The Sun.
London, England, 1834-04-18 00:00:00

POOR LAWS.

Lord ALTHORP, the house having agreed that the
subject of the poor laws should take precedence, rose and
said, that undoubtedly the motion which he was about to
introduce to the consideration of the house, was of as great
importance as any motion that had ever been submitted to
them. The present state of the poor laws of this country had
long occupied the attention of the ablest men in the
country ; many attempts had been made to amend
them, made too by persons very conversant with
the subject, which hitherto had not succeeded.
This was the state, when they came into office, in which
they found this subject. For many years complaints had
been made as to the mode in which the administration
of the poor laws had affected every class,—the occupier of
the soil, the landed proprietor, and the agricultural la-
bourer. The poor laws had been injurious, in the opinion
of every one, to all classes of the community, but most of
all to the labouring classes. Hear.)( This being the
case, they thought it their duty as a government
to apply themselves to the question, and to consider
what course it was best to pursue with a view to remedy
evils of such long standing and of such serious import-
ance. They thought that the best course would be
for them to issue a commission of inquiry. Many
committees of inquiry had sat, and a great mass of infor-
mation had been collected; but there was this defect in all the
information so collected, that it was afforded by gentlemen
who came forwards voluntarily to give evidence, and
the natural consequence was, that each witness
had some particular system of his own. He confessed
for himself that he was not one of those who did
not expect that at present it would be possible to carry,
the proceedings much farther than to show the country the
consequences of good and bad management. But this com-
mission, as far as it had gone, was completely satisfactory,
and the report was a most valuable document. (Hear. )
It had shown to the country that in various parts of the
country what great improvements might be made in the
administration of the poor laws, and such a picture of
horror and misery where there was mismanagement, that
even this information alone was a great advantage.
(Hear.) It had already drawn the attention of gentlemen
in the country to the subject, and great improvements
had taken place. At the same time, while he stated these
advantages, the report presented such a picture of the
bad effect of the poor laws in many districts, that it was
the bounden duty of the legislature to interfere,.
He had expressed himself to the effect that thestt
laws were injurious to the landed proprietor, the
farmer, and the labourer. (Cries of " Hear, hear.")
The administration of these laws, as they at present
stood, tended to the destruction of all property in the
country. It had been said that they would lead to an
Agrarian law; but in his (Lord Althorp's) opinion,
they would lead to something worse. (Hear, hear. )
An Agrarian law was but a division of property, while
that would lead to a destruction of all property. He con-
ceived that nothing could be more injurious to the interests
of those for whosebenefit the poor laws were intended, than
to allow the present system to go on. (Hear, hear.) He
begged,-however, to be understood, in any observations he
might make, as not to express any disaprobation of a well-
regulated system of poor laws. So far from that,
he thought a well-regulated system would be attendedwith
the greatest benefit to the country. (Hear, hear.) He
was aware that there had been an expression of opinion
contrary to this ; but if that principle were admitted,
an objection might be made to all private charity.
The strict principle which would be laid down by such ar-
guments would be that man should be placed in such a si-
tuation that by his own frugality alone he should be
able to provide for all his wants—that by his previous
savings he should be enabled to provide against every cala-
mity that might befal him. So long as any feelings of
humanity or religion existed, he (Lord A.) was convinced
that the support of those who were really helpless and un-
able to provide for themselves was not only justifiable,
but a sacred duty incumbent upon them. (Hear, hear.)
Now it was to the great abuse of that system, and not to
the system itself, that he objected. For a very long period
of years after the establishment of the poor
laws in this country, they were not liable to
be charged with those abuses ; but at the close of the last
century, partly in consequence of the pressure of distress,
partly on account of the state of the poor, and also
on account of the state of the public feeling upon
the subject of general discontent on the part of the
working classes, a principle was adopted in legislation
which, though well intended and humane in its enact-
ments, had been conducted with the most fatal
effects (Hear) ; a principle in the thirty-sixth George
the Third, which ordered relief to be given to
the pauper in order to place him in a situation of
comfort. However persons might wish to see their
fellow-creatures in a situation of comfort, and however they
might wish to contribute to that comfort, still that was the
duty of private charity, and should not be of a compulsory
kind. The effect of our law in ordering out-door relief
to be given to the paupers at their dwellings, was the
following it up by the magistracy, on a principle certainly
of good feeling and humanity; that was a mistake undoubt-
edly, but a mistake originating in the best feelings. —( Hear. )
A result was hoped for, that the poor farmers should be
rendered comfortable ; but it was quite the reverse. It
must be admitted that the present question was one of
great difficulty : any man who took but a cursory view
of it would acknowledge it to be so. The length of
time during which those abuses existed, the consequences
through the whole districts in which they prevailed—and
such was the difficulty, that it could not be expected to pass
at once or by any rapid measure to such alterations—
would counteract the evils that had sprung from abuses.
The greatest caution should be used in adopting such means
as should produce the desired effect, because of the fright-
ful danger that attended too hasty steps ; but at the same
time nothing should be left undone to enforce those right
principles of action which could effect a remedy.—
(Loud cries of " Hear, hear, hear.") One advantage
attended any measure which might now be introduced;
they were not working in the dark ; many parishes had
been laid under a system, the workings of which could be
referred to as the result of an experiment which might
either induce others to follow, or deter them from
doing so. (Hear.) He did not say that it would be ad-
visable to extend these experiments to all the parishes or
districts throughout the country, as, no doubt, much of the
success in those cases might fairly be attributed to the zeal
and activity of those who had volunteered in the cause,
which, perhaps, could not be anticipated in an equal degree
from a system founded upon an express statute. The difficulty
of legislating effectively on 'the subject was increased, in
some degree, by looking at the returns made of the places
and districts in which these experiments had been tried.
In the whole they were about 100 in number, amongst
which Buckinghamshire offered two parishes ; Berkshire
one ; Cornwall, Devonshire, Gloucestershire, one each ;
Hertfordshire two ; Norfolk 56 ; Suffolk 25 ; and it was
proved that in all, even the more pauperised districts, the
experiments had succeeded. It was, notwithstanding, ne-
cessary, in his opinion, that they should adopt the improved
system
i with great caution, or else they might find them-
selves involved in consequences for which they were not
yet prepared, since in one parish they might not have ar-
rived at the same height of pauperism that they had in an-
other. The course his Majesty's Government had to recom-
mend was to establish a new and an anomalous power in the
State. In making such a recommendation to the house, he
had to direct their attention to what would be the alternar
tive should they refuse. The frightful consequences already
made manifest must continue to go on and increase in pro--
pc rtion to the lapse of time, perhaps beyond it. Already
rishes had been abandoned, and the result of continuing

to act on a principle which had rendered such results was
too frightful to be contemplated. He had to appeal to
that house for a measure of great decision which would
establish a controlling and discretionary power in the
parties to whom it should be intrusted, in order to render
the experiment perfect and the measure effectual in esta-
blishing a good and sound principle. The question then
was where were they to invest this high discretionary
power ? Certainly he thought not in the local authorities,
which would not have the means of forming general com-
parative estimates, and were beside under a certain local
influence which was sure to be fatally felt in all pauperised
districts. It was his wish that his Majesty should be em-
powered to create a general central commission with great
discretionary power to superintend and control the attempt
at restoring the law to its original purposes. It would be
necessary to invest the commissioners with very great
powers ; but then those powers were to be subject to the
control of parliament. There was one part of the ad-
ministration of the poor laws which, however difficult to
be carried into effect, was still of absolute necessity, as it
could not be dispensed with. It was a case in which there
was no discretion. What he alluded to was the necessity
of fixing a certain day in the course of next summer, when
the allowance system should cease. (Hear.) He was
perfectly aware of the difficulties attending this measure,
and had himself, as a magistrate, acted on the allowance
system in the part of the country with which he was more
immediately connected. But at the same time he was
convinced it would be impossible to bring the poor laws
into a better state while that system existed. This was
not the first time he had, as a member of the House of Com-
mons, advocated a measure for preventing those who were
employed by others from receiving parish relief. He had
always supported the bill which was introduced by the hon.
member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Slaney). At first sight any
such measure might seem difficult to be adopted, but still
the difficulty was by no means insurmountable. Under
the present system the farmer derived an advantage which
he ought not to possess, by receiving assistance at the ex-
pense of the parish. Rut then it might be said it would
not be fair to deprive him of that advantage. In reply to
this objection, he would say, that the labourer ought to be
placed in a state of independence by causing the whole of
his labour to be paid by himself, instead of causing part of
it to be paid out of the poor rates. (Hear.) He thought
that, this would be a very great advantage to him. It
might, however, be said, that at present the labourer re-
ceived a certain amount of wages for the support of himself
and his family, and that he could not subsist without it.
In this proposition he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
could not concur, seeing that, if the present system were
altered, and the plan of independent labour adopted, the
necessary consequence must be an increase of wages.
Hence the situation of the labourer would be much better
than it was now. He maintained that before the house
could proceed to any amendment of the poor laws, it
was absolutely necessary to get rid of the allowance
system, as being the foundation of all other evils. (Hear. )
He now came again to advert to the discretionary power
which must be vested in the central commission. (Hear,
hear.) It could not be denied that great benefit would
be derived from there being a uniformity of system
in every part of the country. He proposed that
the commissioners should have power to make rules for the
management of the poor, the regulation of workhouses,
and the mode by which relief was to be administered.
Upon any such power, however, he would impose this
check, that before a general rule was adopted, it should be
submitted for approval to the Secretary of State for the
Home Department, and that it should not be valid for forty
days after it was so submitted. He also proposed that
afterwards it might be competent to the privy council to
prevent its being carried into effect. This, it was true,
was vesting an extraordinary power in the central board ;
but then no practical improvement of the poor laws could
take place without it. If any hon. gentleman could point
out to him a better mode than that which he had now
stated, he should be happy to adopt it ; but he trusted that
no general objection would be urged against what he pro-
posed. A power of making rules and regulations was, as
he had observed, to be given to the board of commissioners,
such rules and regulations to be subject to the approbation
of the Secretary of State and the Government. He also
proposed that power should be given to parishes of making
regulations and orders for the management of the poor in
separate districts and parishes. The object was to enable
districts and parishes to form unions for that purpose ; no
such unions, however, to be established without their
consent, while they should be at liberty to dissolve any
that might already exist. It was likewise provided that
every parish union was to maintain only its own poor.
He did not mean to say that united parishes might
not join, for the purpose of fixing settlements and mak-
ing rates ; but any such power as that he had just
instanced ought not to be vested in the parishes them-
selves. The commissioners should have the power of
suggesting to parishes the propriety of making additions to
workhouses wherever such additions should appear neces-
sary. He should be sorry to give to any body of men a
discretionary power of expending large sums of money,
particularly in times like the present, but he thought that
the commissioners might be at liberty to make to the
vestries of parishes suggestions of expenditure, in cases
where expenditure was necessarily required. He pro-
posed that a departure from the present system of making
rates should take place. Vestries, as now constituted,
were composed exclusively of rate-payers, and a charge
was imposed on persons who had no vote whatever. Now
he thought that this system ought not to continue. It ap-
peared to him that, in all questions respecting the election
of guardians of the poor, and in all questions relative to the
management of the workhouse, and the mode of raising
money to facilitate emigration, the landholder as well as
the rate-payer should have a vote, more especially as the
rate-payer might happen to have only a transient tenure of
the premises he occupied, while the landowner had a per-
manent interest in them. He stated this fact because, at
the close of the last century, the legislature had made a great
mistake, which ought to be corrected, though it was at
the time impossible to avoid it. His intention was to pro-
pose that justices of the peace should not have the power
of ordering out-of-door relief to the poor—namely, re-
lief at their own houses. To alter the existing law
upon this point was only to restore the practice which
had existed before the year 1796. Thus far he had stated
the objects which the general measure contemplated. The
House would see that it proposed to alter the allowance
system, to deprive the majority of out-door paupers of re-
lief, and to vest discretionary power in the commissioners
for framing rules and regulations for the purpose of carry-
ing the law into effect. There were two other questions
of importance which he must touch upon. The first re-
lated to the law of settlement. He needed not to observe
that any hon. member who was at all acquainted with the
subject must see that the present law was most compli-
cated, leading to great expense, much vexatious litigation,
and interfering with the free employment of labour. At
first he had thought that the best mode of gaining a settle-
ment would be by hiring and service, but he now felt con-
vinced that every mode ought to be abolished, except that
of birth and right acquired by marriage. He had heard
one objection urged against the mode of settlement by birth
—namely, that where a man lad spent many years of his
life in a part of the country far distant from where he had
been born, it would be extremely hard to remove him to
his parish. He thought, however, that, in most cases
where a man was so circumstanced, he would not be so
destitute of friends as to be obliged to go back. Another ob-
jection was, that persons who did not belong to the parish
generally turned out to be the best labourers, and there-
fore that they ought not to be removed. What he pro-
posed was, that every one should follow the settlement
of his parents till he was sixteen years of age,
and then that he should have recourse to his own,
which was to be the place of his birth. (Hear, hear.)
For his own part he had seen quite as good labourers
who were natives of the parish as those who were not. He
knew, however, that the contrary theory prevailed ; but
even admitting it to be correct, he still thought that no
man would be deterred from employing a man who might
be useful to him from any_ apprehension of his ultimately
becoming burdensome. The advantages of fixing settle-
ment by birth counterbalanced all others. It was a mate-
rial point to give freedom of action to the labouring man,
without being bound to him for a term of fifty-one years ;
and he thought that this mode would have the effect of
diminishing litigation. Another alteration he proposed
was that, in all cases of removal, notice should be served
upon the overseers of the parish to which the individual
was to be removed, with a view that an appeal might be
made, should that course be judged expedient. He pro-
posed that when any such appeal was made the party
should not be at liberty to plead any thing except what
was contained in the notice. In this way removals would
frequently be avoided, 'and notices of appeal might be
abandoned altogether. If parishes should unite for the
purpose of fixing settlements, in that case also the number
of removals would be diminished. There was another
subject upon which he had hitherto felt some difficulty in
proposing any change, though quite convinced that a
change ought to take place. Now, however, that he was
called upon to pronounce his opinion in reference to the
measure before the house, he would not hesitate to state
that an alteration was most necessary. The subject he
alluded to was the law respecting illegitimate children.
(Cheers.) He would not hesitate to say that the
present law, by imprisoning some of the finest young
men in the country, had the effects of totally demo-
ralising their habits. The state of the law was such, that if
any woman chose to swear before a Magistrate that she
was pregnant, the person against whom she swore was im-
prisoned till he found security for all expenses. Now,
when it was seen how difficult a thing it was for a labour-
ing man to provide himself with security, it could not be
considered a matter of surprise that he should often be
kept in prison for five or six months and that too among
characters of the very worst desciption. He proposed
that though the woman should not be imprisoned, she
should still be liable to the support of her child in the
same manner as if she was a widow. It was proved that
the law, as it now stood, gave rise to the greatest immora-
lity throughout the country ; and he was persuaded that
the proposed alteration, so far from being prejudicial to the
interests of society, would, on the contrary, be of the
highest advantage. He had now only to observe, in refer-
ence to the whole measure for effecting an alteration in
the poor laws, that in bringing it forward he was aware that
his colleagues and himself might be exposed to much decla-
mation and calumny. It might be said that they were

opposed to the interest of the labourer. So far, however,
from this being the fact, he would say that should the
measure prove successful, it would confer up& the labourer
the greatest possible benefit. It would restore him to
what he once was, and rescue him from the condition of
a pauperised slave. (Cheers.) He was sure that the la-
bourer must be aware that the effect of the present system
was to reduce the amount of wages. It was desirable that
labourers should be paid not on account of their children,
but on account of their work. At present no dis-
tinction was made between the good and bad ; all were
plaeed upon the same level. It was said they ought not
to punish poverty or make it a crime. In this he entirely
agreed, but they could not prevent poverty from being
considered a misfortune. In this measure they were not
giving any misfortune to the objectt of their care, but, if
misfortune it was, extending it to others. He should now
move for leave to bring in a bill to alter and amend the
laws relating to the relief of the poor in England, and
Wales. The noble lord sat down, amidst loud cheers from
both sides of the house.

Mr. RICHARDS said he gave the noble lord credit for
his good intentions, but he had not taken a large and com-
prehensive view of the subject. The noble lord blamed
the administration of the law, but had not said one word
against the principle on which it was founded. He (Mr.
Richards) attributed all the evils of the country to the
alternations of prosperity and adversity, which it had so
long experienced. The change in the currency was one
main cause of those alternations. He had hoped that
some allusion would be made in the speech of the noble
lord to the state of the poor of Ireland, but he had not
said one word on the subject. No change in the system
of poor laws in England could remedy the evils resulting
from the influx of Irish paupers into this country. He
had not an idea that the question of poor laws would have
been brought before the house on the present occasion,
and he was therefore unprepared to meet it in a manner
satisfactory to himself. In the meantime he could only
protest against the adoption of any remedial measures
which were not extended over the whole empire, as no
other scheme would be found productive of relief.
Mr. STRICKLAND complimented the noble lord on
the impressive and forcible manner in which he had intro-
duced this subject to the house, and said that the measure
which was now before them would form a new era in the
happiness and prosperity of the working classes, and also of
the whole landed and moneyedinterests of the kingdom. The
house seemed to be emerging now from a state of darkness
and disorder, and, for the first time, some light appeared to
have been shed upon the course which they ought to pur-
sue upon this momentous subject. He consida red the
country to be deeply indebted to government for having
taken this matter up, and no less beholden to the Poor Law
Commissioners, whose labours had been marked by such as-
siduity and intelligence. He differed entirely with the
hon. member who spoke last as to the Irish poor laws,
and considered the noble lord had acted perfectly right in
not mixing up the question of English poor laws with that
of Ireland, as it was most necessary and important that the
wants of the English people should first be attended to, and
their poor law settled, in order that some means might exist
to form a guide for their steps with respect to Ireland.
Let, therefore, the matter as now developed be proceeded
in, and he would willingly give the government all the as-
sistance in his power.
Colonel TORRENS also congratulated the hotse upon
the efficient and satisfactory manner in which the noble
lord had discharged the important duty which had devolved
upon him. He had heard with intense pleasure the decla-
ration of the noble lord, that the system of poor laws about
to be enforced was not so much intended for the advantage
of the landholder and the capitalist as for the poor labour-
ing classes themselves, for that alone was the only sound
view which the noble lord could have taken of the subject.
He hailed the change as one of the most wholesome that
had been propounded since he had been engaged in public
affairs, and looked upon it as calculated to effect great good
in every possible way • those who opposed it, however they
might profess to be the friends of the people, were not their
friends, but their bitterest enemies. He would hereafter
enter more fully upon the subject.
Mr. E. L. BULWER said that during the course of the
preceding session he had devoted much attention to the
important subject which now occupied the attention of the
house, and it was somewhat extraordinary that he had
formed a scheme for the amelioration of the poor laws,
which was so similar to those now propounded by the noble
iprd, as to be nearly identified with it. (Hear.) The
system which was now proposed had long been enforced in
the United States, where, however, the poor laws were a
considerable time in making their way, and he could only
state, as a fact for the guidance of the house, that in all
those States of the United Provinces where the workhouse
discipline was enforced, the system of poor laws was found
to be admirably effective for their purpose of restraining
idleness and pauperism ; but that in those States where
that discipline was neglected, the poor rates were very
high, and pauperism very much extended. He begged, in
conclusion, to express his congratulations to the house and
to the noble lord for the admirable manner in which he had
lie t
f extended
as
ot of
brought the question forward.
o
Sir SAMUEL WHALLEY said that he was not dis-
posed to give his unqualified consent to the measure as
now proposed by the noble lord, for he was of opinion that
the
until the
house made it a
am r laws would never be established on a right basis
law thatt a
terof right the relief
paupers was not so m uch
charity, and, in conformity to that principle, to suffer each
parish to assess itself according to the extent to which it
might be deemed necessary to answer the demands of cha-
rity. As to the proposed alteration of the bastardy laws,
he was totally averse to it, because he was of opinion that,
so far from repressing the production of illegitimate chil-
dren, their number would be very much increased by it ;
for he believed that the principal reason why young men
were deterred from forming illicit connection with women
was the fear of being made to support their offspring ; and
thus the noble lord's alteration would be holding out a pre-
mium to vice and libertinage. With these two exceptions,
he was disposed to think the measure a salutary substitute
for the present wretchedly-inefficient system of poor laws,
and he should, to the extent he had named, support it.
Mr. HUME said that he was sorry to hear his hon.
friend below him express his disapprobation of the points
to which he had referred of the noble lord's proposed mea-
sure, because in his opinion the principal benefit to be de-
rived from it was the uniformity of poor rates, which would
thereby be levied all over the kingdom, and the overseers
would also be enabled to deal with the sturdy paupers who
now caused them so much trouble, with their threats of
doing this thing and that, by holding over them the autho-
rity of an act of the legislature. He disagreed also with
his hon. friend upon the subject of the alteration in the
bastardy laws ; indeed he was surprised to hear his hon.
friend say that young men were at present deterred from
getting (A laugh) he did not mean that. (Another
laugh.) Let young women know the responsibilities which
they incurred by any act of folly, and they would take pretty
good care to avoid any results. At present the law of
bastardy was a matter of trade with some women, for there
were many who had acquired a very good income by their
exertions in that way ; the greater the number the greater
being the advantage. Look at the operation of the law of
Scotland for a proof. Now the same law would work here.
There the mother has to support her own offspring, and
seldom indeed was it that a second child made its appear-
ance. The alarm, therefore, of the hon. member was un-
founded, and he trusted that, as he had expressed his ap-
probation of the other parts of the measure, he would re-
consider his opinion upon these two points, and give the
government his uniform support upon this valuable and
well-timed measure. (Hear, and cheers. )
Mr. HARDY approved of the measure in general, but
thought some alteration might be made for bettering
the laws relating to settlement.
Colonel WOOD said that in his opinion the present
measure would have the beneficial effect of enabling the
labourer to bring his only produce, viz., his labour—un-
shackled into the market, and that consideration alone
would induce him to support it. He begged to impress
upon the house the necessity for discussing this important
question, divested of all party feelings, and to show thereby
that they were unanimous in their desires to ameliorate the
condition of the lower orders. He trusted that every
labourer would now be paid by his master, and that no part
of his wages would be raised out of the poor rates. He
trusted also that the government would, when there was a
surplus of labourers in any particular district or parish,
grant every facility in their power to persons who were
willing to emigrate to our colonies. He concurred heartily
in the proposed alteration of the bastardy laws, not so much
on account of the male sex as the other sex, who claimed
more immediately their protection. The present system was
not only useless in itself, but calculated to do much mis-
chief. Parish-officers, for instance, who hunted out unfor-
tunate females, and brought them before a magistrate, de-
stroyed any little sense of shame or modesty left in them.
He congratulated his Majesty's ministers on bringing for-
ward such a comprehensive and judicious measure, and
would offer only one suggestion. He thought it would be
more expedient to divide the bill, and bring forward that
part of it which was unexceptionable this session, and
leave the other part either for an ensuing session, or at
least introduce it in a separate bill.
Mr. WARD expressed his concurrence in the plan of
the noble lord, and particularly in that part of it which re-
lated to workhouses. That system had been tried in a
district with which he was acquainted, and had been qnite
successful,

Sir T. FREMANTLE expressed his thanks to the no-
ble lord for grappling with so difficult a subject. He must,
at the same time, say that some parts of the plan were
founded on theory, and however feasible they might ap-
pear, no small difficulties would arise in putting them in
practice. The establishment of a central board he consi-
dered highly judicious. It was founded on sound princi-
ples, and he trusted would meet with general approbation.
Magistrates, he knew from experience, incurred great re-
sponsibility in the administration of the poor laws, and
though he should be happy to get rid of that responsibility
still he should be most happy to render every assistance,
and also to take his share of responsibility in carrying the
measure into effect. It had long been his opinion that the
overseers and vestries were not competent for the manage,
ment of the poor rates, and he was, ilirefore, glad to
find that other persons were to be appointed to perform a
duty so responsible and so difficult. He trusted that the
plan would put an end to allowances to labourers out of
the poor rates, and that they would be paid by the farmers

alone. He was glad to see that a board was to be ap
pointed to control and superintend the inmates of worlc-
houses. The present system only encouraged profligacy,
and had totally failed of its original purpose. He hoped
the noble lord would introduce a clause in the bill by which
parish accounts might be regularly audited. At present
there were no auditors of these accounts. They. were,
it was true, laid before the Quarter Sessions, but in most
instances too late for any check, either on negligence or
malversation.
Mr. SLANEY expressed his concurrence in the mea-
sure, and particularly in that part of it which did away
with allowances to able-bodiedlabourers out of theme oor-
rwaast e s.
not
tThehecba
sees tnloawb o. u r oughteTrhem e
astuorbee,
itnh theihis best
opipnaiiodn,
not be called an experiment ; it was only a return to the
old laws for the management of the poor rates. He re-
gretted that the noble lord had not introduced a clause by
which the owner, and not the occupier of small tenements
1 as now, should be liable for the parish rates ; that was elle
of the recommendations of the commissioners, and he
thought it should have been adopted.
some measure
eTasOnWreEfoßrSthheocpneldtivtahteionnobolfewlaosrtde
lands,NVould introduce
give work to surplus labourers, in place of forcing them
emigrate.
Mr. CRIPPS also expressed a wish that the rates ?,e,
small tenements should be paid by the owner, and
the tenant.
Mr. ESTCOURT did not concur in the plan of tl:ee
noble lord relative to the proposed law of settlement. !vi
thought birth alone was not sufficient. If a person, for in-
thought
born in London, purchased a property in t
country, and afterwards became unfortunate, it would be a
great hardship to compel him to apply at the placetobsrodech'
be
birth for a settlement. He thought settlement should
fixed not only by birth, but also by possession of propert)."
After a few words from Mr. P. SCROPE,
Lord ALTHORP expressed his thanks to the gentlemen
not by
who had addressed the house, for their favourable receptieelj
'of the measure. The hon. member for Marylebone hop
that the commissioners would not interfere with well relit'
lated parishes. He hoped so too. They would only folloW
the good example, and there could therefore be no aPPrte;
hension of any interference. In reply to a question 1)0.4
the last speaker, he would state that there would be assist'
commissioners to co-operate with the country and cen'",.,,
boards, and that there would be no occasion to continue
magistrates the power of ordering relief to the poor. In
cases where parishes were small, ,they would be joined, :t
larger parishes, so that there would be no district with'''.
a workhouse.

In answer to a question from Mr. BARING, t°
Lord ALTHORP said he had offered no opposition
the Labour Rate Bill, because he looked on it only as sr
temporary measure till an alteration was made in the for.
laws ; but now that it was likely to be effected, the,'
would be no occasion for such a bill._(Hear.)

In answer to a question from an HOw. MistßEß,. to.
Lord ALTHORP said that it was not his inteutionthe
invest the central board with a power of compelling into
erection of workhouses. When the measure can fg,
operation he felt sanguine that it would work most
ciently. There would be a recommendation to those. rila
rishes in which there were no workhouses either to IP

or to hire them. (Hear.) ore
After a few observations from Mr. WYNN, which
inaudible in the gallery, lin of
Sir CHARLES BURRELL said he trusted the P— be
the noble lord would be attended with all the beneftso.
anticipated. But he thought that plan would be verLaos
terially assisted if the noble lord would devise some ice fr
by which the different parishes would be enabled t° That
employment to their extra labourers in any mameer, for
the parishes might deem most advantageous. (Hear'. 'based
his own part he would steadfastly oppose any planided s
upon the principle of coercion, unless it also pro
means of giving employment to the poor. (Hear.) io I
The question was then put and leave given to bri 5
the bill.
RIGHT OF ADMISSION TO ENGLISH

oWhrOinOgDinwaashiullnd,,etrost
leave to UNIVERSITIES.
the right of admission to the English universities,: their
equal eligibility to degrees therein, notwithstanding, at,_.,
diversities of religious opinions, degrees in divinity. Trio_
excepted." The hon. member said that he should, Lni, he
duce his motion as an amendment to a motion cm' ~,e
understood would be brought before the house in
of the evening.
GAME LAWS. to
Mr. LENNARD said that, in rising to ask leave2d s
bring in a bill to repeal sec. 7 and sec. 8, of IT ws),
William IV., chap. 32 (Amendment of the Game J'axioas
and also part of sec. 30, of the same act, he was aPee, of
to give the house an opportunity of correcting
_a.nPel that
grant to hstispollnleajhesisty7;°stuibiTedfc°o4 \
very great injustice. The hon. member comp lai
aina_`•nd_
the act to which his motion referred had, instead of e
e than
ing the game laws, rendered them infinitely worse
act a
they were before. Previously to the passingof that
he occu-
man had a right to kill game upon the land which
were $
pied. (Oh, oh.) Most certainly he had—if het
o_.
_,
properly qualified person. (Hear' )• Buta d the
gave
tof ltare
session took the right from the occupier n g.a.,
held eb
, a leas 4
landlord. (Hear, hear-) Even if a man ) t
kill the game ; while
_I!,
of three lives he could not
land and itu
landowner had a right to come in upon his 0 ._..
the game. This right the landowner had not previ utl.
Was that, n'
to the passing of the act of last session.
the con.-
would ask, proper or right ? (Hear, hear.) He did
the bill. (Hear.) been 1
Mr. HUME said that when the bill which had
..5
anticipate any opposition to his getting leave to bring lv
floc,
referred to was brought down to the House of Co _
__,,..
with the additional clauses added in the House of .tz,,o,';
he had recommended the rejection of the entire bin..h a,
account of the very great injustice of agreeing to st; be
clause. The House of Lords, he thought, ought At alt
ashamed of themselves. (Oh, oh, and laughter.) itt,
events, the clause which they had added, he thytc'tbe
ought to be repealed, and he would therefore supPe"
motion of the hon. member. (Hear.) of the
Colonel WOOD, notwithstanding the observation at , the
hon. member who had just sat down, regretted Tel had
motion had been brought forward. The clause wbi being,
been complained of affected very few leases then in right
and those who held under leases since made had, fib° a full I
ktonowcolmedgpleaina, btheceauesxeisttehneeeleoasfetshewelraewsmad(egsecaitrth;.bre:iii:•:e
He thought the changes which had been made in
laws were very beneficial, and he was averse to hr:dlsst
in a bill this year to amend a law which was P,assseosiol'
year. He also thought it unadvisable to open atar.)
upon the subject year after year in that house. (mere a"
Mr. CRIPPS made some observations which
audible in the gallery. 01
Le sbe 1,
Lord ALTHORP was understood to say that " rtsia.)
it
not oppose the proposition of his hon. friend. It
tune,'
never could have been the intention of the Legis.,,,a now_Ae.„
passing the Game Act, to give the landlord any ne-sio",:
in respect to game. He thought it fair that some on
should be given to the tenants in the present inst'-on tP"
far as to put them in the same position as they were ,
passing of the Game ill. 01`'
Coloneltrustd that the hon. gentleman i 0 es.,,5
e
confine the operation of his bill to the case of those
which existed before the passing of the Game l3ill' ,
Mr. LENNARD stated that this was his objee'ed out
Mr. AGLIONBY said that the house was call
~,,, t
not to consider the general question of the game 1,3:;10e.„11
precise
to
ri
eldlceidscieiddpeourwr
pldit:edrtthnoeofr
tv,,t ht:hekic7eht ha
didws eacynt section of
hroetfsatchwhehuiG:iai
tmi
hadieeAee 0 pi-'
,r the
viously enjoyed in respect to leases. r..El4'.' 5
After a few words from Sir FRANCIS VlN''' tion
agreed to. 'cit
DISSENTERS' DISABILITIES. of SCh' 0
Colonel WILLIAMS rose to make the motioo.,,oelltili
he had given notice relative to the admission of "that 0. I,' • i
to take degrees in the Universities. He said'f;aclioi -all
the permission of the house he would commence 'ft°. hi:
motion, which was to the following effect :"'"esting or
hUmble address be presented to the King, 04;16 es a 00
Majesty to signify his pleasure to the Univer'" hodielsoti, ,
I
ford and Cambridge, respectively that th°_„,sees L , '
1, 1-4 . i
longer act under the Edicts or Letters of Jaw; in sc"°i'th :,
' by which he would have all that took any degrr;enon ;, itv ;
to subscribe to the three articles' of the 36th `-" pivulte-ga -,;
the exception of those proceeding to degrees or
a° nttiel' '
nor to require the declaration, namely, tha" r ail "The,
.fide a member of the church of England ;' n.„,° rt. ,dereo
subscription or declaration of like effect and iitt: eons' the
hon. and gallant gentleman proceeded to say, rated bY fie
that this question had been something comPaubjecto Is'
previous debates which had taken place on the 'eared ',,eir
would endeavour to simplify it. To him it arPios %b.)
merely whether our ancestors who passed three (A la7ight
tury and a half ago were wiser than ourselves.and the
The hon. baronet, the member for Banbury, or 0111101
I.on. gentleman, the Secretary of the Treatleet, s'oe.
Rice), had, in the previous debates on this sti leir, which
some interesting illustrations of his prEsett Vete/lea at)!
the First, the author of the E4ictS and the prossooo°'
were the subject of his (COliMel Williams'q on
e•stor'i
1 dress to the drown, was the author] of a sot; ~r alle live,
i logy. As another proof of the fallibility ()Ur' who
u'ite,tl
lin the reign of Eliiabeth, -and wh?, that ell'inen"
ate
surely
he ' might state that a great philosopllwe'L oeeo
iv' i,,!,
I the " wisest of • mankind (Bacon), they
I individual believed in witches, and that t age, snot°
dto tha • •g he
i flesh. If such errors as these belonge exoninn
oat
1
I
, they ought not to be deterred froln d. Arnonr,ts, the
lacts dating their origin from that
• other errors of the time, he would num beg to get r,,licief'
Imischievous power of which he now PrOTt •_nine ar' oilf
he meant those imposing as tests the horn. yet be c 0.,:
' and other matters. Those subscriptionesd n
for churcho_etit„),
known to have been originally intend
__
not definite,
'tend
art.c.e feiociet
for a length of time, very wisely, they 7, anti ale
of every man taking a degree. The a.e wo pot in AO
thirty-sixth canon clearly proved that it h t
those se- :1
this test should ever be imposed on anY, to the boo!_ed 0
Pell% r the a' •,10f;
ordination. He would read that articten(aof order
con'
" That the book of Common Prayer, 1
a:
i it nothing; be
bishops, priests, and deacons, contatneth ii
.a. 011,.
_,,,
Crary to the word of God, and that it may.nl
~.e1"501, betiii,
used, and that he himself will use, the form. 1 r"
tration °f 01
original in
sacraments, and none other." .A 9 to the
prescribed in the public prayer and adminis . tell

thiswith respect to this test, there could not be a doubt ; but
as well as the other articles were now imposed on all
persons seeking degrees, whether' to become chnrehnien or
not. Such a proceeding he held to be decidedly objection-
, able, and he hoped the house would consider i an
requiring to be rectified. It had been asserted that it would
be
dangerous to remove those tests, because the consequence .
would be, the admission of dissenters to the universities_,
Sir
t.,he right hon. baronet, the member for Tamworth
(r;'r '' Peel) had professed himself alarmed lest scholar-
s-Ts and other' university honours should be given to im-
proper persons. He (Colonel Will
ever, the consequence would be, Williams) thought, how-
that still proper
A After morethlt-
Persons would be admitted than at Present'
helti.". had been made which he advocated, the tests would.
InTosed on people who had some consciences,.. which
wer •
ms
e now in many instances violated in submitting to these
''.3tS' .Indeed the grievances arising from t e restrictions
veleere very generally felt, and even complainedh of by many
IvVinen of the established church. It had been put for
aru in a document issued by the Associated Clergy
rein_
:P'7B2, that the Thirty-nine Articles were not, in everaod ;
e_iet, consonant with and - agreeable to the word of
'441 if this opinion was uttered by churchmen, was it to be
wondered at that dissenters should be unwillinoansuybsperir.nb_e
the'°? These tests could not be defended uponlf
James i
the
et.iiP_le which stood in the way of. their. repeal.
First acted on his own authority in impo.sing them, what
was t
a . here to prevent the present Sovereign from. exerting
lliseunpls:reediPoAn'ger in their repeal ? It hid been objected that
in the present motion should have beenm
thei form of a bill, and not of an address. Such an .
objec-
tionll was merely technical, and for his part,. if the proposi-
,WaS fairly entertained, he had no particular attachment
-,, either form of proceeding.
Mr* BUCKINGHAM seconded the motion.
to the effect,
~.'ilart..
the
eOOD rose to move an amendm
privileges of the Universities be granted anted tohiins
4Nesty's subjects generally, without any tests, degrees
dtt'ilv°o!yal.one excepted." The house would see best how
His amendment was
founded ° dispose of the two motions..
on the simple and natural right of all his Majesty's
subjects gene to enj y equal advantages. This was a
right so Obviorusall,"and a -por-opo-sition so unanswerable, that he would not weaken its force by urging anything in its
support It may be asked, if it was so obvious, why had a
different practice h sO long
was easy een co_ntinued? The answei
Y and ready. When non conformity was looked
tiaras
as a c •
tural that Mine:, *sed by the law, it was na-
and so stigmatised
thNat should abstain from complaint, when, by
complaint, they would but convict themselves. (oHnfearo.
-)
ZnitYf ° advantag would be gained by the avowdmofwnho
made
, When the announcement ex
to , avowal to difficulties. But when r
hied-colotedrmwit,hyiceehashaded
bee °e Penal, the same toleration should gr
The religious
, 4.ganted with regard to the legislature.
t-oolikyiet.ion of an individual made no difference now with regard
„..,''s civil privileges, and why should it make any difference
l'elth.regard to education 9 Why should not the seats of
to all? There was no toleration,
farn.. ing be equallopen
a Y portion of community were excluded from those
Pile% where the rewards of learning were received. But
this was i. as an evil not merely theoretical ;it was productive
O! much practical injury to the professions of law and phy-
Ireland or Scotland, and why, then, make England the
Neption ? The rewards of successful study should be
°Pen to all aspirants. This was a question which had, in
ItYery high degree, attracted much public attention, and a
them
ost in with respect to it had been forwarded by some of
ie distinguished members of an English University.
attended the debate on that petition—he expressed his taPprohation] of it, and thanked its framers for the posi-
2°n in which they had placed the question. He would tilit now reply to the ,arguments which had been urged in
heea.ire against the measure, but in urging it forward he
tan'-- ase to say, that he was not prompted by any sec-
an views, or any feelings hostile to the Church of Eng-
d•
ng oliohe public,
tifyiPassing- of the measure would be highly gra-
tOilf the house and add considerably to the popularity
His proposition contemplated no change. in
ineti,'""de of His
degrees of divinity, nor any alteration
;:t ..e courses of study ; it only sought access for all to the
r'"ileges which the universities were empowered to con-
blish Without meaning anything injurious to the esta-
brit 'nem, he would move, " That leave be given to
the-g. lent, a bill t grant his Majesty's subjects, generall,
equalgut of admisosion to the English Universities, and of
1 eligibility to degrees therein, notwithstanding their
Iversities of - • • • • degrees in divinity alone
excepted „ religious opinions ,Arr. i,Q
kuch • ---'TCOURT felt the question to be one of so
!nit hclatteler:ost, that he would offer no apology for trespass-
the time of the house. The effect of the
°n thure would be to introduce dissenters, and even there,
whicl,ti_Nint, his objections began. The university. v.vi h
educes had the ho o to be connected placed religious
foremost position ; and if persons of
t•dleseraridtei:netthse very li ur
indi_gsl;.in,
rod liiilea:l owv,"ere.adm *ted how could that object be
. ulditthe, doctrines of the church of
maintained in the universities, if they were
It
theirdegrees
inopdienvistnoity persons of every dissenting form ?
te 0 be that person would enter not at first intending
who would afterwards change
theology ; and then' who would afterwards change
theolotttitlOns; and then there should be professors of
disaeafY for persons of every dissenting persuasion, or else
ky atte‘ebrsdirud be compelled to violate their consciences,
ums. If til lectures at variance with their own persua-
sition would's were not the case, the object of the prcipo-
To this he g°ld t° do away with all religious education.l
those wou
pose himself, and he was certain al
the attached to the chur h as established, would oppose
Wouldchaltge• The nd of such a measure as that proposed
it had
be most injuriouse to the church of England. And
thalltad been avowd by two hon. members in
_thatatteh,ouasned
that the object was to separate the church and
os_ _
bject was
401tehievthe(elY. would never rest sat ed up
Here the honourableisfim ember read an extract
2,i' to a letter the name of the writer of which he did not
—,,,ye., but whom he characterised as one of the ablest men
tthe dissenting body. The extract commented on the
itionselating to this question which had been laid
_:ii•e the house, saying that the petitioners went on too
.113-lystill'avowing th. c desire to. separate the church
a °ln the state, and expressing a conviction that that great
-4,1 glorious object would be eventually accomplished. It
IT'ild not (continued the hon. member) be doubted, that
rlbtihe imposition before the hous were concurred in, the
w,-;llp,°bLieet of these establisl7ments--religious education—
aside uerimabo,lished, and the utility of the universities set
Pao'nl3hletn°l2• member then read an extract from a
to show that the founders of the universities
et, Jisildered them of no avail, unless the worship of God and
religious education were considered primary jects ; and tiir', that he knew from his own observation obthe benefi-
in viesequences which followed from keeping these objects
tio,,,atY'• COUld he therefore consent to the proposed in-
Ti,, lc?, and that without satisfactory reason being given?
soluphtissenters had no absolute want of the privileges
ioZ
,_for them. They had their own places of educa-
eTi, '''''d it A-ould be madness to accede to the proposition.
di Plaints -
t•lssenter %%ere made of the great hardship. inflicted on
',l4Ying si '0 consequence of the necessity for persons
° thenaw er Physic to obtain degrees, order to, en-
In
probation and
Practie to certain advantages in the .
'rell t? Of these professions. But did that arise from the
foss.'le wa:?;;Aof the universities ? Certainly not. The
diots --'. down by the governing bodies in those pro-
ts'ent:rald it would be much more reasonable in the
ti'lere t'ol°,aeal,.l upon them to alter their regulations than
Hsi, riatnred a' nainent for the purpose of breaking through
lip- ,iiiver_. .4(1 highly important institutions of the Eng_
t there nties• ( Hear, hear.) Another argument was
'we restricts existed no necessity for the imposition
nnPn
kadre not ?inns at Oxford and Cambridge, which
this trei,,, Posed by the universities of Scotland
;I's ail, -"-L• But the hon. member, in advancing
'llei:e(l'tlirnatt' forborete to state,.t what made all the differ-
rsi es residence was not re-
INl4struct';lor was there unyivetheological education, religious
,' ae-it'.'l forming noan -part of these institutions. He
lit to „ uut lookwith some alarm on the spirit of hosti-
kai__ the ~,,,__
re
6,3"A.t pa:. 'u hof England, which seemed so prevalent
the •geular classes. Yet, on other hand, he
he the iereatest confidence in the good seense and firmness
gee l'ad tlelelui?" of the established church generally. ; and.. tlnt, and
..est authority for stating, that a large, inteiii
141 Y, of d'illtillential portion of dissenters—not one, but_n
evio e most res table sects--agreed with him i
'll4 g, th . Pee tb. rch, w at, in the maintenance of . the. esta blished.n
ch's couttas based the preservation of religious liberty i
P-o;111h -.
Of (Hear. ) He called on the members of the
imet'ected gland in that house, and on those members
ap"ln hewith the reectable classes of dTsenters,
essi vgad alluded, to join with him in resisting these
4rll:el', autial_el-npta on the security of established_thme.ason
neces-
oth•fe; and Nvill_i,iegative a proposition which
IV °liht totTI, on that ground alone,
sto, • 1..t5,,....0e rejected.—(Hear, hear.) _
were there no
ilua'',, the ten'liN GTON said, that if he rightly under-
asskk had °f the speech of the right. hon. gentle-
r C IJust sat down, that hon. gentleman n
he -gland ttlq admission of dissenters tothe Universities
iNcwerthr would inVolve-as
on
uavoidable conseqnenc_ ,
siilet, strl'av`, and destruCtiOn of the established church,
gisse-'n that-gelY enough he concluded by declaring his
the -et"ters of tharge and 'most respectable portion of the
the tablish ,s realm were not only not hostile to
nkatigteatest ea at' but would regard its fall as one of
wk, ,01.4,1 ealatnities ossible. How the hon. gentle-
t'elf.,7leteolz,*alieeolsOcile these two contradictory statements
~Y oft‘t'd des.", and, perhaps, more than the house "reed ''''e til,-erroine. Without entering into the it-
bya,f , that 'versifies it was a fact on whiCh they were all
ketsq i. theY were great public institutions, supported
thern of Rislature ; their privileges and rights secured
sentit„bY hae4'; ; Possessing advantages conferred upon
au 1 -6
tO ad 'egislatur t others that of -re-
'l°w
. mongs
, C thcfics
th.-: On,sequen„ stills in the hands of Roman a t
1ti,;1141,,,e."Y subject to the control and regulation of
lead, lv 'ettier ( Hear, hear.) The question to be decided
the,. :with i,.; th existing moment, they could not ex- seht- °lstitt,`";•eat advantage; -the spheres Of usefulness of
,ver. ethrsrto thellZiiv arid.vhether, by the admission of dis-
k! ling ersities, they would incur any danger of
hiisi'lgreed v',l4l,ne church of England, as it now existed?
hi,
,ed chtirch'n the hon. member, in hoping that the estal
hr,„` °Nial s, would remain unchanged • and in giying
-,est eollv.Pl?ort to the present motion, 'he did so on the
fiction that, so far from exposing the church to

--~....~

any danger, or. the slightest chance of change, it would,
by rendering those institutions capable of receiving into
their bosom every class of Christians, have the effect of
softening down any ill feenig that might possibly exist to-
wards the church, and would draw closer the bonds of
union and concord between Christians of every denomina-
tion. (Hear, hear.) How was it now, if a dissenter
wished to send his child to Oxford? The door was stint
against him at the threshold. The first thing required,
even from a youth of sixteen years of age, was to subscribe
the thirty-nine articles—articles which he never had the
means of understanding, and which, perhaps, till then he
had not even seen ; and to these he was required to put his
signature. (Hear.) He deprecated the signature of these
articles, as much on behalf of the members of the church
of England, as on behalf of the dissenters. (Hear.) He
thought it a solemn mockery. He thought it an undue
compulsion practised on human conscience. (Cheers.) He
thought it an absurdity, because, to suppose that boys of
16, 17, or 18, were competent to understand these articles, '
or to form a mature opinion on them, when the wisest,
the most learned, the most religious men that had ever
adorned this kingdom, had ever expressed doubts and dif-
ficulties as to their meaning, was one of the most mon-
strous propositions he had ever heard. (Loud cheers. )
This, then, was the bar to the admission of the dissenter
at Oxford ; and surely it was no small hardship on the
wealthy dissenter, setting aside the question of degrees,
that his son should be debarred from sharing in the studies, ,
education, and discipline of_ those with whom he was, in
after life, to be associated, perhaps even in the legislature
of this country. And to whom was this privilege refused ;
were not the dissenters good and loyal subjects? Why, it
was to the Protestant dissenters that this country was in-
debted (under God) for the establishment of the house of
Hanover on the throne of these realms. To the Univer-
sity of Cambridge the dissenter might be admitted ; but
what an admission it was ! He might attend the profes-
sors ' • he might go through a painful and laborious course
of academical discipline • he had every opportunity of se-
cretly disseminating the poison of her principles ; but
when the hour came for reaping the fruits of his labours—
when honours and degrees were conferred on the indus-
trious student, he saw those with whom he was associated
receive that reward, whilst he was turned away from the
bosom of that institution where he had contracted his young
friendships, with all the bitter feeling of a man who knew
that his talent could not be denied, nor his moral conduct,
yet on whom was fixed the indelible stigma of rejection,
because he had the presumption to worship God upon the
pure dictates of his own conscience. (Hear.) What were
the difficulties in the way of admission of dissenters?
It was said that the universities embraced a religious
as well as a literary education. But he asked his hon.
friend, was there any reason why the professors of
divinity should cease to ply their labours, because dis-
senters entered the university ? Was it not rather a
reason for increasing their exertions, more especially
when there existed so strong a rivalry towards them on the
part of the dissenting professors? But then it was said,
• What are we to do with dissenters ?" Why should they
do anything with them ? Surely there was no necessity
for any attempt to inculcate on dissenters the peculiar doc-
trines of the church of England, any more than they need
omit on that account to instruct the members of the church
of England in the doctrines of that establishment. He
did not know that the habits of the collegians had much
altered since the days when he was more intimately ac-
quainted with them. But he believed that now, up to
this time, the daily attendance of chapel, except on Sun-
days, was little more than nominal. (" No," from some
members.) Hon. members might say no, but he believed
that he had good warrant for saying that chapel attendance
at the universities might generally be translated " absence. "
If, however, it were considered necessary to academical
education discipline, to enforce chapel attendance on all
students there was no reason why the dissenter should not
attend his own place of worship, leaving the members of
the established church to their own observances. When
he remembered that the great wealth of the original foun-
ders of these institutions was bestowed by the Roman Ca-
tholics for the maintenance of that religion, and that it was
afterwards, by act of Parliament, transferred to the pro-
testants, he could not see the slightest reason for exclu-
ding the dissenters from an university education, on the
ground of the intentions of the original founders. With
regard to what had been advanced with reference to the
professions of physic and law, he saw no reason why the
dissenters should, as proposed, waste their efforts in vain
endeavours to prevail on the college of physicians, or the
benchers of the inns of court, to alter their rules, instead
of applying at once to the universities, the fountains of
those distinctions of which they complained. He should
give his best support to any measure that would have the
effect of diminishing the distance which separated the
church from dissenters, because he conceived that the pro-
motion of good will and friendly feeling between all classes
and denominations of Christians, was of the utmost impor-
tance to the general well being of the whole frame of soci-
ety. (Hear. )
Mr. GOULBURN said the house stood at present in a
very peculiar situation, having before it two motions, each
affecting deeply the interests of the universities, and differ-
ing entirely from one another in substance as well as in
form. They had, moreover, a speech from the hon. and
learned gentleman, vklio professed to support one, or both
motions, in which he took a view, differing very widely in
many respects, from the views of the proposer of the
motion. Few gentlemen who had the good fortune to
hear the speech of the hon. member who introduced the
motion would, he thought, after that, be inclined to sup-
port it ; or, if he supported it, would, at least, not support
it on the grounds which he advanced. That hon. gentle-
man thought it right to correct the errors of James I. and
Elizabeth, and one of his means of doing so was the alJo-
lition of a declaration, required at Cambridge from per-
sons taking degrees, that they were bond fide members of
the Church of England, which was not imposed till 1772.
He had a strong feeling against both the motions of the
hon. members for Lancashire and Ashton, but he had not
the slightest hesitation in giving his vote against that of
the hon. member for Ashton. He would now come to
the motion of the hon. member for Lancashire, who relied
very much on a petition presented from certain individuals
of the University of Cambridge. With regard to that peti-
tion, he should reserve himself, and he requested the
house to reserve its opinion, till he should have the
opportunity of presenting an opposite petition, con-
taining an authentic record of the opinions of a
large body of the resident members of that university,
nowise inferior to the other petitioners in rank, talent, or
liberality of sentiment. (Hear, hear.) The hon. mem-
ber for Lancashire grounded great part of his argument on
the fact, that the universities were national establishments,
and he concluded that they should be thrown open to all
persons who chose to enter them. But he would ask the
hon. member, was not the church also a national establish-
ment ? (Hear.) And ought not the hon. member, in
consistency, to propose that, as the church was a national
establishment, that also should be thrown open to all? and
that not only degrees in divinity should be conferred upon
the dissenters, but that they should share in all the emolu-
ments and advantages which, under the present constitu-
tion of the church, were confined to the establishment ?
(Hear.) If the dissenters were entitled to share in the
honours of the universities, there was no reason why they
should not share in their emoluments. The hon. member
appeared to him to be a little inconsistent in his statements.
He proposed that all religious observances should remain
as they were. But how would the dissenters like this ?
How would they like the compulsion of attending the
observances, and submitting to the discipline of a religion
from which they differed? The hon. member seemed to
intimate dissent, but he (Mr. G.) had taken his exact
words, viz., " That there should be no change in the
course of study, and that all the religious exercises at pre-
sent observed should be continued." One of the objects
of the bill, therefore, comprised the attendance of the stu-
dents at the theological lectures.
Mr. G. W. WOOD denied that he had said anything
about theological lectures, and protested against the lan-
guage he had used being made to bear the strained con-
struction put upon it by the hon. member. (Hear. )
Mr. GOULBURN—The hon. member said that dis-
senters should adopt the system of education now pursued
at the University. It was contended, that because the
rights and privileges of the universities had been secured
by acts of Parliament, that because the legislature had
confirmed their title to the privileges and property which
they possessed, it had on that account a right to deal with
them as it thought proper. It surely was a very curious
argument, that because parliament had confirmed a pre-
existent right, it would, therefore destroy it. By admission
to the honours of the University, the dissenters would ob-
tain a share in the governing power. By Act of Parlia-
ment is given to the governing power of the Protestant
universities the right of presenting to adiowsons possessed
by one class of dissenters, viz., Roman Catholics; and yet
by the act now proposed, the precaution thus established
would be entirely overthrown, and to dissenters would be
given the power of appointing to the livings and benefices
of the church establishment. ( Hear, hear. ) If the object
of the universities was merely the advancement of litera-
ture, he might not have been so very scrupulous, but he
felt that the system of education pursued at these univer-
sities was the only system which it became a legislature to
encourage—viz., knowledge combined with religion.
Thus, and thus only, was instruction sanctified, and
thus only could they hope to correct the evils which
too frequently spring from knowledge unaccompanied
by religion. (Hear, hear.) He denied that the attendance
at chapel was nominal. It was anything but what it hadbeen
often compared to, a mere roll call. The conduct of the youths
who attended on those occasions, was such as everyman must
approve, and he doubted not that to most
a source of
ofthein,the
de-
privation of that sacred privilege would be great
dissatisfaction and grief. The hon. and learned member
asserted that the University of Cambridge treated dissen-
ters with peculiar severity ; that it opened to them all the
avenues to learning ; that it gave them every facility for
obtaining instruction in all the various departments of hu-
manknowledge ; but that when they had arrived to that
point at which they might reasonably expect the honours.
due to high literary attainment, those honours were un-
justly refused them. But let him call the attention of the
lion. and learned gentleman to the consideration of what
would be the fate of the dissenters, if, unfortunately, the
bill proposed by the hon. member for Lancashire should
pass into a law. If a clever, able young man, introduced
into the bosom of the university, but entertaining religious

opinions different from (,those of the Church of England,
were called upon—as the bill proposed•by the hon. member
for Lancashire would call upon him—to join in the public
worship prescribed by the church, in what situation of
punishment would he be placed? It was true that the
education at the university was not confined to lectures,
and that no student not intended for holy orders was com-
pelled to attend certain theological courses. But
still religious opinions did form a part of the university ex-
amination. Since he had last addressed the house he had
obtained a copy of one of the examination papers, and he
found in the examination on the Gospels, this question—
" Can you rescue the following passages from the Calvinist,
the Presbyterian, and the Papists' interpretation of them ?"
Now, did the hon. member for Lancashire think that to
put such a question to the young dissenter would contri-
bute to the concord of the university ? He was sure that,
if the experiment were tried, it would fail. He did not
believe they could admit dissenters into the university as
such, unless they previously abolished all religious obser-
vances. He had in his hand a copy of the London Uni-
Persity Calendar, the introduction to which was attributed
to a noble and learned lord in another place. And he
would read from that introduction a passage, in order to
show what the opinion of the founders of the London
University was as to the practicability of such a plan as
that now proposed. The passage was as follows :—" The
capital is the most convenient situation for all those young
men who are sent from the country for education, on ac-
count
of the greater probability of their finding connections
interested in their welfare, and greater facilities for adopt-
ing a style of living suited to their circumstances. But it
was also felt, that in a country where the people embrace
so many different opinions in matters of religion, an uni-
versity which should be open to persons of all persuasions,
must be so constituted as to avoid any possible interference
with religious belief. The universities of Oxford and
Cambridge supply ample opportunities for the education of
the clergy of the established church. It is manifestly im-
possible to provide a course of professional education for the
ministers of religion of those congregations who do not be-
long to the established church. It is equally impossible to
institute theological lectures for the instruction of lay stu-
dents of different religious persuasions, which would not be
liable to grave objections; still less (say the able founders
of the London University) is it practicable to introduce
any religious observances that would be generally complied
with. In the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, the
students removed from the superintendence of their parents
and guardians are placed in colleges, or new domestic esta-
blishments, where it is necessary that religious instruction
should be provided. When students do not reside within
the walls of the university, but live in the houses of their
parents or guardians; or, in the case of those who come
from a distance, live in houses selected by their friends,
with such precautions for the safety of their morals and of
their religious opinions as will naturally be adopted on the
occasion, no such provision is required. The religious
education of the pupils, therefore, must, in such circum-
stances, be left to domestic superintendence, being the
same provision which at present exist for that important
object in all cases except those of under-graduates at
Oxford and Cambridge during their residence in college."
From all' these considerations, it appeared to him to be
as clear as day, that if they admitted dissenters and
sectarians of every description to the universities, with-
out a previous declaration of their adherence to the church
of England, they must bind themselves to abstain from
all religious discipline and observances. Now, in his opi-
nion, if there was one fact more indisputable than another,
it was, that education without religion was pregnant only
with evil. If any confirmation of this fact was requisite,
let them look to the learned men of other countries. It
had been too frequently the reproach of the learned men of
other countries, that however eminent in science, in litera-
ture, and in arts, they were not only deficient in religious
feeling, but were the most active propagators of infidelity.
But let the house look at the English universities, and they
would there find that the men the most distinguished for
their learning and science were also the most distinguished
for their sound divinity. Let them look back only at the
last two years, and see what zeal and assiduity had been
manifested by the ablest men at our universities, to show
the necessary connection between the progress of science
and the progress of religious knowledge. And after such a
proof of the benefit of the existing system, ought they to
turn round upon the universities, and declare that to that
system there should be an end? He would not trespass on
the house'any further. He was at a loss to know what
course would be adopted by his Majesty's Government on
the occasion. They might concur either in the motion of
the hon. member for Ashton, or in the motion of the hon.
member for Lancashire. If they did, and if either of these
motions should be successful, the consequence, in his mind,
would be the ruin of the system under which the universi-
ties had hitherto existed with such great national benefit—
a system which had advanced the national glory—which
had maintained the national safety, and which, if persevered
in, would tend, under the blessing of Providence, to pre-
serve the institutions, to redound to the honour, and to in-
crease the prosperity of the country. (Hear, hear. )
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he had no hesitation in
declaring, that with respect to the principle on which edu-
cation ought to be conducted in our universities, he per-
fectly concurred in every word contained in the petition
from the University of Cambridge, which, in his opinion,
embodied, in the most moderate and clear terms, the
soundest argument in favour of a system equally advan-
tageous to the interests of learning and of religion. It-had
been said that no necessity had been made out for such a
measure as that now proposed. His answer was, that the
necessity for continuing the existing restrictions ought to
be shown by those who were its advocates. They ought
to show why those who were desirous of enjoying all the
advantages of an education at the University, should not
be permitted to do so, and should not be allowed to receive
all the honours due to superior literary and scientific at-
tainment, and yet follow the dictates of their own con-
science in religious matters. (Hear, hear.) It was but a
few years ago that no man could be promoted to the rank
of a general in the army, without previously declaring
himself a member of the Church of England. That re-
striction had been abolished. He (Lord John Russell)
held that the same principle was applicable to the subject
under the consideration of the house. The right hon.
member for the University of Cambridge had introduced
the confusion into his argument, that because the Church
of England was national, therefore universities, which
were national, must be also exclusively Church of Eng-
land. The distinction, however, was clear and obvious.
The honours and degrees of the universities were civil,
not ecclesiastical distinctions. (Hear, hear, hear.) Un-
doubtedly church preferments were of a different cha-
racter ; and before they were conferred, an inquiry
ought to be made whether the person on whom- they
were to be conferred entertained opinions conformable to
those of the Church of England. But when a man asked
for a degree, it was to certify his proficiency, not in theo-
logy, but in arts, in law, or in physic, with none of which
had his religious opinions anything to do. They had no more
right to inquire into his religious opinions, under such cir-
cumstances, than they would have to examine a person ap-
pointed to a bishopric as to his medical or legal opinions.
(A laugh.) He should not have been so much surprised to
hear the opinions which had been expressed by the right
hon. member for the University of Cambridge, if he had
been the member for the University of Oxford, because
dissenters never having been admitted into the latter
University, an impression might have existed that difficul-
ties would stand in the way of admitting them without
interfering with the religious discipline of the University.
But in the University of Cambridge all those difficulties
had long been surmounted. Dissenters had been freely
admitted into that University. At the present moment
the son of the Earl of Surrey, and many other dissenters,
were at the University of Cambridge. With respect,
therefore, to the arguments of the right hon. gentleman,
although it would be easy to meet them by arguments,
they were best met by the facts which proved that no
practical inconvenience had resulted from the admission of
dissenters into the University of Cambridge. The only
difficulty was when they were about to leave the Univer-
sity. They were then told, that although they had been
there for three or four years, and although they had ac-
quired what proficiency soever they might in the various
studies of the University, and had adhered with what re-
gularity soever they might to the regulations of the Uni-
versity, they should not receive the degree to which their
proficiency in knowledge and their good sense fully en-
titled them. (Hear, hear.) He would not enter again
into the historical question connected with the subject,
except to observe that the hon. member for the town of
Cambridge was perfectly right in the construction which
he had put upon the letter of James the First. The
fact was, that by the reformation in this country, and by the
Edict tiNantes, in France, there was at the beginning of the
17th century no denial of a degree at any of the universities of
either country on the score of religious opinions. But it
was asked what good could result from the change pro-
posed ? He was surprised at the question. He was sur-
prised at it when he recollected that the Protestant dis- ,
senters were among the warmest defenders of the house of
Hanover—that they were among the most loyal of the
King's subjects—that they had mainly contributed to the
establishment of the constitution of this country, and that
at the present moment they were actively engaged in in-
culcating religious principles into vast numbers of the
people in the manufacturing districts, who were unap-
proachable by the Church of England. But it was con-
stantlyffponcowhedEngland.raeotnrufa nteiahttassertedieneydeharshnessomvwhich
hiNmtd‘
.t
hhnhnmyaogttbi l
nxi
etpno,hl dissentersotgooeasnftffswhgepo
s belonged
rotandlhi
ettghmtocieh give
re learninginrhd'noemi
etrffeemeeea
means
churchmen?
eaasournes?nnr edtse
vot:hfai
diminishing
shydme:onvioi narrow-
minded, rhu:noiri
not
ncos
ghy-ts
o
eun.hdieeahv oeuhru
rteohing eetn ridan odfi tshene t
ett tv,e.
eillreettoft.o om
aptut it a It feelingo
en ter_
%Ain ? Would that not be productive of good? In his opi-
nionermoofrtehheighunl(rehresitthieosu,gthhteomf tohree
ae
na learnings
Ye.harTachty e it would be as great a good as could be conferred on
andthe coof utnhter
he was that the dissenters should share in the benefits of ,
those institutions. To admit them to those benefit would
be to increase their learning;to 'abate their • s • . hostility to the
church, to augment their religious tolerance ; while he
could not conceive a single evil that would diminish the
advantage. (Hear. )
Sir ROBERT INGLIS observed, that the noble lord
who had just sat down had stated his entire concurrence in

the prayer of the petition which had been presented from
certain members of the University of Cambridge. In his
( Sir R. Inglis's) opinion, however, an acquiescence in
the prayer of that petition would completely destroy
the existing character of the English Universities. As
to the proposed bill, if it were agreed to, still the
dissenters would be compelled to swear to the su-
premacy of the King, and to take the oath of alle-
giance. If the right to be admitted to the privileges of the
Universities were a right of birth, why should the Jews be
excluded from them ? If 'dissenters were to be freely ad-
mitted, how could the doctrines of the Theological Pro-
fessors remain distinct and definite ? Was the tutor occa-
sionally to yield to his pupil ? The grounds on which the
supporters of the proposition proceeded might, as his right
hon. friend the member for the University of Cambridge
had observed, be rendered equally available for the destruc-
tion of all the rights of property. The rights of the Uni-
versities
were established by law. If Parliament could
abrogate those rights, then parliament could abrogate all
other rights which were established by law. It had been
stated by the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets, that
the thirty-nine articles were signed by youths at the age of
sixteen, when they were wholly ignorant of their character
and import; but who was to blame for this ignorance?
Surely the fault would not be charged on the Universities ;
they did not require that a youth of sixteen should subscribe
these tests. Those who ought to be blamed were the pa-
rents of the youth, or his tutor, for allowing one so ignorant
to attach his name to such a heavy and responsible docu-
ment. He had on a former occasion stated, on the autho-
rity of a tutor of great experience and acknowledged cha-
racter, that of 400 young men who had matriculated at
college, nineteen out of every twenty were well acquainted
with the principles of theology when they entered—more
thoroughly, he believed, than he and his learned friend
(Dr. Lushington) were when together in early life they
prosecuted their studies in the same university. Was it
meant to excite in these hitherto quiet and peaceable re-
sorts angry polemical discusiion—to make the universities
the arena for bitter controversial argument—that the young
men who were ardently pursuing their useful and virtuous
labours, humbly endeavouring to obtain God's blessings on
their efforts—was it meant, he asked, that these ennobling
studies should be wholly perverted—that they should give
place to religious rancour—that calvinist should be set
against arminian, papist against churchman, baptist against
socinian—was it meant that the venerable seats of learning
and of piety should be converted into a theatre for such
discussions as these, far estranged as they were from sound
learning and religious education—that they should derogate
to the mere arena, not for the lessons of experience and
polemic truth, but for crude disputations on christian doc-
trines and dogmas? He would not again go into the sub-
ject of the original grants to the universities, but would
merely state, that by far the greater part of the bequests
came from members of the church of England, and that
those bequests were intended to be identified, not merely
with the religion itself of the church of England, but with
its forms and services. In the endowment of a college
which had been erected within the memory of several
persons—Downing College, Cambridge—there was an
express stipulation that it was intended to be identified
with the established religion of the land—even in this age
of light and reason, as some gentlemen were so frequently
delighted to call it—this had been done. And by what
right could they now require this College, thus founded
for specific purposes, thus identified with a specific reli-
gion, to throw open its advantages to all sects and par-
ties ? On what ground of right or reason could they ask
this college to compromise its character, its principles,
actually its independence, by opening the door to persons
of all religions or of no religion at all ? When the hon.
gentleman opposite described the universities as national,
he seemed to forget, or at all events he did not go into, the
peculiarities which distinguished the grants of fellowships
and scholarships which were in the great majority of in-
stances bequeathed to the relatives of the founders, to the
inhabitants of the parish in which he had been born, or in
which he lived, or perhaps himself received the first glean-
ings of a stinted education, or to the counties, or to the
dioceses in which the prelates themselves (many most
bounteous benefactors to after ages) had held their holy
ministrations. In no single instance that could be traced
of an original gift would the endowment be found to be
otherwise than for the maintenance of religion, and specially
for the advantage of some certain locality. Admitting
even that the entire property had been originally bestowed
by Parliament, would they disturb that property after an
uninterrupted settlement of it for three centuries past, and
that without even an allegation of an abuse of trust, would
they, he asked, without a charge being brought against
them, withdraw it from their hands, he would say the
untainted hands, in which it was now placed ? It had been
said by the noble lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, and as-
sumed as an argument in his favour, that one would
never think of examining a bishop in the principles of law,
or the practice of physic ; and to that he readily answered,
that physic and law might not be essential, but they all
knew that religion was essential (Cheers), that it was
not only essential for their own good as individuals—for
their own peace and their own comfort, but essential for
the good of their common country—for their good here
and hereafter ; it was essential to them all, that they might
be:" wise unto salvation." And therefore was it that he
would have the youth of the universities brought up in one
common faith. And how was this to be done, if not one
word was to be said to them on the subject of religion, or
on matters of daily conduct, or of the rule and faith of
life ? It should never be forgotten, that they were not
prohibiting dissenters, they were only requiring that in an
institution which .had been peculiarly consecrated to the
service of religion, that religion should still be becomingly
observed. He implored them not to desecrate those walls
by the introduction of men of all religions or of none, who
would make the universities the arena of turbulent discus-
sion, and make a desert where they had found peace ; or
deprive them of that faith and hope which the religion of
God so benignantly gave to all who required it ; and who
so much as the youth of tender age, subject to so many
and such strong temptations ? He implored them not to
consent to a measure which would deprive the country of
that succession of Christians and good subjects which it had
been the high honour and privilege, and he might say, the
boast of these venerable institutions. (Hear, and loud cries
of " Question.")
Colonel TORRENS next rose, but the opposition was
so great that the gallant officer at once resumed his seat.
Mr. ORD (we believe) attempted to address the house,
and was most enthusiastically greeted. It was impossible,
amidst the noise and confusion of the scene, to report what
was uttered with any thing like confidence ; but we under-
stood the hon. member to support the amendment, on the
ground that no person should have his feelings wounded
by belonging to an inferior and degraded class.
Mr. 31. D. HILL rose, and the confusion was again
renewed. We understood the hon. member to say, that
at the outset of life he had been denied, from the religious
principles professed by his family, the inestimable ad-
vantages of a college education • and he confessed that his
feelings of regret had never been greater than on that
evening, when he had heard the question discussed with
such talent and intelligence, by men who could boast of
their connection with the University. (Question,
question.) The right hon. gentleman opposite had talked
of the pain to which the Dissenters were put in having to
take the oath of allegiance, but he (Mr. Hill) really never
heard of its being considered a grievance by them, and he
rather thought, if history were correctly studied, it would
be found that they had been on certain occasions much
more willing to subscribe that oath than the learned body
which was so ably reppesented by the right hon. baronet
(Sir R. Inglis). He would beg leave to remind the right
hon. baronet that that learned body had been enlightened
on this subject--not by polemical discussion—not by
casuistry, but rather, as he (Mr. Hill) thought,
by the appearance of General Carpenter and a
troop of horse—an assistance which never yet was wanted
to prove the loyalty and the allegiance of the dissenting
body of England. Although he fully agreed with the right
hon. baronet, that there was a large body of the dissenters
favourable to the church establishment—truth compelled
him to declare that, so far from that body increasing, it was
gradually decreasing, and if they wished to restore the feel-
ing amongst them which so happily existed some years ago,
they would only hope to do it by throwing open all distinc-
tions, and by doing away with all those petty and irritating
differences--more irritating, perhaps, because they were
petty—which at present existed between the dissenters and
the church of England. (Question. )
Mr. BAINES proceeded to address the house in support
of the bill. It had been erroneously stated that the greater,
number of the colleges had been founded previously to the
Reformation. This he denied. Of the sixteen colleges in
Cambridge, twelVe were founded before the Reformation ;
and of the nineteen colleges in Oxford, thirteen were in
existence before the reign of Henry the Eighth. By the
original statutes, they were open to all ; therefore, in con-
sequence of the present exclusive system, they were op-
posing the intentions of the original founders. The dispo-
sition of the dissenters at the present day was to conciliate
the church of England by all possible means, and to meet
its wishes in every respect. This feeling was fully mani-
fested the other evening on the noble lord (Althorp's)
tetilitooi oneeTptys
proon
test
The
ehuohid nfst uoitooolr
ntdna.
wishh
againstgca of oevtnr commutation
tam:
ote
reciprocity
aucallircntpetoi
ghrocnonfotsrni ofcontinuance
arl a
sue
odsnftpesica
sitduenhcsdaeohumsfo:
on the
amid
tehthnlhmeancetupe fairindulgence.
hhe oseuie(ns
ne tpe:
Question.lrltabrs yuyubsptot
tteui htomnhev den.);
when strangers were ordered to withdraw. DPring our
absence from the gallery, we understood tolonel Williams
withdrew his motion, 'hen the 'amendment of the hon
member for Spill tincolnihire of course stood as a sub-
stantiire Motion, on which the house proceeded to divide.
For Mr. Wood's motion 185
Against it
Majority . l4ll
Leave was then given to bring in the On our readmission into the gallery we found that the
second reading of the Hotise Tax Repeal Bill was post-
pone 4 till Monday next.
§ir JAMES GRAHAM brought in a bill to regulate
pensions, which was read a first time, and ordered to be
read a second time on Wednesday next.
Lord Althorp's bill for the commutation of tithe in Eng-
landl and
sdecWopalcietsinlowas read a first time, and ordered to be
on Monday three weeks.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the house adjourned at twenty minutes past one.