held that they could carry out that system of legislation no farther. It was deplorable to see such a wall built to separate the dead of Dissenters from those of churchmen. With regard to the clergy, again, he thought that considerable difficulty in legislating would arise, and the same thing might be said as respected Dissenting ministers. The latter did not charge fees at all for burial, and being enabled to inter the dead within a short distance of their own residences, they could do it without inconvenience. But if they were to compel these ministers to go three or four, or in some instances as many as fourteen miles, in order to perform their duties, they would be involving these ministers in expenses which it would be difficult for the Legislature to provide for. He had not stated these difficulties in a way inimical to the Bill, but as some justification of the course adopted by the right hon. Baronet opposite; and as some answer to his noble Friend (Lord Ebrington), who, he conceived, had underestimated the obstacles to be overcome, and had not done justice to the right hon. Home Secretary, who knew from experience with what difficulties legislation upon this subject was beset.

, though disposed to support the object of the Motion, had very great difficulty 'n assenting to the terms of the Resolution. He hoped the terms would be made more general, so as to meet approbation and overcome objections. He thought interments might be effected in London without injuring the health of the people; and he fell bound to oppose the Resolution, which he considered too general. He thought it would have been much better if his hon. Friend had introduced a Bill, because then the House would have had something tangible to deal with.

said, that many of the views and opinions which he entertained on the present question had already been so ably and so fully stated by the hon. Member for Lambeth, that he should, in addressing the House, have much difficulty in making the least addition to the force of those remarks which had already been made; and he should have perhaps altogether refrained from occupying the attention of the House, if the noble Lord the Member for Plymouth had not misrepresented, because he had misapprehended, what fell from his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The noble Lord charged his right hon. Friend with endeavouring to revive what he called the old vulgar cry about private interests. Now, so far from that being the case, his right hon. Friend did little more than touched upon the question of private interests; but he urged strongly upon the House the extreme importance of not exaggerating the evils which they sought to remedy. He felt bound, on his own part, and on that of his Colleagues, to say that there did not exist the least desire to throw into the present discussion the weight of private interests. It had been said that his right hon. Friend might well be excused for not bringing in a measure on this subject on account of his not having time to investigate the difficulties with which the whole question was beset; but he must be permitted to say, that his right hon. Friend did not need any such excuse. His right hon. Friend did not put forward any such ground for not introducing a measure upon this subject. The House scarcely required to be informed that his right hon. Friend had devoted much attention to the subject; but he had purposely abstained from bringing forward any measure of legislation, because, notwithstanding that attention, he felt that he could not hope to do so in a manner satisfactory to himself, or calculated to meet the general opinion of the House. But what he wished to impress on hon. Members was this—that considerations connected with vested or private interests had no more than their due weight with the Government. The hon. Members for Weymouth and for Bolton had laboured to put forth as strenuously as possible the necessity of attending to the interests of the poor in this matter. In that he fully concurred. In a case of this kind it was much more important and much more necessary to attend to the interests of the poor than to those of the rich; and on account of the poor did he say that Parliament ought to pause before they favoured restrictions. Let the House look for a moment at the way in which this proposed change affected the pecuniary interests of the poor. The question of burial within or without the boundaries of a city was a matter of little importance to the rich; to the poor it was a very serious consideration. If a poor family were to pay the expense of removing a corpse and of conveying the mourners at a funeral from St. Giles's to Hampstead or Harrow, they would feel the expense to be very burdensome. The House were aware that Mr. Chadwick had made a Report on the subject of providing for the burial of the working classes; and his suggestions, if adopted, would go the length of placing the whole matter under the guidance of the police, and make the rich pay for the poor. To this he did not object so far as the rich were concerned; but then the effect of it would be, that the poor artisan would feel that in obtaining assistance for the burial of his relatives, aid must come out of the poor rates, and that, therefore, the effect of his applying for such assistance would be to place himself in the condition of a pauper. He knew that the proposition now before the House was not intended to apply to rural districts; but the same feelings, though with less intensity, existed amongst the poor of the towns. Whether in town or country, there was a general wish to be buried near one's forefathers; and people in the lower walks of life liked to have their relatives buried in their own neighbourhoods. Of that consolation he did not think that they ought to be compulsorily deprived: he was not willing wantonly to do violence to such feelings. He had very little desire to effect more upon the present occasion than impress upon hon. Members a sense of the difficulty which encircled the present question; but, at the same time, he did not see that they were precluded from considering the details of any plan which his hon. Friend the Member for Lymington might introduce; and he saw no reason why the usual practice of bringing in a Bill should be departed from. His right hon. Friend had told the House that he was not prepared to submit to them any measure on the subject; but he told them, at the same time, that he was prepared fairly and fully to consider any measure which any hon. Member might present to the House. An hon. Member near him had sugjested that the present Resolution should be modified. Now, he by no means recommended the hon. Mover to adopt any modification; but, on the contrary, to withdraw his Resolution, and move for leave to bring in a Bill. The hon. Member might be assured of this—that he would not advance the progress of the measure by moving an abstract Resolution Such a Resolution, if carried, instead of assisting, would hamper him, as well as the House, in any attempts at legislating on this most difficult subject. On these grounds, then, he hoped that the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion, and bring in a Bill.

got up to propose an Amendment, by the desire and wish of the hon. Mover. His Amendment was to this effect, that the practice of interment in large cities was injurious to the health of the population, and demanded the serious attention of Parliament. The noble Lord recommended the hon. Mover to withdraw his Motion, and bring in a Bill; but the hon. Gentleman had already tried that, and he now thought it best to propose a Resolution: upon the whole, that did appear to be the best course which he could pursue. He had served with the hon. Member on the Health of Towns Committee, and he had the honour to represent that part of the metropolis in which the Spafields burial ground was situated; he therefore could not help feeling some degree of interest in the proposition now before the House. Every one must know that the feeling which induced men to wish to mingle their bones with those of their ancestors was universal; and no one liked the thought of having the bones of his relatives shoved and knocked about. But people of large fortune had ample means of preventing this and other annoyances. The duty of Parliament, however, was to provide satisfactory resting places for the poor. After all, the great difficulty was in satisfying the clergy, who charged enormous fees, not only for burying the dead, but even for allowing corpses to be removed. What right could a clergyman have to charge 7s. or 12s. for leave to bury a corpse out of the parish in which the individual might happen to die? As to the Dissenters, the clergy in some instances refused to bury them at all. The fact was, that the Church, and not the people, created the difficulty. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving—

"To leave out from the first word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'the practice of Interment within the precincts of the Metropolis and of large Cities, is injurious to the health of the population, and demands the serious attention of Parliament.'"

felt himself placed in rather a delicate situation. He could not produce a Bill without a great deal of trouble and expense, and at every step he should be met, as usual, with technical objections; and told, that he, as a private individual, was not entitled to propose measures to the House; that his details were imperfect and faulty; and his Bill, if he were to bring one in, would share the fate of many others brought in by individual Members; but if the Resolution, or even the Amendment, was passed, it would give an impetus to the sentiment of the country. Every assertion and every proposition affirmed in the Resolution was strictly true; and he did hope that the House would pronounce some opinion on the question before they separated that night.

said, that during the eighteenth century the religious part of the polity of England had been treated with great neglect by the Government. The efforts of the Legislature, he thought, should now be directed to extending the parochial system for the living, and also to extending the parochial system for the dead. The inhabitants of parishes should be enabled to join in purchasing burial grounds for their population; but let not the House be led away by the idea that the advocates of burial outside of cities were animated solely by a pure and disinterested zeal for the good of the poorer inhabitants of the metropolis. If the clergy were interested in the continuance of burials within the metropolis, there were other parties much more flagrantly interested in the opposite direction. A large body of the clergy in the metropolis were dependent on surplice fees; and in many parishes in London there were no tithes, the clergy depending on fees, and on the voluntary offerings of their congregations. Unless those vested interests were duly regarded, they would much injure some of the most important interests in the community. After doing this, it would be a very poor consolation for them to reflect that they had encouraged joint-stock companies in seven or eight localities around the metropolis. All he desired was, that in providing a remedy, those interests which he advocated should not be overlooked. He believed that it was possible to provide fitting places of sepulture within the metropolis, and at the same time not to injure the incumbents in the metropolis. For this object, he thought the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Finsbury would be the most proper basis.

said, the proper way to proceed would be by Bill, and not by Resolution, and the Bill ought to be proposed by Her Majesty's Government. The difficulties which had been alluded to by the hon. Member for Lambeth formed an additional reason why this question could not be taken up and a Bill introduced by a private Member. The real question was, after all the facts which bad been brought before the House, whether the House would say that this was a subject which deserved its serious consideration. If the Amendment were adopted by the hon. Member for Lymington, he apprehended the result would be merely to express the strong opinion of the House that a Bill should be introduced by Her Majesty's Government. But if the Government wished the hon. Member for Lymington to introduce a Bill on the subject, it was an evasion, and they must be content to sit down under what he must call fearful evils deserving serious consideration. If Her Majesty's Government were not prepared to bring in a Bill, the House ought to interfere, and then the hon. Member might propose his Bill with some prospect of success.

said, he had addressed the House on the subject in the absence of the right hon. Baronet. He deprecated proceeding by Resolution, because it raised false impressions out of doors, whilst no means were taken of pointing out any particular remedy. The right hon. Baronet hoped the Government would bestow attention on this subject. He had bestowed much attention on it, and had directed the attention of Mr. Chadwick to it, who had applied much industrious research to the subject; but the remedy proposed by Mr. Chadwick appeared to him to be entirely inapplicable to the present feelings and wants of society. It was not because this question affected the clergy that his principal difficulty arose. He did not hold the difficulty pointed out by the hon. Member for Oxford to be insuperable. But it was beset by equal difficulties arising from the objections of Dissenting bodies. To almost every Dissenting chapel there was a burial ground attached, in trust for all who worshipped in that chapel; and not only were their pecuniary interests thus involved, but their feelings also. If they determined that Churchmen and Dissenters should not bury in the accustomed places of sepulture, but at a distance from towns, then every poor individual wishing to attend his friend to his long home must forego a day's wages; and in winter he must travel four or five miles from home and back. To attend a funeral would be extremely inconvenient, unless conveyances were provided; and if they were provided, the cost to the poor would be oppressive. There was a desire in the human breast of laying our bones beside those of our departed relatives and friends. This feeling we could not reason on; it was stronger than reason, and was connected with the best sentiments of human nature. He did not say that it was not possible by very great care and caution to frame some measure to meet the difficulty; but he, on the part of the Government, had said, that having given much attention to the subject, he was not prepared now to bring forward such a measure, and he thought it unwise to insist on such a Resolution. Not being himself prepared to bring forward a measure, if any other Member saw his way more clearly than he did to legislation on this subject, so far from carping at the measure so brought forward, he would use his best endeavours to make it a proper and a successful measure. He had stated what the difficulties were, and he did not see how they could be removed by legislation. He was, however, quite sure that without legislation there was a strong tendency voluntarily to concur in the arrangement of having places of sepulture beyond the walls; and he was sanguine in the hope that in a short time it would be possible to bring forward some general measure. He would continue to give his best attention to the subject. He thought that a little delay would not be loss of time; and that there would eventually be a strong and general disposition to meet the difficulties of the case. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not be precipitate in passing a Resolution of this kind.

said, it would be in the recollection of the House that he had moved, in the course of the last Session, for certain Returns illustrating the Statistics of Agriculture. Those Returns had for their object to show the number of acres under cultivation, the different kinds of produce raised, and also the total amount of produce in the United Kingdom. They were, he believed, in entire ignorance of the number of acres under cultivation, and of course of the amount of agricultural produce raised; and he still thought, as he had done last year, that it was very important that this information should be supplied. Her Majesty's Government, on the occasion to which he alluded, expressed their approval of an attempt being made to obtain this information; and the right hon. Gentleman the late President of the Board of Trade then undertook to make an attempt to accomplish the object he contemplated. He would, therefore, not now enter into a detail of the measure, nor need he go at length into the subject, as the importance of it was admitted. He would simply submit to the House the Resolution he had submitted last year, with the view of eliciting from Her Majesty's Government the progress they had made in fulfilling the promise given last year, and of ascertaining whether they might hope that there would be laid before Parliament some information on this very important subject, stating the amount of agricultural produce in the United Kingdom, and also the number of acres under cultivation, with the different kinds of produce raised. It was strange they should be in ignorance on so important a subject. Statements of the most conflicting nature were made in consequence of this ignorance, and he believed that the Public Service had suffered on many occasions from the want of information. He would not trespass longer on the time of the House, but would take the liberty of moving the Resolution he held in his hand:—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, representing that, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable to obtain authentic information upon various matters connected with the agriculture of the United Kingdom; that this information is altogether deficient, so that at this time, even the extent of land under cultivation, and the amount of its produce, are subjects only of vague conjecture; that the total absence of all statistical knowledge in reference to this important subject has at various times proved detrimental to the public interests; and praying Her Majesty to devise measures for supplying to parliament from time to time, statements of the breadth of land under cultivation for each species of produce respectively, with the amount of produce derived from the same, together with such information as will exhibit, as far as practicable, a perfect view of the agricultural capability and production of the United Kingdom."

apprehended that the hon. Member for Manchester, in placing in the hands of the Chair precisely the same Motion as he had made about this time last year, had brought the question before the House rather with the view of ascertaining what steps had been taken on the subject, than with any serious intention of calling upon them to affirm it by a vote; for the same objections still existed to the form of the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, involving, as it did, many minute details; and these objections, he thought, would render it impossible for the House to consent to it. At the same time he was prepared to admit to the hon. Member that this was a question of very great importance, and that very great benefit would arise if they had the means of obtaining complete and accurate information on the points embraced in the Resolution. But in this country, the obtaining of such information with due accuracy was a matter attended with very great difficulties. His right hon. Friend the late President of the Board of Trade had paid great attention to the subject in the course of last year; and in fulfilment of the understanding, he might say the pledge, his right hon. Friend had given to the hon. Member, that this subject would engage the attention of the Government, he did, in the course of last autumn, in conjunction with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, make an endeavour to obtain, through the assistance of the Poor Law Guardians in the various Unions throughout England, the information required. Questions were referred to the Poor Law Commissioners, with the sanction of the Secretary of State, in order that, through the machinery placed under their superintendence, answers might be elicited. The Commissioners stated, in their reply, that so many practical difficulties existed with reference to the boards of guardians, that, at the present moment, it would be impossible to carry the plan into effect. There was no objection on the part of the Government to lay before the House the letter written to the Secretary for the Home Department by his right hon. Friend the late President of the Board of Trade, with the reply, and the reasons stated by the Poor Law Commissioners why they found it impossible to comply with the proposal submitted to them. It not being in the power of the Poor Law Commissioners or the Government, as the law now stood, to impose on those bodies any duty not immediately connected with the administration of the Poor Law, it was impossible to expect that they would take the trouble of making the returns requested from them. Therefore, although no objection to the Motion was entertained by the Government, it would be impossible to furnish the information in such a shape as would be satisfactory. Under these circumstances—he meant the difficulty of attaining accurate statistical information with respect to the number of acres under cultivation, the various kinds and amount of produce, the question being involved in so great difficulty, that he was not enabled to point out to the House any satisfactory means of overcoming it—be trusted that the hon. Member had no serious intention of pressing the Resolution. He was ready to give full consideration to every proposition made for the purpose of obtaining accurate and complete information, and to do everything in his power to afford it; but the present case being one of so peculiar a kind, he hoped the hon. Member would withdraw the Resolution. He repeated that he had no objection to lay before the House the letters showing the steps which had been taken by Government in this matter, if the hon. Gentleman would substitute a Motion for that Correspondence for the Motion he had submitted to the House.

concurred entirely in the view taken by the hon. Member for Manchester as to the importance of procuring accurate information respecting the agricultural produce of the kingdom; and he believed the subject had attracted the attention of the country at large. He certainly should like to see the two letters referred to by the right hon. Baronet opposite, in order that the steps taken by the Government might become known. He must, however, take the liberty to remark that the Government had not done very much, according to what he had heard, to forward the views of his hon. Friend. An application had been made to the Poor Law Commissioners, and through them to the boards of guardians, to get the desired information; but had there been nothing else done? Had any application been made to the Tithe Commissioners, who were probably well qualified to furnish valuable information in some respects? He was quite aware there were difficulties in the way. One said he could not do it, and another said he could not do it. But in his county, he apprehended, there would not be much difficulty, for any or every farmer knew pretty well what land was under tillage in his neighbourhood, and what the nature as well as the quantity of the produce was. He believed that the difficulties apprehended by his hon. Friend would not be found to exist in the north; he himself would readily undertake to furnish the information that was requisite respecting the agriculture of his own parish; and he believed that if the same course was to be proposed to persons similarly circumstanced as himself, the result would be, he did not doubt, to supply very accurate returns throughout the whole kingdom.

said, that he took quite as deep an interest in the subject as the hon. Member for Manchester, and had made some inquiries as to the mode of collecting information respecting the agriculture of the kingdom. He, however, experienced the same difficulty that had been felt last year, in so far as regarded the Resolution before the House: though he was most desirous that every facility should be afforded him to attain his object, he feared the course pursued would not have the desired effect. It might be easy enough to produce returns annually to that House, and pretty accurate returns too of the number of acres of land under cultivation, and also of the particular description of cultivation; but that would form no criterion whatever of the agricultural produce of the country. He had heard it stated that persons who were desirous of speculating in grain could form, by going through the country and looking into the state of the crops before the harvest, a vague conjecture of what the produce would be; but if they were to have Parliamentary Returns laid upon the Table of that House, with the view not only of guiding those who were interested in speculations in foreign corn, but also of letting the farmer know the best time for bringing his grain to market, he should say that unless those returns were accurate, they would do a great deal more harm than good. He had fully expected that his hon. Friend opposite would have furnished them with some means of arriving at the desirable conclusion which he had mentioned, and he thought that his hon. Friend was bound to do so before calling for the Returns.

was glad that there seemed to be a general concurrence by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, that if the information moved for could be obtained, it would be highly desirable. He could not help thinking that where there was a will a way would be found. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cockermouth, had told them that the best source for obtaining the information would be the Tithe Commissioners. Every one knew that under the Tithe Commutation Act, surveys had been made of every parish, and the amount of acreage in each parish had been distinctly ascertained; and that, he thought, would be the first step towards obtaining the information sought for by his hon. Friend. He recollected having been some years ago on a Committee, nominated by the late Lord Sydenham, the proposal before which was, that instead of employing the local country surveyors to rectify all the old surveys, the officers of the Ordnance Survey should be employed in making the corrected surveys. They stated to the Committee what the total amount of that survey would be; and he (Mr. Warburton) believed that if their estimate were contrasted with the actual cost of the survey, as paid by the different parishes, it would be found that in all, not less than 700,000l. or 800,000l. would have been saved. The objection, however, he recollected, which was then raised to employing the Ordnance Surveyors was, "We object to an accurate acreable survey of the different kinds of land, because it might be made the basis, at some future time, of a revision of the land tax." He repeated, however, that where there was a will there was a way, and he thought that the Gentlemen might, if they choose, furnish the Returns which had been moved for.

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cockermouth, had stated that the hon. Member for Manchester did not want to ascertain the amount of produce. Why, as it appeared to him (Mr. Darby), that was just the very thing that the hon. Gentleman did want. If they went to those who had valued for the Tithe commutation, he believed that they might obtain pretty nearly the value of the land, and the species of crops which it bore at the time when those valuations were made; but he was fully convinced if the hon. Gentleman imagined that he could get a return of the amount of produce which would not be calculated to deceive persons, instead of affording information, he feared that he was very much mistaken. He asked the hon. Member how he proposed to get this return? The hon. Gentleman was bound to show how he would obtain it, and that it would afford real information, instead of misleading persons, before he asked the House to assent to his proposition. He had no objection to that portion of the Motion which referred to the return of waste land, nor did he think that there would be any difficulty in obtaining it.

was glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who had spoken, representing Her Majesty's Government on this occasion, had treated the subject in the way that it deserved from its importance; and as he understood that there was every anxiety on the part of the Board of Trade to obtain such information as they would be able to obtain, he was quite sure that his hon. Friend, as well as he himself, however anxious they might be to procure the information, or however valuable they might consider it, would not attempt to move for information which it would be impossible to obtain. As he had understood his hon. Friend, at first at any rate, he was not at all anxious to have such information as the hon. and learned Member for Sussex shadowed to himself; the only object, as he understood it, was, to ascertain the quantity of land in each parish that was employed in the various species of cultivation. He was perfectly aware that whatever other advantages this country might possess, the difficulty of obtaining statistical information was exceedingly great—more especially he knew, that it was excessively difficult for the Government to procure statistical information concerning agriculture. He remembered that his noble Friend the late Lord Sydenham was very anxious to obtain certain statistical information, merely for the purpose of affording accurate information to the country, and he caused certain letters to be written with the view of obtaining it. There was, however, an impression, he (Mr. Baring) supposed, that Lord Sydenham was anxious to get it for some Corn Law or taxing reason; at any rate he could not get the information he required, nor had he any means of procuring it. Since then, the Poor Law and the Tithe Commissioners, with other authorities, offered them a means of procuring that information. He would therefore suggest to the right hon. Baronet the propriety of furnishing some information in order to make a beginning. An impression might no doubt arise that it was required for the purposes of a land tax, or some other tax, but in a short time that impression would subside, as in other cases; such, for instance, as that of the census, from which persons at first shrank, who afterwards freely supplied the desired information. Once commenced, they might rely upon getting the required information more accurately from year to year; and they might discover, too, that the truth, when arrived at, would not be more disadvantageous to the agricultural than any other party. With regard to those statistical returns, "Porter's Tables," which were presented from the Board of Trade, and which were in considerable arrear, although their value depended upon the speed with which they were produced, he begged to express a hope that Her Majesty's Government would give every assistance in their power to enable those returns to be produced from year to year.

said, that if they acted on the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, and obtained information by dribbles at first, it might be years before they would arrive at the amount or description of information desired. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Bridport to make an Ordnance Survey of the whole country, would also incur a delay which he thought very unreasonable — particularly as they might be certain that four out of five persons would demand to know for what purpose the information was sought before they consented to furnish it. Statistical information, if true, was, no doubt, very valuable; but if of a doubtful character, was worse than useless; and in the alleged difficulties of obtaining that which was now asked for, free from doubt, he fully believed.

thought that what was done elsewhere might be done here. There were no less than 12,000,000 of agricultural returns made to the Government of France. In Belgium, their statistical information was also very complete; and he did not see why the valuable facts collected by the Tithe Commissioners should not be turned to account in this country.

regretted that the hon. Member for Kendal had felt it necessary to say that there seemed to have been a want of will on the part of the Government to effect the object of the hon. Member for Manchester. As far as he was concerned, he disclaimed any indifference upon the subject, because he not only thought the object a valuable one, but held distinctly that the parties to whom it was valuable were, first, the public at large, but particularly and especially the agriculturists. He had last year stated that those who congregated in towns to conduct the foreign corn trade, by their extensive information supplied to a considerable degree the want of accurate details; but the farmer enjoyed no such advantage, and suffered from the want of it. As far, then, as the will was concerned, he thought there should be a common desire on both sides of the House to prosecute the object in view. But the difficulties were greater than some hon. Members supposed. He saw no reason why it should not be stated that the object of Lord Sydenham was sought to be attained through an inquiry addressed to the clergy, from some of whom very good answers were received, from some defective answers, and from some none at all. He did not attribute the last two results to a supposition on the part of the clergy that a change was about to be made in the law—but mainly to the fact that they were too much occupied with other matters connected with their sacred functions; and he should be sorry to see them charged with any such office as the collection of agricultural information. He did not blame those who had applied to them; it was a fair experiment, but for a permanent system he considered it highly objectionable. The hon. Member for Cockermouth said that the Government had not shown sufficient zeal in endeavouring to acquire information. He could only say that they had considered, in succession, every class of officer who was primâ facie capable of undertaking the task—the tax collector, parochial officer, churchwarden, overseer, Excise officer, in fact, every class of public functionary. And, as regarded the Tithe Commission, however valuable for its own purposes, it must be put upon a different footing before it could be made instrumental in attaining the object of the hon. Member for Manchester. Its proceedings, after many years' labour, had not embraced above one-half the country. But the necessary tardiness of its labours was not the main objection. It was appointed to make a most important inquiry into each parish once and for all. The inquiry being made, the function of the Tithe Commissioners ceased with regard to the parish inquired into. The proposal of the hon. Member for Cockermouth was, therefore, rather a formidable one, as it would incur the expense of maintaining the Tithe Commissioners in London, as a central authority, with local agents to collect information; and, although desirous that such statistical information should be procured, he was not prepared to consent to such costly machinery. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth, that they should begin by degrees, and that, having once obtained any information, it would be easy to advance until they obtained it in a shape satisfactory to all. If they were to bandy such accusations as absence of zeal and want of will, then farewell to any hope of agricultural statistics. Upon the subject of the amount of produce, he did not think they could expect any correct information at present. He thought that the first question to be considered was, whether they could ascertain the breadth of land employed for each of the principal agricultural crops—to which he did not see any insuperable difficulties. He would advise, in the first instance, an application to the Poor Law Guardians on that subject. By such a step they would manifest their confidence in them, and do much towards disarming jealousy and dispelling suspicion as to the intentions of the State. The information would be easily obtained by well-qualified persons in the several localities; and it involved no inquisition into private concerns. The nature of the crops was almost a matter of common notoriety, and the acreage of the fields was known quite nearly enough for the purposes of practical accuracy. It would be a great step even to obtain what was now in view—accurate accounts of the breadth of land under each head of produce in the course of the spring. Gentlemen engaged in the corn trade had modes of ascertaining the yield of particular crops with considerable accuracy; it was no mere view of the quantity of straw—no guess-work, but the result of actual examination, though partial, including the number of grains in the ear and the weight of the grains; the farmer was the only person destitute of such information. He (Mr. Gladstone) quite agreed that they ought not to send out inaccurate statements under an imposing title of Parliamentary sanction; but still with regard to the breadth of land accurate information might be had, and even with regard to the yield of the most important crops; though it would be premature to entertain that part of the subject at present, it was not altogether beyond hope that accounts might be procured which should be of material value. He hoped, when hon. Members came to read the correspondence which had taken place, they would be inclined to take a favourable view of the scheme proposed; and if anything could be devised even for the limited purpose now in view, he was persuaded that the benefit would most of all belong to the cultivators of the soil.

was glad at length to hear from the other side of the House that such a proceeding as this was proper. As to the means, the Tithe Commission was now in course of closing, and as far as it had gone the clergy had taken care that every acre should be upon the map; 9,558 parishes had been already surveyed. The mere surface, however, would be of no use; there must be an annual Report, and some resident agent for the purpose in each parish. At the India House a plan would be found accurately laid down, as there was not a Village in Bengal in which there was not a clerk resident, who kept an account of every foot of ground: upon that the taxation was levied, and the rent calculated, and the produce of each species of grain could be ascertained. In the United States also the late population Returns gave every bushel of corn grown in every village. The time, he hoped, was coming, when we should have such statistics, taken by the aid of the schoolmaster or some other person in each parish.

Really the idea of any Gentleman presuming to say that a schoolmaster should come round upon your land and survey its productive properties is one which I never expected to hear proposed. Let me catch a schoolmaster on my land—that is all. The only question would then be whether he would venture to come a second time or not. I wonder how the hon. Gentleman would like it if it were proposed that some person should go into his cellar and see what wine he had got. Certainly we live in very extraordinary times, when these dictatorial attempts are made to invade the sacredness of private property. I venture to say that the hon. Gentleman would not like it to take place in his house in Bryanston-square. But, perhaps, the hon. Member for Bolton, who has already been paid so much money for the statistical information he has afforded, would be willingly employed again in making a survey of the kind. That would not be a less waste of the public money than the former payments to the hon. Gentleman.

considered that the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln had spoken somewhat too plainly, and had only been a little less discreet than other hon. Members around him, who evidently objected to a Motion of this nature on the ground that it was a species of usurpation, very similar to that of a person invading one's cellar, to ascertain what quantity of wine he had got. But he wished to tell the hon. and gallant Member what was the difference between the two cases. The hon. and gallant Member and those about him did not undertake to supply the country with wine; but they did undertake to supply the country with bread, and, therefore, the people were anxious to know what were the means they possessed for supplying them with food. But that was a point of much difficulty; for the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Friends did not wish to let the country know what was the difference between the supply and demand. But that, was a description of information, nevertheless, which it was most desirable to possess. This he conceived to be the principal reason why hon. Gentlemen opposite and the Government itself, as it would seem, objected to this inquiry. The hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln told the House the other night, that his constituents objected to its being ascertained what was the increased produce of the land they occupied. No doubt they did; for no sooner would the fact be known than their rents would be raised. He did not think the House could depend upon the information obtained by any other means than what was proposed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Gibson); for two important classes were opposed to such an inquiry—the landlords, who were hostile to all interference with what they considered their private affairs, and the tenant-farmers, who were afraid that the effect of the inquiry would he to raise their rents. He believed that was the real state of the case. Though hon. Gentlemen appeared to have very little faith in an inquiry of this nature, instituted by the House of Commons, yet they seemed to place great reliance on the Reports of Commissioners who were sent abroad to make similar inquiries. At two distinct periods persons had been sent by Government to the Continent, to collect information as to the means and quantity of production from the land; and when they returned, and made their reports, arguments and legislative measures were founded upon them. Mr. Jacob and Mr. Meek had at different times been employed by the Government on such missions; and it was also the practice of the Government to receive such kind of information from the British Consuls; and he believed that the result was somewhat of an alarming character as to the prospects of the quantity of produce capable of being introduced into this country. He mentioned this in order to show that it was considered by hon. Gentlemen opposite quite possible to ascertain the quantity of the produce of the soil when it served their own purpose. Of this he was convinced, that where there was a will it was very practicable to find a way; and he had no doubt the information which his hon. Friend sought to obtain might without difficulty be procured.

, for his part, did not think there was any strong objection on the part of Gentlemen connected with the lauded interest to the Motion proposed by the hon. Member for Manchester. At all events, he was certain that no such motives as had been imputed to them for opposing the Motion had any existence. He should be glad to have such returns produced, and he thought they might be obtained without much difficulty or expense.

replied, that the hon. Gentleman complained that he had not suggested a plan whereby to effect the object he wished to attain. He certainly thought it would not have become him to suggest a plan. It was impossible that the House of Commons could go into the details of a plan calculated to effect the object he had in view. It was a much fitter duty for a Committee. But he thought that a plan might be suggested, of sufficient accuracy for practical purposes, to obtain an account of the average number of acres sown with the different kinds of grain. Instead of troubling the House with his own reasons in support of this belief, he preferred quoting the opinion of a Gentleman who had been described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newark (Mr. Gladstone,) as being, of all men in England, the man most competent to give an opinion upon this subject—he meant Mr. Saunders. That Gentleman was examined before the Committee on Agricultural Distress in 1835, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir James Graham) asked him this question,—

"Do you think it would be desirable to have some more accurate statistical information published annually, with regard to the precise quantity of land sown in the different parishes in England with wheat, barley, and oats?"

Mr. Saunders's answer was,—

"I cannot conceive a duty more important upon the Government than to ascertain the quantity of food which the public is likely to be supplied with."

He was then asked,—

"If the Legislature were to endeavour to obtain such returns, do you think they could be made with accuracy?"

The answer was,—

"I am persuaded they could: and it appears to me strange how Parliament can consent to remain in the dark upon a subject of such importance."

He wished to know how one ought to proceed when one moved a Resolution, and was told by the Government that there was a desire to carry out the object of it. Of all perplexing situations, he was in a most perplexing one, because he did not like to take an hostile course with a Government which seemed favourable to his views; at the same time, when an hon. Member did not carry his Motion to a division, but allowed it to pass off in an easy manner, he was exposed to censure. Would the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) say this—that if there were found a difficulty in striking out a plan, a Committee should be appointed to examine and discuss the practicability of the different plans, and report their opinion to the House. If the Executive Government had not time for these things, why should they not avail themselves of the services of Gentlemen of the House of Commons, who were competent to give an opinion upon the subject? He, therefore, begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Robert Peel) whether he would have any objection, if hon. Gentlemen could be found who would undertake the duty, to take advantage of their services?

had not the slightest objection to the object sought to be obtained by the hon. Gentleman; but he did not see how a sound inference could be drawn unless the quantity of the produce of land under cultivation in the three kingdoms was ascertained. He believed that in Scotland there would be no difficulty to collect this information from the parish schoolmasters; but with respect to the employing the Poor Law Guardians, he rather thought that it would be bad policy to mix them up with any political subjects. Although it might be a saving of money, yet he doubted whether the end could be so effectually attained as by the employment of persons expressly for the purpose. At the same time, the employment of different persons in every parish might lead to an unnecessary expense; and it occurred to him whether or not the country might not be divided into districts, and persons be appointed to superintend each district. He thought that would be preferable to taking the localities by parishes. At the same time, he would suggest to the hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would not be better to allow the Correspondence on the subject to be produced before coming to any conclusion. At all events, he trusted the hon. Member would not press his Motion to a division. He begged to assure the hon. Gentleman, and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, that there was no wish on the part of Her Majesty's Government to prevent the production of the information they wished to obtain by the production of the Correspondence. All that could be said was, that it might be incomplete; but he did not think that that was a very great objection; but he would repeat that it was indispensable that information should be obtained from the three parts of the kingdom; and he must say that no man could more zealously and faithfully have discharged the duty he had undertaken, to perfect some plan for obtaining official information on this and all other subjects, than his right hon. Friend the late President of the Board of Trade. On the whole, he thought that the Executive Government would probably be better able to mature a plan than a Committee of the House; but if the hon. Gentleman despaired of that, then he (Sir Robert Peel), for one, could assure the hon. Gentleman that he had not the slightest objection to the appointment of a Committee. He could assure the hon. Gentleman, and also the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, that there was no ground for their impression that the Government were adverse to the production of the knowledge which they sought; or that there existed in their minds any idea of making a distinction between wine and corn. There was not the slightest foundation for it. He would further assure the hon. Member for Manchester, that the Executive Government would lend any weight it possessed, or apply any machinery it could command, to obtain the object which he had in view.