Sir George Murray said, that before privileges of the English Universities the Bill went into Committee, he was should be opened to his fellow-countrydesirous to make a few observations. He men in common with other Dissenters, was as anxious as any man to remove as and he should be glad if degrees could much as possible every grievance which be attained by them as a matter of pressed upon any class of his Majesty's honour; but he certainly was not willing subjects on the ground of religious dis- that Dissenters should obtain a power in tinctions. His whole conduct through the internal government of the Univerlife had been marked with this principle sities, which power, in his judgment, -he had voted for the abolition of the ought to rest with the members of the EsCorporation and Test Acts, and had tablished Church. He should also be glad given his assent to the removal of the dis- if it were possible that Dissenters and qualifications affecting the Roman Catholic members of the Church of Scotland subjects of the realm. After his accession could be admitted to them for the purto the office of Secretary for the colonies, poses of education, and at the same time he had extended the principle of non- their scruples relieved by a dispensation exclusion to the Universities of York, in with the necessity for their attendance in Upper Canada, and of Montreal, admit- chapel, and upon the college course of reting thereto every religious sect without ligious instruction; but he was at a loss any inquiry whatever. With these proofs to know how this could be effected conof his opinions, it could not be denied, sistently with the constitution of the Unithat he was a friend to religious liberty.versities of this country. The subject was He thought, that the hon. member for one of great difficulty, and if it were to be South Lancashire, who had brought for- interfered with, it ought to have been ward the present measure, had failed to taken up by his Majesty's Government, show the practical application of the in the same manner as the equally diffiprinciple to the object which he had in cult question of Roman Catholic Emanciview; and, without meaning any disrespect pation had been taken up by their predeto the hon. Member, he must say, that cessors in office. If they had adopted the Bill appeared to him to be unintel- that course, and had taken the opinions ligible and contradictory. Such a mea- of such members of the Universities as sure was much too extensive an under- were in favour, as well as of those who taking for any individual member of the were opposed to the admission of DissentLegislature, and he should rather have ers, a measure acceptable to all might by wished that his Majesty's Government modifying those opinions have been would have themselves taken up this im-framed. If he could bring himself to portant subject, and based a measure for the adoption of the House upon the terms of the petitions which had been presented to the other House of Parliament by the Prime Minister, and to this House by a right hon. Gentleman, now Secretary for the Colonies, from certain Members of the University of Cambridge, in favour of the admission of Dissenters into that and the other University. He thought, that the difficulty in the matter arose from the necessity for religious instruction in the University, which course of instruction must necessarily be confined to the established religion of the country. From this circumstance arose the practical difficulty of applying in this instance those liberal principles which he had ever entertained, and was anxious to adopt. As a member of the Church of Scotland, he stood himself in the situation of a Dissenter in this country, and therefore it could not be doubted, that he was desirous that the VOL, XXIV. {S} think, that the present Bill could by pos- The Lord Advocate said: "I have listened |spect and regard of the House, whether with feelings of pain and regret to the holding office or not. So far from being speech of the right hon. member for Perth- opposed by his Majesty's Ministers, it is shire. He has said, that he has consi-supported by them, and the second readdered himself as a Dissenter, as all Presby-ing was carried by a large majority. No terians of the Scotch Church must do in person can accuse the right hon. member England, although they are members of for Perthshire of undue deference to Minthe Established Church in Scotland, andisters, yet it would surely amount to that yet that he voted against the Bill for the to vote against a Bill the principle of which admission of Dissenters into the English Dissenters were bound to support, because Universities, for reasons which, although Ministers did not introduce it. Accordthey have been detailed at very considering to that, a measure, however good, able length, no person could have expected and however much it accords with the to hear come from an hon. Member who feelings of Members of this House, is to avows himself to be a Dissenter, and a receive a direct negative because it is not person most anxious to remove all religious brought forward by Ministers." He (the distinctions. Every observation which Lord Advocate) was unwilling to detain the the hon. Member has made, justifies those House at that hour, and he trusted that Members from Scotland who voted for the the Bill when reprinted, would have unsecond reading of this Bill; while even, dergone such alterations as would remove if agreed to in their full extent, they make even the more minute objections which a vote given by a Scotch Presbyterian had been urged against it, which it was Member against the second reading of the not unreasonable to expect might come Bill more difficult to explain. By voting from zealous members of the Church of for the second reading, the House does no England. Their support it was most more than approve of the principles of a important to obtain. Their opposition Bill. Has the right hon. Member stated, might arise from the most honourable that he disapproves of the principles of and conscientious views, views, deeply imthe Bill in any respect, or that he did printed upon their minds by early educanot understand it? All his observations tion; but he trusted there would not be tend to the strongest approbation of the many Representatives from Scotland who principles of the Bill. He says, he ap-regarded themselves as Dissenters here, as proved of the Cambridge petition. It is not surprising, that those Members who opposed so strongly and so eloquently all the sentiments contained in the Cambridge petition, should vote against the second reading of the Bill; for the principles of this Bill differ in no respect from that petition. The details of the Bill may differ in some respects. That was the strongest reason for voting for the second reading, and for allowing the Bill to go into Committee. All the supporters of the Cambridge petition will then have an opportunity of proposing such alterations as will make the provisions of the Bill agree with their views of that petition. But the House has been told, that a Bill brought in by his Majesty's Ministers, founded on the principles of the Cambridge petition, would have received the support of the right hon. member for Perthshire. This is carrying regard for his Majesty's Ministers very far indeed. This Bill was introduced in the month of April by my hon. friend, the member for South Lancashire. It could not be brought forward by any Member more entitled to the re the right hon. member for Perthshire said he did, who would oppose the Bill on such grounds. The House resolved itself into Committee on the Bill. Mr. George W. Wood moved the insertion of certain Amendments pro forma. The Speaker said, that before the Amendments which had just been proposed by the hon. member for South Lancashire were put to the Committee, he was sure the Committee (feeling that he as yet had had no opportunity afforded him for expressing the sentiments he entertained with respect to this Bill, and being also aware, that this would be his only opportunity) would favour him, even at the late hour which had now arrived, with its attention on the present occasion. The observations which he wished to make had no reference to the Amendments proposed by the hon. Member, and upon them he would give the Committee no trouble. His objections, he fairly confessed, were not to the Amendments merely, but to the principle of the Bill. That principle could not be carried into effect without leaving his objections unaltered and unalterable. He believed, the principle would be destructive to the two Universities as they now stood, and would be useless for any good purpose to the Dissenters themselves. He could not but feel convinced, that if this Bill was rendered efficient for the purpose it had in view, it would destroy the whole system at present prevailing in the two Universities, and would introduce either utter religious indifference, or constant acrimonious religious strife. With those feelings pervading his mind, the Committee would not be surprised when he stated that he entertained an unconquerable objection to this Bill. It was but due to the University he had the honour to represent and to himself, that he should avail himself of this the only opportunity afforded him of giving expression to those feelings; and though, perhaps, he might in the judgment of many hon. Members, be thought to be committing an act of imprudence by the course he had pursued, yet he thought it more manly to declare on the present occasion the sentiments he entertained. He was relieved from the necessity of going further into the subject by being able to express his full and entire concurrence in the sentiments which, on a former occasion, had been conveyed to the House in the speech of his right hon. colleague, and in the speeches of the other hon. Members who represented the other University. Having said thus much, he had to thank the Committee for the attention with which they had listened to him, and to repeat that he felt he should not have done his duty either to the University or to himself, if even at this late hour (four o'clock) he had not endeavoured to impress upon the House what was his conscientious opinion of the measure now under its consideration. The Amendments were agreed to, the Bill went through Committee pro formá. The House resumed. that the hon. member for Dublin (Mr. Ruthven) would not persevere in his intention of retarding the progress of the Bill, by moving the adjournment of the House. The Bill under consideration was not open to the objections of those formerly introduced. It did not trench on the liberty of the subject; whilst it was required as an homage to public opinion, and as a tribute to the zeal and Christianlike feeling of a large body of the Community attested by the vast numbers and respectability of petitions which daily covered the Table of that House. The reasons he had had the honour to state, the anxiety he felt to set the question at rest, to satisfy and promote the exercise of well-regulated piety, induced him to give his warm support to this Bill. He (Mr. Howard) could assure those hon. Members who were opposed to all further legislation affecting the observance of the Lord's Day, that without a reasonable concession to the strongly and generally expressed wishes of a large class of the community, they would find it difficult to oppose other and less temperate measures, which, failing this, would be without ceasing, pressed for adoption, on the House. The House divided on the original Motion :-Ayes 30; Noes 7; Majority 23. List of the AYES. and Langdale, Hon. E. Littleton, Rt. Hon. E. TELLERS. Macleod, R. Poulter, J. Marryatt, J. Howard, P. Warburton, H. OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH.] Mr. Poulter moved, that the Report on the Lord's-day Observance (No. 2.) Bill be brought up. Mr. Ruthven begged to move as an Amendment, that the House do adjourn. Mr. Philip Howard should support the Motion of the hon. member for Shaftesbury (Mr. Poulter) and trusted List of the NOES. Blake, M. J. O'Dwyer, A. C. O'Connor, F. O'Reilly, W. Ruthven, E. Vigors, N. A. TELLERS. Aglionby, H. Ruthven, E. S. The Report was brought up. At halfpast four the House was counted out. HOUSE OF LORDS, Thursday, July 3, 1834. MINUTES.] Bills. [The House met at ten o'clock, to receive further Evidence in support of the Warwick Disfranchisement Bill. Evidence was tendered to prove, that certain Electors of Warwick had Conspired to put the Names of certain Parties fraudulently on the Register; but Lord WYNFORD being of opinion, that such Evidence was inadmissible, adjourned the House till four o'clock, point. At four o'clock, the LORD CHANCELLOR and Lord DENMAN both declared this Evidence to be inapplicable to the Case. The Counsel tendered Evidence to to obtain the opinion of the LORD CHANCELLOR on that prove, that certain Electors had got up Riots in the Borough to destroy the freedom of Election; but this Evidence was also held to be inadmissible. The further consideration of this Bill was adjourned.]—Read a second time-Warrants of Distress (Ireland). Petitions presented. By the Dukes of WELLINGTON, TON, Lords FARNHAM, KENYON, and ROLLE, and the Bishop of CARLISLE, from a great Number of Places, for Protection to the Established Church of England and Ireland, against the Claims of the Dissenters, and against the Separation of Church and State.-By the Duke of BUCCLEUGH, from Leith, Edinburgh, London, &c., in favour of the London and Westminster Bank Bill.-By Lord TEYNHAM, from Maple Bridge, for Relief to the Chesterfield, against the Metropolitan Registry of Deeds Places, for Protection to the Protestant Church in Ireland. such Property from the payment of Poor Rates; and by prosecute as formerly, it must be admitted that the slight increase of two per cent which had taken place in the commitments was a virtual diminution; and this was the more worthy of notice, because, in the other two classes, the commitments had increased in a much greater ratio. The capital commitments in the same period had undergone an increase of forty-four per cent! and this, too, notwithstanding undiminished rigour in the execution of the law; for the number who suffered death increased from 110 in the first period, to 126 in the second period, for those offences which are still punished with death. He, therefore, felt bound to resist the Amendment. Mr. Hardy thought that, for the purpose of preserving uniformity with the other Acts of Parliament, it was necessary that the Amendment should be adopted. Lord Howick said, the object he had in view in proposing the Amendment to the House was to give persons who should be -By a NOBLE LORD, from Coventry, against the Im-guilty of robbery an inducement to abportation of Foreign Silks.-By the same, from Pro- stain from the further commission of prietors of Coal Mines in Warwickshire, to exempt crime. The existing law was quite at variance with the practice that had prevailed for many years past, and his object in proposing the Amendment was, to reconcile the law to the prevailing practice as far as it was practicable. the LORD CHANCELLOR, from the Inhabitants of Kingstonupon-Hull, for the Repeal of the Stamp-Duties on News papers. HOUSE OF COMMONS, MINUTES.] Bill. Read a second time:-Roman Catholic Marriages. Petitions presented. By Mr. BRIGGS, from Halifax, for the Repeal of the Duty on Olive Oil.-By Mr. HUGHES Mr. Roebuck said, that the Amendment, far from effecting the object the noble Lord had in view, held out an inducement to the robber to commit murder. If in the scuffle which naturally ensued when a robbery was committed the person robbed should receive any bodily harm for the Repeal of the Sale of Beer Act.-By Mr. HALL from the thief, the latter, knowing himDARE, from two Places, against the Claims of the Dis-self to be guilty of an equal crime with senters.-By the Earl of GROSVENOR, from four Places, HUGHES, from Proprietors of Stage Coaches, against the Hackney and Stage Coaches Bill; from Commissioners of the Court of Requests, against the Imprisonment for Debt Bill.-By the Earl of GROSVENOR, from Nantwich, for Protection to the Established Church. PUNISHMENT OF DEATH.] Upon the Motion of Mr. Lennard, the House resolved itself into a Committee upon the Punishment of Death Bill. Upon the second Clause being read, Lord Howick proposed an Amendment, to the effect that the punishment of death should not be abolished where any violence was committed, or bodily harm inflicted. Mr. Lennard objected to the Amendment, as it would in effect destroy the whole value and efficacy of the Bill. If it were recollected that, for offences which had lately ceased to be capital, there no longer existed the same reluctance to the murderer, would have a strong inducement to commit the greater crime to facilitate his escape or prevent detection. Mr. O'Connell said, the Criminal-Law of England was a bloody and barbarous code, and very badly administered. It was lamentable to see a country excelling every other in science and art so backward in the progress toward civilization in her criminal laws. What did the noble Lord mean by bodily harm? A mere bruise or discolouring of the skin was included in the words of the Amendment, and this was to be as great a crime as murder in the eye of the law. What else could be meant by "bodily harm?" They knew that "grievous bodily harm" was already a capital offence; every case of cutting was provided for by the bloody Act of Lord Ellenborough. This reminded him of three deaths which had recently taken place from boxing-matches. He contended that all the persons engaged in these barbarous practices were guilty of murder. He would have all those who backed the pugilists, as well as the lookers on, and those who encouraged such acts of inhumanity, punished as murderers. It was easy to show they were guilty of murder. The law was clear, that if any persons went out to fight with weapons likely to cause death, and death should ensue, they were guilty of murder. It could easily be shown that the weapons used at a prize-fight did produce death, for death had taken place in several instances. There could, therefore, be no doubt they were murderers, and should be punished as such. He thought if a batch of the noble Lords, Magistrates, and gentry who were present, and gave encouragement to such inhuman scenes, were sent to Botany Bay, it would have a tendency to put an end to them. He should oppose the Amendment of the noble Lord. Amendment withdrawn, and Clause agreed to. The remaining Clauses were agreed to, with verbal amendments, and the House resumed. COUNSEL FOR PRISONERS.] On the motion of Mr. Ewart, the House went into Committee on the Prisoners' Counsel Bill. The first and second Clauses were agreed to. On the third Clause being put, which enacts, that in all cases where prisoners shall be unable to employ Counsel by reason of poverty, Counsel shall be assigned to them by the Court, Lord Howick expressed a hope, that the Clause would be withdrawn. He knew that a strong feeling was entertained against it. Mr. Roebuck objected to the clause being withdrawn, as it involved one of the most important principles of the Bill. young Barristers who would take that opportunity to make long speeches to the Court, that the sittings would extend from one quarter sessions to the other, and no business would be got through. Legislation on this subject was unnecessary, as the Judge already possessed the power of assigning Counsel to a prisoner, and he never knew of an instance of any Counsel refusing to perform the duty assigned to him by the Judge. The present clause was therefore superfluous, and he hoped the hon. Member would consent to withdraw it. Mr. O'Connell opposed the clause, because he was unwiling to increase the patronage of the Bench, over that possessed by the Bar. He knew in theory this clause diminished the patronage of the Judge, but it did not in practice. The Judge would still have the power to appoint the Counsel, and he would tell the House how that power had been exercised in Ireland. He had known a Judge go the same circuit twelve successive assizes, merely because he had sons or brothers, or nephews, who practised on that circuit. He did not allude to a Judge whose conduct had come under the consideration of that House. The clause would increase this evil, and therefore he should vote against it. Mr. Hardy was of opinion the clause as it stood would be much better out of the Bill. Mr. Roebuck said, the injustice that would result from withdrawing the clause was this-that the man who had a guinea in his pocket would be able to avail himself of the benefit of Counsel, while the poor man without a farthing in the world might be condemned, from his inability to procure Counsel. The Committee divided on the Clause. Ayes 33; Noes 25-Majority, 8. The Clause was agreed to, as was Clause 4. Mr. O'Dwyer said, it was now the proper time to propose the insertion of the clause of which he had given notice "That from and after the passing of this Act, every prisoner to be tried shall be Mr. Aglionby admitted, that the clause entitled to a fair copy of the depositions was suggested by the best feelings of hu- sworn against him on which the indictment manity, but was afraid that to carry it has been grounded, on payment of a fee into effect would be impracticable. If to the Clerk of the Peace of the district Counsel were assigned to every prisoner in which the trial may take place of 6d. for every offence, however trivial, that a-folio." came before the Court, there were so many Mr. Benett objected to the clause. |