^{page 39 note 1} 6 & 7 William IV, c. 86.

^{page 39 note 2} 6 & 7 William IV, c. 85.

^{page 39 note 3} 52 George III, c. 146 (Rose's Act). For a fuller discussion of the Act and the way in which it was mutilated in the Lords see Burn, John Southerden, The History of the Parish Registers in England, 2nd ed., London 1862, 35–7. This book was first published in 1829 and was highly critical of the existing state of registration.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 4} Johanson, Graeme, ‘The Origin of Civil Registration in England and Wales’ (B.A. thesis, Melbourne 1968), 8–9.Google Scholar The most complete discussion in print of the making of the 1836 Act is Manning, B. L., The Protestant Dissenting Deputies, Cambridge 1952, 254–77.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 5} See Parliamentary Papers (hereafter cited as PP.) 1824, ii. 671–80.

^{page 40 note 1} Hansard, 2nd ser., xi. 434–6.

^{page 40 note 2} For William Smith's career see Davis, Richard W., Dissent in Politics, London 1971.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 3} Hansard, 2nd Ser., xiii. 1025–31.

^{page 40 note 4} Ibid., xvii. 1343–5, 1407–27.

^{page 40 note 5} For a discussion of the lack of cohesiveness of the Dissenters in the 1830s see Salter, Frank R., ‘Political Non-conformity in the 1830's’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser., iii (1953), 125–43. Salter's account is not definitive.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 40 note 6} Manley, Kenneth Ross, ‘John Rippon, D.D. (1751–1836), and the Particular Baptists’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Oxford 1967), 390. For the history of the Deputies see Manning, op. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 7} Manning, op. cit., 273.

^{page 41 note 1} Ibid., 272.

^{page 41 note 2} Monthly Repository, 2nd ser., i (1827), 459.

^{page 41 note 3} Manning, op. cit., 260–2.

^{page 41 note 4} Monthly Repository, 2nd ser., iii (1829), 445.

^{page 41 note 5} Manning, op. cit., 262–3.

^{page 41 note 6} Ibid., 53–93, for an anti-Unitarian account of the split.

^{page 42 note 1} Minutes of the Protestant Dissenting Deputies, viii. fols. 2–4, 15, 17, 21–3, 52: Guildhall MS. 3083. (Hereafter referred to as MPDD.)

^{page 42 note 2} Ibid., fol. 88.

^{page 42 note 3} Hansard, 3rd ser., x. 686–9.

^{page 42 note 4} For the various drafts of the bill see PP., 1831–2 i. 257–61, 265–9, 553–66.

^{page 42 note 5} MPDD, viii. fols. 74, 99.

^{page 43 note 1} Hansard, 3rd ser., xiii. 938–44.

^{page 43 note 2} Real Property. R. Comm. First Rep., 59–60; PP., 1829 x.

^{page 43 note 3} Ibid.. Second Rep. Appendix; PP., 1830 xi.

^{page 43 note 4} See Legal Examiner, i (1831–2), 627; ii (1832), 40–2, 63–5, 107–10.

^{page 43 note 5} MPDD, viii. fol. 110.

^{page 43 note 6} Ibid., fols. 111, 112, 116–20, 123–4.

^{page 43 note 7} Ibid., fols. 125–6, 128.

^{page 43 note 8} Ibid., fols. 139–41.

^{page 43 note 9} Ibid., fols. 145–8, 151.

^{page 44 note 1} Aspland, R. B., Memoir … Robert Aspland, London 1850, 533.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 44 note 3} Monthly Repository, 2nd ser., vii. 1883, 347. Cf. Salter, op. cit., 136 for a different view. The Foxites were occasionally a nuisance but never more than a small factor. In 1834 the Christian Reformer was revamped as a moderate organ to replace the Monthly Repository (Sellers, Ian, ‘Social and Political Ideas of Representative English Unitarians, 1795–1850’ (unpublished B. Litt. thesis, Oxford 1957), 90).Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 4} Aspland, op. cit., 533.

^{page 44 note 6} Minutes of the Protestant Dissenting Deputies' United Committee on Grievances, i. fob. 4–6: Guildhall MS. 3086/1. (Hereafter MUCG.)

^{page 44 note 6} MPDD, viii. fol. 152.

^{page 44 note 7} Ibid., fols. 155–6.

^{page 44 note 8} Potter Papers, xiii. fols. 19–20 (Potter to Ralph Greenough); fol. 21 (Potter to Mrs. Carpenter). These papers are housed in the British Library of Political Science and Economics (L.S.E.).

^{page 45 note 1} MPDD, viii. fol. 162.

^{page 45 note 2} MUCG, i. fob. 12–29, 32, 35–9.

^{page 45 note 3} Ibid., fols. 50–62, 64–7. Aspland, op. cit., 533–4.

^{page 45 note 4} Buckingham, J. S. labelled twelve ‘Liberals’ and sixteen ‘Whigs’: Parliamentary Review and Family Magazine, i (1833), 31–5.Google ScholarDod, R. P. called sixteen ‘Radicals’ or ‘Reformers’, ten ‘Whigs’ and two ‘Whigs inclined to Radicalism’: Parliamentary Pocket Companion, 1833, 80–181.Google Scholar

^{page 46 note 1} Mirror of Parliament, 1833, i. 1051–4; Hansard, 3rd ser., xvi. 1209–20.

^{page 46 note 2} Quetelet, L. A. J., ‘Notes extraites d'un voyage en Angleterre aux mois de juin et de juillet 1833’, Correspondance Mathématiquc et Physique, viii. 1835, 15.Google Scholar

^{page 46 note 3} Parochial Registration. Sel. Cttee. Mins. of Ev., 119–22; PP., 1833 xiv.

^{page 46 note 4} London Medical Gazette, xii. 1833, 19.Google Scholar

^{page 46 note 5} Employment of Children in Factories. R. Comm. Rep. C. 1. 7, 159–65; PP., 1833 xx.

^{page 46 note 6} Ibid.. Medical Rep. D. 3, 6; PP., 1833 xxi. In 1834 Dr. James Mitchell ascribed the failures of societies for widows and orphans to the poor state of statistical knowledge: Ibid., Supp. Rep. Part I, 43; PP., 1834 xix.

^{page 46 note 7} Parochial Registration. Sel. Cttee. App., 173–4.

^{page 47 note 1} Ibid., Rep., 3–11.

^{page 47 note 2} Significantly, the very moderate Wesleyan Methodist Magazine called for more petitions in May: 3rd ser., xii (1833), 366–8.Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 3} British Magazine, vi (1834), 196–8, 318–19.Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 4} MUCG, i fols. 85–91.

^{page 47 note 5} Ibid., fols. 95–6.

^{page 47 note 6} Ibid., fol. 105.

^{page 47 note 7} Ibid., fols. 125, 141–3; Manning, op. cit., 387.

^{page 47 note 8} Manning, op. cit., 387.

^{page 48 note 1} Aspland, op. cit., 534–5.

^{page 48 note 2} Manning, op. cit., 387.

^{page 48 note 3} Smith, John Pye, The Protestant Dissent Vindicated, London 1834, 9.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 4} MUCG, i. fols. 156–9.

^{page 48 note 5} Ibid., fol. 160.

^{page 48 note 6} Hansard, 3rd ser., xxi. 776–9; Mirror of Parliament, 1834, 329–30.

^{page 48 note 7} MUCG, i. fols. 168–73, 176–9.

^{page 48 note 8} Hansard, 779–88; Mirror, 330–2.

^{page 48 note 9} Hansard, 788–9; Mirror, 332–3.

^{page 48 note 10} Hansard, 994–9 (3 March 1834).

^{page 48 note 11} MUCG, i. fols. 174–5.

^{page 49 note 1} Hansard, 1400; Mirror, 626.

^{page 49 note 2} Hansard, 3rd ser., xxii. 2–9; Mirror of Parliament, 1834, ii 1349.

^{page 49 note 3} MUCG, i. fols. 176–9. Also see Congregational Magazine, 2nd ser., x (1834), 247.Google Scholar

^{page 49 note 4} MUCG, i. fols. 185–6, 192–4.

^{page 49 note 5} Ibid., fols. 196–200.

^{page 49 note 6} Ibid., fols. 206–7, 210–36.

^{page 49 note 7} Ibid., fol. 175.

^{page 49 note 8} Fourth Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, xxxix.

^{page 50 note 1} London Medical Gazette, xiv (1834), 102–6.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 2} Legal Observer, vii (1833–1834), 195–7, 268–70, 281–2.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 3} ‘Law Lecture No. 2 at London University’, Legal Examiner and Law Chronicle, ii (1833–1834). 253–62.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 4} The Commons Journal lists nearly 1,200 to the Commons, the Mirror of Parliament under 1,100. The Mirror of Parliament lists c. 730 to the Lords. The petition from Wilks's Protestant Society called only for civil registration.

^{page 50 note 5} MUCG, i. fol. 207.

^{page 50 note 6} Babbage Papers, Drinkwater to Babbage, n.d.: B. M. Add. MS. 37188, fol. 221.

^{page 50 note 7} Hansard, 3rd ser., xxiii. 940–50.

^{page 50 note 8} A Bill to Establish a General Register of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England: PP., 1834 iii. 459–77. For the bill as amended on 11 June, see 477–88; and for the recommitted bill of 7 July, see 499–520.

^{page 50 note 9} MUCG, i. fols. 252, 258, 259.

^{page 51 note 1} For consideration of a draft marriage bill, see MUCG, i. fols. 263–4, 269, 270, 271–3.

^{page 51 note 2} Peel Papers, B. M. Add. MS. 40405, fols. 125–6.

^{page 51 note 3} Peel Papers (Borradaile to Peel, 16 December 1834): B. M. Add. MS. 40405, fol. 276.

^{page 51 note 4} B. M. Add. MS. 40407, fols. 289–92.

^{page 51 note 5} Ibid., fols. 293–9.

^{page 51 note 6} See Sir Peel, Robert, Memoirs, London 1856–1857, ii. 63–4.Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 7} Peel to Goulburn, 1 January 1835: B. M. Add. MS. 40333, fol. 210.

^{page 51 note 8} Peel to Hobhouse, 7 January 1835: B. M. Add. MS. 40409, fols. 208–10 (draft).

^{page 51 note 9} Peel to Goulburn, 8 January 1835: B. M. Add. MS. 40333, fol. 233–4.

^{page 51 note 10} Goulburn to Peel, 12 January 1835: B. M. Add. MS. 40333, fols. 236–43.

^{page 51 note 11} B. M. Add. MS. 40409, fols. 273–8.

^{page 52 note 1} Hansard, 3rd ser., xxvi. 1073–1118; Mirror of Parliament, 1835, ii. 385–8.

^{page 52 note 2} In the Speech from the Throne: Mirror of Parliament, 1835, i. 68.

^{page 52 note 3} See B. M. Add. MS. 40417, passim.

^{page 52 note 4} MUCG, i. fols. 309–10.

^{page 52 note 5} See Russell Papers, P.R.O. 30/22/1E, fols. 90–3.

^{page 52 note 6} MUCG, i. fol. 324.

^{page 52 note 7} Mirror of Parliament, 1835, ii 1564.

^{page 52 note 8} MUCG, i. fols. 321–2. Also see Christian Reformer: a Unitarian Magazine and Review, iii (1836), 124–8.Google Scholar

^{page 52 note 9} Hansard, 3rd ser., xxix. 11–13.

^{page 53 note 1} Mirror of Parliament, 1835, iii. 2780.

^{page 53 note 2} Cowherd, Raymond G., The Politics of English Dissent, London 1959, 91.Google Scholar

^{page 53 note 3} MUCG, i. fol. 329.

^{page 53 note 4} MUCG, ii. fols. 3–4; Guildhall MS., 3086/2.

^{page 53 note 5} See Manning, op. cit., 71–9. Also see MPDD, viii. fols. 324–6.

^{page 53 note 6} For the Registration Bill see PP., 1836 i. 309–26.

^{page 53 note 7} In fact this had first been suggested by Lord Ellenborough in a memorandum to Peel dated 26 December 1834 (see Ellenborough Papers, P.R.O. 30/12/24/1).

^{page 54 note 1} For the bill as amended on 18 April, see PP., 1836 i. 329–47.

^{page 54 note 2} Mirror of Parliament, 1836, ii. 1729–30.

^{page 54 note 3} MUCG, ii. fols. 19–21.

^{page 54 note 4} Wilks was normally a highly regular attender. His name appears in one division list on 22 April, but not in two later ones and in no other of the division lists until the end of June, in the Mirror of Parliament. He presented petitions on 2 June and 17 June but did not speak, and he does not appear to have spoken from 21 April until 29 June. The Leeds Mercury reported him ill in its issue of 14 May.

^{page 54 note 5} Hansard, 3rd ser., xxxv. 85–9.

^{page 54 note 6} Farr Papers, ii. fol. 104, in the British Library of Political and Economic Science.

^{page 55 note 1} Belinage, Henry in London Medical Gazette, xvii (1835–1836), 949Google Scholar; Belinage to Russell, 17 March, P.R.O., H.O. 44/29. Wakley, Thomas, editor of the Lancet, claimed that he raised the subject in the Commons: Lancet, 1835–1836, ii. 789. This was written after the bill passed and is not corroborated by earlier evidence.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 2} Ellenborough Papers, Melbourne to Ellenborough, 21 July 1836: P.R.O. 30/12/6/2.

^{page 55 note 3} Finer, S. E., Life and Times of Sir Edwin Chadwick (London 1952), 124–5.Google Scholar

^{page 55 note 4} [Chadwick, Edwin], ‘Life Assurances’, Westminster Review, ix (1828), 384–421.Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 1} Smith, T. Southwood, The Philosophy of Health, London 1835, i. v–vi.Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 2} [Chadwick, Edwin], An Essay on the Means of Insurance against the Casualties of Sickness, Decreptitude, and Mortality, London 1836, esp. 62n.–63n.Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 3} Chadwick Papers, Chadwick to Russell, 3 July 1836. These papers are housed in University College, London.

^{page 56 note 4} Ellenborough Papers, Chadwick to Ellenborough, 15 July 1836: P.R.O. 30/12/6/6.

^{page 56 note 5} Chadwick Papers, draft letter Chadwick to Ellenborough, 27 October 1841.

^{page 56 note 6} Ibid., Letterbook No. 3, fols. 19–21: Chadwick to Dr. T. Laycock, 13 April 1844.

^{page 56 note 7} Chadwick Papers, Ellenborough to Chadwick, 27 October 1841.

^{page 57 note 1} For a rather confused account of the controversy see Hodgkinson, Ruth G., The Origins of the National Health Service, London 1967, esp. 24, 60–1, 72–6.Google Scholar

^{page 57 note 2} See Trans. Prov. Med. & Surg. Assn., iv (1836), xxvii–xxxiii.Google Scholar

^{page 57 note 3} See Trans. Prov. Med. & Surg. Assn., v (1837), 1–36.Google Scholar

^{page 57 note 4} McMenemey, W. H., ‘Education and the Medical Reform Movement’ in The Evolution of Medical Education in Britain, ed. Poynter, F. N. L., London 1966, 144. The modern B.M.A. is a direct descendant of the Provincial Association, not Wakley's organisation.Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 1} See especially Lancet, 1835–6, ii. 25–7, 370–3, 397–406, 533–4.

^{page 58 note 2} Second Annual Report of the Poor Law Commissioners, Appendix (C), No. 5, 468: PP., 1836 xxix. Pt. i.

^{page 58 note 3} Chadwick to Laycock, 13 April 1844. It is possible that Farr was also recommended by Sir James Clark, a physician in royal favour. This was stated by Humphreys, N. A. in his introduction to the memorial volume of Farr's works, Vital Statistics, London 1885, xii.Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 4} Chadwick Papers, Farr to Chadwick, 13 February 1837.

^{page 58 note 5} London Medical Gazette, xviii (1836), 879–81.Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 6} London Medical Gazette, xix (1836–1837), 127.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 1} Chadwick Papers, Farr to Chadwick, 13 February 1837.

^{page 59 note 2} Ibid., Chadwick to Laycock, 13 April 1844.