\!1(:'<'-1 
 
 i 
 'iiil 
 
 iiiiiiii 
 
 11!: 
 
 W^' 
 
 M0 
 
 mmm 
 
 ;iii!i 
 
 mmm 
 
 . ;..UM.=u,»w,wu>..>avmu»M
 
 SPEECHES 
 
 OF THE 
 
 RIGHT HONORABLE 
 
 SIR ROBERT PEEL, 
 
 BART., &c. &c.
 
 fi 
 
 
 iTSI 
 
 #
 
 ''K'--"=" "J ■'• -- 
 
 THE RT rroiir"-'" SIR kcjkkkt peel, bau^ 
 
 PI3IIER SON <- C? LomoH. ISM
 
 
 SPEECHES 
 
 BY THE 
 
 RIGHT HONORABLE 
 
 SIR ROBERT ^PEEL, BART. M.R 
 
 DURING HIS ADMINISTRATION; 
 
 ALSO 
 
 HIS ADDRESS 
 
 TO THE 
 
 ELECTORS OF THE BOROUGH OF TAMWORTH, 
 
 AND 
 
 SPEKCH 
 
 AT THE GRAND ENTERTAINMENT IN HONOR OF HIM 
 
 AT THE 
 
 MERCHANT TAILORS' HALL. 
 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 
 ROAKE 
 
 AND VARTY, 31, 
 
 STRAND. 
 
 t 
 
 1835. 
 
 
 
 '' '. 
 
 » J,' >j , , J > 
 
 
 • It i ' i , 
 
 J > J ' J' » t > 
 
 > > 
 
 3 J > > ' .
 
 LONDON : 
 
 ROAKF. AND VARTY, PRINTERS, 31, STRAND.
 
 ■P3A12. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CO 
 
 uj An Address to the Electors of the Borough of Tam worth. 
 ^ Dec. 1834. 
 
 DC 
 
 -c 
 
 g, Speech at the Grand Entertainment in honor of His Majesty's 
 
 5 Ministers given at the Mansion House. Dec. 23, 1834. 
 
 Speech in the House of Commons on the Motion of an Address 
 of Thanks to His IMajesty in Answer to His Majesty's Most 
 Gracious Speech. February 24, 1835. 
 
 CO 
 
 
 Speech in the House of Commons on the Motion of the Marquis 
 of Chandos relating to the Repeal of the Malt Tax. March 
 10, 1835. 
 
 Speech in the House of Commons on tlie Dissenters' Marriage 
 Bill. March 17, 1835. 
 
 Speech in the House of Commons on the Motion of Mr. Tooke, 
 
 " That the House do agree to an Address to His Majesty, 
 
 beseeching him to grant his Royal Charter of Incorporation 
 
 ;2: to the University of London, as approved in the Year 1831, 
 
 ^ by the then Law Officers of the Crown, and continuing no 
 
 ^ other restrictions than against conferring Degrees in Divinity 
 
 and in Medicine." March 20, 1835. 
 
 
 ^- g \H^
 
 VI 
 
 Speech in the House of Commons on the Motion made hy 
 Lord John Russell, " That this House do resolve itself into 
 a Committee, in order to Consider the Present State of the 
 Church Estahlishment in Ireland, with a view of applying 
 any Surplus of its Revenues, not required for the Spiritual 
 Care of its Memhers, to the General Education of all Classes 
 of the People, without distinction of Religious Persuasion." 
 April 2, 1835. 
 
 Speech in the House of Commons, announcing the Resignation 
 of His Majesty's Ministers. April 8, 1835, 
 
 Speech at the Grand Dinner in honor of him given hy the 
 Merchants, Bankers, and Traders of the City of London, 
 at Merchant Tailors' Hall. May 11, 1835.
 
 AN ADDRESS 
 
 TO 
 
 THE ELECTORS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 BOROUGH OF T AM WORTH. 
 December, 1834.
 
 TO THE ELECTORS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 BOROUGH OF TAM WORTH 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 On the 26th of November last, being then 
 at Rome, I received from his Majesty a summons, 
 wholly unforeseen and unexpected by me, to 
 return to England without delay, for the purpose 
 of assisting his Majesty in the formation of a new 
 Government. I instantly obeyed the command 
 for my return, and, on my arrival, I did not 
 hesitate, after an anxious review of the position 
 of public affairs, to place at the disposal of my 
 Sovereign any services which I might be thought 
 capable of rendering. 
 
 My acceptance of the first office in the Govern- 
 ment, terminates for the present my political
 
 connexion with you. In seeking tlie renewal of 
 it, whenever you shall be called upon to perform 
 the duty of electing' a representative in parlia- 
 ment, I feel it incumbent u])on me to enter into 
 a declaration of my views of public policy — as 
 full and unreserved as I can make it, consistently 
 with my duty as a Minister of the Crown. 
 
 You are entitled to this from the nature of the 
 trust which I again solicit — from the long habits 
 of friendly intercourse in which we have lived — 
 and from your tried adherence to me in times of 
 difficulty, when the demonstration of unabated 
 confidence was of peculiar value. I gladly avail 
 myself also of this, a legitimate opportunity, of 
 making a more public appeal— of addressing, 
 through you, to that great and intelligent class 
 of society, of which you are a portion, and a fair 
 and unexceptionable representative —to that class 
 which is much less interested in the contentions 
 of party than in the maintenance of order, and 
 the cause of good government— that frank expo- 
 sition of general principles and views, which ap- 
 pears to be anxiously expected, and which it 
 ought not to be the inclination, and cannot be 
 the interest, of a minister of this country to 
 withhold. 
 
 Gentlemen, the arduous duties in which I am 
 engaged, have been imposed on me through no 
 act of mine. Whether they were an object of
 
 ambition coveted by me — whether I reg-ard the 
 power and distinction they confer, as any suf- 
 ficient compensation for the heavy sacrifices they 
 involve, are matters of mere personal concern, 
 on which I will not waste a word. The King-, 
 in a crisis of g^reat difficulty, required my services. 
 The question I had to decide was this : Shall I 
 obey the call ; or shall I shrink from the respon- 
 sibility, alleging as the reason, that I consider 
 myself, in consequence of the Reform Bill, as 
 labouring under a sort of moral disqualification 
 which must preclude me, and all who think with 
 me, both now and for ever, from entering into 
 the official service of the Crown ? Would it, I 
 ask, be becoming in any public man to act upon 
 such a principle ? Was it fit that I should as- 
 sume that either the object or the effect of the 
 Reform Bill has been to preclude all hope of u 
 successful appeal to the good sense and calm 
 judgment of the people, and so to fetter the pre- 
 rogative of the Crown that the King has no free 
 choice among his subjects, but must select his 
 Ministers from one section, and one section only, 
 of public men. 
 
 I have taken another course ; but I have not 
 taken it without deep and anxious consideration 
 as to the probability that my opinions are so far 
 in unison with those of the constituent body of 
 the united kingdom, as to enable me, and those
 
 c 
 
 with whom 1 am about to act, and whose senti- 
 ments are in entire concurrence with my own, 
 to establish such a claim upon public confidence 
 as shall enable us to conduct with vig-our and 
 success the government of this country. 
 
 I have the firmest conviction that that con- 
 fidence cannot be secured by any other course 
 than that of frank and explicit declarations of 
 principle ; that vague and unmeaning professions 
 of popular opinions may quiet distrust for a time 
 — may influence this or that election, but that 
 such professions must ultimately and signally fall, 
 if, being made, they are not adhered to, or if 
 they are inconsistent with the honour and cha- 
 racter of those who make them. 
 
 Now, I say at once, that I will not accept power 
 on the condition of declaring myself an apostate 
 from the principles on which I have heretofore 
 acted. At the same time I never will admit that 
 I have been, either before or after the Reform 
 Bill, the defender of abuses, or the enemy of 
 judicious reforms. I appeal with confidence, in 
 denial of the charge, to the active part which I 
 took in the great question of the currency — in 
 the consolidation and amendment of the criminal 
 law — in the revisal of the whole system of Trial 
 by Jur> — to the opinions I have professed, and 
 uniformly acted on with regard to other branches 
 of the jurisprudence of the country. I appeal to
 
 7 
 
 this as a proof that 1 have not been disposed 
 to acquiesce in acknowledged evils, either from 
 the mere superstitious reverence for ancient 
 usages, or from the dread of labour or respon- 
 sibility in the application of a remedy. 
 
 But the Reform Bill, it is said, constitutes a 
 new era, and it is the duty of a Minister to de- 
 clare explicitly, first, whether he will maintain 
 the Bill itself; and, secondly, whether he will 
 act upon the spirit in which it was conceived. 
 
 With respect to the Reform Bill itself, I will 
 repeat now the declaration which I made when I 
 entered the House of Commons as a Member of 
 the Reformed Parliament, that I consider the 
 Reform Bill a final and irrevocable settlement of 
 a great constitutional question — a settlement 
 which no friend to the peace and welfare of this 
 country would attempt to disturb, either by direct 
 or by insidious means. 
 
 Then as to the spirit of the Reform Bill, and 
 the willingness to adopt and enforce it as a rule 
 of government. If by adopting the spirit of the 
 Reform Bill it be meant that we are to live in a 
 perpetual vortex of agitation — that public men 
 can only support themselves in public estimation 
 by adopting every popular impression of the day, 
 by promising the instant redress of anything 
 which anybody may call an abuse, by abandoning 
 altogether that great aid of government, more
 
 powerful than either law or reason, the respect 
 for ancient rights, and the deference to pre- 
 scriptive authority ; if this be the spirit of the 
 Reform Bill, I Avill not undertake to adopt it ; 
 but if the spirit of the Reform Bill implies merely 
 a careful review of institutions, civil and ecclesi- 
 astical, undertaken in a friendly temper, com- 
 bining, with the firm maintenance of established 
 rights, the correction of proved abuses, and the 
 redress of real grievances, in that case I can, for 
 myself and colleagues, undertake to act in such a 
 spirit, and with such intentions. 
 
 Such declarations of general principle are, I 
 am aware, necessarily vague j but, in order to 
 be more explicit, I will endeavour to apply them 
 practically to some of those questions which have 
 of late attracted the greatest share of public in- 
 terest and attention. 
 
 I take first the inquiry into Municipal Corpo- 
 rations. 
 
 It is not my intention to advise the Crown to 
 interrupt the progress of that inquiry, or to 
 transfer the conduct of it from those to whom it 
 was committed by the late government. 
 
 For myself I gave the best proof that I was 
 not unfriendly to the principle of inquiry, by 
 consenting to be a member of that Committee of 
 the House of Commons on which it was origi- 
 nally devolved.
 
 9 
 
 No report has yet been made by the Commis- 
 sioners to whom the inquiry was afterwards re- 
 ferred, and until that report be made I cannot 
 be expected to give, on the part of the Govern- 
 ment, any other pledge than that they will be- 
 stow on the suggestions it may contain, and the 
 evidence on which they may be founded, a full 
 and unprejudiced consideration. 
 
 I will, in the next place, address myself to the 
 questions in which those of our fellow-country- 
 men, who dissent from the doctrines of the Esta- 
 blished Church, take an especial interest. Instead 
 of making new professions I will refer to the 
 course which I took upon those subjects when 
 out of power. In the first place, I supported 
 the measure brought forward by Lord Althorp, 
 the object of which was to exempt all classes 
 from the payment of church-rates, applying in 
 lieu thereof, out of a branch of the revenue, 
 a certain sum for the building and repair of 
 churches. 
 
 I never expressed, nor did I entertain, the 
 slightest objection to the principle of a bill of 
 which Lord John Russell was the author, in- 
 tended to relieve the conscientious scruples of 
 Dissenters, in respect to the ceremony of mar- 
 riage. I give no opinion now on the particular 
 measures themselves. They were proposed by 
 ministers in whom the Dissenters had confidence.
 
 10 
 
 They were intended to give relief, and it is suf- 
 ficient for my present purpose to state that I 
 supported the principle of them. 
 
 I opposed, and I am bound to state that my 
 opinions in that respect have underg-one no 
 change, the admission of Dissenters, as a claim 
 of right, into the Universities ; but I expressly 
 declared, if regulations, enforced by public au- 
 thorities superintending- the professions of law 
 and medicine, and the studies connected with 
 them, had the effect of conferring advan- 
 tages of the nature of civil privileges on one 
 class of the King's subjects from which another 
 class was excluded, those regulations ought to 
 undergo modification, with the view of placing 
 all the King's subjects, whatever their religious 
 creed, upon a footing of perfect equality in re- 
 spect to any civil privilege. 
 
 I appeal to the course which I pursued on 
 those several questions when office must have 
 been out of contemplation ; and I ask with con- 
 fidence, does that course imply that I was actu- 
 ated by any illiberal or intolerant spirit towards 
 the Dissenting body, or by an unwillingness 
 to consider fairly the redress of any real griev- 
 ances ? 
 
 In the examination of other questions which 
 excited public feeling, I will not omit the Pen- 
 sion list. I resisted, and with the oj)inions I
 
 11 
 
 entertain, I should again resist a retrospective 
 inquiry into pensions granted by the Crown, at 
 a time when the discretion of the Crown was 
 neither fettered by law nor by the expression of 
 any opinion on the part of the House of Com- 
 mons ; but I voted for the resolution moved by 
 Lord Althorp that pensions on the Civil List 
 ought for the future to be confined to such per- 
 sons only as have just claims to the Royal bene- 
 ficence, or are entitled to consideration on 
 account either of their personal services to the 
 Crown, or of the performance of duties to the 
 public, or of their scientific or literary eminence. 
 On the resolution which I thus supported as 
 a private Member of Parliament, I shall scru- 
 pulously act as a Minister of the Crown, and 
 shall advise the grant of no pension which is not 
 in conformity with the spirit and intention of the 
 vote to which I was a party. 
 
 Then, as to the great question of Church Re- 
 form, on that head I have no new professions to 
 make. I cannot give my consent to the aliena- 
 tion of Church property, in any part of the 
 United Kingdom, from strictly ecclesiastical 
 purposes. But I repeat now the opinions that I 
 have already expressed in Parliament, in regard 
 to the Church Establishment in Ireland, that if 
 by an improved distribution of the revenues of 
 the Church its just influence can be extended, 
 
 c
 
 1*2 
 
 and the true interests of the established religion 
 promoted, all other considerations should be 
 made subordinate to the advancement of objects 
 of such paramount importance. 
 
 As to Church property in this country, no per- 
 son has expressed a more earnest wish than I 
 have done that the question of tithe, complicated 
 and difficult as I acknowledge it to be, should, 
 if possible, be satisfactorily settled by the means 
 of a commutation founded upon just principles, 
 and proposed after mature consideration. 
 
 With regard to alterations in the laws which 
 govern our ecclesiastical establishment, I have 
 had no recent opportunity of giving that grave 
 consideration to a subject of the deepest interest, 
 which could alone justify me in making any 
 public declaration of opinion. It is a subject 
 which must undergo the fullest deliberation, and 
 into that deliberation the Government will enter 
 with the sincerest desire to remove every abuse 
 that can impair the efficiency of the Establish- 
 ment, to extend the sphere of its usefulness, and 
 to strengthen and confirm its just claims upon 
 the respect and affections of the people. 
 
 It is unnecessary for my purpose to enter 
 into further details. I have said enough, with 
 respect to general principles and their j)ractical 
 application to public measures, to indicate the 
 spirit in which the King's Government is pre-
 
 13 
 
 pared to act. Our object will be the mainte- 
 nance of peace, the scrupulous and honourable 
 fulfilment, without reference to their original 
 policy, of all existing engagements with Foreign 
 Powers, the support of public credit, the enforce- 
 ment of strict economy, and the just and impar- 
 tial consideration of what is due to all interests, 
 agricultural, manufacturing, and commercial. 
 
 Whatever may be the issue of the undertaking 
 in which I am engaged, I feel assured that you 
 will mark, by a renewal of your confidence, 
 your approbation of the course I have pursued 
 in accepting office. 
 
 I enter upon the arduous duties assigned to 
 me, with the deepest sense of the responsibility 
 they impose — with great distrust of my own 
 qualifications for their adequate discharge, but at 
 the same time with a resolution to persevere, 
 which nothing could inspire but the strong im- 
 pulse of public duty, the consciousness of upright 
 motives, and the firm belief that the people of 
 this country will so far maintain the prerogative 
 of the King, as to give the minister of his choice 
 — not an implicit confidence — but a fair trial. 
 
 I am. Gentlemen, 
 With affectionate regard, 
 
 Most faithfully your's, 
 (Signed) ROBERT PEEL. 
 
 Dec. 1834. 
 
 c 2
 
 SPEECH 
 
 AT 
 
 THE GRAND ENTERTAINMENT 
 
 GIVEN IN HONOR OF 
 
 HIS MAJESTY'S MINISTERS, 
 
 AT THE MANSION HOUSE, 
 
 December 23, 1834..
 
 SPEECH, 
 
 &c. 
 
 The Lord Mayor entertained his Majesty's 
 Ministers, a considerable number of the no- 
 bility, and the leading persons of the city. 
 The banquet took place in the Egyptian Hall, 
 and taking into account the importance of 
 the occasion, and the character of the guests, 
 it exceeded in interest any that have preceded 
 it for years. There were upwards of two hun- 
 dred and fifty persons present. 
 
 The health of the Right Honorable Sir Ro- 
 bert Peel and the rest of his Majesty's Ministers 
 having been proposed by the Lord Mayor, the 
 toast was drunk with the utmost enthusiasm. 
 
 The Ministers all rose to acknowledge the
 
 compliment, and continued standing' \Fliile Sir 
 Robert Peel was addressing the company. 
 
 Sir 11. Peel spoke to the following- effect : 
 — Although the Lord Mayor has mentioned 
 my name in particular, in conjunction with 
 the rest of his Majesty's Ministers, I am re- 
 lieved from that embarrassment which, on 
 occasions such as this, g-enerally accompanies 
 the mention of an individual name, I am con- 
 vinced I should greatly mistake the object, and 
 underrate the importance of this meeting, if I 
 thought it was intended merely for the purpose 
 of marking resjject and consideration for any 
 person, however high my public station. I 
 cannot, therefore, allege, as an excuse for the 
 imperfect expression of my acknowledgments 
 to this great assembly, that 1 am overwhelmed 
 by the force of })ersonal feelings. I believe 
 your object to be, in a crisis of great im- 
 portance, to convey to the King, that his Ma- 
 jesty, having exercised a high prerogative of 
 the Crown, according to the forms and spirit 
 of the constitution, will receive a constitutional 
 support from a great body of the King's sub- 
 jects, reniarkable for their Intelligence, re- 
 markable for their respectability and wealth, 
 remarkable for the deep interest which they 
 take in the welfare of the country. Your ob- 
 ject also is, I trust and believe, to animate and
 
 encourage in the performance of their arduous 
 duty those Ministers who have been the objects 
 of the King's choice, and have not shrunk 
 from the responsibility of office. We are 
 neither assembled for the purpose of compli- 
 ment, nor for the purpose of celebrating the 
 triumph of any party. I believe that your feel- 
 ings, if I have correctly interpreted them, are 
 in strict consonance with the feelings enter- 
 tained by a great proportion of the intel- 
 ligence of this country. It is impossible to 
 deny that, since the important events which 
 have taken place within the last six weeks, there 
 has been a state of calm and tranquillity in the 
 country — a calm and tranquillity which, after 
 the political excitement that had prevailed, 
 could not well have been anticipated. I do not 
 mistake the character of tliat state of calm and 
 tranquillity : I do not construe it into an indif- 
 ference to public affairs, into a lazy acquiescence 
 in any Government that the King may be 
 pleased to form, or any measures which that 
 Government may propose. On the contrary, 
 I feel convinced that this calm and tranquil- 
 lity is perfectly consistent with the utmost 
 vigilance, and, if necessary, the most deter- 
 mined resolution. The present condition of 
 the public mind is no more inconsistent with 
 active motion than the serenity of the ocean is
 
 6 
 
 inconsistent with occasional displays of resist- 
 less and overwhelming force. I believe that 
 if the public feeling of this country found 
 expression in words, it would speak in these 
 or similar terms — ** We are tired of agitation 
 — we are tired of that state of continued ex- 
 citement, the effect of which in private life is to 
 withdraw men from their proper business, and 
 in public life is to consume the energies of 
 public men on other than their proper duties. 
 We hate the pressure from without. We are 
 content that the public will should be ex- 
 pressed through authorized and constitutional 
 organs. At the same time we require Go- 
 vernment to be administered for the sole pur- 
 pose of promoting the true interests of this 
 country. We require that there shall be a full 
 and patient consideration of every thing that 
 can be fairly suspected as partaking of the cha- 
 racter of abuse, and if after such patient con- 
 sideration the abuse be proved we require that 
 it should be corrected ; first, from hatred of 
 the abuse, and, secondly, from love and re- 
 spect for those ancient institutions, which abuse 
 has the tendency to disfigure and impair.'* I 
 believe that to be not an incorrect represen- 
 tation of the public feeling, and I also be- 
 lieve that no Government can maintain itself 
 in the public estimation which is not pre-
 
 7 
 
 pareJ deliberately to act on such principles. 
 I am convinced, notwithstanding the manner in 
 which the exercise of the prerogative of the 
 Crown has been received, and although it is the 
 duty of public men to co-operate with the So- 
 vereign, when they have it in their power to 
 enter into his service without sacrifice of prin- 
 ciple, yet that no Government can stand un- 
 less it be supported by public opinion, and un- 
 less its members possess the public confidence. 
 I do not agree with the views of some per- 
 sons, who are disposed to overlook the men 
 who constitute a government, and regard merely 
 the measures they propose. I do not believe 
 that any government can be stable or permanent 
 v/hich does not possess public confidence. I do 
 not believe that a cold approbation of mea- 
 sures, after previous scrutiny, will avail for the 
 support of a Government, without reference to 
 the heads which conceived, and the hands which 
 are to execute, those measures. In every de- 
 partment of private life, it is upon the confi- 
 dence we feel in certain individuals that we 
 proceed : it is not this particular act or that, 
 though we may approve its grounds and prin- 
 ciples, that insures our confidence in men, but 
 it is our general reliance in their known inte- 
 grity and honour that induces us to trust them. 
 In the public service the same principle pre-
 
 8 
 
 vails. In tlic profession of tlie law you do not 
 rely iii)on such eminent individuals as Lord 
 Lyndhurst or Sir James Scarlett merely in re- 
 ference to some particular act of theirs, which 
 you know to be rig-ht, but because you feel 
 convinced, by their distinguished eminence and 
 unimpeachable characters, that their decisions 
 will be dictated by sound judgment, and by a 
 sincere determination to do that which they 
 conscientiously believe to be right. The same 
 is the case with respect to acts of military en- 
 terprise. I ask you what brought this country 
 to that pinnacle of military glory on which it 
 stood during the last war — what preserved us 
 from the proverbial vicissitudes of fortune ? It 
 was not the numbers of our army — it was not 
 the lines established here, or the fortifications 
 erected there — it was not mere military skill 
 and conduct that made victory the certain con- 
 sequence of battle, but it was in conjunction 
 with the native valour of British troops — the 
 confidence reposed in one magic and immortal 
 name. It was that feeling, influencing the lowest 
 soldier, which insj)ired into his heart a new 
 energy, and nerved his arm with new vigour. 
 And when the Government of this country was 
 suddenly changed, what was it that made the 
 whole community acquiesce with silent appro- 
 bation in the decision of one man, to obey the
 
 appeal of bis Sovereign, and to fill for a time 
 with his single person the great chasm in the 
 public service of the state ? It was not a simple 
 reference to this or that particular act which 
 he might perform, but it was an irresistible and 
 spontaneous confidence in his undaunted re- 
 solution, and in that pure and disinterested 
 singleness of purpose, which led the same man 
 who had shown himself ready in a crisis of 
 extraordinary difficulty to assume power at the 
 command of his Sovereign, — which led him, 
 acting solely upon his own suggestion and ad- 
 vice, to relinquish it. Without confidence in 
 public men, — without confidence in their good 
 intentions, — without confidence in their de- 
 termination to fulfil any promises they may 
 make, without full reliance upon their wish to 
 consult the real and permanent interests of the 
 country, no Government can proceed with suc- 
 cess. Appeals to individual acts, cold, formal, 
 acquiescence in mere details, are not enough. 
 I may undertake to say, on the part of his Ma- 
 jesty's Ministers, that it will be our object to 
 attain and confirm the confidence of the people, 
 not by rash and precipitate pledges for the re- 
 moval of every thing that may appear at the 
 first superficial and imperfect view to be an 
 evil, — not by undertaking to make every con- 
 cession hastily demanded by popular feelings,
 
 lu 
 
 not by rashly promising- relief from the pressure 
 of taxation — but by patient and dispassionate 
 examination into practical grievances, and the 
 proposal of remedies maturely considered, and 
 designed less as a gratification of a popular wish, 
 than the safe and permanent redress of a real 
 evil. 
 
 I am charged with having offered no par- 
 ticular pledges as to specific measures. My 
 answer is, " A month has not yet elapsed since 
 I left Rome ; I have within that period, tra- 
 velled from the south of Europe and recon- 
 structed the King-'s Government. But could 
 any thing be more absurd than to pledge the 
 Government to details and particulars which 
 there has as yet been no time to consider, 
 and in reference to which, if pledges were 
 now offered, we might find ourselves unable 
 to redeem ? I think it would be neither po- 
 litic nor just to pursue that course. I think 
 the public opinion to be gained by it scarcely 
 worth having. I have already intimated, 
 in a public address to my late constituents, 
 the tone and spirit of our Government, and 
 I now repeat that the Ministry of which 
 I am one will maintain no abuse, under the 
 mistaken notion that it can be for the interest 
 of Government to support it ; we will not resist 
 the aj)[)lication of a remedy to any grievance
 
 11 
 
 under the mistaken impression that it is not 
 for the interest of Government to conciliate the 
 public feeling, by acting- for the public good, 
 by redress of grievances, and correction of 
 abuses, as far as possible. But I will not, by 
 pledging myself to relieve particular burdens, 
 or hastily to adopt particular remedies, debar 
 the Government from affording that fair con- 
 sideration which is due to the claims of all in- 
 terests, or put out of our power a deliberate 
 application of the most efficacious remedies. I 
 repeat, possessed as the Ministry are of the 
 entire confidence of the Crown, our main ob- 
 ject will be to conciliate the goodwill, and secure 
 the confidence of all that portion of the com- 
 munity that is most capable of exercising an 
 enlightened judgment on public affairs; con- 
 vinced as we are that they do require the cor- 
 rection of abuses, but wish it to proceed con- 
 sistently with a respectful maintenance of the 
 integrity and independence of those institu- 
 tions of the country, which in the aggregate 
 comprise the ancient established constitution in 
 Church and State. But sure I am that they 
 do not wish our institutions to be corrected 
 at the expense of collision with, or a de- 
 struction of the independence of any of the 
 established orders of the state. If we, in 
 concurrence with those whose goodwill and
 
 1'2 
 
 acquiescence it is desirable to obtain, and con- 
 sistently with the maintenance of the indepen- 
 dent action of Lords and Commons, can apply 
 a remedy to existing- abuses, such a course 
 will much more tend to the efficiency and per- 
 manency, and satisfactory working of practical 
 reforms, than if they were carried through me- 
 nace and clamour, against the will of those 
 who have a right to be consulted, and whose 
 cordial co-operation is essential to a happy 
 result. 
 
 I conclude by again declaring, that in the 
 execution of our public trust our object will 
 be to conciliate and confirm public confidence, 
 both as the highest reward of public men, 
 and as the most efficacious instrument of good 
 government. To obtain that confidence will 
 be our earnest hope ; second only to that, 
 which even on an occasion like this, it can- 
 not be unbecoming in a minister of this coun- 
 try to express, that it may please Almighty 
 God to direct and prosper our consultations 
 to the advancement of true religion, and the 
 safety, honour, and welfare of this great 
 country. 
 
 Enthusiastic and protracted cheering marked 
 the conclusion of the Right Hon. Baronet's 
 address.
 
 SPEECH 
 
 ON THE 
 
 MOTION OF AN ADDRESS OF THANKS 
 
 TO 
 
 HIS MAJESTY, 
 
 FOR 
 
 HIS MAJESTY^S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH. 
 February 24, 1835.
 
 SPEECH. 
 
 Sir Robert Peel rose to address the House. 
 
 I FEEL, sir, that in the situation in which I 
 stand upon this occasion, it might seem to argue 
 a disrespect towards this House, totally alien 
 to my feelings, if I were to allow this debate 
 to close, and the division to be taken, without 
 availing myself of the opportunity which is pre- 
 sented of giving the House those explanations 
 which have been required during the preceding 
 discussion. However my opinion may have oc- 
 casionally differed from many of those whom 
 I have the honour to address, I trust that I 
 have never, upon any occasion, or under any 
 circumstances, shown a disposition to treat with 
 disrespect any portion of the members of this 
 House, or to shrink from giving an explanation, 
 either as to my conduct when acting in a private 
 capacity, or called upon as a member of His Ma- 
 jesty's Government to give those explanations, or 
 
 B
 
 to express those views, wliicli in the performance 
 of my public duty I am bound to submit to the 
 House. 
 
 I shall, therefore, with the permission of the 
 House, trusting to the continuance of that indul- 
 gence which in former Parliaments I have so 
 frequently experienced, and relying upon their 
 consideration of the position in which I stand, 
 charged as I am with the important duties which 
 have fallen to my lot — I shall, I repeat, under 
 these circumstances, confidently reckon upon their 
 patient and indulgent attention, whilst I proceed 
 to recapitulate and review the matters which 
 have been alluded to in the course of the debate — 
 the doubts expressed, and the explanations de- 
 manded. 
 
 I shall, in the first place, refer to the circum- 
 stances under which the present Government was 
 constituted ; I shall defend the course which I 
 thought it my duty to advise the King to pursue 
 at the period of its formation ; and give accurate 
 delineations of the measures which it is the inten- 
 tion of His Majesty's Government to introduce ; 
 those explanations the House has a right to re- 
 quire, and I should shrink from that duty which is 
 imposed upon me if I do not avow a w illing dispo- 
 sition to afford them. I stand here as the Minister 
 of the Crown— placed in this situation bv no act of 
 my own — in consequence of no dexterous combi- 
 nation with those to whose principles I have been 
 uniformly opposed, and with whom I might fre- 
 quently have mado^ liad 1 been so inclined, a tern-
 
 3 
 
 jDorai y alliance for the purpose of embarrassing' the 
 former Government. I stand here in fulfilment of a 
 public duty, shrinking from no responsibility, with 
 no arroo-ant pretensions of defvino; or disre2:ard- 
 ing the opinions of the majority of this House, yet 
 still resolved to persevere to the last, so far as is 
 consistent with the honour of a public man, in 
 maintaining the prerogative of the Crown, and in 
 fulfilling those duties which I owe to my King and 
 to my country. 
 
 In vindication of the course which I have pur- 
 sued, it is necessary that I should refer to the cir- 
 cumstances which preceded the dissolution of the 
 last Government. I have been asked whether I 
 would impose on the King in his personal capacity 
 the responsibility of the dismissal of that Govern- 
 ment ? In answer to this question I will at once 
 declare, that I claim all the responsibility which 
 properly belongs to me as a public man ; I am re- 
 sponsible for the assumption of the duty which I 
 have undertaken, and, if you please, I am, by my 
 acceptance of office, responsible for the removal of 
 the late Government. God forbid that I should 
 endeavour to transfer any responsibility which 
 ought properly to devolve upon me to that high 
 and sacred authority whom the constitution of this 
 country recognizes as incapable of error, and whose 
 every act it imputes to the advice of responsible 
 counsellors. But whilst I disclaim all intention of 
 shrinking from that respons'.bilit}^ which one situ- 
 ated as I am must necessarily incur, I must at the 
 same time unhesitatingly assert, what is perfectl)-
 
 consistent with the truth, and what is due to 
 respect for my own character, — namely, that 
 I was not, and under no circumstance would 
 I have been a party to the secret counselling 
 or instigating of the removal of any Govern- 
 ment. But although I have not taken any part in 
 procuring the dismissal of the late Government, 
 althouQ-h I could not from circumstances which 
 are notorious to the world, hold communication 
 with any of those with whom I have now the 
 lionour to act, much less with the highest autho- 
 rity in the state, as to the propriety or policy of 
 that dismissal, still I do conceive that by the as- 
 sumption of office, the responsibility of the change 
 whicli has taken place is transferred from tlic 
 Crown to its advisers ; and I am ready — be the 
 majority against me what it may — to take all the 
 responsibility which constitutionally belongs tome, 
 and to submit to any consequences to which the 
 assumption of that responsibility may expose me. 
 
 I do not, then, liesitate to express it as my opinion 
 that the act by whicli the last Government was 
 removed was an act perfectly justifiable. I will, 
 for the purpose of proving this proposition, take a 
 review of the state of the country for some time past, 
 lookinii- back to the meetiuiv of the Reformed Par- 
 liament in February, 1833. It would be seen that 
 the Government which was formed under the 
 auspices of Lord Grey, and which had carried the 
 Reform Bill, continued in a successful course for a 
 certain period. Was I one of those who refused 
 t ) recognise and submit to the great change wliicli
 
 had then recently been effected ? Was I not tlie 
 first to avow, in 1833, that the old tactics of party 
 were no longer applicable to the new circumstances 
 of the Government of the country, and that I would 
 give my support to the Administration of Lord 
 Grey as long as that Government attempted to 
 act upon the principle of maintaining the institu- 
 tions of the country, and in maintaining — not ex- 
 chiding the improvement of them ? Did I seek 
 for opportunities for embarrassing that Govern- 
 ment? How many occasions were there not of 
 which I might have availed myself, if I had been 
 solicitous to obtain power, to obstruct the course 
 of the Government of Lord Grey ? When the 
 House of Commons had determined bv a vote of 
 one night to repeal the malt-tax, and I heard that 
 that vote would be followed by the removal of 
 Lord Althorp from his place in the Government, 
 by his immediate resignation, in consequence of 
 his declared inability to concede on this point to 
 the demand of a majority of this House, consis- 
 tently with the maintenance of public credit — did 
 I seek any plausible pretext of joining those who 
 were upon that question opposed to the Govern- 
 ment, and thereby increase its embarrassment ? 
 Did I not tender my advice that this House should 
 reconsider that vote, and did I not share the un- 
 popularity of rescinding the resolution for the 
 removal of a tax to which many of my own friends 
 were decided opponents. Again, when the Noble 
 Lord (Stanley), then Secretary for the Colonics, 
 brought forward the measure for the settlement of
 
 6 
 
 the great question of Slavery, wlien the Noble 
 Lord had at first proposed a loan of £15,000,000 
 to slave proprietors, and afterwards, to the sur- 
 prise of a large number of this House, as well as 
 the public generally, found it necessary to change 
 his proposition into a grant of £20,000,000, al- 
 thouo-h I had differed from the Noble Lord as to 
 that measure in some matters of detail, was I not 
 the first to support the Noble Lord in his propo- 
 sition for the increased vote, and to do all in my 
 power to persuade the House of Commons to 
 sanction it, as a vote essential to the success of 
 the measure and deeply involving the public 
 honour? During the whole of the years 1833 and 
 1834, so far from showing any disposition to re- 
 sume power by a combination with men to whose 
 ])rinciples I was more opposed than I was to 
 those of the Government, my constant efforts were 
 directed to maintain that Government against the 
 attacks of opponents more eager for innovation 
 than themselves, and I have ever given them my 
 cordial support and assistance upon every question 
 on which the course of the Government were in 
 accordance with my own principles, 
 
 I will now refer to the circumstances which led 
 to my being placed in the position I now occupy. 
 In May, 1834, the Government of Lord Grey lost 
 the services of those of its Members in whom the 
 country reposed the highest confidence, and it 
 will be in the recollection of the House that Lord 
 Grey was so sensible of the loss he had sustained 
 from the secession of thorc colleac»;ues as to resolve
 
 upon retiring from the Administration liimself. 
 When prevailed upon to retain office, Lord Grey 
 reconstructed the Government ; but he (Lord Grey) 
 was fully sensible of the loss his Administration 
 had sustained from the retirement of those who had 
 quitted it, and to whose assistance he had attached 
 the greatest importance. He was also aware of, 
 and felt most strongly, the embarrassments which 
 threatened the Government from what his Lordship 
 called "■ the pressure from without/' In a letter 
 to Lord Ebrino-ton, Lord Grey said—" Founded on 
 the principles of Reform, the present Administra- 
 tion must necessarily look to the correction of all 
 proved abuses. But in pursuing a course of salu- 
 tary improvement, I feel it indispensable that we 
 shall be allowed to proceed with deliberation and 
 caution, and above all, that we should not be urged 
 by a constant and active pressure from without to 
 the adoption of any measures the necessity of which 
 has not been fully proved, and which are not 
 strictly regulated by a careful attention to the set- 
 tled interests of the country, both in Church and 
 State. On no other principle can this or any other 
 Administration be conducted with advantage or 
 safety." Who could doubt that the loss of the four 
 Cabinet Ministers who seceded on the occasion he 
 was referring to -Lord Stanley, Sir James Graham, 
 the Earl of Ripon, and the Duke of Richmond, 
 had a material tendency to weaken the authority 
 of Lord Grey's Government, and to shake the con- 
 fidence of the public in ii ? However, the Govern- 
 ment proceeded, severe as was the shock it had
 
 s 
 
 sustained— but scarcely one short month ehipsed, 
 before Lord Grey himself, and those immediately 
 connected with him, Lord Carlisle and Lord Ho- 
 M'ick, retired from the Administration. It was 
 npon tliat occasion that His Majesty, anxious 
 alone for the public interests, alarmed at these 
 repeated secessions, seeing that they proceeded not 
 from hostile combinations but from internal dissen- 
 sions, or intrigues, had expressed an earnest wish, 
 that a Government should be formed upon some 
 new foundation, combining men of different parties 
 in the public service. I believe it is no secret that 
 a communication was made by Lord Melbourne, 
 at His Majesty's desire, to the Noble Lord (Stanley), 
 the Duke of Wellington, and myself, with this 
 view. I feel bound to state that Lord Melbourne 
 discouraged the plan, and was not desirous that 
 the negotiation should be entered into, because his 
 Lordship saw no reason to hope that it would end 
 in a satisfactory result. The other parties, too, L 
 must mention, were as little sanguine as Lord Mel- 
 bourne, that by the means projected an efficient 
 and permanent Administration could be formed at 
 that period. I refer, however, to this transaction, 
 as showing how deeply sensible His Majesty was 
 of the difficulties in which the country was in- 
 volved, and how anxiously he desired, by every 
 means within his control, to obviate those difficul- 
 ties. The Government was again reconstructed — re- 
 constructed under the auspices of Lord Melbourne; 
 l;ut I now publicly assert in the face of Parlia- 
 ment and the country that the foundation of that
 
 Government rested upon the continuance of Lord 
 Althorp as Chancellor of the Exchequer with the 
 lead of the House of Commons ; that the consent 
 of Lord Althorp to resume these functions was the 
 corner-stone upon which the Government of Lord 
 Melbourne was built, and that had Lord Althorp 
 withheld that consent, Lord Melbourne would not 
 have attempted to form an Administration. Let 
 him also refer to the public declaration of Lord 
 Grey as to the importance of Lord Althorp's con- 
 tinuance in office and in the House of Commons. 
 On the 9th of July, Lord Grey said, referring to 
 the communications with Mr. O'Connell respect- 
 ing the Irish Bill : — " But this new state of affairs 
 deprived me of the assistance of m^ noble friend 
 the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the leading mem- 
 ber of tlie Government in the Commons, the indivi- 
 dual on whom my chief conHdence rested, whom 
 I considered as my right arm, and without whose 
 assistance I felt it impossible for the Government 
 to go on. Former breaches had considerably 
 weakened the Government, this new breach placed 
 it in a situation in which it could not well hope to 
 retain my place at its head, with any view to serve 
 the Crown or the country for any useful purpose." 
 Thus, then, it appears that the retirement of 
 Lord Grey was determined by the retirement of 
 Lord Althorp, and that the basis on which the Mel- 
 bourne Administration was founded was this, that 
 Lord Althorp should return to office, and, contrary 
 to his own declared wishes and inclinations, re- 
 sume the Leadership of the House of Con^mons.
 
 10 
 
 The Melbourne Goverument was thus constructed, 
 but the Session, though nearly at a close, did not 
 terminate without a collision between the Houses 
 of Lords and Commons on the Irish Tithe Bill. I 
 will put it to the House whether under such cir- 
 cumstances it was not perfectly natural, on the ne- 
 cessary retirement of Lord Althorp from the Chan- 
 cellorship of the Exchequer and the lead of the 
 House of Commons, that his Majesty should review 
 the position of public affairs, and should anxiously 
 consider the question, whether he should continue 
 the Government, shattered as it was to its founda- 
 tion, or seek for an Administration constructed on 
 a new basis ? Where was the hope that compen- 
 sation could be found for the successive losses the 
 Reform Government had sustained — the loss of 
 Lord Stanley — of Sir James Graham — of the Duke 
 of Richmond — of Lord Ripon — of Lord Carlisle — 
 of Lord Grey — and lastly, of Lord Althorp ? From 
 what quarter of the horizon did the ray of light and 
 hope proceed ? If there were a chance of success 
 it must be in tlie single expectation of the consis- 
 tent and unanimous support which the Govern- 
 ment would receive at the hands of those who 
 held extreme opinions upon popular questions. 
 But what hope of support had the Govern- 
 ment from that quarter ? Was it not the fact 
 that it was to the series of attacks made one 
 after another from that quarter that the weak- 
 ness of the Government was to be attributed ? 
 — Who was the Member of the new Cabinet 
 best entitled to claim support from the popular
 
 11 
 
 party, and especially from the popular party in 
 Ireland ? Was it not Lord Duncannon, named to 
 tlie office of Secretary of State from his especial 
 connection with Ireland ? Now mark the indica- 
 tions of gratitude for this appointment, and the 
 prospect that Lord Duncanncm had of cordial 
 support from the only party on which he could 
 place a reliance. On the 11th of October last, a 
 month preceding the dissolution of Lord Mel- 
 bourne's Government, the Hon. and Learned 
 Member for Dublin addressed a letter to Lord 
 Duncannon, having for its motto, " Hurrah for 
 the Repeal," and the authority given for the motto 
 was, " Wild Irish cry." The following is an ex- 
 tract from that letter: — " My Lord — I write more 
 in sorrow than in ano-er — more in reo'ret than in 
 hostihty. It is true that you have deceived me — 
 bitterly and cruelly deceived Ireland, but we 
 should have known you better. You belong to 
 the Whigs, and after four years of the most ema- 
 ciating experience we ought, indeed, to have 
 known, that Ireland had nothing to expect from 
 the Wliigs but insolent contempt, and malignant 
 bat treacherous hostilit}'." This, it might be sup- 
 posed, was an ebullition of ardent and heated elo- 
 quence, delivered under circumstances of strong 
 excitement ; but no, it was no such thing —it was 
 written from the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's 
 calm retreat at Derrynane Abbey, and when the 
 Hon. and Learned Gentleman was in the most 
 tranquil vein possible. The Hon, and Learned 
 Gentleman said so himself. " It is," continued
 
 12 
 
 the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, ''my duty 
 trancjuilly but firmly to declare to the people of 
 Ireland that they have nothing to expect from you ; 
 that you are as deeply steeped in the old system of 
 misgovernmcnt, as if you never proclaimed liberal 
 principles, and that we must have a change of men 
 before we have any chance of a change of measures. 
 Still I do confess I have arrived at this conclusion 
 with regret. I feel nothing of the passion of anger; 
 I cherish no hasty or violent resentment. But I 
 do feel strongly the impulses of that duty which 
 commands me to struggle unremittingly to procure 
 for Ireland a domestic Legislature, where, and 
 where alone, a sympathy between the Irish and 
 their rulers can originate and be fostered." So 
 much for the opinions of the Hon. and Learned 
 Gentleman respecting the constitution of the Mel- 
 bourne Administration and Lord Duncannon, whom 
 the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had at first 
 liailed as a most popular acquisition to that Mi- 
 nistry. The House would see that according to 
 the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's own showing, 
 no change of men could possibly prejudice the 
 interests of Ireland, that the Melbourne Cabinet 
 was so bad that even the present was far preferable 
 to it, and that the Hon. Gentleman himself was 
 bound therefore to give it at least comparative 
 support. 
 
 And now for the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's 
 opinions as to individuals connected with the Mel- 
 bourne Administration. In the same letter from 
 whicli 1 liavc ju^t quoted, the following passages
 
 13 
 
 occurred: — "Of what value is it to Ireland that 
 Earl Grey should have retired, if he has left to his 
 successors the same proud and malignant hatred 
 he appeared to entertain towards the Irish nation? 
 Are the representatives of that sentiment predomi- 
 nant in the Cabinet ? I know that — (can I believe 
 my eyes when I read it ?) — tliat Lord John Russell 
 cherishes feelings of a similar description. Ireland, 
 in the unjust and disgraceful scantiness of her Re- 
 form Bill, felt, deeply and deplorably felt, that 
 hostility." With regard to Lord Melbourne, the 
 Hon. and Learned Gentleman said, " I know, and 
 everybody knows, that Lord Melbourne wants suf- 
 ficient powers of mind to be able to comprehend 
 the favourable opportunities afforded him to conci- 
 liate the popular party — that is, emphatically, Ire- 
 land. In plain truth, my Lord, it is quite manifest 
 that Lord Melbourne is utterly incompetent for the 
 hio'h office he holds. It is lamentable to think that 
 the destinies of the Irish people should depend in 
 any degree on so inefficient a person." Next came 
 Lord Lansdowne, of whom the Hon. and Learned 
 Gentleman said — " Lord Lansdowne, too, is hostile 
 to Ireland, with a hatred the more active and per- 
 severing because he is bound by every obligation, 
 to entertain diametrically opposite sentiments." — 
 I will trouble the House with but one quotation 
 more from this deliberate and tranquil letter of the 
 Hon. and Learned Gentleman to Lord Duncannon : 
 — "On this account, then, I repeat the chorus of 
 that song called ' The Wild Irish Cry' — ' Hurrah
 
 14 
 
 for the He|)cal." You arc u much better l^cpealer 
 than I am. Your conduct and tliat of ^^our col- 
 leagues has made more of the people inveterate for 
 repeal than any arguments or exertions of mine 
 could possibly do. Continue to govern Ireland 
 under the special guidance of ' the sage father of 
 all the Hannibals,' and you may possibly see the 
 bench — but no, that is ground too sacred to be 
 touched in public — but vou will see Ireland suffi- 
 ciently strong to laugh to scorn every malignant 
 enemy, whether Whig or Orange Tory." Thus 
 had the Hon. and Learned Gentleman disposed of 
 Lord Duncannon, Lord John Russell, Lord Lans- 
 downe, Lord Plunkett, and lastly Lord Melbourne 
 himself. Was it not then clear to demonstration 
 that the Melbourne Cabinet had not the faintest 
 hope of support from that party on which its main 
 reliance for support must have been placed. 
 
 Let me then again ask, whether it was unnatural 
 or unreasonable for His IVJajesty, in considering the 
 component parts of that Administration, and the 
 prospect of ic Ijeing able to maintain its ground, 
 weakened as it had been by the loss of the most 
 powerful members of the Grey Government, and 
 further embarrassed by the recurrence of that event, 
 and which had caused Lord Grey's retirement, and 
 would have prevented Lord Melbourne from form- 
 ing any Administration at all, namely— the resig- 
 nation of Lord Althorp and^his removal from the 
 House of Commons, — let me, ■ I say, ask whether 
 it was at all surprising that His Majesty should
 
 15 
 
 doubt the propriety of continuing the reins of Go- 
 vernment in the hands of men who, three months 
 before, rested their exclusive hope of success in the 
 aid of Lord Althorp ? 
 
 I have already stated that I was no party in the 
 remotest degree to the removal of the former Go- 
 vernment, never having either advised or even con- 
 templated it ; yet I feel that the acceptance of office 
 did impose upon me a full share in the responsibility 
 which my Noble Friend (the Duke of Wellington) 
 has contracted. I am now here to answer for that 
 responsibiHty, If my Noble Friend has acted un- 
 constitutionally — if my Noble Friend has done any 
 thing wrong in his assumption of the Government, 
 I, by my subsequent acceptance of office, have con- 
 tracted in an equal degree, the responsibility thus 
 incurred. It was said that it was a most grievous 
 crime and a dangerous precedent for any one man to 
 monopolize so many offices. My first answer to this 
 assertion is, that there is nothing unconstitutional 
 in a man holding two offices, and that the pro- 
 priety of their tenure depended upon the state of 
 public affairs, and the intention with which they 
 were accepted. The Duke of Wellington, it was 
 true, had held the offices of First Lord of the 
 Treasury and of Secretary of State for the Home 
 Department, and had the power, in the last capa- 
 city, of performing all the duties connected with 
 either the Foreign, Colonial, or Home Offices. 
 The delivery to him of the seals of the Home 
 Office conferred upon him the right to exercise all
 
 the functions of the otlier two departniouts,- the 
 riiiht to advise t.lic Crown on tbrei2;n and colonial 
 matters, contracting, of course, all the responbi- 
 bility which mioht attach to such advice. There 
 might he inconvenience arising from the assump- 
 tion of all these powers by one individual, but 
 such an assumption was not unconstitutional. It 
 was the constant practice that the secretary of 
 one department acted for the secretary of another, 
 during intervals of recreation, or periods of sick- 
 ness ; but he would not rest the defence of his 
 Noble Friend on any ground so narrow. His 
 Noble Friend had assumed the double offices from 
 the purest motives, — from his conviction that it 
 was necessary for the public service. He had 
 assumed them — not with the intention of arrogat- 
 ing to himself the supreme powers of the state, 
 but for the express purpose of mere temporary 
 occupation, with a view to deliver up those powers 
 in their full integrity to another. The Noble Lord 
 (the Member for Yorkshire) has stated that this 
 assumption was perfectly new in the history of 
 this country, and has said (I believe I have taken 
 down the Noble Lord's words correctly) that if 
 there should be an old Whig; of the Ilockinorham 
 school now alive, the hairs of that old Whig would 
 stand on end on hearing that one man had as- 
 sumed two such offices as those of the Secretary of 
 State and First Lord of the Treasury. But I shall 
 show that, in the good times of Whig predomi- 
 nance, an instance has occurred when an assump- 
 tion of equal powers had taken place in order to
 
 17 
 
 ilefeat the Jacobite party, and obstruct the views 
 of the Pretender. The Noble Lord was well read 
 in history, and doubtless remembered the events 
 which occurred at the close of the rei^n and of 
 the life of Queen Anne. The Noble Lord would 
 perhaps recollect that a short time previously the 
 Earl of Oxford had been removed from power, 
 and that Lord Bolingbroke speculated upon the 
 assumption of supreme authority, and means of 
 constituting a government consonant with his own 
 views. The historian thus narrates the circum- 
 stances under which one individual did assume 
 many high trusts, for the purpose of defeating the 
 principles of the Tories, and the views of the 
 Jacobite party. '' Lord Bolingbroke employed 
 this awful interval (the sickness of the Queen) 
 in regulating his political arrangements, and the 
 most alarming apprehensions seized upon all the 
 true friends and well-wishers of the country. The 
 Whigs, however, were not inactive, the indisposi- 
 tion of the Queen increased, and the Committee 
 of the Privy Council, sitting at the Palace of Ken- 
 sington, began to make prompt and effectual ar- 
 rangements. The Duke of Shrewsbury was present, 
 and saw the crisis had now arrived when a deci- 
 sive course must be adopted, aided by the support 
 of the Hanoverian party. The Dukes of Argyll 
 and Somerset entered the Council-chamber, and 
 the post of Lord Treasurer was filled up, the Coun- 
 cil recommending to the Queen the Duke of 
 Shrewsbury as the fittest person for that office. 
 The Queen delivered to him the white staflT, de? 
 
 e
 
 18 
 
 siring liiin to use it for the good of her people. 
 The same afternoon Lord Somers shook off his 
 bodily infirmities, and repaired to Kensington, ac- 
 companied by several Privy Councillors of his 
 party. Tlie Duke of Shrewsbury desired to return 
 to tlie Queen the Lord Chamberlain's staff, but 
 she directed him to keep both, so that he was 
 possessed at one and the same time of three of 
 the greatest posts in the kingdom, namely those 
 of Lord High Treasurer, Lord Chamberlain, and 
 Lord Lieutenant of Ireland." Was there a whis- 
 per of objection to this on the part of Whig autho- 
 rities? Did Lord Somers denounce the act as un- 
 constitutional ? On the contrary, he sanctioned it 
 by his presence ! It was the urgency of the crisis, 
 — it was the intention of the act that vindicated it, 
 and extracted all the danger from the precedent. 
 Apply the same principles to this case. The Duke 
 of Wellington was offered the situation of Prime 
 Minister at a time of great difficulty. He be- 
 lieved it better for the interests of the Kino; and 
 of the country, that that post should be occupied 
 by another person, and that person was not in 
 England. The Noble Duke stated in his letter to 
 me, that he had advised the King to send for me 
 as His Majesty's Prime Minister, and that he had 
 determined to assume certain offices himself, be- 
 cause he thought nothing would be so unfair as to 
 ask me to take upon myself the management of 
 an Administration, the whole of which had not 
 been left to my formation, and further that, if he 
 appointed other individuals to exercise the high 
 duties of those offices, tliat I might probably be
 
 19 
 
 under an embarrassment in advisins; tlie Kina: 
 to remove them. It was to obviate such an em- 
 barrassment and difficulty, and to leave the ap- 
 pointments to myself unfettered, that the Duke of 
 Wellington thought it better for the Crown, and 
 fairer to me to make an arrangement in its nature 
 and character temporary. So much for that 
 question. 
 
 I now come to the subject of the Dissolution 
 of the late Parliament. I have been asked whether 
 I take upon myself the responsibility of that pro- 
 ceeding, and without a moment's hesitation, I an- 
 swer that I do take upon myself the responsibility 
 of the dissolution. The moment I returned to this 
 country to undertake the arduous duties now im- 
 posed upon me, I did determine that I would 
 leave no constitutional effort untried to enable me 
 satisfactorily to discharge the trust reposed in me. 
 I did fear that, if I had met the late Parliament, 
 I should have been obstructed in my course, and 
 obstructed in a manner, and at a season, which 
 might have precluded an appeal to the people. 
 But it is unnecessary for me to assign reasons for 
 this opinion. Was it not the constant boast that the 
 late Parliament had unbounded confidence in the 
 late Government ? And why should those, who de- 
 clare they are ready to condemn me without a 
 hearing, be surprised at my appeal to the judg- 
 ment of another, and a higher, and a fairer tri- 
 bunal — the public sense of the people ? Notwith- 
 standing the specious reasons which have been 
 usually assigned for the dissolution, I believe it 
 will be found, that whenever there has occurred
 
 20 
 
 an extensive change of Government, a dissoliTtion 
 of Parliament has followed. In the j'ear 1784 
 a change took place in the Government, Mr. Pitt 
 was appointed to the office of Prime Minister, and 
 in the same year a dissolution took place. Again, 
 in 1806, when the Administrations of Lords Grey 
 and Grenville was formed, the Parliament, which 
 had only sat four years, was shortly after the as- 
 sumption of power by those Noblemen dissolved. 
 It was on that occasion urged, that a negotiation 
 with France having failed, it became necessary to 
 refer to the sense of the country, but I never 
 will admit that the failure of the negotiation 
 with France could constitute any sufficient grounds 
 for the dissolution of a Parliament which there 
 was not the slightest reason to believe was adverse 
 to the continuance of the war, or dissatisfied with 
 the conduct of the negotiation. In the year 1807 
 another change took place in the Government by 
 the accession of Mr. Perceval to power, and there 
 again a dissolution immediately took place. In the 
 year 1830, Earl Grey was called into office as Prime 
 Minister, and shortly after the vote in committee 
 on the Reform Bill, the Parliament, which had 
 been elected in 1830, was dissolved in 1831. 
 Hence it appeared that, in the cases of the four 
 last extensive changes in the Government, those 
 changes had been followed by a dissolution of the 
 then existing Parliament. The present, however, 
 I believe to be the first occasion ui)on which the 
 House of Commons has ever proceeded to record 
 its dissatisfaction at the exercise of the prerogative 
 of dissolution.
 
 2L 
 
 I have been told, and indeed it has been im- 
 plied in the course of this debate, that although I 
 might have been no party to the dismissal of the 
 late Ministry, and although I was utterly ignorant 
 of the intention to dismiss it, yet that I ought to 
 have advised the Throne to recall the Government 
 of Lord Melbourne, and that I should have con- 
 sidered myself disqualified from undertaking the 
 Government of the country. The whole ground 
 of objection to my possession of power is this, 
 that, in consequence of the revolution in power 
 which has taken place, and of the necessity of 
 acting in the spirit and on the principles of the 
 Reform Bill, — I am unfit for power, and therefore 
 ouoht to have declined it. But I have never con- 
 sidered the Reform Bill to be a machine, the secret 
 springs and working of which were only known 
 to those by whom it had been constructed, or that 
 its effect was to be the exclusion of any portion of 
 the King's subjects from their Monarch's service. 
 No sacrifice of principle was required from me 
 by the King ; on the contrary, I was desired to 
 form an Administration such as seemed to myself 
 best for the public service, to adopt such measures 
 as I conceived most likely to advance the public 
 interests ; and I will, therefore, ask any man out- 
 side the walls of Parliament, and free from the 
 contagion of party, whether he would not enter- 
 tain a mean opinion of me, had I, under such 
 circumstances, said to the King, — "I feel for 
 your difiiculties, but I decline your service ; I 
 never can propose measures that will satisfy the
 
 22 
 
 House of Commons, and I therefore advise 3^ou to 
 resort to some other quarter for assistance." 
 
 It has been urged against me, that I and those 
 with whom I have acted in the Commons' House 
 of Parliament were at constant variance with the 
 Reform Governments of Earl Grey and of Lord 
 Melbourne, and that we have contended against 
 those Administrations wliich were assumed to have 
 been supported by the unanimous voice of Refor- 
 mer?. Upon this head there has been much decla- 
 mation. Declamation was certainly more capti- 
 vating than facts, but facts were a little more con- 
 clusive as evidence, and I would refer to certain 
 notorious facts — facts upon record for the purpose 
 of deciding the question whether or not I have 
 acted as was alleged, in constant opposition to the 
 Reform Governments, and in continued hostility 
 to the united body of Reformers. I reject with 
 scorn the doctrine, that because a public man had 
 resisted the Reform Bill — had resisted a great 
 change in the balance of political power, and in 
 the constitution of the governing body — he must 
 be placed under a ban of perpetual exclusion — de- 
 nounced as an alien from the institutions of his 
 native land, and disqualified for public service as 
 the patron of corruption and abuse. This conve- 
 nient doctrine was founded on the assumption that 
 the House of Commons, since the passing of the 
 Reform Bill, had been divided into two parties — 
 the advocates and the opponents of the Reforming 
 Government. A reference to facts would show that 
 sucli was not the case, but, on the contrary, that I,
 
 23 
 
 an anti-reformer, so far as the constitution of the 
 House of Commons was concerned, have been the 
 supporter of the Government, and that it was the 
 Reformers themselves who had opposed them. To 
 establish the truth of this I will review the princi- 
 pal Domestic Questions which have been discussed 
 since the first meeting of the Reformed Parliament 
 in Feb. 1833. On the meeting of that Parliament, 
 an amendment was moved on the address ■ — the 
 "bloody and brutal address," as it was called by 
 the Member for Dublin. The Government resisted 
 that amendment ; I supported them, and was one 
 of a very large majority. On the first reading of 
 the Disturbances (Ireland) Bill, the Government 
 were opposed by many, but I supported them. 
 Next came Mr. Attwood's motion on the subject 
 of the general distress ; there I supported the Go- 
 vernment. So also on Mr. Harvey's motion rela- 
 tive to the publication of the lists of divisions; on 
 Mr. Grote's motion upon the vote by ballot ; and 
 on Mr. Rippon's motion for the exclusion of the 
 Bishops from the House of Lords. The Govern- 
 ment opposed also the repeal of the malt-tax, and 
 I lent them my assistance. On the motion for 
 the alteration of the corn laws, and for a substi- 
 tution of a property-tax in lieu of the duties on 
 malt ; on the grant of pecuniary relief to the Irish 
 Clergy ; on Mr. Tennyson's motion for the repeal 
 of the Septennial Act ; on Mr. Harvey's second 
 motion upon the Pension List : on Sir William 
 Ingilby's resolution for the reduction of the malt 
 duties ; on Mr. Buckingham's proposition relative 
 to impressment ; on Mr. Hume's motion on the
 
 24 
 
 corn laws; on Lord Althorp's proposition with re- 
 spect to the Cliurch rates ; on Mr. O'Connell's 
 motion for the repeal of the Union — on every 
 one of these occasions I have found myself in 
 close connexion with the Government, and lend- 
 ing them my most earnest and zealous assistance 
 and support. Now take the other side of the ac- 
 count. I have differed from the Government on 
 the question of the admission of Dissenters into the 
 Universities; and I had also the serious misfortune 
 to differ from them on the motion for a committee 
 for the persecution of Baron Smith. I voted also 
 against them on the question of the Irish Church 
 Temporalities, and against Lord Althorp's propo- 
 sition to make Bank-notes above the value of £5. 
 a leo;al tender. Now strike the balance. Look at 
 the questions on which I have supported, and those 
 on which I have opposed the Reform Government 
 — compare their number, compare their relative im- 
 portance, and then decide — whether I or the Ultra- 
 Reformers were the parties differing the most in 
 views and principles from the Government of Lord 
 Grey. At the same time I feel it my duty to de- 
 clare, that I will not try to conciliate the support 
 of the House by any false professions. After the 
 passing of the Reform Bill I saw that a great change 
 had taken place ; that there had been a complete 
 revolution in the possession of power, and that ne- 
 cessarily there must be on the part of public men, 
 who meant honestly by their country, a spirit of 
 accommodation in their public course to the altered 
 circumstances of Government. I, however, cannot
 
 25 
 
 say that I intend in power, or as a condition on 
 which to retain power, to adopt any course differ- 
 ing in principle from that which I pursued in op- 
 position, subsequently to the passing of the Bill of 
 Reform. On questions in which I opposed the 
 late Government I intend still to maintain the 
 principles which actuated that opposition. I do 
 not mean to vote for a compulsory obligation on 
 the Universities to admit Dissenters within their 
 walls, but will leave that question to be determined 
 by the Universities themselves. I also intend to 
 maintain the same principles on which I acted with 
 reference to the Church Temporalities Bill, and I 
 will not consent to the diversion of Ecclesiastical 
 property to other than Ecclesiastical purposes. If 
 I differ from the majority of the House, I regret it ; 
 I differ from them with respect, but I will not 
 make the sacrifice of my opinions on the two points 
 to which I have referred for tlie purpose of gaining 
 their favour or their support.. I am no apostate ; 
 I am not deviating from any principles which I 
 have ever professed. The rule of my conduct in 
 office, will be that which I have taken for my rule 
 out of office, to make no sacrifice of public princi- 
 ple, but at the same time not to stand in fruitless 
 opposition to the operation of changes in our insti- 
 tutions, the making of which I certainly depre- 
 cated, but which when made I was among the first 
 to recoQ-nise as final and irrevocable. 
 
 I hope that the House will allow me to take a 
 view of the measures indicated by the King's 
 Speech, as those hereafter to be proposed by the
 
 26 
 
 Government, and to afford the House the explana- 
 tion respecting them which has ah'eady been re- 
 quired of me. I am afraid that I am trespassing 
 on your attention at a length which may become 
 wearisome to your patience, but I trust that you will 
 make allowance for the situation in which I am 
 placed, and that your possible disinclination to hear 
 me as a private individual will not apply to me as a 
 Minister of State. The first point noticed in the 
 King's Speech, was our relations with foreign 
 princes and states. The Government declared its 
 earnest desire to cultivate the relations of amity 
 with them. The Government stated that they en- 
 tertained confident expectations of being able to 
 maintain the blessings of peace. They already 
 saw a tendency to increased confidence in the Bri- 
 tish Ministry, on the part of some of the great 
 powers of Europe, and that confidence had been 
 manifested by the commencement of reduction in 
 the military establishments of two of them. I al- 
 lude to the fact, that Austria and Prussia have both 
 begun to reduce their military force — the one in 
 her Italian, the other in her Rhenish provinces. 
 It has been argued on the other side, that it was an 
 ill omen, a positive evil, that the military Govern- 
 ments of the Continent should have any confidence 
 in the Ministry of England. There might be some 
 foundation for this if the Ministers had contracted 
 any engagements with those Governments whicli 
 could bind them to depart from the true principles 
 of British Policy, and from their disinclination to 
 interfere with the internal affairs of other countries.
 
 27 
 
 We have contracted no such engagements, but 
 we are proud of the confidence of foreign powers, 
 and wish to maintain their good will. And I 
 must say, that nothing is more unfortunate than 
 the course occasionally pursued in this House of 
 loading with personal obloquy and the severest 
 vituperation those who possess the chief autho- 
 rity in countries, whose cordiality it is our inte- 
 rest to cultivate, even though they are governed by 
 institutions less free than our own. What incon- 
 sistency is there in maintaining the principles of 
 a free representative government, and yet, disre- 
 garding the difference of our institutions, in culti- 
 vating friendship with despotic powers ? It would 
 be well if those Gentlemen who profess liberal 
 principles would imitate the example of a country 
 with institutions more liberal even than our own — 
 I mean the United States, which sees no inconsis- 
 tency and no dereliction of principle in courting 
 the most friendly relations with foreign states, with- 
 out troubling themselves about their forms of go- 
 vernment. What advantage is there, I would ask, 
 in alienating foreign Sovereigns from us by reflec- 
 tions which irritate their feelings, but do not dimi- 
 nish their power, and which prevent us from exer- 
 cising a friendly and salutary influence over their 
 counsels? But it was said that this increasing con- 
 fidence in the British Government on the part 
 of certain foreign powers must be owing to our 
 alienation from our powerful neighbour and ally — 
 France. Now, why should that suspicion be en- 
 tertained against the present Government ? Who 
 was the first to confirm the nascent power of Louis
 
 28 
 
 Philippe by an unhesitating acknowledgment of it, 
 but the Duke of Wellington? Why should this 
 Government view with jealousy the increasing 
 prosperity of France ? Why should it repine at 
 advances in improvement, which re-acted upon our 
 own welfare, or entertain a lurking feeling ad- 
 verse to the maintenance of that cordial good 
 understanding wath France, on which, in my 
 conscience, I believe the peace of Europe mainly 
 depends. 
 
 The next point noticed in the King's Speech was 
 the necessity of economy. Ministers stated the 
 fact, that the estimates of this year would be the 
 lowest that had been known since the peace of 
 1815. The fact being so, they had stated it, but 
 not with an invidious comparison between their 
 acts and those of the former Government. They 
 did not claim the reduction as their exclusive credit. 
 They wished it to be shared with the Government 
 which had preceded their own ; and as that Go- 
 vernment, in its financial statement, had had the 
 liberality to admit the economy enforced by the 
 Duke of Wellington in his former Administration, 
 so the present Government, in its estimates, had 
 the liberality to admit that it was only continuing 
 to act in furtherance of the economical principles 
 enforced by the preceding Government. But at 
 any rate, the statement of this fact was an answer 
 to those M'ho said that the appointment of a Con- 
 servative Government would lead to increased ex- 
 pense in all our establishments. Comparing the 
 estimates of the present year with those of the last, 
 he entertained a confident hop* that it j^'ould be
 
 29 
 
 possible to make a reduction, consistent with the 
 due execution of the public service, to the extent 
 of 500,000/. For that Ministers claimed not an 
 exclusive credit — it arose less from the reduction 
 of establishments than from the enforcement of 
 those wise principles of economy which were first 
 laid down by the Duke of Wellington, and after- 
 wards adopted by the late Administration. 
 
 I will now shortly advert to the measure for the 
 abolition of Slavery. There had been an impres- 
 sion that the success of that great measure would 
 be impeded by the restoration of the present Mi- 
 nistry to power. It was true that they had not 
 entertained the sanguine expectations respecting 
 its eventual success that had been entertained by 
 many Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the 
 House ; but this I will say, that if ever men were 
 under a moral obligation to be scrupulous in pro- 
 moting the success of any great measure of philan- 
 thropic benevolence, the present Ministers were 
 under that obligation, for the very reaso'ii that 
 they had been less sanguine than its authors. And 
 what had been the practical course which Minis- 
 ters had pursued respecting it ? So far had they 
 been from seeking any advantage from the patron- 
 age of the different appointments in the colonies, 
 their first resolution had been to continue in their 
 post all the governors appointed under the late 
 Administration. Those governors being appointed 
 bv that Administration, were cog-nizant of its in- 
 tentions, and were therefore probably the best 
 instruments for carrying those intentions into effect.
 
 30 
 
 Lord SUgo, for instance, was tlie Governor of 
 Jamaica. The first thing which Lord Aberdeen 
 did upon his appointment to office, was to write to 
 that Noble Lord, and to request him to remain in 
 his situation, as he was cognizant, from personal 
 communication, of the views and feelings of the 
 late Government. The present Government had 
 sent out additional magistrates to some of the co- 
 lonies (the only instance in which it had incurred 
 expense without the knowledge of Parliament, ) but 
 they had not hesitated to undertake the responsi- 
 bility of such a proceeding, as the object of it 
 was to further the success of that great measure 
 for the abolition of slavery. 
 
 It had been said by Hon. Gentlemen on the 
 other side, that the Speech from the Throne was 
 in its terms vague and inconclusive ; that it was 
 couched in the usual indefinite language ; and that 
 it left Parliament uncertain as to what was to be 
 done. Now, of all the Speeches which had ever 
 been delivered from the Throne, it does appear to 
 me that this is the most precise as to the inten- 
 tions of the Government, and as to the. measures 
 which it intended to propose. I wish the House 
 to recollect, that I returned from the Continent on 
 the 10th of December, and that I am now speaking 
 on the '24tli of February. It was no slight labour 
 in the interim to have constituted a Ministry, and 
 to have given the requisite consideration to such 
 measures as were announced in the Speech from 
 the Throne. Among the first of them, in point of 
 urgency, was the state of the Tithe question in
 
 Ireland. Government would propose a measure 
 for its final and equitable adjustment. For the 
 commutation of tithe in England and Wales, Go- 
 vernment was also prepared with a measure. For 
 the administration of justice in Ecclesiastical causes, 
 Government intended to adopt a Bill, founded on 
 the Report of the Commissioners appointed by the 
 former Government of the Duke of Wellino-ton : 
 a Bill of which, subsequently, the Right Hon. 
 Member for Cumberland had been the chief pro- 
 moter ; a Bill which would destroy all petty eccle- 
 siastical courts, and would appoint supreme courts 
 for the cognizance of all ecclesiastical causes. Go- 
 vernment also proposed to make provision for the 
 more effectual maintenance of ecclesiastical disci- 
 pline — a provision which would enforce episcopal 
 authority, not over the laity, but over the clergy, 
 and would check, if not entirely prevent, those 
 cases of scandal which occasionally occurred, but 
 the punishment of which was dilatory and ineffec- 
 tual. Government also intended to propose a mea- 
 sure which would relieve those who dissented from 
 the church from the necessity of celebrating mar- 
 riage according to its rites. I have been asked, 
 " Is that all you intend to do for the Dissenters? 
 You may relieve them from that grievance, but 
 do you leave all their other grievances unre- 
 dressed ?" Now I must remind these objectors, 
 that great importance has been attached by the 
 Dissenters to the redress of this very grievance. 
 It is no new point that I have taken up. The 
 Noble Lord opposite has failed before me ; and the
 
 32 
 
 first point to whicli I gave my attention on my re- 
 turn to power, was the mode in whicli I could 
 fulfil most satisfactorily the expectations of the 
 Dissenters on this subject. It has been objected, 
 that there is no mention in the King's Speech of 
 any measure for establishing a general registry of 
 birtlis and deaths. That is a subject full of diffi- 
 culties, which I am occupied in considering and 
 attempting to solve ; and it is not the practice of 
 the Crown to indicate in the Speech from the 
 Throne measures, until the details are all settled. 
 K^ow, the consideration of these measures has oc- 
 cupied more time than it was almost possible to 
 devote to them, when due attention was paid to 
 the general business of tlie State. Any measure 
 for establishing a general registry of births, would 
 require long and mature deliberation. I candidly 
 confess, that I am not at present ready with all the 
 details of such a measure. I have not, however, any 
 objection to the principle of it. Such a measure, 
 when well matured, would be of great advantage to 
 the public at large, as supplying valuable statistical 
 information, and affording better means than any 
 that now exist, for establishing titles to property. 
 But we are too apt to expect that we can in every 
 case combine the advantages and facilities which 
 despotic Governments have, with those of free 
 institutions. It might be easy in Prussia or Austria 
 to impose a penalty on any man M'ho had a child 
 born to him, and who did not register its birth 
 within a given time. I doubt, however, whether 
 such a regulation would be at once practicable and
 
 33 
 
 satisfactory in this country. On tliis subject I will 
 at once avow my opinion, that I wish to see the 
 registry of births and deaths, the registry, that is, 
 of facts, as well as of religious rites, still in the 
 hands of the Ministers of the Church, first, be- 
 cause I think them the most competent to keep such 
 a registry, and secondly, because a single registry 
 for all classes of the King's subjects, would pre- 
 vent much trouble and expense in ascertaining facts 
 connected with birth or death. 
 
 Then, I am told that on the subject of Municipal 
 Corporations the Speech was still more vague and 
 inconclusive. On that point he would appeal to 
 the fairness of the House. A Committee was ap- 
 pointed by that House to inquire into the state of 
 Municipal Corporations. That Committee, of 
 which their present Speaker was Chairman, made 
 certain inquiries. It found that it had not suffi- 
 cient powers to conduct the inquiry satisfactorily, 
 and it recommended the appointment of a Com- 
 mission to conduct it. On his recent appointment 
 to office a Right Hon. Friend of mine, to enable 
 the Government to consider their Report, to weigh 
 the evidence which they had collected, and to 
 examine the suggestions which they had proposed, 
 wrote to the Municipal Commissioners for the 
 information which they had compiled. I can 
 have no reserve with the House, and it would, 
 perhaps, be satisfactory to it to hear the answer of 
 the Commissioners. It was dated the 27th of 
 January, 1835. The Commissioners stated that 
 their inquiries were now complete ; that 293 Mu-
 
 34 
 
 nicipal Corporations had been visited by them ; 
 that 241 Reports had been sent in; that 182 had 
 been printed ; but that the remainder of them were 
 at that time unfinished. The Commissioners fur- 
 ther declared that they could not state when their 
 General Report would be ready, but they expressed 
 a hope that it would be finished in the month of 
 February. They likewise declared that it was not 
 their intention to present a partial Report on any 
 branch of the subject unless they were specifically 
 required so to do. Under such circumstances I 
 contend that it would have been contrary not only 
 to the practice usually adopted in such cases, but 
 to the respect due to a Commission appointed by 
 the Crown, if the Government had indicated in 
 the King's Speech any definite measure of Muni- 
 cipal Reform. What would be the use of the 
 Commission, if in the very mouth in which it pro- 
 posed to produce its Report, Government, without 
 even waiting to look at it, came forward with a 
 measure of its own upon the subject ? The Report 
 made by the Committee of the House of Commons, 
 of which their Speaker was the Chairman, on the 
 subject of these Munici])al Corporations, contained 
 the following words. After expressing a decided 
 opinion that a further and searching inquiry should 
 be made, with a view to the adoption of a suflicient 
 remedy, they say— " Having come to this conclu- 
 sion, your Committee are not enabled to offer any 
 final suggestions as to the remedies which ought 
 to be adopted ; and being further of opinion, that 
 from the defective nature of their inquiry, even
 
 35 
 
 those cases wliich they have examined ought to be 
 subject to further scrutiny, they have thought it 
 desirable, with very few exceptions, to abstain from 
 pointing out particular defects, or animadverting 
 on individual testimony, while there is a possibi- 
 lity that a different colour may be given to the 
 case by future investigation." Was not this very 
 passage a conclusive reason for suspending a judg- 
 ment as to any specific practical measure. An 
 Hon. Gentleman has asked me, and insisted upon 
 having an answer to his question, whether Minis- 
 ters intended to give the Ten-pounders, as they 
 were called, the power of electing to all ofHces in 
 those Corporations ? Now, to that question I must 
 reply, that until I have had an opportunity of read- 
 ing the Report, and the evidence founded upon it, 
 it would not be consistent with my duty to pledge 
 myself as to what I will do upon any given point. 
 If they were to ask me whether I had any conceiv- 
 able interest in maintaining the abuses of Corpo- 
 rations, or any prejudice in their favour, I would 
 reply at once that I have no such interest, and no 
 prejudice that would prevent me from giving a 
 fair consideration to any plan for their ameliora- 
 tion. I would go the full length to which the 
 Government of Lord Grey had gone in the Speech 
 which they advised the King to make, after the 
 appointment of the Commission, but when, as at 
 present, its enquiries were incomplete. The 
 Speech from the Throne in the commencement of 
 the Session of 1834, when Earl Grey was Minister, 
 contained these expressions—" Many other impor-
 
 3(> 
 
 tant subjects will still call for your most attentive 
 consideration. The Reports wliicli I will order to be i 
 laid before you from the Commissioners appointed 
 to inquire into the state of Municipal Corporations, 
 into the administration and effect of the Poor 
 Laws, and into Ecclesiastical Revenues and Pa- 
 tronage in England and Wales, cannot fail to afford 
 you much useful information, by which you will be 
 enabled to judge of the nature and extent of any 
 existing defects and abuses, and in what manner 
 the necessary corrections may, in due season, be 
 safely and beneficially applied." I am prepared 
 to adopt every word of that Speech. I would go 
 the full length of it, and why should I be required 
 to go farther ? I am not prepared to name any de- 
 finite measure on the subject at this moment, but I 
 will give to the suggestions of the Commissioners 
 every fair consideration. I will not, however, to 
 conciliate a vote on this occasion, do that which is 
 not only contrary to all usage, but also to my sense 
 of what is the duty of a Minister of the Crown. 
 
 I have been told that in the Speech from 
 the Throne not the slightest reference has been 
 made to the subject of Church Rates. It is well 
 known that I supported the measure brought in by 
 the late Government for the transfer of the Church 
 Rates to the public Revenue. That measure had 
 met with great opposition from the Dissenters. I 
 for one, cannot agree to the extinction of Church 
 Rates. I think that there is an obligation on the 
 State to provide for the repair of Churches, but I 
 also think that the charge of providing for that
 
 37 
 
 repair bears very unfairly on the land, and that 
 subject is one which I had in view when in the 
 King's Speech reference was made to '' a method 
 for mitigating the pressure of those local charges 
 which bear heavily on the owners and occupiers of 
 land, and for distributing the burden of them 
 more equally over other descriptions of property." 
 An interpretation has been put upon that para- 
 graph, which was by no means intended. No 
 new mode of general taxation was meant by it. It 
 has a special reference to the Report of the Com- 
 mittee of last Session on County Rates, and to the 
 reliei of the Agricultural interest from certain local 
 burdens, of which the Church Rate is one. 
 
 I next come to that part of the King's Speech 
 which relates to the Church Commission appoint- 
 ed by Government. The subject into which it has 
 to incpiire is extensive and complicated, and I can- 
 not promise the House to bring forward a measure 
 upon it at a very early period. I will, however, tell 
 the House what I have already done. On the va- 
 cancy of the first of those appointments in the 
 Church which are usually called — I will not say 
 rightly or wrongly — sinecures, I had advised the 
 Crown to make no appointment to it, but to allow 
 all the circumstances connected with it to be con- 
 sidered by the Church Commission. The appoint- 
 ment to which I allude is a prebendal stall at 
 Westminster of the value of 1,200/. a-year. I mean 
 to take the same course on every other ecclesiasti- 
 cal benefice of the same class that may fall vacant, 
 that is, I will not fill them up for the mere sake of 
 patronage, but will refer each to the consideration
 
 3d 
 
 of the Commission. Now, what is the practical course 
 that has been adopted with regard to this prebendal 
 stall ? It has been found that in the neighbourhood 
 of Westminster Abbe}^, dependent on its chapter, 
 are two parishes, St. Margaret and St. John, with 
 a population of 50,000 souls. In the first-named 
 parish there are 28,000 and only one church ; and 
 it is an evident fact, that one minister must be in- 
 adequate to the due discharge of the duties of such 
 a parish. The Government has advised the Com- 
 mission to attach the stall to that living, making- 
 it a condition that additional spiritual instruction 
 shall be provided for the parishioners. There is 
 no house belonging to the minister of St. Marga- 
 ret's. It is proposed to constitute the Parish into 
 a Rectory, and to attach the prebendal house as a 
 residence for the Rector. This is the course which, 
 on a future similar occasion. Government intends 
 to pursue with regard to St. John's parish, and I 
 hope that if any delay shall occur in calling for 
 legislative interference on this point, it will not be 
 supposed that that delay is intended to defeat the 
 object of the Commission, but that it is required 
 solely for deliberate consideration. I have not advised 
 the Crown to appoint the Ecclesiastical Commis- 
 sion with any view to popular favour. I would not 
 make the slightest sacrifice of the interests of the 
 Church to obtain such favour. I have advised the 
 Commission for the single purpose of increasing 
 the opportunities for divine worship according to 
 the forms of the Church of England, and of con- 
 firming and extending its legitimate influence 
 among the people.
 
 39 
 
 These are the general measures of Government, 
 the indication of which is to be found in the 
 Speech from the Throne. They are measures 
 which, with the least possible delay, will be sub- 
 mitted to the consideration of this House. In 
 rivalry to the Address an Amendment has been 
 proposed, and if the Address is vague and incon- 
 clusive, the Amendment is at least equally open 
 to the same objection. It indicates no measure 
 — it only states the hope of the House that the 
 same principle which restored to the people the 
 right of choosing their Representatives, and which 
 caused the Bill to pass for the abolition of Slaver}^, 
 would be seen in the promised Church Reform, 
 and would place our Municipal Corporations un- 
 der vigilant popular control. What can any one 
 collect from such an Amendment? What pledge 
 is implied by a declaration, that the same principle 
 which abolished Slavery should improve a Corpo- 
 ration? Is it not evident that the Amendment 
 was produced with some other view than its pro- 
 fessed one I Is it not evident that the framers of 
 the Amendment are afraid to recognize in it those 
 measures which are called measures in the spirit of 
 the Reform Bill ; but in respect to which— to every 
 one of which, they know that a difference of opi- 
 nion exists among their own party? Why have 
 they not inserted a word about the ballot ? Why 
 not a word about the repeal of the Septennial Act ? 
 Why not a word about the Pension List ? Why 
 not a M^ord about the Repeal of the Union ? They 
 knew that on all those measures, being the very 
 measures which had chiefly occupied public atten-
 
 40 . 
 
 tlon, there was not one on which they could express 
 unity of sentiment. No, they must go back a 
 distance of three or four years to find some point 
 of common agreement — to the time when their 
 party was united on the question of the Abolition 
 of Slavery, and on the Reform Bill. They select 
 the questions which are practically decided, — 
 which all the world admits to be finally disposed 
 of, but the unsettled questions they dare not advert 
 to. They shrink from a reference to the Ballot, 
 the Septennial Bill, the Pension List, and the 
 extension of the Suffrage. They try to conceal 
 their present diflferences, and dwell with vain re- 
 gret on sympathies that once existed, and on agree- 
 ments that can never be recalled, — 
 
 " Quo desiderio veteres revocamus amores ? 
 Et dudum amlssas flemus amicitias ?" 
 
 Oh, the time of their union and sympathy is now 
 gone by. On this very evening, from ten diff'erent 
 quarters, had notices been given of motions for car- 
 rying further the principles of the Reform Bill ; 
 but they shrink from the indication of any opinion 
 on those motions in the Amendment, because they 
 know that this would lead to an open rupture 
 amongst them. No, the Amendment is proposed 
 for the sake of involving in diflSculty the Noble 
 Lord (Stanley) and his friends near him, who, be- 
 cause they had concurred in supporting the Reform 
 Bill and the Bill for the Abolition of Slavery, it was 
 hoped might be caught in this trap, so insidiously 
 prepared for them — the trap of compliment to mea- 
 sures in which they had concurred, and of which 
 they were the most prominent promoters. I feel
 
 41 
 
 confident of this, that those whom the Amendment 
 endeavours to embarrass, will have the firmness and 
 good sense to see what is now the real question at 
 issue. We know that this Amendment is a mere su- 
 perfluous eulogium on the Reform Bill and that for 
 Slave Emancipation. If Hon. Gentlemen on the 
 other side of the House ask whether I recog- 
 nise those measures as measures which I should 
 now support ? 1 answer plainly — Yes. But if they 
 ask me further, if I mean to act on the principles 
 involved in them, I will refer to their own party 
 struggles of the last two years, and will tell them 
 that they themselves do not know what those prin- 
 ciples mean. I will not say whether I concur in 
 the remainder of this Amendment. It was drawn 
 up, I have no doubt intentionally, in such a man- 
 ner that I could not comply with it. I know not 
 what is meant by the phrase, " remove all the un- 
 doubted grievances of the Protestant Dissenters." 
 Is this intended to exclude the grievances of the 
 Roman Catholics ? if so, my measure of relief 
 in respect to marriage will go beyond that of the 
 framers of the Amendment. I request them not 
 to hamper me and tie up my hands by their foolish 
 amendments — not to restrict my measures of in- 
 tended liberality, and compel me to confine, what 
 I mean for the relief of all, to the case of Protes- 
 tant Dissenters. As to that part of the Amend- 
 ment which spoke of correcting those abuses in the 
 Church which impaired its efficiency in England, 
 disturbed the peace of society in Ireland, and 
 lowered the character of the Establishment in 
 1)oth countries, notice had been given of a di-
 
 42 
 
 rect motion on the subject. The words implied, 
 not that the Tithe question, but that the Churcli 
 of Ireland disturbed the peace of Ireland. Now, 
 this great question ought not to be disposed 
 of by a vague and general resolution. I will 
 frankly avow my determination not to accede to 
 the Amendment. Indeed I could not accede to 
 it without implying willing degradation on my 
 part. I know the responsibility of the duties 
 which I have recently taken on myself; but I will 
 persevere in their discharge, because I fear the 
 impossibility of constructing a Government which 
 could have strouoer claims on the confidence of the 
 public than the present. While any dijffdrence of 
 principle remained as to the mode of dealing with 
 the Church of Ireland, it would be a difficult task 
 to reconstruct the Government of Lord Grey. 
 Indeed, no Government could be formed without 
 a selection of individuals from each of those nume- 
 rous parties which, though they were now acting 
 in concert, had been but a few short months ago, 
 and might be in a few short weeks again, in bitter 
 hostility to each other. Take the question of Re- 
 peal of the Union with Ireland. Were there no dif- 
 ferences of opinion on that point, which would 
 prevent any lasting junction with the party by 
 which the question was advocated ? 
 
 The Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Con- 
 nell) had constantly proclaimed that no considera- 
 tion could induce him to accept office under any 
 Government that did not consent to repeal the 
 Union. But he now seemed disposed to waive his 
 scruples, and to consent to the cares of off-
 
 43 
 
 foreseeing the formation of a Government, two- 
 thirds of the members of which were accordino- to 
 him to be Radical Reformers. Suppose he is right 
 in his anticipations. Suppose a Government to be 
 formed, purified, as they call it, from Lord Grey, 
 from the Noble Lord (Stanley), and their friends, 
 rid of the incumbrances which are said to have ob- 
 structed the march of Reform — what prospect is there 
 that thev will be enabled to conduct a Govern- 
 ment which will conciliate the good will of the in- 
 telligence, the property, the respectability of this 
 country ? You may try to overcome such obsta- 
 cles, you may resort to the convenient instrument 
 of physical force, but you will signally fail, and 
 yourselves will be the first victims of the agent 
 whose alliance you have invoked, but which you 
 cannot control. 
 
 With such prospects I feel it to be my duty — my 
 first and paramount duty — to maintain the post 
 which has been confided to me, and to stand by 
 the trust, which I did not seek, but which I could 
 not decline. 1 call upon you not to condemn be- 
 fore you have heard, to receive at least the mea- 
 sures I shall propose, to amend them if they are 
 defective, to extend them if they fall short of your 
 expectations, but at least to give the opportunity 
 of presenting them, that you yourselves may con- 
 sider and dispose of them. I make great oflfers, 
 which should not lightly be rejected. I ofter you 
 the prospect of continued peace — the restored con- 
 fidence of powerful states, that are willing to seize 
 the opportunity of reducing great armies, and 
 thus diminishing the chances of hostile collision. —
 
 44 
 
 I offer you reduced estimates, improvements in 
 civil jurisprudence, reform of ecclesiastical law, 
 the settlement of the tithe question in Ireland, the 
 commutation of tithe in England, the removal of 
 any real abuse in the Church, the redress of those 
 grievances of which the Dissenters have any just 
 ground to complain. I offer you these specific 
 measures, and I offer also to advance, soberly and 
 cautiously it is true, in the path of progressive im- 
 provement. I offer also the best chance — that 
 these thino-s can be effected in willing: concert with 
 the other authorities of the State — thus restoring 
 harmony, ensuring the maintenance, but not ex- 
 cluding the reform (where reform is really requi- 
 site) of ancient institutions. — You may reject my 
 offers — you may refuse to entertain them — you 
 may prefer to do the same things by more violent 
 means ; but if you do, the time is not far distant 
 when 370U will find tliat the popular feeling on 
 which you relied has deserted you, and that you 
 will have no alternative but either again to invoke 
 our aid — to replace the Government in the hands 
 from which you would now forcibly withdraw it, — or 
 to resort to that " pressure from without," to those 
 measures of compulsion and violence, which at the 
 same time that they render your Reforms useless 
 and inoperative, will seal the fate of the British 
 Constitution. 
 
 Rpake and ]'artii, Fiinters, 31, Sliand,
 
 SPEECH 
 
 ON THE 
 
 MOTION RELATING 
 
 TO THE 
 
 REPEAL OF THE MALT TAX. 
 
 March 10, J 835.
 
 SPEECH, 
 
 Sir Robert Peel rose to address the House. 
 
 The course which I intend to pursue in the 
 present debate makes me peculiarly anxious to 
 rise at an early period of the discussion, when 
 I am not likely to be diverted by any refer- 
 ence to topics of party excitement from the 
 attempt to call the attention of the House 
 — not to matters mixed up with political con- 
 siderations, affecting" merely the interests of 
 parties in the state, but to the review of those 
 facts and arguments upon which their judgment 
 ought to be formed, and the exclusion of which 
 from their consideration would, in my opinion, 
 produce the most serious prejudice to the best 
 interests of the country. The question which 
 must this night be decided involves interests so 
 complicated and comprehensive, as to impose 
 
 B
 
 2 
 
 upon the House — upon that jury of which the 
 Noble Marquis has spoken, the solemn obligation 
 of finding their verdict upon the dictates of their 
 conscientious conviction. I too call upon this 
 jury, impannelled on this hig-li occasion, to decide, 
 not on partial opinion, not upon promises rashly 
 and inconsiderately made, not upon unsound 
 prejudices, not with reference to the particular 
 interest of any one class of the community, but 
 as becomes a jury, upon a comprehensive view of 
 the merits of the whole question, upon a calm 
 consideration of the evidence I shall offer, and 
 the arguments I shall adduce. 
 
 I am called upon to consider this question — 
 namely, whether I can consent to a resolution 
 which pledges me irrevocably to the total repeal 
 of the malt-tax. I am called upon to consent to 
 that resolution at a period when the House has 
 had no opportunity of hearing any financial 
 statement — at a period when it knows not 
 from any authentic declaration what is the 
 amount of the demands for the public service — 
 what is the amount of disposable revenue, — 
 before it has had any opportunity of considering 
 any other claim for the remission of taxation : I 
 am under these circumstances called upon to 
 pledge myself irrevocably to deprive the public 
 revenue of several millions of money. If such a 
 motion as the present is at any time defensible,
 
 3 
 
 I appeal to the House whether it oiig'ht not to 
 have been postponed at least till after an au- 
 thorized exposition of the national means had 
 been laid before the House ? It will be my duty 
 to make such a communication to the House as 
 soon as possible after the close of the financial 
 year — namely, the 1st of April ; I shall then 
 have an opportunity of describing- to the House 
 the state of the public revenue, and the amount 
 of the demands for the public service, and the 
 House being thus put in possession of the actual 
 amount of the surplus, may appropriate it either 
 to the remission of taxation, or in any other way 
 it may think expedient. The Noble Marquis, 
 however, would not wait for this explanation, 
 but has called upon the House, in fact, to exclude 
 the consideration of every other interest, except 
 that which he advocated, by pledging itself that 
 the malt-tax should be the first, and I need 
 scarcely add, the only burden of taxation it 
 would repeal. Thus forced into a discussion 
 which I think ought to have been postponed, it be- 
 comes necessary for me to enter on the task of 
 convincing the House of the impropriety of 
 acceding to the Noble Marquis's proposition, 
 and of cautioning it against the consequences 
 which would result from a precipitate, and, in 
 my opinion, unjustifiable pledge to repeal the 
 malt-tax., 
 
 B 2
 
 4 
 
 Of course I am unable to develope with per- 
 fect accuracy the financial prospects of the en- 
 suing year ; but 1 may refer to a statement made 
 by my predecessor in the office which I now fill, 
 which I apprehend is correct enough, in its re- 
 sults at least, for all practical purposes. The 
 Noble Lord, (Althorp,) in his budget last year, 
 after providing for the repeal of the house-tax, 
 made a calculation of the probable available sur- 
 plus for the year beginning the 1st of April, 
 1835, and ending the 1st of April, 1836. It is 
 sufficient for my purpose to state, that although 
 in some respects the calculations of Lord Althorp 
 are erroneous, yet I think that upon the whole 
 the result at which his Lordship arrived is not 
 far from the truth. Lord Althorp estimated that 
 the demands for the service of the present year 
 would be identical with those of the last. I, 
 however, have the satisfaction of stating to the 
 House that I trust there will be a considerable 
 reduction in the estimates for the present year. 
 I believe that the estimates for the ordinary 
 service of the year will exhibit a reduction of 
 at least 470,000/. Although this will of course 
 increase the available surplus revenue, yet as 
 there are miscalculations in the statement of 
 the Noble Lord (for which his Lordship is in no 
 degree responsible) as to the amount of charge 
 on the consolidated fund, the correction of
 
 which will diminish the amount of surplus 
 revenue to an extent not very far short of 
 the saving- on the estimates, Lord Althorp's 
 estimate of the amount of available surplus 
 is upon the whole not an inaccurate one. 
 Lord Althorp calculated that on the 5th of 
 April next the revenue would exceed the expen- 
 diture by about 250,000/. I think that after re- 
 ducing nearly half a million on the estimates, I 
 cannot calculate upon having a greater surplus 
 than 250,000/. ; I mean, of course, after providing- 
 for 750,000/., an annual charge for compensation 
 to the West India proprietors, and after the re- 
 venue has been subjected to the operation of the 
 repeal of the house-tax. 
 
 In this state of our financial prospects, with a 
 surplus of 250,000/., the Noble Marquis requires 
 the House to pledge itself on this night to the 
 repeal of the whole of the malt-tax. Now, 
 what is the total amount of this tax ? I be- 
 lieve that the gross produce of the malt-tax last 
 year was 5,150,000/. ; but perhaps it would be 
 more satisfactory to the House if I were to state 
 what has been the net amount paid into the 
 Exchequer for the last four years on account of 
 this tax. That will afford the best indication of 
 the productiveness of the impost. In the year 
 ending the 5th of January, 1832, the net sum 
 paid into the Exchequer on account of the
 
 6 
 
 mait duty was 4,^08,000/. ; in the year ending" 
 the 5th of January, 1833, the net amount was 
 4,675,000/. ; in the year ending the 5th of 
 January, 1834, it was 4,772,000/.; and in the 
 year ending- the 5th of January, 1835, it was 
 4,812,000/. llius then it appears, that with a 
 surplus of only 250,000/. the House is called 
 upon to sacrifice a revenue — and observe, a gra- 
 dually increasing revenue, of 4,812,000/. ; that 
 is to say, it is required to cause a defalca- 
 tion, an actual deficit, of 4,562,000/. 
 
 The Noble Lord has told the House, that by re- 
 pealing the whole of the inalt-tax, all the expense 
 consequent on its collection will be saved to 
 the country. Of course, there can be no doubt 
 that in determining on the policy of a tax, the 
 charge of its collection is a material consider- 
 ation. For that very reason I have taken the 
 pains to ascertain what is the charge at which 
 the malt-tax is collected ; and I venture to say 
 that there will be found few taxes, the col- 
 lection of which is accompanied with less ex- 
 pense to the public than the malt-tax. I have 
 endeavoured to ascertain what extent of esta- 
 blishment might be dispensed with, supposing 
 that it should be determined to part with the 
 whole of the malt-tax. It is of course difficult 
 to estimate the precise charge of collecting any 
 particular tax, because the same revenue officers
 
 are employed in the collection of various taxes, 
 but it is not difficult to determine what charge 
 may be got rid of by repealing a tax ; and this, 
 indeed, is not an unfair indication of the ex- 
 pense entailed on the country by that tax, as the 
 charge for its collection. I think, then, that I 
 can with confidence state that the charge of col- 
 lecting the gross revenue of 5,100,000/. derived 
 from the malt-tax is certainly not more than 
 150,000/. ; and I do not believe that it is possible 
 to make any reduction in respect of establish- 
 ment, which would save the country a larger sum 
 than that which I have just mentioned, if the 
 House should consent to repeal the whole of the 
 malt-tax. Besides the cost of its collection, 
 another material consideration in determining on 
 the comparative policy of a tax, is the oppor- 
 tunity it affords for frauds and unfair dealing. 
 Now, I can with equal confidence state, that 
 there is no tax by which 5,000,000/. of money 
 is raised, nor any combination of taxes pro- 
 ducing the same amount, which on the whole 
 admits of fewer opportunities for fraud and 
 unfair dealing than the malt-tax. I do not at 
 the present moment pretend to give any opinion 
 as to the possibility of adopting still further se- 
 curities against the commission of fraud ; or of 
 affording greater facilities for the manufacture of 
 malt, by freeing it form excise restrictions. It
 
 8 
 
 is not necessary for me to enter into the discus- 
 sion of these points, for if the House should un- 
 fortunately, in the absence of all information, 
 pledge itself to the total repeal of the malt-tax, 
 it will render it unnecessary to consider, whe- 
 ther any modifications or improvements can be 
 made in the excise regulations respecting the 
 manufacture of the article, or the collection of 
 the duty. 
 
 The Noble Lord, and the Hon. Gentleman 
 who seconded the motion before the House, com- 
 plain that no remission whatever has recently 
 taken place with reference to the malt-tax. 
 Is it then forgotten, that in the year 1830 this 
 very article of malt was relieved from a charge 
 to which it was subject in the shape of a duty on 
 beer ? — a charge, which if calculated with re- 
 ference to the quarter of barley, was not less 
 than thirty-five shillings the quarter in amount ? 
 The Noble Lord said that he called for a repeal 
 of the malt duty, because the agricultural in- 
 terest is in a state of depression, and because 
 the price of agricultural produce has rapidly 
 fallen. Is that, I ask, the case with regard to 
 barley ? Can it be said that the present price 
 of barley is lower tlian the price of the same 
 article during the last year ? Is it not a sin- 
 gular circumstance, that the price of barley at 
 the present moment is higher, with reference
 
 9 
 
 to the price of wheat, than *^t has ever been 
 known before? And yet the Hon. Gentleman 
 (Mr. Handley) assumes that certain relief 
 will be afforded to the agricultural interest by 
 freeing from duty that article which bore the 
 highest price, independently of the duty. The 
 price of wheat, being untaxed, is low, while 
 the price of barley, subject to a heavy tax, is 
 high. Such being the facts of the case, by what 
 reasoning does the Hon. Gentleman arrive at the 
 conclusion that the removal of the tax from 
 barley will necessarily increase the price of 
 that article ? 
 
 Mr. Handley. — I wish to explain. (Cries 
 of *' Order !") which induced 
 
 The Speaker to rise. The Right Hon. 
 Gentleman made a few observations, and Mr. 
 Handley immediately afterwards resumed his 
 seat. 
 
 Sir R. Peel then continued. There is ano- 
 ther remarkable fact which ought to be borne in 
 mind, that the rate of duty having continued the 
 same, and the intrinsic price of the article having 
 risen, there has taken place during the last four 
 years a progressive and considerable increase in 
 the consumption of barley ? If the rate of duty 
 had tended to lessen the number of the quarters 
 of barley brought to charge, or to diminish the 
 amount of the revenue derived from the tax, the
 
 10 
 
 Hon. Gentleman would then have been in pos- 
 session of a powerful argument in favour of its 
 remission ; because he might have contended, 
 that if the duty were lowered, the consumption 
 of barley would be increased, and the apparent 
 loss to the revenue, by the abatement of the tax, 
 would be made up by an increased use of the 
 article. But I am prepared to show, that while 
 the rate of duty has remained unchanged, the 
 quantity of barley brought to charge has gone 
 on increasing. The net payments into the Ex- 
 chequer for the last four years on account of the 
 malt duty are as follow : — 
 
 For the year 1831 . . 
 
 . . £4,208,000 
 
 1832 . . 
 
 , . . 4,675,000 
 
 1833 . . 
 
 . . 4,772,000 
 
 1834 . . 
 
 , . . 4,812,000 
 
 Thus then there is an increase in the amount 
 of duty received by the Exchequer, an increase 
 in the consumption of barley, and also in the 
 price of that article. These are three remark- 
 able facts which ought not to be lost sight of. 
 But though those who advocate the repeal of 
 the malt duty cannot deny that an increase in 
 the price of barley has taken place, yet they 
 contend that that increased price is the con- 
 sequence of a deficient harvest. True it is.
 
 11 
 
 they say, that there has been an increase in the 
 consumption of barley during the four years 
 preceding the last, but in those years there have 
 also been good harvests of barley ; in the last 
 year, however, there occurred a bad harvest, 
 and an increase has consequently taken place in 
 the price of malting barley. Now, if that state- 
 ment is correct, there is also another effect 
 which a deficient harvest ought to have pro- 
 duced, — namely, it ought to have diminished the 
 quantity of barley brought to charge. The 
 whole of that argument will therefore be de- 
 stroyed, if I can show that the quantity of 
 barley brought to charge since October in last 
 year has increased, as compared with the quan- 
 tity brought to charge in the corresponding pe- 
 riod of the preceding year. Well knowing that 
 it would be alleged that there has been a defec- 
 tive harvest in barley last year, and that the rise 
 in the price of the article is sufficiently ac- 
 counted for by that fact, I have taken the trouble 
 to obtain from the Excise-office this very morn- 
 ing, an account of the number of bushels of malt 
 brought to charge from the 10th of October, 
 1833, to the 19th of February, 1834, in order 
 that I might compare the amount then brought 
 to charge with the quantity brought to charge 
 within the corresponding period, namely,
 
 12 
 
 from the 10th of October, 1834, to the 19th of 
 February in the present year. 
 
 In the first of these periods the number of bushels 
 
 brought to market was .... 18,509,904 
 In the second 19,356,683 
 
 Being an increase in the latter, as compared with 
 
 the former, of . . • . . . 846,779 
 
 This then is clear, that so far as we have 
 hitherto the means of judging, the assumed de- 
 ficiency in the harvest of last year has not led to 
 a diminished consumption of malting barley. 
 We have a higher price, and an increased con- 
 sumption, — why then disturb the tax? And what 
 ground have you for hoping, that barley, subject 
 to the tax, being very high, and wheat subject 
 to no tax being very low, the removal of the tax 
 on barley will insure a rise in the price of it ? 
 
 In discussing the present question I have no 
 desire to make any appeal to the fears or pas- 
 sions of the House, or to refer to any topic 
 calculated unduly or unfairly to influence the 
 House in its view of the present question. I 
 would willingly deprive myself of any such ille- 
 gitimate advantage, if the House will only consent 
 to give me its patient attention while I strictly 
 confine myself to a statement of facts, and to a re- 
 view of the arguments, if arguments they can
 
 13 
 
 be called, which have been iirg-ed in favour of 
 the revision of the malt-tax. That the agricul- 
 tural interest has the first claim to your consi- 
 deration I readily admit ; that its present de- 
 pressed state is a subject of deep anxiety, and 
 calls for your warmest sympathy, I am the fore- 
 most to acknowledge ; but it is the part of a true 
 friend not to permit his reason and judgment to 
 be overpowered by his feelings, but to consider 
 dispassionately whether real relief will be af- 
 forded by a specious proposal. The advocates 
 for the repeal of the malt-tax contend. that there 
 exist no other means of relieving the agricultural 
 interest except by repealing the duty ; and it is 
 prophesied that many collateral advantages will 
 result from the repeal of the tax. Matters of 
 prophecy are of course matters of uncertainty ; 
 but I am anxious to ascertain, by the aid of 
 past experience, what probability there exists of 
 the realization of the prophecies to which I 
 
 allude. 
 
 In the first place, it is stated, that a great dimi- 
 nution in the consumption of malt is produced by 
 the operation of the tax ; and that if the quantity 
 of malt and beer consumed in recent years is 
 compared with the quantity consumed at an 
 earlier period in the history of this country, it 
 will be found (to use the words of the Hon. 
 Member, Mr. Handley) that the consumption
 
 14 
 
 of the old national beverage of this king-dom has 
 greatly diminished. I am ready to admit that, in 
 proportion to the population, the quantity of beer 
 consumed at present has diminished, as compared 
 with the quantity consumed at an early period of 
 the last century. But the question is not as to 
 the fact, but as to the cause of it. Does that di- 
 minution arise from the operation of the duty on 
 malt, or from the competition of other articles, 
 which have come into general use in this country ? 
 The Hon. Gentleman who seconded the motion, 
 has drawn rather a singular inference from the 
 increased consumption of these articles. He has 
 expressed his surprise at finding that, while the 
 consumption of beer in proportion to the popu- 
 lation has diminished, the consumption of tea, 
 coffee, and spirits has increased. Now I had in- 
 tended to refer to the increase of the consump- 
 tion of those articles for the very purpose of 
 accounting for the decrease in the consumption 
 of beer, but it seems that that fact had led 
 the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Handley) to a con- 
 clusion quite opposite to that which it produces 
 in my mind. The Hon. Gentleman exclaimed, 
 " You see the people of this country drink vastly 
 more tea, more coffee, and more spirits than 
 formerly. Why then,'* he asks in a tone of 
 great surprise, mixed with much triumph, " do 
 they not drink more beer also ?" My reply
 
 15 
 
 is, because they consume more spirits, tea, 
 and coffee. It is owing to a change in our 
 national habits, and not to the operation of the 
 duty, that the diminution in the consumption of 
 malt is attributable. I will state the case in 
 the manner which the Hon. Gentleman will 
 admit to be the most unfavourable to myself. 
 I will select the year in the last century, in 
 which, of all others, the consumption of beer in 
 proportion to the drinkers of beer was the greatest- 
 That year was the year 1722. In 1722 the po- 
 pulation amounted to about 6,000,000, and the 
 number of barrels of beer consumed, as stated in 
 the returns, was about the same, nearly 6,000,000, 
 being in the proportion of one barrel to each 
 person. In 1833 the population amounted to 
 14,000,000, and the average annual consumption 
 for the last three years preceding the repeal of 
 the beer duty amounted to no more than 
 8,200,000 barrels. Now I give the Hon. Gen- 
 tleman the full advantage of these facts, and of 
 any conclusions he may draw from them. The 
 Hon. Gentleman w^ould, no doubt, contend that 
 this lamentable falling off in the drinking of beer 
 arises from the tax, and the tax alone. I, on 
 the other hand, must argue, that the deficiency 
 arises from altered habits, from new tastes, 
 and consequently the increased consumption of 
 other articles. It is very important to examine
 
 IG 
 
 this matter a little more in detail. In 1722 the 
 total quantity of tea consumed in this country 
 did not exceed 870,000 lbs., or about an ounce 
 to each person. In 1833 the quantity of tea con- 
 sumed amounted to 31,829,000 lbs., being about 
 two pounds and a quarter to each person. The use 
 of tea has in fact superseded, to a great extent, 
 the use of beer among all classes of the commu- 
 nity. In like manner, the consumption of spirits 
 has increased also. The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. 
 Handley) may say that he deprecates the in- 
 creased use of spirits ; but he would find it quite 
 impossible, let him propose what regulations he 
 would, to prevent their consumption. The Hon. 
 Gentleman might increase the duty on spirits; 
 and he might flatter himself that he was dimi- 
 nishing their consumption, while he would, in 
 fact, be only lessening the revenue which they 
 produced. In 1722 there was about 3,000,000 
 gallons of spirits consumed, which gave a pro- 
 portion to each individual of about half a gallon. 
 In 1833, 12,332,000 gallons, being at the rate 
 to each person of six-sevenths of a gallon. An ex- 
 traordinary increase has also taken place in the 
 consumption of coffee. With respect to that 
 article there are no accurate returns previous to 
 1760. In that year, however, the quantity of 
 coffee consumed was not more than 262,000 lbs., 
 or three quarters of an ounce to each person.
 
 17 
 
 In 1833, the consumption of coffee increased to 
 20,()91,000 lbs., or nearly one pound and a half 
 to each person. With these returns before me, 
 I cannot help arriving- at conclusions, the op- 
 posite of those to which the Hon. Gentleman 
 arrived, that the increased consumption of the 
 three articles I have mentioned, viz. tea, coffee, 
 and spirits, accounts for the decreased consump- 
 tion of beer ; that you cannot expect those who 
 drink three times the quantity of other beverages 
 to drink, on that very account, a greater quantity 
 of beer ; that you cannot have an immensely 
 increased revenue from tea, from coffee, and 
 from spirits, and also a corresponding increase in 
 the revenue derived from the article which they 
 displaced ; and lastly, that, so far as morality 
 is concerned, no very great advantage would be 
 gained by discountenancing the use of tea and 
 coffee for the purpose of substituting beer in their 
 place. 
 
 The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Handley) seems 
 to think that the use of tea and coffee is un- 
 fairly encouraged, and that their consumption is 
 increased in consequence of the duty on those 
 articles being lower than that which is applied to 
 beer. He calls out for justice to the old national 
 beverage, and demands that it should not be 
 sacrificed to the undue favour that is shown to 
 the articles of foreign extraction. But it is better 
 
 c
 
 18 
 
 to appeal, in matters of this kind, to figures and 
 facts, than to the passions and feelings of the 
 audience, and, instead of being pathetic, calmly 
 to inquire whether the rate per cent, of the duty 
 levied on barley, compared with the prime cost 
 of this article, is so much higher than the corres- 
 ponding rates on the other articles that compete 
 with beer. The duty on malt is two shillings and 
 sevenpence per bushel, or about fifty-seven per 
 cent, on the price of the article : 
 
 The duty on other articles of general consump- 
 tion, compared with the cost price, is as follows : 
 
 
 T, . /• 1-, . Rate per Cent. 
 Rate of Duty. t-t ! . u • 
 
 ■^ on Market Prices 
 
 On Port and Sherry 
 
 5s. 6d. gall. 
 
 85 
 
 Coffee, West India 
 
 6d. lb. 
 
 6.3 
 
 Ditto, East India 
 
 9^. lb. 
 
 106 
 
 Tea 
 
 
 100 
 
 English Spirits 
 
 7s. 6d. gall. 
 
 333 
 
 Rum 
 
 9s. 6d. gall. 
 
 407 
 
 Brandy 
 
 . 22s. 6d. gall. 
 
 627 
 
 Geneva 
 
 
 930 
 
 Such are the facts of the case, and I will ask the 
 Hon. Gentleman whether the increased con- 
 sumption of the several articles I have named 
 can justly be attributed to any favour shown to 
 them in the amount of duty as compared with 
 that upon beer. 
 
 I shall proceed in the review of each of the 
 several allegations and arguments of the noble 
 mover and seconder of the motion. I wish to
 
 IfJ 
 
 omit nonp of them ; but calmly tct submit each 
 to the test of accurate inquiry and fair reason- 
 ing-. The Noble Lord and the Hon. Gentleman 
 have observed, that the House oug-ht not to es- 
 timate the gain which would accrue to the con- 
 sumer from the reduction of the duty on malt 
 solely by the amount of that duty : for that there 
 are some enormous profits made by the malt- 
 sters, in which, as soon as the malt duty should be 
 repealed, the public would fully participate. The 
 malt duty is ^Os. 8d, per quarter, and the total 
 amount received by the Exchequer is not more 
 than 5,000,000/. ; but, according- to the state- 
 ment of the Noble Lord, a sum of 16,000,000/. 
 apart from the duty, finds its way by some myste- 
 rious process into the hands of the maltsters, and 
 is divided among them. I certainly do not pretend 
 to understand whence this sum of 16,000,000/. 
 comes, or the proportion in which it is divided 
 among the happy maltsters ; but, I will ask, is it 
 credible that in this country, and in an open trade, 
 such extravagant profits can be made by the 
 manufacturers of malt ? Is it credible that 
 while the whole amount of revenue received by 
 the Government on account of malt does not ex 
 ceed 5,000,000/. the public is burdened with 
 an additional charge of 16,000,000/. which goes 
 into the pockets of the parties by whom that 
 article is manufactured ? Is it likely that 
 
 c 2
 
 20 
 
 such enormous profits can be made in a trade 
 which is open to all the world ? There is 
 in fact great competition in the malting- trade. 
 The number of maltsters is not less than 11^,000; 
 and there is one peculiar circumstance in that 
 trade which will always ensure a great com- 
 petition — which will draw speculators into this 
 trade who will not, and cannot enter into other 
 trades. The manufacture of malt is, in fact, 
 carried on in a considerable degree by capital 
 provided by the public. The maltster, by giving 
 bond, is allowed to defer the payment of duty, 
 although he realizes the amount of that duty on 
 the sale of the article, and is enabled thereby to 
 make a fresh purchase of barley. But, it is said 
 the difference between the price of barley and the 
 price of malt is alone sufficient to prove the 
 enormous profit of the maltster. I recollect a 
 calculation on this head, which was made by the 
 Hon. Member for Oldham last year. The Hon. 
 Member stated the price of barley to be ^5s. 
 per quarter, and the rate of duty to be 20*'. 8^. 
 per quarter ; he therefore concluded that the 
 price of a quarter of malt ought to be, inde- 
 pendent of the charges of its manufacture, 4>5s. 
 8d. But the Hon. Member said, that in point 
 of fact, the quarter of malt cost 66s. ; so that 
 a clear profit of 19*'. per quarter at least went 
 into the pockets of the maltster. It is well, in
 
 21 
 
 disciissing" any subject, to have the latest infor- 
 mation respecting- it that can be obtained ; 
 and I therefore sent this morning to Mark- 
 lane, to learn what is the price of barley, and 
 the price of malt of equal quality ; so that I 
 might be able to judge whether the statement 
 respecting the enormous gains made by the malt- 
 sters is well-founded. I am informed that the 
 price of good malting-barley in Mark-lane this 
 day is from 36s, to 406'. per quarter. That 
 is undoubtedly a pretty good price for barley, 
 for the article of which, notwithstanding the 
 high price, the consumption has, according to 
 the last returns, increased, instead of having di- 
 minished. Adding to the price of the quarter 
 of the best barley, namely, 406\, the amount of 
 the duty on malt, which is 20s. 8^., the price of 
 malt, independent of the cost of manufacture, 
 ought to be 60s. 8d. per quarter. The price of 
 the best malt in Mark-lane is, in fact, 66s. per 
 quarter, leaving a difference of 5s. 4r/. between 
 the price of malt and the price of barley, increased 
 by the amount of the duty. Now, I do not think 
 that after deducting the actual expenses of malt, 
 ing from the sum of 5s. Ad. any such profit 
 would remain to the maltsters as would enable 
 them to divide that mysterious gain of 16,000,000/., 
 which the Noble Marquis has assigned to them. 
 The Noble Marquis (Chandos) and the Hon.
 
 22 
 
 Member (Mr. Handily) have spoken of the 
 advantaires which would result from the remission 
 of the malt duty, in consequence of the facility 
 which would thereby be afforded to the farmer 
 of malting his inferior barley, not for the pur- 
 pose of making- beer, but of feeding- his cattle. 
 Now, I have the satisfaction of being able to 
 inform my Noble Friend, that his object is in 
 a great measure effected by an order of the 
 Board of Excise, which I am anxious to make 
 public, and which I regret has not been suffi- 
 ciently known before. I apprehend that it is 
 not necessary that barley, for the purpose of 
 rendering it suitable for feeding cattle, should 
 undergo the process of malting. 
 
 Mr. IIandley was understood to express his 
 dissent from the statement of the Right Hon. 
 Baronet. 
 
 Sir R. Peel continued. — I understand that if 
 the barley were steeped and afterwards dried, 
 all those saccharine (jualities which make barley 
 peculiarly useful as food for cattle would be de- 
 veloped. 1 believe that the Hon. Gentleman 
 (Mr. Handley) has stated that it would be 
 highly advantageous to the farmer to be enabled, 
 not to malt, but to steep his barley for that pur- 
 pose. I certainly do not credit the assertion 
 that two bushels of malt equal in nutritive 
 <|uality three bushels of barley.
 
 23 
 
 Mr. CoBBETT observed that more nutriment 
 was contained in two bushels of malt than in 
 three bushels of barley. 
 
 Sir R. Peel. — I do not think such an asser- 
 tion is correct. I know that two bushels of 
 malt will not produce the same quantity of spirit 
 as two bushels of raw barley ; and I there- 
 fore cannot understand how it is possible for 
 the former to contain fifty per cent, more of 
 nutritive quality than the latter. I will now 
 read the order of the Board of Excise to which 
 I have already alluded, and to which I desire 
 that the greatest publicity may be given. It is 
 in the following- terms : 
 
 " The practice of steeping barley in 
 water to prepare it as food for cattle 
 having become prevalent, and as the re- 
 venue may be injured by the application 
 thereof to other purposes, — ordered 
 that the respective supervisors and of- 
 ficers endeavour to ascertain the parties 
 who carry on this practice within their 
 several districts, and their manner of 
 disposing of the corn so steeped j but 
 that no interruption whatever be given 
 thereto, except upon actual proof or 
 well-grounded suspicion of fraud. Par- 
 ticular attention must be paid to the 
 situation of the premises where the
 
 24 
 
 corn may be steeped, with respect to 
 any kiln or oA'^en upon or in which it 
 could be dried, as well as to the pro- 
 portion which the quantities of barley 
 steeped bear to the number of horses 
 or other cattle to be fed therewith ; 
 and if any suspicious circumstances 
 shall be discovered, the matter must be 
 fully investig-ated, and the particulars 
 stated to the Board." 
 It will be seen that the object of that order 
 certainly is not to permit the malting of barley, 
 but to afford every facility to the farmer to prepare 
 that article for the purpose of feeding his cattle, 
 which is consistent with the safety of the revenue. 
 One favourite argument in favour of the re- 
 peal of the malt duty is, that it will en- 
 courage the poor man to brew his own beer. 
 The arguments by which it is attempted to 
 support that assertion appear to me exceed- 
 ingly fallacious. What inducement can the 
 poor man have to brew his own beer which he 
 does not possess at the present moment? VVliy 
 should he not at present buy his malt, and with 
 that brew as much beer as he needs for his 
 own consumption ? The Hon. Member for 
 Oldham argued, that in consequence of the high 
 price of malt, and the large profits of the malt- 
 sters, it is quite impossible for the poor man to
 
 ^5 
 
 buy mult in retail, but that if you repeal the 
 malt duty every man will be his own maltster. 
 But supposing that the malt duty were repealed, 
 would the poor man then be in a better condi- 
 tion to compete with the great maltster? Would 
 the poor man in his small cottage, and with his 
 liniited means, be then better able to compete 
 with the great maltsters with extensive capital, 
 great skill, great experience ; and with build- 
 ings and floors, and cisterns and kilns, all suited 
 for the purpose of making malt on a large scale? 
 If not, what greater temptation would he have 
 to brew than he has at present ? Oh, it will be 
 said, he will be relieved from the duty, and will 
 not the regular maltster be relieved from it also ? 
 How will their relative position be altered ? 
 How will the means of the maltster to manufac- 
 ture an article of equal quality at a less price be 
 diminished ? What gain is it to the poor man to 
 be able to manufacture a bad article at a high 
 cost ? But again, if the poor man is so much 
 disposed to brew his own beer, how is it that 
 he did not do so previous to the repeal of the 
 duty on beer ? At that time a very heavy 
 duty per barrel attached to the great brewer, 
 which the poor man, who chose to brew in 
 his own cottage, was not called on to pay. But 
 if the poor man did not then brew his own 
 beer, having that advantage, why should it
 
 26 
 
 he supposed that he could do so now, when 
 he certainly will not have an advantage equal 
 to that which he had then? The Hon. Gen- 
 tleman (Mr. Handley) has said a great deal 
 against the beer-shops, and like many others, 
 who are very svarm panegyrists of what they 
 call our old national beverage, seems to think 
 that if beer be drunk in beer-shops, all its salu- 
 tary qualities vanish at once. He has come 
 to the conclusion that beer is a noxious fluid 
 unless it is drunk by labouring men in their own 
 houses after having been brewed by their own 
 hands. But I intreat the House not to consent 
 to the loss of 5,000,000/. of revenue, under the 
 delusive expectation that encouragement will 
 thereby be given to the agricultural labourers to 
 brew their beer" and drink their beer in their 
 own cottages. The same reason which induces 
 them to go to the beer-shop at present will 
 continue to operate after the repeal of the malt 
 duty. At this moment, if the labouring man 
 purchases his beer at the public-house and takes 
 it away to drink at his own house, he may have 
 the beer at a reduced rate. There is a conside- 
 rable difference between the price of a pot of 
 beer purchased at the public-house and carried 
 away, and the price which is charged to a man 
 who sits down and consumes a pot beside the 
 fire in the public-house. Notwithstanding- this
 
 27 
 
 ditFerence of charge, there is, however, some- 
 thing in the charm of a good fire and of good 
 company, which tempts the labourer to pay an 
 additional penny for his pot of beer. And after 
 the repeal of the malt duty, which will not reduce 
 the price of the pot of beer more than a halfpenny, 
 I believe that the same temptation will still 
 exist, and that the public-house, the natural love 
 of society, the harmless, I must say, enjoyment of 
 it, if not carried to excess, will be preferred 
 to the solitary pot of beer brewed by bad 
 brewers with bad utensils from bad materials. 
 Let not the House, then, hazard a large amount 
 of revenue for the sake of creating a small re- 
 duction in the price of a pot of beer, which after 
 all will not be attended with the effect antici- 
 pated by its advocates. 
 
 The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Handley) has 
 spoken about the possibility of finding substi- 
 tutes for the malt-tax, but he has only men- 
 tioned a few of these substitutes. This is un- 
 doubtedly very prudent on the part of the 
 Hon. Member, especially when the fate which 
 has attended the Member for Lincolnshire, the 
 late Sir W. Ingilby — I mean to say the late 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer, for that was the 
 character assumed by the Hon. Baronet — is 
 taken into consideration. The fate of that Hon. 
 Baronet, according to the Hon. Gentleman,
 
 -28 
 
 (Mr. liandley,) is a warning' to all Hon. Mem- 
 bers against appearing in the assumed part of 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer. That Hon. Ba- 
 ronet, it appears had made a most popular mo- 
 tion on the subject of the malt duty, by which 
 he conciliated all the advocates of the repeal of 
 the tax. However, he unfortunately thought it 
 necessary to suggest a few substitutes in the 
 place of the malt tax, which destroyed all the 
 popularity which his motion for the repeal of that 
 tax had gained for him, and cost him his seat in 
 Parliament. He lost his election even for an 
 agricultural county. Such was the odium he 
 excited by his praise- worthy efforts to discover 
 substitutes. I, then, ask the agricultural Mem- 
 bers to take warning by this, and to reflect, that, 
 if the modest suggestion of new taxes cost Sir W. 
 Ingilby his seat for a most agricultural county — 
 what will become of their seats if they have 
 mixed constituencies, and actually vote for the 
 new taxes that must be proposed ? I will ask 
 them this question — Granted that there would 
 be an advantage to agriculture in this rej)eal of 
 the malt-tax, would that advantage be general 
 or not? What description of agriculture, let me 
 ask, is distressed ? Are the light barley-lands 
 suffering most at the present moment, or the pas- 
 ture lands, and the clay lands which grow 
 wheat ? Is it not notorious that the clay lands
 
 29 
 
 growing- wheat are the description of land which, 
 at the present moment, is suffering under the 
 greatest depression ? The only effect of repeal- 
 ing the malt duty will be to force the clay lands 
 into an unnatural cultivation, and the owners 
 will be induced, instead of growing wheat, to 
 try the expensive cultivation of barley on unsuit- 
 able land. Supposing that the available surplus 
 of the revenue could be applied to the remission 
 of the county-rates, or to those local charges to 
 which all land is subject, would not the advan- 
 tage resulting from that remission be more 
 equally distributed over the whole land than a 
 reduction to the same amount of the duty on 
 malt? The Noble Lord and the Hon. Gentle- 
 man opposite, propose to give the whole advan- 
 tage of the remission of the malt duty to the 
 barley growers, though that class of agriculturists 
 are of all, the least distressed. 
 
 I am conceding, for the sake of the argument, 
 that the barley grower is to be greatly benefited 
 by the repeal of the malt duty, but I cannot help 
 thinking that, if the present motion succeeds^ the 
 barley interest itself will suffer more injury than 
 many Hon. Gentlemen are perhaps aware of. By 
 allowing the maltsters to give security for the 
 amount of duty, and suspending for a time its pay- 
 ment, a capital belonging to the public, amounting 
 to about 3,000,000/., may be said to be lent them
 
 30 
 
 for the purpose of carrying- on trade. In conse- 
 quence of this practice, individuals with small 
 capital are enabled to engage in the manufacture 
 of malt. If, however, the duty were repealed, 
 this advantage given to small capitalists would 
 be withdrawn, the public money, applied as so 
 much additional capital in the purchase of barley, 
 would be withdrawn also, and the result, quite 
 opposite to that expected by the advocates of the 
 repeal of the duty, must inevitably be, that the 
 malting trade would be much more monopolized 
 than at present by a few large capitalists. It 
 is taken for granted that increased consumption 
 of malt must follow diminished duty. This 
 may be so for the future, but it certainly has 
 not been so for the past. There are some strik- 
 ing proofs in the history of the malt duty to 
 show that the consumption of malt is influenced 
 much more by seasons; and other circumstances, 
 than by the rate of duty. In 1816 the duty was 
 4.V. 6d. per bushel. The average consumption of 
 the two preceding years was ^5,500,000 bushels. 
 You reduced the duty in 1810 from 4s. fjcl. to 
 Qs. dd. Was there a great increase of consump- 
 tion ? By no means. The average consumption 
 of the two following years, that is, under the re- 
 duced duty, was only 22,700,000 bushels, a fall- 
 ing off of nearly 3,000,000 of bushels, instead of 
 an increase. You raised the duty, in 1819, to
 
 31 
 
 3*. 7^-» and the averag-e consumption of the 
 two following years was 25,000,000 bushels, an 
 increased consumption under an increased duty. 
 
 I wish to call the attention of the House, and 
 particularly of the agriculturists, to another and 
 very serious risk they will incur from the total 
 repeal of the malt duty. My Noble Friend 
 said, that if the malt-tax were taken off, there 
 would be a great increase in the consumption of 
 beer. Now I have an impression that the very 
 contrary effect would be produced by the re- 
 moval of the tax. I am greatly afraid that 
 the direct consequence would be to promote 
 illicit distillation to an almost incalculable ex- 
 tent, and thereby proportionately to diminish 
 the use of beer. My reason for thinking so 
 is this. It is no difficult matter to prevent, by 
 the vigilance of the Excise, the illicit malting of 
 barley. The process is a dilatory one, and it is 
 not easy to avoid the exposure of the article for 
 the purpose of drying it and preparing it for use. 
 But the process by which illicit spirits are dis- 
 tilled from the barley after it has been made into 
 malt, is very easy. Every man, after the re- 
 peal of the malt duty, would have a right to 
 make malt. It might be made in every cottage 
 and every hovel without restraint. Does any 
 man believe it to be possible, that security can 
 be taken against the conversion of this malt into
 
 30, 
 
 spirits, or will it be tolerated that there shall be 
 an universal right of inspection and inquisition 
 on the part of the Excise into every house in 
 the kingdom, in order to prevent a fraud on the 
 revenue so easily practised as the conversion of 
 malt into spirits ? The result then would be, 
 not as my Noble Friend anticipates, an increase 
 in the consumption of beer, but a positive reduc- 
 tion in the revenue, produced by loss of duty on 
 spirits, and a great increase in the amount of 
 illicit distillation. For these reasons, then, I am 
 of opinion that the benefits which are looked for 
 from the repeal of the malt-tax will not follow 
 its removal, and surely unless some almost in- 
 estimable advantage is clearly shown to be the 
 necessary consequence of its immediate repeal, 
 Hon. Members ought to pause before they give 
 their votes in favour of a measure which strikes 
 at nearly one-third of the disposable revenue of 
 the country. 
 
 But what course is the House to pursue when 
 they have adopted the resolution of my Noble 
 Friend ? My Noble Friend has indeed declared 
 his intention, when the House shall have 
 sanctioned the principle which his resolution 
 embodies, to bring in a bill to settle all the de- 
 tails. But has my Noble Friend calculated the em- 
 barrassment and confusion into which trade will 
 be thrown in the meanwhile, and in what uncer-
 
 S3 
 
 tainty the whole of the malt-trade, and of the 
 agricultural interest dependent on it, will be 
 placed by his resolution ? What brewer would 
 purchase a single bushel of malt while he saw 
 matters in this state ? I would undertake to say 
 that malt would suffer an immediate deprecia- 
 tion of four or five shillings the quarter, for the 
 House may rely upon it, that if hopes were held 
 out to the public that the malt-tax should be no 
 longer paid after the 10th of October, 1836, no 
 man, except for immediate use, would make his 
 malt or brew his beer, till he could do both with- 
 out being subject to a duty. 
 
 Supposing, however, that the House, in spite 
 of all argument to the contrary, is determined 
 to vote in favour of my Noble Friend's resolution, 
 what other measures it is prepared to adopt ? I 
 will assume for the present that the House is re- 
 solved to supply the deficiency that will be 
 created by the repeal. You must hope to do 
 this in one of three methods. You may increase 
 the duties imposed on other articles of consump- 
 tion, or you may resort to a property-tax, or you 
 may demand a corresponding reduction of the esti- 
 mates. I can assure Hon. Members that I feel 
 no pleasure in witnessing improvident expendi- 
 ture, and that I have no interest to serve in 
 maintaining the present amount of the public 
 burdens ; but I will ask any man in this House, 
 
 D
 
 34 
 
 whether he conscientiously believes that, look- 
 ing to the reductions in the estimates which 
 were made by Lord Althorp in the last year, 
 and the further reduction made by myself in the 
 present year, to the amount of five hundred 
 thousand pounds — whether, looking at this, it is 
 possible to make any, even the most trifling re- 
 duction in the estimates ? But, at any rate, if 
 any reduction is to be effected, let the question 
 of such reduction be looked at abstractedly with 
 reference to its own merits, and not with a view 
 to substitute the sum thus saved for the pro- 
 duce of the malt-tax. But I cannot persuade 
 myself that any man, bearing in mind the reduc- 
 tions which have been made, and the demands 
 of the West India proprietors on the public 
 purse, can hope to replace the 4,800,000/. which 
 the malt-tax furnishes, consistently with the 
 maintenance of the public honour, and regard to 
 the interests of the country, by any considerable 
 reduction in the sums voted for the public ser- 
 vice. But the money must be obtained from 
 some source. I will, however, caution those 
 gentlemen who look for a substitute for the malt- 
 tax in an increased duty on other articles of con- 
 sumption, against hoping that an increased duty 
 either on wine, or spirits, or beer, will lay the 
 foundation of a large permanent addition to the 
 revenue of the country. First, as to spirits ; of
 
 35 
 
 what benefit will it be to the agricultural interest 
 that a heavier tax should be laid upon spirits ? 
 What are they made from ? They are dis- 
 tilled from corn. If an additional tax of one 
 shilling a-gallon were to be imposed on spirits, 
 it would be equivalent to laying a tax of sixteen 
 shillings a-quarter on malt. I believe that from 
 a bushel of barley can be obtained two gallons of 
 spirits, and thus there will be laid a tax of six- 
 teen shillings a-quarter on barley, and that too 
 on the poorest description of barley. But there 
 are other considerations which affect this ques- 
 tion. In the course of last session Parliament 
 enacted that there should be a reduction of the 
 duty on spirits in Ireland, and yet some Hon. 
 Members are now favourable to the project of 
 increasing the duty on Irish spirits. Now, 
 this unsteadiness of purpose, this constant va- 
 cillation, is the unwisest course that can be 
 adopted by a legislative assembly. In the 
 course of last session the duty on Irish spirits 
 was lowered from three shillings and fourpence 
 to two shillings and fourpence a-gallon, yet it is 
 now in contemplation to increase the duty. Per- 
 haps, however, this objection may be met by a 
 proposition to raise the duty on spirits in England 
 only, leaving Ireland subject to the present rate 
 of duty. But surely the difference of duty be- 
 tween English and Irish spirits is already sufE- 
 
 D 2
 
 3G 
 
 ciently great. Surely it will not be wise to in- 
 crease the present rate of duty in England, 
 namely, seven shillings and sixpence ; leaving 
 Ireland subject only to a duty of two shillings 
 and fourpence. Such an unequal rate of taxation 
 will offer a temptation to smuggling, too strong 
 to be resisted. It is impossible but that with so 
 large a bonus thus held out to the unfair trader, 
 he would fully avail himself of the advantage 
 which the Legislature would afford him. But you 
 may propose to tax Ireland and England in this 
 respect in the same proportions, and to increase 
 the duty in Ireland as well as in England. First 
 let us ascertain what has been the result of 
 the reduction of duty on spirits in Ireland. I 
 have this morning received an account, from 
 which it appears that on a comparison of the last 
 four months with the corresponding period of 
 last year, 1,000,000 gallons more spirits had 
 been brought to charge. With the knowledge I 
 possess of this fact, I hope to be excused for 
 asking whether the Hon. Members who advo- 
 cate the increase of the duty on spirits are 
 quite sure they would raise the revenue by that 
 method of taxation ? But this is not the only dan- 
 ger. If by increasing the duty on legal spirits, you 
 hold out a premium to illicit distillation, that 
 distillation will not necessarily take place from 
 grain. The farmer must not flatter himself that
 
 37 
 
 he will find an increased demand for agricultural 
 produce from the illicit trader. If you encou- 
 rage by high duties, a fraudulent manufacture of 
 spirits, the article employed will be not grain 
 but molasses, on account of the greater facility in 
 the process of conversion into spirit, and the 
 readier means of escaping detection. No one 
 denies that spirits are a fair subject of taxation, 
 of taxation to the highest point that is consistent 
 with the collection of revenue. But this should 
 never be forgotten, that the discoveries in science, 
 and improvement in chemical apparatus, increase 
 the facilities of fraud more rapidly than the faci- 
 lities of detection. At this very moment illicit 
 distillation of spirits is carried on in large towns 
 to an extent which we had better not encourage 
 by any considerable increase of duty on the legal 
 supply. I hope I have satisfactorily shown, that 
 by attempting to make an addition to the duty on 
 spirits, there is considerable risk, that at the 
 same time that you vt^ill benefit no one interest, 
 you will injure agriculture, and will ruin the 
 revenue. 
 
 I now come to the third substitute proposed 
 for the malt-tax — namely, a property-tax. Under 
 circumstances not dissimilar to the present, ex- 
 cepting that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer 
 had then at his disposal an available surplus of 
 1,500,000/., it was proposed to repeal half the
 
 38 
 
 malt-tax and the house and window tax, amount- 
 ing- in the whole to 5,000,000/. sterling". The 
 House then determined by a very large majority, 
 that such a deficit could only be supplied by the 
 imposition of a property-tax. Now my prophecy 
 is, that you will make that tax necessary — to 
 that you must come at last if you repeal the 
 malt-tax. You will try your taxes on articles of 
 general consumption, on tobacco, and spirits, 
 and wine, and you will meet with a storm which 
 will make you hastily recede from your first 
 advances towards a substitute. To a property- 
 tax, then, you must come ; and, (continued 
 the Right Hon. Baronet,) I congratulate you. 
 Gentlemen of the landed interest, on finding 
 yourselves relieved from the pressure of the 
 malt-tax, and falling on a good comfortable 
 property-tax, with a proposal probably for a 
 graduated scale. And you who represent the 
 heavy land of this country — the clay soil — the 
 soil unfit for barley, I felicitate you on the 
 prospect which lies before you. If you 
 believe that the substitute will be advanta- 
 geous to your interests, be it so, but do not, 
 when you hereafter find out your mistake, 
 lay the blame upon those who offered you a 
 timely warning, and cautioned you against ex- 
 changing the light pressure of a malt- duty for 
 the scourge of a property-tax. My Noble
 
 39 
 
 Friend (the Marquis of Chandos) has made 
 some calculations to which I hesitate to sub- 
 scribe ; certainly I think he has made a mistake 
 in some of his figures. My Noble Friend has 
 calculated that the extent of advantage which 
 will accrue by the repeal of the duty on malt, to 
 a farmer occupying- a farm of 250 acres, will 
 amount to between 70/. and SO/, a-year. Now 
 I have certainly never heard so favourable an ac- 
 count as this of the present state of agriculture, 
 that a farmer of land of that number of acres 
 consumed so much beer as to make that differ- 
 ence to him in a single year. I believe that the 
 average quantity of beer consumed on a farm 
 of 300 acres is about 100 hogsheads a-year, 
 and yet if my Noble Friend's calculations are 
 correct, the occupier must consume something like 
 like 500 or 600. But I will resume at the point 
 from which I broke off. I have been diverted 
 from the consideration of the manner in which a 
 property-tax would operate as a substitute for 
 the malt duty. The Hon. and Learned Member 
 for Ireland — I mean for Dublin — in reference to 
 the imposition of a property- tax, said on a 
 former occasion, that if it was to be laid on, it 
 ought to affect all his Majesty's subjects equally, 
 and certainly this was no more than justice. I 
 beg, then, the representatives of Ireland to con- 
 sider what will be their situation if they vote
 
 40 
 
 for the repeal of the duty on malt. It would be 
 infinitely worse even than that of the occupiers 
 of clay soils in England. Ireland pays at present 
 but 240,000/. out of the 4,800,000/. which the 
 malt-tax produces, and it would be a great hard- 
 ship to Ireland to have a property-tax imposed 
 upon her as a countervailing substitute for her 
 moderate proportion of the malt-tax. They 
 may depend upon it, however, that a property- 
 tax is inevitable if the malt-tax is repealed, 
 and the attempt, I will not say, to levy that 
 tax, if imposed — for I must presume the people 
 of Ireland would obey the laws — but to impose 
 the tax in this house, would be a fruitless under- 
 taking. 
 
 I now come to the fourth alternative. That 
 is, to make a deficit and do nothing else ; and I 
 am afraid there are many members who, when 
 it comes to the trial, will, (professing no doubt 
 much reluctance,) make up their minds to act 
 in that manner — who, upon the whole, will 
 prefer the plan of a large deficit, and no sub- 
 stitute. The Hon. Member (Mr. Handley) has 
 recommended a small loan, but why not a 
 large one ? Why hesitate about the amount 
 of new debt in time of peace, if once you 
 affirm the principle ? The Hon. Gentleman 
 indeed offered the security. " Sell the Crown 
 lands," he says ; *' exact the uttermost far-
 
 41 
 
 thing from the Crown lessees."^ This is the first 
 time I have heard the complaint that the Crown 
 is too indulg-ent a landlord, or that the Crown 
 lands afford the means of a large permanent in- 
 crease to the revenue. 
 
 This, after all, is the great question to be re- 
 solved by this night^s debate. — Shall we main- 
 tain the public honour, or shall we enter on the 
 disgraceful course of deficit^ and the suspension 
 of payment, and the breach of national engage- 
 ments ? Has honesty been bad policy ? Have 
 you suffered pecuniary loss from being honest? 
 Is it not a fact, that by keeping up the value 
 of the public securities, and faithfully performing 
 the national engagements, the Government of 
 the country has been enabled, since the year 
 1822, to reduce the annual interest of the public 
 debt to the amount of 2,350,000/. If you con- 
 tinue to pursue the same course you will derive 
 the same advantages. You have a debt of 
 250,000,000/. in the three and a half per cents, 
 alone, which you may hope to redeem at no 
 distant period. You have the experience of the 
 benefits of good faith, not only in point of cha- 
 racter, but of substantial gain ; but if you are 
 careless to secure the honour of England, and 
 maintain the national credit, you will simulta- 
 neously forfeit a good name, and dry up the 
 sources of future and of honourable eco-
 
 42 
 
 noniy. I hope the House will not enter on 
 the tortuous path of contradiction and vacil- 
 lation, into which this motion would force 
 it. I warn you not to forget, that on this 
 very question of the malt-tax, you have, on 
 three different occasions, retraced your steps. 
 In the year 1816 the House of Commons took 
 off a part of the malt-tax, but found themselves 
 obliged to put it on again in 1819. In March 
 1821 the House, by a small majority, repealed 
 the tax, but in one month after, in the following 
 April, they were obliged to rescind this vote, 
 the oflfspring of their hasty legislation. In the 
 year 1833, the House, in a moment of delusion 
 at the prospect of the advantages expected from 
 the remission of this tax, resolved that it should 
 be partly repealed, but on reflection they found it 
 necessary to rescind on the Monday the resolution 
 to which they had come on the previous Friday, and 
 passed a counter resolution in the following words: 
 — " Resolved, that the deficiency in the revenue 
 which would be occasioned by the reduction of 
 the tax on malt to 10*'. the quarter, and the re- 
 peal of the tax on houses and windows, could 
 only be su})plied by the substitution of a general 
 tax upon property and income, and an extensive 
 change in our whole financial system, which 
 would at present be inexpedient." If, then, a 
 majority of the House should agree to the motion
 
 43 
 
 of my Noble Friend, and if they shrink hereafter 
 from the dishonesty of a deficit, there will be 
 no other safe alternative but retractation and re- 
 pentance and the replacing of this malt-tax. It 
 is my desire to rescue Parliament from the charge 
 of vacillation and inconsistency, from the shame, 
 the certain shame of rescinding an unwise and 
 hasty vote, that I respectfully but most earnestly 
 counsel you not to take the first step in ways 
 which lead to dishonour. 
 
 I have been told that there is no hope 
 of preserving the malt-tax, that there are so 
 many members pledged to their constituents 
 to repeal the malt-duty, that they cannot help 
 themselves, and must vote in favour of its 
 abolition. But my uniform answer has been, 
 that I never would believe that public men, in- 
 vested with a sacred trust, had committed them- 
 selves irrevocably beforehand, that they would 
 refuse to listen to discussion, and give a vote 
 against evidence, against conviction, against 
 conscience. I have paid them the willing com- 
 pliment of trusting in their integrity and wisdom, 
 and have rejected the odious imputation, that 
 they would sacrifice the real interests of their 
 constituents and their country, for the mere pur- 
 pose of satisfying an impatient clamour, or re- 
 deeming pledges which must have been condi- 
 tional, that the redemption of such pledges would
 
 44 
 
 hona-jide serve the parties to whom they had 
 been g-iven. 1 have a full assurance that the 
 vote of to night will prove that my confidence 
 in the House of Commons has not been mis- 
 placed ; but, be that as it may, my own course is 
 clear : I am bound to give that advice which 
 appears to my judgment the best, and to leave 
 those who reject it, responsible for all the 
 consequences of a rash and unwise decision. 
 
 [The Right Hon. Baronet resumed his seat 
 amidst loud and continued cheering from all 
 parts of the House, which lasted for some time 
 after he had sat down.] 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 noAKI. AND VAIiTY, IMt IK I E RS, 'S\, STUANP.
 
 SPEECH 
 
 ON 
 
 THE DISSENTERS' MARRIAGE BILL, 
 
 MARCH 17, 1835.
 
 SPEECH, 
 
 The Chancellor of the Exchequer rose 
 and addressed the House. 
 
 Mr. Speaker — The motion with which I shall 
 on this occasion conclude, will have for its ob- 
 ject to effect the settlement of a great and im- 
 portant question, which is of great consequence 
 to the public, and which interests a large portion 
 of the community. It is a question which has 
 been for a long time unsettled, and to settle 
 which various, but ineffectual attemps, have at 
 different times been made ; and, if it were once 
 set at rest on proper and satisfactory principles, 
 it would tend to promote harmony, peace, and 
 contentment among those who adhere to the
 
 6 
 
 principles of the Established Church of England 
 themselves, as well as to those who conscien- 
 tiously dissent from the principles of that 
 church. The object of the motion which I shall 
 submit to the House is, to provide relief in re- 
 gard to the celebration of the ceremony of mar- 
 riaofe to those Dissenters from the Church of 
 England^ who object to have the ceremony of 
 marriage performed as at present required, ac- 
 cording to the rights and ordinances of the esta- 
 blished church. It is no doubt known to all who 
 hear me, that in the year 1754, an act passed, 
 26 George II., commonly known by the name 
 of Lord Hardwicke's Act, which made a great 
 alteration in the law of this country in respect to 
 marriage. By that act, it was provided, that no 
 marriage ceremony should be performed by any 
 clergyman, excepting by a clergyman of the 
 Church of England, and according to the rites 
 and ordinances of the established church. The 
 only exception made was in favour of Jews and 
 Quakers, who were allowed to contract marriage 
 according to their own forms and ceremonies. 
 The dissenting body object to the provisions of 
 that act. They allege that there is no relation 
 in life which tends more to the happiness of in- 
 dividuals, and the general good of society, than 
 that of marriage ; and they object to a law which 
 renders that relation invalid, unless it be con-
 
 tracted according to rites, and in conformity to 
 ceremonies, in whicli they cannot conscientionsly 
 concur ; and they, therefore, require of the legis- 
 lature the enactment of such a law, as shall ena- 
 ble them to contract the ceremony of marriage, 
 without being compelled to go through those 
 forms and ceremonies, from which they conscien- 
 tiously dissent. That is the objection brought 
 by the Dissenters to the law as it now stands. 
 Now, I will say, that if the scruples of the Dis- 
 senters are really sincere, that no one can deny, 
 not only the justice, but the policy, of affording 
 them the relief which they require. The churcii 
 of England can have no object in calling upon 
 those who conscientiously dissent from its tenets 
 and principles in all other matters, to contract 
 the ceremony of marriage according to the rites 
 of that church. Neither has society any interest 
 in requiring that such a ceremony shall be per- 
 formed. It is not suflScient to say, tiiat the cere- 
 mony of marriage, as contracted according to the 
 rites of the Church of England, is a mere form 
 of words, and that the persons so contracting 
 marriage are not called upon to subscribe to any 
 of the doctrines or principles of that church. 
 The persons contracting marriage receive, ac- 
 cording to the rites of the established church, a 
 solemn benediction from the mouth of the clergy- 
 man, expressly and avowedly for the purpose of
 
 8 
 
 giving- a religious sanction to the ceremony ; and 
 if the contracting party cannot conscientiously 
 comply with the ceremony, or concur in that be- 
 nediction, it ceases to be that solemn and reli- 
 gious ceremony which is intended. Under these 
 circumstances, it becomes necessary to consider 
 what mode of relief can be afforded to Dissen- 
 ters ; and it occurs to me, that of all the plans 
 proposed, there are only three which are at all 
 feasible, or by which the object the Dissenters 
 have in view, can possibly be accomplished. In 
 the first place, it has been suggested as a remedy 
 that it may be possible to alter the ceremony of 
 the Church of England. But the alteration in 
 that ceremony would, in my opinion, be a viola- 
 tion done to the consciences of those who, adher- 
 ing to the doctrines of the church, entirely ap- 
 prove of that ceremony. There is nothing in 
 that ceremony, to which they feel the slightest 
 objection; on the contrary, the benediction, 
 and all the proceedings contain the essential and 
 vital principles of their faith. The members of 
 the Church of England, therefore, have a fair 
 right to object to the alteration of a ceremony 
 with which they are perfectly satisfied, and which 
 is entirely conformable to their feelings and doc- 
 trines, provided that any other mode of satisfying 
 the conscientious scruples of those who dissent 
 from the church, can be discovered. Besides,
 
 9 
 
 the only object that could be gained by such an 
 alteration, would be, provided a concomitant 
 enactment were passed for the purpose, that 
 no marriages should take place, unless they 
 were solemnized according to the altered form. 
 Because, if the form of the Church of Eng- 
 land were altered in the first instance, and 
 parties were afterwards left to perform what rite 
 they pleased, for the purpose of giving a sanc- 
 tion to the act of marriage, it is quite clear that 
 nothing will have been gained ; and, on the other 
 hand, if it be made compulsory on all parties to 
 celebrate the ceremony of marriage according to 
 the altered form, I believe it will be quite impos- 
 sible to establish any rite, to be performed in the 
 Church of England, by a minister of that church, 
 which would be satisfactory, without exception, 
 to the whole dissenting body. In fact, there are, 
 I believe, some parties who object to any reli- 
 gious ceremony at all. Others there are who do 
 not object to the religious rite, but who object to 
 the principle of being compelled to solemnize the 
 act of marriage in the Church of England, or 
 through the aid of a minister belonging to the 
 established church. The result, therefore, of any 
 attempt to alter the marriage ceremony of the 
 Church of England, would probably be, that the 
 legislature would do violence to the consciences 
 of the members of that church, and at the same
 
 10 
 
 time give no satisfaction to the Dissenters, but 
 the reverse, if the House were to compel them by 
 law to celebrate their nmrriages according to a 
 certain ceremony, let that ceremony be as diffe- 
 rent as it might from the existing one. In my 
 opinion, therefore, it is not expedient to attempt 
 any alteration of the religious rite of the Church 
 of England, with the view of giving satisfaction 
 to the Dissenters, especially without knowing 
 whether such an alteration would meet with the 
 general concurrence of the members of the 
 church. But even if the concurrence of the ad- 
 herent.^ of the church were obtained, I do not 
 know whether it would be proper to adopt the 
 plan, for I cannot hope to make such a change in 
 the present ceremony, as shall give satisfaction 
 both to all classes of Dissenters, and to the mem- 
 bers of the established church. I therefore, dismiss 
 from my mind all hope of settling the question by 
 the adoption of that plan — namely, by an alteration 
 in the Liturgy of the Church of England. The 
 second mode by which it might be possible to give 
 relief to the Dissenters, and a mode which has 
 been hitherto almost always tried, is to make some 
 provision by which Dissenters shall be able to per- 
 form the ceremony of marriage within Dissenting 
 chapels, and various Bills have been submitted to 
 the consideration of Parliament, since the year 
 Iw24, some ofwhich had passed the House of Com-
 
 11 
 
 mons, founded on the principle of giving per- 
 mission to Dissenters to celebrate the marriage 
 ceremony within their own places of worship. In 
 1824, a measure was introduced for that purpose, 
 but it provided relief solely for the case of the 
 Unitarians. In 1825, another Bill was brought 
 in for the same object; and in [8'27, a measure 
 was introduced founded on a different principle. 
 A.t length, in 1834, the noble lord opposite pro- 
 posed his Bill, and that was the last measure on 
 this subject which had been submitted to the 
 consideration of Parliament. The noble Lord's 
 Bill was founded on the principle of attempting 
 to give perfect satisfaction to the Dissenter, by 
 permitting him, under certain regulations, to 
 celebrate the ceremony of marriage in his own 
 Dissenting chapel. I shall proceed to describe 
 the provisions of that Bill. In devising any plan 
 for the relief of Dissenters, in respect to the 
 celebration of marriages, it is necessary to con- 
 sider three points, each of which is of essential 
 importance. The first is, the notice which should 
 be given (either in the way of licence, or of bans, 
 or by some other mode,) by the instrumentality 
 of which the commission of fraud and the cele 
 bration of clandestine marriages may be pre- 
 vented. The second point is the nature of the 
 contract or ceremony which should be performed. 
 The third point is the mode of registration. The
 
 12 
 
 noble Lord's Bill provided tor these three se- 
 parate and important objects in the tollowing 
 manner : — The noble Lord proposed that the 
 bans for the marriage of a Dissenter should be 
 published in a church, by a minister of the Es- 
 tablished Church, in the same manner as bans 
 are at present published ; that a declaration of 
 the fact of the publication of the bans should 
 afterwards be given by the minister of the 
 Church, and that the Dissenter should then be 
 allowed to celebrate the ceremony of marriage 
 in a Dissenting chapel, duly licensed for that 
 purpose. The noble Lord's Bill also enacted 
 that a licence should be issued for the solem- 
 nization of marriage in any Dissenting chapel, 
 provided that an application for such license 
 should be made by twenty householders ; and the 
 Quarter Sessions had no power to withhold the 
 licence, if so applied for. The bans of marriage 
 having been previously published by a minister 
 of the Church of England;, the Dissenter was at 
 liberty to have his marriage solemnized in one 
 of the licensed chapels. With respect to regis- 
 tration, the noble Lord's Bill provided, that the 
 minister, teacher, or preacher, who officiated in 
 the licensed chapel should keep the registry of 
 the marriages ; that the book should be provided 
 at the expense of those who frequented the 
 chapel for the purpose of worship ; and that,
 
 13 
 
 after a certain period, the registry should be 
 transmitted to the register of the diocese, to be 
 kept by him. Such were the provisions of the 
 Bill brought in by the noble Lord, unquestion- 
 ably with the best intentions, and for the purpose 
 of sfivins" satisfaction to the Dissenters : but it 
 is open, in my opinion, to objection ; and, first 
 of all, to this very powerful objection — that it 
 gave no satisfaction whatever to those it was in- 
 tended to relieve. The grounds on which the 
 Dissenters are displeased with that Rill are stated 
 in various petitions presented to the House; 
 and I shall refer to one of those petitions, in 
 which their objections are very briefly but em- 
 phatically expressed. The petition to which I 
 allude was presented in the course of the last 
 Session, and it contained a solemn and decided 
 protest on the part of the Protestant Dissenters 
 against the Bill of the noble Lord, which they 
 opposed on the following grounds : — I. Because 
 they objected to the celebration of marriages in 
 places of worship exclusively ; 2. Because they 
 objected to the publication of bans in parish 
 churches, and to the granting of licences by sur- 
 rogates ; and 3. Because they felt that the 
 affixing the licence granted for the solemnization 
 of marriages in some conspicuous part of their 
 places of worship would give rise to feelings 
 which it would be better to avoid exciting. It
 
 14 
 
 will be seen, therefore, that very material ob- 
 jections are entertained by the Dissenters to the 
 measure proposed by the noble Lord. In my 
 opinion, the third objection is one of minor im- 
 portance ; but still it must be remembered that 
 it was put forward by the Dissenters themselves. 
 Besides these objections there are others which 
 I think may be urged to the noble Lord's Bill on 
 general grounds. The noble Lord proposed to 
 permit the marriage ceremony to be solemnized 
 in any place licensed for that purpose on the ap- 
 plication of twenty resident householders. Now, 
 I am sure that, however they may differ on mat- 
 ters of religion, they will all be of one opinion, 
 as to the extreme importance to society of taking- 
 effectual precautions against fraud and the cele- 
 bration of clandestine marriages. In my opinion, 
 the Dissenters are equally interested with the 
 rest of the community in the adoption of these 
 precautions, for the sake of the peace of their 
 own families, as well as for the general interests 
 of society. And I think that, as such precautions 
 are in a great measure effectual in the case of 
 members of the establishment, I am not going 
 too far in saying, that the members of the Dis- 
 senting bodies must be peculiarly anxious to have 
 similar precautions adopted in respect to them- 
 selves. Unless effectual precautions be taken in 
 their case, the Dissenters, and particularly the
 
 15 
 
 female members of their families, will be subject 
 to be practised upon by imposition and unfair 
 artifice. It is quite clear, that society in general 
 is interested in taking effectual precautions 
 against the commission of frauds in this matter. 
 In making new regulations, it is necessary not 
 only to take into consideration the regulations 
 already existing, but also the means which may 
 be afforded, in consequence of the alteration of 
 the law, for the commission of fraud. It is 
 well known, that the law places no impedi- 
 ment in the way of the registration of Dissenting 
 chapels ; the law imposes no test by which the 
 character of Dissenting chapels can be known. 
 Any parties wishing to register a place for 
 the purpose of religious worship have only to 
 apply in proper form, and on the payment of 
 half-a-crown, the registration is effected as a 
 matter of course, and the place then becomes 
 entitled to the protection of the law as a place of 
 religious worship. It is not necessary that the 
 place registered shall be a separate building ; 
 and I apprehend, that if application were made 
 for the licensing of a room for the purpose of 
 religious worship, the licence must immediately 
 follow on the payment of ^2s. 6d. If the noble 
 Lord's Bill, then, had passed into a law, how 
 easy would it have been for parties, on their ap- 
 plication, though it might not be a bond fide 
 application, to get a room licensed for the pur-
 
 16 
 
 pose of religious worship in the first instance ; 
 and afterwards, if twenty persons had made 
 application, that that room should be licensed 
 for the solemnization of marriages, there would 
 have been no authority to prevent the issue of a 
 licence for that purpose. Where so general and 
 promiscuous a licence is given for the perform- 
 ance of the ceremony of marriage, great appre- 
 hension will necessarily be felt, that those frauds 
 and evasions of law, against which it is so de- 
 sirable to guard, will take place. The noble 
 Lord proposed to permit the ceremony of mar- 
 riage to be performed by any teacher or preacher. 
 Now, it is undoubtedly true, that in some Dis- 
 senting communities there are preachers with a 
 fixed and stationary character, fully recognized 
 as the ministers of settled congregations ; but 
 there are also some ministers who have no such 
 fixed and stationary character, and who belong 
 to various congregations. The noble Lord's 
 Bill, however, would have given authority to 
 the latter description of preachers to celebrate 
 marriages. It therefore appears to me most de- 
 sirable, in giving relief to the Dissenters, that 
 the House should proceed on a principle which 
 would apply equally well to all classes and kinds 
 of Dissenters. With respect to registration, 
 the noble Lord's Bill provided, that the registries 
 should be kept by the minister, teacher, or 
 preacher, that they should not only be in his
 
 17 
 
 handwriting, but also in his custody. Now, if 
 this regulation were applied indiscriminately to 
 all descriptions of preachers — both to those who 
 have a fixed and stationary character, and to 
 those who have no settled character — and they 
 were invested with the important duty not only 
 of making the registries, but also of keeping 
 them in their custody, it is quite clear that suf- 
 ficient precautions will not have been taken 
 against the evasion of the intentions of the Le- 
 gislature. But as the noble Lord's object is to 
 give relief to the Dissenting body, it is the less 
 necessary for me to refer to the other provisions 
 of the Bill, since it has proved unsatisfactory to 
 the Dissenters. It is quite clear that the great 
 object which the noble Lord has in view, has not 
 been gained by the introduction of his measure. 
 I have already alluded to two modes by which it 
 might be supposed, on a first impression, that 
 relief would be given to the Dissenters : — 1st. To 
 an alteration of the marriage ceremony of the 
 Church of England, which I set aside as an in- 
 effectual mode; and 2ndly. To the mode adopted 
 by the noble Lord, which continued the publi- 
 cation of the bans by the ministers of the Church 
 of England, but which permitted the marriage 
 of Dissenters to be solemnized by the ministers 
 of the congregations to which they belonged. 
 The second mode not having given satisfaction
 
 18 
 
 to the Dissenters, it therefore remains to be 
 considered by what mode satisfaction can be 
 given to that body, consistently with a principle 
 which shall admit of universal application with- 
 out inconvenience or mischief. I will now, after 
 much consideration of the noble Lord's Bill, 
 which has proved unsatisfactory, not only to the 
 Dissenters, but also to many members of the 
 Established Church — (for they have objected to 
 be made the instruments of performing the pre- 
 liminary ceremony of the publication of the bans, 
 in respect to a rite which it is proposed should 
 cease to be sanctioned by the religious forms of 
 the Church of England)— I will now, I say again, 
 proceed to state to the House the principles on 
 which I propose to found a Bill for the purpose 
 of giving relief to the Dissenters. It appears 
 to me, that by far the most efficient and least 
 objectionable mode of giving that relief is to 
 propose two ceremonies, one a civil ceremony, 
 and the other a religious ceremony ; taking care 
 to encourage, as far as possible, the religious 
 ceremony, but not imposing it as an absolute 
 and essential condition of the validity of a mar- 
 riage. I would make the civil ceremony an in- 
 dispensable preliminary of marriage. That is 
 the security which 1 would require on the part of 
 society. I would fain hope, however, that the 
 ceremony of marriage may not, in consequence, be
 
 19 
 
 divested of its religious character ; I believe that 
 it will not. I believe, that so much importance is 
 attached to the religious rite by the Dissenting 
 body, that they will, in almost all cases, super- 
 add the religious to the civil ceremony ; and I 
 doubt not, that the religious sanction so super- 
 added will be more efficient as a sanction if left 
 to be imposed by the parties themselves, accord- 
 ing to such forms as may be most acceptable to 
 them, than if prescribed in the nature of a fixed 
 ceremony by the Legislature. Every one must 
 desire to see the religious sanction possess a so- 
 lemn and binding character ; but is it probable 
 that it will have the effect of solemnity, or be of a 
 binding nature, if it be not precisely in accordance 
 with the conscientious feelings of the parties on 
 whom it is imposed ; but if it be, on the contrary, 
 prescribed and determined by law, to which they 
 may be compelled to submit? I say again, that 
 I would encourage as much as possible the reli- 
 gious ceremony, but I would not exact its per- 
 form.ance as an indispensable condition of the 
 validity of marriage. Indeed, it would be im- 
 possible for the Legislature to impose one fixed 
 form of religious ceremony ; it must be varied to 
 suit the different opinions of the different bodies 
 of Dissenters. The religious ceremony that 
 would suit the LFnitarians, would not suit the 
 Independents, or the Baptists. But it appears 
 
 c "2
 
 ^0 
 
 to me, tliat, if the Legislature were to leave the 
 Dissenting' bodies to superadd to the civil con- 
 tract of marriage such religious observances as 
 are in accordance with their peculiar opinions, 
 nothing of the value of a religious sanction would 
 thereby be lost. In acting on this principle, I 
 am acting in precise conformity with the prin- 
 ciple of a Bill which passed the House of Com- 
 mons in tlie year 1827, and which proceeded in 
 the House of Lords to a third reading, and which 
 was then only postponed on account of the ad- 
 vanced period of the session. The Bill which 
 related to Unitarians was introduced by Mr. W. 
 Smith, and tlie House would see from a descrip- 
 tion of its provisions, that it directly recognised 
 the principle on which he now proposed to pro- 
 ceed. The Bill provided, that '^ the bans were 
 to be published in church. Where both parties 
 were Unitarians, a certificate of the publication 
 was to be given by the clergyman, on payment 
 of the usual fee. On presentation of that certi- 
 ficate to a magistrate, the magistrate might marry 
 the parties. The parties were required to make 
 a declaration, that they were both Unitarians. 
 Magistrates marrying the parties were required 
 to give certificates of marriage, such certificates 
 to be deposited in <he parish chest, and marriages 
 to be entered on the parish registry. Before I 
 enter into an explanation of the particular details
 
 21 
 
 of the measure I propose to introduce, I wish to 
 show the House that the principle on which it is 
 founded was recognised by the law of England 
 previous to the Marriage Act of 1 754. I appre- 
 hend that the law of England recognises marriage 
 as a civil contract; and that it does not require, 
 as an essential and indispensable condition of the 
 validity of that contract, the performance of any 
 religious ceremony. In the famous case of 
 "Dalrymple v. Dalrymple," Lord Stowell, then 
 Sir W. Scott, laid down that principle, and, in 
 support of his opinion, he referred to the judg- 
 ment of Lord Holt, in the reign of Queen Anne, 
 in the following terms:- '^ It was said by Lord 
 Holt, and agreed to by the whole Court, that if a 
 contract be per verba de pr(Esenti, it amounts 
 to an actual marriage, which the very party 
 themselves cannot dissolve by release, or other 
 mutual agreement, for it is as much a marriage 
 in the sight of God, as if it had been in facie 
 ecclesia." In Wigmore's case the same Judge 
 said, " that a contract per verba de prt:eseuti is 
 a marriage, so is a contract per verba defuturo; 
 if the contract be executed, and the man take 
 her, it is a marriage; and they cannot be punished 
 for fornication." Lord Stowell stated, that in 
 the Ecclesiastical Courts, as well as in the Com- 
 mon Law, '"'the stream ran uniformly in the same 
 course," and he referred to the case of Lord
 
 '22 
 
 Fitzmaurice, the son oftlie Earl of Kerry, brought 
 ill the year 1732 before the Court of Delegates. 
 In that case it appeared that the engagement to 
 marry was made in the following terms : — **^ We 
 swear to marry one another;" and it was held 
 that each party was bound by that declaration. 
 The decision of the Court was to the following 
 eftect: — "The Court, composed of a full com- 
 mission, paid no regard to the objection, and 
 found for the marriage, and, on application for a 
 commission of review, founded upon new matter 
 alleged, was refused by the Chancellor." Lord 
 Stowell next observed, that things continued on 
 this footing till the Marriage Act of 1754, which 
 was not intended to give the ceremony of mar- 
 riage a religious sanction, as a religious sanc- 
 tion ; but was only intended as a precaution 
 against fraud and clandestine marriage. In 
 making, therefore, the civil contract an indis- 
 pensable condition of the validity of marriages, 
 and leaving parties to superadd the religious 
 sanction, I am acting in confornjity, not only 
 with the principle of the Bill of 1827, but with 
 what was the principle of the law of England 
 previous to the Marriage Act of 1754; and I 
 think I am only acting in conformity with the 
 dictates of reason and good sense in not pre- 
 scribing any precise religious ceremony, but in 
 leaving the parties interested to fix for them-
 
 23 
 
 selves such religious sanction as is best suited 
 to their religious opinions. The principle of tny 
 Bill is also recognised Ly the existing law, be- 
 cause the Marriage Act of 1754 did not impose 
 the religious ceremony as an indispensable con- 
 dition in all cases, for that Act expressly pro- 
 vided that its enactments should not extend to 
 the cases of Jews and Quakers. 1 know that 
 ingenious doubts had been expressed as to the 
 validity of the marriages of Jews and Quakers ; 
 but I apprehend that no man can doubt that the 
 whole course of law establishes this position — 
 that the marriages of Jews and Quakers are valid 
 as far as regards the legitimacy of iue offspring, 
 and the transmission of property. But in some 
 of the possessions of the British Crown, marriages 
 can be performed without the intervention of a 
 minister of the Established Church. In Ireland, 
 the presence of a minister of the church of Eng- 
 land is not necessary to give validity to mar- 
 riages ; neither is it necessary in India. There 
 are others in the House better informed on the 
 subject than myself, but 1 believe that, according 
 to the existing law in India, a marriage per- 
 formed either by a minister of the church of 
 England, or by a Roman Catholic priest, is 
 valid ; while a marriage performed by a Presby- 
 terian minister is not valid. 
 
 Dii. LusHiNGTON stated, that an Act had been
 
 24 
 
 passed to legalize marriages perlorined in India 
 by Presbyterian ministers. 
 
 The Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am 
 not aware of" that fact. I might extend my for- 
 mer remarks to the state of tl)e niarriage law in 
 Newfoundland ; but I think I have said enough 
 to show that the whole state of the Marriage 
 Act requires review and revision. In some of 
 our dependencies, and even in this empire, it is 
 far from being in a satisfactory state. Having 
 said thus much of the general principles on 
 which I propose to proceed, I will now proceed 
 to explain the enactments which my Bill will 
 include. It will be recollected that the Dis- 
 senters have objected to the Bill of the noble 
 Lord opposite, because it recj aired the publica- 
 tion of bans in churches by ministers of the 
 Established Church. The j)resent method of 
 notifying the intentions of Dissenters to contract 
 a marriage with one of their own connnunity is 
 repugnant to the feelings of the Dissenters, but 
 if I can devise any other mode by which effec- 
 tual notice can be given, which shall relieve the 
 Dissenter from the necessity of conforming to 
 the religious rites of the Establishment, and if I 
 can introduce some simple form of notice, by 
 which the conscientious feelings of a minister of 
 the church shall be spared the pain of assisting 
 in a ceremony which is in opposition to the forms
 
 25 
 
 prescribed by the Establisliment, I think that 
 the object I have in view will be effectually an- 
 swered. In some cases, also, it will occur that 
 an individual may assent to the civil contract, 
 but mav not wish to have it confirmed bv the 
 performance of any religious ceremony. Now, 
 my Bill will do a good deal to effect these 
 objects The form I intend to propose will be 
 very simple, and if, when I have laid my views 
 on this question before the House, this is found 
 not to be sufficient, why, then let the Dissenters 
 join with me in framing* one which shall answer 
 the ends better. If there are two parties who 
 have an objection to the form of marriage as 
 solemnized by the Church of England, they will 
 have within their power the remedy which it is 
 the object of the Bill to secure to them. But I 
 do not wish to make this enactment compulsory 
 on all who conscientiously differ from the doc- 
 trines of the church. I hope that the impedi- 
 ment of pride being removed, when it is no 
 longer absolutely necessary for the Dissenter to 
 be married according to the forms and establish- 
 ment to whose doctrines he does not subscribe, he 
 will, in many instances, not avail himself of the 
 kind of relief proposed by the Bill. I would 
 give the Dissenter every facility of being mar- 
 ried elsewhere, if he prefer it, but 1 hope that 
 the Dissenter will be induced, unless there
 
 26 
 
 is some serious objection in his iniucl to the 
 form of the marriage ceremony as perfornied in 
 tlie Cliurch of England, to conform to that cere- 
 mony. What I mean to say is, that I do not 
 wish to repudiate and reject the Dissenter from 
 joining in the performance of the common rites 
 and ceremonies of the Establishment, if he thinks 
 proper to do so ; but, on the other hand, if he 
 objects to those rites and ceremonies, the Bill 
 will give him a full and satisfactory remedy. 
 I propose, that a civil ceremony only should be 
 performed between parties who object to the 
 marriage rite of tlie church; and to render 
 them competent for the performance of the 
 ceremony, it will be necessary that one or both 
 of them should have resided, at least, seven 
 days previous in a certain hundred, before 
 the magistrate of which the proceedings are to 
 take place. The parties will have to give notice 
 to the magistrate of the hundred who is to pre- 
 side at the performance of what I shall call the 
 civil ceremony of marriage— namely, the acknow- 
 ledgment of the contract between the parties. 
 Each will have, on the ratification of the con- 
 tract, to give a written certificate, stating that he 
 or she acknowledges the contract to be binding. 
 The form will be found in the schedule of the 
 Bill, which 1 propose to lay on the table, and is 
 of the most simple kind. Each party then will
 
 27 
 
 have to sign a form, acknowledging the other as 
 standing in the relationship of husband or wife. 
 The written acknowledgment, or completion of 
 the ceremony, before the civil magistrate, is not 
 to take place till after a period of fourteen days 
 subsequent to giving the notice, and must take 
 place within three months of the period. I prefer 
 the proceedings before a single magistrate, al- 
 though I am aware, that it may be said, that the 
 security would be greater if the ceremony should 
 take place in the presence of several ; but when 
 1 recollect the nature of the ceremony and the 
 character of those who generally attend at the 
 petty sessions, I am satisfied that it would be a 
 relief to the parties about to enter into the strict 
 relationship consequent on the contract if I en- 
 able them to enter into it before a single magis- 
 trate. I am sure that the grace and value of the 
 gift would be diminished if you make it re- 
 quisite that the ceremony should be performed 
 before a number of magistrates. 
 
 I have now mentioned the nature of the relief 
 which I intend to propose, and the nature of the 
 civil contract I wish to recommend for those who 
 object to the performance of the ceremony in the 
 church. At present it is necessary to make a 
 declaration previous to procuring a marriage 
 licence. I intend to propose, that a similar de- 
 claration should be made before the magistrate,
 
 28 
 
 on entering- npon the civil contract; and tlie same 
 oatli, as on obtaining a licence, shall be adminis- 
 tered, namely — that the parties are above the age 
 of twenty-one ; that the contract is with the con- 
 sent of the parents or guardians ; and that neither 
 of them are aware of any legal impcdinient to 
 the marriage. It may be said, that a door would 
 be opened to clandestine marriages by the non- 
 publication of bans. At present, however, no- 
 thing is so delusive as the publication of bans; 
 such a complete change has taken place in the 
 state of society, since they were adopted, that 
 they give no security for tlie object for which 
 they were intended ; I am convinced that most 
 of the illegal or clandestine marriages that take 
 place, are those where bans have been published. 
 In many populous places, parties may have bans 
 published, and their names escape observation. 
 Under the system which I propose, there would 
 be no greater temptation to illegal marriages 
 than there is at present. If the notice is incom- 
 plete, of course the magistrate is not to suffer the 
 contract to be completed. Where there are no 
 religious scruples, it is not intended to alter the 
 present form; but all that 1 have in view is to 
 relieve those who entertain objections to the 
 marriage ceremony being performed in the 
 church by the clergyman. It appears to me that 
 the securities I have taken are (juile as valid as
 
 29 
 
 those which exist on applying for a licence. I 
 am convinced that if 1 were to take superfluous 
 securities, I should only diminish the value of 
 the relief which I am anxious to afford. I 
 should previously have stated that I also pro- 
 pose, that the magistrate before whom the ac- 
 knowledgment of the contract is made, should 
 take two or three copies of the form, which are 
 to be signed by the parties, which will be the 
 best evidence that can be obtained of the con- 
 tract, and that one of these copies shall be sent 
 to the minister of the parish, whose duty it will 
 be to keep the register of the civil contract of 
 marriage. The Dissenters will not be brought 
 into contact with the minister, but the magistrate 
 is to transmit to him one of the copies of the cer- 
 tificate, that the parties had entered into the con- 
 tract. It has been said, that they ought not to 
 call upon clergymen to enter the names of the 
 parties in the register, when the ceremony is 
 not performed by themselves, but I am sure that 
 the ministers of the church will not object to be- 
 come registrars. Whatever register, however, 
 be adopted, I think it desirable that we should, 
 if possible, make it a common register, and not 
 make distinctions. My own earnest wish is to 
 leave this register, under the present state of 
 things, in the hands of the ministers of the pa- 
 rish, being convinced that they will be less liable
 
 3Q 
 
 to inaccuracies than any other parties tl)at can 
 be chosen. I am aware that there are some 
 points that 1 may have passed over, but I trust 
 that the House will excuse me when it considers 
 the number of matters I have had to consider 
 during tlie sitting of Parliament, it is not pos- 
 sible for me to give several important matters the 
 attention which I wish. Among other things, I 
 have been unable to give the consideration I 
 desire to some measure for a general civil regis- 
 tration. If we are not able to obtain a new re- 
 gistration on a general principle immediately, I 
 think that it is desirable, in the mean tiuie, to 
 avail ourselves of that form of register which is 
 now used. By the mode which I propose, there 
 will be a civil registry in one place and a religi- 
 ous one in another. With respect to the claims 
 for compensation, and the fees to the clergyman, 
 for the simple registration, I have little to say. 
 I believe, that when those matters which affect 
 the scruples of Dissenters, shall be removed, 
 that there will be less objection than at present, 
 to the performance of the ceremony in the church, 
 and still less to the payment of fees. I intend 
 to propose that the whole amount of fees payable 
 in the civil contract of marriage, shall not be more 
 than seven shillings. There will be no necessity 
 for payment for a licence in this case any more 
 than at present when bans are published. Out
 
 31 
 
 of this fee of seven shillings, 1 propose that five 
 shillings shall go to the parish officer or clergy- 
 man, who keeps the register ; by this means, I am 
 justified in sayin^■ that the whole expense of a 
 marriage would be less than it is at present. I 
 assuredly feel much obliged to the House for the 
 attention and kindness with which it has listened 
 to me on a matter on which I am much less in- 
 formed than those who have made the law their im- 
 mediate study. I have not felt myself called upon 
 to enter upon technical refinements on the sub- 
 ject, but have endeavoured, as shortly and 
 simply as possible, to explain the enactment, 
 which I trust will have the effect of removing 
 the conscientious objections of those who dis- 
 sent from the church, and at the same time re- 
 lieving the minister of the church from the 
 publication of bans between parties who object to 
 his performing the ceremony. If I succeed in 
 the object I have in view, 1 shall rejoice at re- 
 moving one of those causes which have tended 
 to alienate the minds of those who dissent from 
 the doctrines of the church, from its ministers, 
 much more than any thing connected with the 
 ceremony could compensate to them. In conclu- 
 sion, I do not propose the slightest change in 
 the present law of marriage, with respect to the 
 members of the Establishment ; but with them 
 the civil contract will still be subject to the reli-
 
 32 
 
 gioiis sanction. I am sure that no one will ob- 
 ject to the claim I put in for the members of the 
 Estal)lisliment, of the continuance of tiiat law 
 which best suits their habits and feelings, and 
 which superadds the religious sanction to the 
 civil contract. I therefore move for leave to bring 
 in a Bill for the relief of persons dissenting from 
 the Church of England, in regard to the celebra- 
 tion of marriage. 
 
 Dk. LusniNGTON wished to understand whe- 
 ther, when two persons were married in the man- 
 ner proposed b}^ the Bill, questions as to their 
 belonging to any sect of Dissenters, were to be 
 put to them before, or subsequently to, tlie per- 
 formance of the contract ? 
 
 The Chancellor of the Exchequer — 
 The form of oath to be taken by the party is 
 to run tljus : — '" I, A. B., do swear that I am not 
 a member of the United Church of England and 
 Ireland, and that I have lived in the parish for so 
 niany days ; that I am so many years old, a ba- 
 chelor or widower (as the case may be,) and that 
 J know of no other impediment, kindred, or alli- 
 ance, which is an obstacle to this engagement. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 ROAKI AND VAIITY, PRINTRKS, 'il , SI'llAMl.
 
 SPEECH 
 
 ON TUli 
 
 GRANTING A ROYAL CHARTER OF INCORPORATION 
 
 TO THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF LONDON. 
 March 20, 1835.
 
 SPEECH 
 
 The Chancellok of the Exchequer rose 
 and addressed the House: — 
 
 I take it for granted, from the general demand 
 that is made in the lower part of the House for 
 an immediate division, that the gentlemen as- 
 sembled there are perfectly acquainted with the 
 nature of the motion on which they are about to 
 divide, that they have maturely weighed the 
 proposal upon which they are to address the 
 Crown, and, therefore, that they consider there 
 no longer remains any necessity for further dis- 
 cussion ; but, to those who are not exactly 
 aware — to that very large portion of the House 
 which not having heard any part of the discussion 
 [a number of Members had just entered the 
 House] cannot be acquainted with the nature of 
 the proposal upon which we are about to pro- 
 nounce an opinion, I take the liberty of reading 
 
 B 2
 
 the motion. It is in these words : " That the 
 House do agree to an Address to his Majesty, 
 beseeching' him to grant his Royal Charter of 
 Incorporation to the University of London, as 
 approved in the year 1831 by the then Law 
 Officers of the Crown, and continuing no other 
 restrictions than against conferring Degrees in 
 Divinity and in Medicine." No man who has 
 not read the report of the then law officers of 
 the Crown, or does not know the contents of it, 
 is very well qualified to press upon the Crown 
 the restrictions specified in the motion. The 
 address is to grant a charter of incorporation, 
 not simply and without qualification, but to grant 
 it upon the principles approved of by the law 
 officers of the Crown in 1831. Now, I ask the 
 House of Commons whether it be decorous to 
 proceed on a certain night to address the Sove- 
 reign of this country to grant a charter to a cer- 
 tain body according to a principle approved 
 of bv the law officers of the Crown some vears 
 since, without having previously ascertained 
 what was the principle of which the law officers 
 of the Crown so approved? Will hon. gentle- 
 men consent that I should examine them seve- 
 rally as to their knowledge of the opinions ex- 
 pressed in the report of the law officers of the 
 Crown, in order that 1 may ascertain, out of the 
 three hundred or four hundred Members who are
 
 about to pronounce a decision, how many of 
 them understand the question on which they are 
 so eager to decide? The law officers of the 
 Crown, who were consulted in that year, pro- 
 posed these restrictions upon the charter — that 
 it should convey no power to the university to 
 grant degrees in divinity and medicine. It may 
 be obviously right, in the opinion of many gen- 
 tlemen, to restrict the right of giving degrees in 
 divinity, but why impose the restriction with 
 respect to medicine? Why address the Crown 
 to exercise its authority in the grant of a charter, 
 but fetter its discretion by the expression of 
 opinions, dissuading the Crown from granting 
 a power to confer degrees in medicine ? I have 
 an account in my hand of the state of the uni- 
 versity of London in 1831. It had then four 
 hundred and eighty students, of whom two hun- 
 dred and ninety-three were students in medicine, 
 one hundred and thirteen students in the arts, 
 and seventy-four students in the law. Ought I 
 not to have some information which shall warrant 
 me in voting for an address to the Crown to- 
 night to give the privilege to the university of 
 conferring degrees upon the seventy-four students 
 in law, and upon the one hundred and thirteen 
 students in the arts, but to exclude from degrees 
 the two hundred and ninety-three who are stu- 
 dents in medicine? Is it unreasonable to require
 
 some ground for this advice ? Is it sufficient to 
 refer me as a warrant for it to some opinion which 
 T have not seen, and which after all was not an 
 academical, not a political, but a legal opinion? 
 This question has been brought before the House 
 on former occasions. No longer ago than last 
 year it was submitted to parliament, and taken 
 into consideration by the Crown, and by his 
 Majesty it was referred to the privy council. 
 Suppose the House should agree to address the 
 Crown again on the present occasion, what course 
 is the Crown to pursue ? Is it again to refer the 
 matter to the privy council ? Or is the Crown, 
 having once referred it to the privy council, and 
 having received no report from that body, to 
 disparage the labours of the privy council, and 
 to grant the charter without reference to it? 
 That is the question which the Crown must de- 
 termine if this address be presented. The matter 
 was referred to the privy council because the 
 king thought it was but right to give the parties 
 who were adverse to the proposition, an oppor- 
 tunity of being heard. What course is now to 
 be adopted ? If the Crown is not to exclude the 
 advice and opinioii of the privy council, is it to 
 refer the matter again to the privy council? The 
 hon. Member for Bridport says, he thinks that 
 some better mode for eQecting the object in 
 view might be devised than the grant of a
 
 charter to the University of London. If the 
 hon. gentleman is of opinion that some better 
 course might be pursued than that which 
 it is proposed to pursue, why should not the 
 House of Commons take his advice, and at least 
 pause before it agrees to advise that measure 
 which is admitted to be exceptionable, and to 
 which some other measure is preferable. The 
 hon. Gentleman says he thinks it would be 
 better not to confer any exclusive charter upon 
 the University of London, but to establish one 
 general and common University for the metro- 
 polis, including the King's College, and other 
 institutions, as well as the particular establish- 
 ment now under consideration. Then, why am 
 I to be called upon to night to present an 
 address to the Crown, praying that a charter 
 may be conferred specially and exclusively upon 
 the University of London ? The hon. Member 
 for Bridport says, that those who sit on this 
 side of the House are not in the habit of adopting 
 liberal opinions. [Mr. Warburton : Were not.] 
 Does the hon. Gentleman mean in the course of 
 the last year ? Does he apply the observation 
 to his own friends ? He might witii perfect 
 justice, so far as this University and its Charter 
 are concerned ; for the greatest impediment has 
 been thrown by them in the way of the grant of 
 such Charter. The late Ministers were the
 
 8 
 
 parties by whom tliis very question of granting 
 a charter to the University of London was sub- 
 mitted to the Crown, and by the Crown referred, 
 as I have before stated, to the Privy Council. 
 A committee of the Privy Council was ap- 
 pointed — it received the petition of the parties 
 adverse to the grant of the charter, or at least 
 anxious that it should be accompanied with cer- 
 tain qualifications— it heard the evidence— it 
 heard the speeches of counsel on both sides — it 
 heard a very able speech from my learned friend 
 Sir Charles Wetherell — it heard a speech from 
 the hon, and learned gentleman opposite 
 (Dr. Lushington) — it took the whole subject into 
 its grave consideration ; but to this hour it has 
 never given any opinion upon it— (hear ! hear !)— 
 ^' Hear, hear !" says the hon. gentlenmn oppo- 
 site, with a sort of triumphant laugh. The 
 laugh confirms the truth of my statement. I am 
 answering the charge he has made upon tiie 
 hon. gentlemen who now sit on this side of 
 the House, and am showing that the great 
 obstructions to the grant of a charter to the 
 London University — the real practical impedi- 
 ments were thrown by those, who pretended to 
 be friendly to the grant, who had the authority 
 to make it, who took it into consideration, and 
 yet, after all, did nothing — and advised nothing. 
 I presume, from their delay and indecision, that
 
 there must have appeared some good and valid 
 ground for withholding the grant of the charter, 
 especially as the late Lord Chancellor was one 
 of the committee of the privy council which 
 was appointed to inquire into the matter. I 
 find, by a paper in my hand, that the members 
 of the committee were as follows : the Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury, Lord Brougham, the 
 Archbishop of York, Lord Lansdowne, Lord 
 Ripon, the Duke of Richmond, Earl Grey, 
 Lord Eldon. (hear ! hear !) Surely this cheer- 
 ing was very puerile. If you cheer for one 
 name, you had better groan for another. 1 con- 
 tinue ; Lord John Russell, the Bishop of London, 
 Lord Holland, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Denman, 
 Chief Justice Tindal, Lord Melbourne, and 
 Lord Stanley. This committee was constituted 
 by the late government ; it met, and seemed to 
 be giving the profoundest attention to the sub- 
 ject. It assembled upon the 26th of April. 
 The late administration did not quit office until 
 the 13th of November. Now why, having con- 
 sidered this matter so fully, having heard the 
 speeches of counsel on both sides, (speeches 
 which certainly did justice to the subject, in 
 point of length, as well as in ability,) why, 
 having heard all this, and having closed their 
 proceedings on the 3rd of May, why they never 
 took a single step upon the subject up to the
 
 10 
 
 ]3tli of November, I confess, I for one, cannot 
 understand, unless they felt that there was some 
 serious difiiculty, legal or constitutional, that 
 stood in the way of "ranting the charter. If 
 that were really the case, what course is the 
 Crown now to pursue ? Is it again to refer the 
 matter to the privy council ? [No, no !] Very 
 well. It is not to do so; it is not to ask 
 again for the opinion of Lord Brougham or Lord 
 Denman. 
 
 Mr. TooKE rose to explain. The right hon. 
 Baronet had alluded to several reports of the 
 law-officers of the Crown not having been pro- 
 duced. He thought that the right hon. Baronet 
 was hardly aware that the paper which had that 
 day been printed, and as yet very imperfectly 
 delivered to hon. Members, did instance a char- 
 ter which was issued upon the report of the 
 Attorney and Solicitor-General, which passed 
 through the Home Secretary's office, through the 
 Signet office, through the Privy Council, and 
 which twice received his Majesty's sign manuel. 
 It was to carry into effect the recommendations 
 of that committee, that he, (Mr. Tooke) brought 
 forward his motion. 
 
 The Chancellor of the Exchequer. I 
 thank the lion, gentleman for his interruption— for 
 his explanation that his motion is founded on a pa- 
 per printed in the course of the day, and accord-
 
 11 
 
 iiig to his own declaration very imperfectly de- 
 livered. Was there ever such a farce as this? 
 the hon. gentleman holds in his hand a paper, 
 wet from the press, which nobody has seen but 
 himself, and wonders that I am dissatisfied 
 with it. 
 
 Mr. TooKE. — I am not fairly treated by the 
 right hon Baronet. 
 
 The Chancellor of the Exchequer. Then I 
 must have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. 
 I understood him to say, that the paper was not 
 printed until to-day, and that as yet it had been 
 but very imperfectly distributed. If this be so, 
 I repeat it is a mockery, it calls on the House to 
 vote an address to the Crown founded on this 
 paper, and adopting its opinions. I proceed. I 
 have described the proposition of the hon. Mem- 
 ber for Truro. Now what is the counter-pro- 
 posal of my hon. friend, the Member for the 
 University of Cambridge ? He suggests an 
 amendment to the motion, praying his Majesty 
 to give directions that there be laid before the 
 House, copies of the Memorials presented to, 
 and the whole of the proceedings had before, the 
 privy council, in the matter of the London Uni- 
 versity. I conceive that the House, being in pos- 
 session of all those documents, will be better 
 able to determine what course it will be proper 
 to pursue, than it can be at the present moment.
 
 12 
 
 The lion. Member for Bridport says, that he 
 shall feel it to be his duty to press the question 
 to a division, unless I will pledge myself to take 
 into my serious consideration a particular plan 
 which he has pointed out. I will not, for the pur- 
 pose of evading- the temporary difficulty, give any 
 pledge of the kind required by the hon. Member. 
 If the House shall think it decorous to proceed 
 to an Address to the Crown, praying that a 
 Charter may be granted to the University of 
 London, on the conditions and with the restric- 
 tions settled by the law officers in 1831 — if it 
 shall be prepared to say to night, that the Char- 
 ter when granted, shall include a restriction on 
 medical degrees, if it chooses to do this without 
 seeing the opinion by which it professes to be 
 guided, without information as to the necessity 
 or policy of the restrictions it advises, let it pur- 
 sue that course. I say openly, that it will be an 
 unwise and improper course. I believe that the 
 course pointed out by my right hon. friend 
 would be much more safe and nuicli more satis- 
 factory. It precludes nothing — it prejudices no 
 future proceeding— it only enables the House to 
 form a better judgment upon the question. And 
 feeling the objections which I urge to the mo- 
 tion of the hon. Member for Truro to be well 
 founded, I declare on this occasion, as I have de- 
 clared on every other, that rather would 1 be
 
 found in a minority, and tlirow the responsibi- 
 lity of an unjust and unwise proceeding upon the 
 majority, than acquiesce in an objectionable 
 proposition for the purpose of escaping the tem- 
 porary clitliculty. I feel, Sir, that it is not pro- 
 per for the House to present this Address to his 
 Majesty. I feel that the presentation of such an 
 Address will not facilitate the object which the 
 Member has in view, and, therefore, I cannot 
 give my consent to the motion before the House. 
 At the same time. Sir, while I say this, I do feel 
 that the position of that portion of his Majesty's 
 subjects who do not conform to the Church of 
 England, and who, in consequence of their not 
 subscribing to certain religious tests, are exclud- 
 ed from the Universities, is deserving of favour- 
 able attention. It is a ground of just complaint 
 for them, and their claim to academical educa- 
 tion and honours, must, in my opinion, be fairly 
 and fully met. Though what may be the proper 
 mode in which these honours should be conferred, 
 I am not prepared at this moment to say, and I 
 do not make this statement of my willingness to 
 consider the claims of the Dissenters in respect 
 to the opportunities of academical instruction, 
 for the purpose of entrapping the House or in- 
 fluencing its present decision. Let the House 
 take that course which it, in its wisdom, thinks 
 fit, without reference to my opinions. But, at the
 
 14 
 
 same time, it is right that 1 shoukl not withhold 
 the expression of them ; or refrain from declar- 
 ing that I myself have no objection to some pro- 
 vision being made that should accord to Pro- 
 testant DissenterS;, now excluded from the Uni- 
 versities, the power of acquiring academical dis- 
 tinctions. But it is a question which will de- 
 mand very great consideration, in respect to its 
 details. I do not apprehend. Sir, that the Uni- 
 versities of Oxford and Cambridge object alto- 
 gether, and upon principle, to the grant of a 
 Charter to the London University. 1 believe 
 that their objection, the objection of Cambridge 
 at least, applied to the conferring of a power 
 to grant degrees, the titles of which might be 
 confounded in public estimation with the Univer- 
 sity honours and degrees of Oxford and Cam- 
 bridge. At all events, this is a matter worthy of 
 consideration. I hope. Sir, that I have dealt 
 with the House at least with perfect fairness. I 
 make no pledge, and give no assurance upon the 
 subject ; because I have not yet given the mat- 
 ter the consideration which it deserves. I think 
 the motion of the hon. Member for Truro an un- 
 reasonable one ; and I prefer the amendment of 
 my right hon. friend, because I conceive it 
 to be the only course which the House can 
 with propriety adopt in the present state of the 
 question, and of the information upon it which
 
 15 
 
 the House possesses. I shall conclude by de- 
 claring, with great deference to the authority of 
 the House, my respectful opinion that its deci- 
 sions will carry with thera much greater authority 
 if adopted after more mature deliberation, if they 
 are known to be the result of dispassionate dis- 
 cussion, and formed after the House shall have 
 received the information that is within its reach, 
 and which is essential to a satisfactory judgment. 
 I hope the House will not come to a hasty resolve 
 in favour not only of the grant of a charter to 
 the London University, but in favour of the 
 qualifications and restrictions which should 
 accompany that grant; that they will not do 
 this, when it is admitted by the movers of the 
 resolution, first, that the documents ou which 
 it professes to be grounded have only been 
 printed in the course of the day, and have been 
 very imperfectly delivered ; and secondly, that 
 it would be possible to suggest a measure pre- 
 ferable to the one which this resolution will re- 
 commend to the Crown. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 ROAKE AND VARIY, PRINTERS, 31, STRAND.
 
 SPEECH 
 
 ON 
 
 LORD JOHN RUSSELL'S MOTION 
 
 RELATIVE TO THE 
 
 REVENUES OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND, 
 
 April 2, 1835.
 
 SPEECH, &c. 
 
 The Chancellor of the Exchequer rose 
 and addressed the House : — 
 
 I do not know that I should have felt it 
 necessary to say a word upon this occasion if, 
 during almost the whole of the debate which has 
 taken place this evening', it had not been assum- 
 ed that the House was again discussing precisely 
 the same question that has formed the subject of 
 six previous nights' debate. I, however, ap- 
 prehend that the question which has formed 
 the subject of discussion during those six nights 
 was, at an early period of the present evening 
 disposed of. The House having last night affirm- 
 ed the resolution in Committee^ I, that even- 
 ing, on the resolution being reported^ consider- 
 ing that there was no probability that any va- 
 
 B
 
 riance of opinion would be expressed by the 
 House from tliat whicb it had expressed in Com- 
 mittee, permitted tlie report to pass without dis- 
 cussion and without a division. Rut the resolu- 
 tion which the House is now called upon to 
 affirm is : — *' That no measure upon the sub- 
 ject of tithes in Ireland can lead to a satisfactory 
 and final adjustment which does not embody the 
 foregoing resolution." I have great objection 
 to the form of the present resolution, and to the 
 precedent which it would establish — a precedent 
 perfectly novel, and with respect to which the 
 noble Lord himself must have entertained great 
 doubts, since it is an entire departure from 
 the course which he originally gave notice 
 it was his intention to pursue. The noble 
 Lord, in the first instance, said, that if the House 
 of Commons affirmed his resolution, he would 
 notify that fact to the Crown by address, in or- 
 der to enable him to proceed with a bill. What 
 does he now propose to do ? He has passed his 
 resolution ; he proposed to make no communica- 
 tion to the Crown, he proposed to make no com- 
 munication to the House of Lords, but he did 
 propose that the House of Commons should in- 
 form itself that it had passed the Resolution, 
 and that it would hereafter be irrevocably 
 bound by it. The noble Lord now calls 
 upon the House to declare, that no measure
 
 5 
 
 wliicli shall not embody the principle of a cer- 
 tain resolution can lead to a satisfactory settle- 
 ment of the tithe question. I object to that 
 proposition. I think it would be most unwise 
 in the House to declare before-hand, that one 
 single measure can alone lead to a final and 
 satisfactory result. 
 
 Those who approved of the resolution origi- 
 nally moved by the noble Lord are perfectly at 
 liberty to object to his present proposition. 
 A majority of the House — a majority of twenty- 
 five^ has affirmed a certain resolution, against 
 which a minority of 289 protested, indepen- 
 dently of those who paired oif, making altoge- 
 ther a minority of about 300 Members. The 
 noble Lord now calls upon the House again to 
 affirm the principle of that resolution in a still 
 more binding manner — to declare that all further 
 discussion is unnecessary — that no proceedings 
 in Committee on the Tithe Bill need to be 
 listened to— that there is but one measure 
 which can effect a final and satisfactory settle- 
 ment of the Tithe question, and that is the 
 measure to which a small majority of the House 
 has agreed. I do not hesitate to denounce this 
 proceeding as the tyrannical act of a majo- 
 rity ; — the tyrannical act of a majority, by 
 a proceeding of a perfectly novel nature — a 
 proceeding for which no precedent can be 
 
 B 2
 
 6 
 
 found, precluding the necessity of further dis- 
 cussion, closing the opportunities of new argu- 
 ments; resolving that they will not be con- 
 vinced, binding themselves by an unnecessary 
 pledge to maintain, under all circumstances, a 
 certain opinion. This course of proceeding is 
 unwise in itself, besides establishing a danger- 
 ous precedent. What is the resolution which 
 the noble Lord calls upon the House to 
 affirm? It is, that if there should be a sur- 
 plus of Church revenue, it shall be appro- 
 priated to one single specific purpose, to the ex- 
 clusion of all other objects. The House has 
 already recorded its opinion — it has had it in 
 its power to wait for the Report of the 
 Committee on Public Instruction, and it will 
 be perfectly consistent even in those who think 
 that the surplus ought to be appropriated in the 
 manner proposed in the noble Lord's resolution, 
 to wait until they can avail themselves of the 
 information which will be contained in the 
 Report of the Commissioners, and thus avoid 
 making the precipitate pledge which is now 
 demanded from thenj. The noble Lord himself, 
 has this night, with singular candour, told the 
 House, that he cannot bring forward any detailed 
 plan fortheenforcement of hisown principle, un- 
 til he has seen and considered the Report of the 
 Commissioners. Will the House of Commons,
 
 then, adopt a course of proceeding by vvliich it 
 will preclude itselt troni profiting- by the informa- 
 tion which must be contained in the Report of the 
 Commissioners ? Will they adopt the novel 
 course of pledging themselves irrevocably to a 
 principle — of prophesying that one thing, and 
 one thing only, can lead to a final and satisfac- 
 tory settlement ?— The adoption of the resolu- 
 tion now before the House will cut off all 
 chance of that which is sometimes absolutely 
 necessary for the wisest and most infallible in the 
 conduct of human affairs — namely, all possibility 
 of compromise. Occasions sometimes occur 
 in which it is necessary for one branch of the 
 Legislature to modify its opinions for the pur- 
 pose of effecting an amicable agreement with 
 another branch on some great public question ; 
 but now it is proposed, that one of the three 
 branches of the Legislature shall, without 
 waiting for the result of inquiries, which are 
 acknowledged to be essential to the formation of 
 any plan, declare, that they will adhere to a 
 principle which they had laid down, and 
 listen to no compromise whatever. If that 
 course is adopted, the public men who are 
 parties to it will be bound up from acting on 
 the possible necessities of the future — the House 
 of Commons will be cut off from the exercise 
 of a free judgment — from the means of wise and
 
 honourable compromise, and will establish a 
 precedent for insisting on the execution of its 
 own designs, even before those designs have 
 been moulded into the shape of a legislative 
 enactment. What is the object of all this 
 precipitation? If there is a majority sufficient 
 to carry the resolution, it must be sufficient 
 to enforce the principle of that resolution here- 
 after. Why, then, not wait for the Commit- 
 tee on the Tithe Bill ? Is not the conduct of 
 the opposition, in fact, a practical declaration 
 to the people of England to this effect : — " We 
 have confidence in our resolution, but we have no 
 confidence in ourselves ? " It seems necessary for 
 the parties to this proceeding, to swear eternal 
 friendship upon their resolution. For two months, 
 they have been attempting to discover a common 
 bond, by which they could unite themselves in 
 opposition to the King's Government ; at length 
 they discover one, and so anxious are they, 
 in all times of future difficulty and embarrass- 
 ment, to adhere to it with desperate fidelity, that 
 they are afraid to trust their own discretion — 
 they are afraid to trust in the permanence of 
 their new alliance — tliey are afraid to trust 
 their own perseverance in their own opinion, 
 but they propose, by a novel course, to bind 
 themselves to each other, not to dissolve their 
 only tie. 1 object to the precedent it is pro-
 
 9 
 
 posed to establish, whicli is one which any ma- 
 jority hereafter may follow. Henceforth it will 
 be merely necessary to gain a majority upon 
 some preliminary point, and tlien to declare, that 
 no compromise will be admitted. By agreeing- 
 to the present resolution, the House will not 
 only adopt the noble Lord^s principle, but 
 will proclaim to the people of England and 
 Ireland, that the only satisfactory arrangement 
 of the Tithe question, must be founded upon 
 the basis of a principle, from which three hun- 
 dred Members of the Commons dissent. 
 
 The sentiments which I have heard in the 
 course of the discussion, have not tended in 
 any degree to diminish the apprehensions which 
 the former debate excited in ray mind. In 
 whatever respect new ground has been taken 
 this night, it is still more dangerous than the 
 ground occupied before. The noble Lord was 
 asked, how he meant to ascertain the surplus ? 
 He was asked to give some explanation of his 
 principle, and in the course of that very short 
 speech, in which he professed his inability to 
 produce any plan until he had seen the Report 
 of the Commissioners, he ventured on an ex- 
 planation of his principle, and it was to this 
 effect: — " If there be in the south of Ireland, in 
 Kerry, or Limerick, for instance, livings super- 
 fluously endowed, in that case it would give no
 
 10 
 
 satisfaction to the payers of tithe in the parishes 
 to which those livings belong, to transfer the 
 surplus to supply deficient endowments in the 
 north, in Down, or in Derry ; but the surplus 
 ought to be applied to the purposes of educa- 
 tion in the parish from which such surplus is 
 derived." If that principle were followed out, it 
 would establish a separate, peculiar, local, pa- 
 rochial interest in the amount of tithes ; it would 
 constitute each parish into a separate territorial 
 division, and proclaim to the people of Ireland, 
 that henceforth each parish should have a sepa- 
 rate and peculiar interest in the amount of tithe 
 levied within it. (Hear, from the Opposition.) 
 The hon. Members who cheer, affirm that j)ro- 
 positioii. Then, I ask, in answer to their 
 cheers, on what pretence will you limit the ap- 
 propriation of the surplus to purposes of educa- 
 tion ? After having establislied a separate, pe- 
 culiar, and parochial interest in the surplus, 
 will you declare, that to no one purpose shall 
 it be applied excepting to that of education in 
 each particular parish? Supposing a parish 
 should answer, "■ We have education enough 
 already — we have several endowments for the 
 purposes of education the Protestant land- 
 lords have established schools — our children 
 are all amply instructed, there are no de- 
 mands on our parish for further education; at
 
 11 
 
 our own desire, aiul with a view to maintain our 
 independence, we voluntarily make a small pay- 
 ment for each child, and we require no more 
 funds for the purposes of instruction ;" in such 
 a case how would the noble Lord's limitation of 
 his principle satisfy public opinion in the parish 
 of which I am speaking, as an example? Sup- 
 posing the noble Lord were to assign the sur[)lus 
 to a neighbouring parish, less amply provided 
 with the means of instruction, does he think that 
 that application of it would create more satis- 
 faction than if he transferred it to a distant one ? 
 Does he, who objects to the transfer to Down, 
 or to Derry, believe that, after the establishment 
 of his principle, the providing for the wants of 
 an adjoining parish from the tithes of its neigh- 
 bour, will give satisfaction to the payer of 
 those tithes? From what I know of local feuds 
 in Ireland, 1 am sure that the application of 
 surplus parochial funds to the necessities of a 
 neighbouring parish is not likely to be received 
 with greater favour than their transference to 
 the north of Ireland. 
 
 Thus, after disturbing all existing notions 
 with respect to property, the noble Lord will 
 fail to give satisiaction to the people of Ireland, 
 which is the only object which he professes to 
 have in view. But does the noble Lord recollect 
 that he himself was a party to a measure which
 
 12 
 
 made an important change with respect to large 
 and overpaid livings in the south of Ireland — 
 I allude to the Church Temporalities' Bill, 
 which was passed only two years ago? The 
 preamble of that Bill is utterly at variance 
 with the noble Lord's resolution. That Bill was 
 the last legislative declaration on the subject of 
 the Established Church ; and it was a declara- 
 tion made on the advice and at the instance of 
 the noble Lord ; it distinctly laid down the prin- 
 ciple of a different distribution of church-pro- 
 perty; it distinctly laid down the principle, that 
 overpaid livings might be curtailed, that tithes 
 might be detached from archbishopricks and 
 bishopricks ; it laid down the principle that 
 sinecures in the church should be abolished, and 
 the proceeds appropriated to certain purposes ; 
 but then, there was this express limitation, that 
 those purposes should be ecclesiastical, such as the 
 building, rebuilding, and repairing of churches, 
 the augmentation of small livings, and such 
 other purposes as might conduce to the advance- 
 ment of religion, and the efficiency, permanency, 
 and stability, of the united Church of England 
 and Ireland. Thus, the ecclesiastical funds 
 were limited to purposes strictly ecclesiastical, 
 and the object of the noble Lord's Act was 
 declared to be to give permanence and sta- 
 bility to the united Church of England and Ire-
 
 13 
 
 land. What confidence can the people place 
 in the intentions or resolutions of this House, 
 when it sees them exhibiting such utter disregard 
 to the enactments, and to the main principles of 
 Bills brought in — not last century — not forty 
 years ago — not by a Tory Government— not by 
 the devoted friends of the church, but by the 
 Government of which the noble Lord was a 
 member? The noble Lord has forgotten not 
 only the preamble but the enactments of that 
 Bill. These overpaid livings in the south of 
 Ireland, which cause such scandal, and are 
 so offensive in the eyes of the noble Lord ! 
 (Hear, hear! from the Opposition.) 1 can as- 
 sure tlie hon. Gentlemen who cheered that I 
 am going to prove, that the noble Lord was a 
 greater reformer than he has given himself 
 credit for being; that the noble Lord has al- 
 ready made provision for the correction of those 
 very abuses in the church of which he is now 
 so grievously complaining. Such, however, is 
 the modesty of the noble Lord, so oblivious 
 is he of his own good deeds, that he has ac- 
 tually forgotten the enactments of the Bill, of 
 which he was one of the most powerful sup- 
 porters, which provided a most effectual remedy 
 for the very evils which now appear to shock 
 him so much ; for by one of the clauses of the 
 Bill it was expressly provided, that if any livings
 
 14 
 
 should be found in the south or in any other part 
 of Ireland, with incomes exceeding 800/. a-year, 
 it should be competent to Coimnissioners to de- 
 tach the tithes of certain tovvnlands from them, 
 and assign them to neighbouring livings^ for the 
 purpose of securing a resident minister. The 
 limitation placed by the Bill on the extent of 
 the deductions from these livings^ was this, that 
 no living should be cut down below 300/. per 
 annum. If^ therefore, the noble Lord would 
 apply the principle of his own Bill through the 
 agency of his own Commissioners, he would 
 destroy all the enormous livings in the south of 
 Ireland, whose funds he now wishes to apply to 
 purposes of education. 
 
 Let the House now look practically to the 
 consequences which must follow from the adop- 
 tion of the noble Lord's proposition. After the 
 resolution has gone forth, a resolution adopted 
 after much parade— after a call of the House — 
 after a debate protracted to seven nights — the 
 people in every parish in the south of Ireland 
 will naturally scan it with a keenness propor- 
 tionate to all this preliminary parade, and attempt 
 to ascertain its real meaning ! The noble Lord 
 proposes that any surplus which may be ob- 
 tained shall be applied exclusively to educa- 
 tion, on the express grovnid that education is an 
 ecclesiastical purpose ; but how those hon. gen-
 
 15 
 
 tlemeii on the other side, wlio maintain tliat 
 the surplus can, and ouglit to, be applied to 
 secular purposes, can consent to bind them- 
 selves by the terms of the noble Lord's resolu- 
 tion, I cannot understand. However, that is a 
 point for them to settle. I am glad of the li- 
 mitation, because, if spoliation is to be com- 
 mitted, it is gratifying to know, that it is pro- 
 posed to confine it within certain definite bounds ; 
 but how can such limitation meet the approval of 
 those who declare, that noble Lord's resolution is 
 only valuable on account of the principle which 
 it contains ? The hon. Member for Derbyshire, 
 who has by his own confession been searching 
 for precedents, has been able to quote only two 
 authorities in justification of the principle of spo- 
 liation, one an ancient, the other a modern one. 
 His authorities are Henry VIU. and Captain 
 Macheath, The hon. Member, after giving me 
 credit for my historical knowledge as regards 
 Henry VHI, was kind enough to assume that I 
 am equally cognizant of the principles and prac- 
 tice of Captain Macheath. I know this, at least, 
 of the character and exploits of the Captain, 
 that he was a wiser man than the hon. Member j 
 for he never appropriated a surplus till he had 
 ascertained its existence. True; the Captain 
 applied his surplus to secular purposes : so far 
 his example is a precedent, but he differed from
 
 16 
 
 those who appeal to his authority in tliis respect, 
 that his surplus was never an imaginary one. 
 
 But, to return to the noble Lord : when the 
 noble Lord's resolution shall arrive in Ireland, 
 accompanied by the speeches of the noble Lord 
 and all the hon. Members who had supported it, 
 tlie people will find it distinctly explained, 
 that their interest in tithes is a local and pa- 
 rochial interest — that tithes belong not to the 
 Church, not to the State, but to each parish 
 from which they were derived. They are fur- 
 ther forewarned, that, in case the Protestant in- 
 terest should hereafter revive in a parish in 
 which the surplus has been appropriated ac- 
 cording to the noble Lord's principle, the new 
 interests which might have accrued in the 
 mean time will be liable to be set aside, and 
 the fund re-applied to its original purpose. 
 Suppose a vacancy should take place in a 
 living of 1000/. a-year, who is to determine 
 what will be a fitting provision for the Pro- 
 testant clergyman? This question will arise 
 upon every vacancy. There would be a pub- 
 lic meeting; the number of souls then in exist- 
 ence would be counted ; the Roman Catholic 
 clergyman would be at work; the expectant 
 Protestant clergyman would urge his claim ; 
 the whole parish would be aroused from its 
 slumber ; for there would be a manifest interest
 
 17 
 
 in diminishing, as far as possible, the stipend 
 set apart for the Protestant minister. That 
 stipend, be its amount what it might, would be 
 regarded with an evil eye as a superfluous 
 charge on the parish purse — as a diminu- 
 tion from the amount applicable to pa- 
 rochial purposes of public utility. See how 
 many conflicting interests would be called into 
 life by this new principle of appropriation; to 
 how many new elements of social discord it would 
 give birth. The Protestant landlord would have 
 a direct interest in collecting round him as 
 numerous a Protestant tenantry as possible, 
 in order to establish a claim — an eventual 
 claim, at least — to a part of the surplus. The 
 more strong his sense of religion, the greater 
 would be his interest in the establishment of this 
 claim on behalf of the faith which he professes. 
 You thus give hiui a new interest, an interest 
 recommended to him by the highest and purest 
 principles, to surround himself with a Protestant 
 tenantry, that is to say, to dispossess Roman 
 Catholic tenants of their land on the expiring of 
 leases, and supply their places by Protestants. 
 On the other hand, the Catholic population 
 would have a direct interest in intimidating and 
 driving away Protestants ; and thus religious 
 jealousies would be added to the other causes 
 which at present render the letting and the
 
 18 
 
 lioldiug- of land in Ireland sources of excitement 
 and disturbance. Again, supposing tlie case to 
 which he had already referred — namely, that a 
 surplus should be found in a parish in which the 
 means of education were already abundant, 
 would not the Catholics say, " You have esta- 
 blished the principle, that we have an interest in 
 the surplus ; we shall derive no advantage from 
 the application of that surplus to instruction, 
 and, therefore, we insist that it shall be applied 
 to some other local purpose, and not divert- 
 ed to anothei- parish." How could the noble 
 Lord answer that argument ? How could he, 
 with his principles, divert the tithes — the pa- 
 rochial fund, which must not be transferred 
 to Derry or to Down — how could he divert 
 it to another parish ? What endless dis- 
 cord there would be ! The other parish might 
 be tithe free. '^ Are we," the tithe-paying pa- 
 rishioners would say, " are we to pay tithe for 
 the benefit of those who are exempt ? We had 
 a resident clergyman under the old system. He 
 did spend the produce of our tithe among those 
 who paid it, but now the tithe is to be paid, as 
 before, but it will be applied to the benefit of 
 others." 
 
 There was a part of the speech of the hon. 
 and learned Member for Cashel which appeared 
 to make some impression upon the House ; and.
 
 19 
 
 havino- alliidecl to the hoii. and learned Member, 
 I will add, that, strange as it may seem to 
 some hon. Members opposite, there is very 
 little difference between us. The hon. and 
 learned Gentleman did not advocate the doc- 
 trine of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, that 
 the legislature might be indiflerent with re- 
 spect to gospel truth. The hon. Member for 
 Derbyshire is evidently an enemy to all esta- 
 blishments. Why, on his principles, will he 
 allow the establishment to exist in England ? 
 It is no answer to say, that it is supported 
 by the majority of the people ; because, ac- 
 cording to the hon. Member, there should be 
 no endowment of any one form of worship. 
 Endowments, according to him, obstruct the 
 progress of truth ; and each relip^ion, whether 
 pure or corrupt, should be allowed to make its 
 own way. If this argument is good for any- 
 thing, it clearly applies, not to the church in 
 Ireland exclusively, but to the establish- 
 ment in this country. The hon. Member for 
 Cashel, however, is an advocate for reli- 
 gious establishments. Said the hon. Member, 
 " I find a certain parish in Monaghan, which 
 contains but four Protestant families —the amount 
 now allotted to their spiritual guide I will re- 
 duce, but I will provide the four families with 
 the means of religious instruction." 
 
 c
 
 20 
 
 Why the noble Lord, the Member for Lan- 
 cashire, (Lord Stanley,) has not gone one step 
 farther than this. He said, if there were ten 
 Protestants in a parish, he would secure to them 
 the means of religious instruction, and the oppor- 
 tunities of divine worship according to the rites 
 of the established Church. Or, rather, what he 
 said was this, ff they irave now such means, I 
 will not consent to deprive them of what they 
 possess. And what said the hon. Gentleman? 
 Not only that he would not deprive them of them, 
 but that there should be— not, indeed, an over- 
 paid absentee rector, with an income of 700/. a- 
 year — but a resident Protestant pastor to admi- 
 nister the offices of religion to those who required 
 them — not with the paltry stipend of 75/. a-year, 
 which the curate now receives for his services, 
 but with an income of 250/. Here then would 
 be 250/. a-year allotted with a wise liberality, 
 not only for the spiritual instruction of four Pro- 
 testant families, but for the purpose of recog- 
 nising the great principle interwoven with the 
 existence of a church establishment, that for 
 those members of it who lived or might live in 
 that parish, there shall be the means of publicly 
 worshipping their God, according to the princi- 
 ples of their faith. Now 1 would ask the hon. 
 Gentleman this question. If he were to divide 
 the revenues of the Ciiurch equally among every
 
 21 
 
 parish, taking his own standard as tlie standard 
 of clerical remuneration, is lie quite sure that 
 there would be a surplus of church revenue? 
 The sum of 250/. is assumed by the hon. Gen- 
 tleman to be the minimum at which the proper 
 performance of a clergyman's duties ought to be 
 remunerated; he would assign this as the sti- 
 pend of a clergyman in that parish in which there 
 were onlyfour Protestant familiesj3utif I take the 
 case of a clergyman in a large parish, in a popu- 
 lous city, who is obliged to move in a certain 
 station of life, and to maintain his family in de- 
 cent and moderate independence, is it not 
 clear that 250/. per annum would be a most in- 
 adequate provision? Give me 250/. as the mi- 
 nimum for the country parish, give me, what is 
 manifestly not more than sufficient, where the 
 Protestant congregation is nnmerous, where the 
 parish is situate in an extensive town, and I 
 meet the learned Gentleman with perfect confi- 
 dence, on his own grounds, and T tell him that 
 on his own principles and his own reasoning he 
 has not one farthing of surplus. See, too, what 
 his admission is, his just and liberal admission, 
 that 250/. is not too large a provision for the 
 clergyman who has charge of his parish with the 
 smallest possible number of Protestants. See what 
 it implies beyond the allotment of the stipend. 
 It implies the necessity of a place of Protestant 
 
 c '2
 
 O) 
 
 vvorship — it implies the necessity of a residence 
 for the minister. The charge of these if not 
 built — the repairs of them if built, fall now upon 
 the revenues of the Church. Where is the sur- 
 plus when all these essential requisites to Protest- 
 ant worship shall have been provided for, limiting 
 the provision to those parishes alone, in which 
 there is a Protestant population ? 
 
 1 agree fully with what has been said re- 
 lative to the propriety of enforcing residence 
 among the clergy. I would not limit that prin- 
 ciple to the removal of the abuses caused by the 
 absence of an incumbent, who, spending his 
 money at some distant watering place, neg- 
 lected the performance of his clerical duties. 
 I should be contented to destroy pluralities. 
 1 will not hesitate to declare that the minis- 
 ters of the Church who are spending their in- 
 comes in places of mere amusement, and are 
 neglecting the personal discharge of spiritual 
 duties, are not fulfilling the condition on which 
 the endowments of their benefices were oiven to 
 them -and a law should pass to remove those 
 unsightly defects, if they exist, in the consti- 
 tution of the Church iu Ireland. And with 
 my full consent tliat that law should apply 
 not merely to future, but to every existino- 
 incumbent. There is no vested interest that 
 can be pleaded against the performance of that
 
 2-,] 
 
 high trust for which alone tliat interest is 
 vested. 
 
 I do not wish to enter upon a consideration 
 of the Acts of Richard tlie Second, which have 
 no application to the question before the House 
 — which relates to the impropriation of tithes. 
 If the tithes do not belong- to the rector, they 
 certainly do to the Church — and should be 
 applied to the purposes for which the Church 
 was consecrated. If the learned Gentleman's 
 argument is valid; if the parishioners, in their 
 personal capacities, and not the Church, have 
 a right to the tithes — how does he propose to 
 deal with the lay-impropriator of tithes? Can 
 the alleged right of the parishioners to tithes 
 be defeated by their transfer to a layman ? 
 
 An Hon. Membkh on the Opposition side: — 
 Length of time has sanctioned the abuse. 
 
 The CllAXCLLLOK OF rilE ExCll EQL'EK : 
 
 Length of time ! there is no right which pre- 
 scription has given to laymen, which has not 
 given in at least an equal degree to the Church 
 their property. 
 
 I have another objection against this resolu- 
 tion. Its object is to obstruct by unfair means 
 the passing of the Tithe Bill. It is a way 
 of notifying to the Government, in a danger- 
 ous and unprecedented manner, " We will 
 not peruiit you to introduce your measure;
 
 24 
 
 we will not allow you to pass any preliminary 
 stage in which after discussion any point could 
 be agreed to; we will not consider the Bill in 
 connnittee, unless you agree to this resolution 
 as a preliminary condition." I cannot agree 
 to it. I object to it on the ground^ that the 
 principle of the resolution is dangerous and 
 unjust; I object to it on account of the man- 
 ner in which it has been brought forward — I 
 object to it because those by whom it was pre- 
 pared admit a total want of information upon 
 the subject on which they are legislating. 
 Acting upon erroneous data — not having deter- 
 mined the amount of the property of the Church 
 — not knowing how much they want for the 
 purposes of education, they proclaim their 
 object to be a final settlement, a satisfactory 
 settlement, and yet they establish no principle 
 by which their future course is to be guided ; 
 or if they do establish a principle, it is one of 
 much more extensive and dangerous application 
 than they profess it to be. After their de- 
 bates of seven nights, there are many important 
 points that have totally escaped observation. 
 They have not taken into account iiow many 
 livings there are in Ireland, the right of pre- 
 sentation to which belongs to laymen, and are 
 held as [)rivate property. If they were to de- 
 duct these advovvsons, they would find a large
 
 25 
 
 sum must be subtracted from their estimate of 
 the Church property, for I apprehend that 
 they would distinguish between the rights of the 
 private and the public patron. In the Church 
 Temporalities Bill this distinction was made_, 
 and I suppose it will be made again^ for the 
 noble Lord will probably respect the rights 
 of private property belonging to individuals. 
 There are three hundred livings in the hands of 
 individual patrons. I do not pretend to know 
 the exact amount of their value, but if it cor- 
 responds in a proportionate degree with the 
 ordinary value of Crown livings in Ireland, and 
 f they are to be treated as private property^ 
 about one-fourth of the whole revenues of the 
 Church is at once placed beyond the control of 
 the noble Lord. Here is one case, in which a 
 great deduction must be made from this alleged 
 surplus. But how can they determine, how can 
 they approximate to the estimate of the surplus, 
 without having decided on the principles of the 
 new Tithe Bill, on the amount of the abatement 
 which is to be made from the present legal 
 demands of the Church? This is a most im- 
 portant point. The right hon. Gentleman who 
 lately held the office of Secretary for Ireland 
 has declared that the landlords were not treated 
 too favourably in the Bill sent up last year to the 
 House of Lords, and has stated his determina^-
 
 26 
 
 tion, wlien the Tithe Bill comes before the House, 
 to insist on ternjs as favourable to the landlords of 
 Ireland, as those contained in the last year's Bill. 
 Now, if the right hon. Gentleman acts on this 
 principle, and is successful in enforcing it, he 
 will make a very material reduction in the 
 future revenues of the Church. If, as in 
 the last year's Bill, two-fifths of the tithes 
 are to be given to the landlords, the tithes being 
 valued at 545,000/., and one-fifth of 545,000/. 
 being 109,000/., the sum of 218,000/. must be 
 deducted from the value of the tithes. There 
 will then be left 327,000/. as the future annual 
 value of tithes in Ireland. And here I will 
 beg the noble Lcrd to observe, that they are 
 rapidly reducing his estimate of 800,000/. 
 If the noble Lord agrees with the right hon. 
 Gentleman, so recently his colleague in office, — 
 the colleague intrusted with Irish affairs, the 
 aiithor of the Tithe Bill of last year, — it is clear 
 that the tithe property of the Church is re- 
 duced by one blow to the annual sum of 3*^27,000/. 
 But are the compositions for tithe to be re- 
 opened, as they were by the Bill of last year? 
 If they are, here is a fresh deduction even 
 from the sum of 3^7,000/. Consider these 
 three separate causes of reduction of the as- 
 sumed surplus — reductions of which you your- 
 selves are the advocates. First, there is the
 
 27 
 
 private patronage of livings wliicb is not within 
 your control. Secondly, two-fifths taken from 
 the present amount of tithes. Tliirdly, compo- 
 sitions of tithe re-opened ; and then inquire 
 calmly whether the remainder be more than suf- 
 ficient for the decent maintenance of the Church. 
 Now, is it just towards the Church, is it 
 likely to conciliate the good feeling and good- 
 will of those for whom they legislate, to pro- 
 ceed to pass this resolution with such false as- 
 sumptions of the real amount of the revenues of 
 the Irish Church ? There is no excuse what- 
 ever for this course. Returns have been called 
 for, and in three days they will be before the 
 House. Hon. Members opposite have eagerlv 
 sought for that information, but they now re- 
 fuse to be governed by it, and pledge them- 
 selves to listen to nothing but the resolution. 
 They may act upon that determination, but hap- 
 pen what may, I will not adopt the principle of 
 that resolution. I will not give effect to it. When 
 I consider the hopes they have raised, and the 
 expectations they have excited, which I know 
 must be disappointed, I may well say that 
 the boldest man would be justified in shrinking 
 from the responsibility of that resolution. Even 
 if the resolution is passed, its principle will 
 not apply, until vacancies in livings shall 
 occur. The result of this debate, now continued
 
 28 
 
 for seven days, will only affirm a principle 
 whose practical eiiects must necessarily be sus- 
 pended, until existing" interests have ceased. And 
 what is tlie condition of those clergymen in 
 the south of Ireland, who, the House think, 
 are loaded with superfluous wealth ? They 
 have been deprived of their tithe for the last four 
 years. If I had interfered with the noble 
 Lord's resolution for the purpose of amending it, 
 (which I have no intention of doing,) the first 
 claim I should assert, would be to provide 
 compensation for those who have suffered under, 
 but patiently acquiesced in the wrong, which has 
 been inflicted on them. Surely the justest claim 
 on a surplus, if there were a surplus, would be 
 that of tiiose who had been robbed of their pro- 
 perty. If you find clergymen witli wives and 
 families resident among their parishioners, de- 
 prived of their rights because they have been 
 temperate in the enforcement of them — be- 
 cause they have shrunk from extreme mea- 
 sures — because they have submitted to severe 
 personal privations rather than come into colli- 
 sion with their flocks, are their demands for 
 retribution to be disregarded? I hold in 
 my hand one of many letters which I have 
 received on this subject, and I am resolved 
 to bring an individual case before the House as 
 an example, in order that you may see the ex-
 
 •29 
 
 tent of pecuniary loss to wliicli the clergy have 
 been already subjected. It is written with 
 great simplicity, and on that account is the 
 more atiecting. [The right hon. Baronet then 
 read an extract from the letter.] "^ I entreat 
 you/' says the writer, "^if practicable, to create 
 a fund to provide for the widows and orphans of 
 clergymen, which the contemplated reduction of 
 their incomes would render peculiarly well timed, 
 as many must now be disabled from partially 
 attaining that object by effecting insurances on 
 their lives. And, lastly, to relieve them from 
 future instalments, together with arrears now 
 due, to the Board of First Fruits, for loans ad- 
 vanced them to build their glebe-houses. I sin- 
 cerely wish mine was an isolated case, but if 
 many are similarly circumstanced with myself, 
 they have great difficulties to encounter. I ef- 
 fected the composition in my parish (in 1832) at 
 a sacrifice of 150/. per annum of the income I 
 was for years in the receipt of— namely, 580/. ; 
 thus voluntarily reduced by me to 4oO/. By the 
 proposed Bill, this will be further reduced to 
 S'22/. lO.v. ; out of which I shall pay 50/. in- 
 surance, 43/. rent, 29/. first fruits ; leaving a 
 balance of 200/. 10*. to support my beloved 
 wife, ten children, and myself, after being above 
 forty years an unworthy labourer in the christian 
 vineyard. A murmur, however, shall not es-
 
 30 
 
 cape my lips, for I feel convinced the welfare 
 of the Established Church is the object you 
 and the Government are most anxious to promote. 
 Were the second measure, the provision for 
 widows and orj)hans, adopted, (as 1 have huml>ly 
 suggested,) I should regard as trivial every pe- 
 cuniary difficulty I might be destined to en- 
 counter, for it would console me under them all, 
 and pluck from the pillow of death the only 
 thorn this world could plant there. As a 
 small atonement for thus presuming to tres- 
 pass on you, permit me to oU'er the acconipany- 
 ing poem, for which my eldest son obtained 
 a Vice-Chancellor's prize. He was equally suc- 
 cessful with two other poems, but the enclosed 
 is the only one published."' [The pathos with 
 which the right hon. Baronet read this short ex- 
 tract, produced a great effect upon the House.] 
 Here is a clergyman supporting his wife and 
 ten children on an income reduced by acts of the 
 Legislature from 580/. to S^Z9,l. a-year, (the latter 
 sum probably recovered with extreme difficulty,) 
 not murmuring at his loss, thanking those who 
 inflicted it, for their wish to promote the interests 
 of the Cliurch, and ready to make any personal 
 sacrifice which will conduce to those interests. 
 Surely it is affecting to contemplate such a man 
 cheerfully devoting, from the pittance which was 
 left to him, some portion of it for the education
 
 31 
 
 of a son who was cheering- the poverty and suf- 
 fering- of his home, by the glad tidings of acade- 
 mical distinctions. This is no singular instance 
 — it is one of a hundred similar cases — and shall 
 we, without inquiry, pledge ourselves irrevocably 
 to transfer from the Church to which these minis- 
 ters belong, a portion of her property, and if we 
 do transfer it, can we with any semblance of 
 justice appropriate it to any object, before we 
 have provided compensation for those who have 
 been defrauded and robbed of their rights ? 
 
 I will no longer interpose between that deci- 
 sion of this House which, if adopted, is to ex- 
 clude all compromise, all hope of re-consider- 
 ation ; to pledge this House, in spite of further 
 argument, in spite of additional information, in 
 spite of its own conviction, to adhere obstinately 
 to one unalterable resolution. Against the prin- 
 ciple of that resolution, there stands recorded 
 the deliberate protest of men, whose opinions 
 are entitled to the highest deference, from their 
 high character and acquirements, from their ex- 
 perience in the affairs of Ireland, above all, from 
 their political relations, and the active part they 
 have taken in the adjustment of Irish questions 
 of the deepest interest and importance. I quote 
 not the opinions of men prejudiced in favour of 
 Protestant ascendency, bound by the ties, or 
 stimulated by the excitement of party, to uphold
 
 32 
 
 the predominance of the Church : I quote the 
 authority of those who were the most powerful, 
 the most uncompromising, the most effectual ad- 
 vocates for the removal of Roman Catholic dis- 
 abilities, and the establishment of perfect civil 
 equality among all classes of the King's subjects. 
 I quote the authority of Burke, of Plunkett, of 
 New^Dort, and of Grattan. Of Burke, who, 
 speaking of the Established Church in Ireland, 
 considers it "a great link towards holding fast 
 the connexion of religion with the State, and for 
 keeping these two islands in a close connexion 
 of opinion and affection;" who wished it well — 
 '^'as the religion of the greater number of the pri- 
 mary land-proprietors of the kingdom, with whom 
 all establishments of Church and State, for 
 strong i^olitical reasons, ought to be firmly con- 
 nected." I quote the authority of Plunkett, who 
 declared '' the Protestant Establishment in Ire- 
 land to be necessary for the security of all sects, 
 to be the great bond of union between the two 
 countries, and who emphatically declared, that 
 to lay our hands on the property of the 
 Church, or to rob it of its rights, would be to 
 seal the doom, and to terminate the connexion 
 between the two countries/"" I quote the autho- 
 rity of Newport, who protested against the enact- 
 ments of the Churcli Temporalities Bill, who 
 dissented from the policy of reducing the number
 
 33 
 
 of bishopricks, wlio, while lie advised a dif- 
 fererit distribution of Church property, for the 
 promotion of the interests of the Church, insisted 
 on the strictest application of that property to 
 ecclesiastical purposes. Lastly, 1 appeal to the 
 solemn, the d)nng declarations of Grattan— of 
 him who fought to the last hour of his existence 
 with ^' desperate fidelity," in the cause of his 
 Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen. In his last 
 moments he had strength sufficient to dictate a 
 paper, of which the following is a faithful extract. 
 
 "^Resolved, that a Committee be appointed 
 with a view to repeal the civil and political dis- 
 abilities which affect his Majesty's Roman Ca- 
 tholic subjects on account of their religion. 
 
 " ' Resolved, that such repeal be made with 
 due regard to the inviolability of the Protestant 
 religion and establishments. 
 
 '' ' Resolved, that these resolutions do stand 
 the sense of the Commons of the Imperial Par- 
 liament on the subject of Civil and Religious 
 Liberty, and as such be laid before his Majesty. 
 These resolutions contain my sentiments; this 
 is my testamentary disposition, and I die with a 
 love of liberty in my heart, and this declaration 
 in favour of my country in my hand." 
 
 Supported by these authorities, I adhere with 
 the greater confidence to that course which my 
 own judgment and my own conscience dictates.
 
 34 
 
 Backed by the prescient sagacity of Burke, by the 
 powerful reasoning and prophetic warnings of 
 Plunkett, by the local knowledge and long ex- 
 perience of Newport, by the dying injunctions 
 and testamentary declarations of Grattan, I give 
 an unhesitating vote against principles tending 
 to shake the foundations of all property, and to 
 subvert the Protestant Church in Ireland. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 ROAKK AND VAUTY, PRINTERS, M, STKANl).
 
 SPEECH 
 
 ANNOUNCING THE 
 
 RESIGNATION OF HIS MAJESTY'S MINISTERS. 
 
 April, 8, 1835.
 
 SPEECH, 
 
 &C. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, 
 It is my intention to move that the Mutiny Bill 
 shall be read a third time, and in making that 
 motion I wish to avail myself of the opportunity 
 which it affords me of notifying to the House 
 that I, in conjunction with all my colleagues in 
 his Majesty's government, and in conformity 
 with their unanimous opinion, have felt it incum- 
 bent upon us, upon a combined consideration of 
 the vote to which the House of Commons came 
 last night, and of our position as a government 
 in this House, to signify to his Majesty that we 
 feel it to be our duty to place the offices which 
 we hold at the disposal of the King. I do not 
 hesitate to say that we have taken this course 
 with the utmost reluctance, and not without the 
 deepest conviction of its necessity. We feel
 
 that being in possession of the entire confidence 
 of the king, and having received from his 
 Majesty the most cordial and unremitting sup- 
 port, looking to the present position of public 
 affairs, to the present state of political parties, 
 looking to the strength, not only the numerical, 
 but the moral strength of that great party by 
 which we have had the honour of being sup- 
 ported ; — we felt it was our duty under exist- 
 ing circumstances to continue the attempt of ad- 
 ministering public affairs, as the responsible 
 advisers of the Crown, to the latest moment that 
 was consistent with the interests of the public 
 service, and with the honour and character of 
 public men. When I did not hesitate to avow 
 the reluctance with which we had tendered our 
 resignation, I believed 1 should have credit with 
 a great majority of the House of Commons, 
 that that reluctance arose from public consider- 
 ations alone, and was wholly unconnected with 
 every thing of a personal nature. I have a 
 strong impression, that when a public man at a 
 crisis of great importance undertakes the public 
 trust of administering the affairs of this country, 
 he incurs an obligation to persevere in the ad- 
 ministration of those affairs, as long as it is pos- 
 sible for him to do so consistently with his 
 honour. No indifference to public life, no dis- 
 gust with the labours which it imposes, no per-
 
 sonal mortifications, no deference to private 
 feeling, can sanction a public man in withdraw- 
 ing, on light grounds, from the post in which the 
 confidence of his sovereign has placed him. 
 But at the same time there is an evil in exhibit- 
 ing to the country a want, on the part of the go- 
 vernment, of that support in the House of Com- 
 mons, which can enable it satisfactorily to conduct 
 the public affairs, which can enable it to exercise 
 a control over the proceedings of the House, 
 — a legitimate and necessary control, conferred 
 upon it by the possession of confidence. There 
 is an evil in such an exhibition of weak- 
 ness to which limits must be placed; and I 
 must say, reviewing all that has occurred 
 since the commencement of the present session — 
 looking to the little progress the government has 
 been able to make in the public business of the 
 country — looking at what has occurred on each 
 of the last four nights — to the fact that ministers 
 have had the misfortune on each of four succes- 
 sive nights, to be left in a minority_on Thurs- 
 day last, on Friday last, on Monday last, and 
 last night ; considering that that minority was 
 smaller in relation to the majority, than the mino- 
 rities in which we have been at the commence- 
 ment of the session ; — adverting also to the fact, 
 that we have received the support of those, who 
 not having a general and unliniited confidence in 
 the government^ yet have given to the govern-
 
 6 
 
 iiient a cordial and honourable support on every 
 occasion on which it was consistent with their 
 public principles to give it; — adverting to all 
 these considerations, I must say, that, in my 
 opinion, the time is come when it is incumbent 
 on the ministers of the Crown to withdraw from 
 the responsibility which office, under such cir- 
 cumstances, imposes upon them. In addition to 
 these considerations are the nature and conse- 
 quences of the vote of last night. That vote, I 
 conceive, implied a want of confidence in his 
 Majesty's government, because, in my opinion, it 
 was not necessary for any public purpose, to 
 come to that vote. It is tantamount to a decla- 
 ration on the part of the House, that it has not 
 that confidence in his Majesty^s government, 
 which entitles that o-overnment to submit to the 
 consideration ofthe House, the measures of which 
 they have given notice. The Noble Lord (Russell) 
 has signified his intention, if the vote to which 
 the House came last night does not lead to the 
 result, to which it has now led, to follow it up 
 with an address to the Crown, conveying to his 
 Majesty the resolution respecting the Irish 
 church, which the House has affirmed. As I 
 conceive that embarrassment to the public in- 
 terests would arise from the presentation of that 
 address ; and as I have no right to assume that 
 the House will take a different view with respect 
 to the policy of that address, different from the
 
 view which it has taken, with respect to the reso- 
 lution, it does apjDcar to me and to my colleagues 
 (whose views are in exact conformity with my 
 own) that a public duty is imposed upon them, 
 particularly since they feel that the time is fast 
 approaching when resignation is inevitable, not 
 to persevere in a fruitless struggle, which may 
 involve his Majesty, public men, and the country, 
 in additional and unnecessary embarrassment. 
 The vote of last night is not only tantamount to 
 a declaration of a want of confidence in the go- 
 vernment, but implying, as it does, the necessity 
 of a total change of system in Ireland, so far as 
 the church revenues are concerned, it will impose 
 such difficulties in the practical administration of 
 government in Ireland, by parties opposed to 
 the principle of the vote, that they are fairly en- 
 titled to decline a responsibility which others 
 are bound to incur. The vote of last night was 
 not an abstract Resolution ; the vote of last night 
 was not one, the practical execution of which 
 could lie dormant. There may occasionally be 
 points on which the House of Commons may ex- 
 press a different opinion from that of the govern- 
 ment ; there may be cases in which it would be 
 possible for government to continue the conduct 
 of public affairs, even in opposition to the 
 House of Commons, upon questions involving 
 mere abstract principles, admitting of delay in
 
 8 
 
 their practical application. But the House of 
 Commons cannot leave the tithe question in its 
 present state. At present laws are nominally in 
 force, hut are actually disregarded. Nothing 
 can be more dangerous than to leave the law in 
 its present state — to habituate the people to the 
 daily violation of it — to exhibit to them a state 
 of things in which those who are charged with 
 the enforcement of law connive at its non-exe- 
 cution. It is not merely that the particular 
 law will lose its authority ; but the fatal exam- 
 ple will extend to all law^s, particularly to laws 
 confirming and enforcing the rights of property. 
 Under these circumstances it would be the duty 
 of the members of his Majesty's government, 
 if they continued in the administration, to 
 press for an immediate decision with respect to 
 the law as to the recovery of tithes in Ireland. 
 The Tithe Bill of which they have given notice, 
 they cannot proceed with, without previously 
 proposing the resolution for the remission of the 
 claims upon the Irish clergy, on account of the 
 repayment of the advances under the Million 
 Act. I have no right to anticipate a different 
 conclusion from tliat to which the House has 
 already come. I cannot anticipate that they 
 will sanction the "rant of a million without a 
 distinct understanding, that the Irish Tithe Bill 
 is to be framed upon the principle of the vote of
 
 9 
 
 last night ; and under these circumstances, 
 having no reason to apprehend that a delay of a 
 few daj^s will make any material difference in 
 the position of the government, considering that 
 it is impossible to permit the vote of last niglit 
 to lie dormant, that the government must pro- 
 ceed with the Tithe Bill, being resolved to ad- 
 here to the principle of their own bill, being 
 firmly resolved not to adopt the principle of the 
 vote of last night ; under all these combined con- 
 siderations, they have, as I said before, felt it 
 to be their duty, as public men invested with a 
 public trust, respectfully to restore that trust 
 into the hands of his Majesty. We therefore, 
 now only hold our offices provisionally, and for 
 the temporary execution of public business, until 
 his Majesty shall make other arrangements for the 
 conduct of the goverment. Under these circum- 
 stances, I shall submit to the House, that, per- 
 haps, the best course I can propose will be, that 
 there shall be a short adjournment. It will not 
 be necessary that the adjournment shall ex- 
 tend beyond Monday, and I should make the 
 motion for an adjournment at once, were it 
 not that there is an election committee for which 
 a ballot is appointed for to-morrow. Perhaps 
 the House will feel that any discussion on public 
 matters, in the present state of affairs, cannot be 
 proceeded with to any advantage. I have not 
 
 D
 
 10 
 
 the slightest hesitation in supposing, from the 
 forbearance which the House has always shown 
 on similar occasions, that the motion will be 
 unanimously agreed to; but lest any inconve- 
 nience should arise with respect to the election 
 committee, the ballot for which stands for to- 
 morrow, the House will perhaps meet to-mor- 
 row for the single purpose of that ballot, and 
 when it is completed adjourn till Monday. 
 The motion also which I have now to make, and 
 which I make merely in consideration of public 
 interests — namely, the motion for the third read- 
 ing of the Mutiny Bill — I am quite sure will be 
 cheerfully acquiesced in. I have been anxious 
 to give this explanation as briefly as I can, and 
 in a manner the least calculated to give offence, 
 or to excite angry feelings. For myself, the 
 whole of my political life has been spent in the 
 House of Commons, the remainder of it will be 
 spent in the House of Connnons; and, whatever 
 may be the conflict of parties, I, for one, shall 
 always wish, whether in a majority or in a mi- 
 nority, to stand well with the House of Commons. 
 Under no circumstances whatever, under the 
 pressure of no difficulties, under the influence of 
 no temptation, will I ever advise the Crown to 
 resign that great source of moral strength 
 which consists in a strict adherence to the prac- 
 tice, to the principles, to the spirit, to the letter
 
 11 
 
 of the Constitution. I am confident, that in that 
 adherence will be found the surest safeguard 
 against any impending danger, and it is because I 
 entertain this belief that I, in conformity with the 
 opinions of my colleagues, consider that the go- 
 vernment ought not to persist in carrying on pub- 
 lic affairs, after the sense of the House has been 
 fully and deliberately expressed, in opposition to 
 the decided opinion of a majority of the House 
 of Commons. It is because I have that convic- 
 tion deeply rooted in my mind, that regretting, 
 as I most deeply do regret, the necessity which 
 has compelled me to abandon his Majesty's ser- 
 vice at the present moment ; yet upon the ba- 
 lance of public considerations I feel that the 
 course which 1 have now taken is more likely 
 to sustain the character of public men and to 
 promote the permanent interests of the country, 
 than if I longer persevered, in what I believe will 
 prove a fruitless attempt, to conduct as a minis- 
 ter the King's service, in defiance of that oppo- 
 sition which has hitherto obstructed the satisfac- 
 tory progress of public business. 
 
 [The Right Hon. Baronet at the conclusion 
 of his speech, was most enthusiastically cheered 
 from all corners of the House for a considerable 
 time.] 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 ROAKE AND VAKIY, rKIJiTERS, 31, STRAM'.
 
 SPEECH 
 
 AT THE 
 
 DINNER IN HONOR OF HIM 
 
 GIVEN AT 
 
 MERCHANT TAILORS' HALL. 
 May 11, 1835.
 
 SPEECH, 
 
 8cc. 
 
 Sir Robert Pf.el rose and addressed the 
 meeting : 
 
 Gentlemen, with the deep feelings of pride and 
 satisfaction by which I must necessarily be ani- 
 mated, there does mix, as you may well believe, 
 one painful feeling that springs from the con- 
 sciousness that any language of mine must be 
 totally inadequate to express the intensity of my 
 sensations in addressing you upon the present 
 occasion. Gentlemen, I well know that these 
 are the trite and ordinary excuses made by all 
 speakers upon occasions like the present, but if 
 you will onlj' place yourselves in my situation, if 
 
 B 2
 
 yoLi will only recollect that I was alone, as it 
 were, in this company, that I remained seated 
 while all the rest of you were standing, that I 
 remained silent while all the rest of you were 
 enthusiastically vociferating your generous ap- 
 probation, that I was conscious that all your 
 kindly attention, and consideration, and deep 
 feeling were concentrated upon myself, — if you 
 will recollect that I am a public man, that I am 
 a man of the people, that I derive, I will not say 
 my chief, my only strength from public applause 
 and public confidence, that I am moreover a 
 man who looks for no reward for public services 
 excepting only public approbation, who aspires 
 to no dignity except in all honesty and purity 
 the good opinion of his fellow-subjects— the 
 sound good opinion I mean, as distinguished 
 from the paltry and fleeting popularity which 
 may be gained at the moment, even by the 
 weakest and most contemptible, in pandering or 
 succumbing to faction, or even in more meekly 
 and gently attempting at once to flatter and in- 
 flame the people's prejudices ; — I say, then, that 
 if you will take all these considerations and cir- 
 cumstances into your attention, you may be well 
 able to believe, that although the excuse T have 
 offered you for my deficiency in power ade- 
 Quately to respond to your great kindness may 
 b«» trite, though it may be the ordinary phraseo-
 
 logy of speakers in complimentary assemolages ; 
 yet upon this peculiar occasion it is perfectly 
 consistent with truth, that I am unable to do jus- 
 tice to my feelings, in pouring forth to you my 
 heartfelt thanks for the honour which you have 
 conferred upon me. 
 
 But let me not be suspected of idle egotism. 
 Let it not be thought that I have been so misled 
 by the suggestions of personal vanity as to attri- 
 bute to myself, or any deserts of mine, the origin 
 of this meeting, or the feelings which you have 
 this evening expressed. I agree with our worthy 
 chairman in thinking that the address which I 
 received from so large a body of the merchants, 
 bankers, and traders, of this city, was a sufficient 
 compliment and reward for any services and ex- 
 ertions of mine. It asserted the principle by 
 which I was animated : it bore with it the true 
 reward of public services — the approbation of 
 my fellow-citizens. 1 wanted no other demon- 
 stration of public feeling; and if I had regarded 
 this meeting as merely a demonstration of per- 
 sonal compliment, I should have almost discou- 
 raged it, as being, after the address, a super- 
 fluous token of public esteem. No, Sir, the ob- 
 ject of this meeting is a demonstration of public 
 feeling in the metropolis. I do think that public 
 interests may be promoted by it. I do think 
 that the impulse which has been given from this
 
 centre of the commercial world — the vital impulse 
 must thrill to every extremity of the British em- 
 pire. I repeat. Sir, that the throes of this 
 mighty heart must send the wholesome life-blood 
 of sound doctrine and good principle to every 
 remote member of the body corporate of the 
 United Kingdom. Gentlemen, I understand 
 that by assembling here to-day you mean 
 to mark your attachment to the ancient institu- 
 tions of the country, and your firm resolution to 
 maintain those principles, which are interwoven 
 with the safety of those institutions, and the se- 
 curity and prosperity of this empire. It was 
 incumbent upon you to come forth in this man- 
 ner, because you do not happen to have any 
 public recognised organ through whom your 
 sentiments could be expressed. When I look 
 round this great meeting, abounding as it does 
 in wealth — abounding in intelligence — abounding 
 in respectability — and reflect that there is not 
 one single member out of the eighteen allotted 
 for the metropolitan districts to represent your 
 opinions, 1 am not surprised that you should re- 
 solve to speak for yourselves. Whatever be the 
 numbers here assembled, they might have been 
 almost indefinitely swelled by fresh accessions. 
 The hall has been taxed to the utmost extent of 
 its accommodation, and if tiiere Vv'ere room for 
 ten times a greater number of gentlemen within
 
 tliese walls we should have had them present. 
 And yet you and your friends had not the good 
 fortune to secure, out of the whole eighteen, a 
 single representative by whom your opinions 
 could be spoken, through whom your just and 
 legitimate influence could be exercised in the 
 public councils. In order, therefore, that there 
 should be no misconstruction of your silence, you 
 feel it necessary to speak through other organs 
 than those which the new representative system 
 has provided for you ; and in concurrence with 
 this feeling it is that I come forward to lend my 
 humble countenance to this meeting. 
 
 And, gentlemen, it is because this is a public 
 occasion, and because we are met to promote a 
 public object, that you will expect from me some 
 further observations, and some allusions to the 
 state of public affairs. Gentlemen, what I shall 
 say will be spoken by me as one of yourselves, 
 not as one anxious for triumph as a party man — 
 still less as a candidate for office : I shall speak 
 to you as a British subject in a private capa- 
 city, feeling a tenfold greater interest in the 
 cause of good government than in any emolu- 
 ments or advantages he could possibly derive 
 from office, a man who has a tenfold greater de- 
 sire, on public grounds, for the maintenance of 
 the principles he professes and conscientiously 
 believes to be essential to the welfare of the
 
 8 
 
 country, than for any benefits, if benefits they can 
 be called, which he could derive from the acqui- 
 sition of office. I believe indeed that there is no 
 greater mistake than that people situated as I 
 happen to be are so very anxious for office. 
 Some fancy that the wholesome rest of every po- 
 litician is broken by his feverish longing for office. 
 If 1 were to speak from my own experience, I 
 should tell a different tale. There is to me and 
 to many others nothing in office, so far as mere 
 personal feelings or interests are concerned, to 
 compensate for its labours and its annoyances, 
 and its deep anxieties, its interruption of do- 
 mestic repose and happiness. Away, then, Sir, 
 with the ridiculous assertion that men who are 
 really qualified for the first trusts of the state 
 would coiisent to procure them by any dishonest 
 sacrifice of opinion, to any compromise of cha- 
 racter. We hear constantly the professions of 
 great alarm about court intrigue and court 
 favouritism, and base coalitions of public 
 men for the promotion of their private ends. 
 The country quite mistakes the real danger in 
 this respt ct ; the danger is, not that public men, 
 fit for public trusts, and worthy of public confi- 
 dence, will seek office Vjy unworthy means, but 
 that they will seek excuses for declining it — will 
 refuse to bear the heavy sacrifices of time and 
 labour and repose, which it imposes. That
 
 9 
 
 office holds out great advantages to tlie ambi- 
 tious minds of some, I will not deny; but are 
 there not out of office, equal if not greater means 
 of distinction in public life ? For myself, in tak- 
 ing office, in submitting to its drudgery, I was 
 urged by nothing but a sense of jDublic duty, 
 and by the desire not to shrink from that obli- 
 gation which every British subject incurs when 
 called upon to serve his King, to the utmost of 
 his ability and power. I hope that his JMajesty 
 has not a more devoted servant than I ; but this 
 I can say with truth, that when I entered the 
 King's service I entered it with the conscious- 
 ness that I neither sought nor desired any fa- 
 vour, any honour, any reward which the King 
 has in his power to bestow. Office is no doubt 
 a legitimate object of ambition. I think it any- 
 thing but a reflection on a public man to seek it, 
 when he can hold it consistently with his public 
 principles, and when the holding of it will ad- 
 vance those principles ; but speaking for myself, 
 I repeat that I do not covet it, and that nothing 
 has reconciled me to it but the imperative sense 
 of public duty. The chief consolation I have 
 had in holding it, the chief reward I retain on re- 
 linquishing it, is the proud reflection that I have 
 had the good fortune in being connected in civil 
 life with that illustrious man whose fame exceeds 
 that of any other conqueror — a man from wliom
 
 10 
 
 I never have been one moment estranged by any 
 difierence on political snbjects, and with whom 
 my connexion never has been embittered by the 
 slightest infusion of paltry jealousy. 1 am gra- 
 tified by the thought, connected as I have been 
 with him in the civil service of the Crown, I 
 shall have my name transmitted with his to after 
 ages. This is the chief pride, the dearest gra- 
 tification of my heart. 
 
 But I feel that I have been straying from the 
 subject immediately before us — the present state 
 of public affairs. Allow me to speak to you not 
 as a party man, but as one of yourselves, and to 
 submit to you plain opinions in plain language. 
 I prefer this, and I am sure so will you, to that 
 elaborate concatenation of phrases which is some- 
 times called eloquence, in which you have the 
 smallest possible quantity of common sense en- 
 veloped in the greatest multitude of equivocal 
 words. I say to you, then, that there is danger 
 to the institutions of this country, danger to the 
 mixed and happily balanced form of govern- 
 ment under which we have lived and prospered. 
 But it is in your power, and in the power of 
 those who think with you and fill situations 
 in the country corresponding to yours, to 
 avert the danger. It is in your power, by un- 
 renntting activity and by the exercise of those 
 functions whicli the constitution has left to you,
 
 11 
 
 to mitig-ate, if not altogether to remove, the evil. 
 My fixed opinion is, that the clanger can be only- 
 met by your gaining for your principles an ef- 
 fectual influence in the popular branch of the le- 
 gislature. We shall only aggravate the evil if 
 we attempt to deceive ourselves as to the nature 
 of the instruments we can employ. Let us 
 not indulge in useless lamentations. Let us 
 waste no time in regretting that which is be- 
 yond our remedy. This is quite idle. The first 
 step towards safety is a knowledge of the real 
 source of our strength, a just confidence in it, 
 and a firm resolution to exert it. If we cease to 
 take a desponding view of public affairs, all will 
 be yet well. Though you may not be able to 
 exercise that full share of influence to which you 
 are legitimately entitled, yet hesitate not to strain 
 every nerve to acquire all that can be acquired. 
 Act like Englishmen, and if you will do so, I 
 am confident, from the national spirit and indo- 
 mitable resolution, that the country will be res- 
 cued from the dangers by which it is at present 
 threatened. I warn you that you must not 
 place a firm reliance either upon the preroga- 
 tive of the crown— or on the influence or autho- 
 rity of the House of Lords, or on the combined 
 effect of them. The prerogative of the Crown, the 
 authority of the Lords, are constitutionally potent 
 in occasionally controlling the acts or encroach-
 
 12 
 
 iiients of the House of Commons, but you must 
 not now-a-days depend upon them as bulwarks 
 which are impassable, and which can be committed 
 without apprehension to the storm and struggle of 
 passion and ambition and the love of change. 
 The government of the country, allow me to tell 
 yoU;, must be mainly conducted with the good- 
 will and through the immediate agency of the 
 House of Commons ; I again say the royal pre- 
 rogative, the authority of the House of Lords, 
 are most useful, nay, necessary, in our mixed 
 and balanced constitution. But you must not 
 strain those powers. You would not consider 
 that to be worthy of the name of government, 
 which is nothing but a series of jealousies and 
 hostile collisions between two branches of the 
 legislature. You wish to see all branches 
 of the legislature maintaining each its indepen- 
 dent authority, but moving, through mutual con- 
 fidence, in harmonious concert towards the great 
 end of civil society and civil government — the 
 public good. I ask you then, not to under- 
 rate, not to misunderstand the power and au- 
 thority of the House of Commons, not to trust 
 to the controlling checks which may theoreti- 
 cally exist upon that power and authority; but to 
 secure, through the legitimate exercise of con- 
 stitutional privileges, that degree of influence 
 ("or your principles in the House of Connnons,
 
 13 
 
 which will be ten times more powerful for the 
 establishment of what is good, and the resistance 
 of what is evil, than any extrinsic control of the 
 Crown or the House of Lords. On taking office I 
 avowed my determination to abide by the Reform 
 Bill. I trust I have redeemed that pledge. On this 
 broad constitutional principle my friends and I 
 acted. We acted in the spirit of the Reform 
 Bill, not niggardly, not merely content with a cold 
 assent and submission to its details, but with an 
 honest and generous deference to its spirit and 
 to the authority which it established. When 
 we found, after a patient and sufficient trial, 
 that we had not the confidence of the House of 
 Commons, although the array opposed to us 
 was miscellaneous in the extreme, although the 
 majority was small, we felt it our duty to resign. 
 However strongly we might have opposed the 
 establishment of the new elective system, we 
 now adhered to our pledge. We did not enter- 
 tain the vain notion of governing the country 
 against a majority of the reformed House of 
 Commons. We refused, indeed, to be obedi- 
 ent instruments in the hands of that majority. 
 We thought it safer for the country to refuse to 
 be so, and therefore, unable to enforce our own 
 principles, we retired from office. Allow me 
 then to reconunend you also to follow this ex- 
 ample, to refrain from flattering yourselves with
 
 14 
 
 vague and distant hopes of altering tlie present 
 system — let us not seem, even in tliouglit, to 
 threaten those who have acquired new riglits 
 with the forfeiture of that acquisition. Let us 
 stand by the constitution as it exists at present. 
 Let us never bint at alteration, or by our con- 
 duct raise a secret doubt, even in the minds of 
 the most suspicious. I venture to prophesy to 
 you that the proposition for change will not 
 come from you. If it comes, it will come from 
 those who clamoured most loudly for the Reform 
 Bill, who demanded the whole bill, and no- 
 thing but the bill. Ay, it will come from them, 
 and the moment, perhaps, is not far distant — the 
 moment that they have ascertained the bill is not 
 likely to answer the purposes they had in view 
 — the moment they see it is not potent to ex- 
 clude the influence of what we call Conservative 
 principles. Let us then declare our readiness to 
 accept in good faith, as a constitutional settle- 
 ment, the provisions of the Reform Bill, and let 
 us by that declaration fortify ourselves in the re- 
 sistance to new agitations of the public mind on 
 questions of government, to new innovations on 
 what was called but yesterday by its friends, the 
 second charter of our liberties. And while you 
 determine to respect the Reform Bill, prove prac- 
 tically your respect for it by exercising every 
 privilege which it leaves untouched, or which it
 
 15 
 
 for tlie first time confers. There must be no 
 laziness — no apatliy- and above all, no despon- 
 dency. Let each man consider the franchise he 
 possesses not as a personal privilege, but as a 
 public trust, which it is his duty to fulfil. 
 
 But I have said enough upon this subject ; 
 I do not despair that if we continue to exert our- 
 selves, if we here set an example to the empire, it 
 will, in all its parts, be before long animated by 
 the constitutional and truly English feelings which 
 are here displayed. How, it will be asked, are 
 you to regain your influence in the House of 
 Commons ? Not, let me tell you, as your ene- 
 mies would impute to you, by bribery and cor- 
 ruption and unworthy means, but by going forth 
 with a frank exposition of your principles, and 
 by showing that there is nothing selfish in your 
 support of the institutions under which you live, 
 and of your defence of the rights which you in- 
 herited. Let us disclaim all interest in the main- 
 tenance of any abuse — let us declare that we are 
 willing to redress any real grievance, and to 
 concur in the application of the best remedy 
 which can possibly be devised for that purpose. 
 We hold that no public office ought to be main- 
 tained for the mere purpose of patronage ; that 
 public appointments can only be vindicated on 
 the ground of their being necessary to the pub- 
 lic service. We want no sinecures. We want
 
 \G 
 
 no greater amount of salary for tlie reward of 
 public officers than that which may be sufficient 
 for securing integrity and competence in the dis- 
 charge of important official duties. Above all, 
 we deny that we are separated by any fancied 
 line of interest, or of pride, or of privilege, from 
 the middling classes of the country. Why, who 
 are we, or at least nine-tenths of those who are 
 here assembled, that any one should tell us that 
 we have an interest separate, or feelings discord- 
 ant from those of the middling classes of society ? 
 If we ourselves don't belong to the middling 
 classes of society, I want to know how wide the 
 interval may be that is presumed to separate 
 us? Speaking in behalf of nine-tenths at least 
 of those assembled within these walls, I say we 
 disclaim any separation from the middling 
 classes of society in this country. O no, we 
 are bound to them by a thousand ramifications 
 of direct personal connexion, and common in- 
 terests and common feelings. If circumstances 
 may appear to have elevated some of us above 
 the rest, to what, I venture to ask, is that eleva- 
 tion owing ? It is owing to nothing else but to 
 the exercise, either on our own part or on the 
 part of our immediate forefathers, of those qua- 
 lities of diligence, of the love of order, of indus- 
 try, of integrity in commercial dealings, which 
 have hitherto secured to every member of the
 
 17 
 
 middle class of society the opportunities of ele- 
 vation and distinction in this great community ; 
 and it is because we stand in our present situa- 
 tion — it is because we owe our elevation in so- 
 ciety to the exercise of those qualities, and be- 
 cause we feel that so long as this ancient form of 
 government, and the institutions connected with 
 it, and the principles and feelings which they 
 engender, shall endure, the same elevation will 
 be secured by the same means, that we are re- 
 solved, with the blessing of God, to keep clear 
 for others those same avenues that were opened 
 to ourselves, that we will not allow their course 
 to be obstructed by men who want to secure the 
 same advantages by dishonest means — to reach 
 by some shorter cut, that goal, which can be 
 surely attained, but can only be attained, 
 through industry, and patient perseverance, and 
 strict integrity. Gentlemen, what was the 
 charge against myself? It was this, that the 
 King had sent to Rome for the son of a cotton- 
 spinner, in order to make him prime minister 
 of England. Did I feel that a reflection ? Did 
 it make me discontented with the state of the 
 laws and institutions of the country ? No ; but 
 does it not make me, and ought it not make you. 
 Gentlemen, anxious to preserve that happy order 
 of things under which the same opportunities of 
 distinction may be ensured to other sons of other
 
 IS 
 
 cotton spinners, provided they can establish a 
 legitimate claim on the confidence of their king 
 and country ? We are charged with having 
 some interest in the perpetuation of abuses. 
 Why, can there be any one with a greater in- 
 terest than we have, that the public burdens 
 should be as much lightened as they can possi- 
 bly be, consistent with the maintenance of the 
 public engagements ? We are represented as 
 fattening on the public income. Looking to this 
 company, and to those associated with it in feel- 
 ing, is there any gain, I ask, connected with the 
 increase of the public burdens that can counter- 
 vail the interest we have in their reduction. We 
 have a direct, a superior interest to any other in 
 the correction of every abuse and the applica- 
 tion of every just principle of just and wise 
 economy. 
 
 At the same time consistently with these feel- 
 ings, consistently with the determination to cor- 
 rect real abuses, and to promote real economy, 
 we do not disguise that it is our firm resolution 
 to maintain to the utmost of our power, the li- 
 mited monarchy of this country, to respect the 
 rights of every branch of the legislature, to 
 maintain inviolate the united Church of England 
 and Ireland, to maintain it as a predominant es- 
 tablishment, meaning by predominance, not the 
 denial of any civil right to other classes of the
 
 10 
 
 coimuuiiity, but maintaining the church in the 
 possession of its property and of all its just pri- 
 vileges. Such is our firm resolution, we will 
 submit to no compromise^ and we will exercise 
 every privilege which the constitution has in- 
 trusted to us for the legitimate maintenance and 
 support of the constitution in Church and State. 
 This is the appeal we make to the middle classes 
 of the community — to those who are mainly the 
 depositaries of the elective franchise. We tell 
 them that it is not only our determination to re- 
 sist any direct attack on our institutions, but 
 that we are also resolved that we will not permit 
 the ancient prescriptive government of this coun- 
 try—the mitigated monarchy, consisting of three 
 branches of the legislature, we are determined 
 that we will not allow it to be changed, by plau- 
 sible and specious propositions of reform, into a 
 democratic republic. We will not allow, if we 
 can prevent it— we will not allow, that, through 
 plausible and popular pretexts of improvement 
 and reform, there shall gradually take place 
 such an infusion of democracy into the institu- 
 tions of this country as shall essentially change 
 their theory, and practical character, and shall 
 by slow degrees rob us of the blessings we have 
 so long enjoyed under our limited monarchy, 
 and popular but balanced constitution. 
 
 Now, Gentlemen, that is what I apprehend 
 
 c 2
 
 20 
 
 we mean by — this is the construction we put 
 upon the term "Conservative principles;" and 
 such is the ground on which we make an appeal 
 to the country at large for the maintenance of 
 those principles. We tell all, in whatever class 
 of life they may be, that they ought to feel as 
 deep an interest in the maintenance of those 
 principles as any of the politicians or men of 
 property who are now within my hearing. The 
 encouragement of industry, the demand for pro- 
 ductive labour, depends on the maintenance of 
 those principles. The preservation of order de- 
 pends on them, the maintenance of that security, 
 which has hitherto led men through honest in- 
 dustry to accumulate property in this country, 
 depends upon them. And now that the feelings 
 excited by political contests and great changes 
 in the electoral svstem have subsided, I cannot 
 help entertaining a sincere hope and belief, dis- 
 claiming any intention of interfering improperly 
 with the political franchise, that there is still that 
 fund of good sense in this community that will 
 enable us, if not to gain a predominating in- 
 fluence in the Commons' House of Parliament, 
 still to acquire that degree of influence that shall 
 control and prevent many bad projects. 
 
 My advice to you is, not to permit past dif- 
 ferences on political subjects now to prevent a 
 cordial union with those who take a similar
 
 21 
 
 view witii yourselves on matters of immediately 
 pressing' importance. There are many questions 
 on which you formerly differed with others, that 
 are now settled. There are many public men 
 from whose views you formerly dissented, who 
 agree with you that the Reform Bill is not 
 to be made a platform from which a new battery 
 is to be directed against the remaining institu- 
 tions of this country. If they agree with you in 
 this, the essential practical point ; if, wishing 
 with you to correct real abuses, they are still de- 
 termined to maintain the ancient principles on 
 which the constitution of the country is founded, 
 to protect the interests of order and property, 
 it would be madness to revive old and extin- 
 guished differences, and to allow the remem- 
 brance of such shadows to obstruct an harmoni- 
 ous and cordial union for the defence and pre- 
 servation of all that remains. 
 
 Gentlemen, I ought to apologize for detaining 
 you so long, and I shall not further prevent ray 
 hon. friend, the chairman, from proceeding in the 
 execution of his remaining duties. But, in con- 
 clusion, let me call on you to recollect the asso- 
 ciations connected with the place where we are 
 now assembled. From this place a voice issued 
 in 1793 of memorable moment— a voice in sup- 
 port of the ancient principles of the British 
 monarchy — a voice which encouraged and eua-
 
 22 
 
 bled the ministers of" that clay to check the con- 
 tagion of democratic and French principles, then 
 in their ascendant. I call on you to remember 
 the motto under which you are now assembled, 
 Concordia parvce res crescunt : to bear in mind, 
 that by acting on the advice which it involves, 
 small as your influence in the public councils 
 may now be, it is capable, by unity of purpose, 
 by cordial concert, and good understanding — 
 by common exertions directed to a common 
 end, it is capable of vast expansion and increase. 
 By your example you will rally around you a 
 thousand hearts to fight in the same righteous 
 cause. Proclaim to the country from this, the 
 metropolis of commerce, that, entertaining prin- 
 ciples of moderation in public affairs, you will 
 still stand firm in defence of the ancient walls, 
 and guard the ancient landmarks of the consti- 
 tution — that you will rally round the monarchy 
 and protect its just prerogatives, that you will 
 defend the independent exercise of the autho- 
 rity of the House of Lords, and maintain firm 
 and inviolate the rights of the Established 
 Church. That you will stand by, in the em- 
 phatic language of the most solemn acts of par- 
 liament, the Protestant government, and the 
 Protestant religion of this country. Yes, ele- 
 vate that voice in the cause of those principles 
 — principles so moderate, so just, so necessary —
 
 23 
 
 and depend upon it, it will be re-echoed from 
 every part of this country, and the pulsation of 
 the heart of the great corporate connnunity will 
 vibrate through every artery of this mighty 
 empire. 
 
 The Right Hon. Baronet sat down amidst 
 loud and long-protracted cheering.
 
 A
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 " > ' - ^' 
 
 JfeVri ^ 
 
 DEC 4197« 
 
 Jl'l\i .<! r^H^' 
 
 iVl 
 
 ^ECEIVFD 
 LD-UR, 
 
 REC'O 
 
 URtLO 
 
 gpsi .^R 2 ^Jqc7 
 
 tfiUl^oi 
 
 i.^ 
 
 OCT 2 mBt 
 
 Form L9 
 
 -lVo&X5l(i3l®/44
 
 ilK 
 
 "1 
 
 ^ 
 
 3 1158 00947 712J 
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY 
 
 FACILITY 
 
 AA 000 426 468
 
 iiliiliiiiiiil ' 11 
 
 wm^ 
 
 Immmm 
 
 'mm 
 
 mmm 
 
 m 
 
 'mmmm 
 
 iill 
 
 illliii 
 
 m 
 
 M 
 
 vAWnWWMW):