Sitting of 16 March 1818

PETITION OF THOMAS PRESTON.
Mr. Alderman Woodpresented a petition from Thomas Preston, late a prisoner in the Tower. The petitioner stated himself to have been taken up on the 4th of December, 1816, and carried before Matthew Wood, esq. then lord mayor of London, by whom he was dismissed, on his proving, to the satisfaction of the said M. Wood, esq. that the charges preferred against him were groundless. He was afterwards again taken before the same lord mayor, and was committed to prison, where he remained five days, cut off from communication with his friends. While thus confined, Castles, a person. of universal notoriety, went to his residence, No. 9, Greystoke-place, where he falsely represented himself to petitioner's daughter to have been authorized by the petitioner to dispose of his furniture, which
1102
Castles accordingly carried away and sold. The petition went on to set forth that the petitioner had been detained in prison till the month of June, when he was tried for high treason, and acquitted. The petition concluded by praying the House to impeach his majesty's ministers for their conduct, and also to take his case into consideration, and redress his sufferings.—Ordered to be panted.

NAVY ESTIMATES.
The House having resolved itself into a Committee of Supply, to which the Navy Estimates were referred,
Sir George Warrender, in rising to move the Navy Estimates, observed, that the observations which it was necessary for him to offer, might be compressed within a very narrow space. The committee were aware that the navy estimates had, of late years, been laid before the House in so simple a shape, that a detailed explanation of them was no longer called for. For the last twenty years they had been printed in such a manner that every item could be taken into consideration; and in the last two years the subject had been so ably treated by the committees of finance, that he did not know that he could do his duty better than by referring the House to their reports, for the fullest and clearest information. The committee must know, that during the war the expense of the civil department of the navy-had considerably increased, and much of this must remain a permanent charge, as arrangements had been made for. bringing the whole of the work that was formerly done in the merchants' yards, into the King's yards. This was a measure which had long been considered to be exceedingly desirable, not merely as one productive of economy, but as a measure calculated to furnish better ships than were produced in the old way.—Another large branch in the expenditure of the navy, which had been referred to in the eighth report of the committee of finance, was that connected with the public works in the naval yards. These would be found detailed in the report, together with a statement by that able engineer, Mr. Rennie, which would render it unnecessary for him to take up the time of the committee on the subject. The committee were aware, from the nature of all works carried on immediately near the sea, that it was most desirable to complete them as soon as possible. Besides,

1103
the materials and labour in a time of peace were so much cheaper, that though a large sum might, in one or two years, have been expended, it would in the end be productive of considerable diminution in the expense. That consideration had contributed to produce the increase in the amount in this branch of the present estimates, to which be had before alluded. Every practicable reduction had been attended to. The works at Sheerness and Chatham had done away the expenditure to a much larger amount in the establishments on the river.—There remained one point on which he wished to offer a few-observations. In the course of the present session some observations had escaped gentlemen, which seemed to indicate an opinion, that that important branch of British power, the navy, had been neglected by the government. Though this had appeared to be the opinion of some honourable members, from what bad incidentally escaped them when other matters were in debate, he could not believe that such an idea was seriously entertained. The navy was felt by government to be the bulwark of the nation—the great source of its glory—and every thing had been attended to that promised to give it strength and efficiency.—Pensions had been given of late years, not merely to disabled seamen, but to those who might one day be called upon to serve their country again. There were at present no less than 35,000 pensioners belonging to Greenwich Hospital, a great number of whom were able to serve again if there should be found occasion to call upon them. The arrangements which had been made were such, that an expedition could now be fitted out sooner than at any former period. He might be allowed to remind the House how rapidly, in one recent instance, an expedition had been got ready for sea. The expedition with which it was prepared was as unexampled as was its efficiency when complete. To this the distinguished officer who commanded it (lord Exmouth) had borne his testimony, and the brilliant manner in which the service on which it was 6ent had been accomplished, was well calculated to remove every doubt. Looking at these things—at what was done for—and what had so lately been done by the navy, it must be seen that the fear that the navy had not been properly attended to—had not been kept in a proper state of efficiency, was vain. A state of peace
1104
did not afford those opportunities for brilliant enterprize and daring achievement which necessarily grew out of a state of war; but there were undertakings, even in times of peace, in which the courage, skill, and persevering spirit of enterprise which distinguished the British sailor, might be most usefully displayed. An expedition, the object of which was very important to the world, was now about to leave our shores. It had ever been the boast of this country, that in war it defended the weak against the strong, and in peace it had always been foremost to make those arduous exertions to extend the limits of geographical knowledge which her great naval means afforded her peculiar opportunities of attempting with success. At present, in various parts of the world, active and intelligent officers were making surveys of coasts hitherto unexplored, or but very imperfectly known. The expedition now about to be dispatched to the arctic regions would attempt to solve a problem most interesting to maritime science. To services of this sort, he trusted British sailors would long be directed; but if circumstances should again plunge us in a war, that powerful arm of defence, our navy, would again be put forth with a degree of strength and rapidity that had never been equalled in the history of the country. Notwithstanding the fears of some gentlemen, it would be seen, that there never was a period when this country, in the event of a war breaking out, could so effectually diśplay, in all parts of the world, the elastic power of its naval arm. The hon. baronet concluded with moving, "That a sum not exceeding 2,480,680 l. 17 s. 3d. be granted to his majesty, for defraying the ordinary establishment of the navy for the year 1818."
Sir M. W. Ridleyobserved, that if he had any objections generally to the vote proposed, they had been done away by the eighth report of the committee of finance. He did not mean to oppose the vote proposed in any of its items, but that which referred to the puisne lords of the Admiralty, and in that he thought some alteration was absolutely necessary. With this view he should move, as an amendment, that the proposed grant should be reduced in the sum of 2,000 l. which was now applied as the salaries of two of the lords of the Admiralty, who could in his firm opinion be dispensed

1105
with without any detriment to the public service. He hoped the committee would recollect, that when he, on a former occasion,* made a motion for the reduction of two out of the six lords of the Admiralty, it was urged as an objection, that these places were necessary, as they gave an opportunity to ministers to assist their friends, and also, that they were necessary as affording a fit school for the education of young statesmen. This was in effect the defence then set up for the continuance of places which were wholly unnecessary, and if he had not heard such arguments gravely stated in their favour, he should not have felt it his duty to be so strong in his opposition to them. It was said on that occasion, that if these situations were abolished, the Crown would be deprived of a portion of its fair patronage. With respect to that ground, he conceived, that no place which was in itself useless ought to be kept up, merely to strengthen the patronage of the Crown, which was already so great. But with respect to the second ground, that of educating young statesmen, he thought the committee would agree with him, that those young statesman ought to pay for their own education. The sum, it was true, was only 2,000 l. but in that small amount, the principle was the great object. What the peculiar course of knowledge was in which the minds of these young statesmen were trained, he was not informed enough correctly to describe. He was willing, however, to admit that the committee had that night witnessed the progress of improvement in the hon. baronet [a laugh], Why a nursery should be established at the Admiralty for young statesmen, he was at a loss to guess. He had been favoured with the sight of a work which had been not long ago published by a gentleman connected with the Admiralty-board (Mr. Croker) which, perhaps, was to form part of the plan of education. It was intituled, "Stories for Young Children;" and he had no doubt was intended for the improvement of some of these sucking statesmen. [Hear! and a laugh.] He could not however but express his disapprobation of the work being put into such inexperienced hands; for in one part of it a great deal was said in favour of Charles 1st, and of his being an excellent man and a good king. He did not think such doctrine was likely to improve' the
* See Vol. 35, p. 654.
1106
constitutional education of the young lords of the Admiralty. But this was not the only literary production which emanated from the Admiralty-board, for there were several, no doubt, very valuable articles which appeared in the Quarterly Review, originating from the same source, and all for the instruction and improvement of the young statesmen. He trusted the committee would go with him in his view of such situations as those he now mentioned. He was inclined to hope for a strong support to his amendment, in consequence of the result of the motion which was made by his noble friend (lord Althorp) a few evenings back, on the subject of the leather tax. He trusted, that the hon. members on the other side-of the House, who had voted on that occasion for the motion of his noble friend, would not now leave the chancellor of the exchequer in the lurch, but that as they had voted for the removal of a portion of the taxes, they would not leave the burden of providing for unnecessary places upon him. The hon. baronet concluded by moving, as an amendment, "That a sum not exceeding 2,478,680 l. 17 s. 3d. be granted for defraying the ordinary establishments of the Navy for the year 1818."
Lord Castlereaghdid not rise for the purpose of arguing the question which had before been decided, upon the propriety of keeping up the present number of lords of the Admiralty. On the occasion which had been referred to, the question had been fully looked at in every point of view. The board was now as it had existed for more than a century past, and fewer commissioners, when it was considered that some were wanted at the out ports, it did not appear to him would be sufficient. AH the suggestions of the committee of finance had been attended to. The hon. baronet had very pleasantly stated so much of the argument that had been used in the former debate on the Admiralty lords, as served his purpose. He had done it with so much fancy, that feeling he could not follow in the same vein, he would abstain altogether from the attempt.
Mr. Bankessaid, he could so far con firm the statement of his noble friend as to state that the committee of finance had great reason to be satisfied with the economy introduced into various departments, and with the attention paid to all the suggestions they bad thought it their

1107
duty to throw out. He had read that morning a minute respecting the ordnance department, formerly the most expensive, which had afforded him great satisfaction, and he trusted it would be equally satisfactory to the House when it came before them.
After the gallery was cleared for a division, and just as the tellers were proceeding to count, Mr. Wilberforce entered at one of the doors, but immediately retreated. The tellers, however, having seen him, followed and brought him in; when he was asked by the chairman of the committee, whether he had heard the question put? to which be replied in the negative. The chairman then ordered the question to be read to him, which was done, and then asked him which way he voted? Mr. Wilberforce replied, for the Ayes, but took his seat among the Noes. Mr. Lyttleton then observed, that he saw a member among the Noes, who had declared he meant to vote with the Ayes; and contended that he ought not, therefore, to be told in his present situation; he meant the hon. member for Bramber.—Mr. Wilberforce admitted that he had for a moment neglected his duty; and coming into the House when the committee was on the point of dividing, without even knowing the subject of the debate, he had endeavoured to withdraw, but had been followed by the tellers, one of whom had dragged him from the place to which he had retreated, and that in his confusion he had declared he should vote with the Ayes, when he really meant to vote with the Noes, being determined to vote in the opposite side to the individual who had brought him forward against his will, in order to prevent his being treated so in future.—The chairman stated, that he conceived the hon. member was perfectly justified in changing his mind, and voting one way, after declaring his intention to vote another [Hear, hear!]—Lord Folkestone called the attention of the House to the declaration of the hon. member, that, without regard to principle or the merits of the case, he voted from the sole motive of disappointing the teller who had brought him into the House; and was proceeding to contend, that it was the duty of both the tellers to bring in any member whom they found in that situation, when he was interrupted by a call of order: and the Chairman repeated, that the hon. member had a right to retract any declaration of his intentions
1108
made in error, and he was accordingly counted among the Noes.
On the division the numbers were: For the Amendment, 58; Against it, 85; majority, 27.

List of the Minority.

Althorp, viscount

Lamb, hon. W.

Baker, John

Lyttelton, hon. W. H.

Bankes, Henry

Lefevre, Chas. S.

Babington, Thomas

Lemon, sir Wm.

Butterworth, Jos.

Marryat, Joseph

Barclay, Charles

Monck, sir C.

Birch, Joseph

Martin, John

Barnett, James

Morpeth, visct.

Burdett, sir F.

Madocks, Wm. A.

Brougham, Henry

Newman, R. W.

Carter, John

Neville, hon. R.

Calvert, C.

Newport, sir John

Calcraft, John

Ord, Wm.

Curwen, J. C.

Osborne, lord F.

Campbell, hon. J.

Pole, sir C. M.

Duncannon, viscount

Protheroe, Ed.

Douglas, hon. F. S.

Pym, Francis

Fergusson, sir R. C.

Romilly, sir S.

Folkestone, visct.

Smith, Robt.

Finlay, Kirkman

Smith, John

Gaskell, Benjamin

Smyth, J. H.

Grenfell, Pascoe

Sharp, Richard

Gordon, Robert

Sefton, earl o.

Guise, sir Wm.

Tierney, rt. hon. G.

Hamilton, lord A.

Webb, Edward

Hornby, Ed.

Waldegrave, hon. W.

Hughes, W. L.

Warre, J. A.

Howorth, Humph.

Wood, Matthew

Latouche, John,

TELLER.

Latouche, Robt.

Ridley, sir M. W.

Lambton, J. G.

The resolution was then agreed to. Sir G. Warrender next moved, "That 1,787, 181 l., be granted for defraying the charge of what may be necessary for the building, rebuilding, and repairs of ships of war in his majestys and the merchants yards, and other extra works over and above what is proposed to be done upon the heads of wear, tear, and ordinary for the year 1818."
Sir M. W. Ridleyregretted that, notwithstanding the notice which had been taken on a former occasion, of a very meritorious class of individuals, who had served as pursers in the navy, nothing had been done for their relief. Several persons who had long held such situations, were now to be found begging in the streets, and there was one instance of a man who had been a purser of seven years standing, who was at present on board one of the ships for the reception of destitute seamen, where he was glad to be received to prevent starvation. The committee, he hoped, would take this

1109
subject into consideration, particularly as a very small sum would be sufficient for their relief. The reduction which he had had the honour of proposing as to the lords of the Admiralty, would be sufficient for that purpose.
Mr. Crokerobserved, that the persons who had been named were not pursers, but clerks who had acted as such. The Admiralty-board had found it impossible to do any thing for them without opening a door to many claims which it would be impossible to comply with. Those who had been pursers were allowed half-pay, but it was impossible to give it to those persons to whom the hon. baronet had alluded, as they did not come within that class.
The resolution was then agreed to.

HIGH BAILIFF OF WESTMINSTER.
Mr. Marshnext rose, for the purpose of moving, in the committee, that a sum of money should be granted to the High Bailiff of Westminster, to remunerate him for losses sustained in consequence of the election of a member to serve in parliament for that city, in the year 1812. It was a case, he observed, of pure, unmixed justice, and he conceived that he should weaken it, if he were to detail the circumstances at any length. The claim came recommended by the committee, to which, four years ago, it was referred. In 1806 and 1807 two severe contests took place for the city of Westminster: and, according to the invariable practice of his predecessors, the high bailiff did that, which, if he had not done, the election could not be brought to a proper issue. It was evident, in a place like Westminster, where the election was of a popular character, and where no regular building was set apart for conducting it in, that, if hustings were not erected, scenes of riot and confusion would take place, totally subversive of the rights of the. electors'. The high bailiff, however, erected hustings, at a considerable expense, but the money was never refunded by the candidates. He in consequence brought an action for it in the court of King's-bench, but a verdict was given against him, leaving him a sufferer to the amount of 1,500 l. He begged the attention of the committee to this circumstance, that the high bailiff did not ask compensation for the sum of money to which he had alluded as expended in 1806 and 1807; he only required the
1110
minor sum of 800 l: being a moiety of what he had laid out in 1812. Parliament had recognised the injustice and hardship of the former loss which fell on the high bailiff, and they let no time elapse before they endeavoured to relieve him. With that view the 51st of the king, which assimilated elections in Westminster to those that took place in other places, was enacted, which rendered candidates liable to the expense incurred for the erecting of hustings. But they did not, in that statute, provide for the strange and anomalous case of an involuntary candidate. The high bailiff having been refused payment by an honourable baronet (sir F. Burdett) he brought his action against him, but he did not succeed; the court of King's-bench holding, that that honourable baronet was not a candidate within the meaning of the act. But surely, in justice, it could not be said, that he was not entitled to the money he had laid out. What inference could be drawn from this act, which rendered it compulsory on the high bailiff to incur expenses in the erection of hustings, &c. but that it was meant by the legislature that he should be reimbursed? It would be extraordinary indeed, if the legislature intended, at the same moment, to exempt from its operation certain individuals, who certainly were not specifically mentioned in the act, and were not therefore supposed to be candidates within its meaning. It was this legislative omission in the act that made it the duty of parliament to remunerate him. The act in question provided that a proper place should be erected in Westminster, for carrying on the election; and another clause directed, that the high bailiff should be indemnified for the expense incurred in consequence. Was it not just, then, when he was compelled, by an act of parliament, to lay out his money for this purpose, and when the interpretation given to the word "candidate" militated against his claim, that the legislature should stand forward and grant him that which their omission had deprived him of any other means of procuring? It was, as he had before said, a case of pure, unmixed justice, and he should be sorry to impute to the House so slow a sense of justice as to imagine, that they would refuse to agree to his motion, which was, "That a sum not exceeding 800 l. be granted to his majesty, to enable his majesty to reimburse the High Bailiff of Westminster for Ex-

1111
penses incurred by him in the Westminster Election of 1812."
Mr. Bankesprotested against the utter irregularity of the present proposition. Had the applicant the smallest claim on parliament—which he denied—it was quite irregular, in a committee of supply, to propose any vote except in the form of a grant to his majesty; and another irregularity was, that it was totally inconsistent with the practice of the House, for a member to rise up in a committee of supply, and propose a grant for the benefit of an individual, even in the form of a grant for the service of the Crown, unless the consent of the Crown to such a proposition had been previously signified. Had his right hon. friend, the chancellor of the exchequer, received any application on the subject? and if so, had he intimated the consent off the Crown? Without such an intimation, the motion of the hon. gentleman—even if its form were not in other respects incorrect—would be perfectly unconstitutional. Nor was this practice in the least calculated to give an undue influence to the Crown. It had been the established practice, from the time of queen Anne, that no application to parliament for a grant of public money should be made without the consent of the Crown. It was a prudent guard which the House had set up against its own prodigality and inconsiderateness. If once it were allowed to any honourable gentleman to stand up and propose any grant to which a feeling of compassion, or perhaps of levity, might prompt him, the profusion and waste, of which they were accustomed to complain on the part of the Crown, would soon be out-done tenfold by the exhibition of the same qualities in that House On the irregularity of the proceeding alone, therefore, without any inquiry into the merits of the case—which he was nevertheless quite prepared to dispute—he would oppose the motion in limine.
The Chairmanof the Committee (Mr. Brogden) apologized for an omission of duty. The consent of the Crown had been signified to the proposition, but he had omitted to communicate it to the committee.
Mr. Bankesobserved, that that did not remove his objection to the irregularity of the form in which the hon. gentleman had brought forward his motion.
The Chairmanremarked, that that might he rectified by moving for the sum in the form of a grant to his majesty.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the present application was unquestionably sanctioned by the report of the committee four years ago, and that he had signified the consent of the Crown to the introduction of the subject to the consideration of the House.
Mr. N. Calvertthought that the emoluments of the high bailiff's office ought to be made known to the House. It was a situation so valuable as to be the object of purchase; and the expense to which it appeared the high bailiff had been subject, might be no unreasonable burden on him.
Mr. Broughamsaid, he was always disposed to listen to the hon. member for Corfe Castle, on questions of economy, and was one of the last men who would vote for an unjustifiable expenditure of the public money in grants, either to the Crown or to individuals, but the present appeared to him to be really a claim of strict justice. This gentleman had been saddled with an expense which the legislature never intended to fall on him, merely by the unfortunate use, in an act of parliament, of a word which was not technical, and which a court of law had construed in a sense different from that in which it was intended. The observation of the member for Hertford, that the office was purchased, rendered the high bailiff's claim still stronger. It was an estate on which parliament had, by mistake, imposed a burden, which the purchaser of it could by no means have anticipated. And for whose benefit was the expenditure in question? For that of the public. To blunder in acts of parliament was not peculiar to the House of Commons; but it was peculiarly imperative on that House to be accurate in every thing which respected elections. In the act under consideration that House had said, that the expenses of the hustings, &c. at Westminster, should be borne by the candidate or candidates. When these words were employed by the framers of the act, it was undoubtedly expected by them that whoever might be returned to serve for Westminster, and who professed his readiness to serve, would be liable to bear his share of the burden. A case had, however, occurred, in which a member had been returned who had not sought the honour, and it had been determined by a court of law, that he could not be called a candidate, and that therefore he was not liable to pay any part of the ex-

1113
penses. Under all these circumstances, the committee were, in his opinion, bound in justice to make good his deficiency to the high bailiff.
Mr. Wynnwas of opinion, that it was highly desirable the report made by the committee four years ago should be reprinted, and in the hands of members, in order to make them adequate judges of the subject, before they were called upon to decide on it. He had a strong objection to the motion. Nor did it appear to him that there was any blunder in the act. The high-bailiff having brought his action against sir Francis Burdett, for his portion of the expense of the hustings, &c., a court of law had decided, that a man was not a candidate, who had not offered his services to the electors; and that he was not liable to pay his share of the expenses, unless he had rendered himself a party to the proceedings. Were it otherwise, what intolerable injustice might be inflicted on any man, by exposing him to the payment of some hundreds of pounds, in consequence of his being proposed to represent Westminster without his concurence. If such a proposition as the present were acceded to, it would be advisable to pass a general bill, to declare how such expenses should henceforward be borne; otherwise parliament would unquestionably be called upon to pay all future charges of a similar nature. The sum also appeared to him to be extravagant. He could hardly conceive how so large a sum as 800 l. could be expended in the construction of hustings, as the materials of which they were composed need not to be afterwards wasted. Perhaps the best course would be for the hon. gentleman to withdraw his motion, and defer taking any farther steps until the report of the former committee was printed.
Mr. Broughamsaid, he was counsel against the high-bailiff, when he brought his actions, and he was therefore anxious to do him justice, by explaining his case distinctly. He was non-suited in his action against sir F. Burdett; but, in the other against lord Cochrane he had succeeded. The expense was somewhere about 1,700 l. and he recovered a moiety of that sum—the other moiety he now sought from the House. It was made a matter of surprise that the expense was so great. Now, the noble lord suffered judgment to go by default, and the damages were assessed before the sheriff. A minute investigation of the account took
1114
place; proof was given as to all the items; and the plaintiff did not receive sixpence more than he was entitled to, on the most unquestionable evidence. The expense was not merely incurred by the purchase of timber for the hustings; the hiring of poll-clerks and their assistants, occasioned a considerable part of it. By the act, it was imperative on the high-bailiff, when a poll was demanded, to cause hustings to be erected. He understood it was a temporary act, and had either expired, or would expire this year. He thought it was necessary that a new act should be passed to guard the high bailiff in future. But in the first instance, they ought to repair the injustice already done. It was of very little use to say, "We will not allow you to lose 16 or 1,700 l. in future; but we will not reimburse you for what you have already lost."
Mr. Wynnsaid, that if the demand was confined to the election of 1812, it ought to be observed, that no poll had taken place at that time; and he could not conceive how an expense of 800 l. could be incurred during the few hours which elapsed from the beginning to the end of the election.
Mr. Broughamreplied, that it was imperative on the high bailiff to have the hustings, and the poll-clerks, &c. ready. It was impossible for him to know whether or not there would be a poll until the time arrived; and such a city as Westminster could not be exposed to all the tumult that would arise from a delay in the commencement of the poll, in the event of its being demanded.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that the mistake was on the part of the high bailiff, in not bringing his action for the whole of the expenses against lord Cochrane, who was a candidate, and from whom he had obtained only a moiety.
Mr. Bathurstsaid, that one of the plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Richardson, made a motion on that subject, but the court held, that, as there was no joint interest in the candidates, the liability was separate. Whatever provision it might be deemed necessary to make hereafter, was not now the question. The question was, whether parliament had not thrown a great duty on the high bailiff, which was not necessarily incidental to his office? The act did throw on him this burden, which was formerly only known by the sheriffs of counties; and why should not parliament grant him an indemnification, under

1115
his peculiar circumstances, when their intention evidently was, that he should not lose by their enactment? They said, the expense must be defrayed by the candidates. But that intention was defeated by a particular circumstance. He did not take the office with this burden appended to it. Parliament had caused it, and parliament were bound to prevent him form being injured by it. The demand had been for years in existence; and gentlemen now talked of printing the report, the circumstances of the case being well known. In other words, they were asked to expend half the sum claimed, in the printing of the report before they proceeded to consider the case.
Mr. Barclaythought the present vote might go to establish an important precedent that would apply to other places, in one of which—he alluded to the borough of Southwark—a considerable expense had, on a late occasion, been thrown on the returning officer. He hoped something would be done to prevent the recurrence of such a case, as such claims on parliament ought not to be encouraged.
Mr. C. Calvertsaid, that, at the last Southwark election, when he and a friend of his, now no more (Mr. H. Thornton), stood as candidate, a third person was nominated by his friends. That individual contended, that he had no right to defray any part of the expense of erecting the hustings, as he was not a candidate, and the high bailiff was obliged to pay it.
Mr. Lockhartobserved, that the act in question was a special one, confined to Westminster, and expired in the present year. The House would therefore do well, if they regarded the peace of Westminster, to adopt some farther legislative proceeding on the subject. As to the question before the committee, it should be remembered that the high bailiff was subject to the penalty of being proceeded against by indictment or information, if, in the event of an election, he did not, in the first instance take on himself all the expense of erecting hustings, providing poll-clerks, &c. He begged leave to say, in behalf of the high bailiff, that, consulting the peace of this large city, he did, on the occasion in question, under very inauspicious circumstances, pay out of his own pocket above 1,500 l. for the purpose of making the arrangements prescribed by the act of parliament. Half that sum
1116
he had never been repaid. He therefore hoped and trusted that that gentleman, who had been already kept four years out of his money, would not be allowed to suffer for his obedience to an act of parliament; but that the committee would show, in his example, that when any duty was cast on an individual for the. public service, parliament would not permit that individual to be injured in consequence of his performance of it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that there were so many cases in which the operation of an act of parliament threw a loss on individuals, that it required very particular words to distinguish this case. The charge had been thrown on the high bailiff in a way parliament did not intend. The act on the subject was about to expire, and would probably be repealed or amended. At all events, this ought not to be drawn into precedent; but it was of so peculiar a nature, that upon the whole, he did not think it proper to withhold his assent from the proposition.
The resolution was then agreed to.

BUILDING OF NEW CHURCHES.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhaving moved the order of the day for taking into consideration that part of the Lords Commissioners' speech, which related to the building of Churches,
Mr. Tierneygave notice, that soon after the holydays he intended to move, that the sum granted by parliament for the erection of a monument to commemorate our victories by sea and land, be laid out in the erection of a parish church or churches.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the subject to which he was about to call the attention of the House was not connected with that alluded to by the. right hon. gentleman, in as much as an economical arrangement for the building and enlarging of churches throughout the kingdom, was very different from the erection of a monumental church upon a great scale of ornamental architecture. At the same time, he was far from being disinclined to coincide with the view of the right hon. gentleman on this subject; for he thought that if the right hon. gentleman would communicate with him on. the subject, it would be found that they did not disagree. His own opinion was that nothing could be more fit than that national monuments should be rendered applicable to purposes of general utility.
Mr. Tierneyexpressed great satisfaction at what had fallen from the right hon gentleman. It was so much better that this view had been adopted in the quarter in which it could be most advantageously carried into execution, that he could not but congratulate the House upon it.
The House having resolved itself into the committee, and that part of the Speech of the Lords Commissioners, which relates to the want of accommodation for public worship, having been read by the Chairman, viz.
"The Prince Regent has commanded us to direct your particular attention to the deficiency, which has so long existed, in the number of places of public worship belonging to the established church, when compared with the increased and increasing population of the country. His Royal Highness most earnestly recommends this important subject to your early consideration; deeply impressed, as he has no doubt you are, with a just sense of the many blessings which this country, by the favour of Divine Providence, has enjoyed, and with the conviction that the religious and moral habits of the people are the most sure and firm foundation of national prosperity,"
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that he believed no communication from the throne had ever been expected with greater anxiety, or received with more satisfaction by the public, than that which the lords commissioners had made, by the command of the Prince Regent, at the opening of the present session. For more than a century, the want of accommodation for public worship had been felt by the members of the established church as a most serious evil; and an attempt had been made so long ago by parliament to remedy it, so far as respected the metropolis, and its immediate vicinity. This attempt, however, though attended with considerable expense, had been very imperfect in its execution, only eleven churches having been built, out of fifty which it was proposed to erect. Since that time no farther steps had been taken by public authority, though the evil had been perpetually increasing with the growing population of the country, which was now probably little less than double what it had been when the attempt, to which he had alluded, was made; and still more from its concentration in the metropolis, and the large commercial and manufacturing towns. Nothing, in fact, could
*
1118
have justified so long a delay,—a delay which had continued till any effectual remedy began to be despaired of,—but the difficulties with which the state had had to struggle, and the expensive wars in which it had been involved. It should indeed be remembered that, even during the pressure of the severest and most arduous contest in which this country had ever been engaged, parliament had made liberal grants to promote the comforts of the clergy, and to confer on the public the benefit of a resident—a respectable—and a moderately endowed ministry. But these grants, however important in their object, could not supply the want of places of public worship, of which there existed so melancholy a deficiency.
He believed that in support of a fact so generally known, he might rest on the ground of public notoriety. He should, however, for the sake of a clear illustration of the subject, take the liberty of referring to the accounts laid upon the table of the House by command of the Prince Regent. It would appear from those returns that the proportion between the number of parishes, and that of their inhabitants, varied extremely in the different dioceses of the kingdom. The parliamentary account, No. 1, which comprises only those parishes which contains at least 2,000 persons, and in which the places of worship are insufficient to accommodate one half of the inhabitants would show, that in the diocese of London there were eighty parishes of that description, containing 930,337 souls, and giving an average of 11,629 to a parish;—in that of Winchester the average was 8789;—in that of Chester 8,195;—while in that of Oxford it was no more than 2,422: so that the proportionate population of parishes in the diocese of London to those of the diocese of Oxford, was, as more than four to one. From the account he had extracted a list of twenty-seven parishes, in which the deficiency was most enormous—the excess of the inhabitants beyond the means of accommodation in the churches excoeds 20,000 in each. Of these sixteen, were in, or about London, and eleven in great provincial towns. In three of them, the excess in each was above 50,000 souls:—in four more, from 40,000 to 50,000;—in eight from 30,000 to 40,000; and in the remaining twelve, from 20,000 to 30,000. In Liverpool out out of 94,376 inhabitants, 21,000 only could be accommodated in the churches, leaving a deficiency of 73,376;—in Man-

1119
Chester, of 79,459, only 10,950, leaving 68,509; and in Marylebone of 75,624, no more than 8,700, leaving 66,924 without the means of accommodation. It thus appeared that in three parishes only there were near 210,000 inhabitants who could not obtain access to their churches. It was not indeed, in his opinion, necessary that the church should be sufficiently large absolutely to contain the whole of the inhabitants of a parish at the same time; a large deduction must always be made for infants, and for those, who, from age, from infirmity or sickness, or from necessary domestic avocations, were unable to attend. Allowing for these circumstances, and considering the opportunities which the different services performed in the same day might give to different classes of the population, he should conceive that a parish might be considered as not inadequately supplied if the church could contain one-third of the inhabitants at the same time; and it would be obviously desirable to provide in the bill for the performance of three services on every Sunday, and the more important festivals, in the new churches, in order to derive the greatest accommodation to the public, at the most moderate expense. If this were not the case, the deficiency in the larger parishes would appear so enormous, and the expense of providing any adequate remedy so immense, that he could hardly have the courage to propose to parliament to undertake so hopeless a task. In this respect some objection might be made to the statements of the very useful publications of Mr. Yates, from which he had derived much valuable information, and which he could recommend to every gentleman who might wish to turn his attention to this part of the subject. By comparing the capacity of our churches with the total amount of the population, and placing the actual deficiency upon such a comparison, in the strongest light, Mr. Yates undoubtedly would lead to a desponding view of the subject; but his work contains accurate abstracts of the returns to the privy council which have since been laid before parliament; and other valuable documents, besides his own striking and useful observations.
From the returns on the table it appears that the deficiency was greatest in the district of London, lying in the dioceses of London and Winchester; and in those of Chester and York: and he (the chancellor of the exchequer) would state the
1120
absolute deficiency in each, compared with the whole population, but subject to the observations he had just made. The population of London and its vicinity was 1,129,451; of whom the churches and episcopal chapels can only contain 151,536, leaving an excess of 977,915. This statement, however, excludes the City of London, in which there was a superfluity of churches, considerably exceeding what the inhabitants required. This not only arose from a diminished population, occasioned by the great proportion of space now occupied in the City of London by warehouses and workshops, but was also the case in all the other most ancient cities in the kingdom. In Norwich, Lincoln, and the other cities which existed under the Roman empire, the parishes are small and the churches very numerous, and originally of small dimensions, as appears from the few original structures which are still remaining: but in those towns which have been built or greatly enlarged in later times, and especially since the reformation, the case is very different. In the dioceses of York and Chester, the disproportion of population to the capacity of the churches, was little less than in the district of the metropolis. In the diocese of York there were ninety-six churches, which afford room for 139,163 inhabitants—the whole population amounted to 720,091, so that there was a deficiency of accommodation for 580,928. In that of Chester, there were one hundred and sixty-seven parishes, the churches in which would contain 228,696; but the actual population was no less than 1,286,702, leaving a deficiency of 1,040,006. The deficiency was therefore most striking in London and Chester, but it was very great in some other dioceses. In that of Winchester (part of which was comprised in the London district) there were thirty-seven parishes, of which the churches could receive 59,503; the population was 325,209, leaving a deficiency of 265,706; more than four-fifths of the whole number were therefore unable to find accommodation. In cases such as these, the impossibility in which the far greater part of the inhabitants were placed of attending divine service even once a day, was however by no means the only evil. There were many other most important functions of his sacred office, which it was impossible for any clergyman, however zealous and laborious, adequately to discharge towards a

1121
population of 40,000 or 50,000 souls, or even a much smaller number. He might instance (as Mr. Yates has most forcibly done) the sacrament of the lord's supper, and the rights of baptism, burial, and marriage. How was it possible for those ordinances to be celebrated in the solemn and impressive manner which their serious and important nature required, in the crowd and hurry unavoidably attending their perpetual and almost ceaseless repetition in such a crowded population? How even could due care be taken to avoid mistakes, and to guard against frauds and impositions affecting the most important civil rights of individuals. He might indeed almost say, that the reformation for which he pleaded, was not less important to the security of property and of the civil order of society, than to the higher considerations of religion and morality. To illustrate this part of his argument, he would take the liberty of reading one or two short extracts from the valuable work to which he had before referred.
In the first Mr. Yates gives an account of the performance of a Sunday's duty for a friend:
"I attended at the church at nine o'clock, on account of expected marriages, the service was once performed; then the full morning service, the rector preaching the sermon; after the departure of the congregation, the service for churching of women twice performed; afternoon, full service, prayers, and sermon; after which seventeen children baptised: then seven funerals performed, the burial service read over five times, concluding between seven and eight o'clock in the evening; the whole of which, except the morning sermon, I performed as the duty of the curate; and this was understood to be no more than the average Sunday employment.
The second instance is still more Striking:
"There are, upon an average, from forty to fifty christenings every Sunday afternoon, besides christenings on the week days; and on some of the great festivals, as Christmas day, Easter day, and Whitsunday, there are generally from one hundred and twenty to one hundred and forty.
"On the first day of the present year, I myself christened ninety-three children. On the 6th of February of the present year, there were twenty-nine couples married. Throughout the whole of the
1122
present year, the banns of marriage published every Sunday morning for the first, second, and third time of asking, have seldom been less than one hundred and twenty in number, on one occasion they were one hundred and fifty-six."
Such instances would give the committee an idea of the extent of the evil as it now existed, and he should proceed to state as shortly as was consistent with any clear view of the subject, the outline of the remedial measure which he had it in contemplation to submit to parliament.
He intended to propose a grant, to the extent of one million sterling, to be raised by an issue of exchequer bills, and applied as occasion might require, under the direction of commissioners, appointed by the Crown in a manner analogous to the operations of the parliamentary commission, established last year, to give encouragement to public works. He thought this plan preferable to an annual grant, because the commissioners would have a better guide in framing the regulations under which they would afford assistance; and the different districts requiring it, would be better able to judge of the propriety of making applications when the total extent of parliamentary aid was known, than if it had been left to annual grants of uncertain amount, and indefinite continuance. The distribution of this grant would require, at least, four or five years; and the sums raised in each might either, if parliament should so think fit, be made good in the succeeding years respectively, or in one total sum, at the close of the period when the whole should have been issued.
The measure proposed, was (except in respect of the mode of raising the money), similar to that in which a business of the same nature had been conducted in the reign of queen Anne, and of which an account would be found in the valuable work to which he had already so often alluded.
At that time, thirty-one commissioners were appointed by the Crown, on whom the whole of the general direction devolved. A tax was imposed on certain articles imported into the port of London, for the purpose of enabling them to carry into execution the building of a certain number of additional churches in the metropolis, and the sums raised were placed at the disposal of the commissioners, who were thus enabled to erect eleven churches out of the number intended.

1123
The commission appointed in that instance, was instituted for local purposes; but that now proposed was intended to have a much wider sphere of operation. It was to take a general view of the wants of the whole kingdom, and in granting aid, would be regulated by a' combined view of the extent and the population of the different parishes, the want of accommodation in the existing churches, and the ability of the district to bear the burthen requisite for supplying the deficiency. The public bounty ought only to be given in aid of a fair exertion on the part of the district: where the commissioners were convinced of the inability of the district to complete the undertaking of itself, they would interfere, but rather with a view to assist, than to support the whole charge. He had already observed, that, in many parishes, not only the population was too numerous, but the extent too great for the pastoral care of one incumbent. It was, on both these accounts, thought desirable, that in such cases a power should be given to the king in council, with the consent of the patron, to divide the parish with respect to all ecclesiastical Tights, as well as spiritual duties, but without interfering with the management of the poor, or other arrangements of a civil nature. The consent of the patron must be obtained, because it was highly important, that in a great public improvement, there should be the least possible interference with private rights. In case, however, the consent of the patron could not be obtained, or if the commissioners should think the arrangement preferable, as in some cases they might do, it was proposed, that a power should be given to the king in council, to separate a district from a parish for spiritual purposes only; without affecting the ecclesiastical endowments, cither of the present, or any future incumbent. It was, indeed, to be considered as a leading principle, founded in the strictest justice, that the existing incumbent should, in every case, be indemnified from the effects of any change: but, in the case in question, it is intended, that every future incumbent of the mother church snail preserve the tithes and endowments of his benefice entire, although the spiritual functions of a division (which, for the sake of distinction, may be called a district parish) may have been separated from it.
One or other of the arrangements, he had described, might be applied to those
1124
parishes, which, either from their extent or population, or both, it might be thought inexpedient to leave under the care of a single minister. There was, however, another class of parishes, some of them of considerable population, in which the pastoral duties might be thought to be most satisfactorily discharged by a superintending minister, with proper assistants, and with the addition of the requisite proportion of places of worship. In cases such as these, the commissioners might direct the building of parochial chapels', to be served by curates nominated by the incumbent, but so far locally attached to the chapels, in which they were to officiate, as not to be removable from them, even to a different district within the parish, without the consent of the bishop. Thus, each chapel would become a sort of minor benefice within a larger one, subject to the general directions of the incumbent of the parish at large, while that connexion and acquaintance would be kept up between the officiating minister and his congregation, which is so instrumental in giving full effect to parochial instruction.
The modes, therefore, by which the commissioners would effect the purposes of the act, were threefold:—
First, by the complete ecclesiastical division of parishes; secondly, by the district division of parishes, not affecting the endowments of the present benefice; and thirdly, by the building of parochial chapels. In one or other of these modes he hoped the requisite relief would gradually be obtained: but it would be obvious to any one who examined the returns on the table, that the greatest exertion of parochial funds and of private liberality, co-operating with the munificence of parliament, would be necessary to attain the object. He bad already referred to the case of twenty-seven parishes, in each of which the excess of the population, above the accommodation of the churches, was above 20,000 souls. It might be estimated, that in these parishes alone, one hundred and fourteen additional churches, of dimensions sufficient to contain nearly 2,000 persons each, would be required to afford such moderate accommodation as to allow one-third of the inhabitants to attend divine worship at the same time. Looking to these and the other cases which appeared in the parliamentary returns, he apprehended that the commissioners would not be able to afford assistance to parishes containing

1125
less than 10,000 souls;—not that they would be precluded by any law or regulation from doing so; but that he feared such might be the effect of the insufficiency of their grant, large as it might appear at first sight. It was true, that in these estimates he had made no allowance for those members of the community who did not belong to the established church;—for, without meaning the least disparagement to the dissenters, or the slightest infringement of the liberty of conscience they so happily enjoyed, he thought that the church, which existed for the benefit of all, and derived support from all, was bound to afford accommodation for all: and he believed that a very large proportion of those who did not now attend the worship of the established church, had not voluntarily forsaken the church; but that the church, from an unfortunate train of circumstances, which could not be too soon remedied, had shut her doors upon them. To give to all such an opportunity of returning, must be the most anxious wish of every true friend of the church; and it was with great pleasure that he turned the attention of the committee to the assistance which might be derived in the furtherance of this great object, from the operations of a most excellent society lately formed, and which already comprised a large proportion of whatever was most respectable and dignified in church and state. In cases in which parishes, requiring assistance, might not come within the rules established by the commissioners, in enabling other parishes to bring themselves within the scope of these regulations, this society would lend its beneficial aid.
It would naturally be asked, from what fund the ministers, serving these new churches and chapels, were to derive their support? For this purpose, and also to assist in the repairs of the buildings, it was proposed that a moderate rent should be required from those persons who had the accommodation; and it was sufficiently proved by the example of the proprietary chapels in various parts of the kingdom, and especially in London, that from this source a very considerable income might be derived. It was, however, by no means intended that the parliamentary churches should be allotted principally with a view to the profit of pew rents; but that, on the contrary, a large proportion of the space in each of them should be reserved as free seals, for the
1126
accommodation of the poorer inhabitants.
With respect to another part of the subject, on which the committee would certainly expect some explanation,—he meant the patronage of the intended churches,—he should next state what was intended. The same principle of respect to private rights, which guided the other parts of the arrangement, would be applied to this. Whether, therefore, a parish should be divided wholly or partially, according to the arrangements he had before explained; the presentation of the new parish, or of the district church, would be vested in the patron of the original church. In the case of parochial chapels, the appointment would rest (as it now does by law) in the incumbent of the parish, who is spiritually answerable for the conduct of the whole. He believed that this arrangement would leave the general proportions of ecclesiastical patronage very much as they now exist. For instance, of the twenty-seven parishes already alluded to, he believed the patronage of four was in the Crown; of two, in the archbishop of Canterbury; of three, in the bishop of London; of one, in the archdeacon of London; of six, in colleges; of two, in chapters or lay corporations; in one, the incumbent was elected by parishioners; and the remaining eight belonged to private patrons. These twenty-seven parishes would, therefore, afford a tolerably fair specimen of every species of parochial patronage.
He desired just to touch upon a subject, distinct indeed from the present, but naturally suggested by it,—he meant the situation of the church of Scotland. It might be observed, that this church was also a part of our national ecclesiastical establishment, that it equally stood in need of assistance, and was equally entitled to parliamentary support, and ought to be included in the same measure of relief He admitted that the church of Scotland had, in proportion to its wants, equal claims to national support; and he believed parliament would feel equal readiness to come to its assistance-: but the forms of church government in Scotland were so different from those of England, that to attempt to embody in the same act of parliament, the provisions applicable to each, could only lead to embarrassment and confusion. The case of Scotland had not, however, been over looked by the government, and he hoped shortly to bring before the House a pro-position upon this subject.

1127
He concluded by observing, that he considered the question he was about to propose, as one on which no party feelings could arise, but which must be interesting to every friend of virtue and religion. It was a pleasing circumstance, and honourable to the character of the House, that such cases should arise in which they could all unite their efforts for a common object. He remembered an occasion (not, indeed, in the House, but at one of those meetings for a religious purpose, which so honourably characterize and distinguish the present age), in which he sat with his noble friend (lord Castlereagh) between two gentlemen, whom the House has since lost, of the most opposite political sentiments, but both of them eminently zealous in exertions of beneficence,—the late Mr. Rose and the late Mr. Whitbread. They had all addressed the assembly in succession, in a manner undoubtedly tinged with the peculiar character and sentiments of each individual, but in which no feeling of former differences could be discerned, nor any view but that of most effectually supporting the general object of the meeting. Such, he trusted, would be the feeling of the House upon the present occasion; and that whatever shades of opinion might appear, when the details of the measure came to be discussed, only one sentiment would prevail with respect to its principle; and that all would cordially unite in giving the national church that assistance which was necessary to enable it to provide effectually for the instruction and edification of the people.—The right hon. gentleman then moved, "That his Majesty be enabled to direct exchequer bills, to an amount not exceeding one million, to be issued to commissioners, to be by them advanced, under certain regulations and restrictions, towards Building, and promoting the Building, of additional Churches and Chapels in England."
Captain Waldegraveapproved of the general tendency of the resolution. He wished to take that opportunity of remarking, that the monuments in St. Paul's church seemed to be very much neglected. They were, he believed, seldom or never cleaned. Many were then completely covered with dust. He wished that some small fund might be established to prevent this inconvenience in future, and to pay persons who might keep those monuments of public gratitude in proper order.
General Thorntonsaid, the proposed measure had his full approbation. He thought it would be productive of the greatest advantages. He wished that in' place of any other monument, a church might be erected in memory of the victory at Waterloo.
Sir Charles Monckthought it most desirable and expedient that the large part of our population, now unprovided for, should obtain accommodation. But he thought the good effect of this would, in a great degree, be defeated, unless the manner of performing the service in our established churches underwent considerable modification. Nothing was more likely to reclaim the Dissenters—he did not speak this in an invidious sense—to the established church, than an alteration in the manner of performing service. Without some modification, he was afraid little moral and religious improvement could be expected from additional churches. When he considered the state of things in those parts of the country where there was a want of accommodation, and adverted to the state of morals and religion in those parts of the country which were most splendidly endowed, he was led to entertain considerable doubts as to the benefit which would be derived from new churches, without some farther change. In those parts of the country in which the population had increased most of late years, churches were scarce; but there were many parts of the country where the population was very large in old times, greater indeed than it was now. In Norwich, for instance, there were 39 parishes, while, by the last returns, the population was only 38,000. Was Norwich, with this ample provision of churches, a comparatively moral and religious town? He recollected that Durham had also many churches, yet the population was only from eight to 10,000; whereas Newcastle, a very large town, had not above four or five churches. But he had never heard that Durham was more remarkable for morals than Newcastle. In travelling over England, he believed it would be found, that where there were most churches, the people were far from being the most exemplary in their morals. The churches were formerly open at all times, as they were now in foreign countries, and the people were always going to them. There ought to be some modification in the manner of performing the worship—it ought to be more frequently performed

1129
in a day. He thought, also, they ought to take into consideration the present endowments of the church, and see whether there was not a large proportion of them employed in a manner not at all calculated to promote the interests of religion,—whether the revenues of prebendaries, &c. might not be applied to the purpose for which money was now asked from the nation at large? Nothing ought to be taken from the nation till an investigation into these things showed the necessity of the measure. He was unable to see why they should at once take one million, and no more. When they entered on this business, they ought to make up their minds to bear whatever was requisite. What was the reason of the proceeding of the right hon. gentleman he knew not, and he wished to learn why they were to decide at once that one million was to be the sum? Why so much as one million, or why no more? Some consideration as to the exact sum, he thought, should take place. He must also say a word as to where the money was to come from. He did not exactly know what there might be to spare in the church establishment; but he did not like to see the whole sum taken from the nation at large. He would much rather have had the right hon. gentleman come down to the House with a proposition for providing, in each county, some board of commissioners, or some tribunal that might have made a proper representation to parliament, and have stated that the population were too numerous for their churches, and they were willing to provide some portion of the expense of erecting others. He would rather have had the money raised in such a manner, titan from the whole nation, when it would of necessity be applied only to a particular part. The main application of the money would be to the metropolis, when the whole nation were required to contribute to its payment. He wished to know whether there would be a pew-rent in these new churches? At present that system excluded great numbers of the poor. He approved, however, of the object of the measure generally, and of many of the provisions which it was proposed to introduce into the bill.
Mr. Gippswished to know, whether it was the intention not to extend the bill to any parish in which the population was less than ten thousand.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the present calculations induced a
1130
supposition, which made it very improbable that parishes of a less population would require any portion of the grant. He had omitted two points: first, as to a provision for the new clergymen; that would probably, in a great degree, be supplied by the produce of pews: secondly, as to the more frequent performance of divine service. In all the churched to be built under this act, it was to be provided, that divine service should be performed three times a day; and it might probably be deemed expedient to extend the like prevision to churches already built.
Mr. Warrewished to know, whether the plan in contemplation would increase the number of incumbents?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the increased number of parishes and churches would of course increase the number of incumbents.
Mr. N. Calvertsaid, he did not approve of that division of the parts of our church service the right hon. gentleman had seemed to describe.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, it was not intended to divide the church service, but to have the whole service oftener performed.
Mr. W. Smithsaid, that in some of the northern parts of the country the parishes were so extensive, that the people were prevented from attending at their parish churches. There were some parishes in Scotland not less than forty miles long. He knew one in which the church was thirty miles distant from some of the inhabitants. As to the moral returns alluded to by the hon. baronet, they could not be easily procured. With respect to Norwich, if such a return was brought forward, he had no doubt but it would be honourable to the inhabitants. There were in that city 36 churches, besides a number of large chapels belonging to various sects of dissenters. He wished to know whether it was intended to extend the operation of this measure to Scotland.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the hon. gentleman would immediately perceive, that the principles upon which the church of Scotland was conducted, differed so much from those which regulated the established church, that the same provisions could not be applied to both. At the same time, his majesty's ministers had not overlooked the situation of the church of Scotland, and felt no disposition to object to a separate proposition for that part of the united kingdom.
Dr. Phillimoreperfectly agreed with the right hon. gentleman as to the great importance of the subject. The plan of dividing parishes was most material; it would give the inhabitants of those places a better opportunity of attending divine worship, and it would afford them the advantage of the more immediate pastoral care of the several incumbents. With regard to patronage, the right hon. gentleman had pointed out the only proper mode of its being regulated, and he most completely agreed with him.
The resolution was then agreed to.

TITHE LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
Mr. Curwen Mr. Curwen moved the second reading of the Tithes Law Amendment bill. In making that motion, it was not his intention to say more than a few words. Considerable misunderstanding had taken place with regard to the bill. He disclaimed entirely all intention whatever of invading the property of the clergy. After the past discussions on the subject, some prejudices had arisen against the bill, which would not, he was confident, exist after its provisions and intentions were well understood. The question was not whether any thing was to be taken from the church, but whether the church had a right to take what never properly belonged to it? It was not his intention to attempt in any way to injure the clergy, but it was his wish that justice should be done to all parties.
Sir W. Scottsaid, he had the strongest objections to this bill, and in particular to the clauses which went to disturb the settled system of law, as it had been laid down by chief baron Comyns, and other eminent authorities. The right hon. and learned gentleman then explained the policy of the 13th of Elizabeth, on the subject of what were called real compositions on tithes, and also on the act of Richard 2nd, relative to moduses, and showed the distinction between each. It was, he said, the object of the hon. gentleman's bill to shut out the church from tithes, where they were not claimed within living memory. He could not agree to such a proposition as this, for it would at once set aside the necessity of producing that documentary evidence, which ought to be adduced on such an occasion by the landed proprietor. This evidence was surely to be procured, as all tithe compositions were recorded in the bishop's registry. There was, then, no necessity for setting
1132
up common usage against contracts so registered; and if the House were to adopt the plan, it would be at once a virtual repeal of the statute of Elizabeth. Besides, the hon. gentleman's plan went to make moduses the same as compositions, and to break down the marked distinction between each. The next class whose interests were taken up in this bill, were the lay impropriators, and yet no evil was shown to exist at present relative to their interests. The object was here to appoint, in every disputed case, commissions to be issued for ascertaining the precise parochial boundaries in litigation. There was no reason for such a provision, and it was, like the other clauses, wholly uncalled for. He thought it extremely dangerous to make any alteration in the state of a property most sacred in law, and peculiarly and essentially connected with the welfare of the community. He objected to all the clauses, and was persuaded that the bill would put clergymen in an extremely disadvantageous situation. On the grounds he had stated, he should move, by way of amendment, "That the bill be read a second time this day six months."
Sir Samuel Romillysaid, he approved of the principle of the bill, though, perhaps, some of the clauses in it might be capable of improvement. Nothing could be more unjust than to represent the bill as an invasion of property, or as calculated to promote litigation. Its object was, and its effects would be, to secure property, and prevent litigation. It would secure property on the safest and most widely admitted principle, that of length of possession. He deprecated, as much as any man could, any attack on the property of tithes; they were as much property as any other species of possession; and the clamour against them as being mischievous was, as far as it impugned such property wholly unwarrantable purchaser might as well say at once, that because he had paid for nine tenths he had a right to the whole. But this bill would settle property, and secure claims. It night have been originally inconvenient that real compositions should be made; but the statute of Elizabeth, passed to prevent, could only be prospective; and yet the courts of justice had done on this head, what the legislature could not do, by insisting on the production of he deed itself. The statute of Elizabeth never

1133
meant to set aside compositions previously made, though the deeds that attested them were extremely rare. The courts, however, required the production of the deed in this case, after a lapse of more than two hundred years, though it did not in any other case of equal duration. As to the improvidence with which these compositions had been made, that was a good reason for passing a law to prevent them for the future; but none for setting aside those already made, or doing that which was not done with regard to any other species of property. If a purchaser bought property because it had not paid tithe for two hundred years, and the clergyman preferred a claim, the purchaser must still show a modus as old as Richard 1st, or that his land had been abbey land, or produce a composition deed, though he bought the property, relying on the non-payment for such a length of time, which would have been a sufficient exemption from demand in any other case. As to the right hon. gentleman's quotation from baron Comyn, "What hardship was there in obliging an individual to preserve his deeds?" there was no hardship in this as to a single individual; but through a long succession of possessors and the lapse of centuries, it was often absolutely impossible. No man could guard against the effects of fire, civil commotion, &c. but here, unlike all other property, in which length of time improved the title, the claim rendered was more doubtful and more endangered by every hour that elapsed. No innovations would be made by the bill on the tenure of lay impropriations, for what Henry the 8th gave to his courtiers, he gave subject to all the conditions originally attached to it.—The clause on farm moduses was especially called for; for in the present division of property, if a modus was ever so well established, and the limits of the farm over which it extended could not clearly be traced, the whole modus was avoided. The right hon. gentleman had contended that the clause with respect to lay impropriations would interfere with the whole system of tithes, but if it appeared that lay impropriations were under the present regulation, a manifest injustice, they should remove that injustice, and not be deterred by the apprehension of mere speculative disadvantages. There might be many objections to the bill as it now stood, but to dispose of such a bill on the second
1134
reading was in effect to say that they would not consider it. He agreed, that the property of the church should be held sacred, but the best way to accomplish that object would be to provide that it should not be rendered an instrument of injustice. The House should at least go into a committee to consider the various clauses of the bill.
Mr. Wetherellsaid, he was sorry to differ from his hon. and learned friend as to the effects which the bill then before the House was likely to produce. He was not one of those men who thought that an abuse should be allowed to continue merely because it was of long standing; on the contrary, he agreed with his hon. and learned friend, that whatever time such abuse might have existed, it ought to be corrected when pointed out. But before an alteration of the nature proposed was made so important a branch as that of the church revenue, he thought it was necessary to make out a very strong case indeed of the necessity of such alteration. In looking into history, however, he could not find a single instance where injustice was complained of under the existing system of collecting tithes. In looking over the bill, and he had looked most carefully over it, he could not find more than one clause which he thought likely to be of service,—he meant the clause which provided against a clergyman holding the lands given in composition for certain tithes, and at the same time enforcing the payment of those tithes. He did not object to a remedy being proposed on that point, but he thought it would be going too far to consent to nineteen objectionable clauses for the purpose of adopting one beneficial one. Any person wishing to prove that his land was exempted from tithes would be obliged to prove one of two things; he would be obliged to prove it by the production of the deeds by which such exemption of tithes took place, or else he must give reasonable proof that such deeds had existed. Before any land could be legally exempted from tithes, one of those two things must be proved. But by the bill, all that was necessary to prove such exemption, would be an assertion, generally, that such deeds had at one time existed. Nay, more, one clause went so far as to make it necessary for the clergyman to prove that no such deeds had existed. How far was such a clause consistent with justice, or with the se-

1135
curity of church property? The hon. and learned member then went through the several clauses of the bill, and pointed out what he conceived to be the injurious tendency of each. The bill, he observed, would, instead of producing beneficial consequences, only serve to introduce confusion, disorder, and injustice into the system of collecting tithes. His hon. and learned friend had said, that land-holders or purchasers of land were likely to be injured by the uncertainty which existed in the payment of tithes. This he would take leave to say was not the case. The first question asked by any person about to purchase land was, whether it was tithe free, or how it was situated with respect to tithes; whether the tithes were paid by composition, by moduses, or in what other manner. No injury could therefore be sustained on that point. Taking the bill in every point of view, he thought it would injure instead of amend the present mode of collecting tithes, and he should therefore vote against it.
Mr. J. H. Smythobjected to the bill. Its provisions, he conceived, were of a most injurious tendency, as they regarded the protection of church property. According to one of the clauses, every payment of tithes, whether by composition, or by modus,. would be valid, provided no arrangement to the contrary took place during the life of an incumbent. But if one clergyman was to give up the tithes of his district, or to enter into a trifling composition for them, was the church to be deprived of its property on that account? He thought such a principle would be destructive to the whole system on which the church was supported. Here was a bill that went to legalize an ex-post facto operation. He conceived that sufficient ground had not been made out in support of the bill, and therefore he felt it his duty. to oppose it.
Mr. Broughambegan by recalling the attention of the House to the question on which they were about to decide, if they agreed to the right hon. gentleman's amendment. It would be a resolution absolutely to admit of no arrangement whatever for quieting men's possessions against the claims of the church. The arguments used by all who had opposed the bill were confined to its particular provisions. But he asked gentlemen if they were prepared to say, that no time, however long, should bar those claims? Men might differ. as to the best
1136
mode of fixing the limitation. It might be advisable to adopt a longer period than sixty years in order to meet one objection. Another might be got rid of by annexing the farther condition of three incumbencies, as was proposed by Mr. Justice Blackstone, and as had also been proposed in the bill of 1772. It might even be agreed that the time and succession of incumbents taken together should not be a bar, but only throw the proof upon the church; or the plan of the present bill might be adopted, that the proof of enjoyment, as far back as living memory could go, should be a primâ facie evidence in favour of the owner, liable to be met by contrary proof on the part of the church. But the gentlemen opposite reject all periods and every kind of limitation; and he contended that the House should not listen to them, unless it was satisfied that no measure for quieting such possessions could safely be adopted. The right hon. gentleman who moved the amendment had not fallen into the same errors with some others (Mr. Wetherell and Mr. Smyth) respecting the argument. They had represented this bill as fixing thirty, and even seventy years as a period, the enjoyment during which should exclude all claim of tithes. No man meant this when he spoke of living memory. Witnesses must be called to carry the possession back as far as the recollection of old persons could go. Nor would any judge, who might try such an issue, let the cause go to a jury, or call on the opposite party for an answer, if it rested on the testimony of persons who only spoke of twenty or five-and-twenty years back. But the right hon. gentleman had met the question more fairly; and feeling the point that pressed him, he had maintained that the church was in a different situation from all other properties—reminding the House of the risks of collusion between patron and incumbent, and of the possible length of incumbencies, as lord Coke had said that in his part of Norfolk two successive rectors continued in possession for above one hundred years. It is, however, not enough to say there is some difference in the situation of the church, or that extraordinary circumstances may occur to render collusions possible, unless it can be shown that there is a probability of such things recurring, and unless it can also be proved that the situation of the church is so extremely different from that of all other properties.

1137
as to put every kind of limitation out of the question—checks may be desired to prevent the collusion. The control of the ordinary may be superadded, the period may be extended, and if three or four incumbencies are joined to the lapse of time, the probability of successive collusions during a change both of parsons and patrons becomes extremely small. The change of patrons was a most material consideration in this view, for each collusive bargain made by the parson might then be expected to expire, there being no interest on his part to renew it with the succeeding patron. he asked, whether the House was prepared to say, not only that church property was peculiarly circumstanced, but that it was so completely different from all other property, that it never could be left to the legal protection which was deemed sufficient for every other kind of right? The right hon. gentleman had frequently described it as most sacred, and had dwelt on this expression; if he meant very sacred, he was not at all disposed to deny it. But if he meant to speak in the superlative degree, as instituting a comparison with the sacredness of other property, he must deny the justice of the expression, or say, that to him it was unintelligible. He admitted the rights of the church to be as sacred as those of other property—when he said they were rights of property, it was enough, for all property was in some sense sacred; it was not to be touched unless the public good imperiously required it; and the legislature always held, that the rights of individuals were to be respected, and never to yield unless where the necessities of the whole community demanded the sacrifice; in which case they every day were interfered with. That parliament had repeatedly legislated upon the rights of the church, was a matter of notoriety in every part of the united kingdom. He did not go to Ireland only for examples: he would not cite the famous vote of the Irish House of Commons against tithe agistment, as subversive of the Protestant interest; but if the act of the Irish parliament abolished that tithe, he did not feel himself at liberty to speak with the same disrespect, not only because it was brought in by the noble lord (Castlereagh), but because it was an act of the whole legislature. It proceeded, too, somewhat like Henry 8th's statutes dissolving the monasteries, upon a pre-
1138
amble that the claim had been for a long time abandoned. A better precedent was to be found in Scotland, where a most religious prince, the fast friend of the church, and one whom the church, on her part, regarded with peculiar favour, Charles 1st had immediately, on coming to the ancient crown of his family, carried through a measure for the universal abolition of tithe, commutation, and sale. But this measure, how beneficial soever it had proved for Scotland, he did not cite as an example for this country, where any such violent change was quite out of the question. He only gave it as a specimen of the interference with church rights, which parliament had from time to time sanctioned. In England it had also dealt with them for the public weal—to promote agriculture it exempted newly-cultivated land, in Edward 6th's reign, from all tithe for seven years. In the reign of king William it fixed the tithe of hemp and flax at a certain small sum in money; and just before the present king came to the throne, it made a similar regulation for exempting madder from tithe. He called for no encroachments; he only asked, that when the plain interests of the community, and the quiet of men's possessions required it, the House should not deem itself precluded from legislating, because the church was in question. He verily believed the interests of the church itself, and those of religion, required it as much as those of the lay proprietors. The same arguments which are now urged against limiting the church, had been used against the Nullum Tempus bill respecting the Crown. The church, too, it might be remarked, was the first author of the statutes for limiting the Crown. The maxim, that no time should bar the Crown, was first objected to by the church, with whose quiet it was found to be incompatible. Lord Coke, whose authority was relied on so much, finds no epithets severe enough for the concealors in those days; he calls them gluttons and harpies—but it is "templorum helluores"—they swallowed up the church property by availing themselves of the dormant claims of the Crown. As soon as the church took the alarm, the first bill for limiting the Crown passed in the 39th of Elizabeth, and it was confined to securing the diocese of Norwich against such claims. In the next reign, the more general measure was brought forward; but it was met, as the present bill is, with many arguments

1139
on the danger of limiting the Crown. The Crown property, it might be said, is held in trust for the benefit of the state. The king does not himself superintend its management; he confides in persons who have no permanent interest in it: favorites whose interest is not only different from, but opposed to, that of the community, may obtain possession, and keep it by connivance of the prince and his advisers; and thus the Crown may be despoiled of the property vested in it for the benefit of the commonwealth. All such arguments, perhaps more applicable to the case of the Crown than of the church, were urged in vain, both in James 1st's time, and against the more effectual measure of 1769. After much opposition, both from the sovereign and in parliament, the first bill passed, and the 9th of George 3rd was again carried through parliament after ample discussion. Placing the claims of the Crown upon the same footing with those of every other person; and giving the subject the same perfect security against the Crown, as he enjoyed against all others except the church, it was only just and reasonable that now at length the same principle, modified in its application according to the circumstances of the case, should be extended to the church itself. The gentlemen on the other side, were apt to forget the origin, and the history of property in tithe. He did not mean to mention the early division of them, by which at first a fourth and afterwards a third alone, were enjoyed by the rector. But it might be observed, that for many ages they were held by the church upon conditions, from which the lapse of time and the provisions of the legislature had wholly relieved it. One condition was, the repair of the whole building of the church; this by the common law, is now confined to the chancel. Another condition was, the maintenance of the poor, now thrown upon the landowner. Nor was this last condition confined to early times. As late as the end of the 14th and beginning of the 15th century, there were express provisions for setting apart a yearly sum out of the tithe to support the poor of the parish, as often as any rectory was appropriated. The statutes of Richard 2nd and Henry 4th required this provision to be made, as well as that for a vicar; and it was the condition, sine quâ non, of every appropriation. This continued to be law, as long as appropriations were practised. Blackstone considers (in which
1140
opinion he has not perhaps been followed) that an appropriation may still be made. If it is, it can only be effected legally by a compliance with the statutory conditions of endowing a perpetual vicarage, and providing permanently for the support of the poor. The residence act of Henry 8th proceeds upon a statement, that one of the chief duties of the rector is the support of the poor; and the keeping of hospitality. This principle runs through its whole provisions; and also through all the decisions upon it, down to the time of lord Mansfield. Nor can any weight be given to the opinion of those who question the position, that the maintenance of the poor formerly devolved on the church and the monasteries, and who vouch for this from sixty years having elapsed between the dissolution of the religious houses and the 43d of Elizabeth—for it is well known, that no less than ten statutes for the relief of the poor were made between those two periods; one of then: the same year that the lesser monasteries were dissolved. Now, when the church has gained so much by lapse of time; when the change has been so great in its favour, that it now, and for many years past, has enjoyed its tithe and lands wholly unfettered by the conditions under which they were first given, and for so many ages held, surely it is not asking too much to require the adoption, upon the other hand of such regulations as may communicate to the land owner something like a secure and quiet enjoyment of his property. The burdens formerly annexed to church property are, by usage and positive law, indisputably made to rest on the owner of land. He only asked, that the course of time and events might be suffered to complete the security of his tithe, which he takes with all its burdens, new and old. He counted it a grievous mistake to complain of innovation in this question and on the church. The truth was, that they on his (Mr. B. 's) side of the question, had alone the right to make such a complaint. Every year changed the period of limitation (such as it was) in favour of the church; for every year carried us farther away from the 1st of Richard 1, and the 13th of Elizabeth. There was a constant change going on in favour of those who cried out against alteration, and against those who desired that rights and titles should be fixed in security. What, he asked, was to draw the line, and prevent this innovation from

1141
going on any longer, until it rendered every thing like certain, and quiet possession impossible.—He had only applied himself to answer the arguments brought forward professedly in behalf of the church, and as he thought really contrary to its true interests. But nothing whatever had been urged in defence of the lay impropriator's right to hold his tithe free from all limitation. To his case none of the arguments had any application. Indeed, the right hon. gentleman had almost admitted this, although he endeavoured to set up something like a claim on the part even of the lay impropriator, by asserting that every thing which affected the right to tithes, in whose hands soever it might be, indirectly, if not immediately injured the claims of the church. To this, he should only say, that it proved too much; for tithe was not the only kind of property enjoyed by the church. It was richly endowed also with land; and the right hon. gentleman might, therefore, just as reasonably contend that there should be no limitation to claims of real property generally in laymen, because the kindred rights of the church to its real estates might suffer consequently. This kind of argument, he could not help thinking somewhat refined, and even fantastical. It betokened no great solidity in the distinction taken upon tithe property. Indeed, he conceived the case of the lay impropriator to be abandoned by the antagonists of the bill. Hence alone, if there were no other reason, he should have expected the bill to be at least sent to a committee. His learned friend (Mr. Wetherell), had defied them to produce any authorities in favour of their principle. He had already referred to Mr. Justice Blackstone, no great enemy to the establishment, and no very rash reformer. But he should now cite another, still higher name among the friends of the existing system, and the adversaries of all innovation—he meant Mr. Burke—who had strenuously supported the bill of 1772, for quieting men's possessions against the claims of the church—and these were his words—"This is to take nothing from the church, but the power of making herself odious. If she be secure herself, she can have no objection to the security of others. I heartily wish to see her secure in such possessions as will enable her ministers to preach the gospel with care, but of such a kind as will enable them to preach it with full ef-
*
1142
fect, so that the pastors shall not have the inauspicious appearance of a tax-gatherer."*—This, too, was his (Mr. Brougham's) earnest wish. Among the causes of irreligion or lukewarmness, and ecclesiastical feud and schisms, he believed none to be so prominent as the disputes which arose out of tithe: and of these disputes by far the most irksome to both the parson and the land owner, were those which grew from the insecurity of possessions, and the liability to be disturbed after long enjoyment. He wished to sec the ground of these for ever removed, that nothing but peace and harmony might prevail within the sacred precincts of the church, and that the pastor and his flock might live in uninterrupted concord.
Mr. Peeldeclared, that he should not have trespassed on the patience of the House, by opposing the bill in its present stage, had not the hon. and learned gentleman thought proper to allude to the sentiments of his right hon. friend. The hon. and learned gentleman had objected to the words, "most sacred," as descriptive of the patrimony of the church. Perhaps there might be some difficulty in such an application of the word, but at. any rate there were peculiarities in the property of the church which distinguished it above all property that ranked as secular. It was set apart for the support of the ministers of religion; and although he would not insist on this point, the House must. be so far aware of the importance of religious instruction to the community as to respect the maintenance of those who imparted it. It was greatly to be feared that the tithe-holders formed the majority in opposition to the claims of the church. With respect to the hon. member's bill, he must say, that in his opinion, it was the most extraordinary that could well have been framed, considering the magnitude of the subject. The preamble did not even state the grounds and objects of the bill; and if the hon. mover should withdraw the first paragraph, which he seemed disposed to do, it would declare any thing, except the matters to be enacted by it.
The House divided: For the second reading of the Bill, 15; Against it, 44: Majority, 29. The Bill was consequently lost.
* See New Parliamentary History, Vol. 17, p. 307.

WINDOW TAX IN IRELAND.
The Marquis of Dowshirepresented two petitions, one from the city of Dublin, and the other from the town of Belfast, complaining generally of the excessive burthen of taxes, but especially distinguishing the Window tax as that which, in their opinion, bore most unfairly as well as most heavily upon them. The noble marquis said, that when the window-tax was originally proposed at a period previous to the Union, Mr. Corry, then chancellor of the exchequer in Ireland, had urged it merely as a war tax, to subsist only for a limited time. The tax, however, grievous as it was felt to be in Ireland, was continued from year to year,

1101
in spite of various remonstrances urged in the most temperate manner at various meetings in a multitude of instances. It was no party question. The cause had been taken up by all classes and descriptions of men, who, though they had willingly submitted to the privations which they believed to be necessary in an urgent moment, yet trusted, in rational expectation and in the confident reliance on the word of a respectable minister, that the burden would be removed as soon as the cause for imposing it should have ceased, They found themselves mistaken. A tax which had been proposed as expedient for maintaining a necessary and indispensable war, and which had been agreed to on the express condition that it was to cease at the conclusion of the war, still-continued, and still excited murmurs and dissatisfaction. The petitioners were actuated by the purest motives, but they could not complacently refrain any longer from appealing to the liberality and equity of parliament, for redress under so oppressive a grievance. They were the more confident of finding their petitions favourably received, as the wisdom and justice of the legislature had prevented the occasion of similar petitions from the people of England, who enjoyed the advantage, in point of taxes, of the change which had taken place from a state of war to that of peace—The petitions were ordered to lie on the table.