Commons Sitting of 18 May 1830

MINUTES.
Accounts ordered. On the Motion of Mr. A. ELLIS, of the number of Persons convicted of Forgery on the Bank of Ireland between 1791 and 1830, distinguishing the nature of the Crime and the Punishment:—On the Motion of Mr. BERNAL, the quantity of Corn Spirits annually consumed in the United Kingdom since January, 1800, with the Rate of Duty each Year:—The quantity of Rum annually exported from the British West Indies since 1812:—On the Motion of Lord CLEMENTS, the number of Fines levied at Quarter Sessions in Ireland during the last five years.
Petitions presented. For abolishing the Punishment of Death for Forgery, by Mr. A, ELLIS, from the Magistrates and Clergy of Evesham:—By Mr. LENNARD, from a Congregation of Independents at Exeter; from certain Inhabitants of Ipswich; and from Tewkesbury:—And by Sir E. KNATCHBULL, from the Bankers of Margate and of Ashford. Against the Truck System, by Mr. SLANEY, from Shiffnall. For exempting Waste Lands from County Assessments, by Mr. H. MAXWELL, from St. Mary, Newton Barry. Against the proposal alteration in the Stamp Duties, by Mr. WALLACE, from the Letterpress Printers of Kilkenny. Against the Insolvent Debtors Bill, by Colonel LYNN, from the Inhabitants of Kidderminster. Against the Sale of Beer Bill, by Sir E. KNATCHBULL, from the Publicans of Tonbridge:—And by Mr. DENISON, from the Publicans of Working and Chertsey. Against the Administration of Justice Bill, by Mr. EGERTON, from the County Palatine of Chester. Against the renewal of the East India Company's Charter, by Lord G. SOMERSET, from the Iron-masters of Monmouth:—And by Mr. J. MAXWELL, from the Manufacturers of Staley Bridge. In favour of Poor-Laws for Ireland, by Mr. O'CONNELL, from Whitechurch and Garrocloyn. Against allowing the Cultivation of Tobacco in England and Ireland, by Lord BELGRAVE, from the Tobacconists of Chester. Against the Use of Machinery, by Mr. WODEHOUSE, from the Paper-makers of Norfolk. Complaining of the injury done to Trade by the Spanish Expeditions against Mexico, by Lord STANLEY, from the Chamber of Commerce, Manchester:—And by Mr. C. BUTLER, from the Merchants of Glasgow. Against the proposed alteration in the Spirit Duties, by Mr. T. KNOX, from Dungannon:—By Mr. V. SMITH, from the Members of the Chamber of Commerce of Tralee:—And by Mr. Mr. HUME, from the Distillers of Aberdeen.

TITHES.
Mr. Humepresented a Petition from certain owners and occupiers of land in the neighbourhood of Rochester, in the county of Kent, which was, he observed, of a very important nature. It related to the subject of Tithes, and therefore interested, not merely the petitioners, but all persons in the community. On this account it was certainly worthy the serious attention of the House. A very great change had taken place in the minds of men, of late years, with respect to this subject, as the hon. Baronet near him, who was present at a public

819
meeting, recently held at Penenden-heath, must be well aware. What, he asked, had happened at that meeting? Why, to the astonishment of the nobility and gentry who were there assembled, though the meeting was called for a very different purpose, a resolution was proposed and carried, having for its object the removal of the Tithe-system; and at a meeting subsequently held near Rochester, a similar resolution was voted. It was quite evident, from what had lately occurred, that a general feeling against the continuance of the Tithe-system prevailed, and certainly, in his opinion, it was high time that the system should be removed. In many instances he believed the clergy were very moderate in their demands, and did not insist on what they might call for according to law; but in other cases he had reason to know that Tithes were exacted without scruple, and with the utmost severity. He was instructed to say, and he concurred in the truth of the statement, because it was borne out by his own inquiries in the county of Kent, as well as in other parts of the country, that the Tithe-system was the cause why there were so many individuals unemployed in different parishes. He was quite sure, if the Tithes were removed, that many persons would employ labourers for the purpose of improving their property, which, under the existing system, they could not think of doing. In one instance which came under his own observation, a farmer, who wished to get rid, as far as he could, of the burthen imposed by the Poor-laws, gave up to one of the poor a piece of land for the cultivation of a crop of potatoes. No sooner, however, were the potatoes taken from the ground, than the clergyman sent in his claim, and left the individual by whose labour the crop had been reared, and for whose use it was intended, little or nothing. Now, when this was the case,—when the system operated so injuriously,—he thought the Legislature was bound to take the subject into serious consideration. It was not only injurious to the country at large, and especially the agricultural interest, but it operated to the disadvantage of religion itself. It was impossible to conceive a system which generated greater mischief. It was a system which created hatred and ill-feeling between the pastor and his flock, who ought to be united together by the ties of kindness and mutual respect; it was a
820
system, therefore, which, as it appeared to him, his Majesty's Ministers ought to try to abolish. It was the most onerous and heavy of taxes. If they looked round the world, they would find that the united Umpire was the only place in which Tithes were severely collected. The petitioners stated, first, that in the present state of distress great relief would be afforded by the abolition of Tithes, a tax which, by drawing so large a share of the gross produce of the land, was alike injurious to the community in general, to the agriculturists in particular, and to the best interests of religion. To the community, by unavoidably increasing the price of articles of most general and necessary consumption—to the agriculturist, by subjecting them to various vexatious restrictions in the cultivation of the land, and by depriving them of the ability to compete with the foreign grower, or to contend against the importation of grain, which it is the present policy of this country to encourage—and to religion, by proving a fruitful source of discord between the clergyman and his parishioners, and so destroying that harmony upon the continuance of which the success of his spiritual labours chiefly depends. They stated, however, that "In urging the abolition of this impolitic tax, they disclaimed, with the utmost sincerity, any desire to advocate a system of spoliation; on the contrary, they fully admitted the vested rights of private patrons and lay impropriators, as well as the claims of the present incumbents to a life-interest in their present incomes; but, due regard being paid to these, they maintain, that the Tithe-tax is, equally with all other taxes, properly the subject of Legislative disposal; in opposition to the argument now much relied on, that Tithes having been given for the maintenance of religion, are therefore, inalienable. The Roman Catholic might, with some plausibility, advance such a claim to their recovery, they having been originally granted for the support of his creed, but the Protestant can found his right upon the law of the land only—upon that law which, as it gave, can also modify or take away. The petitioners, however, and to this, as a specimen of the feelings of the people, he particularly called the attention of the House, stated that they did not think any such support necessary for the Church. They say that "It has been deemed necessary to accompany

821
all the plans heretofore proposed for the repeal of this objectionable tax with a substitute affording an equivalent income to the clergy; it is however evident, that, although a commutation might remove the inconvenience of the Tithe-system, yet it would afford no diminution of taxation; and as all taxes, in whatever shape imposed fall ultimately upon labour, that the inability to compete with the less taxed labour of other countries would remain unabated. But the petitioners confidently submit, that the time has at length, arrived, when it ceases to be necessary to provide a substitute of this nature, as they consider that, however essential the aid of wealth and honours may have hitherto been to the Church of England, to enable her to lure to her service men of learning and talent, to advocate the truth and excellence of her doctrines and discipline, the necessity for such aid happily no longer exists. This task has been so ably performed as to leave nothing further to be expected or desired, and it may be fairly assumed that the Established Religion can now be safely left to its own intrinsic excellence for its future support. The well-paid labours of those eminent men, who, attracted by the splendid rewards of the Church, have enlisted in her cause, have so simplified the clerical duties as to make them practicable by persons of ordinary capacities and acquirements; to such an extent, indeed, as to render the functions of the clergy of the establishment almost entirely ministerial; for its comprehensive Liturgy, by supplying all the formularies of devotion, whether for prayer or praise, imprecation or benediction, disavowal or belief, and also strictly enjoining the various occasions upon which they are to be respectively used, affords no opportunity for the exercise of judgment, the exhibition of talent, or the display of learning." The petitioners stated also, with perfect truth, that the duties of these clergymen, for which such large sums have been paid, might be performed by almost any person. "Nor," they say, "do the duties of the preacher, any more than the minister require an education superior to that which is usually bestowed upon the middling class of society; for the inexhaustible stores of invaluable sermons which have emanated from the labours of those highly-gifted divines who have, at different periods, shed a lustre upon the English Church, afford a fund of
822
instruction admirably adapted for every purpose, and to select from which requires but a moderate portion of literary attainments. The qualifications for the proper performance of these functions being few, and the acquisition of them not requiring expense, as they consist principally of propriety of demeanour, and the possession of the natural advantages of suitable voice and delivery, but moderate stipends would be necessary to ensure a sufficient number of competent candidates, and the payment of these stipends might be safely left to the generosity of their respective congregations; for the petitioners consider that it would be a libel upon the members of the Established Church to doubt for a moment their liberality for this purpose, when it is seen how respectably the different Dissenting Congregations maintain their pastors, and how readily they supply large sums for the erection of chapels and establishment of schools." The petitioners expressed an opinion, which he thought all history confirmed, that there was no occasion for the Legislature to provide for the welfare of religion. It was well known, in fact, that religion flourished most where political establishments for its support were unknown. The petitioners said, that in their plans of reform there were no incomes from the State, for future Archbishops, Bishops, and the other dignitaries of the Hierarchy. But the admirers of Episcopacy need experience no alarm on that account, for the history of the early periods of the Church satisfactorily shows that the care of suitably providing for all orders of its establishment may be safely intrusted to the proper feelings of the people. In that he coincided, and thought that Scotland and the United States were living examples of the truth, that to provide large establishments for the clergy, did but starve religion. He, for one, should be glad to see the Church Establishment of England cut down, and he cordially concurred with the petitioners in the concluding part of their prayer, thinking with them that the best way to preserve the Church of England would be to reform it. They say that they have thus sketched the outlines of a scheme of reformation, which, when matured, would, they believe, work well, be generally approved, and render the abolition of Tithes easily practicable. This plan would receive the approbation of many, who consider a

823
wealthy priesthood as peculiarly unfitted to inculcate the precepts of Christianity, and who regard the unexpensive provision for its primitive teachers, as indicative of the desire of its Founder, that his servants should look, not to riches or rank, but to a reward of a far different nature, as the recompense for their labours. Others, who are desirous of upholding the Church of England, would truly calculate that its adoption would tend to ensure the stability of that now tottering fabric, as, when shorn of its wealth and temporal honours, it would cease to be the object of attack, cither of the financier or reformer. Those who are enamoured of the beauty and sublimity of the language of its liturgy, or impressed with the conviction of the truth and importance of its creed, would most effectually protect these from innovation, by confining the office to a class of men who, from their functions being ministerial, would have neither opportunity nor temptation to deviate from the path of orthodoxy; whilst the community in general, and the agriculturists in particular, finding themselves relieved from an oppressive tax, would hail the reform with unalloyed satisfaction. The petitioners, therefore, pray your honourable House to take the necessary steps to effect an early abolition of the Tithe-tax—a measure which would give more satisfaction to the country, and reflect greater credit upon the Legislature, than any enactment that has been carried for centuries past; and, when coupled with the boon of religious liberty, lately so liberally granted, would entitle the present Parliament to be mentioned in terms of the most glowing eulogium, by the historian of the United Kingdom." He wished to call the attention of Ministers to this subject, as it respected Ireland. If the people of England were beginning to complain of Tithes, what must the people of Ireland do, whose situation was so much worse than that of the people of England. If in England the people found it difficult to pay Tithes to clergymen of their own religious persuasion, how much more disadvantageously circumstanced were the great body of the people of Ireland, who were obliged to support a clergy that did not belong to their Church, while at the same time they were called on, by feelings of duty, to pay their own pastors? The right hon. Gentleman who, on the preceding evening, had expressed so much anxiety for the purity and stability of the
824
Church, would do well to turn this subject in his mind; for he might rest assured, that the Established Church was threatened with more danger from the existence of the Tithe-system, than possibly could arise from allowing the Jews to have a full participation in the rights of British subjects. If the hon. member for Dorset were present, he (Mr. Hume) would ask him to propose a resolution, pledging the House to put an end to sinecures in the Church in a like manner as it had been proposed to do away with State sinecures. Clergymen should not be allowed to eat in idleness the revenues of offices of which they omitted to perform the duties, as but too many of them did. 11,000 livings in England were held by about 6,000 clergymen, the duties of nearly one-half the livings being performed by deputy. Under such circumstances it was not surprising that petitions should be sent to that House against our Church Establishment. Norfolk had petitioned as well as Kent, and as there was no reform which would be of more benefit to the people than that of our Church Establishment, so he thought there was none so likely to excite a lively interest in the people, and make them send petitions to Parliament.
Sir R. H. Inglisprotested against the doctrine of the hon. Member, which he had then advanced with more than his usual hardihood. He denied that the clergy were to be considered, like the military, the stipendiaries of the State, and denied that the State had the power of dealing with their incomes as it might deal with the pay of soldiers. He asserted that the one-tenth of the produce of the land was as much the property of the Church as the remaining nine-tenths were the property of the owners of the soil. One-third of the Tithes, however, was the property of lay impropriators, and that was exacted with more rigour than the two-thirds which were in the hands of churchmen.
Mr. Protheroeadmitted, that the clergy were not under the control of the State exactly like soldiers, but he thought, nevertheless, that they were liable to be called to account by the public for their management of Church property. He was not prepared to argue against a Church Establishment, and on that account was anxious that the clergy should obviate objections, by discharging their duties properly, in proportion to the amount of the salaries which they received.
Sir E. Knatchbullsaid, that there was no body of men who discharged their duties more conscientiously than the clergy of the Established Church, as far as he was acquainted with their character. He denied that the petition agreed to at Penenden-heath expressed the sense of the county of Kent on the subject of Tithes. If the Tithe-system required amelioration, there was a bill before Parliament to effect that object, and it would be more appropriate to take the discussion on that bill, than upon the presentation of a petition.
Mr. F. Palmersaid, that the proportion of Tithe to rent was much more than one-tenth, which the hon. Baronet claimed for the clergy. He knew an instance in which, four years ago, the rent of a farm was 600 l., the Tithe amounted to 140 l.; when, in consequence of the depressed state of agriculture, the rent was reduced to 500 l., an application was made by the tenant to reduce the Tithe. The application was refused, the Tithe-owner telling him, "As your rent has been reduced, you will be the better able to pay my Tithe."
Mr. Baringsaid, on a former occasion he had put a hypothetical case, namely,—that if the revenues of certain sees (he had those of London and Canterbury in his eye, although he did not name them) became worth upwards of 100,000 l. a year, it might be proper for Parliament to reduce, and make a more equal distribution of those revenues. He had reason to believe, both from the statements of a right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) in another place, which he implicitly credited, and from other sources of information, that very exaggerated ideas were entertained of the value of certain sees, and he now wished to say so. The income of the see of Winchester, during the first year of the present Bishop's incumbency, had been stated at 90,000 l. He believed this to be a gross exaggeration. He deduced one consolatory fact from the statement of the right rev. Prelate, when he admitted, that if the revenues of sees should ever amount to the enormous sums represented, it would become the duty of Parliament to divide them. The Church made a great mistake in shunning inquiry. Undoubtedly the amount of Tithe was great; in the neighbourhood where he sometimes resided in Hampshire, it was from one-third to one-fourth of the rent. But he must say that, generally speaking,
826
what the Church took was much less than it was entitled to. The system of commutation had worked well in Ireland, and might be attended with beneficial effects in this country. The wit of man could not devise a mode of payment more calculated than the present to prove inconvenient to agriculture, or more inconsistent with the interests of religion.
Mr. Estcourtconcurred in what had fallen from the hon. Baronet, but as there would be more fitting occasions to discuss the merits of the Church than on the presentation of a petition, he should say nothing on the subject.
Mr. Humecould not see anything delicate in the question, and certainly clergymen never had any delicacy in the collection of their Tithes. No body of men in the country were more indelicate than the clergy. They had no scruple in exciting ill-will, and took one-third, and not one-tenth, of the property of the country with the greatest coolness. They had certain duties attached to their situations, which they swore to discharge, and when they did not discharge those duties, they were guilty of a fraud, and received money upon false pretences. He wanted to see the Church of England put upon the same footing as the Church of Scotland, and then he should be satisfied. To the hon. Baronet, the member for Oxford, he should only reply, that if he did not like discussions of this sort upon petitions he (Mr. Hume) was quite ready to fix an open day for bringing the subject forward upon regular motion.
Mr. Protheroewished the House to remark, that there was a broad distinction between the clergy and religion. If anybody talked of dilapidated churches, neglect of duty in the education of the poor, or the exaction of Tithes, then it was a matter of great delicacy. Religion might be attacked with much less ceremony.

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.—LIBEL LAW.
Mr. Humepresented a Petition from persons confined for Debt in the Borough Gaol of Liverpool, against Imprisonment for Debt. The hon. Member admitted, that the clause in the Attorney General's bill, which restricted arrests on mesne process to sums of 100 l. or upwards, was taking one step; but he hoped the House would by this time have been pre-pared to do away with imprisonment for debt on mesne process altogether.
The Attorney Generalsaid, that he was not called upon to state his opinion upon the subject of imprisonment for debt. Whatever that opinion might be, as long as the public opinion was divided on the subject, and a majority of that House was against the abolition of arrest for Debt on mesne process, it would not be consistent with the duty of the situation which he held to attempt to force upon the country a measure which would subvert a system that had now existed for so many years. He would take this opportunity of putting it to his noble friend, the member for Morpeth (Lord Morpeth), whether he would persevere with his motion which stood for that evening, viz.—"To repeal so much of 60 George 3rd, c. 8, as subjects persons, upon the second conviction for libel, to banishment." It was his intention to move for leave to bring in a bill, which would effect precisely the same object which his noble friend had in view. His measure would also contain a clause to facilitate the recovery of damages for Libel; but still it would do all his noble friend proposed to do; and he took this opportunity, therefore, of putting it to his noble friend, whether it would not be better for him to withdraw the motion of which he had given notice?
Lord Morpethsaid, that as he had already postponed this motion at the request of his hon. and learned friend, he thought he should be justified in calling upon his hon. and learned friend to state more explicitly the nature of the accompanying measure before he acceded to the suggestion now made to him.
The Attorney Generalsaid, that the measure would apply, not to existing newspapers, but only to newspapers which should be hereafter established. The object of it was to call upon the proprietors of all newspapers established de novo to give additional security to the amount of 100 l. His view in proposing such a measure was simply to enable persons to recover from newspaper proprietors those damages which a court of justice might award. A measure similar to this had passed about ten years ago without objection, and his bill would only carry that measure to the farther extent he had mentioned—namely, to 100 l. Whatever difference of opinion there might be, as to the propriety or impropriety of allowing the press to say what it pleased upon public matters, yet he believed there was only one opinion re-
828
specting the manner in which Libels upon private individuals should be dealt with. He believed it to be generally held, that private Libels ought to be checked. To effect this was his object. He need not remind the House, that persons who had been guilty of such Libels—of Libels of a very grave character—had escaped the payment of damages, because they had no tangible property.
Lord Morpethsaid, that since a part of his hon. and learned friend's measure would effect all that he proposed to do, he felt that he should not be justified in refusing to resign the matter into such hands. At the same time he must express his deep regret that his hon. and learned friend had not contented himself with simply repealing this disgraceful act; for with respect to the accompanying measure which his hon. and learned friend had now explained, he could look upon it only in one light—he could consider it only as another restriction on the liberty of the press. This was his present impression; and if, on consideration, he saw nothing to induce him to alter the opinion he now expressed, he should certainly move, when they went into a committee on the Attorney General's Bill, that the whole of it should be struck out, except that part of it which repealed the act of George 3rd.
Mr. Brightdid not rise to offer any opinion upon the proposed measure, but to allude to one which the Attorney General had already brought in. He objected to so many important subjects being mixed up in one bill, especially when, as in the present case, they had no connexion with each other. The clause respecting arrest on mesne process ought to be struck out and discussed by itself.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusondiffered from the hon. Member who had just sat down, and thought the clause respecting arrest was very properly admitted into a bill the professed object of which was to improve the administration of justice. With respect to the proposed measure of his hon. and learned friend, he begged also to express his regret that his hon. and learned friend had not contented himself with repealing at once that act which was a disgrace to our Statute-book, instead of accompanying the repeal with another measure of questionable propriety.
Mr. O'Connellprotested against the principle on which the Attorney General

829
was proceeding with respect to arrest. Security ought to be taken from persons making affidavit for debt. As to the proposed measure of the Attorney General, he was sorry to hear that there was to be another shackle on the press. The public had at least a right to expect that the monopoly of the press should not be continued in the hands of the present owners; but restrictions which would prevent others embarking in that trade would have that effect. Above all, the Attorney General ought to give them the definition of "libel," and no man ought to be punished at all for an undefined offence.
Mr. C. Barclayhoped the proposed alteration in the law of arrest would be maturely considered before the House agreed to it.
Lord Morpethwithdrew his Motion.

WEST INDIES.
Lord Chandosbegged to ask the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department whether it was the intention of the Government to oppose the motion of his hon. friend (Mr. Keith Douglas) for a committee to inquire into the distressed condition of the British West India colonists?
Sir R. Peelsaid, that as he had not yet heard the terms of the reference to the committee, it was hard for him to answer the question of his noble friend. While he could not say that the Government were altogether prepared to resist the motion, yet he must put it to his noble friend and to the hon. mover, whether any public advantage could result from the appointment of such a committee at this late period of the Session. He thought it, too, well worthy their consideration, whether much public inconvenience might not arise from such a committee making recommendations which there was no chance of their being able to carry through Parliament in the present Session. He could assure his noble friend that the Government were deeply impressed with the importance of the subject, and that they felt much that distress which it was understood existed in the West India colonies.

DISTRESS.
Mr. O'Connellpresented a petition from Journeymen Silk-weavers of Spitalfields. The petitioners stated that there was too much money spent in building churches and palaces; that there was a German prince who had 50,000 l.
830
a year, and who ought to be contented with 5,000 l.; they complained of distress, and said that their condition was worse than that of the negroes, and they prayed for the repeal of the corn-laws, for reduction of taxation, and for reform in Parliament.
Mr. Fylersupported the prayer of the petition, and bore testimony to the sufferings of the petitioners. They were obliged to work sixteen hours a day, and that was not enough to obtain them the means of subsistence. It was a mistake to suppose that any improvement had taken place in the silk trade; and the petitioners complained, with justice, of the foreign competition and high price of provisions against which they had to contend.
Petition to be printed.

CASE OF JAMES KELLY.
Mr. O'Connellpresented a petition from James Kelly, late lieutenant of the revenue police, complaining that he had been dismissed without trial, and praying the House to take his case into consideration.
Mr. G. Dawsonsaid, that the petitioner had been dismissed for claiming and receiving the reward for services which had never been performed. So far from having been dismissed without trial, the petitioner had been confronted with the witnesses, his case had been fully heard, and the charges had been completely proved against him.
Lord Clementssaid, the petitioner had received so high a character from persons of the greatest respectability, that he thought his case ought to be reconsidered, at least the papers connected with the case ought to be produced to the House.
Mr. G. Dawsonsaid, that the petitioner had had every opportunity given him of exculpating himself, and that he had failed entirely.
Mr. C. W. Wynnprotested against that House being made a court of appeal for the reconsideration of cases already decided by the competent authorities.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that he knew nothing of the petitioner or of his case before the present occasion, but he had seen testimonials, the most satisfactory, as to his conduct, and all he was anxious to press upon the House was, that the case of the petitioner should be again revised, so as to give him the opportunity he prayed for, of bringing forward such proofs as would be sufficient to exculpate

831
himself from the charges made against him. The offer which the petitioner made of bearing the whole charge of any further investigation was, he thought, a very fair one, and he hoped would weigh with those who had the power of granting a new inquiry.
On the question that the petition do lie on the table,

BORRISOKANE TRIALS.
Mr. Dohertysaid, he would take that opportunity of putting a question to the hon. and learned member for Clare, with respect to the course he intended to pursue as to the two petitions of which he had given notice on the subject of the Borrisokane trials. These petitions referred to the course which he had pursued on the trials arising out of that transaction. The hon. and learned Member's notice had stood on the books for some time, and was now further postponed. At nearly two o'clock the preceding morning, as he found from the votes, the notice for presenting the petitions was withdrawn, and no day was fixed for bringing them before the House. Under these circumstances, he should wish to know from the hon. and learned Member whether he was to understand that he was to banish the subject altogether from his mind, for it was extremely unpleasant to have a matter of this kind hanging over him. He wished to know now what course the hon. and learned Member intended to take.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, it was true the notice was taken out of the orders, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated, but the intention of presenting them was not wholly given up. His own wish on the subject was, that, under all the circumstances, the matter should not be further pressed, but it did not rest wholly with him. He had written to the parties from whom the petitions came, advising them to allow him to withdraw the petitions altogether, or to confide them to the care of some other hon. Member. To that letter he had not received a reply, and could not before Saturday; and on Monday he should be able to give the hon. and learned Gentleman a definitive answer.

BUSINESS OF THE SESSION.
Mr. C. W. Wynnwished to know what course his right hon. friend intended to take with respect to the resolutions which had been
832
agreed to in the case of Sir Jonah Barrington.
Sir Robert Peelreplied, that the public interest required that some steps should be taken in that case; but in the present state of public business in the House, he hardly knew what day to name for taking the resolutions into consideration, with any hope that they could be brought forward at a reasonable hour. Indeed, such was the state in which the public business now stood, that he felt it would be necessary to introduce some measure for regulating it in the next Session. It was now half-past seven, and that which, properly speaking, was the public business of the evening,—he meant the motions or orders of the day,—had not been commenced, owing to the number of petitions, and the discussions which took place on them. He did not lay the blame on any person, or say that those petitions should not be presented and considered, but some arrangement must be made, by which the fixed business of the day should be brought forward at an early hour. With respect to the case of Sir Jonah Barrington, to which his right hon. friend had referred, he thought it would be extremely inconvenient, and not consistent with what was due to the public interest, to postpone it to the next, or delay it to a very late period in the present Session. Under these circumstances, and considering the state of other business in the House, he thought they should be justified in departing from their ordinary course, and fix it for an early hour on Saturday. He would say, to meet at two o'clock on that day, in order that they might be able to get through it, with the understanding that they should take no other business on that day.
Mr. Humesaid, that he could have no objection to the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, on the subject of the state of business in the House. He, for one, had no objection that the public business—the fixed business—the Orders of the Day or motions—should commence at an earlier hour—say seven o'clock—but that it should also close at a much earlier hour than it did at present—he would suggest twelve o'clock, which he thought was late enough. It was impossible that even the most powerful constitutions should not feel exhausted by the very late hours to which debates were protracted night after night. He would mention, for instance,

833
the case of yesterday: he, who was not a very early riser, got up yesterday morning at seven o'clock, and did not get to bed this morning until a quarter-past four; so that he was twenty-one hours engaged, and had spent the greater part of that time in the House, to which he had come down at twelve o'clock in the day. This was more fatigue than any man ought to be subject to in the discharge of public business, and which few persons could bear long without injury to their health. The right hon. Gentleman had mentioned the necessity of some future regulation with respect to the business in that House; and he would suggest to him that one great improvement, by which much of the pressure now felt might be avoided, would be for the House to meet a couple of months earlier than it usually met, and to sit later. He would say, let Parliament be called together in November, and if it were, a great portion of the public business would be despatched before the present usual time of meeting. The want of such a regulation occasioned the inconvenience that was now felt. Surely it would not be said, that twelve o'clock at night was a proper hour for the introduction of a measure to alter the judicial administration in England, and Wales; but a bill for that purpose had been introduced at that hour in the course of this Session. He should hope, therefore, that some regulation would be made by which this inconvenience might be avoided in future, and he did not know a better way than to call Parliament together at an earlier period.
Sir Robert Peelobserved, that the suggestion which he had made did not refer to the convenience of Ministers more than to that of other Members. Considering the business to be done, he did not think, if the House sat the whole year, and transacted public business only from seven to twelve each evening, that the time would be sufficient to get through it. To fix the latter hour as that of adjournment each day would often be attended with great inconvenience. It would occasion frequent adjourned debates, which would render the bringing forward any business fixed for the following day as uncertain as at present, when so many matters stood for the same evening. For instance, if the debate of last night, which lasted till nearly three o'clock, had been adjourned at twelve o'clock, it would have been found much more inconvenient than
834
having it protracted even to that hour. However he had mentioned the necessity of some regulation as to the mode of conducting business in future, not with the view of proposing any thing immediately, but in order that hon. Members might consider the subject, with a view to what might, in future, be advisable.
Mr. Huskissonthought, that much of the time of the House might be saved if hon. Members, in presenting petitions which related to bills before the House, would abstain from making any remarks on them until the proper time arrived for the discussion. Much of the time of the House was consumed in desultory observations which led to no result. He was aware that he spoke this with a bad grace, as he should have to occupy the House at some length on the subject of the petition which he should have to present on Thursday; but there was a difference between that and the ordinary run of petitions relating to bills—for the subject which he should bring forward was one to which the House could not immediately apply a remedy; though great benefit, which he expected would be the case, might arise from the discussion of it. In the other cases, however, much time might be saved, and greater facilities given to the despatch of the general business of the House, if desultory remarks were avoided.
Lord F. L. Gowersaid, that he would now move that the Resolutions respecting Sir Jonah Barrington be taken into consideration on Saturday.
Motion agreed to.

BRITISH WEST-INDIA COLONIES.
Mr. K. Douglas, referring to what had fallen from his right hon. friend (Sir Robert Peel) respecting his motion on the state of the West-India Colonists,—namely, that no practical good could be expected to result from its introduction at so late a period of the Session,—observed that it was not in his power to have brought it forward earlier. He was sensible of its urgency, but the state of business had been such that he had no option. He wished, however, that it might be understood that he was not a volunteer on the occasion. He and his noble friend (the Marquis of Chandos) had been selected twelve months ago by the West-India Colonists to represent their interests to that House. They had made themselves acquainted with the subject, having got

835
every information respecting it which the Colonists could give, and had laid their statement before the House; and though they had last year not been able to obtain the redress which they sought, they were ready now again to urge the subject on the attention of Parliament. At the same time he must always contend that it was the duty of the Ministers to take upon themselves the responsibility of submitting this question to the House. The nature of our colonial possessions imposed that necessity upon them; and it would be much more satisfactory to him if the Ministers would state that they were willing to take the subject into consideration in the course of the next Session. If they consented to do so, he should expect that they would offer their own views in their responsible character. This would spare him a task to which he felt himself incompetent—that of making the case under all its peculiarities and difficulties thoroughly intelligible to the House. If he could receive an assurance to this effect, he should feel that he had discharged his duty much more effectually and advantageously to the interests which he had advocated, than if he himself brought the question forward. If, however, Ministers would not give any such pledge, he, inadequate as he might be to the task, would endeavour to make out the case to the House and the country, and show how the ruin of hundreds of respectable individuals would be involved by the further neglect of the case on the part of Government. He did earnestly hope, however, that Government would save him that trouble, and in that feeling, if he understood that Government did really mean to apply itself to the subject, he would not press his Motion now.
Mr. Herriessaid, that if his hon. friend wished to know whether the Government were disposed to do all in its power to alleviate any evils connected with the subject to which he referred, and to take it fully into its consideration, he could assure him that he and those with whom he acted would not be found wanting in a disposition to comply with his desires as fully as possible in that respect. At the same time he could assure the hon. Member, that however Government might be disposed to relieve the commercial relations of the West-Indian interest from embarrassment, any immediate remedy for the evils complained of was impossible.
836
Under such circumstances, he could not think it would be advisable for his Majesty's Government to give to the hon. Gentleman or the House the pledge which he now required.
The Marquis of Chandosobserved, that it had long been a subject of lively regret to many as well as himself that in a question of such vital interest to this country—namely, the prosperity of the West-India Colonies—their interests had not been taken up as they ought to have been by his Majesty's Government: he was connected with those Colonies himself, and feeling, as he did, that they were a suffering and overburthened part of this great empire, their interests, he thought, imperatively called on the Administration to take up their affairs, with a view to afford that portion of our dominions advantages equivalent to those enjoyed by other portions of our colonial establishments. If Ministers, in that spirit, would consent to pledge themselves to take up the subject, with a view to their relief, he should recommend his hon. friend to leave it in their hands, otherwise he should prefer the adoption of some other parliamentary mode of inquiry.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that the proposition made by his hon. friend was different from that made by his noble friend who had just spoken. His noble friend said, that Government must give a pledge to bring forward some measure of relief; but he put it to his noble friend, if it were either the interest or the duty of Ministers to pledge themselves to any specific measures. If his noble friend reflected for a moment, he would see the propriety of Government being sparing in its pledges, and slow to contract engagements, but careful to fulfil all those it contracted. If he were unable to pledge the Government to any measures of relief, he could assure his noble friend it was not from want of consideration of the West-India interest, but from a wish not to enter into engagements which it might be impossible to fulfil. He was convinced, unfortunately, of the depression of the West-India interest, but he did not see how any measures could be undertaken for its relief during the present Session. His hon. friend, who had spoken before his noble friend, seemed content to acquiesce in the recommendation that Government should take the matter into its consideration. He would so far pledge the Government, that

837
he would undertake that it should investigate the matter, and should give him notice of its intentions at so early a period, that he should he able, if he did not approve of them, to bring forward his Motion on the first week of the next Session of Parliament. If his hon. friend postponed his proposition till next Session, there would then be time to make the inquiry more complete, and find some practical remedy. When he mentioned the late period of the present Session, it was with no intention to cast any reflections on his hon. friend. He knew that his hon. friend had been anxious to bring forward the subject, but the state of the Order Book had been such, that he had not been able. The best course, he believed, for his hon. friend would be, to acquiesce in the proposition of Government—allow it time to examine the matter, on its undertaking to give such an early notice to his hon. friend, that he might submit his proposition to Parliament the first week in the next Session, if he were not satisfied with what the Government should then find it proper to recommend.
Mr. K. Douglassaid, if he understood his right hon. friend correctly, he undertook for the Government that it would examine into the Question, admitting that the West-India interest was in a state of difficulty and distress; that he would make an investigation, and be prepared, before the next Session of Parliament, to notify to the West-India interest the views of the Government after such investigation. Being perfectly satisfied that the Government would undertake the inquiry with sincerity and determination, he should find it his duty to accede to the proposition of his right hon. friend.
Sir A. Grantexpressed his satisfaction at the matter being left in the hands of Government, as it was both able to investigate the subject thoroughly and apply a practical remedy. He begged leave, however, to call the attention of his right hon. friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the state of overwhelming distress in which the West-Indies were involved, and to ask if some practical remedy might not be found in equalizing the duties on sugar. At present the duties pressed most unequally, because they were the same on the finest as on the coarsest sugars. He was perfectly aware of the difficulties of the subject, but still he thought it might be possible to levy an
838
ad valorem duty on sugars, and he believed that a duty of that kind would be more advantageous to the public than a great reduction of the duty on sugar-That would give the lower classes an opportunity of getting the coarse sugars cheap. He would also recommend a lower rate of duty for sugar in Ireland, which he thought was justified by the Chancellor of the Exchequer having departed from general principles, in levying a different rate of duty on Spirits in Ireland and England. Though a West-India proprietor, he was not particularly interested in the ad valorem duty he recommended, for he possessed land that produced fine sugar as well as land that produced coarse.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, though he was not in general a very orderly person, yet he must, on this occasion, set an example of order to his hon. friend who, though at times the preserver of order among others, had, on this occasion, been most disorderly—he must show his sense of what was due to the usual course of proceedings, by refusing to enter into the subject, as there was no Question before the House.
Mr. Humeprotested against this manner of disposing of the Question. When the Government and the Legislature undertook to protect different interests, the public was sure to suffer. He wished to see the public protected, and he recommended that the duty on sugar should be reduced, which might be done without injury to the Revenue, and would give time to investigate the matter thoroughly, so as to lead to some permanent measure. He wished the people to understand what the Colonies cost them, and if the noble Lord and the hon. Gentleman would not bring forward their Question, he should not We sorry if they obtained no relief.

FIRST FRUITS—IRELAND.
Sir John Newportrose to bring forward a Motion that would make a large Revenue, that was once at the disposal of the Crown, and had been appropriated by it for the service of the Church of Ireland, but much misapplied, again effective to the public service. He had brought forward, in 1808, a motion similar to the present, and it was then rejected by a majority of 17. He had again submitted the subject to the House in 1824, and then it had been negatived by a majority of only 12.

839
He then, for a third time, meant to submit a Motion which would have for its object to carry into effect the benevolent views of the Crown, which had appropriated a great branch of its revenue to the service of the Episcopal Church of England, but which had failed to accomplish the object intended, owing to the negligence of the members of the Government and of the Legislature, in not properly enforcing; the benevolent views of the Crown. At the Reformation the First Fruits became a part of the revenue of the Crown, and were regulated by the Irish Acts of 26th and 28th of Henry 8th, and continued to form part of the royal revenue till 1710. In that year, Queen Anne bestowed on the Church of Ireland the First Fruits, or the first year's revenue of all vacant benefices, for the purpose of repairing the Churches, and buying glebes, and other useful purposes. Queen Anne also remitted the 1s. in the pound, or the twentieths, which the clergy were bound to pay. The clergy of England had not been returned the tenth they were bound to pay, and they continued to pay these tenths. Their benefices also, which were valued in the time of Henry 8th, Elizabeth, and Charles 1st, were valued at a much higher rate than the benefices of the Church of Ireland. The revenue derived from the Irish First Fruits was so inconsiderable that the Parliament had frequently made grants to keep churches in repair, and provide for other ecclesiastical objects, for which these First Fruits, if properly appropriated, would be sufficient. In the ten years ending January 1821, according to Returns laid on the Table of the House, the First Fruits of Ireland had yielded 3,722 l.; and in the ten years ending with January 1830, they had yielded only 5,140 l. A salary of 127 l. was paid out of the former sum, and 740 l. out of the latter. But during these last ten years fifteen Bishopricks, and four Archbishopricks had fallen vacant. The First Fruits of all the revenues ought to have been paid, and yet only 5,140 l. was paid as one year's revenue of fifteen Bishopricks and four Archbishopricks. During seven years of the same period, the First Fruits in England had yielded 14,270 l. Many of the benefices of Ireland had never been valued at all, and several had been valued at a rate far below their worth. While this fund had beer misappropriated, the grants of Parlia-
840
ment to the Irish Church had amounted to 686,000 l. According to the valuation for the First Fruits made in the time of Elizabeth, ninety-three parishes were estimated at 258 l. 12 s.; but fifty-seven of these parishes had compounded for their tithes, and these fifty-seven alone paid the incumbents 18,259 l. The right hon. Baronet then referred to the observations of the Primate Boulter, contained in a letter addressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury on December 24th, in 1724, to show that the Irish clergy had always been unwilling to contribute to the wants of the Church, and had always appropriated to themselves the revenues which ought to have gone to beautify and repair Churches. He then entered into a comparison of what was contributed under the name of First Fruits, by the English and Irish Bishopricks: Derry, he said, which was a rich See, having an annual revenue of 20,000 l., paid as First Fruits 250 l.; while Rochester, a very poor See paid 322 l. Cashel paid 93 l., Cloyne paid 10 l. 10 s., Killaloe paid 20 l., Clogher paid 350 l.; Cork and Ross50 l., while Winchester paid more for First Fruits than the whole of the Irish Archbishopricks and Bishopricks. Some years back, a conscientious individual, Mr. Shaw Mason, First Joint Remembrancer and Receiver of First Fruits, made an attempt to raise them to their proper amount, or take the full value of the First Fruits from the Irish clergy. By the words of the Joint Patent passed under the Great Seal, he was empowered, from lime to time, "To collect, levy and receive, and to examine and search for the just and true value of all and singular Archbishopricks, Bishopricks, and all other ecclesiastical dignities and benefices whatever in Ireland, and to compound and agree for the said Fruits according to the rates of taxation thereupon made, or thereafter to be made, and by different Statutes or Acts of Parliament made in Ireland in the 28th year of Henry 8th, ordained and established, and to do and execute the several other things therein mentioned." Mr. Shaw Mason accordingly applied to the Board of First Fruits for the money which he thought he was entitled to demand under that authority. Great alarm was at first felt, and some of the clergy who had not paid, hastened to pay their First Fruits, but upon tendering the sum at which their Sees were rated in the time of Henry

841
8th, they were still more alarmed at being informed that the patent required the receiver to search into, and ascertain the true value of the First Fruits and to take only that stun. They immediately applied to the Government of Ireland to interfere, which it did in a most extraordinary manner, by referring the case to the Attorney and Solicitor-generals, both of whom were ex-officio members of the Board of First Fruits. Their opinion very naturally was, that the Patentee had no right to examine into the just and true value. Mr. Shaw Mason also submitted a case to a Counsel who had no connection with the Board, and he gave it as his opinion, "that the Patentee ought to ascertain the true value." With such a conflict of legal opinions, the matter ought to have gone to the Judges for decision, but the Government of Ireland took a very different course from appealing to the tribunals of the country. The present right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer who was then Secretary for Ireland, wrote the following letter to Mr. Shaw Mason, which he would take the liberty of reading to the House:—
"Dublin Castle, 20th January, 1823.
"Sir:—The Lord Lieutenant has received from the Board of First Fruits, a memorial, in which they state, that you acting for yourself and the other patentees of the office of First Fruits, have since the month of May last, uniformly contrived to refuse, from the Archbishops and Bishops who have been appointed by the Crown, and from the several beneficed Clergymen, who have been instituted or entitled to institution since that time, the First Fruits payable by a valuation upon the records and books now remaining in the Court of Exchequer, upon the pretence of certain powers vested in you, by your patent; and as it appears that you have been put in the possession of the opinion of the Attorney General, in which he states the course pursued by you to be not justified by law, I have received the Lord Lieutenant's commands to desire that you will no longer oppose obstacles to the due institution of the several Clergy concerned, or continue by your refusal to receive the First Fruits, to impair the fund committed to the charge of the board."
Impair the fund indeed! why the object Mr. Mason had in view was to augment it. In his reply he stated, "Under all these circumstances, I did not feel myself warranted in accepting from the several persons who have recently been promoted to ecclesiastical dignities and benefices, less than the just and true value of the First
842
Fruits of the same, or the nominal value, reserving the Crown's right. And on taking into consideration the great benefit that must accrue to the Church from an improved collection of the revenue of First Fruits, without any increase to the public burthens of the country, I trust that I shall stand justified in his Excellency's opinion, in the course which I have adopted, and in waiting the orders of the Lords of the Treasury on the subject." In answer to this Mr. Mason was told, that in the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, his patent was not a commission under the Great Seal, and that he was not bound to make any valuation of benefices under the Statute. The Government added, that if he persisted in exercising a power, which it was never intended he should possess, it would be under the necessity of revoking his patent, which was held during pleasure. The reward, therefore, in Ireland, for a diligent performance of public duty, was dismissal from office: well might his poor country get the reputation of blundering! Mr. Mason consulted Mr. Allen, after this decision of the law officers of the Crown was known to him; and Mr. Allen's opinion, which he thought the House ought to be made acquainted with, was this. "I think the Attorney and Solicitor General agree with me, that the power of new valuing benefices &c. is still vested in the Crown. I have considered my former opinions, and Mr. Mason's commission, and adhere to my opinion, that the Patent, appointing Messrs. Glascock and Mason, Remembrance and Clerk of the First Fruits and Commissioners, is a commission under the Great Seal, within the meaning of the Statute of Henry 8th, referred to in that opinion, and that as commissioners appointed by that commission, they have authority to make valuation of Benefices under that Statute: such powers are expressly given them by that commission, as the Chancellor, Master of the Rolls, and Vice Treasurer had under that Statute; and they are thereby appointed commissioners. Now one of these powers, which (if that commission had not passed) would be vested in those three officers, is that of valuing benefices. The commission is under the Great Seal, and I really do not see how it is possible to mistake, or explain away the nature or extent of the powers, vesting in Mr. Shaw Mason and co-patentees. Mr. Mason should, however, in my opinion, submit to the

843
commands of the Lord-lieutenant." Had these First Fruits remained in the possession of the Crown, there could be no doubt that they would have been augmented, like other revenues of the Crown: new valuations would have been made from time to time, and the First Fruits would have been a handsome sum, instead of that small pittance it had pleased the avarice of the Irish clergy to make them. He did not wish that any existing incumbent should be inconvenienced by a new valuation, but that all livings and sees should henceforward pay, as First Fruits, the actual amount of a year's revenue. While this money, which ought to have been appropriated to the repairs and building of churches, had been stopped by the clergy, and appropriated to their own use, the Government had been making liberal grants for that purpose. And what was worse, the landed property of Ireland had also been subjected to heavy burthens on the same account. He had to complain too of the partial manner in which the Board of First Fruits exercised its functions; and he knew several instances of their giving large sums to parishes in which influential individuals resided, and refusing assistance to those parishes that were more in need of it. Mr. Grattan had given some very able advice on this subject long ago. "Apply," he said, "the First Fruits as they ought, for the increase of the poor livings, and the repairs of the Church; but a fictitious and remote valuation for the benefit of the rich clergy has been made of these charitable funds, frustrating the purpose of the charity equally to the neglect of the Church and the poor; the luxury of the priest has usurped the funds of the poor and of the Church, and then sets up against both a miserable modus, and prescribes in this in-stance against charity and religion." He would not trouble the House further, trusting that he had said enough to make it agree in the resolutions which he would then submit. The right hon. Baronet con-eluded by moving the following Resolutions:—
"That the First Fruits or Annates, being the first year's income of every ecclesiastical dignity and benefice in Ireland, became, at the Reformation, a part of the revenue of the Crown, and were regulated by the Irish Acts of the 26th and 28th of Henry 8th, and several succeeding Statutes, and continued annexed to the Royal revenues until the year 1710. That her Majesty
844
Queen Anne did then, as an act of grace and favour to the Established Church of Ireland, by letters patent, confirmed by Act of Parliament, vest in trustees and commissioners the produce of this branch of Royal revenue, for the purpose of building and repairing churches, for the purchases of glebes where wanting, and of impropriations whenever the benefice was not sufficient for the liberal maintenance of the clergy having cure of souls. That the Queen did, at the same time, absolutely release from the payment of the twentieth part of twelve pence in the pound, before paid annually to the Crown, out of all ecclesiastical benefices, the clergy of Ireland, although a corresponding payment annually was retained by her Majesty, and still remains payable by the clergy of England, out of their dignities and benefices. That it appears from returns laid before the House, that the gross amount of the First Fruits revenues of Ireland, thus vested in trust, and paid to the commissioners during ten years, ending in January 1821, amounted only to 3,752 l., where out 827 l. were deducted for salaries and incidents; and in ten years, ending January 1830, to 5,142 l. 15 s., from which 740 l. was deducted for salaries and incidents, leaving a nett income in the former period of 2,925 l., and in the latter of 4,302 l. 4s. only. That during the latter period of ten years, fifteen Bishopricks, and four Archbishopricks became vacant; and in the succession thereto, liable to payment of First Fruits. That it appears from returns presented to the House, that in seven years, ending in January 1824, the Archbishopricks and Bishopricks of Ireland contributed to the First Fruits fund thereof,910 l.10 l.11 d. and in seven years, ending January 1830, 1,798 l. 9s. 7d. That 467 of the dignities and benefices of Ireland, being nearly one-fourth part, have never been rated or valued for payment of First Fruits, and 366 more, although rated, do not contribute thereto, on account of the low rate at the early period of their valuation; and the whole of the Archbishopricks, Bishopricks,and other ecclesiastical dignities of Ireland, are thereby estimated as of only 4,427 l., annual value. That the grants of Parliament to the Board of First Fruits, for gifts and loans towards building new churches and glebe houses, and purchase of glebes in Ireland, during twenty years, ending in 1822, amounted to 686,000 l. That it appears just and necessary, that this branch

845
of royal revenue, liberally appropriated by the Crown to wise and salutary objects, connected essentially with the well-being of the Church of Ireland (at the same time that great remission of burthens, affecting the clergy thereof, was granted by the same royal authority), should be rendered actually efficient to the attainment of the beneficent objects to which it was assigned, and that the deficiency created by this unfair and inadequate valuation, should be no longer supplied by the imposition of additional charge on the body of the people, either as a parliamentary grant, or by parochial taxation."
On the question being put,
Lord Francis Leveson Gowersaid, if he should offer nothing very luminous to the House on the subject, it would find an apology for him in his want of legal qualifications, and if he should fail to make any original observations, the House would remember the circumstance to which the right hon. Baronet adverted at the opening of his address, namely, that the subject had been twice or thrice before under discussion. In his opinion, the whole question turned upon the point, whether it were incumbent upon or lawful in the commissioners of First Fruits, to institute from time to time an inquiry into the value of the benefices of Ireland, and to take the First Fruits, not according to the original valuation, but according to the improved or reduced value, as the case might be. In his humble opinion, the affirmative of this proposition could not be legally made out. That there had been differences of opinion upon this subject between professional men he was aware, and he did not presume to decide concerning the relative qualifications of the two learned individuals who had given different opinions on the subject. Of the qualifications of one of them he was totally ignorant, but the person to whom he was opposed was no less than Lord Plunkett. There had been, and were still, persons in the House able to speak on any question, so as to render a discussion, even of a legal nature, not only clear but interesting. He had unfortunately no such qualification; but Lord Plunkett had left behind him a weapon which, however inefficiently he should wield it, would yet be sufficient to enable him to repel the attack of the right hon. Baronet. He meant to do little more than recapitulate some of the arguments made use of by him in 1824.
846
Upon that occasion Lord Plunkett applied himself to the legal part of the question, and shewed that the English law regulating the First Fruits was passed in the 26th of Henry 8th. By what process of reasoning Mr. Shaw Mason and his legal advisers came to the conclusion they did he could not tell, but it appeared to him that they confounded the valuation of First Fruits with the valuation of benefices by another commission appointed to ascertain the value of the tenth in England which corresponded to the twentieth in Ireland. A commission, consisting of the Lord Chancellor and Master of the Rolls, had been appointed, with a view to ascertain the amount of annates or First Fruits, which formerly had been seized on by the Popes against continual remonstrances. Great complaints were made, as early as the time of Edward 1st, of the amount thus levied, more than against the principle, for although that also was adverted to, the amount was the chief subject of complaint. In the time of Henry 8th, it was stated, that the sum of 80,000 l. was annually transferred to the treasury of the Vatican from this country. The commission then was instituted to ascertain the amount of First Fruits to be transferred to the Crown. The tenth section of the Statute appointed another form of commission, to be instituted, not by the Crown, but by the Lord Chancellor, distinct from the first, to ascertain the value of the tenths. To understand his remarks it might be necessary to refer to the Statutes, and those who did so would as readily follow and understand him, as those who did not would find it difficult. According to the opinion, then, of Lord Plunkett, which he was content to follow, the law as to Ireland was, with a very trifling variation, precisely the same as that of England, being comprised in the two Irish Statutes of the 28th Henry 8th; passed therefore, two years only subsequent to the passing of the English Statute. By that Statute the benefices were then valued and on these grounds he contended that the House was not entitled to affirm by its resolutions that there ought to be a new valuation, as had been often asserted by the right hon. Baronet. That new valuation was not sanctioned either by the Statute-law of the country, or the long practice of Ireland. In the opinion of the legal advisers of the Crown, no

847
existing law authorised it. In his mind the proposition of the right hon. Baronet amounted neither to more nor less than to a question of taxing the Irish Clergy for the support of the Irish Church. Into that question the right hon. Baronet would excuse him if he did not enter, for he could not think of drawing the House by bye-paths and indirect courses into all the discussion to which entertaining such a proposition must inevitably lead. A subject of so great importance could not, with justice cither to the Church Establishment or the public service, be discussed otherwise than separately, and it would certainly be neither expedient nor proper to decide on taxing the Irish clergy by means of the resolutions of the right hon. Baronet. If the House were to accede to these resolutions, it would admit in substance, that the Church of Ireland was established for the benefit of the clergy, and not for that of the country. To mat he could never consent, and he hoped that the House would never make such an admission. He was well aware of those events in the history of Ireland which had prevented or impeded the extension of those benefits which the Church of England, by the purity of its doctrines, and the exemplary lives of its professors, was peculiarly calculated to confer, and had conferred on all who had the good fortune to live within its communion; but the Church of Ireland, burthened with the crimes, errors, and follies of preceding generations, might be considered as yet in a state of probation. Upon these grounds he was bound to withhold his assent from the Resolutions of the right hon. Baronet, but containing, as they did, many matters of indisputable fact, he must, with all due respect to him, take the liberty of moving the previous Question.
Mr. Spring Riceobserved, that this was not the first time this question had been discussed in Parliament, and that he had had the honour and the satisfaction of supporting the propositions of his right hon. friend, when opposed upon grounds somewhat similar to those taken on the present occasion. His noble friend who had just sat down had, however, very considerably narrowed those grounds; but although he thought he could refute those grounds, it was by no means upon them alone that he rested his advocacy of the present Motion. He begged to call the attention of the
848
House to the magnitude of the interests involved in this question, and to remind it that, although upon former occasions, the Motion was resisted by the weight of Government influence, and by the legal authorities referred to by the noble Lord, still it was considered by the House, after a full discussion on two separate occasions, that so good a case had been made out by his right hon. friend, that it was only rejected by a majority, in the first instance of seventeen, and in the second of twelve. Considering these facts, hon. Gentlemen might imagine, therefore, that the case was not altogether of that extreme clearness and simplicity represented by the speech of the noble Lord, but that more might be said upon the subject worthy of full consideration. The same line of argument now used with respect to the question of the Board of First Fruits in Ireland, he had known applied to other questions, which after long discussion had been decided upon principles directly the reverse. When he first had the honour of a seat in the House, about twelve years ago, the votes annually contained charges of 50,000 l., and 10,000 l. to the Board of First Fruits in Ireland, and annually did his right hon. friend contend against their being granted. Year after year he failed in his opposition, but was at last triumphant, for although the task was painful, he had almost said hopeless, to excite considerable attention in the House to matters of that kind, yet at last the magnitude of the sum, in its accumulated form, forced itself into notice, and his right hon. friend, obtaining the support of the House, the Government were induced to relinquish the sums it had so long and so strenuously demanded. It might be said, perhaps, that these grants had nothing to do with the present question; but he maintained that they had, because the only plea on which they were supported was, the inadequacy of the funds in Ireland to maintain this particular branch of the Irish Church; and because, if the income of the Board of First Fruits had been made really available for the purposes for which it was intended, there would have been no necessity for coming to Parliament at all. Applying himself to the legal part of the subject; he would take that opportunity of saying, that although his noble friend professed his incompetency to deal with a legal argument, he brought forward a statement

849
clearly and distinctly, and free from the technicalities in which he might have involved it. In support of his noble friend's opinion, he must admit that there was the authority of the Crown lawyers, to whose judgment the question was submitted; but taking that valeat quantum, it was by no means decisive of the question. If the authority were that of a court of law, to which this matter had been referred, he should bow to its decision; but if his noble friend had been armed with such a decision, the question would have been still open to parliamentary deliberation, and it would still have been competent to Parliament to say, how the Church Property of Ireland should be made available for the benefit of the establishment, and the furtherance of the Reformation in that country. He wished to state, under the correction of the gentlemen of the Irish Bar, then present, that Mr. Allen, whose opinion had been alluded to, was a man of great learning in his profession; of great research; in fact, a black letter man as well as a lawyer of considerable reputation. How then did the question stand,—Mr. Shaw Mason evinced a disposition to try the question at law—how was he met when he avowed that intention? Not by allowing him to proceed to a legal investigation, but by threatening him to proceed at his peril; if you proceed one step further, was the reply, remember you are an officer holding a patent from the Crown during pleasure, and you shall have it revoked. These were plain facts, and what was the inference arising from them? Why, that the Crown had no legal case; else why refuse to proceed before the proper tribunal for adjudicating such matters? And why threaten with the loss of his place, the man who would have so proceeded? But it was said, the Government offered to show the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, in favour of the view it took of the case. He did not mean to pronounce upon the merits of such opinions, except merely to say, that if the offer of these opinions was connected with a threat to prevent their being examined before the proper tribunals, then he must doubt the goodness of these opinions; and though he would not censure the conduct of Government, he would not adopt its conclusions. If Ministers were quite positive in their law, why should they throw any impediments in the way of legal inquiry? "All we want," they said, "was to protect
850
the Archbishops and Bishops from persecution." But suppose that all the sees of the episcopacy in Ireland were vacant, would the Government object to Mr. Shaw Mason's going into a court of law to settle their valuation? Would it let the question go there upon the next vacancy unfettered and unthreatened? Here was a safe and sincere test, and if Government answered in the affirmative, he was persuaded that his right hon. friend, who moved these Resolutions, would immediately withdraw them, so as to admit of the subject receiving that decision and determination in a court of law, capable of investigating; it, which it ought to obtain;—but if, on the contrary, the Government refused that offer, then, with all due respect for its motives, he must say again, that he doubted its sincerity, and the validity of the law-officers' opinions, and he would call upon the House, as he had done more than once before, to support the Motion of his right hon. friend. He begged the House to look at what the question really was. Did the Motion demand any thing unreasonable—were its supporters spoliators of the Church—did they mean even to touch the ecclesiastical revenues for any thing but for the Church itself? Nay, was it wished even to apply any principle to the Church of Ireland which was not already applied to the Church of England? Suppose that in Ireland, where the smaller portion of the community is of the Established Church, a great portion of the burthen of maintaining that Church were thrown on the laity, and supposing that out of the income of the Bishop's sees, a large portion was appropriated to building glebe-houses, and to endow the smaller livings; should not we say, this was only reasonable? And if in England, where the great bulk of the people are Protestants, a large portion of the ecclesiastical incomes was left to the Archbishops and Bishops, and a small portion taken from them for ecclesiastical purposes, should we not say this was reasonable. But how different must be our language when we knew the reverse of all this to be the case, and that exactly in proportion as the followers of the Church were few, so were its burthens cast on the great bulk of the people who did not profess its doctrines; and exactly in the same proportion, was the whole of the revenues of the Church set apart for the exclusive use of the episcopacy? This was actually the

851
case as to Church property in Ireland and England. In the latter, the revenue of the Church contributed to the repairs of the Church in Ireland; they all went into the pockets of the clergy. Let the House look, for example, to the diocese of Derry, generally estimated at 11,000 l.or 12,000 l. a year; and that of Rochester, the revenue of which did not exceed 800 l. a year, or at most 1,000 l. It ought surely to be expected, that for ecclesiastical purposes, ten times as much should be supplied by the former as by the latter; and it appeared only just, that the greater burthen should be thrown on the richer see of Derry, where there was only a comparatively small Protestant population, than on the poorer one of Rochester, the inhabitants of which were almost exclusively Protestants. What, however, was the fact? Why, the Bishoprick of 10,000 l. a year paid 250 l., while that of Rochester paid 320 l. Was that reasonable? was it legal? and if it were, ought the law to continue unaltered? Was the Parliament interdicted from inquiring into such a state of things? Certainly not, unless there were vested rights to contend with, or protected and recognized interests, which, whatever opinions upon the propriety of their existence might be entertained, were still with in the scope of the law. In discussing this question, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, he hoped, bear in mind, that those who were in favour of the Motion were acting upon a favourite doctrine of his, of which he would hear something more in the course of the Session—the doctrine of assimilation, which, if good as to Stamp-duties, must be good as to Ecclesiastical revenues. Was it to be only good when recommending a tax, and not good when reducing a burthen? It was not proposed by his right hon. friend's Resolutions to introduce into Ireland any one principle which was not fully acted upon already in England. He knew that there was a difference of the law as to parts of the subject; but he sought the application of the English practices only to those parts as to which the law was the same. He wished nothing more than that all Archbishops and Bishops should act on some clear and systematic principle, in valuing their income, so that the burthens should fall equally on all. Let the House look at what would be the probable effect of the proposed alteration. He had observed, that the Motion proceeded strictly upon the ana-
852
logy of the practice in England, and he would beg leave to add, that if there ever was an application to which Parliament ought to lend a ready ear, this was one, for it involved deeply the best interests of the Church itself. In the first place, it must be admitted on both sides of the House, that every measure which could unite in the bonds of harmony and affection, and bring together into one great feeling of concord, the whole bulk of the Protestant community, ought to be forwarded, for many reasons, but for none more than its tendency to assure the safety of the Church. He would ask the Irish Members, what was the complaint from one end of Ireland to the other? Was it not the disproportion of the numbers of the followers of the Established Church, compared to the amount of the ecclesiastical revenues, and their non-application to the purposes for which they were intended? When he alluded, however, to the revenues of the Church, he did not want to denude its chief members of their incomes, nor to strip them of their wealth; he was of opinion that they ought to be highly endowed for the performance of their great and solemn duties; but he was also of opinion that the opulent churchmen ought to contribute more than at present in Ireland, towards the support of the poorer clergy, and not pile up for themselves and their families incomes which excited jealousy and promoted distrust, which were perhaps often exaggerated, but were liable to call forth uncandid vituperation. Much calumny and much hatred would be averted, were a larger portion than at present of the princely revenues of some sees devoted to purposes in which the whole Protestant community had a deep interest. A measure, then, having this for its object, ought to have the full support of every good Protestant. It could not be said, that the burthens of the Irish Church were not often complained of in Ireland, and sometimes with discouraging irritation and violence? Here, then, was a position which no man could controvert; if the Legislature diminished these causes of irritation it checked the growth of discontent, and made the wealth of the Established Church, instead of being the source of jealousy, the means of relief to those who had before complained of its unequal distribution; and precisely in that degree would it make the Church the strength, instead of the weakness, of the

853
Protestant religion. It was however said, that the proposals of the hon. Baronet amounted to a taxation of the Established Church of Ireland. Me denied the correctness of that opinion; it was not a tax upon the property of the Church, for the purposes of the State, or for any secular purpose whatever, it was rather a reversionary payment for the uses of the Chinch itself, in conformity with the Ecclesiastical Laws, and to give her that grace and dignity which would enable her institutions to command our reason, while her splendid ceremonial attracted and affected our senses. He did not think that the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland would be looked on with less reverence if the Churches were built and kept in a state fit for worship, or as in olden times they were, out of the wealth of the Church itself, rather than by taxes wrung from the people. But even if it were a tax (which, in his opinion it was not), his noble friend, the Secretary for Ireland need not have expressed so much surprise at it, for it was one the principle of which had been sanctioned and repeatedly recommended, not by philosophers, who, it might be supposed, were not over-anxious to uphold the interests of the Church, but by practical members of the Government, and some of the highest dignitaries of the Church of Ireland itself. He would quote for his noble friend an authority upon this point, which he would not contravene. The present Lord Maryborough, when Secretary of State for Ireland, actually recommended the imposition of a tax of 2½ per cent upon ecclesiastical benefices in Ireland, for the education of the poor of that country. If the Motion involved, therefore, the imposition of a tax upon the Church of Ireland—which it did not, he could justify it by the example of a predecessor in office to his noble friend, by the authority of the then Lord Primate, Stewart, and of three or four of the most eminent prelates who ever graced the Irish Church. He had authorities, lay and ecclesiastical, for the principle which his noble friend impugned, but he must repeat, that he had not the least desire to divert one farthing of ecclesiastical property from ecclesiastical purposes; and if he had said any thing which had a tendency to lead to a contrary inference, he could not too soon, and too strongly, give that a direct negative. He looked at the property of' the Church of Ireland as
854
being intended for the benefit of the community of that Church, and he wished to sec it fairly and fully preserved, and appropriated to that purpose. During the last ten years, he admitted that the clerical appointments in Ireland, had been, with scarcely a single exception, worthy of the duties which they involved. He wished to see that Church supported upon a sure and exalted basis; and not a word had ever fallen from him respecting it for which he had not the authority of some of the great men who had dignified it in the eyes of the community by their labours. He had not laid down one principle which had not received the sanction and the support of the writings of Bishop Bedell and of his contemporaries, who evinced by their example a desire to contribute to the alleviation of the ecclesiastical burthens, by sacrificing the incomes of their own sees. The great men of the Church in those days, did not oppose the doctrines of self-taxation for the uses of the Church, which was now condemned by laymen, even before it was brought forward. Bishop Bedell said, "It is necessary to diminish pluralities, as far as can be done, in the Irish Church. I find myself, however, reproving pluralities in others, while I continue to be a pluralist myself. I object to a clergyman who holds two benefices, but do I not at the same time possess a second Bishroprick myself?" What then did Bishop Bedell do? he came forward with honour and consistency, and sacificed his second bishoprick, because, as he said, "the retention of it would have been inconsistent with my principles, and impolitic also as regarded the character of the Church." In conclusion, the hon. Member called on the House to consider, that the Resolutions only went to apply to Ireland a principle adopted in England, which had been recommended by the highest dignitaries of the Church of Ireland, merely to give what the law intended should be given to ecclesiastical purposes, and to make the appropriation of Church property congenial to the feelings and interests of the community, for whose benefit it was instituted.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, as he had before had occasion to argue a question, if not precisely of this kind, at least of the same tenour and import, he should not trouble the House with many observations upon this Motion. He was likewise relieved from the trouble of answering

855
many of the statements made that night, not for the first time, by the clear and lucid, as well as able exposition of the law, given by his noble friend, in reply to the speech of the right hon. Baronet. He would, with his noble friend, deny that it was ever intended, by the Acts of Henry 8th, to take one whole year's income of every see, and every living, as the first fruits for the Crown, in the manner contended for by the hon. Baronet, in support of his Motion. He agreed with his hon. friend, the member for Limerick, that we were bound to look with favour upon any measure calculated to conciliate the general feelings of the population of Ireland with the Established Church, and soothe down the animosities which had sometimes sprung up amongst them. In cultivating these feelings, however, we must take care not to sacrifice the means which that Church possessed of being useful to Ireland. We must not, by impolitic abridgments, affect its wholesome power, and impair its real dignity, so as to circumscribe its sphere, for the performance of its useful and essential duties. The hon. member for Limerick had argued this question with great dexterity. He said, that by acquiescing in this Motion for imposing a payment upon all the ecclesiastical benefices, of one year's rental, the House would render the First Fruits sufficiently available for the building of necessary Churches, save the people from fresh burthens on that account, and at the same time conciliate the public opinion, and make the Church more popularly useful. Now, although this was convenient enough as an argument in the House of Commons, it had really no bearing upon the subject. The sums were already lent for the building of the Churches that were required. They were actually laid out by the commissioners, and the people would have to pay the requisite annual instalments, whether the proposed new valuation were carried into execution or not. The question was simply this, shall we go on availing our selves, from time to time, of funds as they arise, from the First Fruits, making such additions as are necessary to give them efficacy, or shall we have continual re-valuations, by a particular rule for Ireland, which, he contended, did not prevail in England? He had to complain of the manner in which the case had been stated in respect to the valuation of the English
856
and Irish benefices. The right hon. Baronet knew well, that in one country, many of the lands were not valued, and he knew also very well why they were not at the time of the original registration; while in the other, the commissioners received the full power of valuing the whole, and did value them. When he compared therefore, one with the other, he must take in all the circumstances which occurred at the time, or else the statement would be partial and inadequate. He had before resisted such a motion upon these grounds; and because in one country the charges on occupation already pressed heavily, he was very unwilling to impose any additional charges. The right hon. Baronet drew a distinction between the sums paid in England and in Ireland, and alluded particularly to the dioceses of Rochester and of berry. If he would take the trouble to compare the actual value of the dioceses in England and Ireland, however, he would not find the difference to be so great as he supposed. His hon. friend stated, as an encouragement, he supposed, to those who might be inclined to support the present Motion, that it was owing to the exertions of the right hon. Baronet that Government had been prevented from making grants to the Irish Church for some time past. Certainly nothing was further from his intention than to attempt to undervalue the exertions of the right hon. Baronet, which had been highly conducive to the interests of his country, though he had sometimes thought it his duty to differ from him. He could not, at the same time, give to his exertions the credit of having led to the abandonment of the grants for the building of Churches in Ireland. There was a very natural reason for the cessation of those grants, which was more influential than the right hon. Baronet's arguments. They began in 1808, upon the faith of representations which were fully justified by the facts; namely, that there was a great want of buildings for religious worship in that country, as well as for the residence of the clergy. The grants to procure these buildings were continued until the want that had been complained of was in a great measure removed. When the object was partly accomplished, the grants were reduced, and when it was fully obtained they were gradually abandoned. The first grant was for 100,000 l.; then it was reduced to 50,000 l.; subse-

857
quently, to 10,000 l.; and then it was withdrawn altogether. Having been connected with the government of Ireland at the period alluded to, he was able to affirm, that it was not the dread of opposition which induced the Government to abandon those grants, but because the public interest did not require the continuance of them. He objected both to the principle of the Resolutions, and also to the mode in which the right hon. Baronet had brought them forward. No good end could be accomplished by moving these Resolutions, and letting them lie on the Table of the House, and the right hon. Bart, would have better marked out the course he proposed to pursue if he had brought a legislative measure before the House, complete in its details, and pointing out the particular objects he had in view, the amount of the payments required from the clergy, and the purposes to which those payments were to be applied. Though he could not concur with the right hon. Baronet, he must say that he should have recommended him to bring forward a bill to remedy the defects of the present law, rather than to move a series of resolutions which would not cure the evils of which he complained. He would not detain the House with further arguments on this subject. His hon. friend who had just sat down, concluded his speech with some observations which had his entire concurrence. He was glad to hear his hon. friend express such feelings, and to hear him declare that he had no desire to reduce the dignity and authority of the Established Church in Ireland. He sincerely concurred in the eulogium which his hon. friend had passed on the conduct and character of the Irish clergy. If he did not express his admiration of the higher orders of the Irish clergy, it was because he was so intimately connected with the Government of Ireland, when many of those pious and excellent men were raised to the Bench; that if he bore his testimony to their merits, he might be considered as passing an eulogium on himself; for certainly the appointment of such men would reflect credit on any Government. His hon. friend had referred to Bedell, and to other dignitaries of the Irish Church in former times, in terms of great praise, but he could assure the House, that there were some men now on the Bench in Ireland, who maintained in their lives, and by their acts, that high and pious character which his hon. friend
858
truly stated had formerly belonged to the prelates of the Irish Church. His hon. friend had alluded to the case of Bishop Bedell, who gave up a second church preferment. The present times could, he was happy to say, supply a similar case. The first act of one of the Irish Bishops, on his promotion to his present see, was to divest himself, by an Act of Parliament, procured for this purpose, of a part of his see which would have been to him a source of considerable emolument, in order to constitute a separate benefice, so that a large and populous place might have a resident clergyman, who would perform those duties which this exemplary Prelate conscientiously felt he could not discharge himself. The person to whom he referred was Dr. Brinkley, the present Bishop of Cloyne. Many other members of the Bench of Bishops in Ireland, would, he was sure, act precisely in the same way, and set a similar example, if they had the opportunity, and he only mentioned the fact to shew that there was no merit belonging to the higher orders of the clergy of the Irish Church in former times which could not find a parallel in the present times. He would not trouble the House any further. He was not willing to take the mode recommended by the present Resolutions, or to choose the present time for imposing a greater burthen on the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland. The effect of the present Motion would be, to divest the clergy in Ireland of a full year's income. He objected to it on principle, and he objected to the form in which it came before the House, and he cordially concurred in his noble friend's Motion for the previous Question.
Sir J. Newport replied.
The House divided—for the Motion 69; Against it 94—Majority against it 25.

List of the Minority.

Baring, F.

Davies, Colonel

Bentinck, Lord Geo.

Du Cane, P.

Benett, John

Euston, Lord

Bland ford, Marq. of

Fergusson, Sir R.

Brougham, Henry

French, A.

Brownlow, C.

Fazakerly, J. N.

Carew, R.

Gordon, Robert

Cave, Otway

Graham, Sir James

Clarke, Hon. Butler

Grattan, James

Clements, Lord

Guise, Sir Wm.

Clive, E. B.

Harvey, D. W.

Colborne, R.

Hume, Joseph

Davenport, E.

Heron, Sir Robert

Dawson, Alex.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Denison, Wm. Joseph

Ingilby, Sir W.

859

Jephson, C. D. O.

Thomson, P.

Lamb, Hon. G.

Townsend, Lord C.

Langston, J. H.

Talbot, R. W.

Monck, J. B.

Taylor, M. A.

Martin, John

Tomes, J.

Marjoribanks, S.

Warburton, Henry

Milton, Lord

Westenra, Hon. R.

Newport, Sir John

Wilson, Sir R.

Pendarvis, E.

White, Henry

Price, Sir R.

White, S.

Pallmer, C.

Wrottesley, Sir J.

Power, R.

Wyvill, M.

Phillimore, Dr.

Wood, John

Philips, G.

Whitbread, W. H.

Ponsonby, Hon. W.

Whitbread, W. R.

Ponsonby, Hon. F.

Whitmore, W. W.

Protheroe, Edw.

Rickford, W.

PAIRED OFF

Russell, Lord W.

Ebrington, Lord

Russell, Lord John

Rumbold, C. E.

TELLERS.

Robinson, Sir Geo.

Althorp, Lord

Sefton, Lord

Rice, Spring

Sykes, D.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
Mr. Broughamasked, if it was the intention of the Attorney General to give the House an opportunity of discussing the subject relating to the Court of Chancery? For one year it had been put oft" in hopes of the Lord Chancellor's bill. This bill came down and was then withdrawn. He made this inquiry because, if there was not some reasonable prospect of this measure reaching the House, it would be necessary for some hon. Member at his side of the House to bring forward a motion, with a view to discuss the question.
Mr. M. A. Taylorstated, that he had not brought forward his motion, in the hope that the measure would be brought forward by the Attorney General. He concurred in the expectation of his hon. and learned friend, that this great and important question would be brought under the consideration of the House.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, he expected the bill would come down to-morrow or Thursday. He had been in the country for some days and was not precisely aware of what progress had been made in preparing the Bill. He believed, however, that it would be brought down on Thursday, and if it were not, any hon. Member might originate a motion upon the subject.

FRAUDS IN CANAL SUBSCRIPTIONS.
Mr. Dugdalesaid, he rose to move the Order of the Day for the taking the report of the committee on the Birmingham and London Junction Canal Company into con-
860
sideration. The document contained a statement of facts which demanded the attention of the House; and, after the report was received, it was his intention to propose such an alteration in the Standing Orders as would prevent the recurrence of such objectionable practices. The House would recollect that in the commencement of the Session, a petition was presented which contained a list of the subscribers, and disclosed the object of the proposed undertaking. It was then represented that the estimate of the cost of the work was 453,000 l., and that 394,000 l. of that sum was subscribed by 232 persons; and it has since appeared in evidence, that various names were set down as applicants for shares, not with a view of paying for the shares demanded, but for the purpose of obtaining the expected premium in the market. It was also shown that a great number of the subscriptions were the names of needy and indigent persons of inferior station of life, who were quite unable to pay the sum affixed to their names; and it was further proved, that many names were set down without the privity and consent of those to whom they belonged, and that like wise fictitious names were set down. It was proved that the plan was laid down by Mr. Telford, the engineer, who gave it as his opinion that an undertaking of the nature contemplated might be accomplished. A prospectus was then issued, and two persons, whose names were Moses Levi and John Edward Stokes, combined to set the Company into motion, and to perpetrate a gross fraud on the House and on the country. Levi, who is since dead, appears to have been the first mover of the scheme; and he induced Stokes, who was not affluent, to join in the transaction. Stokes had been called before the committee, and from him information had been obtained as to the mode of forming the Company. He said that Moses Levi came to him, and told him that he had a very fine company coming forward, and an agreement in writing was entered into, by which Stokes was to manage the company on the Stock Exchange, where his business lay, and they were to divide the profits equally after paying the necessary expenses. He was instructed to urge people to write for shares, and he admitted that he had induced 200 persons to do so who were men of no fortune, and were called "premium-hunters," and Stokes declared that he did not believe that these

861
men possessed the value of one share a-piece. The solicitor to the concern was Mr. Eyre Lee; but he (Mr. D.) was bound to say, that so far as he and the committee were able to judge, that gentleman, who was a respectable man, did not seem to be aware of the nature of the undertaking he was embarked in, and it was presumed that he had been imposed upon by other designing people. He had been the agent to deposit the fictitious subscription-list already adverted to, and in doing so he was very culpable. The Standing Orders of the House had been evaded, or rather they were in form complied with, inasmuch as a list of the subscriptions was lodged in the Private Bill-office. To remedy the defect which permitted so unsatisfactory a document to pass through the House was one of the objects of the Resolution with which he meant to follow up the report. It appeared on all sides that Levi was the great planner of the scheme, and that Stokes and his assistants were his agents. Having said thus much to satisfy the House of the necessity of some protection being established in future, he would move, after the report was brought up, that the Christian and surname, the calling and residence of every subscriber be in future deposited in the Private Bill-office; and that no bill should in future be introduced unless one-half of the estimated sum was subscribed for by persons who would consent to bind themselves by contract to pay the sums respectively subscribed.
Mr. Bensonapproved of the resolutions so far as they went, but in his opinion they did not go far enough, and he could not help expressing his surprise that some more decided course had not been taken to meet a case of such vital importance. There could not be a doubt but that a fraud had been contemplated to a great extent on the 19th of February, when the list was lodged. In the committee, Mr. Eyre Lee, the solicitor, was called on to produce a list, which he did, and which he gave in. There were two members of the committee who cautioned him against persevering in the attestation of the list, because they were aware that it was a fabricated and fallacious list. They were also aware that the declared consent of" several persons was fallacious, and letters were read to that effect; and he (Mr. Benson) knew from one nobleman that his name had been made use of as assenting to the bill without his sanction, and
862
his tenants had been induced to assent by the use made of his name, under the idea that their landlord had assented. The committee after a painful investigation, found that the Standing Orders had not been complied with, which, with all the other circumstances attending the case, induced him to conclude that there had been a gross violation of the privileges of the House. He begged leave therefore to ask the Speaker, whether he was right in considering the question as one of privilege, and whether further time should not be given before it was brought forward in that shape?
The Speakersaid, as he had been referred to by the hon. member for Stafford, to determine whether the present was a question of privilege or not, he could only say that the subject was before the House, and it was for the House to determine, whether any party was censurable or not, and to what extent that censure ought to go, and whether more time was necessary before the House came to so strong a decision.
Mr. Bensonsaid, in order to put the question in a tangible shape, he would move that Mr. Thomas Eyre Lee, Solicitor to the London and Birmingham Junction Canal Company, be called before the House, for the purpose of being reprimanded.
The Speakersaid, he hoped the hon. Member would allow him to suggest to him that such a motion ought to be made, independently of the resolutions which were proposed by the hon. member for Warwickshire. It should not be made as an adjunct to those resolutions, but the hon. Member was not precluded from making a distinct motion.
Mr. Humesaid, he had paid attention to the case; but of course he could not know as much as the members of the committee, and he recommended that some time should be given for inquiry, and to allow Members to make up their minds on so important a proceeding.
Colonel Peelsaid, the motion of the hon. member for Warwickshire should be taken by itself. It was distinct from that of the hon. member for Stafford, which contemplated the redress of a gross violation of the privileges of the House.
Mr. Hume Mr. Hume moved, that the report and the resolution be received and printed, and that the further consideration of them be adjourned to Thursday; and he re-

863
commended that the existing Standing Order or by-law should be printed with them, in order to show Members the difference between the evil and the remedy.
Mr. Bensonwas not inclined to assent to the postponement of his resolution.
Sir R. Peelbegged the hon. Gentleman to understand that his motion was perfectly distinct from the resolution; and that he was at liberty to press it or adjourn it as he pleased.
Mr. W. Wynndeprecated the idea of deciding so strong a point without notice having been given, and he recommended the hon. Member to give notice, and withdraw his motion for the present.
Mr. Bensonthen proposed to adjourn his motion till Thursday next.
Mr. Wynnsuggested that the best way would be, to move that the report be taken into consideration on that day.
After some farther conversation, it was agreed that the whole question should be postponed till Thursday.

FOREST OF DEAN.
Lord Lowtherrose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to ascertain the boundaries of the forest of Dean, which he said might be made a very valuable property. It contained 23,000 acres of land well calculated to grow forest timber. It contained also coal, lime, and iron stone, in abundance; but these were of little value to the Crown, because the inhabitants of the surrounding districts claimed a right to dig for them, and carried that right so extensively into practice, that the revenue derived by the Crown from this large tract did not exceed 800 l. per year. Disputes, too, continually arose, respecting the privileges of these free miners as they called themselves, and it was therefore proper that the rights of the Crown and of these people should be settled. He proposed to accomplish that by bringing in a bill to appoint commissioners to inquire into the rights and tenures of all persons claiming privileges or property there, and whose reports, when laid before Parliament, might enable it to settle the whole matter by legislation. He was desirous of making this property available to the Crown, and therefore had felt himself obliged to bring the subject before Parliament.
Mr. D. W. Harveydid not mean to oppose the motion, but he would suggest that an ordinary commission of perambu-
864
lation, such as had lately gone the bounds of the Crown property in Greenwich, would be sufficient. That commission made a report, and put some properties in jeopardy, but he had not yet heard that any claim had been made on the part of the Crown.
Mr. Wynnthought that the bill was a private bill and required notice to be given to all the parties interested.
Mr. Broughaminquired how many places would be created by the bill, and who was to have the patronage?
The Attorney Generalcould not answer till the bill came into Parliament, but he would be happy to accept the services of his hon. and learned friend, and of the hon. member for Crick lade, as commissioners. It was, however, a work which ought to be well done, and he could not therefore suppose that it ought to be done for nothing.
Leave given, and Bill brought in.

KING'S MESSAGE—ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
On the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Order of the Day was read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee to take into consideration the King's Message relative to the Administration of Justice.
On the Motion, "That the Speaker do leave the Chair,"
Mr. O'Connellobjected to proceeding with such important business at that late hour.
Mr. Broughamdeprecated delay. The House had been accustomed to sit much later.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that his Majesty's Message had been sent down to Parliament three weeks, and had not yet been taken into consideration. The proceeding then would be altogether preliminary. He must object to the practice of only devoting four hours every day to public business, as tending to create much mischief.
Mr. D. W. Harveycomplained that the House was proceeding with the measures to improve the Administration of Justice, and so many projects for this purpose were on foot, that he thought it was necessary first of all to take a general view of the subject. There was one part of the suggestion of the right hon. Secretary which he considered as very important, and might, perhaps, be unnecessary, if the Local Courts suggested by the hon.

865
member for Winchelsea were to be established—he alluded to the increase in the number of judges. At present they did not know whether those Local Courts were to be dependent on Westminster Hall, or were to be each a fountain of justice in itself.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that a part, and an essential part of his plan was, that Westminster Hall should remain the chief source of justice, and should control and revise the proceedings of the Local Courts.
A conversation of some length then ensued respecting the propriety of postponing the discussion on this Bill, until it could be brought forward at some hour when there was a probability of an account of the proceedings being made public.
Mr. O'Connelldeclared that he would decidedly oppose further proceedings.
Mr. Benettcomplained of the conduct of the hon. member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Portman), in forcing on the third reading of his bill for the Watching and Lighting of Parishes, last night. He, as well as many others, had gone home under the assurance from the hon. member for Dorsetshire that there was not the slightest chance of the bill being discussed, and he certainly thought he had good ground of complaint. Having said so much, he was not disposed to resist the present motion, at which every one was present, or ought to be present, who had any interest in the question.
The Attorney General, having then stated that the business of the evening was merely formal, and that by agreeing to the clauses the House did not pledge itself to anything, but merely put the Bill into a fit state for future discussion—
Mr. O'Connellwithdrew his opposition, and the House went into a committee, Sir Alexander Grant in the chair.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved a Resolution, to the effect that his Majesty be enabled to grant a sum not exceeding 5,000 l. a year, as a salary for each of the three additional judges to be appointed.
Mr. Humecomplained of the largeness of this salary in the present distressed state of the country, and expressed his regret that he had once been induced to grant so large a sum as 5,500 l. a year, as a salary to the judges at present in office. He should move, as an amendment, that the sum be fixed at 4,000 l.
866
It being suggested by an hon. Member that the amendment would be better introduced in a subsequent stage of the Bill,
Mr. O'Connellsaid, it was extremely desirable that the retiring salary of the judges should more closely approach the full allowance, in order that there might be less apology for judges retaining their offices after they became unable to fill them with effect.
Mr. Humethen postponed his opposition until the recommitment of the Bill, when he hoped to have the opinions of a larger number of the Members of the House.
The Resolution granting the sum of 5,000 l.; and a further Resolution, granting the usual Superannuation Allowance, were agreed to.