Commons Sitting of 3 April 1827

CARLISLE ELECTION—INTERFERENCE OF THE MILITARY.
Sir James Grahamsaid, he was anxious to call the attention of the House to two petitions, which he held in his hand. The one was from Richard Pattinson, and the other from certain freemen and inhabitants of Carlisle, complaining of the unconstitutional introduction of a military force at the last general election for that city, by which some persons lost their lives, and others were severely wounded. He would admit that the ordinary squabbles which took place at elections were beneath the notice of that House; but, when the right of election was interfered with, and the free exercise of the elective franchise prevented by the interference of a military force, he thought he should not perform his duty if he allowed any personal feelings to prevent his bringing it before the House.—The hon. baronet then proceeded to give a detail of the circumstances attending the contest at the late general election, the particulars of which will be brought within the recollection of our readers by the following outline:—Soon after the arrival of the writ, there was a meeting; at which the hon. bàronet opposite (sir P. Musgrave) was questioned as to his opinions on several political points; and perhaps the system of "badgering" a candidate, which the chancellor of the Exchequer thought so wholesome on some occasions, was, in that instance, carried somewhat to excess. There was first some hooting, and afterwards some less equivocal symptoms of popular disapprobation, from which the hon. baronet found it expedient to retire, and from prudence or necessity, to shelter himself in a house in one of the suburbs. Thither the crowd followed, and beset the house. The mayor and two constables went to his assistance; but they were pelted, and not being more popular than the hon. baronet, were also obliged to seek for shelter. Soon after, one of the county magistrates, who had experienced the displeasure of the House for calling in the aid of the military in 1820, felt it necessary to swear in some three hundred special constables; but another magistrate went for military aid, and the two forces approached the place together. The former magistrate, remembering the rebuke which

201
he got on another occasion, was unwilling to sanction such an interference by his presence, and withdrew. The force then went up to the place where the hon. baronet was under restraint, in the following order: First the artillery, then some companies of the 55th regiment, next the magistrate who had ordered them out, and who, on this occasion, did not choose to occupy the post of danger. The rear was brought up by the special constables. Some show of popular resistance was at first made, and some stones were thrown. The magistrate then gave orders that the soldiers should load and fix bayonets. The people retreated, but the soldiers charged them and fired, by which the lives of several unoffending persons were sacrificed.—The hon. baronet then went on to show, that the use of military force was unnecessary, and that the civil force would have been fully sufficient to quell the disturbance. On a recent occasion, a force of a hundred and fifty constables was found fully sufficient to take twelve culprits from the same part of the suburbs, without any resistance. The petitioner, Pattinson, who had a brother killed on this occasion, stated that he would not have brought the case before the House, if substantial justice had been done to him; but he complained of the partiality of the coroner, who, he observed, was an active partisan. of the hon. baronet's (sir P. Musgrave), and he offered to substantiate his allegations at the bar of that House, if necessary.—The hon. baronet then went on to state, from the petition, that a large body of cavalry had been brought on one occasion, by order of the mayor, during the election, near the hustings, by which the passions of the people were enflamed, and much danger might have ensued, if the mayor had not been prevailed upon to give an order for their removal to a proper distance; on which the confusion ceased, the people became quiet, and the harmony continued until the end of the election. That the mayor should have been a partisan, would not surprise the House, when they learnt that he was the accredited agent of the lord lieutenant of the county, and clerk of the peace. He was a practised attorney; and, in fact, his partner in that profession was the agent for the opposite party.—The hon. baronet then contended, that conduct such as that of the mayor was highly reprehensible, and that the House, on a former occasion, had severely
202
reprimanded a returning officer for the introduction of a military force near the hustings during an election. The case he alluded to was that of the high bailiff of Westminster, who, in 1741, was rebuked by the House, for introducing a military force near Covent-garden during an election. He thought he should be justifiable in moving, that this case be referred to the committee of privileges, but he hoped the present notice of it would be sufficient to guard against the future recurrence of any such unconstitutional interference. He trusted that the bill now before the House for the regulation of the police of that city, would tend to prevent the recurrence of such events, and that the present case would be sufficient to show that something ought to be done to prevent the interference of the military in such elections. He moved that the petitions be brought up.
Sir P. Musgravesaid, the hon. baronet had exercised a sound discretion in not referring this case to the committee of privileges. The interference of the military was, he contended, called for by the circumstances of the case. The hon. member then detailed the occurrences of the day in question, and observed, that he had felt it necessary to take shelter, confident that, if he had not done so, his life would have been endangered. He denied that there was, at first, a sufficient force of constables to assist. There were, afterwards, about two hundred and forty special constables sworn in; but they were weavers of the very lowest class, and such as could not be relied upon for rendering any effectual resistance. In fact, it could be proved, that several of them had joined the rioters, and were identified as encouraging the disturbance. It was agreed between Mr. Ferguson and the mayor, that it would not be safe for them to proceed amidst a crowd so riotously disposed, with such a body of special constables, as they would, by so doing, be placing themselves between two fires. They, therefore, declined proceeding with the special constables sworn in by Dr. Heysham. They went down, however, with the usual civil power of the town, to the place where the rioters were assembled. They read the Riot act to them, and had no sooner done so, than they were pelted by the crowd, and obliged to take refuge in a house near to that in which he himself was shut up. Mr. Ferguson shortly afterwards made his

203
escape into the city of Carlisle, and having tried in vain to get the assistance of a civil force sufficient to quell the riot in Canongate, applied at last for the assistance of the military. He applied for it at the castle, and having obtained it, marched down to the place where he (sir P. Musgrave) was shut up. He would now tell the House how the military were received by the populace. When they came in front of the crowd, they were received with a volley of stones. He could speak to that circumstance with some precision, as he had been an eye-witness of it. A gentleman who had seen more of it than himself, through a crevice of a shutter in the house in which they had taken refuge, described the resistance which the people made to the military as being very great. Several of the soldiers were wounded by the stones, and the danger to which they were exposed was so great, that the officer who commanded them told Mr. Ferguson, that his men could stand it no longer. Mr. Ferguson then gave the order for the military to act on the defensive. In consequence, they drew up behind a wall, loaded their pieces, and then came forward and fired upon the people. One of the petitions which the hon. baronet had that night presented, stated that the soldiers had fired precipitately. He believed the fact to be quite the reverse of that statement. After the crowd was dispersed, the sergeant came to take him out of the house in which he was shut up. The sergeant was covered with blood, and had received a severe cut on the forehead from a stone—a clear proof that his party must have been previously ill-treated by the crowd. He lamented the consequences which had followed from the firing of the military—indeed, every man of common humanity must do so—but he believed that the magistrate who directed it, did so from a sense of its necessity to the preservation of the public peace, and not from any wish to obstruct the freedom of election. With regard to the alleged misconduct of the returning officer in stopping the polling on the 9th of June, he begged leave to say, that the polling was completely obstructed by the conduct of the party who opposed his election. Many individuals, in consequence of that obstruction, dared not attempt to vote for him at all; whilst others who made the attempt, were insulted and spitten upon, and treated with every species of indignity. The riot in
204
the streets was so great, that the shopkeepers closed the windows of their shops; the pavement was torn up to supply ammunition for the rioters; his friends were driven from the streets, and then, when there was nothing more to destroy, a stern tranquillity prevailed in Carlisle. The mayor stopped the polling at two o'clock on the Friday, because he received from the freemen in his (sir P. Musgrave's) interest a representation, that they could not make their way up to the poll. There must have been some riot to make such a representation credible. Under these circumstances, hearing that a legal gentleman of great eminence, Mr. Holt, was in the neighbourhood, the mayor sent to him for assistance and advice; and, by Mr. Holt's recommendation, the mayor again sent for a military force. He admitted that Mr. Holt first advised the trial of the civil force; but the fact was, that at Carlisle there was no civil force; no respectable man being willing to act there as a special constable. Such being the case, the mayor sent an order to the cavalry, desiring them to come to the precincts of the city, and to hold themselves in readiness to act, in case circumstances rendered their interference necessary to preserve the freedom of election. With respect to the circumstances which led the people to know that the cavalry was in the neighbourhood, he believed it was occasioned by the officer's riding in uniform into the city, How the officer came to do so, he did not know; but the fact was, that the vicinity of the cavalry soon became notorious. The people then became so uproarious, and so incensed against the mayor, that he believed they would have sacrificed the life of that functionary, if he had not signed an order, commanding the military to retire to a distance of four miles from Carlisle. Indeed, the mayor was so agitated by the proceedings of that day, that he fell down in a fit of apoplexy in a house in which he took shelter not more than a few yards from the polling booths. Under these circumstances, he trusted the House would be of opinion, that the mayor, in acting as he had done, had not transgressed the line of public duty. There was a wide difference between the present case and that which, in 1820, was submitted to the investigation of a committee above stairs. In that case the gravamen of the charge was, that the magistrates had called in the military without a requisition from the returning offi

205
cer: here, it was the returning officer who had absolutely called them in. The hon. baronet concluded by thanking the House for the attention with which they had listened to the statement into which he had felt it his duty to enter.
Mr. Secretary Peeldeprecated, in the strongest terms, any unnecessary calling in of the military, to assist the civil power. At the same time, he felt himself compelled to say, that so long as the city of Carlisle remained as it did at present, without any efficient civil force, the military must occasionally be called in, to preserve the public peace. The whole civic force of Carlisle at present was two constables. It was not surprising, therefore, that the law was not properly administered, considering that these two men had to superintend and to check all the offences committed by a population of thirty or forty thousand persons. He knew that a bill was now before the House for the specific purpose of giving an efficient police to the city of Carlisle; and he made no hesitation in saying that some pecuniary sacrifice must be made by the inhabitants to carry it into execution. It might be a good system, four or five hundred years ago, to trust to the exertions of a party of shopkeepers and special constables; but now, when the population was so much greater than it was, and so many artificial wants were introduced among them, he thought they ought not to trust to a corps of volunteer constables, but to a well-paid and united police. He did not know whether he should have taken any share in the present discussion, had it not been for the charge of remissness which the hon. baronet who presented the petition had brought against himself. He thought that he could satisfy even the hon. baronet himself, that the charge was totally without foundation, The first riot took place at Carlisle on the 6th of June. On the 7th the mayor wrote to him informing him of it, saying that he had called in the military, and hoping that he would sanction, not merely their being called in, but also their being retained in the town. He received that letter on the 9th of June. On the same day he wrote an answer to the mayor, saying, that he could not approve retaining the military force in the town during the time of the election, unless there was a clear and undeniable necessity for it; and that the sex of the
206
two persons who were killed by the military, made him pause before he ventured an opinion in approbation of the mayor's conduct. He likewise added, that as to the propriety of retaining the military in Carlisle, he was not then in a situation to decide; and that he must have more facts within his knowledge before he gave to such a measure his approval. He thought that the hon. baronet would, upon this statement alone, acquit him of the charge of remissness. But he could carry his defence much further. He had written immediately to sir J. Byng, the commander of the district, and had requested that excellent officer to send him all the particulars which he could collect, relating to the unfortunate transaction. He had received such a report from sir John Byng; and he owned that the impression on his mind was, that there was no intention on the part of the mayor to interfere with the freedom of election when he called in the military on the 5th of June. Carlisle was a garrison town; and therefore it was that a party of soldiers were left in it during the election to take care of the garrison. It was in consequence of Carlisle's being a garrison town that it had been so long without an efficient police. The people of Carlisle had hitherto relied on the presence of the military in case of any disturbance: but he must now tell them that that reliance must be at an end; for he would not lend his assistance to calling in the military on every trifling breach of the public tranquillity. He then entered into a statement of the circumstances of the riot of the 5th of June, which corroborated that previously given by sir P. Musgrave. He contended, that the military had not fired until they were compelled to do so in self-defence; and he believed that it was owing to their desire to avoid mischief by firing over the heads of the people, that one of the women, who was killed at her window, met her death. He then entered into a similar history of the riot of the 9th of June, and said, that the information which he had received, convinced him, that on that day the mayor had been grievously assaulted by the rioters, and, indeed, had been confined to his bed in consequence of bruises he had then received. He therefore thought, that it was possible, that the mayor, having been himself captured on the 5th, and seriously assaulted on the 9th, by the rioters, had conceived

207
that a necessity existed for calling in the military. It had been asked, why he had not called in the infantry, instead of the cavalry? It appeared to him that the mayor's reason for calling in the cavalry instead of the infantry was, that he did not wish to aggravate the feelings of animosity which already existed between the working population of Carlisle and the military stationed in the garrison. He had now stated the case as fairly as he could, for he had no triumph to gain, being unconnected with either of the parties in the city of Carlisle. He thought the hon. baronet had done wisely in not founding any motion on the petition which he had presented, but in merely stating it as a reason for securing to Carlisle the benefit of a sufficient civil force.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that the opposition to the bill, to which the right hon. gentleman had alluded, did not come from his friends at Carlisle, but from the members of the corporation; who were the very parties who had acted in the improper manner of which the petitioners complained. If the hon. baronet on the other side of the House would move for a committee of inquiry into the subject of these riots, he would be prepared to substantiate before it all the allegations contained in the petition. The hon. baronet had said, that it was impossible to find a single respectable special constable among the seventeen thousand persons who constituted the population of Carlisle. Now, it was quite impossible to believe that to be the fact. The hon. member then proceeded to recount the circumstances of the riots on the 5th and on the 9th of June. With regard to the events of the last day, he had himself been an eye-witness, and therefore could speak with some degree of authority. Never did any election proceed more quietly than did the election on that day, up to the time when the people discovered that the military were called in. On the knowledge of that circumstance reaching them, he admitted that a scene of riot and confusion did ensue. Chaos appeared to be let loose; but then the tumult originated from the indignation which British electors naturally felt at seeing the freedom of election violated. As soon as it was known that the troops were to be withdrawn to their former cantonments, the riot subsided, and the town became quiet. He had not blamed the mayor for calling in the cavalry instead of the infantry. He blamed the mayor on
208
two distinct grounds; first, that on the 5th of June he had not used any of the three hundred special constables who had been sworn in, to quell the riot; and secondly, that apprehending a riot on the 9th, he had created it by the means he took to prevent it.
Ordered to lie on the table.

STATE OF CHURCHES IN IRELAND.
Sir John Newportrose, in pursuance of notice, to bring under the view of the House the state of the law for Rebuilding and Repairing of Churches in Ireland. He hoped that the House would favour him with its attention, as his motion related to a class of individuals who were now visited by the law with certain penalties and exclusions which ought never to have been inflicted upon them. In consequence of the reformation in Ireland being subsequent to that in England, it was not until late in the reign of queen Elizabeth that the churches of Ireland were transferred from the care of the Roman Catholic to that of the Protestant clergy. In that state they remained until the 12th of Geo. 1st, when an act was passed for the purpose of putting those of them which had fallen into decay into full and complete repair. The hon. baronet called the attention of the House to the preamble of that act, in which it was alleged, that the reason of the churches falling into decay was, that the Papists outvoted the Protestant parishioners at all vestry meetings. It was therefore enacted, that from that time henceforward, no Papist should be qualified to vote at any vestry meeting. What had been the result of that enactment? Had the churches been prevented from falling into decay by it? No such thing. Though an unlimitted power of taxation was flung into the hands of the Protestants, the churches—nay, in some cases, the very cathedrals—were still permitted to sink into ruin. Being in this lamentable situation, it was found necessary to rebuild them. And, at whose expense did the House think they were to be rebuilt? Not at the expense of the episcopacy, who were bound to look to their preservation; not at the expense of the Church of Ireland, which had immense revenues at her disposal; but at the expense of the Roman Catholics, who were shut out from the vestries, and derived no benefit from the churches when rebuilt. The right hon. baronet then mentioned the

209
case of a parish in which the Protestants, twenty three years ago, burnt down the Roman Catholic chapel. The Catholics had never since been able to rebuild their chapel, but had erected their altar under any place which afforded them shelter; and yet in this very parish a new Protestant church had been built at the expense of the Catholics. It was not alone the Protestant parish churches which the Catholics were called upon to build and repair; they were likewise compelled to repair their cathedrals. The preamble of the 21st of George 3rd, stated, that in several dioceses the cathedral churches were so incommodiously situated, that they could not be conveniently resorted to for the purpose of the performance of divine service, and that therefore such performance had not taken place in them for many years, in consequence of which they had fallen to decay. What remedy did the House suppose was provided by the act in question—that the incumbents should support them?—No; but that they should be incorporated with the parish churches, and supported at the expense of the inhabitants—that is to say, of the Roman Catholics. In Cork, the cathedral church was supported by a tax upon the coals consumed in that city. He was glad to state one honourable exception to the general conduct of the Protestant clergy in Ireland. The dean of the diocese of Down voluntarily proposed to contribute from his own income 300 l. per annum for the supportation of the cathedral church. The conduct of this individual ought to be mentioned with honour, for his was a solitary example of disinterestedness. He was warranted in saying, that since the Union, no less than half a million had been raised, principally upon Roman Catholics, for the support of Protestant churches in Ireland. It was stated, in a petition which had been presented to the House from a poor retail shop-keeper in the parish of St. George, Dublin, that he had been distrained upon for fifteen years' church rates. He had applied to the Irish government for relief; but they told him they could afford him none. He trusted, however, the House would be of opinion, that this was a state of things in which it was called upon to interpose. The original estimate for building the church which this poor man was compelled to contribute to was 17,000 l.; and already upwards of 40,000 l. had been expended upon it. It really was a libel on common sense
210
to talk of extending equal protection to all persons, if abuses such as those which he had stated were to be tolerated. The act of parliament which authorised the building of the church in question originally contained a clause which authorised the erection of an organ, but it was objected to, and was finally struck out. The trustees, however, had consulted counsel as to whether an organ might not be introduced under the name of an "ornament." The counsel had determined that it might, and therefore an organ had been placed in the church, in spite of the declared opinion of parliament. For this organ 800 l. had been paid; and 200 l. more for fitting it up. The trustees of this church were not only self-elected, but, according to a clause of the act, they were compelled to account to nobody, but to each other. There was only one mode of checking such abuses, and that was by preventing persons who did not profess the established religion, and were unconnected with the vestries, from being taxed to support Protestant churches. If, however, the system of unfair taxation were to continue, it would be much better to intrust the power of effecting it—to a Protestant bishop, for instance,—rather than to allow a carpenter, a slater, and a plasterer, professing the Protestant religion, whenever they found it convenient and useful to them, to levy a sum of money, of which each in his vocation obtained a share. It was usual to hear this country spoken of as the paragon of liberality, whilst Roman Catholic countries were equally decried for their illiberality and prejudice. He would leave the House to judge whether this character was just, after he had stated the conduct which a Catholic country had observed towards Protestants. In 1791, the Diet of Hungary, which, like the parliament of this country, was composed of persons of different orders of the community, to the number of five or six hundred, came to a resolution in the following words:—"The Protestants of this state shall not be called upon to contribute to the Catholics either in money or labour, nor shall the Catholics, on the other hand, contribute to the Protestants, or to the establishment of their churches or schools." This resolution was passed by a majority of more than three to one. In the same diet, Protestants were declared equally eligible with Catholics to fill every office and to hold every rank in the state. This was the conduct of a

211
Roman Catholic state; and yet it was said, that England, for liberality, surpassed every other country in the world.—Hehoped he had stated enough to induce the House to take the subject to which he had directed their attention into its serious consideration. It struck him that one means by which the existing evil might be remedied, was the rendering of first-fruits available, according to the intention of the act of queen Anne. Another mode was a recurrence to the system which prevailed in the times of Henry 8th, and Elizabeth, of making the clergy support the churches and the poor out of the tithes. The act of queen Anne operated differently with respect to England and Ireland. In England, the first-fruits and tenths were appropriated to the improvement of small benefices; but in Ireland the tenths were remitted, and only the first-fruits reserved for that purpose; and yet the rich clergy of that country called upon the impoverished laity to repair their churches. In the first instance, therefore, he would propose, that the first-fruits should be made available for the support of the churches. If that should be refused, he would then introduce a bill to direct that, whenever any diocese should become vacant, a report should be made to the bishop of the diocese, as to the state of the church; and if it should appear that the church was not in a state to allow of the performance of divine duty, the revenues of the benefice should be altogether applied to the repair of the church, with the exception of an allowance for a curate to perform occasional service; and that the incumbent should not enter on the living until the repairs were completed. Some such legislative enactment was necessary to rescue the clergy of Ireland from the disgrace of compelling persons who did not profess their religion to support their churches.—The right hon. baronet concluded by moving the following resolution:
"That it appears from the Irish statute, 12 Geo. 1. c. 9., that many of the Parish Churches of that Kingdom, which had been transferred, at the time of the Reformation, into possession of the Established Church of Ireland, were, in the year 1726, in a state of such great decay, that Divine Service could not be performed therein; and it is also there stated, that such Churches could not be rebuilt or repaired in consequence of the Popish inhabitants outvoting the Protestant parishioners at vestries held for such purpose.
212
"That the said Statute, and many succeeding Statutes, for the purpose of removing such constructions, continued to enact, during an entire century, that no Popish inhabitants of any parish in that kingdom should be admitted to vote at any vestry held for such objects.
"That, although the entire disposal of the power of Parochial Taxation for such purposes was thus vested in the Protestant Parishioners, and although those professing the Popish or Roman Catholic religion was absolutely excluded from all possible interference with the exercise thereof, the Churches, and many of the Cathedrals, were allowed to continue in a state of progressive decay, until they became in numerous instances, absolutely ruinous, without measures being adopted, either by the Protestant Parishioners or by the Episcopacy or Government of Ireland, for the prevention of such highly injurious consequences.
"That it appears in the highest degree unjust to effect the re-building of Churches, thus allowed to become ruinous by the neglect of those who had full power to prevent their dilapidation, at the expense of those parishioners who constitute, in most of the parishes of Ireland, a very great majority of the inhabitants, but whom the Legislature had thus specially excluded, as being Roman Catholics, from all interference therein."
Mr. J. Grattan,in seconding the motion, took occasion to pay a handsome tribute to the zeal and perseverance of his right hon. friend, the member for Waterford, in pressing on the House the necessity of an extensive amelioration in the system of exaction which the Catholic was compelled to undergo, for the sustentation of Protestant edifices of worship in Ireland. The subject had been repeatedly mooted in that House, and it so happened, that whenever any success was obtained by his right hon. friend, and he brought forward a practical measure on any particular case, the benefits of that measure were counteracted, and its enactments turned to mischief, by the interposition of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Secretary had brought in a bill, the Vestry-bill, purporting to be a measure of relief, but it only aggravated the former grievance; and, indeed, so equivocal were the proceedings of the right hon. gentleman, that it would have been better to have suffered things to remain as they

213
were. The right hon. gentleman appeared to be actuated altogether, in his policy respecting Ireland, by the spirit of those days in which the worst penal enactments had been passed. From all these considerations, he felt an objection against the introduction of almost any bill on the subject of Irish affairs; for he felt the strongest apprehension that it would be not only neutralized as to its power of doing good, but that its beneficial influence would be converted into mischief, through the means of the right hon. gentleman, who would at last have his own way, and bring about his own favourite purposes. However, in seconding the motion of his right hon. friend, he hoped he was laying the foundation of some good. The power of taxing the Catholics of Ireland for the support of Protestant churches might, perhaps, be endured, if exercised by grand jurors acting under the influence of an oath; but it was intolerable when placed in the hands of a few vestry-men, meeting in private, and having only their own purposes to serve.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that the observations of the hon. member for Wicklow, as they were personal to himself, demanded his primary notice. That hon. gentleman was pleased to say, that he was actuated, in his policy towards Ireland, by a spirit similar to that which animated those who originated the penal enactments of Ireland; and it was upon a reference to the Vestry bill, which he had introduced, that the hon. gentleman had principally founded his imputation. Now, he would say that any gentleman who had looked into that bill, must at once see that its object and tenor were of a description utterly at variance with a supposition of such a nature. Any gentleman must see that the imputation against him grew out of a totally erroneous view of the measure; and in charity he must suppose, that the hon. gentlemen had never looked into the bill. To those who had seen, and who understood the provisions of the bill, he would appeal confidently, and ask them if it was not a measure, which was characterized, so far as it went, by a principle of amelioration? The right hon. gentleman then explained the nature of the Vestry bill. What, he asked, had been the evil complained of heretofore? What was it that the hon. member for Limerick had made the frequent burthen of his remonstrances to that House? Was it not that the
214
Catholic, who was taxed by a vote of the Protestant vestry, had no appeal except to the archbishop or the bishop, by whose ordinance the vestry was held, perhaps, and who, at all events, was a party interested against the appellant? What then did the Vestry-bill effect? It vested a power of appeal in the Catholic to the bench of magistrates, where, perhaps, there might be members of his own communion, whose disposition to enter into the investigation of his complaint, would not certainly be questioned. This was an enactment obviously calculated to insure justice to the Catholic; a measure respecting which the opinion of Catholics had been expressed in a favourable and grateful manner. And what was his reward for his exertions? Why, an imputation that he was actuated by the spirit of persecution which animated the originators of the penal laws, and a complaint, which held him up as an object of aversion to those, with whom he felt every disposition to live in peace and harmony.—So far with respect to the personal part of the subject. He would now refer to the speech of the right hon. baronet. The right hon. baronet had stated, that the churches which were transferred to, or, more properly speaking, which were occupied by, the Protestants at the time of the Reformation, were suffered to lie in a state of neglect and dilapidation. He was ready to confess, that his inquiries into the history of former times convinced him of the truth of the right hon. baronet's statement; and that complaints had been unceasingly made of the want of edifices for the use of the established form of worship in Ireland. In the time of lord Strafford's administration, that lord Deputy's attention had been directed, in a particular manner, to the subject of this complaint. He had made it his object, in his communications with England, to represent the great respectability of the Protestants in Ireland, and the necessity of providing them with suitable means of performing the public duties of their religion. His lordship finally proposed, that a commission should be appointed to inquire into the state of Protestant ecclesiastical structure in Ireland, with a view to a thorough reform in the same. He took occasion to represent, that not only the churches, but the parsonages and the vicarages were in ruin, and that the people remained untaught. In fact, on look-

215
ing back to the history of the connection between the two countries, he thought that the crime chargeable against England was, that she did not take sufficient pains to provide places of worship in Ireland, appropriated to the reformed religion. It was not until the year 1777, that the subject received any great attention from the legislature; and not until the late Mr. Perceval's administration, that any practical measures were adopted to meet the exigencies so feelingly described by lord Strafford.—The right hon. gentle man then stated what had been done for the purpose of erecting churches in Ireland. He was ready to grant, that it was a great hardship in appearance to compel those who formed the majority of the people, to contribute to the maintenance of the, religious establishment of those with whom they altogether disagreed in matters of faith. But, whilst he was ready to go thus far, he could not at the same time stray away from the principle, that the established mode of faith claimed the support generally of that community amongst whom it existed, and that the country in the aggregate was bound to contribute towards its maintenance in a suitable manner. The right hon. gentleman then adverted to the subject of St. George's church in Dublin, and said that as a special act of parliament had been obtained for the building and repairing of that church, no argument derived from the facts connected with its history could be fairly extended to the general condition of the Irish church. He contended, that much had been done in the way of lessening the burthens of building new churches in Ireland; that a spirit had been manifested on the part of the legislature, to make those burthens light, whilst care had been taken to provide the people with suitable structures. Thus, for example, money had been advanced for the purpose of raising the edifices in the country parishes, on which no interest was to be paid, and which was to be refunded in a manner that showed at once the disposition to consult the convenience of the parishes.
Sir J. Newport.—Without interest? Is that so? I understood that payments were annually made.
Mr. Goulburn.—Yes, by way of instalment; but, on the principle advanced no interest was required. It had been found that the expense of raising churches had been 1,400 l. per parish. The instalment
216
required from the parish was six per cent. or 84 l. a-year. Now, on this very subject, had himself introduced a bill, by which he reduced the amount of the instalment from six to four per cent, making the annual charge 56 l. instead of 84 l. Under the operation of this law six hundred and sixty-four new churches, and five hundred and sixty-two new glebehouses, had been built in Ireland. Each parish had now a place of worship, and a house which a minister could reside in. It was impossible for him to admit the principle of laying any further load upon the clergy of Ireland, whose incomes were already, in many instances, inadequate to their maintenance in a state of respectability. He held in his hand a letter written by a clergyman who was now, unfortunately, no more; but of whose character, if he were to mention his name, no person could entertain a doubt, which described the various heavy charges to which a living in Ireland was already subject. The living held by the gentleman in question was one of 160 l. a-year. Out of this he had to pay for his first-fruits 8l. 12 s. a-year, and other expenses, amounting to 20 l. There was due to the late incumbent, on account of the glebe-house, 178 l.; and 70 l. more he had to pay for expenses upon taking possession. But, in addition to all this, he found it necessary to keep a curate; and, surely the House would not say that such a man was not sufficiently burthened. Such, then, was the real state of that clergy, whose ease and wealth it was so much the fashion to decry. On their behalf, he complained of the injustice which had been done them. For these reasons, he thought he was not acting unfairly in moving upon the resolution the previous question. If, at any future time, the right hon. baronet should think proper to propose any substantive measure, he would give his opinion upon it; but at present he thought the resolution founded upon wrong assumptions. The right hon. gentleman, after again complaining that he should have been held up, by the hon. member for Wicklow, as an enemy to the interests of that country, the advantage of which he had ever exerted himself with his best ability to promote, sat down by moving the previous question.
Mr. John Smithsaid, that the present system of building churches by a tax imposed by half a dozen Protestants on the

217
great bulk of the Catholics in the several parishes in Ireland, was wholly indefensible. It was absurd, impolitic, and unjust. He was one of those who thought that, in a Christian country, there would be found in the zeal and piety of the people sufficient activity and abundant means to provide themselves with places for the celebration of Divine worship of their own accord; and upon this principle he had opposed the grant of public money for the building of churches in this country, a session or two ago. In Ireland, however, where the Protestants formed but a tenth part of the population, the increasing or keeping in repair the churches, would perhaps be better effected by the grant of public money, objectionable as that mode was, than by the present most absurd and pernicious system. He was utterly astonished how such a system could have been devised; and that it was continued could only be accounted for by that utter contempt of common sense, which seemed to stigmatize every measure taken with respect to that most distracted and unhappy country. Day after day was the attention of parliament called, by those few but distinguished friends which Ireland still had, to some new grievance, some freshly detected abuse, more flagitious than its predecessors. But when was a remedy offered? The right hon. gentleman opposite had complimented himself upon his friendly feeling towards the Catholics of Ireland; but what had he done for them or for their country? If he imagined that by empty professions he could stifle the universal call for reform in the public institutions of Ireland, he greatly deceived himself. The Catholics were not blinded by these measures. They had no confidence in the right hon. gentleman's professions, and if he really intended them kindnesses, he must tell him, from personal knowledge, that they were wholly insensible to his good offices. Was this motion, then, to be disposed of, as all others on the same unfortunate subject had been before? It was in evidence, that the most flagrant abuses prevailed in the execution of the process of the courts in Ireland, and that the collection of debts was beset with difficulties What remedies had been proposed for that crying evil? It was admitted, that many persons were greatly distressed by the payment of a tax for the building and repairing of churches, and yet that tax was about to
218
be continued. By the present system, it was in the power of a Protestant bricklayer or carpenter of any influence in the parish, to procure a resolution of the vestry for building a church, merely to give himself a job. He had been informed that this was actually the case in some parishes in the north of Ireland, where the poor Catholics were afraid to complain. He thought that his right hon. friend, by this motion, had added considerably to the very great claims which he already had upon the gratitude of his country. It was not likely that he would now succeed; but the day would come when common sense, and common justice, must prevail. He had many objections to the voting of public money for the building of churches; but he thought any thing preferable to the present system in Ireland. On these grounds he supported the resolutions.
Sir William Plunkett,in rising to support the amendment, disclaimed all intention of following the hon. gentleman who had just sat down through the digressive allusions in which he had indulged. He put it to the good sense of the House, whether upon a motion relative to the building of churches in Ireland, he was expected to go at large into a defence of all the measures which had been taken by government with respect to that country? He would ask, what had the mode of collecting debts in Ireland to do with the present question? He declared, that up to this time, he was not aware of any serious complaints having been made of the administration of the law on that particular; and most certainly, he was not likely to be prepared for such a communication by the terms of this notice, or the opening speech of the right hon. baronet. Last year, he believed, some complaints had been made respecting the collection of debts in Ireland; but there had been a public inquiry since; and was he to understand, that any new ground of dissatisfaction had arisen since the presenting of the report of the commission to which he alluded? The House was aware that the right hon. Secretary had given notice of his intention to bring in a bill relative to the collection of debts in Ireland; and the hon. member might have waited the result of that measure. With respect to the resolutions before the House, he should say, that as to that part of the complaint which related to St. George's church, it was chargeable, as the right hon. baronet

219
knew, upon the act of 1793, for which neither himself nor his right hon. friend were responsible. But, if these resolutions were carried, they would not meet the complaint with respect to St. George's church. The right hon. baronet would find many of the evils of which he complained remedied by the bill of last year. He would not flatly contradict the statement of the right hon. baronet, but he was disposed to think, that he must have been misinformed on the subject of the organ. The hon. member opposite had commented upon the facility of a carpenter or a bricklayer making a job of building a new church. If he had looked into the act of last year, he would see that this jobbing was completely prevented, by the appeal which was given, not to an ecclesiastical, but to a lay tribunal, of which Catholics as well as Protestants might be members. He considered this a serious question. He did not believe his right hon. friend contemplated the decay and destruction of the Protestant churches throughout Ireland; but these resolutions would practically produce that effect. It would be a certain consequence of them to increase the difficulty which already existed, of repairing these edifices. The Catholics would think themselves exonerated altogether from the obligation of contributing to keep the Protestant churches in repair, and the supposition would produce mischievous consequences. Was the House to say that, because the number of Protestants in Ireland was small, the churches were to be therefore suffered to go to decay? Had the right hon. baronet confined himself to any particular mode of rebuilding churches in Ireland, more calculated than the present to give satisfaction, he would have supported him in it. These resolutions, even admitting them to be historically true, were yet inconsistent with themselves. They first complained that the Catholics were subjected to taxes for the building of Protestant churches in Ireland, and secondly, that the churches were not built. He would give his cordial support to a bill, which devised any particular mode of rebuilding churches in Ireland; but he protested against these resolutions, which could only produce discontent. The right hon. gentleman then entered into a defence of the bill of last year, which, he said, had been made a theme of attack in this and in other places. Being an act
220
of consolidation, it was no objection to it, that it re-enacted all the existing laws. But he defied the hon. member for Wicklow to say that there were not many amendments introduced into that act. Amongst other things, it exonerated Catholics from serving as churchwardens; provided funds for the decent burial of the Catholic poor; and gave an appeal against church assessments, not to an ecclesiastical, but to a lay tribunal. All the hardships imposed by that act were to be found in preceding acts; but all its remedies and benefits were new. Before he sat down he must say he was decidedly opposed to the application of any portion of the first-fruits to the building of churches. He could not consent to throw any additional burthens on the parochial clergy of Ireland; of whom he would say, notwithstanding all the cant about the overgrown wealth of the church, that there was not a more meritorious or worse-paid body of men in the state. These first-fruits originally belonged to the see of Rome. They then became vested in the crown of England; afterwards they came to the commissioners of first-fruits, were now settled at a fixed rate, and he would decidedly oppose any interference with them.
Mr. Spring Rice,in giving his support to the motion of his right hon. friend, disclaimed all hostility to the Protestant church. He and those who acted with him were as much attached to that church as any right hon. gentleman. They only differed as to the mode of showing their attachment, and the difference was this, that when an abuse was discovered with them, it was a signal for a remedial measure; whereas with the gentlemen opposite it was a signal for resistance. The gentlemen opposite, in fact, admitted the insufficiency of their measure, when they tendered their assistance to his right hon. friend in the framing a new one. Now, when in England we refused to confide in parochial vestries to tax the parish for the building of churches, on what principle could we give this confidence to parochial vestries in Ireland? He was not surprised at the irritation which existed in Ireland respecting the church; but this was not a feeling against the doctrines or against the parochial clergy; for, although he could not support the opinion as to their poverty, he was willing to bear testimony to their worth. He would give his assent to the

221
resolutions; but he hoped, if they should be negatived, the right hon. gentleman would redeem his pledge, and come forward with some remedy.
Mr. Secretary Peelexpressed his readiness to give the hon. gentlemen opposite the fullest credit for their declaration, that in supporting these resolutions, they were desirous to promote the real interests of the established church; while, at the same time, he claimed for himself and his colleagues the same credit for meaning to exempt, as far as possible, the Catholic tenantry of Ireland from undue burthens. He hoped, therefore, that this question would be discussed upon its own intrinsic merits, and without reference to the diversity of opinion which prevailed between them upon what was called the Catholic question. He must defend his right hon. friend from the sarcasm which had been thrown upon him for his bill of last year; a bill which had materially benefitted that part of the Catholic population to which it applied. The attack upon the vestry bill was, therefore, uncalled for; and the assistance which his right hon. friend had given in the tithe composition bill ought never to be forgotten in the sister kingdom. With reference to the present question, the course of proceeding by resolutions was extremely objectionable; for it precluded that discussion, either of principle or of details, which was practicable in the introduction of a specific bill. He was sorry that this discussion had been embarrassed by allusions to cases of peculiar grievance in the levies on some parishes, and particularly the local act for St. George's parish. It ought to be remembered, that the latter was altogether a private act; and if it had inflicted a grievance, the remedy was by a repeal of the objectionable clause, and not by the introduction of an irrelevant measure. It was equally wrong to mix up cases of spoliation and outrage with the present consideration; for these ought to be punished and repressed, without reference to any of the larger topics which had been introduced into this discussion. He could not concur in the broad proposition which had been laid down by the right hon. baronet; namely, that the Roman Catholic peasant ought not to be burthened with any share of the expense for repairs of Protestant churches. If that principle were good for Ireland, why was it not equally so for England? Let the House see the length
222
to which it was capable of being carried. If one class of dissenters were to be so far relieved, what reason could be assigned for not releasing all other classes who were not within the pale of the established church? Such a proposition would require very serious consideration; for the inevitable consequence would be, that all who were indifferent to the reformed system of worship would declare themselves dissenters for the purpose of escaping this tax. Undoubtedly, he was prepared to admit, that if one class of dissenters more than another deserved to be looked upon in a favourable light, it was the Roman Catholic occupiers of land in Ireland; for they had to provide their own churches, as well as to assist in making the same provision for the church established by law. But while he entertained these feelings towards the Roman Catholic occupier of land, he felt them not for his landlord; and more particularly for his Protestant landlord; and still more so, where he happened to be an absentee. Of all men, for him he had no consideration. He would not, indeed, compel him to reside in Ireland, but he would not exempt him, if he could, by a bounty on his absence, and for the purpose of casting the price of that bounty upon others. With reference to the right hon. baronet's second proposition, for the insertion of a future clause into leases, to save the Roman Catholic tenant, and throw the weight upon his landlord, he was rather favourable to the consideration of such a regulation, if he could see his way through the prevention of any abuse of its provisions. He felt for the poor tenant who had taken his lease without any expectation that a church would be built near his land, and who had afterwards to meet the expense of such a building. With these impressions, and with the utmost desire to go hand in hand with the right hon. baronet, in giving a full and calm consideration to such parts of his plan as he had alluded to, if brought forward in the form of a specific bill, he hoped he would withdraw his present resolutions; otherwise he should meet them by the previous question, which would not prejudge the future consideration of the condition of the Irish tenantry, or decide against hearing their complaints. As to the extension of the plan to Ireland, which had been acted upon in this country in the mode of building new churches, by making certain public advances for that purpose,

223
he was not prepared to say how far that could be realized. At all events, he was not adverse to the consideration of this branch of the subject, if introduced in a different form.
Mr. H. Grattansupported the resolutions, observing, that the real question at issue did not so much regard the church establishment of Ireland, as the connection of that country with England. The vestry cess was of a grievous character. It had countenanced the most extravagant and superfluous ornaments in churches, almost wholly unfrequented by those who had to pay for such extravagance. Since the year 1820, there had been levied 1,623,000 l. by the vestries for such purposes. It was not now the question whether the Catholic church should be supported; but whether it should continue to exist. The Catholic places of worship, as contrasted with those of the Protestants, were in a most ruinous condition; the worship being frequently obliged to be performed in the open air.
Sir J. Newport,in reply, said that he should withdraw the resolution, and simply move for leave to bring in a bill, "to amend the laws for building, re-building, and repairing, Churches, and for relieving the occupying Tenants of Land in Ireland from the burthen of Church Rates in certain cases."
The resolution was accordingly withdrawn; and leave was given to bring in the bill.

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.
Mr. Hume,pursuant to notice, rose to bring forward a motion on a subject of the greatest importance. He hoped the House would indulge him with a patient hearing, while he trespassed on them with some details, which he deemed it right to adduce in support of his motion. Having submitted these details, he should leave it to the House to determine, whether the inquiry which he proposed ought not to be instituted—to say whether a state of things ought any longer to continue, which he considered a reproach to the justice of the land; or whether the evils which existed ought not long since to have been remedied. The subject of his motion was connected with every interest in the country. The law, as now practised, authorising imprisonment for debt, occasioned the most serious mischief; and the question would be, whether it ought to continue under I such grievous circumstances as he should
224
detail to the House. Some years ago he had moved for various returns, to show the magnitude of the evil; and last year for further returns. They world give a tolerably forcible idea of the extent of those evils which he desired to see remedied. He wished an inquiry into the policy of imprisonment for debt, to be connected with an investigation into the state of the prisons appointed for debtors. According to the returns made up to the 25th April last, there were three thousand one hundred and thirty persons confined for debt in the prisons of the metropolis. That was a frightful number of persons doomed to idleness, separated from their families and from good habits, and initiated into the vices inseparable from prisons. After obtaining their release, they could hardly be expected to become good subjects. Of the number of debtors just named, there were nine hundred imprisoned for debts under 20 l.; seven hundred and fifty for debts under 50 l.: four hundred and fifty for debts under 100 l.: seven hundred for debts above 100 l.: about two thousand had been imprisoned upwards of six months. In Middlesex alone, in three or four months, there had been two thousand six hundred and seventy-seven arrests; and in the corresponding four months of last year, upwards of three thousand arrests had taken place, under the warrants of the sheriff of Middlesex. In the whole year there had been between eleven and twelve thousand persons arrested for debt under the authority of warrants issued by the sheriff of Middlesex alone. Such being the state of things, it became a question, whether the imprisonments were to be continued for the safe custody of the parties, or as punishments? From those returns it appeared, that, in April 1826, the number of individuals confined for debt within the walls and in the rules of the King's-bench prison, amounted to nine hundred and ninety-five. In the preceding year the number was seven hundred and ninety-one only. In the Fleet prison, the number confined for debt in April 1824, was two hundred and thirty-seven. In April 1826, the number was two hundred and thirty-seven. In White-cross-street prison, which was the prison of the county of Middlesex more particularly, the number of prisoners for debt, in April 1825, was four hundred. In April 1826, the number was five hundred and forty-six. In the Marshalsea there

225
were confined for debt, in April 1826, no less than a hundred and six. In all the four prisons the aggregate number of prisoners for debt in one day, amounted to one thousand nine hundred and seventy-four individuals. In all the prisons of the country, the number was from twenty thousand to twenty-two thousand individuals, shut up for debt. He implored the House to consider the sort of education and the habits that must be contracted by these unhappy persons, thus mixed with the worst classes of society; their labour lost to themselves, to their families, and to the country. This was a frightful state of things, and the laws relating to arrest for debt required to be considered by the legislature. If the House would enter into a consideration and comparison of the laws of England and Scotland in this respect, they would be inclined, if not to abolish altogether, at least greatly to modify, the laws of arrest in this country. But those laws were not always in this state. He had the authority of lord Coke, and of other great lawyers, for saying, that formerly an individual could be arrested for assault only, and not for a simple contract debt. But now nothing was easier than to deprive a man of his liberty, and his family, and the country of his services, by means of those laws. For swearing the affidavit of debt, for stamp, and writ, the party had to pay about 3s. 10 d., which, with 1s. to an officer, made only 4s. 10 d. The affidavit of the debt might be false and malicious, still the party was thrown into prison. Now, was it not wrong to suffer a person to be deprived of his liberty, and thrown into evil society, on grounds such as these? The person who had thus satisfied his motive at the trifling expense of 4s. 10 d., might then leave the country without any fear of the consequences; for he was not obliged, as in justice he should be, to give any security to prosecute his suit, or pay the expenses. Such securities were formerly called for and given. The hon. member described and lamented the hardships of a person thus arrested at an expense of a few shillings, for an alleged debt of, perhaps, 10,000 l. or 20,000 l., when, in reality, he might not owe one farthing. However wealthy and respectable such an individual might be, he might have to lie in prison several days. The arrest might be made on a Saturday evening; or the sum might be purposely made so large as that sureties
226
could not be easily found. Yet, what was the remedy for all this? He might, indeed, have his action for false imprisonment; but the pretended creditor might have absconded, or not be worth pursuing. The hon. member next showed the petty vexations to which the person arrested was subjected in giving bail below, and above. For the former, in fees at judges' chambers, to sheriff, and for stamps, he would have to pay no less than 3l. 6s. for so small a debt as 10 l. It was extraordinary, that while bail for a debt of 10 l. cost 3l. 6s., bail on a criminal charge cost only 4s. 6d. This was a matter which well deserved the consideration of the Secretary for the Home Department. Now, in Scotland, no arrest could be made without the intervention of a decree of court, unless the person was leaving the country. But it could not be said, that there were not dealings and transactions, and bills, and notes, passing in Scotland. If a note or bond became due, notice was given, and if the person did not pay, then he was arrested, and proceedings taken against his property. But in England, from the state of the laws, persons went to prison, but retained their property, and the creditor was not at all benefitted, though the country and his own family were deprived of the debtor's labour. At the present moment, he knew of an individual who was living luxuriously within the walls of a prison, from the produce of his lands, which the creditor could not touch. This individual raised money on bonds and notes, purchased freehold estates, and settled his family on them. When the bonds and notes became due, he went to prison, where he was enjoying the produce of the estates, managed by his wife and children. Several prisoners now confined in the Fleet, and elsewhere, had defrauded their creditors in the same way; refusing to give up any portion of their property for the liquidation of their just debts, and living in expense and extravagance. Where, then, was the wisdom of continuing laws which were so abused and perverted. In other countries, there was no such thing as imprisonment for debt; and he was satisfied that trade and business of every description might be carried on much better in England, if there was no such thing as an arrest for debt. By a paper on the table of the House, it appeared that since the formation of the Court of Insolvent Debtors, eleven thousand six hundred and

227
seventeen persons had been liberated by the commissioners therein presiding. The gross amount of the debts which those persons owed came to no less a sum than 8,863,000 l., and the sum actually divided amongst their creditors was only 4,788 l., being at the rate of about half a farthing in the pound sterling.—The hon. member, after describing the expense of passing through the Insolvent Debtor's court, adverted to the Craven-street institution for the relief of persons confined for small debts. By a return from that society, it appeared, that they had liberated, up to last year, forty-two thousand persons, whose debts were compromised at about 3l. each on an average.—The hon. member then referred to several reports of committees appointed to investigate the Fleet and other prisons, whose recommendations were never acted on by the House. There were, it appeared, in the King's-bench prison, a hundred and ninety-two rooms appropriated for the reception of the prisoners. A great part of these rooms, however, were given to individuals who could afford to pay for them. In 1819, four hundred and forty persons were confined, eighty of whom had separate rooms. What situation then, he would ask, must the unfortunate prisoners be in at present, who, in point of numbers, were nearly double what they were in 1819? Seven hundred and fifty persons were at this moment confined within the walls of that prison, who were crowded into close rooms, not in any way adequate to their accommodation. The hon. member then referred to the want of medical attendance in those prisons—a neglect which reflected the greatest possible disgrace on the authorities by whom it was permitted. No medical officer had been appointed to the Fleet prison until the present year. The hon. gentleman then read an extract from the Report of the Prison Committee of 1814, complaining that there was no infirmary in the Fleet prison, nor any medical attendants to administer to the wants of the prisoners. As the case stood in 1814, so it remained at the present day. The recommendations of the committee had not been attended to. What he most objected to was, that men and women were indiscriminately confined in the same galleries. Under this arrangement, if a woman entered the prison with the least sense of decency, in a very short time she must be inevitably rained. Night and day mist she be ex-
228
posed to the most debasing scenes. The committee of 1814 had recommended the separation of the female from the male prisoners; but the recommendation had riot been adopted, and the prison might be considered as the largest brothel in the metropolis. He had understood that it was the duty of an officer of the Common Pleas to visit the prison once a fortnight; but, upon inquiry of the inmates, he learned that this officer had not been seen there until subsequent to the recent inquest. The coroner upon that occasion, when it was attempted to be shewn that the deceased had lost his life through exposure to the air in walking the galleries, endeavoured to shut out all the evidence he could; observing, that it was the system of the prison which was in fault, and ought to be looked to. Neither of the prisons was adapted to the purposes they were intended for; idleness was encouraged in them, and consequently vice and immorality. He was sorry to have detained the House so long, but he had not detailed half the facts ["No, no"]. He hoped hon. members would not have to experience the truth of this assertion; but there were some persons pining in prison who once had better prospects than some members in that House. He hoped there would be a fellow feeling. He had heard of instances—which he should not mention through fear of being personal—of individuals obtaining a seat in that House to secure themselves from imprisonment. The hon. member concluded by moving, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the state of the King's Bench, Fleet, Marhaslsea, White-cross-street, and Horsemonger-lane prisons, for the reception of persons imprisoned for debt and contempt of court, into the arrangement, rules, and regulations, made for the better management of the same since the Report of the Committees of this House in 1814, and the Report of the Commissioners in 1818; also, to consider of the operation of the laws authorizing Imprisonment for Debt, and to report their opinion thereon, together with the Minutes of Evidence taken before them, to the House."
Mr. Hobhouseseconded the motion. He said, he thought it was too large, and might be advantageously divided into two. The inquiry would not be so easy as the hon. member seemed to think; but he hoped that the other side would not deem

229
the proposition on that account inadmissible.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, it was not his intention, at that late hour, to follow the hon. member for Aberdeen through the long speech which he had addressed to the House. Upon the subject of arrest and imprisonment for civil debt, many eminent men had written. It was a subject which had engaged Dr. Johnson, who had made it the theme of one of his papers in the Rambler. The opinions there set forth were afterwards maintained by many eminent persons. About thirty years ago, the late marquis of Hastings introduced a bill for the relief of insolvent debtors. That bill was periodically introduced; but at the present moment a regular Insolvent act was passed, which was considered an improvement on that measure. He would not travel through the speech of the hon. gentleman who had introduced the motion, but there was one point upon which he must offer a few words; he meant as to the hardships which the hon. member seemed to conceive the debtor was under, on being arrested upon the allegation of a creditor. If the creditor falsely represented that another was indebted to him, could he not be indicted for perjury? As to the law of Arrest, it had prevailed in England for a century and a half. The individual, in the first instance, was not positively cast into prison, but was merely confined, to compel him to procure bail to have the trial carried on. The hon. member, he apprehended, did not object to imprisonment for debt after trial, but only before trial.
Mr. Hume.—My objection is to imprisonment at all for debt, whether before or after trial.
The Attorney-General.—That was an extraordinary proposition indeed. No person conversant with trade would listen to a proposition that imprisonment, after process, should be abolished. With respect to the sufferings to which persons who were imprisoned were subject, no man endued with sentiments of humanity but must feel for the deprivations of those thus unfortunately circumstanced. Adverting again to the Insolvent Debtors' act, he was inclined to believe that, by that act, too much relief had been given to persons imprisoned for debt. He would go the length of the hon. member in lamenting that sufficient accommodation was not afforded to women who were in-
230
carcerated for debt in the particular prisons to which the hon. gentleman had alluded; but, if a committee were to be formed, what was the particular question to be agitated? Could imprisonment for debt be abolished before trial? Ought it to be abolished after? The motion before the House embraced so many branches, that he certainly should oppose it. If a committee were to be formed, what would be the particular propositions upon which they would be called upon to decide? Had the hon. member made out any case of abuse against the prisons? It was, perhaps, not generally known to the House, that with respect to the King's-bench prison, the late lord Ellenborough made a regulation, when he was chief-justice of the Court of King's-bench, that the marshal should reside within the walls of the prison. In the same manner did lord Kenyon act, with regard to the superior officers of other prisons over which he had control. The Insolvent Debtors' act, he would repeat, had been made, in too many instances, an engine of fraud. He perfectly concurred in the observations which had fallen from the hon. member for Westminster, that the subject embraced much too wide a field for the exertions of a committee; and he conceived, also, that the principle of arrest for civil debt could not be departed from with safety in a commercial country like this. He was ready to admit that if any means could be devised for alleviating the quantity of human suffering endured by persons confined in prison, it would be worth the while of the House to inquire into it; but this was very different from the proposition of the hon. gentleman. He concluded by saying, that he thought the hon. member had not brought the question before the House in a tangible point of view.
Mr. Calcraftconceived that his hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen, had made out a case for inquiry as respected the state of the prisons. Having said this, he would add, that he did not believe, in the present state of society, and in the condition of the country, that it would be prudent or proper to abolish imprisonment for debt. The object, too, of his hon. friend would not be answered if the committee were formed; for the subject was so very extensive, that it would be impossible to embrace all the branches. The law of arrest had been much softened by the Insolvent Debtors' act. That act had

231
undergone considerable improvement since its first introduction. The marquis of Hastings had been named as having introduced an annual Insolvent Debtor's act, but how much better was it to have a permanent act, than one introduced annually. He hoped that his hon. friend would not press that part of the motion which embraced an inquiry into the law of arrest. He was sure that if an inquiry were set on foot into the state of the prisons, without going into the other parts of the subject which the motion embraced, much good would follow, and that many of those horrible evils which now prevailed would be removed.
Mr. Secretary Peelwas not prepared, when he read the notice of the motion, to anticipate that so many subjects would be mixed up with it. The hon. member's motion extended to an inquiry into a most important branch of the judicature of this country; as one of the propositions was, that a committee should be appointed to inquire whether imprisonment for debt should be abolished. To this proposition he most decidedly objected. But what remedy did the hon. gentleman propose? He had not suggested a single one to the House. It was not, surely, his intention to hold out to the creditor, that he should have no remedy against the debtor? The hon. member had stated the evils to which a person was subject who was cast into prison for debt; and he was perfectly willing to admit that such evils existed. But, in stating such an opinion, the hon. member had left out of his consideration the evils to which the creditor was subject. The privations of the debtor, the evils to which he was exposed, would operate to deter many persons from running into debt.—As to the subject of the inquiry into the state of prisons, it was a difficult thing to resist it, without having it supposed that there was a desire to screen individuals. In the present case he would readily concur in that part of the motion which sought an inquiry into the state of prisons, but not into that part which went to investigate the subject of imprisonment for debt. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. member for Aberdeen, respecting the want of a medical gentleman in the Fleet prison, he begged to say, that he had appointed a surgeon, a Mr. Cooper, with a. salary of 200 l. a year, to attend both the Fleet and King's-bench prisons. This gentleman was to attend the prisoners
232
on both sides of the Fleet prison, He must, however, tell the hon. member, that he believed he was mistaken in many of the facts he had stated. He was inclined to think the hon. member had obtained his information from a very suspicious source; and he cautioned him not to rely on all that was communicated to him from the quarter to which he alluded. He had himself received many letters from a Mr. Jennings on this subject; and the inquiries he had caused to be made in consequence, convinced him that the statements in those letters were exceedingly exaggerated. On one occasion, it was stated, that a jury summoned to hold an inquest in the Fleet prison, had been previously made drunk. He had accordingly referred this matter to the chief-justice of the Common Pleas, who, upon inquiry, found that there was not a shadow of foundation for the charge. With respect to the state of the Fleet prison, he believed that at present no effectual attempt could be made to remedy its condition. If the revenue had been in a more flourishing condition, he had intended to propose, that a great alteration should have been made in this prison. The city of London were desirous of having the site on which the prison stood, and had offered to give a more convenient piece of ground for the purpose of building another prison on. On consultation with his right hon. friend, the chancellor of the Exchequer, he had, however, found that it would be more convenient to postpone the measure to another year; and he had, therefore, been reluctantly compelled to do so. He had no hesitation in admitting, that the system of the King's-bench prison was extremely defective; and if there was a vacancy to-morrow in the office of marshal, he should recommend its being done away with. The large fees amounting to 2,000 l. or 3,000 l. a-year were necessary in the present state of the prison; owing to the heavy responsibility and loss which the marshal sometimes sustained. He had been in constant communication on these subjects with the chief justices of the King's-bench and Common Pleas, who, notwithstanding the pressure of public business, were always ready to give whatever assistance they could. They did not refer to the warden or marshal, but sent able and confidential persons who made satisfactory reports. He found it difficult to refuse the inquiry which the hon. gentleman had moved for; and if he would

233
be content to take a committee, the object of which should be limited by that of the former commission and committee, he was willing to accede to it; trusting to the hon. member for forming his committee, so as to ensure an impartial investigation into the subject.
Sir Robert Wilsoninstanced, as an example of the mischief of the system of arrest for debt, the case of a gentleman who was arrested, and in consequence of his inability to procure bail for 10,000 l. suffered a long imprisonment, although it was afterwards proved that his arrest was wholly unjust. Surely it would not be impracticable to introduce some modifications, which would approximate the system to the law in France and in Holland; where there was no arrest, except upon bonds and bills of exchange, until after judgment. He would recommend his hon. friend to accede to the liberal proposition of the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
Mr. John Smithsaid, that when he was last in France, he had an opportunity of ascertaining that the prisons of that country were filled with persons confined for debt. The gallant general was also mistaken in supposing that arrests were not permitted by the law of France in the first instance; for in acting on bills of exchange, the creditor might throw his debtor into prison before the subject in dispute came to be tried. If the hon. member for Montrose went to a division, he would support it; because he believed the state of the prisons ought to be inquired into, and the law of arrest, particularly respecting the frauds practised by means of what were truly called sponging houses.
Mr. Alderman Woodsupported the motion, and complained of the shameful state of the Fleet prison, which required immediate alteration. The unclaimed fund in the court of Chancery might, he thought, be employed for that purpose.
Mr. Monckrecommended his hon. friend to leave to the Secretary of State for the Home Department that part of his proposition which related to an inquiry into the state of the gaols; but he hoped his hon. friend would not abandon the other very important branch of his motion; namely, the state of the law of imprisonment for debt. There were at present no fewer than seven hundred persons in prison in London, for debts under 20 l. He
234
thought it would be desirable to abolish arrest for sums below 20 l.
The Solicitor-Generalconceived, that great benefit would arise from the renewal of a law which expired some short time since, prohibiting arrest for any sums under 15 l. The direct benefits of this system would be great; but its indirect effects would be still greater, as the accumulation of law expenses, which were equally heavy upon small as upon large sums, would be thereby checked.
Mr. D. W. Harveysuggested to his hon. friend, that, owing to the advanced period of the night, and the empty state of the House, it would be prudent to withdraw his motion for the present, as that part of it which he wished to press was of such importance, as to require a more deliberate discussion than could now be given to it,
Mr. Humesaid, that owing to the departure of the right hon. gentlemen opposite, he had no other course left than to withdraw his motion for the present. The Secretary for the Home Department did not deny that the state of the prisons called for revision, and as the right hon. gentleman volunteered to undertake the subject, he was quite willing to leave it in his hands. But he must deny that he wished to establish a system which would facilitate fraud, and injure public credit. He had no such object. His only wish was, to obtain information, by which he was confident he should be able to prove, that imprisonment for debt was cruel and impolitic; that it tended to facilitate fraud and to increase the number of debtors. It was not fair for the right hon. gentlemen opposite, if they did not choose to perform certain tasks themselves, to throw obstacles in the way of those who had the disposition to do it, even if they were not endowed with the same abilities. The right hon. gentleman had referred to the chief justices of the King's-bench and Common Pleas. Now, those learned individuals had been, for the space of ten years, with the instructions of the commissioners before them, containing twenty specific improvements of the law; and they had not yet taken a single step towards the realization of one of those suggestions. He left the measure in the hands of the right hon. gentleman; but with the declaration, that if there should be nothing done, he would again trouble the House upon the subject.
The motion was then withdrawn.