wished to put two questions to the Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman stated a short time ago, that in the county of Mayo, an illegal combination had been formed to prevent the cultivation of the land. He had lately received several communications from that county in reference to this statement; one of them denied that any such combination existed, affirming, on the contrary, that the people were most anxious to cultivate the land, but they had not seed for the purpose. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman on what authority he made his statement, and who were the parties by whom the communication was made to him. He also asked whether the Government intended to furnish a supply of seed, or establish seed depôts in Ireland, provided the landlord became security for the repaying the cost?

said, he had not stated that an organized combination to prevent the cultivation of the soil prevailed generally in Mayo, but he had reason to believe that, partially, there was such a combination; he had made the statement on information received from a source on which he could rely. His correspondent added, too, that the spirit, if not checked, was likely to spread; he had, therefore, thought it his duty to state his opinion with respect to it to the House. But perhaps the best answer he could give the hon. Gentleman would be to read the communication itself in extenso; the House would excuse him for not giving the name of the writer; he was a person holding an official situation, and on whose authority he could place entire reliance. The letter was dated Feb. 9, 1847:—

"Sir—I regret being obliged to state, that to add to the misfortunes of this district, a systematic and organized plan is fast gaining ground amongst the small farmers and cottier tenants, not to sow the lands this spring; and, even had they a sufficiency of seed, I am inclined to think they would suffer the land to lie waste rather than cultivate it. Unfortunately, 19 out of 20 of the holdings in this county are occupied by the above description of persons. Various causes have tended to produce this result. I principally attribute it to the facility with which this class obtain employment upon the public works, frequently to the exclusion of the really destitute, who have no land; added to which, mischievous individuals, and of a better class too, are impressing upon these poor creatures that the Government cannot allow them to starve, and that if they till their lands, the produce will not satisfy the landlord's claim for rent and arrears, together with the price of the seed, and that it is better for them to remain upon the public works, which they are told, and foolishly believe, are to have no end. A large body of men, amounting to about 200, some armed, traversed a portion of this district on Thursday night last, warning all those whom they visited not to attempt to till their lands this year; the same party, on the same night, robbed several houses of arms. Should this system be carried out to any extent, Mayo will become a perfect wilderness next year; the sheep and cattle are fast disappearing, the owners killing and using them, and the distress and the deaths, from want and destitution, very much on the increase. Upon the whole, the prospect for the coming year is lamentable and gloomy in the extreme."

Being in possession of information of this description, and the hon. Gentleman having called the attention of the Government to the condition of the county of Mayo, he thought he was not only justified, but imperatively called on, to state it to the House, and to urge those who had influence in that county to exert it in repressing this spirit, which it was obvious must lead to most lamentable results. He had reason to think that his having made that statement had not been without some effect; from communications received since he called attention to the subject, he trusted the notice taken of it would lead to the repression of the spirit that had partially, but not generally, prevailed. As to the measures the Government had taken for the distribution of a supply of seed, he had lately received a communication from a Member of the Irish Government which would enable him to answer the question; it stated—

"We have found it perfectly impracticable to get a sufficient supply of corn for seed without serious interference with the markets; green crop seed alone, therefore, will be supplied: forms of application and notes of repayment have been prepared, and we are now ready to receive applications; the first arrivals have been expended this day."

wished to call the attention of the Government to the distress of poor emigrants in Montreal, and to ask whether there was any check to the emigration of such poor persons from Ireland?

said, by the 6th and 7th Victoria, cap. 92, sec. 18, the guardians were empowered, subject to the regulations of the Commissioners, to be made with the consent of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, to assist any destitute poor person who had been three months an inmate of a workhouse, and who had been approved by the Commissioners, to emigrate to a British colony, subject to a limitation as to expense. The attention of the Commissioners having been directed to Mr. Buchanan's report, it appeared that the number and description of emigrants reported by Mr. Buchanan to have arrived at Quebec from three unions in the north of Ireland, in the ship Belinda, did not correspond with the number and description of persons who had been allowed by the Commissioners to emigrate. They, therefore, directed Mr. Senior, their assistant commissioner in Ireland, to make an inquiry into the facts; and they had obtained from him a list of the names and ages of the emigrants sent out from these three unions, including Coleraine. That return certainly did not support the statement that the emigrants sent out from that union were mostly old and sickly people, and helpless children. The following was the return:—

"In Armagh Union, the number of children under 5 years of was 2; from 6 to 15 years, 7; of adults, between 15 and 30 years, 9; between 30 and 40, 2; between 40 and 50, 1; between 50 and 55, 1; total, 22. In Coleraine Union, children under 5 years, 17; from 6 to 15, 16; adults, between 15 and 30, 16; between 30 and 40, 6; between 40 and 50, 6; between 50 and 55, 1; total, 62; In Magherafelt Union, children under 5 years, none; from 6 to 15, 7; adults, between 15 and 30, 2; between 30 and 40, 1; between 40 and 50, 2; between 50 and 55, none; total, 12. Total number of children under 5, 19; from 6 to 15, 30; of adults, between 15 and 30, 27; between 30 and 40, 9; between 40 and 50, 9; between 50 and 55, 2. Grand total, 96."

The Commissioners said that they had not, in any of these cases, sanctioned the emigration of persons who could reasonably be supposed incapable of earning their support. Only two persons above 50 were sent out in the Belinda from these unions; and the proportion of children to adults did not seem unusually large.

, with reference to a notice of his which stood upon the Paper—

"To call the attention of the House to the petitions from Warrington, complaining of the conduct of Messrs. Lyon and Stubbs, justices of the county of Lancaster, in the exercise of their summary jurisdiction, on the trial of four working men for leaving their employ"—

said, he had understood that this subject had been under the consideration of the Government, and he hoped that the result of that consideration would render it unnecessary for him to bring the subject before the House. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department would, perhaps, state what had been the result.

said, the subject had been considered, not with respect to the merits of the case, but with regard to the proceedings, which he understood were informal and invalid in law. The remedy given by the statute in such cases, by removal of the record of conviction into the Court of Queen's Bench, would be useless and inapplicable to this case; and, under the circumstances, he had deemed it his duty to quash the conviction.

said he was satisfied.

rose for the purpose of moving—

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether, and in what part of Scotland, and under what circumstances, large numbers of Her Majesty's subjects have been deprived of the means of religious worship by the refusal of certain proprietors to grant them sites for the erection of Churches."

The hon. Member began by referring, in terms of eulogy, to the manner in which this subject had been brought before the House on a former occasion by the late Mr. Maxwell Stewart. He considered that the claims for redress which that hon. Gentleman had advocated, and which he (Mr. Bouverie) now brought forward, were entitled to be heard, and, though he was a member of another Church, he strongly felt the injustice of the refusal. He interceded for the Free Church of Scotland, and was willing to grant to that Church what its members would be willing, if necessary, to grant to his Church. A great body of persons had left the Church of Scotland, influenced by a sense of duty—a call to assert a great principle, the assertion of which was essential to the welfare and prosperity of the religious body—he meant the independence of the religious society of civil control. He considered the right of self-government in matters ecclesiastical to be the true and right principle. He believed that the Church of England owed much of its inefficiency to the absence of this principle. They were about to discuss in that assembly, composed of members of all religious bodies, Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Unitarians, and members of the Church of England, and other denominations, the propriety and advantage of adding a certain number of bishops to the English Church—a Church which was not the common Church of the Members of that House. Certain it was, that a large and influential body of persons in Scotland had thought it their duty, in compliance with their principles, to go out of the pale of the Church of Scotland; and events connected with the Free Church had proved that the expectations of those who thought the schism would be temporary, had not been well founded. That church had, in less than four years, collected for ecclesiastical purposes no less a sum than 1,254,000l. It had built 630 churches, and established a vast number of normal and other schools. These simple facts showed that those who had expected the healing of this great schism of the Scottish Church, were sure not to have their anticipations realized. This body, if they asked for a favour at the hands of the House, were entitled to ask it; but they asked no more than the justice to which they were fairly entitled. If they came to seek an addition to their means of promoting religious education, they would be justified in asking for inquiry, and had a right to a hearing from the House; and more especially when, in the deep and deplorable calamity of famine which prevailed in Scotland as well as in Ireland, he laid a special claim for consideration for the body whose case he brought forward. It was this body who were amongst the first to take steps to investigate the state of distress, to ascertain its nature, and to make efforts to relieve it, in Scotland. A reference to the papers which had been laid before the House on the subject of the distress in Scotland, would furnish the best proof of this fact. [The hon. Member read from page 212 of the printed correspondence a letter from the Lord Advocate to the Secretary of State, dated December 10, 1846.] He repeated, that if this body were seeking for a favour at the hands of the House, they had laid a good foundation for it; but they did not ask any such thing: they asked for simple justice—they claimed the full exercise of their religious rights and religious liberties, but not beyond what every subject of Her Majesty enjoyed. They alleged that their rights had been interfered with; that they had been prevented from the exercise of their religious worship; that they had been prohibited from building churches for that purpose. This was the grievance they urged upon the House; and they wished the House to inquire into the subject; and they claimed redress at its hands. It was his duty to urge upon the House three or four cases; and he would first call their attention to cases in which the property of the Duke of Buccleuch was concerned. In entering into this statement, he was not going to discuss the motives of individuals. He should abstain from every thing which could fairly give cause of offence to individuals. He was going only to deal with the public conduct of individuals; and, certainly, he could speak only with respect of the Duke of Buccleuch. He believed that the conduct of that noble person, in the performance of the important duties which belonged to his rank and position, had been most exemplary. But the Duke of Buccleuch was a man for all that; and he could not forget, that such persons as Archbishop Cranmer, and Calvin, had indulged in persecution. There were two cases in which the body had been interfered with upon the Duke of Buccleuch's property; one at Canobie, and the other at Wanloch Head, on the borders of Lanarkshire. At Canobie, the Duke of Buccleuch had been repeatedly applied to to grant a site for a church; and the conditions he had attached to his consent, amounted to nearly a prohibition of public worship altogether. At Wanloch Head, the population—mostly miners belonging to the lead mines—was about 700 persons, and seven-eighths of the whole belonged to the Free Church of Scotland. There the congregation had been compelled to meet in the air. They were, it was true, able for some time to erect a tent and meet there; but he believed that, for weeks, the tent having been damaged by the weather, they had, on Sundays, when the weather permitted, met in the open air; and on other Sundays they had been prevented from meeting for religious worship at all. The clergyman, who had left the Establishment at the time of the secession, and who was, like others, hardly allowed a resting place, his family residing thirty miles from the scene of his ministry, occupied a room nine feet square. The hon. Gentleman read a long extract descriptive of the great hardships endured by the congregations at these places, and went on to say that these were the two cases in which the Duke of Buccleuch was concerned. The Earl of Aberdeen, a Member of the late Government, however, had acted differently, and though an individual who at first was much afraid of encouraging this movement, yet when the movement had taken place he was one of the first to grant sites for churches to congregations of this persuasion. The Duke of Buccleuch, who was a dissenter, had erected, if report were correct, a chapel at Dalkeith, where he had the service performed in the strictest conformity with the liturgy of the Church of England. Now, he (Mr. Bouverie) could not help saying, that while the noble Duke was sitting in that chapel and listening to the service, if the noble Duke were but to contemplate the liberty he was then enjoying, he could not for a moment refrain from granting the request of the poor people of Canobie and Wanloch Head. This referred to the lowlands; he would now come to the highlands. In the lowlands it was well known that in very few cases one individual possessed large tracts of land; but in the highlands it was very different, for the majority of the proprietors there were proprietors of very large tracts of land; and if the Free Church did not get sites from these proprietors, they were practically prohibited from getting sites at all. On a large property belonging to Lord Macdonald, the noble Lord—for reasons best known to himself—had thought fit to refuse sites to these people. In a neighbouring district — in the district of Ardnamurchan, belonging to Sir J. Riddell, a property forty miles long and proportionally broad, where a large proportion of the population of the district, upwards of 1,100, belonged to the Free Church—Sir J. Riddell had refused, and still refused, these people, his fellow-countrymen, the means of building churches. In a large district on the other side of Scotland, in the vicinity of Strathspey, a similar refusal had been given. Also in another district, in the district of Harris, on the extreme west of Scotland, where some 4,000 people belonged to the Free Church, they had been obliged to perform their public worship in the open air. There was also another district in the island of Mull, the hardships the people of which had to undergo in the performance of their religious ceremonies, the hon. Gentleman read an account of. The hon. Member then resumed by stating, that these were some of the cases of the grievances of which he had to complain; and he trusted that the House would assent to his proposition, and that there were just grounds of complaint. But what were the consequences of this state of things? In the first place, a large body of the people were practically prohibited from meeting to worship their God according to their consciences; and, in the next place, there were all those exasperations which such treatment necessarily excited in the minds of those who were refused. He could not see any objection to granting sites, or divine the reasons for refusing them, more particularly as Lord Stair and others who had granted sites had never had reason to complain of disrespect from the people to whom they had so granted them. In most of the cases to which he had referred, the most fearful destitution existed; yet in those very districts where the poor people were undergoing severe suffering, they were practically prohibited from meeting together to ask God to alleviate their distress. All he asked for was a Committee of Inquiry, and he trusted he should then be able fully to substantiate the statements he had made, so as to give the greatest satisfaction even to the most minute particular. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Fox Maule) had proposed that compulsory power should be given in order to enable them to go before some judicial authority to obtain sites of land for churches; but he (Mr. Bouverie), only in the present instance, required a full inquiry. There were instances and precedents of the Legislature interfering in cases of this kind; for instance, the Legislature had interfered in the case of railways, concerning which the only reason given for taking possession of lands was, that "the public convenience requires it." Yet it was not in all cases the convenience of the whole commonwealth, but merely of a comparative few. But there were also stronger precedents even than these, which were cases where compensation was obliged to be given, cases which he could only denominate as being "damnum sine injuriâ." He found, in an Act of Parliament passed two years ago, the "Metropolitan Building Act," a clause to the effect, that from and after January, 1846, it would not be lawful to let out any room of less dimensions than therein specified, or any room or rooms, being cellars, for the purpose of lodgings; and in which case no compensation was thought of, though every one knew that a large amount of property at that time was vested in cellars. In the same year there was also passed another Act, the "Enclosure Act." relative to which it was stated that the public health, the public advantage, and the public weal were concerned in having places of recreation for the population of towns; and a clause was inserted in that Bill, to the effect that when any common was enclosed, a part should be reserved for the amusement and recreation of the people. The question now came—since places had been found for the amusement and recreation of the people—were they not to find places for their education and religious worship? He would only mention one other instance, and that strictly in point: he did not pretend to an accurate knowledge of the laws of Scotland, but he believed that, on the formation of new parishes in Scotland, the Court of Session had the power of granting authority to reserve in some cases four acres of land upon which to build a manse for the clergyman of the parish. Now he could not see how any just distinction could be drawn in this matter; but, as he said before, he would not enter into the question of what was to be done; and he only trusted that in stating what he had to the House, he had done so calmly and succinctly. The hon. Gentleman concluded by submitting his Motion.

rose to second the Motion. He thought his hon. Friend had amply proved the existence of a grievance. It was no less a one than this, that a large portion of the subjects of Her Majesty in Scotland were deprived of the means of religious worship. If that were not a grievance, he did not know what they could call a social grievance. The next question was, whether by the Motion which his hon. Friend had made, he was likely to go any way in diminishing that grievance. Had his hon. Friend moved for leave to bring in a Bill, as had been done by the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary at War, it might have been objected to by hon. Gentlemen, and it might be said, "You are at once interfering with property;" but his hon. Friend had two objects—the one was to inquire, and the other to expose. Now, inquiry and exposure were the objects of Parliamentary Committees. He would support the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock, for this reason if for no other, that the inquiries of the Select Committee would attract attention to the proceedings of such of the landed proprietors of Scotland as were disposed to push their authority to an undue extent. Some good would probably result from this, for they would be thus shamed into a toleration of religious freedom, which their too scrupulous tenets might otherwise prompt them to refrain from. Believing that the Motion was founded on the principles of justice and tolerance, he had great pleasure in seconding it.

said, the subject to which his hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock had that evening invited the attention of the House, was one which on two former occasions had been brought under their consideration, and he had hoped that the discussions which took place on those occasions, and the opinions which had been expressed, would have produced such a beneficial effect as to render it wholly unnecessary for those who now applied for an inquiry, to make any further appeal to the Legislature for relief. He had hoped that the proprietors in Scotland—few in number — who refused to grant sites for churches to members of the Free Church, would have been influenced by the advice which was given them by persons whose opinions were deserving of the highest estimation, and that they would have been convinced of the propriety of no longer persevering in the course which formed the subject of complaint. He alluded particularly to the opinions which had been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the late Secretary for the Home Department. When this question was first brought forward by his lamented Friend, Mr. Patrick Stewart, the right hon. Baronet declared his sorrow at hearing the statements which, on that occasion, were made, and expressed a hope that if, unhappily, they should prove to be true, some speedy remedy would be applied; and when, on the second occasion, the matter was brought before the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Perth, who obtained leave to bring in a Bill on the subject, the right hon. Baronet, though declaring himself unfavourable to direct legislative interference, again emphatically repeated the opinions he had previously expressed. The whole spirit and tenor of his observations went to this point, that whatever course might have been justifiable in the early days of the secession, now that that secession had become clearly of a permanent character, and that all hope of a reunion had passed away, the continued refusal of proprietors who held in their hands extensive estates and large tracts of country in Scotland, to grant sites for churches to congregations of the Free Church, was a circumstance deeply to be implored as being directly opposed to the true principle of Christian toleration. In these sentiments, he entirely concurred. Time and reconsideration, he was glad to say, had had their effect on the Scottish proprietors in some instances. The cases of refusal to grant sites were certainly of less frequent occurrence now than they used to be. He was sorry that there were any cases of refusal at all. He could wish that there were none; but statements which had been made in that House and in the public journals, and which never had been contradicted, made it so evident as not to admit of dispute that there were still too often cases where congregations in connexion with the Free Church found it impossible to obtain sites on which to erect their places of worship. Though all hope of a reunion had long since passed away—though it was clear that the secession would be of permanent duration—and though many thousands of the population of Scotland were irrevocably attached to the principles of the Free Church, there were still extensive districts in which, owing to the continued refusal of certain landed proprietors, it was found impossible to erect an edifice wherein to worship God according to the dictates of their consciences. They were exposed to annoyances and grievances such as no other denominations of Christians dissenting from the Established Church were subject to. In this painful position his hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock came forward to apply, not for direct legislative interference, but for the appointment of a Select Committee to ascertain whether the statements in respect of this matter were well founded, and to inquire into the circumstances under which the complaints had originated. It had been asserted, on former occasions, not that sites had not been refused, but that there were excellent reasons to justify the refusal. If the fact were so, this was a point into which it would be the duty of the Committee carefully to inquire. It was much to be regretted that all proprietors in Scotland had not acted as the Earl of Aberdeen and others had done, who, opposed to the principles of the secession, no sooner saw that it was inevitable, than they yielded a ready compliance to any applications made to them for sites on the part of members of the Free Church. If, however, there were any good grounds for a contrary course, this would be ascertained by the inquiries of this Committee. It could not be questioned but that there were cases where members of the Free Church found it impossible to obtain sites for their places of worship; and it was only right that those who laboured under the imputation of giving unreasonable refusals to such applications, should be afforded an opportunity, which they would have by the appointment of a Committee, of showing, if they could, that they were justified in the course they had adopted. For these reasons, he, for one, was perfectly prepared to accede to the Motion of his hon. Friend. He did not think it necessary to express any opinion as to the ultimate legislative remedy to which his hon. Friend had adverted, nor to the analogy which the cases he had alluded to might be supposed to bear to the subject of his present complaint. It was enough for him that grievances were said to exist, affecting the religious liberty of a large proportion of the community in Scotland, possessing strong feelings of attachment towards their own religious community. It was enough that those grievances had been alleged and not denied, and that the inquiries of the Committee might result in a remedy for a state of things which must be admitted to be exceedingly distressing. He had hoped that religious bitterness and sectarian animosity were disappearing, under the genial influence of opinions more enlightened and feelings more generous. At first there might have been proprietors who could not bring themselves to believe that the secession would be of an enduring character, and who were (perhaps not unnaturally) unwilling to impart to it a permanent duration and prolonged vitality, by being too ready in giving sites for churches; but that expectation must have long since passed away. He did not wish to enter then into the discussion of whether the secession was necessary or not; they were not there to analyse or contrast the doctrinal principles of either of the Churches in Scotland. This much, however, he might be permitted to observe, that the secession was unquestionably a remarkable event, and a disinterested proceeding on the part of those engaged in it, and that therefore it could not fail to enlist sympathy even in quarters where the conviction of its necessity was not admitted. But there was one circumstance to which he must allude. Look at the time at which this Motion was brought forward. There was a very large district of Scotland which Providence had been pleased to afflict with a severe visitation. Want and destitution prevailed to a great extent in the western and northern parts of that country; and it was to be recorded to the honour of the very men who now applied to that House for relief, the members of the Free Church, that they knew no differences amongst their fellow-countrymen in this season of emergency, but joined heart and hand with Scotchmen of all denominations to mitigate the calamity under which their common country was suffering. At the meeting recently held at Edinburgh, they came forward with the most praiseworthy alacrity, and offered to put into a common stock the funds they had already collected amongst themselves of their own body. The happy consequence was, that there was now an united people in Scotland, and that men who differed widely on matters of church government, now met together for the first time since the secession, and co-operated zealously one with the other to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, and to arrest the progress of famine and disease. At such a moment as this, therefore, the House should not refuse to listen to the statements of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, or to attempt to remove a remaining source of discord and estrangement. He trusted that this year would not pass away without this cause of bitterness between the Established Church and the Free Church of Scotland having disappeared.

said, he should be unwilling to enter on the general subject without stating, in the first place, what he believed was the united feeling of the House as to the manner in which his hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock, in bringing forward this Motion, had contrived to combine most temperate, with, at the same time, a most feeling statement. He said this the more willingly, because he could not concur in the general object proposed by his hon. Friend, though he was compelled to admit that no proposition to which he had always been opposed, had ever, in his hearing, been brought forward in a manner more calculated to conciliate and disarm all opposition; but he must say that this was a very different proposition from that which was made to the House on this subject last year, by the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary at War (Mr. Fox Maule). He did not object to the manner of the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion; but his object was totally different from that of the hon. Gentleman that evening. Hon. Gentlemen had dwelt upon the conscientious feelings of the members of the Free Church; but some regard ought to be paid not merely to the consciences of the members of the Free Church, but to the consciences of the members of the Established Church. His hon. Friend had talked of persecution, and attributed, indirectly at least, persecution to certain individuals whom his hon. Friend had named; and as he (Sir R. H. Inglis) knew one of those individuals to be perfectly incapable of doing anything unworthy of a Christian proprietor, he would assert that so far as he knew of his Friend, Sir James Riddell though he had been dragged before the House as the proprietor of an immense tract of property in Scotland, he was a man who would be ready to give his tenants every facility not inconsistent with what he considered a proper discharge of his own duty, for worshipping God in their own way. This it was the apparent object of the hon. Member to oblige the Scotch proprietors by law to do. The House would recollect that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Maule), in his Bill of last year, gave not only to the members of the secession Church, but to every body of Dissenters whatever, the power of demanding a site for a place of worship, from a proprietor on payment of the full value of the land; so that the Church of Rome, might, under his Bill, have had the right of building chapels wherever it was convenient. His right hon. Friend (Sir G. Grey) had intimated that, in a great many instances, the proprietors in Scotland had withdrawn their opposition to granting sites for these churches; but he (Sir R. H. Inglis) asked whether that was any reason for coercing the remaining proprietors into parting with their land contrary to their consciences? One reason for the opposition that was still kept up on this head, perhaps, might be the behaviour of the Free Church in several cases. Unless he was much misinformed, the Free Church had frequently been built so near, or rather in such juxtaposition to the Church of the Establishment, that the same clock and the same bells served for both. ["No, no!"] He was so informed. He held in his hand a list of places, in which he was informed that this was the case, namely, Corstorphine, Browton, Cramond, Libberton, Kirkliston, and Kinross. He had his information from those who had local knowledge, and he believed that his information was correct; that in these parishes the Free Church was placed almost in juxtaposition, and, at any rate, near to the place of worship of the Established Church. His hon. Friend who had introduced the question said that the Duke of Buccleuch and Sir J. Riddell, being dissenters from the Established Church of Scotland, ought to have been more liberal. But the question again recurred whether they, the House of Commons, were at liberty to compel a man to consent to the erection of a place of worship in which doctrines directly hostile to his own feelings and opinions, might be preached, on his own property. Though he had admitted that the proposition before them was less objectionable than that of last year, still he had experience enough of that House to know that a Committee of Inquiry was seldom moved for without a foregone conclusion. He doubted not that his hon. Friend would admit that he believed the object for the consideration of which he had proposed the Committee, would be granted. If so, the proprietors of Scotland would be compelled to devote, for the purposes of spiritual instruction, ground which they believed in their consciences ought not to be granted for such a purpose. It was a thing unprecedented in this country, and he would oppose any such proposal, not only on the grounds of the rights of property, but also on the rights of conscience. Of his Grace the Duke of Buccleuch he had not that knowledge which would justify him (Sir R. H. Inglis) in speaking in his favour; but he did not believe that the Duke of Buccleuch had been actuated, in refusing these sites, by any feeling that he was ashamed to avow. With regard to his friend, Sir J. Riddell, he believed that in his refusal he had been actuated by no other motive than that of a Christian conscientiousness. Regarding this proposition in much the same light as the Bill proposed last year by the right hon. Member for Perth, he did not feel himself at liberty to accede to it.

I have need to ask the indulgence of the House for addressing them at this period of the debate; but perhaps the House will allow me to say that, it having been my painful duty to address the House more than once upon this distressing subject, I have nothing to retract or to add to what I then stated. I then expressed, and now express, my regret that this refusal of sites should have taken place in Scotland, even in the few instances that it has taken place in; and I have also before now said, and now repeat, that my opinions would not lead me to refuse a site for a Free Church if I had property where a site was required. But I think with my hon. Friend who spoke last (Sir R. H. Inglis), that this matter is, after all, pretty much a matter of conscience; but I differ from my hon. Friend in thinking, that this course of the inquiry is better than the course that was taken on this subject last year by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fox Maule), and I consider that this matter is better adapted for settlement by means of direct legislative interference, than by an inquiry before a Committee of this House. It appears that the facts of the case are not disputed. Some proprietors in Scotland, acting from a sense of duty, have refused sites for building churches to the members of the Free Church. No new facts have been brought forward on this occasion. The hon. Gentleman, who introduced this subject in a spirit which it is not possible too much to commend—because, though the subject is an exciting subject, he has discussed it with calmness, clearness, and perspicuity—has brought forward no new facts. I will not follow the hon. Gentleman into the case of the Duke of Buccleuch, which has been twice before this House; and I think that the case of Sir James Riddell has been mentioned on former occasions. There have been only two additional cases now noticed, that of Lord Macdonald in the Isle of Skye, and that of Lord Seafield on the opposite side of the coast of Scotland. These are the four cases on which reliance is now placed; but, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department has announced to the House, as the result of his inquiry, and confirming what I had myself anticipated, that in the lapse of time, and without any direct interference of the Legislature, the change has been progressive, and that the weight of public opinion has operated upon those proprietors who had refused sites; that they are now few in number, and that they already form exceptions to the general rule. These are the facts which are admitted; and with these facts, what can be the object of the inquiry? The object was not announced by the hon. Gentleman who moved for this Committee; but the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion admitted that exposure was the object. Now, I cordially concur in the eloquent sentiments which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, at the close of his speech. I cannot forget that we are discussing this subject at a time when the most solemn feelings are operating in our breasts; that we are in the midst of a great calamity which is enough to humble the pride of man; and that in a large portion of Scotland, the poor, at the present moment, are suffering the severest pressure; and I do agree that this is an occasion upon which all angry passions and all party feelings should be buried in silence, and, as far as can be, all the bitterness of religious animosity should be assuaged. I would ask then, if these are the sentiments which ought to pervade this House, as they do pervade the public in this country, whether it is a legitimate object—when all the facts are admitted—whether it is desirable to expose certain individuals for the conscientious exercise of their rights, and to discuss the motives which seem to have swayed them in their denial of sites? and whether the institution of such a Committee, instead of allaying animosities, will not tend, in the strongest manner, to excite them? If, therefore, there were no other ground, I should for these reasons be prepared to resist the present Motion. But just let us see the nature of this discussion, let us see its inevitable tendency. With all the discretion of the hon. Mover of this Committee, are we not involved in a debate on the political opinions of the Duke of Buccleuch; on the attachment of the Earl of Aberdeen to the Established Church of Scotland; and on the faith and practices of Sir James Riddell? Is it to be tolerated that such discussions are to be entered upon in this House? I lament the refusals which have taken place, and I think that they will not be continued; and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has told us that they are diminishing, as I think, wisely and most rapidly, so that they are already the exception, and not the rule. Again, I say, therefore, that there is no room for inquiry; the facts are admitted; and if any change be required, distinct legislation ought to be adopted. I certainly entertained great objections to the Bill introduced into Parliament last year; I retain those objections, and I think we should be entering upon a dangerous course of legislation; but I think also that if the refusal of sites for places of religious worship at variance with the Established Church is to be dealt with, it ought to be by direct legislative interference; but the question which we are now discussing is of a different kind. I do not deny the competency of the Legislature to interfere; but if there is to be an interference it must be on the general principle of religious toleration; it cannot be confined to the Church of Scotland, but must include all denominations. If it shall be necessary to bring in a Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Maule) by his Bill admitted, it must be complete for the whole of the United Kingdom, under certain modifications and rules. The proposition must be not that it is for the benefit of any sect, but that it is for the benefit of the community to give sites for building places of religious worship. This is a grave and a great question, and it must be debated on the ground of general policy, with reference to the events of the particular time. I adhere to the opinion that no necessity did exist, and I think that no necessity exists now. I say that legislation, if there is to be an interference, is the proper course; but I altogether dissent from the propriety of appointing a Committee. I am unwilling further to detain the House upon a question which has been so often discussed; but if this Motion be pressed to a division, it is my firm determination to vote against it.

entirely concurred in the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dorchester (Sir James Graham); and said, he could not help observing that the principle adopted by the hon. Gentleman opposite was that of making "the voluntary principle" compulsory. They were called upon to give to the Free Kirk of Scotland the power of obliging those who differed from her in religious opinions, and were unwilling to give sites for churches, to grant those sites whether they would or not. The hon. Gentleman distinctly stated that he was prepared to go the same length as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War, and was prepared to give a power to take the land for sites for churches, if the landlords should be unwilling to give it up. He thought that a most dangerous principle of legislation, and one to which the House of Commons ought not lightly to consent. On these grounds alone he should follow the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and vote against the appointment of this Committee. With one accord, every Gentleman who had spoken had praised the moderation with which this proposition had been introduced to the House, and he (Lord G. Bentinck) was as willing as any one to admit the moderation; but with all that suaviter in modo, he thought there was somewhat of the fortiter in re, when speaking of the Duke of Buccleuch. Notwithstanding the great, the high, and the distinguished virtues, both domestic and public, which the hon. Gentleman admitted, he said that the noble Duke "was not unwilling to indulge in a little private persecution of his own." He thought that all who knew that noble Duke, must be aware that a love of persecution was altogether repugnant to his character and feelings. A more generous man than the Duke of Buccleuch did not exist; and therefore they had good right to assume that there must have been great provocation to have induced him to refuse to these parties sites for their churches. Although he had had no communication with the Duke of Buccleuch on the subject, he had been given to understand that the most violent and indecorous attacks had been made on the private character and personal conduct of the noble Duke by some preachers, because he had refused these sites for churches. There was one other nobleman whose name had been mentioned, Lord Macdonald. Much had been said, and justly said, in praise of the charity so creditably exercised of late by the Free Church of Scotland, in relation to the distress now pervading the Highlands; but had not that House, throughout the Session, been brought greatly to admire the conduct of Lord Macdonald in relieving the distress upon his estates? Had they not often heard that he had forestalled his entire income for the relief of the people in the Isle of Skye? And if his conduct in regard to the Free Kirk of Scotland was to be thus questioned, they ought to recollect his general conduct and character, and rather to take it for granted that he must have received some provocation for refusing to certain ministers sites for their churches, before they thus condemned him unheard. If the House went to a division, he should concur in a vote refusing inquiry into the conduct of these individuals, whose private conduct in the control of their own property was no fit subject for inquiry by a Committee of the House of Commons. If they thus gave sites for the Free Church of Scotland, what was to prevent the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and of this country, who might be refused similar applications, from demanding to be put upon an equal footing, and also exercising the same right of building churches wherever they might think fit to erect them? He understood that in Scotland in many cases where the Free Church were refused sites, they had sought to build their churches on sites offensive to those who held the land, and close to the neighbourhood, or opposite to the site, of the Established Church. He was neither for the Established Church of Scotland nor for the Free Church. He held property in Scotland, and individually had always readily consented to grant accommodation to the Established Church or to the Free Church of Scotland; but this was quite different from giving the members of the Free Church a downright authority to obtain sites against the wishes of the owners of the land; and as he thought that to grant a Committee to inquire if it might not be expedient to pass a law to make the granting of sites for the building of Free Churches in Scotland compulsory, was most objectionable in principle, he should vote against it.

said, that having been engaged on this question last year, and having been the author of a legislative measure on the subject, he trusted he should be excused if he took the great liberty of asking the House to listen to him instead of to his noble Friend, who so worthily held such a distinguished place in that House; but after the speeches of the noble Lord who had just sat down, and of the right hon. Gentleman who preceded him, he thought that, without entering fully into the general argument, he could establish, out of those two speeches, the proof that it would be right to go into this inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) said, that there was no new fact, and that all the facts were admitted; whilst the noble Lord brought forward assertion after assertion, believing them to be true, but every one of which he would undertake to prove before a Committee of that House had been misrepresented, and were capable of the most easy contradiction. If the granting of a Committee were for the purpose of inquiry into the motives of individuals, he would be one of the last Members to ask the House to grant a public Committee; but this was a Committee which, in his opinion, was asked for to inquire into a great national grievance—into a grievance affecting an integral portion of this nation, and extending over nearly one-half the whole community—into a grievance which had been stated in that House, not once or twice, but upon three separate occasions. The statements of those who brought forward the subject had been doubted; and he must say, that the time was now come when he thought the House was entitled—and not only entitled, but bound—to have an official inquiry into these matters. How were they to arrive at a just conclusion? It could only be by a Committee of that House investigating the case as it was stated on both sides. It was not the Free Church who were pressing them; she was driven to this alternative, and those who were in communion with her were left no alternative. If the Free Church ministers had pursued conduct unworthy of Christian ministers, let that fact be made patent before the Committee, as the fact with respect to the refusal of sites would be made patent. He wished to protect nobody; he wished to expose neither party; he sought only an investigation of such a nature as would establish the facts, and he was glad that it had received the official consent of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The noble Lord opposite had asked why four or five individual cases had been brought forward? They had not been brought forward with reference to the individual names with which they were mixed up, but they were brought forward with reference to the districts. These individuals were sole proprietors of large districts, where there was no other opportunity for the Free Church to gain relief by applying to other parties. Let the noble Lord recollect what course had been taken, and what had been the result of the Free Church acts in the Isle of Skye itself. The distress was universal; there was almost starvation among a considerable portion of the people, and they were driven to desperation. In their want of food the threats of these poor people were, that they would be driven to apply to their own sustenance the sheep which were wandering on the mountain side. There and then was preached from the pulpits of the Established Church, and in the gravel pits to which the Free Church was driven, the doctrine of obedience to the law in the midst of all temptations and all sufferings. Those appeals were successful, and these 4,000 men, who had no place to worship but in the open air and under the canopy of Heaven, had abstained from every act of aggression; and through the influence of their clergy they had not meddled with anything belonging not to themselves, and had not appropriated to their own use any of the property of others. And was it to be borne, and would the House submit, that men who had acted in this manner, should be denied the privilege of worshipping together on the Sabbath-day, in a covered, though humble place of worship? He believed that if the House refused an application of this kind, the poor population so situated would be driven to desperation, and that the Legislature would run the risk of turning them from the habit of public worship at all; and then what would become of them? It was in vain that his hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University said, that there was room in the Established Churches; but they differed from the doctrines which were there taught. He said, advisedly, that they differed, because the discipline and the doctrines of the Established Church were now mixed up, and what was called the rule of discipline was looked upon as incorporated in the doctrine of the Established Church. But into that question he would not go; it did not form part of the subject before the House, and he would speak only of the general acts of the proprietors in refusing to the people the means of meeting for the purposes of religious worship. But there was one case which showed the use of a Committee. The noble Lord had alluded to the motives which had influenced the Duke of Buccleuch in refusing sites. The noble Lord had stated, that there had been gross denunciations against the noble Duke uttered by those to whom he had refused sites; the same thing had been stated over and over again; but the Duke of Buccleuch himself had said, after receiving further information as to the statements on which he had founded his belief, that they were not well founded, so that the noble Lord would see that this argument against the appointment of a Committee had not any foundation. The only motive which seemed to induce the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dorchester (Sir J. Graham) to oppose the Committee, was, that he had adroitly seized a word which fell from the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart), in which he said that the Committee was intended for exposure. Now, the right hon. Gentleman admitted that he would himself urge the grant of site, and would give as an advantage to the Free Church the weight of public opinion; but how was public opinion to be a guide, unless there were a knowledge of the facts; and what after all was a knowledge of the facts but exposure? He conceived that there was no other way in which public opinion could be formed, except on the facts. Whenever an expression of public opinion had occurred, it had been after a diligent search into every fact; without it there had never been a great political change, and upon every amendment in legislation, previous inquiry had brought public opinion to bear. He said, then, that it was a fit subject for inquiry to bring public opinion to bear, when the House would find that half a nation were suffering persecution on account of their religious opinions, and many thousands were deprived of a roof over their heads in their public worship. The right hon. Gentleman said that these instances were decreasing rapidly; and it was true that, since the discussion last year, there had been a change for the better; but the House would hardly believe that there were still thirty cases of refusal of sites; and he held in his hand a table of the districts of Scotland in which these cases occurred. He trusted that the House would pause well before it refused to grant this Committee. They had heard the noble Lord (Lord G. Bentinck), the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Sir R. H. Inglis), and the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham)—who might almost be called a Scotchman, so nearly did his property adjoin that country—opposing this Motion; but they had seen no Scotchman get up and follow the same course; and he earnestly trusted that he should hear no Scotchman speak, and that he should see no Scotchman record his vote, against the inquiry for which he asked. He could not think without regret of what would happen in that country, and of the feelings that would be excited, if the House of Commons rejected this Motion. The House would recollect, that all they asked was for a Committee of Inquiry: let the faults of the case—if faults there were—be laid before the Committee; let the proofs be laid bare, and then they would see whether the complaints upon this subject had been founded in caprice or injustice to a large body of people in Scotland, who, he maintained, had been most unjustly refused the right of every freeman in a free country, viz., an opportunity of following out their religious opinions according to their conscience in quietness and peace.

thought that the friends of this Motion might regret that the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken should have abstained, immediately upon his accession to office, from using that influence which, as a Member of the Government, he might possess, and have allowed the hon. Member for Kilmarnock to bring forward this subject. He thought the matter of such paramount importance, that if anything were done upon the subject, it was the duty of the Government to undertake it. What was a Committee to ascertain which was not at that moment within the reach or knowledge of the Government? The facts of the case were established and notorious. The right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to put the Scotch Members in a very invidious position; for he said that he trusted he should hear no Scotch Member contend against the Motion. He would not yield to the right hon. Gentleman, though he was a member of the Free Church, in his admiration of the great body of the Scotch people; nothing could be more admirable than the readiness with which they had submitted to the sacrifices they had made; nothing more praiseworthy than that conduct to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded: but, his objection to this Motion was, that he thought it most unkind and unfortunate: and with deep regret had he heard the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, and the announcement that the Government were about to consent to this Motion; not because he dissented from the principle of toleration the right hon. Baronet had enunciated, nor from the object he had in inducing landed proprietors to grant sites to members of the Free Church; but because he believed that, in appointing this Committee, they would be taking the course calculated to frustrate, or at all events to postpone, the object they had in view. It was because he thought it interfered with the principle of toleration, and because he believed it would be irritating anew those feelings which were in the course of settlement, and that it would greatly retard the object they had in view, that he was opposed to this Motion. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of half the nation belonging to the Free Church; and in the petition of the General Assembly of the Free Church, it was stated to consist of one-third of the people of Scotland. Now, there were about 1,100 parishes in Scotland, and how many congregations were there actually established? 831—congregations exercising all the rights of freedom and religious worship. There were 640 churches actually built, and 27 in progress; making, together, 667. According to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, there were thirty cases in which refusals had been made; and that the cases had been falling off since last year. [Mr. F. MAULE: I said the cases had diminished from last year, but that thirty cases still remained.] He had stated the matter rightly, if he had not been misunderstood; but he said that last year there were more cases, aud that they were now reduced to thirty cases. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke on this subject last year, he mentioned the name of the Earl of Cawdor. It appeared that that noble Earl and others had acted upon the principle alluded to by his hon. Friend behind him, and had given sites of their own accord: and in that manner the number of cases had become diminished, not because they had interfered by legislation, but because they had allowed the expression of public feeling in that House to have its effect upon those proprietors. He heard with great admiration the reference of the right hon. Gentleman to the conduct of members of the Free Church on the western coast of Scotland. He was anxious to express with the right hon. Gentleman his admiration of such conduct; but how could he treat it? He would allow it to have its effect upon those very proprietors who had refused sites; let them see that this young Church, separated as it was from the Established Church, and perhaps at present too much excited, and endeavouring to excite religious animosities wherever it went, was exercising the right office and duties of a Church, viz., in the performance of works of charity, and endeavouring to do all the good it could amongst the people, and he could not but hope, and confidently foreseee, that within a short space of time, unless they interfered, those proprietors who had hitherto refused would grant sites. The right hon. Gentleman had mentioned the Duke of Buccleuch. There was no man in that House who knew anything of that noble Duke but would concur in the just eulogiums which the noble Lord the Member for Lynn had passed upon him. But what had prevented that noble Duke hitherto granting sites? Within a very few yards from that spot where they were assembled, the noble Duke had avowed the cause to be that strangers, ministers, and laymen coming from a distance, had preached against him. [Mr. F. MAULE: I deny it.] If he could have advised the Duke of Buccleuch upon that subject, he would have said, "Despise these attacks; look upon the principle of this great movement, and give sites;" and he believed that, if the sites had been given in the case of the Duke of Buccleuch, as in every other, the mischief would have been prevented. But were their proceedings such as to produce that effect on the mind of the Duke of Buccleuch? Was he to be told, "You shall be exposed, and compelled to do that you are unwilling to do?" And if they voted for this Committee, what would be the consequence? That they would again revive the animosities that were beginning to subside. Upon that ground did he object to it. The right hon. Gentleman knew well, that in the course of last year nearly 500 petitions, with nearly 60,000 signatures, were presented to that House. They were then told to leave things alone, and gradually they would get better. And what was the consequence? That no fresh petition had been presented; that there were only thirty cases now; and that they were daily diminishing; and he believed that if the subject were left alone, they would all be relieved. It was because he wished that to be the case, without increasing the present animosities and difficulties, that he thought they were taking an unwise course. If a division took place, he should certainly divide against the Motion, for he did not believe it could lead to any practical result. What were they to gain by it? What course was to be pursued? Was it the course mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman last year, viz., compulsory legislation? If they took such a course they must grant the same thing to all sects and to all religions: they must give it to all or none. That was a course which he believed that House or the Legislature were not inclined to accede to; and if that were the only object or end of the Committee, he asked once more what was to be gained by it?

said: Sir, if I was anxious to address the House before my right hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Mr. F. Maule), it was because if I take part in favour of the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), I do so from no partiality for those in whose behalf the Motion has been made. I was one of those who strongly resisted their claim to be heard by this House, and to have a legislative decision in their favour, before the unfortunate secession in the Church of Scotland had taken place. I was one of those who could see nothing to justify the great body of ministers who had been the leaders of that secession, and the large number of people who had followed them. But that secession having taken place—great numbers of the people of Scotland having conscientiously followed their ministers who abandoned their houses, their incomes, and their means of livelihood, in order to follow the dictates of their strong religious convictions—I am no less persuaded that everything which this House can do to enable those ministers to preach the doctrines in which they conscientiously believe to their followers, who eagerly crowd to listen to them—I am no less persuaded that everything which this House can properly do for the attainment of that end, ought to be done. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dorchester (Sir J. Graham), put his case in a way so smooth and round, that if no one had followed him in the debate, his speech might almost have concluded all argument upon this subject. The right hon. Gentleman said—"Here are facts that are undisputed—facts that have been completely ascertained; there is nothing to inquire into. Either propose a remedy, or abstain from interference in this matter. But, as for a Committee of Inquiry, that is unwise and inexpedient." But the right hon. Gentleman had no sooner concluded his speech containing these assertions, than up rose my noble Friend the Member for Lynn, who with regard to the facts of the case took for granted one thing, assumed another, and presumed a third; and all these facts were contradicted and disputed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Perth. My noble Friend assumed that these ministers had been entirely in the wrong; he took it for granted that they had made violent personal attacks against those proprietors who had been asked for sites; and he presumed that they had acted in a manner so offensive that it was impossible for the proprietors to accede to their requests. Now, all these are facts which have been taken for granted by my noble Friend, but which have not been ascertained. In order, therefore, to know what the facts of the case really are, I think it is desirable that we should have a Committee to inquire into the subject. It is desirable, in order that we may see whether there is in the statements in question that degree of truth which would make these refusals justifiable. Here is, it must be confessed, a very considerable grievance. We have congregations in one place meeting on the moor and on the moss exposed to the violence of the winds, drenched by the pouring of the rain, while listening to the performance of divine service, without any shelter, reminding us of those times of the Covenanters when persecution was established by law. We have in another place people obliged to leave the main land in boats, in order to find the ministers who only can give them that religious doctrine and that spiritual instruction which they are prepared to receive; and we have these things justified on the ground of the rights of property. Now, I must say, that with regard to a legislative remedy for these things, I am, on the one hand, very unwilling to adopt any legislation upon a subject so difficult, and touching so nearly the conscientious opinions of many. But, on the other hand, if it should be proved to me by facts—if it should be proved to me by inquiry—that these grievances are suffered, and that there is no sufficient redress for them—that these are not special and peculiar cases in which the proprietor's personal character was attacked, and in which he found it quite impossible to grant sites without sowing dissensions among the people living on his estate; but that these are refusals on the ground that this is a religious sect of which he disapproves, and that in thirty cases these refusals still existed, and in thirty cases people are obliged to listen to divine service without a roof over their heads—I must say if, after a patient inquiry, and after hearing both sides, these facts should be established, I should not be indisposed to agree to a legislative remedy. Therefore, I say, that this is a case for inquiry. It is not a case in which the House ought at once to interfere, because it is a case in which you may have to establish a great principle; for I freely admit, that if you establish the principle for the Free Church of Scotland, and if there should hereafter be any similar complaint from the Roman Catholics of Ireland, or from the Society of Friends, or any other religious society, the principle must be universally applied, and what you do in one case you must do in a like case. But, Sir, that does not convince me that you ought not in an extreme case to assent to a legislative remedy, because there is nothing which the House ought to hold more sacred than allowing every individual in this country to worship God according to his conscience; and if these obstacles are interposed, you do not permit that freedom of worship. I do not want to touch upon the character of the individuals who have refused to grant these sites. I am ready to admit that many of those persons who have been mentioned as having refused to grant sites, and with whom I have myself the honour to be acquainted, are persons of the kindest disposition and of the highest character. That I am ready to admit. But in subjects of this kind, I know very well to what extremes persons have gone, who, in their general character, show the utmost kindness and benevolence. Why, even this evening my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. H. Inglis), than whom I know no man of a kinder disposition, or of a more benevolent regard towards all his fellow-creatures, has shown that in subjects connected with religious liberty, he cannot appreciate the strong feelings of others. He told us, very calmly, that, with regard to one of these parishes, there was accommodation in the place of worship of the Established Church. That shows that my hon. Friend thinks it sufficient that there is a church open; and he does not take into his consideration what are the feelings, what are the doctrines, and what are the opinions of those men who come to us as petitioners in this instance for our protection. Now, I should like to know what my hon. Friend would think, if, when he asked, in a Roman Catholic town, in a Roman Catholic country, for a Protestant place of worship, he should be told, "There is plenty of room in the Roman Catholic church. You have no need of any place of worship of your own; there is room, not only for you, but for hundreds of other Protestants in the Roman Catholic place of worship. Go there, and you will be always well received." Even the kindest and most benevolent persons, therefore, may be unable to enter into the feelings of others on religious questions; and although the principle of forcibly appropriating sites for places of religious worship may be a dangerous one, yet, considering that in our legislation we already violate the rights of property—and that, for the promotion of the public health, for the construction of a road or of a railway, or for the purpose of beautifying a square or ornamenting a town, we have no hesitation in telling parties that they must give up their property at its fair value—I do think that there may be a case in which the propriety of interference by the Legislature for the purpose of obtaining sites for churches may be inquired into. I have been glad to find that almost all those who have spoken in the course of this discussion, have said that they lamented the refusal of those sites. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last said, that in giving his vote against the proposed inquiry, he considered that he should be acting more in furtherance of the object of the Motion, than if he were to vote in its support. I am glad to see the opinion which prevails generally upon the subject in this House; and I hope, that whatever may be the decision of the House on this occasion, those who hold, on what I have no doubt is a mistaken notion, the firm conviction that they are right in refusing sites for Free churches in Scotland, will yet change their opinion on seeing what is the general feeling upon this subject of those whom they most respect; and that the members of the Free Church of Scotland will have the means of worshipping God according to their own consciences and belief.

was disposed, after all that he had heard upon both sides of the question, to give his vote against the appointment of the Committee. The question should be viewed in its twofold character: firstly, as it regarded the private characters of individuals; and, secondly, as to the effect it was likely to have upon the religious feeling of the people at large. If he were to consult the wishes of individuals—at least if he were to consult the feelings of one of the individuals whose character had been assailed—he should be compelled to give his vote in favour of the inquiry. The Duke of Buccleuch, he believed, would like nothing better than to have an opportunity, such as the appointment of the Committee would afford him, of stating fully before it his reasons for refusing sites for the places of worship which he had refused. So likewise, he believed, would Lord Macdonald. He well remembered the manner in which Scotland was convulsed, a short time back, by the dispute between the Churches, and the strong feeling which had arisen between the clergy of the Established and the Free Church, when they were in the habit of preaching against each other from their respective pulpits. But when he saw those acrimonious feelings subsiding—when he found that the number of cases in which sites for places of worship were refused, reduced, in the year 1847, to thirty—was he not, he would ask the House, bound to believe, that if they had not thus again stirred up those subjects of acrimony—not again brought forward that bone of contention, there would not, in the year 1848, be twenty places in which the same subject of complaint would be found existing, and that by the year 1850 there would not be a single subject of complaint? He had feelings of the sincerest respect for those who differed from him in their religious views; and he agreed with the noble Lord the Member for London, when he said, that it was desirous and necessary to legislate in a case of existing grievance which was not likely to remedy itself. But he differed from the noble Lord in considering the present to be such a case. He thought that the grievance was being redressed; and he felt convinced, that in five years time from the present, they would be able, if they did not interfere, to congratulate Scotland upon having no single cause of complaint or dispute upon the subject. Believing that the proposition would have the effect of exculpating those whose conduct had been hitherto sought to be inculpated, he was glad that it had been brought forward; but, believing that it would renew and widen the schism which already existed, he regretted that the Motion had been made.

would record his vote in favour of the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock. The question was scarcely one which fell within the limits of Parliamentary legislation; but, at the same time, he thought that an inquiry ought to be instituted relative to the obstructions placed in the way of obtaining sites for the Free Church. A case of grievance had, in his opinion, been made out; and, under those circumstances, it was his intention to vote for the Motion of his hon. Friend, with the distinct understanding that he did not thereby pledge himself to any particular line of conduct upon the question subsequently.

said, he had two notices upon the Paper: the first, to call the attention of the House to the report of the Select Committee on Settlement and Poor Removal, printed that day; and the second, to ask for a copy of the case submitted by the Poor Law Commissioners to the law officers of the Crown for their opinion, with reference to the construction of a clause in the Poor Removal Act. The substance of the report of the Select Committee was contained in one passage, which stated that the Committee had to report that it appeared to them the most prominent of the difficulties attending the subjects before them had arisen out of the provisions of the Act of last Session, commonly called the "Poor Removal Act." There were grave doubts entertained with regard to the construction of an important proviso in that Act; but whatever might be the extent of the evils attributable to the existence of those doubts, the Committee did not think them of sufficient magnitude to recommend the removal of them by legislative enactment of a temporary nature. He (Mr. Bankes) thought it fair to state that the report was by no means an unanimous one; and he thought it right to direct the immediate attention of the House to it, because they were all aware that a great deal of interest existed throughout the country with regard to the Poor Removal Bill of the last Session. He thought it his duty to point out how that Bill was working throughout a great part of the kingdom injuriously, as he was prepared to prove, to the poor, and injuriously, as he could also prove, to a great portion of the ratepayers. But that portion of the question which he considered to be of by far the greatest importance, was the injurious working of the measure towards the poor; and therefore it was that he had urged upon the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government, when the noble Lord was about to move the appointment of the Select Committee, that they should inquire into the operation of the Act as it affected the comfort and condition of the poor, and that they should consider the law of settlement, with a view to its improvement; and, finally, he had induced the noble Lord to move an instruction to the Committee, which should have the effect of directing their attention to the construction of the Act. In the Committee, he (Mr. Bankes) had subsequently striven to direct the attention of its members to the construction of the Act, so far as regarded the state and condition of the poor; but the Committee, after refusing to hear more than a limited portion of evidence upon the point, came to the conclusion by the votes of the majority, that it was more expedient to include the consideration of that Bill in the general scope of their inquiry, rather than to keep it distinct and separate; by which latter means alone, he (Mr. Bankes) thought it possible for them to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion. The Committee having then determined to involve the consideration of that Bill in the whole consideration of the larger question before them, he thought it wholly impossible for the Government to avail themselves so far of the report of the Committee as to be enabled to remedy the evils in the present Session. And seeing the mischievous effects of the Bill—effects which he would prove presently, by evidence with which he was prepared, to be most mischievous—evidence which would include even that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dorchester, who agreed with him as to the pressure inflicted by the Bill upon the ratepayers, although the right hon. Gentleman differed from him upon the question of the pressure upon the poor—he thought it right to say that if the Committee did not make greater progress between the present time and the Easter recess than he could anticipate, he should, on the earliest possible opportunity after the recess, bring forward a measure which should have for its object either the total repeal or the large amendment of the Act of last Session. He did not think it necessary at the present time to state the course he meant to take, because he believed that something would be said that night in another place upon the subject; and he thought it better that the two Houses should be united in the course to be adopted. But he would state it as his present opinion that the Act should be repealed altogether, and that there should be a general revision of all the laws relating to the poor. He was under the impression that it had been stated at the close of last Session, either by the right hon. Gentleman at the Home Office, or by some other Member of the Government, that there would be submitted to Parliament this Session a measure for the improvement of the poor laws, which measure he understood was to have been submitted to the Select Committee. Such, he understood, was the intention of the Government; and there would then indeed have been some hope of a legislative measure being passed during the present Session. But one small portion only of the poor laws having been submitted to the consideration of the Committee, without any intimation of the wishes or intentions of the Government having been made to them—looking at the progress of the Committee hitherto—and considering the great diversity of opinion already expressed amongst the Members of it—he did not see the smallest chance of their coming to a satisfactory conclusion, or of anything great or comprehensive coming from the Committee this Session. He had spoken of the great diversity of opinion upon the subject. He might observe that there was one proposition which had the approbation of many. It was for a union settlement. Others approved the larger proposition, which he was sorry to say was gaining weight throughout the kingdom, for doing away with settlement altogether, and having a national rating. And it was one of the mischiefs of the Bill of last Session, that it had brought that most dangerous proposition into public favour. He would cite one of the many proofs of the advance in public favour of this dangerous proposition. He had had the honour of presenting, that day, three petitions from three several boards of poor-law guardians, to the House, praying for an alteration in the law; and two out of the three prayed for the abrogation of the law of settlement, and the adoption of a general law of rating. The ultimate consequences of such a measure had not been fully considered by many who prayed for its adoption; and he did indulge the belief that no such plan would be hastily assented to by either House of Parliament. He would take leave to draw the attention of the House to the evidence of Mr. Gulson, the assistant poor-law commissioner, a gentleman of the highest character and of great experience, given before the Committee on this Bill. He begged to say that the reason he had not referred to that evidence before was, that it had not been given until after the report was made. He divided the Committee on the question whether they should hear Mr. Gulson before they made their report; but the majority of the Committee decided against him, and resolved that they would make the report first, and hear the evidence afterwards. Mr. Gulson stated that he was appointed an assistant poor-law commissioner in 1834; and, after enumerating fifteen or sixteen counties in England and Wales with which his duties had made him acquainted, he was asked to give his opinion on the Poor Removal Act. He said—

"I have no hesitation in giving my opinion that it operates most harshly on the class of poor who are most entitled to our commiseration, the old and infirm."

And again he said—

"I have no hesitation in saying that the universal opinion is that this Act must be altered. That opinion prevails everywhere, and in consequence the people are more acquiescent than they would otherwise be."

He was then asked in what respect he supposed the Act worked differently from the manner in which it was it was intended to operate; and he said—

"I cannot believe that the Act was intended to act harshly or cruelly on the poor themselves; but I am satisfied it has so acted."

That evidence was certainly, in some degree, counterbalanced by the weight of the evidence of one of the Poor Law Commissioners, Mr. Lewis; but he had no hesitation in preferring the evidence of Mr. Gulson to Mr. Lewis, who did not see the working of the Act, and did not desire those who saw it to communicate the result to him. One witness had practical means of knowledge; the other had no means of knowledge whatever on the subject; and his opinion could not, therefore, be compared with that of a man like Mr. Gulson, who had superintended the operation of the Act in fifteen or sixteen counties. With regard to the effect of this measure on the ratepayers, it was not necessary that he should trouble the House with any remarks, or make any case at all, because hon. Members no doubt had opportunities of knowing what were the changes in the rates effected in their respective unions by this Act. In general, the agricultural labourers lived in the towns, and went out to work daily in the rural parishes; and yet the towns were now to be charged with their support. His right hon. Friend behind him (Sir James Graham), he believed, admitted that it would be absolutely unjust that the ratepayers should be subjected to the continued operation of the Act, unless it were accompanied by some alteration in the law, that would put it on a different footing. He would say, therefore, that they ought to put back the law to the state in which it was before the passing of that Act, until they were prepared with a real remedial measure. He regretted very much that the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government had suffered so much of the Session to pass over without giving them some information with reference to the New Commission under which the working of the Poor Law was hereafter to be carried on, and stating, if not the details, at least the general principles of his plan. It was clear that if they had a person in that House responsible for the law, such a thing would not have happened as an important law intended for the good of the poor being found to bear a construction directly contrary to the intention of the Legislature. It remained to be seen whether the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, given in direct opposition to what was known to be intention of Parliament when the law was passed, ought or ought not to be regarded as the law of the land. If the opinion of the law officers was to be the law, the House had a right to have that opinion before them. As it was intimated to him that his Motion, as it originally stood, would be refused, he would confine his Motion to an application for the statement of the case for the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, as taken by the Poor Law Commissioners on this Bill. It was stated before the Committee that there were six questions proposed to the law officers of the Crown. It thus appeared that the Commissioners had six doubts on this Bill; and even if he were not entitled to the case, he was at all events entitled to the doubts. This was the act of a constituted body over which the Parliament were the guardians, and he had therefore a right to require its production. When he applied for the production of the case in the Committee, he was told that he should make his application to the House. He could see no ground why the Government should refuse his Motion. The law was construed one way by the law officers, and another way by an eminent recorder of sessions; and what he recommended in the Committee was, that they ought either to repeal or to pass a declaratory Act explaining what the meaning of the law was. Since the commencement of the Session, they had had an uninterrupted flow of petitions pouring in, praying at first for an alteration of the law of last Session, but latterly calling for a total abolition of the law of settlement. If they did not wish to adopt the latter course, they ought in time to make such an alteration as would create quiet and contentment throughout the country, instead of permitting the irritated feeling now prevalent to increase. He believed the best course they could take would be to repeal the Act of last Session at once, and then to leave the question to be settled in the first Session of a new Parliament, in conjunction with the alteration which the noble Lord proposed to make in the supervision of the law. He begged to add that he should feel himself at liberty to move on a future day, should he consider it necessary to do so, for the opinion of the law officers of the Crown on this question. The hon. Member concluded by moving—

"That there be laid before this House, a Copy of the Case submitted by the Poor Law Commissioners to the Law Officers of the Crown, for their opinion with reference to the construction of a Clause in the Poor Removal Act."

said, the general rule of the Government and of the House was not to call for cases laid before the law officers of the Crown, or the opinions given thereon. That was the rule of the profession, and it was a rule respected by the Government and by that House; and he should say that he thought the present was the very last case where they ought to interfere with it, because both in the letter of the Poor Law Commissioners, and in the evidence of Mr. Lewis before the Committee, both the case and the opinions were stated as fully as should satisfy any reasonable man's curiosity. He would wish to offer a few remarks on the other matters alluded to by the hon. Gentleman. In the instructions given to the Select Committee, they were recommended, in the first place, to enter into the question of the Poor Removal Act, and to report specially upon it to the House. That appeared to him to be recommending rather a strange course of proceeding, because the Poor Removal Act of last Session was clearly a part of the whole question of the law of settlement. He did not see in what other light they were to regard it. If they had a law by which poor persons, after a residence of five years in a parish, were not to be liable to removal, it appeared to him to be so clearly a part of the law of settlement, that it would be impossible to consider it apart from the law of settlement. He would only refer to the proposals made with reference to the law of settlement, alluded to by the hon. Gentleman, to remark that they were of three kinds. It was proposed by some that the law should remain as it was, with merely such alterations as would still maintain the principle of parochial settlement. Others proposed a union settlement; and others, again, proposed that there should be no law of settlement at all, but that all the poor of the country should be supported by a national contribution. All these questions were referred to the Committee. They referred to the Committee the duty of reporting what in their opinion should be the law of settlement; and yet they asked them to report as a separate question, and in the first instance, whether poor persons resident in a parish for five years should be removable or not. He believed it was utterly impossible to decide positively on that question, without deciding what should be the law of settlement altogether. It was impossible for the Committee to give an opinion on a particular question which was a part of the general question, without entering into that general and fundamental question. Such being the reference to the Committee, suppose the House to have a meaning in its reference, the question was, whether there were such evils in the Act as required interference. The Committee found that great difficulties had arisen with regard to the interpretation of it; and though all the Members probably agreed that the Act had been interpreted in a sense contrary to the intention of those who introduced it, the opinion among them was by no means general that the construction put upon it by the law officers of the Crown was at all prejudicial to the people. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bankes) took the opinion of the Committee on that subject; and, whether it were right or wrong, a majority were of opinion that if they were to interpret the Act, they would much rather interpret it against the views of those who framed it, than the contrary. The poor had got fixed in their parishes—they were irremoveable; and he asked the House whether, for the sake of correcting a mistake, they would restore the interpretation originally intended? He apprehended they would do no such thing. They would rather look to the real bearing of the legal interpretation upon the comforts of the poor. The Committee, having the whole law of settlement referred to them, and this Act incidentally, did wisely in saying they would not look at the two separately. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. Bankes) complained that the Committee had reported without hearing Mr. Gulson's evidence. No doubt that gentleman was a witness of great respectability, and one to whose testimony great weight attached; but it was given too late. Fortunately, however, the country would not be deprived of it, because the hon. Gentleman had himself made the most of it. He (Mr. C. Buller) had asked Mr. Gulson whether, if it rested with him to say what alteration should be made in the Removal Bill of last Session, be would remove the evils complained of by altering the law of settlement. "I would," was the reply. After this, it was rather extraordinary to allege that the evidence of Mr. Gulson would have shaken the Committee upon the point on which they reported. He would not pretend to say when the Committee would present their general report; but he trusted before the end of the Session they would be able to form their opinion upon the very difficult and complicated subject referred to them by the House. He was, however, perfectly sure that the worst plan the House could pursue, would be to take the law of settlement bit by bit, obtain reports first upon one part and then another, and decide upon one branch and afterwards on another. This was a great question, materially affecting the happiness and the social condition of the poor. It must therefore be considered as a whole; the House must make up their minds to patience and forbearance in waiting until the whole question was before them, and then they would have to decide upon it altogether.

, as a Member of the Committee, was of opinion that the Poor Removal Act should either be abrogated and entirely repealed, or considerably altered. Was the country to be taken in by a fraud? The opinion of the law officers of the Crown might be a very proper one; but if the House could have foreseen the interpretation they had put upon the Act of last Session, would it ever have been passed? Certainly not. The opinion of Mr. Gulson, and of witnesses from the east, west, midland, and part of the southern districts, proved that there was only one thing upon which people were agreed, and that was in reprobating the Act of last Session. He was astonished to hear the hon. Member (Mr. Buller) express an opinion in favour of the beneficial operation of the Act upon the poor. Mr. Gulson's evidence proved, that upon the aged, infirm, and deserving class of paupers, the Act had operated very detrimentally. If the House would carry out the real intention of the Poor Removal Act, they would have much greater facilities for entering upon the law of settlement. His own opinion was in favour of an industrial irremoveability, as far as the Act of last Session went, after five years' residence. He was sure, as soon as it was known that his hon. Friend intended to bring on after Easter a Motion for the repeal or alteration of the Act of last Session, the Table of the House would be covered with petitions against the law. He was afraid the whole of the Session would be wasted before the Committee came to a conclusion, and that it would be impossible to bring in a Bill this Session to alter the existing law—a law alike unjust to the ratepayers and to the poor, and which inflicted a great loss upon the people of England.

said, he did not know the object of the hon. Member (Mr. Bankes) in bringing forward these two Motions, only one of which, however, it appeared he wished to be put from the chair. With a view to removing the doubts that had been felt, the hon. Member moved for a copy of the case submitted to the law officers of the Crown for their opinion. It was distinctly stated by Mr. Lewis, that this case merely contained a statement of the doubts entertained; and how the hon. Member could think the doubts which prevailed upon the interpretation of the Act could be removed by a statement of the doubts themselves, he was at loss to conceive. The course which the hon. Member for Dorsetshire had taken, could lead to no practical result. He had avoided submitting any proposition upon which the opinion of the House could be expressed. The open and manly course to have taken would have been to do what it appeared he intended to do after Easter, namely, to submit a definite Motion on the subject. Perhaps the reason why he had pursued so devious a course upon this occasion was, that he had not yet made up his mind—as might be inferred from what the hon. Member who spoke last had let fall—as to whether he should introduce a Bill to repeal the Act of last Session, or one merely to give a retrospective effect to some of its clauses. He (Sir G. Grey) felt that he should consult the public convenience by abstaining from discussing the Poor Removal Act of last Session until the hon. Member should bring the question under the notice of the House in a definite shape, as he said he would.

said, that the Poor Removal Act of last Session was passed hastily, and in some respect under false pretences. It was proposed as a compensation in some degree for the injury which the landed interested sustained by the repeal of the corn laws, it being represented that under the operation of the measure, towns would be obliged to support some of the poor who had theretofore been maintained exclusively by the agricultural districts. He expressed an opinion at the time that the measure would be no boon to the agricultural interest; and the result had shown that he was correct. If it should appear that there would be time to introduce a general measure, founded on the report of the Committee, in the course of the present Session, he would advise the hon. Member for Dorsetshire not to bring forward his Bill; but if that should not be the case, it would, in his opinion, be most desirable to pass some such Bill as that which the hon. Member had announced his intention to bring in. At the same time he could not advise the hon. Member to persevere in the Motion before the House.

thought that it was desirable to repeal the Act of last Session under any circumstances; and the notice which the hon. Member for Dorsetshire had given that evening, induced him to hope that it would be repealed before the end of the Session. The measure had operated with oppressive harshness upon the poor. In his own neighbourhood, a number of notices had been given to remove cottagers who had not lived five years in their parishes at Michaelmas next. If the Act should not be repealed this Session, the country would be left a prey to the confusion and heartburning which now prevailed for another year. One example would suffice to show the harsh treatment to which the poor had been subjected since the passing of the Act of last Session. A man who lived in his (Mr. Rice's) parish, had worked for twenty-five years in the neighbouring parish; he walked three miles to his work in the morning, and three back again at night. As soon as the Poor Removal Act was passed, his master told him that he wanted his services no longer; and he was now working on the roads in his parish. The announcement of the hon. Member's intention to move for the repeal of the Act, would, he believed, prevent many poor persons from being served with notices to quit their abodes.

would not have ventured to to unite his influence with that of the hon. Gentleman who had last sat down, in urging his hon. Friend to persevere in his Motion, were it not for the efforts which the Poor Law Commissioners were making to extenuate the dissatisfaction which prevailed all through the country with respect to the Bill of last Session. The injuries inflicted on the poor in his own neighbourhood, had been of the most annoying and distressing character. There were such enormous difficulties attending the final adjustment of the question, that no act of immediate relief could satisfactorily meet the emergency. Under these circumstances, the sooner Parliament undertook the consideration of other and more permanent measures, the better would it be for the country.

was obliged to the hon. Member for Dorsetshire for having brought the subject under the notice of the House as he had done, for otherwise an impression might have been made on the country that the question was concluded by the report which had been made by the Committee up stairs. He complained of the conduct of the Committee in having refused to examine witnesses who were practically acquainted with the working of the law. They had contented themselves with examining three official gentlemen, and then made their report to the House. In his opinion, the Bill inflicted hardship on the poor as well as upon the ratepayers. The parish officers and the proprietors were enabled by indirect means to effect the removal of the poor from their houses. For instance, if an old woman resided with her daughter, the proprietor would say, "It is true, I cannot remove your mother, but if you do not remove with her into another parish I will give you notice to quit." The Poor Law Commissioners could not reach cases of this kind. The repeal of the Act of last Session was necessary as a preliminary to the amendment of the law of settlement. It was evident from the answers which the witnesses gave who were examined before the Committee, that a great many of them confounded the Poor Law Act with the law of settlement. The right hon. Member for Dorchester, with his usual acuteness, perceived this confusion, and directed the attention of the witnesses to it. As to the Committee which was now sitting, he had prophesied that it would be productive of no good, and his prophecy was likely to be fulfilled. More irritation had been shown in the Committee than in any other he had ever heard of. In order to show the divided state of feeling in the Committee, it was only necessary to state that there had been eight divisions in it during the first four days of its sitting.

said, that the desire which he felt not to occupy the public time unnecessarily, would prevent him from adverting to the evidence of Mr. Gulson, which, though technically in the possession of the House, had been presented only that evening, and could not have been read by the majority of Members then present. Neither would he enter into any discussion with respect to the law of settlement, a question which was not before the House. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire had given notice of his intention to bring forward, after Easter, a substantive measure for the repeal or material alteration of the Poor Removal Act of last Session; and upon that subject he wished to be permitted to address a few observations to the House. It was by no means his intention to deny that the interpretation which the law officers of the Crown had given to that Act—and no doubt it was a correct and sound interpretation—had imparted a more extensive operation to the measure than was originally contemplated either by him (Sir J, Graham), who introduced it, or by the House, which passed it. He made that admission distinctly; and he would not have concurred in the report which the Committee now sitting had presented to the House, unless he had satisfied himself by the evidence up to that time received—corroborated by that which had been subsequently given, and which had been presented to the House that day—that the more extensive operation given to the Act by the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, was decidedly and greatly beneficial to the poor. It was not necessary to argue the question at length upon that occasion, but he would simply lay before the House and the country an outline of the great benefits which, on the balance, the more extensive operation of the Act had conferred upon the poor. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire had incidentally raised a discussion on the Act of last Session, for the purpose of directing public opinion to this question; and under those circumstances he felt that he should fail in his duty if he omitted to avail himself of the opportunity of explaining that the present operation of the Act—though not originally intended—had been of signal advantage to the poor. It was impossible to deny that with respect to one class of poor persons, the Act had operated with some degree of harshness—he meant those resident in one union, and having their settlement in another, and who had heretofore received relief at the place of their residence from the place of their settlement. The Act of last Session had created some doubt as to the way in which relief should be given to this class, and in some cases hardship had been endured in consequence. But he would call the attention of the House to some large classes of poor, on whom the Act, as it now stood on the Statute-book, had conferred inestimable benefit. First, there was the great division of the sick poor, who, unless they were permanently afflicted, could not be removed. Another most numerous class consisted of those residing at a distance from their place of settlement, who had conferred on their place of residence the advantage of many years of their labour, and who, even though in the extremity of destitution, from fear of being removed, had not hitherto applied for relief. But, as the law now stood, this class of persons did not hesitate to apply for relief, because they were irremovable. Another class were those resident in a place without any settlement; they also, if they had resided for five years, were now entitled to relief. He saw hon. Members connected with Ireland opposite; he knew not if any Scotch Members were present; but the effect of the law had been to give to the natives of both those countries residing in England, the relief they were justly entitled to, but from which they were before debarred. He had called the attention of the House to these numerous classes; and he was much mistaken if the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, when he came to deal with the Act, either to alter or wholly to repeal it, would find its operation so plain and easy as he and some others seemed to think. If the Act was rightly understood, with regard to the recipients of relief, the balance would be found decidedly in favour of the poor, and he considered it a just and humane enactment. It was not worth while to discuss whether the construction put on one of the provisions of the Act by the law officers of the Crown was or was not an extension of that benefit; on the proper occasion he should be prepared to argue that it was so. As to the effect of the Act on the ratepayers, he had never dissembled the opinion which he had expressed under circumstances of great difficulty, and had given great offence by expressing it, that in exceptional cases in close parishes, as contradistinguished from open ones, it must operate harshly, and impose an unjust burden upon them. As a member of the Committee, therefore, he had been most anxious to join with the consideration of the Act of last Session, a consideration of the whole law of settlement. He could not avail himself of the advantage of being in possession of the evidence of Mr. Gulson, which the House was not; but he could point to testimony given by that witness, showing, that if they only altered and modified the law of settlement, the Act of last Session, with its present extension, would be not only a great benefit to the poor, but could be put in full operation without the least injustice whatever. As that evidence would soon be in the hands of every Member, he did entreat them to judge of it, not by garbled extracts, but by the tenor of the whole of it—in its entire state. It was the evidence of a gentleman of the highest probity, conversant with the working of the poor law, both in rural and manufacturing districts; who had been actively employed both in this country and in Ireland; and who perhaps possessed a more intimate knowledge of the subject than almost any man. He entreated the House, before it discussed this important question, dispassionately to read the whole of that evidence. It was supported by the testimony of two able persons—the auditor of the Norfolk, Suffolk, and Cambridge unions—a barrister, and gentleman of great experience, and the chairman of a board of guardians in the north of England. The evidence of those three witnesses was presented to the House; and, if fully considered, he was sure the effect produced would by no means aid the proposition of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, but would sustain the views he had himself ventured to advocate, namely, that the law of last Session could be upheld in its integrity, if they altered and amended the law of settlement itself: by distributing the burdens anew, they would remove all the injustice created by the law as it at present stood, without that revision of the law of settlement.

remarked, that the right hon. Baronet had confessed that there was great injustice in the Act of last Session, unless it were coupled with an alteration of the law of settlement. It seemed to be the opinion of all the Committee, that the operation of the Act caused great injustice to the ratepayers, and particularly to the ratepayers of town parishes. He could have wished that the Motion before the House, had been brought forward for a different purpose; but at the same time there might be a good deal of good in this preliminary warfare. He trusted that the hon. Member for Dorsetshire would not be deterred from bringing the question of the repeal of the late Act fairly before the House, to be discussed and determined by them. The right hon. Baronet had admitted the injustice of the Act; and it was never too soon nor too late to remedy injustice. Before the House did anything else, they ought, by repealing the Act, to relieve the ratepayers of the town parishes from what was a most intolerable burden.

felt so much the inconvenience of the present discussion, that he should not have taken any part in it, but for one or two observations which had fallen from Members in the course of the evening. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. C. Buller) the chairman of the Committee, was, he thought, guilty of one inaccuracy in the course of his address. His hon. and learned Friend's statement was, that the Committee had determined that they would not decide this point until they had come to a resolution on the whole question of the law of settlement. He had never understood that such was the resolution of the Committee; but, on the contrary, that if the inquiry should be protracted till near the end of the Session, then the majority of the Committee, who voted against the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, would feel at liberty to submit to the House the propriety of dealing with the measure of last year. He thought that it ought not to go forth, that the opinion of the Committee was definite and final on that point. He should feel very much indisposed to express any opinion upon the evidence which had already been given; but the right Baronet the Member for Dorchester had made some statements which he could not allow to pass without observation. It was but reasonable that the right hon. Baronet, who was the author of this law, should regard it with so much partiality; but he must say, that as far as the evidence had gone at the present moment, it had not produced the effect on his mind, which it had produced on the mind of the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Baronet said that this law was generally advantageous to the poor. He thought when the right hon. Baronet said that the law was unjust to the ratepayers, he answered his own former statement; for any gentleman, who knew how these things worked in the country, must be aware that it was not possible for a law that worked injuriously to the ratepayer, to work well for the poor; because, when parish officers felt these paupers pressed on them by an unjust enactment, they regarded them with harsher feelings than they otherwise would have done. As the Committee had determined to take further evidence, he should think it very wrong to express any positive opinion, and he should keep his mind open to conviction. He could only repeat that at present the evidence which had been already taken, had not produced on his mind the effect which it had produced on the mind of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester.

wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The Government were aware that two different constructions had been put upon the proviso at the end of the first clause in the Poor Removal Act. Now, in the evidence of Mr. Lewis, the Poor Law Commissioner, it was stated that it was very possible, in consequence of the different interpretations put upon this Act, that one auditor might act upon one principle in allowing expenses, and another auditor upon another principle. He rose to express his opinion, that either the Poor Law Commissioners or the Government, while the question was still undecided, might direct that whatever course the boards of guardians might take, the auditor should allow the expenses. That direction on the part of the Government or the Poor Law Commissioners, would have no legal effect, but it would still have great weight. With regard to the question before the House, he thought that the Committee had come to a most judicious and reasonable conclusion, in determining not to come to an opinion on the Act of last Session till they had determined the question of settlement generally. If the hon. Member for Dorsetshire brought in his Bill, he thought it would be more judicious to confine its operation to an interpretation of the proviso in the Poor Removal Act, than to attempt to repeal the law altogether.

felt much indebted to the hon. Member for Dorsetshire for the notice which he had given. Some remedy, it appeared, was to be applied to the law of settlement; and last Session the right hon. Gentlemen had applied a blister in the form of the present system of removal. The Committee, a great number of whom were in favour of extensive change in the law of settlement, were extremely anxious to retain that blister on the patient. [Mr. WAKLEY: Hear, hear!] The hon. Member for Finsbury cheered that observation. He thought the hon. Member for Dorsetshire should do justice to the country by endeavouring to remove that blister before he asked the House to consider the law of settlement, the abrogation of which might entail the destruction of the parochial system.

said, the course suggested by the hon. Baronet (Sir W. James) had been already taken by the Poor Law Commissioners.

said, the hon. Member (Mr. Newdegate) had compared the Act of last Session to a blister; he was sure it was a capital medicine, it was so extremely disagreeable to the patient. Those who sought to repeal it were tyrannical boards of guardians, and the gentry who had no partiality for paying poor rates. He believed the Bill in the main was a good one; if they compared the good it had done with the evil that had flowed from it, the former would preponderate to an immense extent. He could confirm what the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had stated on this subject. The ratepayers of the metropolis did not complain of the law, though it pressed upon them; they felt the justice of that pressure; they admitted the harshness and cruelty of sending persons from this country to Scotland or Ireland, where they could get no relief. Since this Bill had been in operation, not one of the Irish had been sent back; and the ratepayers asked how they could in justice do it, when they knew that if they sent them back to Ireland, they sent them to starve. The great proprietors of Ireland and Scotland had staved off an effective poor law too long; but he hoped they would not succeed in staving off from them much longer a law similar to the one which had been in operation in England for 300 years. The small end of the wedge had been already got in, and he hoped the people of England would see it driven home until the poor of the three kingdoms were relieved on the same principle. So far from lamenting the immigration of so many Irish paupers into this country, he wished they would come over in still greater abundance. For his own part, he should be delighted if 2,000,000 of them came over to England next month. It would be the first thing that would bring Parliament to its senses with respect to the operation of the Irish poor law. He had been told yesterday that in the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn, out of every shilling paid to the poor, 11d. was paid to the Irish who had no settlement there whatever. In the parish in which he (Mr. Wakley) himself resided, 27,000l. was collected last year for the support of the poor, 20,000l. of which was paid to the Irish. Did any one grudge them this? He hoped not; for he admitted their right to relief—charity was out of the question. He wondered how the landed proprietors of Ireland and Scotland, who denied the right of the poor to relief, could expect to be secure in their possessions, when there were hundreds and thousands of persons willing to work in a state of destitution bordering on starvation. He was surprised that the foundations of society were not shaken with such a state of things. He denied that the poor law was founded on a principle of charity; he considered it to rest on a higher and safer foundation—he considered it to be founded on a principle of strict justice; and he warned the House, if they considered the Poor Removal Act to be injurious in its operation, to take care in repealing it they did not inflict a still greater injustice upon the destitute people of this country.

wished to impress upon the House the importance of not leaving this law in doubt. If, however, it were made plain and clear, he believed it would be found to work fairly enough, for he considered it to be founded upon a good principle.

remarked, that he had supported the Poor Removal Bill when first introduced; he considered that it would be a humane measure if properly carried out, and he was still of the same opinion; but he thought there had been some harshness in its operation in consequence of the construction given to the Act by the law officers of the Crown. He thought, that if the rich were made to contribute to the support of the poor over a more extended area, it would tend to meet the justice of the case.

confessed himself puzzled to know the object of the present debate. If the object of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire was merely to obtain information by the production of the document asked for in his Motion, there was surely no need of all this discussion upon it; and if, as he had announced, he intended to bring the Bill which had been passed last Session under the consideration of the House after Easter, what was the use of debating it now? He differed with that hon. Member in thinking that the opposition of the people had been directed merely against the Act of last Session. That opposition was directed against the whole system. There was a strong feeling among the inhabitants of the towns, as well as the inhabitants of counties, that there ought to be some substantial change introduced with reference to the whole administration of the Poor Law; and the people knew that Parliament could not enter into the question of the removal of the poor, without at the same time taking up the great question of settlement; and that they could not enter into the question of settlement, without taking up the question of the general rating of the country; and this, it was hoped, would lead to the adoption of a measure by which funded property, which at present contributed nothing, should be brought to contribute along with landed property its fair share towards the maintenance of the poor. He hoped that the Member for Dorsetshire, therefore, when he brought forward his Motion, would not imagine that the indignation of the people in towns was confined to this measure alone; but that they considered it merely as a part of a great question which needed thorough inquiry and thorough revision at the hands of that House.

considered that no conclusion of the inquiry now going on would be satisfactory that did not lead to an abolition of the law of settlement, as well as to a repeal of the Poor Removal Bill.

, in reply, hoped that those Irish paupers who accepted the invitation of the hon. Member for Finsbury, would quarter themselves upon his constitutents. The Poor Law Commissioners had submitted six questions to the law officers of the Crown for their opinion. Only one of those questions was known to the House; and he (Mr. Bankes) thought it important before he attempted to amend the law, to be put in possession of the other five. On the present occasion, however, he should not press the Motion to a division.

said: Sir, in moving for the returns of which I have given notice, I must commence by expressing my regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge should have thought that I was wanting in courtsey to him in calling his attention to the fact, that, in moving for these returns, it was my intention to make some comments upon that which I described to be a marvellous statement. Sir, it is extremely difficult when any Gentleman in this House has to apply the scourge, to make it pleasing to those on whom it may fall. Hit high or hit low it is all the same—it is very difficult to make it pleasing to the victim. But a statement has gone forth to the country, under the authority of an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, relative to the expenditure of railways in this country, which is so extraordinary, and, in my opinion, so calculated to foster an opinion in this country that large expenditure in railways does not conduce necessarily to the general prosperity, that I feel it my duty to enter into some details to prove that that statement is very far removed from the truth. It will be in the recollection of the House the statements which had gone forth to the country, and which could not have been originated in ignorance, that the expenditure on the London and Birmingham, the Grand Junction, the Great Western, the Brighton, the South Western, and the South Eastern Railways, was represented as having taken place "previous to the year 1841, years in which there was a great deficiency in the revenue of the country." These years of "great deficiency," previous to 1841, it is well known to the House, were the years 1839 and 1840, in each of which the deficiency in the revenue exceeded 1,500,000l. Yet the right hon. Gentleman's statement was this—that in the course of those years of "great deficiency," the expenditure on seven railways which the right hon. Gentleman named, exclusive of an expenditure of 10,000,000l. which had taken place on seven other railways which he did not name, amounted to no less a sum than 37,729,000l. Now, Sir, I think that if the country could be brought to believe that in the course of two years 37,729,000l. could be expended on seven railways alone, without producing great and manifest prosperity, it would be hopeless for me at any time to be able to persuade the Parliament of this country or the country itself to approve of appropriating large sums of money to stimulate private enterprise in the construction of railways in Ireland. Sir, this statement went forth, and it went forth on great authority, inasmuch as it proceeded not only from a Gentleman who had lately filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it was also propounded on the authority of the report of that Railway Committee of which that right hon. Gentleman was himself a Member, and this statement, at the time, was received with great cheers by this House. I shall now take the liberty to refer to this statement; and in doing so I shall commence with the London and Birmingham Railway, respecting which the right hon. Gentleman stated that, previous to the year 1841, 8,250,000l. had been expended. I am bound to say that that statement, on the very face of it, appears to me to be a surprising statement; and the more so as it fell from an individual who held the office he did under the late Government. True it is, that in the pages of this thick volume which I hold in my hand is to be found the statement that the London and Birmingham Railway Company had received authority from Parliament to raise 8,250,000l. If any Gentleman will take the trouble to look at page 407, he will find in the centre of that page, that the whole capital which the London and Birmingham Railway Company had been authorized to raise up to the year 1846, corresponded with the figures quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, viz., 8,250,000l. The very heading of the paragraph in which these figures are to be found, tells us that the Acts of Parliament under which that authority was given, amounted to no less than ten, six of which had been passed subsequently to the year 1840; and four alone passed previously to the year 1841. But, Sir, that is not all. At the very head of the column—at the very page from which the right hon. Gentleman took the statement he made—he would have seen that the whole cost of the construction of the London and Birmingham Railway amounted to 5,994,336l., so that I cannot help saying that the statement by the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer was a most surprising one indeed. Well, Sir, I must proceed. The next railway, the right hon. Gentleman referred to was the Grand Junction Railway; on this railway, he stated 4,638,000l. had been expended, whilst in truth, it had cost but 1,921,496l. On the Great Western Railway, the right hon. Gentleman's statement was, that the expenditure amounted to 8,282,000l.; the expenditure up to the autumn of 1840 having only amounted to 4,108,000l. On the London and Brighton Railway, the right hon. Gentleman stated there had been expended 2,867,000l.; it had only cost 1,166,540l. On the South Western Railway, the right hon. Gentleman did not commit so great an error, the expenditure, as stated by him, being 2,600,000l.; it had been 2,254,386l. The right hon. Gentleman, however, acquired courage as he proceeded; for when he got to the South Western Railway, on which was expended 324,405l., he no longer contented himself with trebling or doubling, or multiplying sums, either two or three fold, but, with magnificent contempt, scorned such a simple process, rushed at once into decimals, and multiplied 324,405l. into 3,857,000l. Next we have the Midland Counties Railway, on which we were told was expended 7,235,000l.; whereas the expenditure on the Midland Counties Railway, had been 1,257,811l. But as I am willing to give the right hon. Gentleman credit for entire ignorance on all these subjects, I will assume, when he took the Midland Counties Railway, that he included the expenditure of the North Midland and Derby and Birmingham Railways, at a later period amalgamated with the Midland Counties Railway; but even were that so, still the entire expenditure from the very first commencement of those railways amounted only to 4,723,753l. Thus upon these seven railways, from their commencement in the year 1836, when they first obtained their Acts of Parliament, the entire expenditure upon the whole of them amounted to 20,437,115l.; while the right hon. Gentleman has sent forth the statement to the country, that the expenditure on these railways, in years of "great deficiency in the revenue," as he gave this House and the country to understand, was no less than 37,729,000l. That was the sum stated by him to have been expended on seven railways; so the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, you see, was wrong in his calculation to no less amount than 17,291,000l. If that be not a marvellous statement to come from a right hon. Gentleman who once held the high post of Chancellor of the Exchequer, I do not know what statement can be so termed; and after such a statement as this, I want to know what statement that right hon. Gentleman can make to this House or to the country that ought to be entitled to credit, or that could be trusted as a correct statement? But that is not the whole case, because the right hon. Gentleman, to answer my speech, came down to this House in the most deliberate manner, having with him the authority of this Railway Committee's report, of which Committee he himself was a member, and from that report made the statement that all this expenditure had taken place in those years when "great deficiency had occurred in the revenue." As the only years of that "great deficiency" were the years 1839 and 1840, the impression which was intended to go forth to the country was, that this large sum of 37,729,000l. was expended in the years 1839 and 1840; whereas I find that the entire sum which was expended in those two years on railways was but 9,708,997l.; therefore, taking that view of the question, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong, not to the amount of 17,000,000l., but to the amount of 28,000,000l.; and when we reflect that this statement was made after so much deliberation, and with all the pomp and circumstance of an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the report of the Committee of which he was a member in his hands—when we reflect on all the pains and trouble that had been taken by the right hon. Gentleman that his statement should go forth correctly to the country—when we see in the official organ of that party the figures arranged in methodical order, and in perpendicular columns, denoting they had come from an official source—I think the House will agree with me that I have not unduly occupied its time in showing the little reliance which can be placed on either the statistics or the statements of the right hon. Gentleman. I think when it goes forth to the public—when it goes forth to the country—when it goes forth to Ireland, that the pressure upon the Government, which was wavering whether or not to accept the measure which I propounded to the House, emanated from this same right hon. Gentleman, and that he it was who fixed the First Lord of the Treasury to a declaration that he would resist the second reading of that Bill—what a sad reflection must it be to the people of Ireland to think that Her Majesty's Government should allow themselves to be led by such a "blind guide" as this! I have stated that the years 1839 and 1840 were the years, the first years, of a great deficiency in the revenue. True it is there was a deficiency of 655,000l. in the year 1837, and of 345,000l. in the year 1838; but that deficiency arose from a reduction of taxes of upwards of 930,000l., and not at all from the ill condition of the country; but in the year 1841 that deficiency increased to 2,100,000l., and in 1842 to 3,979,000l. Was there, I would ask, in those two years a greater expenditure of money on railways? Far from it. I find that in the course of those two years there was expended on the London and Birmingham Railway 255,625l.; on the Great Western, 2,043,800l.; on the London and Brighton, 1,480,466l; on the South Western, 539,614l.; on the South Eastern, 2,171,595l.; on the North Midland Company, including Birmingham and Derby, 1,518,547l.; the Grand Junction Railway, 272,313l., showing an aggregate of 8,282,000l., or an average of about 4,000,000l. a year expended on railways. I think, therefore, I have given a complete refutation to the statement which was brought forward on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman; and I must say, that when it goes forth to the country that the right hon. Gentleman added the extravagant amount of 17,000,000l., according to one calculation, and 28,000,000l. according to another calculation, let him put the best face he can on the matter, as to his argument or his deductions from that argument, on the expenditure of the seven railways, I am justified in coming to the conclusion that it cannot be said to be a mere "trick of the trade," neither can it be looked upon as no more than poetical licence, or a rhetorical artifice; but that it must be pronounced to be by others what I have already designated it—one of the most marvellous statements that ever was made to this House, or that ever was made to the country by any Gentleman who ever held so high an office under Her Majesty's Government as that so lately enjoyed by the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer. I now beg leave to move for a Return—

"Showing the amount of money expended in the actual cost of construction and of working stock (including locomotive engines, carriages, tools, &c.) of all Railways in Great Britain and Ireland, in each triennial period, previous to the 1st day of January respectively, in the years 1841, 1844, and 1847. Also a Return, showing the sums of money actually expended by the following Railway Companies previous to 1841:—London and Birmingham, Grand Junction, Great Western, Brighton, South Western, South Eastern, and Midland. Likewise the aggregate sum expended by the above-mentioned railway companies, in each year previous to 1841."

I regret that I have been the innocent cause of inflicting upon the House a somewhat lengthened speech in support of a return to which, I believe, no individual in the House is inclined to offer any objection. But I can, I think, satisfy the House that it is not owing to me, or any statement coming from me, that they are subjected to that inconvenience. If, on the occasion when I delivered the explanation which the noble Lord has thought it his duty to notice, he had availed himself of the privilege he then enjoyed—the House being in Committee—of observing upon any error in the statement I had made, or, labouring under any misapprehension with regard to it, had asked for an explanation, I should have been ready on the instant to have given him that explanation which I am now about to give, and thus might have prevented the necessity of taking up a separate day with a separate discussion on the subject. The noble Lord has said that those who have been Chancellors of the Exchequer, and made erroneous statements and calculations, are bound to suffer the penalty of being deemed unworthy of their office. I again may say, that those who expect to be Chancellors of the Exchequer, and make gross misrepresentations of what falls from Gentlemen in debate, and found upon those misrepresentations imputations of falsehood or error—those by whom much things are asserted, are not very fit for the office they are thought to aspire to. With this observation I shall state to the House what it was I did say on the occasion to which the noble Lord refers, and then what I have to state in vindication, both of the entire truth of the statement I am making, and the force of the argument I used. The noble Lord says, that in making that statement I was particularly unpardonable, because I was referring to what had occurred three weeks before; but I am afraid he imputed to me a practice he appears himself to have pursued, of taking some days before he follows a statement which has been made. If there are Gentlemen in the House, who were present on the former occasion, they will know that what I stated on the discussion on the budget in this House, was in strict reply to the speeches made on that very evening before me, and had no reference whatever to arguments used in the former debate, to which the noble Lord adverted. Now, if he will give me permission, I will exactly state what was the course of argument on that occasion, and the statements I made. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in opening his budget, had adverted to the revenue of the years 1842, 1843, 1844, 1845, 1846, and had, after stating with respect to a number of articles that there had been a progressive increase in the consumption of many, attributed that—and in my mind justly—to the changes made in the commercial policy of the country. The noble Lord, in the course of the speech he then delivered, animadverted upon the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and made observations the tendency of which was to show that that right hon. Gentleman had falsely attributed this increase to the alteration in the financial policy of the country, and that it was attributable to the employment of labour in the construction of railways. I have a note of what fell from the noble Lord on that occasion; and he said, "What had free trade to do with that result? It was railway enterprise that had done it." I took the liberty—for liberty it is in the noble Lord's opinion—to animadvert, in my observations, upon the arguments the noble Lord had used; but I meant nothing like personal offence to him in any observations I might use; nothing that would justly call for expressions such as the noble Lord has used to-night, which I am willing to suppose must have arisen from excited feeling. And I said, in answer to that statement of the noble Lord, that you also had railways going on to a considerable extent at periods when there was a deficiency of the revenue on several years. And having stated that as the outline of my argument, I adduced in support of it a document taken from the report of the Railway Committee. The noble Lord said I confined my observations to the years 1839 and 1840; and he afterwards said, in another part of his speech, that these were the only two years in which there was a great deficiency. Why, in his own speech the noble Lord afterwards stated that in 1841 there was a deficiency of about two millions, and that in 1842 there was deficiency of about three millions; and in antecedent years to which he thought fit to fix my statement, for the object of this evening's debate, there was an equal deficiency. The statement I made was, that there had been great railway expenditure in years of deficiency; that therefore, if railways were the cause of prosperity, the railways would not have coexisted with the deficiency that was found to exist in those six years, during which there was a deficiency; and the noble Lord then said I made a statement of what certain railway companies had expended in the course of those years. I did no such thing. I stated to the House—and so it is that I find my statement reported in what we are not at liberty to advert in this House, except incidentally—I refer to those memoranda of our debates which convey them in some degree to the public—I find that what I stated is there correctly given, and that what I said was, that the sums raised for railways that were in progress, or in the course of completion during the years of deficiency, amounted in the whole to the sum which I then mentioned, and which the noble Lord admitted to the House, and which it is unnecessary to go through in detail, but the total amount of which reached about 47,700,000l. I stated this, and I did not leave the House to be in doubt as to the quarter from which I derived my information. I stated to the House distinctly that those were sums that had been raised for the railways in question, and they were stated in a report made to this House in the year 1846 by the Committee which was called the Morrison Committee. The noble Lord has endeavoured to fix a charge upon me, that I stated they were sums expended in the years 1839 and 1840. I said no such thing; but I said what that blue book said, that they were the sums which were raised up to that date for the purpose of completing the railways in question. The noble Lord said, if I looked at this paper that I should have seen those were the sums to be raised. I do look at the paper, and I find that a company had raised a capital of 8,250,000l. I have no doubt that if I were addressing an assembly that was not in the habit of considering subjects of this nature, I should be more particular in my observations, and explain that although that company had raised 8,250,000l. it was clear they did not expend it all in one year; and I should not leave them to make the speculation which the noble Lord has put into my mouth. Now, there are two ways of addressing this House: one way is of addressing it as an educated assembly, which can themselves supply the obvious topics that are suggested in the course of an argument. There is another mode also of addressing the House; that is, to go through every point of detail; to weary the attention of the House by going through every minute point which every man's intelligence would suggest to him. If I prefer the former mode, and do not think fit to take the latter, it is because I do not wish to make my speech more tedious than is necessary. When I saw the Birmingham Company had raised 8,250,000l. for the purposes of the railway, could any person so misunderstand the ordinary meaning of that statement, as to suppose that the whole sum was to be applied in one year? The whole imputation that rests upon me is, that the noble Lord put into my mouth a statement I never made. He said I stated to the House that those sums were expended in the course of two years, the only years of deficiency. I stated no such thing. My argument applied to the whole of the years of deficiency, beginning in 1839, and ending in 1843, and to the sums raised for the railways to which he was addressing himself. So far the statement I made was literally true, and is not capable of contradiction by any man who looks into the subject. But then the noble Lord said I used this argument unfairly, and that I intended to impress upon the House that there was a considerable expenditure for railways during the time the revenue was deficient. It is not very easy for an individual who has not had the able assistance of the hon. Member for Sunderland, to know precisely the amount that may be expended within a given period upon a particular line of railway; and therefore I do not take shame to myself for not being able to state to the House the actual sum expended within the period to which I refer. I could only deduce it from the statement I made to the House; the House could itself deduce it from the same source; and it was for them to judge how much of the 47,000,000l. were expended within the period to which I was referring. That it could not be an inconsiderable portion was obvious; for in that period all the great lines that connect the metropolis with the country, were the lines that were completed; and two of the lines going to the north were at that period also completed; and therefore a considerable portion of the whole expenditure must have occurred in the period when the deficiency was accruing in the revenue. But this is not my opinion alone. It rests upon the authority of other opinions than mine. A return was presented, to Parliament in the year 1846, which stated the sum the different railway companies were empowered to raise, and which in 1839 was taken to amount to 57,700,000l.; that was two years after the commencement of the deficiency. A considerable portion of that sum, therefore, fell within the period to which I have been adverting; but there is another evidence to which I would refer on this particular point, because it is evidence to which the noble Lord will, I think, pay as much credit as I pay. It was a statement made in 1844, on an examination that took place before a Select Committee on Railways. Mr. Laing was asked, "What has been the whole amount that was laid out in the construction of railways?" And Mr. Laing stated, "The whole sum now is 64,000,000l." This was in the year 1844, the expiration of the period to which I am referring; and though I deduct the railways that were completed previous to 1837, of which I have no distinct account, I do arrive at an amount of payments on account of railway construction between 1837 and 1844 which goes to justify the statement upon which the whole of my argument was founded; namely, that coexistent with a deficiency of revenue, there was a large expenditure in railway speculation, and consequently that I could not justly attribute the whole increase of the revenue that took place to the sums that were expended in railway speculations. I will put it to any hon. Members of the House who heard the statement I made on the occasion, whether I have not given an explicit account of what I stated. I would refer them to the means that exist of ascertaining what was said, and in which, though sometimes more shortly than it is uttered, the substance is generally correctly given of what falls from hon. Gentlemen in this House—I will refer them to that as in every respect establishing what I have said, and as justifying the statement I made, and the argument I deduced from it. The noble Lord is perfectly at liberty to put words into my mouth, and to deal with them as a trick of trade or a rhetorical artifice, and to apply to them any expression he pleases. If the language were mine, I might really feel hurt at those expressions; but when they are addressed to the language of the noble Lord himself, which is totally different from any that fell from me, I merely ask the House to decide to whom these terms are most justly applicable—whether to the individual whose statements are misrepresented, or to the individual who makes the misrepresentation.

said, that it was the intention of his noble Friend to have referred to the mis-statements at an earlier period had he had an opportunity of so doing; and that must account for the delay of which the right hon. Gentleman had complained. He hoped that the House would allow him to make a few observations on the Motion before the House, because he was present when the original debates which had been alluded to took place. He was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge express his belief, that his noble Friend, in bringing this subject before the House, was influenced by personal feeling or irritation. His noble Friend justly felt that this was a subject of the greatest importance, and that it was his duty to bring it before the consideration of the House. It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to tell them, that in the course of his late observations on the plan of the noble Lord, he did not resort to any rhetorical artifice; that he knew he was not addressing a vulgar assembly, but an enlightened Senate; and that he had, therefore, omitted the details, which it would be otherwise necessary for him to have brought forward. But there was not the slightest doubt that the question before them was not a mere question of accuracy on the part of the noble Lord or the right hon. Gentleman; it was a matter of whether it should go forth, promulgated on the great authority of the right hon. Gentleman, with respect to a question in which the public of this country were interested, probably more than in any other, that the statement of the noble Lord, to the effect that the employment of the capital of this country in public works would benefit the country, was erroneous; the question was, whether the proceedings of that public should be arrested—whether public investment and the spirit of public enterprise should be defeated by the declarations of a person of great authority, who had held a place of great authority, and who had apparently referred to documents of great authority, all of which tended to give an impression totally different to, and totally the reverse of, that which was the fact. Whether the right hon. Gentleman were accurate or inaccurate on this question, he would venture to say a few words afterwards; but if there were a misapprehension on so very important a subject—on a subject which concerned this nation at the present moment more than any other subject—if there were any misconception upon the opinion of an individual of all others, probably, the most qualified to give his public opinion—surely he (Mr. Disraeli) should think that the noble Lord, or any other public man, ought to take the first opportunity of rectifying the statement respecting which such a misunderstanding had taken place. Now, what (continued the hon. Member) is the general impression on this subject, both in this House and out of doors? That a statesman of great experience and of high authority has, from his actual knowledge of the question, taken an opportunity of propounding this opinion, that a great expenditure of the capital of this nation in railway enterprise has by no means necessarily a beneficial effect upon the revenues of the country. [Mr. GOULBURN: No, no!] This contradiction, then, on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, fully shows how necessary it is to have this debate; for after having listened to the right hon. Gentleman on the former occasion as well as the present, I have still not been able to ascertain his views upon the subject. I rather think, therefore, that such circumstances show some necessity for this explanation. I am still at a loss to know what was the object of this statement of the right hon. Gentleman. I will, certainly, be perfectly frank with the right hon. Gentleman, and admit this, that it was the intention of my noble Friend, and certainly of many of those who act with him, to give their attention to this subject, for the purpose of showing that the expenditure of money on the extensive railway undertakings in this country, had been beneficial to it, and was calculated to increase the revenues of the country. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to attempt to establish the converse of that proposition, we shall obtain a great deal of good by this discussion; because we shall bring, probably, the right hon. Gentleman at least into a neutral position upon this question. Sir, I understood the right hon. Gentleman — I speak not now from any documents, either of an authentic or authoritative character, or such as are not recognised by this House; but certainly I speak from memory, and I do not think it will deceive me—I understood the right hon. Gentleman to use these words — and the circumstance of the expression being of a remarkable character makes me remember them. The right hon. Gentleman said, that "the noble Lord seems to think that the prosperity of the country is supported by an expenditure of its capital in railroad enterprise, and particularly by those undertakings in which his hon. Friend the Lord Mayor of York (Mr. Hudson) was concerned." Now, I was very much astonished by that expression; because my noble Friend had not made the slightest reference to the hon. Member for Sunderland. Certainly, in another debate, some weeks before, the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland was mentioned; but on that night the noble Lord the Member for Lynn did not make the slightest reference to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland; and yet the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge made that personal allusion to the right hon. Member, which I recollect myself, and find recorded also in those authorities which have been referred to. I make, however, this quotation from memory. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say, "It is a great mistake to suppose that a great expenditure in railroad enterprise has a necessary tendency to increase the revenue and general prosperity of the country, because we have had very great expenditure in railroads, and whilst we have had that expenditure there was for a period of two years a great deficiency." And, therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman's arguments did not, at least, tend to the proposition that the expenditure of vast amounts of capital in railroads was not beneficial to the country, what was the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman? The right hon. Gentleman said, that we had years of great deficiency simultaneously with great expenditure in railroads; and he, therefore, argued that a great expenditure in railroads did not conduce to national prosperity. But what would have been your deficiency if you had not had that expenditure upon railroads? It would have been much greater. The right hon. Gentleman followed up his dogma by documents and details; he gave you the total expenditure proposed to be laid out upon a certain number of railways—seven, I believe—which would amount to about 47,000,000l. The right hon. Gentleman produced a tabular schedule of the proposed capital, and he now says, "I did not mean to say that that was the actual expenditure upon these railroads; I merely said that that was the amount proposed to be expended." Well, then, what becomes of his argument? for his argument was, that you had great deficiency simultaneously with great expenditure upon railroads. He tells you at the same time, "But my table only refers to the amount of capital proposed to be expended, not to that which was actually expended upon these railroads." What becomes of the demonstration of the right hon. Gentleman? Why did the right hon. Gentleman get up and make a speech, when he now tells us, first, that he did not wish to impugn the original proposition of my noble Friend; and, secondly, that the demonstration, or the detail, which he brought forward, did not refer to the actual expenditure upon railways, but to the proposed amount of expenditure upon them? But then you know it comes to this—it is mere monshine. The right hon. Gentleman gets up and says, "You are all wrong about railroads. I will show you that an expenditure upon railroads will not at all advance the national prosperity; for in 1840 we had a deficiency of 2,500,000l., which happened despite the proposed expenditure of 47,000,000l. upon railroads." Therefore, you say that the deficiency of 2,500,000l. is of more consequence than the proposed expenditure of 47,000,000l. But suppose the expenditure proposed had been 87,000,000l.—suppose it had been a sum equal to the national debt—suppose it had been in the bubble year, when, I believe, companies were proposed to expend a sum absolutely larger than that national debt of upwards of 800,000,000l. But then the right hon. Gentleman might have got up and said, "There is a year of great deficiency, and I will show you that expenditure in public works and by public companies does not produce the slightest effect upon the prosperity of the country, because we had here absolutely a capital proposed to be raised of more than 800,000,000l.; and we had a large deficiency." But if not one shilling of that capital was raised, what becomes of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman? As it is not raised, the right hon. Gentleman, when he next comes forward with his tale about vast expenditures upon railways—when we show him that not much more than 4,000,000l. was expended, he must admit one of two alternatives—either that his argument is worth nothing if he accepts our facts, or that it is, in fact, upon his own showing, entirely baseless. Now, Sir, I think that is the real state of the case. I think it would have been much more gratifying if the speech of the right hon. Gentleman had been answered when delivered; but my noble Friend was absent at the time; and I think, too, that it was only right that my noble Friend should have introduced this question now to the House; in fact, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman in his absence, I will not say induced, but forced my noble Friend to bring forward this Motion. Statements have gone forth made by the right hon. Gentleman—a Gentleman of high authority, and especially upon these subjects—which my noble Friend finds has influenced public opinion. I believe they have influenced public opinion. I am quite sure that they would influence my opinion, if, not being a Member of this House, and not being cognizant of the true nature of the subject, I should, in my personal character, have heard such statements coming from so high an authority; and, no doubt, there are many persons who must catch the fleeting sentiments of persons of that kind of authority. They go about and say, "Why, here is a Gentleman who has been twice Chancellor of the Exchequer—a very successful Chancellor of the Exchequer—who has twice reduced the national debt, and he must know what he is talking about—he says, the more you spend upon railroads the greater is the deficiency in the revenue; we must get them to vote against the Bill of the noble Lord the Member for Lynn." [Mr. GOULBURN: No, no!] No, no! Of course I put this in illustration of my argument. The right hon. Gentleman said, in answer to my noble Friend, "I did not for one moment address the House on that occasion as if it was a mere common-place assembly, but as one of those highly-educated places, in which you may talk without entering minutely into the details of your subject." But I may say this, whatever the right hon. Gentleman may choose to say on this subject, now that he has been driven into a corner, there is not the slightest doubt of one fact, that, whatever was his intention, the impression on the House and on the country is one such as I have stated. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have to get up to-night to quote the opinions which he did when reading from the report of the Railroad Committee of 1844. I would certainly call the statements which he made upon the subject of the amount of expenditure upon railroads up to the time when that Committee sat, "a rhetorical artifice." I never heard him plead with greater dexterity. Although the right hon. Gentleman to-night, when he is obliged to come forward and say that he intentionally gave a false impression to the House with respect to the actual amount of expenditure upon railroads, yet the right hon. Gentleman even now admits and impresses upon the House that there was a vast expenditure in railway enterprise, even in the great years of deficiency to which he had alluded. The evidence of Mr. Laing, he said, showed that in the year 1844 there was an expenditure of 22,000,000l. on the various railways of England, and yet there was a deficiency in the public revenue; and that the same had occurred during the progress of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway—a railway which probably would never have been completed, had it not been assisted by the Government. Now, Sir, I really have occupied too much of the time of the House, but I think I have put the case fairly before hon. Members. The noble Lord, in consequence of the impression made in this House and out of doors by the statements of the right hon. Gentleman, and the representations that were made to him by persons exercising great influence upon public conduct in reference to speculations in his public works, did think it his duty that that great misrepresentation should be removed. I think it has been removed officially, and I trust that it will not be repeated.

said, that there were some of the statements of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down in which he agreed; but he thought that he had been quite in extremis in some parts of his argument. He also thought, however, that there had been nothing in the speech of the noble Lord at which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) could take offence or exception. There had been nothing in it beyond the fair language of argument as used in that House. The first point at issue on the subject was, whether the statement made by the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge was strictly and literally correct and true. The second point was, whether the argument endeavoured to be based by him upon that statement had been in substance, and not merely in the letter, a true and fair argument. He (Mr. Cardwell) had been present in the House when the statement had been made, and he understood it to have been made thus: The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the course of his remarks, had said that certain consequences had followed from the financial measures adopted of late years. The noble Member for Lynn, adverting to the same subject, and speaking of the consumption of customable and excisable articles, had said the words to the effect that the consumption of malt had increased between the years 1843 and 1846, from 32,000,000 to 41,000,000 bushels, and had asked what had free trade to do with that result?—that it was railway enterprise that did it—and that 13,000,000 of money had been spent on railway enterprise, and had thus furnished the means of that increase. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Goulburn), then, in answer to that, had made the statement that if it had been railway enterprise and the disposition of the public to engage in railway undertakings which had caused the recent surplus, it was a very curious thing there should ever have been in any year a deficiency, for that it had so happened that during the years of deficiency, which were years beginning with 1837, and going down to 1842, there had been no single railway now constituting a great trunk line in the kingdom which had not been in course of construction. That had been the statement of his right hon. Friend, who had then gone on to refer to documents which had been laid on the Table last Session, with a view to showing the sums which from that document appeared to have been raised upon the whole by railways. That had been the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and it was literally and verbally true. Now, with regard to the substance of the argument which had been based upon it by his right hon. Friend, there did happen to be a very great railway expenditure during those years; and he had said he could prove it by returns laid on the Table in 1839, which showed that the amount authorized to be raised was 57,400,000l.; and that Mr. Laing had stated, in Feb. 1844, that the sum expended upon railways had been 64,000,000l., from which there were to be some deductions made, namely, all the railways passed before 1836, and those in course of construction in 1843, which was a year of surplus; and those deductions had been made by his right hon. Friend, who had excluded from his argument all those railways which could lead the House to imagine that he referred to the expenditure in those years. He should quite agree that his right hon. Friend was unworthy not only to hold the high office which he had held, but to possess a seat in that House, if he had undervalued or disparaged the importance of those great undertakings. The question was, if there had been a little expenditure in the years referred to, why had it been so? It was not because the Bills had not been passed, but because there had been an unfavourable state of trade and of the money market. He was not going to say the financial measures of the Government had been the sole causes of the results which had been referred to. A person would take a very shortsighted view of the case if he left out of view the state of the harvests. Railway enterprise was the natural result of a favourable state of harvest and of the money market; and he recollected that the right hon. Member for Sunderland had, but a few minutes before the noble Lord had brought on the subject, been stating to the House that before the year 1842 he had gone from door to door asking persons to take shares in a railway, in which there was a profit guaranteed of 6 per cent. But to return to the statement of his right hon. Friend, he (Mr. Cardwell) said that it was verbally and literally true, and was consistent with the argument that the result of a good harvest and a sound state of trade was the extension of railway enterprise, which led, no doubt, to the great benefit of the country.

did not think the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had done justice to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, than whom he believed no man more appreciated the advantage which the country had derived from capital invested in useful public works. He was not in the House when the right hon. Gentleman spoke; but he could assure him that the impression made on the minds of hon. Members present and on the country was such as the noble Lord the Member for Lynn had stated. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that in 1841 so much money was raised for railroads. It would have been more correct had he said that power was taken to raise so much money up to 1841. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last had stated that the London and Birmingham Railway Company had the power of raising 2,526,000l. The real truth was, that they had the power of raising 5,800,000l. In the present dispute, one party contended that the prosperity of the country and the revenue had been caused by the reduction of duties, by the free-trade policy of the late Government. Those who thought with him, contended that these reductions had nothing to do with that prosperity, but that it had been the result of capital applied to public works. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last said that good harvests were one cause of prosperity. That was not always the case. There was a good harvest in 1825, yet in that year there was the severest commercial distress. In 1833, 1834, 1835, and 1836, the harvests were also good; yet as the hon. Gentleman must recollect, these were years of severe commercial distress. The right hon. Gentleman had led the House to believe by his statement that from 1838 to 1841 was the period in which railroad capital had been principally expended. The fact was that the London and Birmingham scarcely expended any capital from 1838 to 1841 in the construction of their railroad. The line was commenced in 1833, and was opened in 1839, and the whole of the capital was expended before 1838. The same thing might be said of the North Midland, and other companies of the time. Their capital had all been expended previous to the large deficiency alluded to. They could only deduce from these facts the importance of diverting the capital of the country—as advocated by his noble Friend—to the construction of works of internal communication, and of commercial advantage to the country. He was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge now talk so favourably of railway enterprise; for if he was not mistaken the right hon. Gentleman had taken part at a meeting the other day which had been held to discourage railway enterprise by interference of this kind. If it was true that Government had been swayed by the advice of the right hon. Gentleman in their opposition to the scheme of his noble Friend, he looked upon it as most unfortunate. The right hon. Gentleman had, however, been converted; for it now appeared that he was favourable to railway enterprise. He was sure that the present debate would be useful, because it would remove an erroneous impression from the public mind, and would show the advantages which followed the application of capital to the construction of works which tended to the prosperity of the country.