Sitting of 9 July 1823

PENITENTIARY AT MILLBANK.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that in consequence of the sickness which prevailed in the Penitentiary, it would be desirable to confer upon the governors of the institution the power of a temporary removal of the sick prisoners to places where their recovery was likely to be facilitated. He hoped that, under the circumstances, the House, even at that late period of the session, would not object to allow him to bring in a bill for conferring a power of removal similar to that which was possessed with respect to persons confined in the Hulks. He then moved for leave to bring in a bill, to authorize the temporary removal of convicts from the General Penitentiary.
Mr. M. A. Taylorexpressed his approbation of the motion, as in all cases of illness change of air was advised. He denied that there was arty ground for the prejudice that the Penitentiary was un-wholesome on account of its vicinity to the river, for it was am historical fact, that in times when the plague prevailed, those
1494
persons who lived near the river escaped the infection.
Mr. Hotfordagreed that the situation was by no means unhealthy, and that the sickness was not connected with the local circumstances of the prison.
Mr. Peeladded, that there was no ground, for supposing that the disease lately prevailing in the Penitentiary was owing to its local situation.—Leave given.

BEER BILL.
Mr. Broughamrose for the purpose of moving, that the order for the committal of the Retail Beer Bill be discharged indefinitely. He observed particularly upon the strong opposition which this bill had met with from the brewers whom it was intended to aid, and from the landed interest, whose distresses it would most importantly alleviate. Because, however wheat had risen, he had been abandoned by the latter, and left to struggle against all the influence of the former. He hoped that both parties would know their interests better next session. He should always be at their service, and should be ready to moot the subject again, whenever they should support him; but unaided, he should not be disposed to make any exertion on behalf of parties who seemed so blind and indifferent. His measure for Educating the Poor had met with precisely the same fate. The bills were drawn, printed, and even the blanks filled up, and might be introduced again at any time. He had spent days and nights in perfecting the measure; and because it was beneficial generally, but offered no increase of emolument to any one party in particular, he had been compelled to abandon it.
Mr. Westernsaid, that if the hon. gentleman had persisted, he should have given the bill his support. He complained that, in the taxes repealed this session, there had been an entire forgetfulness of the peculiar distresses of the landed interest. It had been his intention to have moved for a considerable reduction of the malt-duty, but he had been prevented by circumstances; and he now gave notice, that early next year, he would submit a motion for reducing the malt tax to the amount imposed prior to the last war.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, that he was assured his hon. and learned friend had not read the returns made to the House, of the number of public houses in England. The number in London was 4,142; in the country, 43,919; making together 48,061.

1495
Out of which number 20,612 brewed their own beer. How, therefore, could his hon. and learned friend charge this as a monopoly? The quantity brewed by the brewers was 2,192,371 barrels; by the victuallers, 2,152,644; being nearly the same quantity as brewed by the common brewer. It should be observed, that all the houses in one county did not draw on an average more than 100 barrels a week; and supposing one-third of this to be retailed out of doors: this would be about 33 barrels. He would suppose one person only to become a retailer under this new bill, and that the publican retained one-half of his trade, he would only sell 16 barrels in a year; his licence would be 4l 8s.; this would add rather more than 5s. per barrel, or one halfpenny per quart of beer. He therefore asked, how his learned friend would secure the public by his new bill? He would ask, whether the beer would be equal in quality to that drawn by the publican, who had cellars and every convenience, together with a quick draught? The retailer would have such considerable expenses in the management of his trade, that it would leave him no profit. He would suppose, that in each public-house there were six in family, making 288,000 persons, and, without entering into any calculation of the number of brewers that would be injured, he might venture to say, that their families would be nearly ruined; for at least 24 millions of property was invested in that trade, and if the breweries were included, at least 40 millions. The government would lose at least 100,000 l. a year in the stamp duty on transfer. And was it nothing that these publicans maintained soldiers, paid several licences, and very heavy taxes? The magistrates had control over their houses. They would have none over the retailer. He might send beer to the next door, where persons might assemble without control. The publican had to accommodate every traveller, and keep his house open at a great expense. They were generally a very active, industrious class of men, and very few of them saved money. With regard to the statement of his hon. friend, that it would assist the farmers in obtaining a higher price for barley, this he denied. It was the capital of the brewers that assisted the farmers. They had only to show a good sample of barley, and they were sure to sell, and very frequently got their money before the barley was delivered. They never
1496
would have received from 70 s. to 80 s. a quarter, had there not been a consider able capital employed. That capital enabled the brewer to force a trade, and by that means to keep down the price, which caused a larger consumption of barley. If the government would take off the duty on beer, it would be reduced to 3d. per quart. This was the only fair and equitable mode of legislating, that the poor or labouring man should not pay more for his beer than the rich. If this plan were adopted, the public would require no other.
The order for the commitment of the bill was then discharged.

JURORS QUALIFICATION BILL.
On the order of the day for further considering the report of the committee on this bill,
Mr. Western Mr. Western moved, that the said order be discharged. The bill, in principle at least, had met with universal approbation; but he was induced not to proceed further with it, in the present session, at the suggestion of the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department. Indeed, the bill, if passed, could not be carried into execution this year without much inconvenience; as the precepts to return jurors issue from the July sessions, which would commence before the act could pass. After some general observations on the subject of the administration of justice in the country, the hon. member asked, whether ministers had taken into their consideration the practicability of accomplishing a more frequent and extensive delivery of gaols by additional assizes?
Mr. Peelsaid, that he had requested the hon. member to postpone the bill, not because he felt a decided objection to its principle, but because so important a measure required more deliberate consideration. He agreed with the hon. member, that a more frequent deliverance of gaols was, as a principle, a good one, but there were difficulties in the way of the details of such a measure, which he had not been able to overcome. He thought there might be an addition to the number of judges, as he saw no charm in the number of judges, unless its antiquity. He believed sixteen would be a more efficient number than twelve. He allowed that great advantage, had been derived to the public from the appointment of a third assize upon the Home circuit, but he doubted whether an additional assize

1497
could be carried into effect on the other circuits, at least while the number of the Judges remained the same.
Mr. M. A. Taylordid not approve of a third assize, and felt sure that it would be very objectionable to those who formed the juries in the several circuits. Two assizes were quite sufficient. If the labours of the Bench were more than could be reasonably expected from the judges, they ought to appoint others to relieve them, upon those circuits where the extraordinary business might require it. There was one officer who might be immediately put upon that duty. He meant the Cursitor Baron of the Exchequer. It was true that the worthy gentleman who held that office was advanced in years; but it would be well to take care, when his successor should be appointed, to select a person who might furnish the required assistance.
Mr. Scarlettsaid, that when government directed a second assize to be held through the northern circuit, they ought to have taken care to provide the additional expenses to which they had subjected the judges.
Mr. M. A. Taylorsaid, he could take none of that blame upon himself, for he had done all that was in his power for the accommodation of the judges. He had not only done so in his own county, but at the request of lord Sidmouth, he had waited on the bishop of Durham, and asked his lordship if he would have any objection to take in the judges at the Castle in the winter, the same as he had done hitherto on the spring assizes. That right reverend person told him in plain terms, that he would not take them in, and requested him to entreat the lord chancellor to select younger judges for the circuit, alleging the great inconvenience as to the attendance and means of accommodation from the visits of the old judges. He had talked over the subject of these additional expenses with Mr. Justice Park, and had strongly advised an application from the judges themselves upon the subject. Mr. Justice Park had said, that he would have nothings to do with it. The rest of his learned brethren were at liberty to apply if they pleased, but as he possessed property enough for an independence without it, he would continue to bear his own expenses.
Mr. Peelsaid, that the only objection he had to make to the statement of the hon. member was, that the accounts of extraordinary expenses of the judges going
1498
circuit upon the new assizes had been sent in, and regularly paid by the government.
Mr. Brougham, in corroboration of the statement or his hon. friend near him, said that the very reverend prelate in question had been quite as good as his word. The judges were allowed to come, but it was at their peril. His reverend lordship would have nothing to do with the expense of their entertainment. He took them into the castle but that was all. He thought the least that could be done wag to relieve the judges from any additional expense which might be imposed upon them, in consequence of their labours being thus increased.

FOREIGN POLICY OF THE COUNTRY.
Colonel Palmer, on rising to make his promised motion, began with stating, that the motive which had urged him to address the House, was a conviction of the danger of the country, arising out of the conduct of the government with respect to Spain, and the language of the late address to his majesty upon the subject. He might naturally be asked, considering the protracted debate upon that question, the reason of his not having stated his opinion at the time; and confessed that his reluctance to obtrude himself upon the attention of the House, joined to the expectation that the same opinion would have been felt and expressed by others more worthy their attention, had prevented him in the early stage of that discussion, but that, he had repeatedly endeavoured to address the House upon the last night of the debate. Having then failed in such endeavour, and the question being equally, if not more important to the country at the present moment, he would take the liberty of stating the different view which he had taken of it, from that of every horn member who had hitherto spoken upon the subjects It appeared to him, that truth and sincerity were as necessary to the honour and interests of a nation at of an individual; and upon this ground he contended, that the late address should have openly expressed the indignation of the House at the conduct of France and the allied powers; because, by not expressing it, the nation was exposed to the charge of not feeling, or not daring to avow it. He also contended, that the address should as openly have stated, that inability of the country to render Spain assistance was the

1499
only reason and excuse foe withholding it, instead of motives unworthy of her character, and injurious to Her interests; inasmuch as she had thereby deprived herself of all claim to that gratitude and attachment on the part of Spain which a more generous conduct would have inspired, and whose independence, at all times essential to England, was at the present moment of vital importance to her interests, whilst, on the other hand, she had totally failed in that object which the cold and ttmid policy of the address was intended to answer; for, at the same moment, whilst as a nation the House had declined that expression of its feelings, which honour, truth, and justice called for; yet, as individuals upon all sides, they had spoken in terms much more calculated to provoke the consequences which the language of the address had deprecated, than the dignified censure which it ought to have contained; and lastly, whilst, to conceal the real motives of neutrality, they had avowed principles repugnant to every generous feeling, and only calculated to confirm that unjust impression of England, which the crooked policy of her government had long stamped in the minds of Europe; it stood but too plain upon the face of the whole transaction, that the conviction of her weakness alone, and the utter contempt of her means of resenting it, had encouraged France and the Allies to dare to act as they had done. He must admit, that from this feeling of necessity alone, it was almost the unanimous opinion of the House and country that peace should be maintained. But, did they not equally feel the danger, nay, the certainty of eventual war: and not as England ought to conduct it, by her navy alone, but wherein, as ministers had declared, she would have to bear the whole burthen, and incur again the same enormous, wasteful, and unnecessary expenditure as in the former instance? Looking, then, to the present state of the country—to the distresses of the landed and other interests—he could not but deplore the infatuation of the landholders, in supposing that a rise in prices, or any thing but a reduction of taxation could possibly relieve them. He was fully sensible of the importance of their interests, and that, as the hear was to the body, so was the agriculture to the country, its vital principle and the source from whence all its prosperity flowed; but as the heart was equally dependent
1500
upon the body, so was agriculture dependent upon the other interests of the country, and could not be supported at their expense. He remembered the appeal of the chancellor of the Exchequer to the country gentlemen in the last session, who told them they must not despair, because they could not have every thing always as they wished, but take their turn of good and evil with the other interests of the nation; that, at the time manufactures were at their lowest ebb, agriculture was in the full tide of prosperity;—and now, since agriculture had sunk, manufactures had risen; as if, like the buckets of a well; they must let one down to bring the other up. The comparison, however, was unfortunately too just, for agriculture could not possibly be raised by high prices; without sinking the manufactures; arid; unless both could be supported, he feared both would soon sink together. Looking, then; to these distresses, to the opinions and feelings of the people upon the subject, to the unanswered and unanswerable arguments of the numerous petitions for reform, carried by acclamation in the counties which had presented them; and, lastly, to the enormous and undiminished burthen of the public debt, now in the eighth year of peace—what would be the situation of the country when called upon to renew the contest, and to enter again into the ruinous expenditure which ministers had warned them to expect? And yet, to this appalling but true picture of its distress, their only answer was, that being true, it was the best argument for peace; "for if (said the Secretary for Foreign Affairs) "such is the situation of the country, and yet it must have war soon or late, in God's name let it be late. And thus the ministers, already duped and insulted, stayed to be kicked into it, whilst, in their address, they talked of defending the honour of the Crown, and the rights and interests of the people—But the House had been told, as another argument for peace, that the interference of England would injure Spain, by making the war popular in France; and it was to this their strongest and hitherto unanswered argument, he begged the attention of the House because upon it hung the whole question of the true policy of England at the present crisis, and which every consideration for her honour, security, and best interests should lead her to adopt. For how came it, that the French nation, so indignant at the conduct of its govern-

1501
ment, that ministers in their late speeches had anticipated the most fatal consequences from what they had termed this act of madness in the Bourbons, should, notwithstanding, turn round, and join their government against Spain, if England interfered in her behalf? What, he would ask, was the reason of this apparent inconsistency, but simply because such interference would be the act of a government, composed of nearly the same individuals, professing the same principles, and treading the same steps as that government which made war against the liberties of France at the commencement of her revolution, and continued to be her constant and inveterate enemy from that moment until the re-establishment of the Bourbon dynasty? But if, instead of such government, a government fairly representing the people of England, would declare war to-morrow, not against, but for the liberties of France, which, with her own, were now endangered by the base attack of one, or (upon the principle that those who permitted an injury were parties to the act) both their governments upon the liberties of Spain; such declaration: would in an instant rescue England from the humiliation, disgrace, and danger she stood in, and restore her to that proud footing amongst the nations of Europe, which she once held as the defender of their liberties. For England, by thus defending the liberties of France, conjointly with her own, would at once win the hearts of that nation, which, with herself, were unquestionably the greatest, most powerful, and enlightened nations of Europe; and; betwixt whom the real honour and interests of each would best be consulted by their mutual friendship; although the policy of their governments had hitherto, prevented it, by exciting and keeping alive those jealousies and antipathies; which, however natural and instinctive in the brute creation, were most unnatural, absurd, and barbarous betwixt christian states; and above all, these nations, who seemed by nature formed to cherish and protect each other—the one, invincible upon that element to which she owed all her real greatness, whilst the other was equally powerful on her side; and both of whom, combined, might defend not only themselves, but the whole world against the tyrants who oppressed it. It was an old saying, "when rogues fall out, honest men came by their due;" and thus, out of the disputes betwixt their
1502
governments, it was to be hoped the people would at last obtain their rights. As to the governments, although bad was the best, the conduct of the French ministers was infinitely more excusable, than our own; for it was but just to consider the difficulties of their situation, in having to support a crown, not only forced upon the nation, but which, from other unfortunate causes, required a more than constitutional force to protect; and this situation, too, not of their own seeking, but to which they had been forced by others, and above all, the ministers of England. For had the powers assembled at the congress, with England at their head, acted upon opposite principles to those adopted, and which had brought Europe to its present state, he firmly believed that France at this, moment would be enjoying the full benefit of hen charter, under the mild sway of the present sovereign. But it was too late to regret the past, and they had only to consider the best to be done at present. He would then ask, if any thing could be so advantageous to themselves and the rest of Europe, as that France and England should join hand in hand to protect the liberties of Spain? and if that was admitted, he would ask again, what should prevent it?—for in ordinary cases, wherein two parties influenced by the same motives, and looking to the same object, were prevented from acting in concert, by any misunderstanding, it was only to remove such misunderstanding and bring them together; and was there ever so glorious an opportunity of bringing France and England together as the present? when England by this bold, decisive, and generous step, would at once root out from the bosom of France every seed of that hatred and jealousy which she had so long borne against this country as the cause of all the disaster, defeat, and humiliation she had suffered, and above all, that indignity, which France never could forgive until England had acknowledged her error, and expressed her regret for the part she had taken in the transaction, not by the speeches of individuals in that House, but by her conduct as a nation—the restoration of the Bourbons. In saying this, he disclaimed all hostility to that unhappy family; and in justice to them, must defend a conduct which necessity alone had dictated, for the ultra faction in France, the Holy Alliance, and above all, the ministers of England, had

1503
compelled them to the steps they had taken. A noble lord, in his excellent speech on a former night, had said, that from a late residence in France, he had the best reasons for believing, that if England had said "No," France would not have dared to attack Spain; but the noble lord might have gone further, and told the House, that if England had acted as became her, and declared in favour of Spain, the head of the French government, who was universally known to be a liberal in his principles, and had no object so dear to his heart, as the liberties and happiness of his people would at once have thrown himself and people into the arms of England, and have called those ministers to his councils, who, in conjunction with England, might have set the despots of Europe at defiance. The folly and madness, not of the Bourbons, but of the English ministers, had prevented this; whilst the steps they had taken to avoid war, were the most likely to lead to it; for their only hope was, that France, by ruining herself in Spain, might be unable to annoy this country; but even if it should be so, could any thing be more detestable than the policy of looking to the security of England in the misery of France? His own feelings were quite the reverse; for, instead of reducing France, now in so flourishing a state, to the wretched condition of England, he would raise England to a level with France, and all the world if possible to the level of both. This was the true policy which humanity and the best interests of England dictated, and this was the moment for the Crown to exercise that prerogative which the constitution had given it, for the protection of itself and the people, to save both from the destruction which threatened them. For it was not in the wretched papers they had discussed, but in the speeches of the French ministers, and the corrupt majorities which had supported them, that the real danger of England was to be seen. For no one could look to their intentions openly avowed, the progress made in their execution, the pledges of the allied powers to support France, and their insolent threats against Spain on one side, and on the other, to the noble defiance which Spain had hurled at her invaders, as well as the glorious struggle which liberty was making against despotism in other quarters, without seeing, that the present contest admitted of no compromise, but that one
1504
or other party must inevitably perish. It was therefore to save those from becoming victims who were only the instruments of these base plots against the liberties of mankind; the acts not of themselves, but of the weak or wicked ministers who surrounded them; and to protect crowns as well as people, he appealed to the members of that House, the representatives of the only nation which, through the blessings of her constitution, was capable of the effort, to declare, in its collective wisdom, those sentiments which, as individuals, had lately done them so much honour; and as a nation, to raise that mighty voice in freedom's cause, which might at once decide the contest, and spare those sacrifices by which that cause must otherwise he obtained; for that it must ultimately triumph, no man of common sense, whose judgment was not blinded by his prejudice, could entertain a doubt. It was, therefore, not only for themselves, but for those much dearer, and upon whom the consequences of the present destructive system must inevitably fall; for their sakes, and in the name of that humanity which in a recent case, involved in dangers, doubts and difficulties on all sides, would in its zeal have borne down every obstacle, destroying even those it meant to save, but for the interference of the government, and that eloquence which, when exerted in the cause of reason, justice, and of truth, carried conviction with it; he implored them in this instance, to turn their eyes at home, and befriend the cause of suffering humanity in Europe, in a case which involved no danger, doubt, nor difficulty, but wherein those who opposed it in the name of religion, morality, and social order, had only to follow that plain precept, the essence of them all—simply to do by others as by themselves; and by this precept he called upon that House, the representatives of the nation (or at least, who ought to represent it), to do by the people as by themselves; and to defend, in their own honour and interests, the honour and interests of their country. Nor was it the interests and liberties of England only, but of all other nations, and with which the ministers had at last discovered her own to be identified; this great and glorious cause, the cause of liberty throughout the world, was in the hands of Eng land, and if her representatives would but defend it, the victory was certain.—The hon. member could say much more, and

1505
state how and by whom such victory was to be obtained; for as to the present ministers, whatever their real feelings might he (and he confessed he was unable to understand them, if they understood themselves), as the advocates and sworn defenders of that system which had brought the country to its present state, and which, in spite of all its sufferings, they still gloried in, and still at their public meetings pledged themselves to defend to their latest breath; in justice to their own consistency, and the feelings of the people, come what might, by their own system they were bound to stand or fall. Nor was it a mere change of ministers that could save the country, but a change of ministers combined with a change of measures, which might enable them to apply the resources of the country, and the energies of the people to the relief of their own burthens, without injury to the constitution or injustice to the public creditor for whilst he agreed entirely with his noble friend, who had stated it was the debt, the cursed debt, which weighed them down, as long as the country had the means of paying it, he considered the property of the public creditor to be equally sacred with that of every other description. But who, he would ask, in the present state of things, were the real friends of the public creditor? Those who would adopt every possible retrenchment which the safety of the constitution and real interests of the country would admit of, or the ministers whose measures must inevitably lead to those consequences which, looking to the French revolution arising out of the same causes, nothing but a change of system could possibly prevent. As to retrenchment, and all which the ministers had been driven to, session after session, by the exertions of their opponents, particularly the hon. member for Aberdeen, whose character and services no one could estimate more highly than himself, the only real advantage the public had derived from them, had been to open their eyes to the impossibility of any real retrenchment under the present system; for all the savings gained by it were more than counterbalanced by exposures, which only increased the resentment of the people, the difficulties of the ministers, and the necessity of all their power, patronage, and means of corruption, to support their measures. The hon. member concluded with stating that having availed himself of the oppor-
1506
tunity to express his feelings on this important subject, he had no wish to take the sense of the House upon the motion with which he should conclude which was "That an humble Address be presented to his majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, copy of any instructions given to sir William A'Court, for the regulation of his conduct in case of changes made by the Cortes in the internal government of Spain, or such extracts from them as may be laid before parliament without detriment to the public service."
The motion, which was seconded by Mr. Hume, was negatived without a division.

CONDUCT OF CHIEF BARON O'GRADY.
On the order of the day, for resuming the adjourned debate on Mr. Scarlett's motion, "That it is stated in the Fifth Report of the Commissioners, that it is not their province to discuss 'how far, or within what limits, the judges of the superior courts of law are authorised to establish new or increased fees for their own services;' 'but that it will be seen, from the table subjoined (to their report), that a discretion of this nature has, in fact, been exercised to a considerable extent at some period or periods within the last one hundred years; and that, during the time of the present chief justice of the Common Pleas, such ad exercise of judicial authority appears to have occurred in three instances'"
Mr. Goulburn Mr. Goulburn moved, as an amendment, that all the words after the word "years," be left out. Some discussion took place between Mr. Rice and Mr. Scarlett; after which the question was put, and the amendment carried. On the question, as amended, being put front the chair,
Mr. S. Ricesaid, that certainly the mode proposed by his learned friend (Mr. Scarlett) was the most convenient and expeditious way of getting rid of the question altogether; and he would leave, it to those who advised such a course, and who were willing that judges should, exercise the power which was censured by the commissioners in their report, to take the whole responsibility of the proceeding on themselves. He should move, as an amendment to the resolution of his learned friend, to add thereto the following words; "but that it is not stated in

1507
the aforesaid fifth report, that such in creases of fees had taken place at the sole discretion of a judicial officer for his own emolument."
Mr. Scarlettopposed the amendment, on the ground that it went to add a sting to the resolution, which the circumstances of the case did not justify.
The Solicitor Generalargued, that the amendment was not in unison with the facts stated in the report.
Mr. R. Smithsaid, he could neither approve, of the original motion nor the amendment. The former contained a fallacious apology for the chief baron; the latter implied a censure. Both the one and the other was a departure from the express understanding of the House, which was that no opinion should be expressed on the case at present. He felt himself incompetent to decide on the question, either one way or the other He could not, on looking at the report, and at the chief baron's defence, declare him to be innocent; but it was impossible S r him to pronounce an opinion on the subject, on almost the last day of the session, and without sufficient information. The case ought to rest until the ensuing session.
Captain O'Gradydefended the conduct of the chief baron, who, he contended, had made out a good case, both with reference to law and usage. He might, undoubtedly, have been mistaken in his view off the subject; but it did not therefore follow, that he was culpable and corrupt. He (captain O'G.) was most anxious, that the decision of the House should be come to in the present session.
Mr. Secretary Peelcould see no benefit that was likely to accrue from postponing the question to another session. If it were, put off for six months, would they, in 1824—when their recollection of the facts would be weakened, and when they would hot be able to command a more numerous attendance of members than at present—be in a better situation for deciding, than they were at present? If this practice of regulating fees were an improper one, it, would be better to bring in a bill for as abolition, than harass and condemn an individual, by keeping a series of criminatory resolutions suspended over his head.
Sir H. Parnellsaid, that as it was distinctly understood that the investigation was to be renewed next session, he had taken no part in it. For the same reason,
1508
he could not support the present resolution. He should oppose any thing that looked like a decision on the charges; and would refrain from offering an opinion on them.
Lord A. Hamiltonunderstood that no resolution but of facts was to he, placed on their Journals; and that circumstance had kept many members away, who would otherwise have been present. It was, he admitted, most irksome, that a judge should have charges hanging over him, while he was exercising his judicial functions. But, whose fault was that? The fault of the gentlemen opposite. The delay came entirely from the other side of the House. He would ask those gentlemen who wished to set the question at rest now, whether a decision, adopted at such a period of the session, and in such a House, could carry any weight with it?
Mr. Hutchinsonsaid, he had all along declared that he was ready to go on with this inquiry, provided the House would come to the plain proposition of acquittal or condemnation. His hon. friend (Mr. S. Rice) had, however, pursued a course which appeared to him to be most unfair to the Irish public and to the chief baron. He had importuned the House, until he had caused to be entered on the Journals a series of what he called resolutions of fact, but which contained matter of crimination. He was of opinion, that the question should be put an end to now; because he did not believe his hon. friend had any intention of bringing it forward next session. If he meant to institute any ulterior proceeding, let him erase those resolutions, which did not advance his purpose one jot. He believed the chief baron to be innocent. If the question were to be considered, it would be found full of difficulty; and in the end he was sure they would have to acquit the chief baron altogether. At all events, if they discovered an error of judgment in his conduct, he was convinced they would acquit him of corrupt motives. He could, not, therefore, consent that those resolutions, which were of a criminatory character, should be suffered to hang over the head of the chief baron.
Mr. Wynnthought its would be better to pass the two resolutions now before them in the first place; and afterwards to proceed to the third.
Mr. S. Ricehaving withdraw his amendment, the resolution was agreed to.
Mr. Scarlettthen observed, that, after

1509
a mature consideration of the subject, he had prepared certain resolutions which he had intended to move by way of amendment on the original resolutions. After what had passed, however, he would content himself with moving one of them, only; namely, "That this House, under all the circumstances above stated, does not deem it necessary to adopt any further proceeding in the case of the chief baron O'Grady."
Mr. Wynnfelt himself compelled to oppose this resolution. The question here was, whether a person who had taken improper and unwarrantable fees, assuming that that could be proved, ought to be continued in the high situation which he occupied in the judicial administration of the country? Now, when such a question was to be decided, it was surely imperative on the House to institute a strict inquiry. The integrity of a judge, like the chastity of a woman, or the courage of a Soldier, was a matter of that delicate nature, that it ought to be above all suspicion; and this being the case, it made no difference to the importance or the necessity of the inquiry, whether the excess in the fees charged by the chief baron was confined to so many pence or so many pounds. The right hon. gentleman then adverted to the reports of the commissioners of inquiry, and animadverted on the conduct therein imputed to the chief baron; to which charges that judge had not hitherto offered such a defence as ought to preclude the House from adopting some ulterior proceeding.
Mr. Alderman Bridgeswas decidedly for immediate investigation. He thought further delay in every respect inexpedient and improper.
Captain O'Gradysaid, the fact was, that the chief baron's defence, as contained in his second letter, was founded on matters contained in a report which had not been published when his first letter was written. It would be a little too hard if the House should concur with the learned member for Peterborough in making it matter of imputation against the chief baron, that he had, in the hurry of his first letter, misnamed a document, by terming that a decree which was in fact an exemplification. It was not, therefore, a new defence which was contained in his second letter; but a defence on new matters, as alleged in the report made subsequently to his former letter.
Mr. Humeexpressed his unwillingness,
1510
after the letters of the chief baron, to support the original resolutions; which he had at first felt himself inclined to advocate.
Mr. Wetherellwas of opinion, that the House should come to some conclusion this session on the subject before them; and, looking to the painful situation in which further delay must leave the character of the chief baron, and seeing no case made out, he would support the resolution proposed by his hon. friend.
Mr. R. Martindefended the chief baron, and expressed his intention of supporting the resolution.
Mr. Hudson Gurney, in order to ground the resolution proposed by the learned all the resolution after the word "That," in order to add the words, "the receipt of Fees by Judges in the Courts of Common Law and the Exchequer has been recently abolished by Law."
This amendment was immediately agreed to. After which, Mr. Scarlett's resolution "That this House, under all the circumstances above stated, does not deem it necessary to adopt any farther proceedings in the case of the chief baron O'Grady," being put,
Mr. J. Williamssaid, he could by no means support the resolution of his hon. and learned friend.
Mr. Goulburncontended, that no case of criminality or corruption had been made out against the chief baron, though his conduct might not have been quite so well advised as could have been wished.
Mr. Canning, after briefly reviewing the proceedings which had been taken upon the reports in the House, admitted that he found it difficult to remove his own responsibility, in having been chiefly instrumental to persuading the hon. member for Limerick to adopt resolutions of fact merely, and not to embody anything in them which was only matter of opinion. He knew nothing of the chief baron. Nothing had ever occurred to induce him to turn his thoughts towards that personage. But his impression of the importance of the charge and the nature of the proof, had been weakened at every step of their progress. He could not concur in any vote tending to censure; nor could the House, he thought, assent to any resolution which could be made the ground of an address to the Crown for his removal, or of an accusation by way of impeachment.
Mr. Hutchinsonconcurred in the opinion of the right hon. secretary, that the chief baron could not be inculpated by any thing which had come under the observation of the committee.
Mr. S. Ricefelt satisfied that, however the House might decide, the labours of the committee would not be lost to the public.
The House divided: For Mr. Scarlett's resolution 38. Against it 16. Majority 22.

List of the Minority.

Brougham, H.

Palmer, C. F.

Baillie, col.

Parnell, sir H.

Barry, rt. hon. J. M.

Taylor, M. A.

Canning, rt. hon. G.

Wynn, C. W.

Ferbes, C.

Wigram, W.

Gordon, R.

Williams, J.

Griffiths, J.

TELLERS.

Lamb, hon. G.

Smith (Lincoln) R.

Money, W. T.

Rice, T. S.

Morland, sir S. B.

ENGLISH CATHOLICS ELECTIVE FRANCHISE BILL.
The Marquis of Lansdownobserved, that there were two bills before the House for the relief of the Catholics of England, by placing them nearly on the same footing as the Catholics of Ireland. It was for the purpose of moving for the second reading of the first of those bills, namely, "a bill to repeal so much of the statute of William 3rd, as related to the administration of the oath of supremacy to persons voting at elections of members of parliament," that he now addressed their lordships. The greatest difficulty he experienced was in anticipating on what possible ground this measure could be opposed. It was necessary that their opponents should establish, either that Mr. Pitt and the Protestant government and parliament of 1793 were in error, when they admitted the Irish Roman Catholics to the enjoyment of the elective franchise, and to the eventual enjoyment of certain civil offices, or that circumstances attached to the Catholics of England which did not attach to the Catholics of Ireland, and which rendered the former incapable and unfit to enjoy those constitutional privileges which had been with propriety and safety communicated to the latter.—In reply to the latter objection, if it were made, he would ask whether, on the most deliberate view that could be taken of the condition and history of the Catholics of England, and of their uniform good conduct and peaceable demeanour, any thing appeared which could justify parliament in withholding the invaluable privilege of being represented in parliament, so necessary to the security of the British subject, and without which the British constitution could scarcely be called a blessing? He really

1477
did not know how to argue the subject. It was for those who thought there was something in the character of the English Catholics which rendered it dangerous to grant them what the Irish Catholics had so long enjoyed, to point out the danger. For himself, he was persuaded, that if there was any difference in the two classes of persons, it was (without meaning to cast any slur on the Irish Catholics) in favour of the Catholics of England. He knew it might be said, that the elective franchise had been, in many in stances abused in Ireland, that votes had been manufactured, and 40-shilling freeholders driven up in herds to the hustings. But not a small portion of the blame of those proceedings attached to the successive governments of that country; for, whenever a commodity was found to be marketable, it was not surprising that human infirmity should avail itself of the possession of that commodity for purposes of personal interest. He trusted, their lordships would not be told that the subject was new, and one to which they were unaccustomed; and that the proposition to place the English Catholic where the Irish Catholic was placed twenty or thirty years ago, was consequently one which it was difficult and hazardous to deal with. Nor, he hoped, would it be said, that the Catholics of England had not petitioned for this concession, and therefore that it was not necessary to communicate to them advantages which they had riot sought. He had always understood that when the privileges of the constitution were conferred on any class of his majesty's subjects, it was not for the exclusive benefit of that class, but for the benefit of the whole community. Therefore, although no petition had been presented from the English Catholics (and indeed, had he been consulted, he would not have advised them to present a petition for a measure so limited as the present), yet, if their lordships thought the measure right, he did not conceive that that was a ground on which it ought to be rejected. Their lordships ought especially to hesitate before they refused to place the Catholics of England on the same footing as the Catholics of Ireland, at a time when the intercourse between the two countries was every day increasing, and when the inhabitants of both were more closely assimilated in every respect, even down to the clothes they were, and the produce they consumed.
1478
It had been somewhere insinuated, that this bill would place the Catholics of England in a better situation than the Protestant Dissenters. If it were so, he would decidedly oppose it. But directly the contrary was the case. Even if the present bill were passed, the Protestant Dissenter might still be eligible to certain offices from which the Catholic would be excluded. The bill would not even place the Catholics of England on precisely as good a footing as the Catholics of Ireland, for the former would still remain exposed to the operation of the Test act, from which they could be relieved only by an annual indemnity bill.
Lord Redesdaleopposed the motion. To give the elective franchise was, he said, to give political power. The consequence of granting the Irish Catholics the elective franchise had been the creation of two interests at every election, Protestant and Catholic, in violent hostility to each other. He could never consent to any measure which had a tendency to overturn that Protestant establishment which every loyal subject was bound to maintain. Nothing should induce him to risk the sacrifice of a single point which he thought went to the conservation of that establishment. Let their lordships look at the preamble of the statute of William, which it was sought by this bill to repeal. The necessity of that statute, as a security to the Protestant establishment, was there unequivocally declared. In his opinion, the necessity was as great in the present, day as in the time of king William. As to the oath of supremacy, he denied that, by any existing law, it was distinctly enacted that that oath should be remitted to the Catholics of Ireland. The noble lord concluded by moving, that the bill be read a second time that day three months.
The Earl of Westmorlandsaid, it was with great satisfaction that he saw the claims of the Roman Catholics of England brought before parliament, divested of all considerations connected with Irish politics and Irish party. The excellent conduct of that body, during so long a period, entitled them to every concession which could be extended to them, consistently with the safety of the constitution. There was no argument which could be urged in favour of granting those privileges which had already been conceded to the Catholics of Ireland, which did not apply with double force to

1479
the propriety of conceding them to the Catholics of England. He was so far from thinking that the agitation of the Catholic question was calculated to do mischief, that he was persuaded it rather tended to tranquillize the public mind in Ireland. If the whole of the Catholic question, however, were granted to-morrow, he did not believe that it would have the slightest effect upon the peace of that country. He believed that the Catholics were in general a loyal body. It was said, that if this measure were carried, it would give the Catholics an influence in the deliberations of parliament; but such an influence was no more than so large a body of his majesty's subjects were entitled to. He had not altered his opinions as to the impolicy of granting further concessions to the Roman Catholics of Ireland; and it was for that reason that he supported the present measure, which went only to place the Catholics of England upon the same footing.
The Bishop of Norwichsaid, that the general question involved in the bills now before the House had been so frequently discussed, that it would require little short of inspiration to suggest any new arguments in support of the propriety of concession, or even to give a new colouring to the arguments which had been already employed. Much as this question had been discussed, the result had not been such as might have been reasonably hoped for, from the liberal and enlightened spirit of the age; from the progress of intelligence in every part of the united kingdom; and from the more extensive diffusion of the mild and tolerant principles of Christianity, by means of various religious institutions, and especially the bible societies. It could not but be highly gratifying to every generous mind, to observe that those prejudices which once existed with regard to the unwise and unjust restrictions on our Catholic brethren bad been thrown off in every quarter, except in that quarter alone where they ought least to exist—because this was not a religious but a political question, and as such came rather within the province of statesmen than of divines. He should not, indeed, have presumed to trespass upon their lordships attention, if he had not felt himself called upon to embrace the present opportunity—the last, probably, which at his age he could expect to have—of protesting most strengly, in his own name,
1480
and in the names of many learned and excellent clergymen of his diocess, against the assertions contained in some of the petitions which had been recently laid upon the table. He protested against such assertions, because he was firmly persuaded that the security of the church of England, or of any Christian church, could never be endangered by acting upon Christian principles; and that the security of our civil institutions could never be endangered, by uniting the hearts and hands of all subjects of every denomination in the ties of gratitude and affection, which were the firmest bond of peace. He should probably be told, that these remarks had been made a hundred times before. Be it so. They were, nevertheless, extremely important, and could not be too often or too forcibly circulated, as long as men were to be found who, in defiance of reason and experience, of policy and justice, obstinately persisted in opposing all innovation, as they termed it, in church or state, who resisted all reform however moderate, or however much called for by public opinion, and who resolved to live and die under the old establishments. Such language, from whatever quarter it might come, was ill-suited to the present state of knowledge in the world, and in direct opposition to that active and progressive spirit of improvement, which had excited our own as well as other nations, and which he trusted no holy alliance would ever be able to arrest. Old establishments, however venerable from their antiquity—a quality of which he was far from wishing to speak with flippant disrespect—must bend to public opinion, for public opinion most assuredly would not bend to them; and laws, which might have appeared expedient and necessary 150 years ago, should not continue in force, when the reasons on which they were enacted, had ceased to exist, and their operation had become injurious and unjust. When every other art and science was so much advanced, was legislation, the most important science of all, to remain stationary, instead of keeping pace with the general improvement? That could never be; for every thing human must yield to the great law of change, the most powerful and uncontrollable of the laws of nature. The senseless cry of innovation had succeeded to the more noisy and wicked cry of "No Popery!" Happily for the peace of society, both these cries had become harmless and ineffectual;

1481
for there were very few in the middle ranks of life, and not many even in the lowest, who did not perfectly understand, that to these most dreaded innovations we were indebted for many of the greatest blessings which we enjoyed. The Revolution was an innovation; Christianity itself was a glorious innovation. The historian of the Roman empire informed us that in the reign of Valentinian, a heathen high priest pronounced an oration before that emperor, in which he warned him of the danger of innovation, and entreated him not to suffer the Gospel to be preached in Rome. "Reverend sire," (said the sacerdotal petitioner), "I beseech you in my old age to reverence our old institutions; these rites drove Hannibal from our walls; disturb not the repose of my declining years by the introduction of any innovation; suffer us to retain the undisturbed possession of a religion, which has flourished for so many years." The reasoning of this high priest was fully as conclusive as that of the christian high churchmen of the present day, who were alarmed at the bare mention of any innovation in church or state, however necessary or advisable it might be. Both the high priest and the high churchman seemed to have forgotten that a blind, doting, obstinate adherence to old establishments, resolutely opposed to all reform, was as weak and dangerous as a wild and irrational desire of change.—Within a short period of time, a remarkable change of public opinion had taken place, both at home and abroad, on the subject of religious as well as civil liberty; and he might now venture to assert, without fear of contradiction, that a very large majority of the members of the established church were decidedly in favour of Catholic emancipation. No petitions had recently been presented against the measure from London, Westminster, Southwark, or any of the populous and commercial districts. The great and well-informed body of the Protestant Dissenters had, highly to their honour, declared, in the most unequivocal terms, their desire of seeing all the penalties to which their Roman Catholic brethren were subjected abolished, If we turned to foreign countries, we should find that in Russia, Prussia, and he believed in Austria, the Protestants bad been lately admitted to those civil privileges, from which our Catholic brethren were excluded. In France, he had never heard of a single petition having been pre-
1482
sented from the Catholic clergy against the admission of Protestants to any civil situation of honour, trust, or emolument. The established clergy of England were the only body, the great majority of which, in the 19th century, openly avowed their intolerance. Against such a spirit of persecution and intolerance, said the right reverend prelate, I will never cease to raise my voice, "dum spiritus hos regit artus." It was the duty of every individual in a free state unequivocally to declare his sentiments; though he was aware, for he had himself known, by sad experience, how little the discharge of that duty would contribute to the ease of any clergyman of the established church, whose opinions might differ from those of the great body to which he belonged. That he might not incur the imputation of censuring men whose opinions were entitled to much more weight than his own, he would conclude the few observations which he had ventured to make, with a passage from one of the most learned and practically wise men who had ever sat on the bench of bishops—a prelate, who enjoyed the distinguished honour of being the personal friend of that enlightened, liberal, and magnanimous prince, William 3rd. He alluded to bishop Burnet, the great object of whose long and useful life, as well as that of king William, was to unite, in one great social and civil bond, all loyal subjects, on the sole ground of their tried allegiance and fidelity, without reference to their religious opinions. "We have lost many opportunities," said bishop Burnet, "since the Revolution, of healing our breaches; but, let us not suffer the present opportunity to slip from us, on account of the fears which are harboured by a few sour and narrow-minded men, who would close the door on conciliation, and make those breaches perpetual," He would only add, that two petitions had just been put into his hands, one from Norfolk, and another from some of the clergy of the diocess of Norwich, against granting any further concession to the Catholics. It was needless for him to say, that he hoped their lordships would turn a deaf ear to the prayer of these petitions.
The Bishop of St David'ssaid:—My lords, on the subject of the bills now before the House, it is my misfortune to differ so widely from my right reverend brother who spoke last; and I am so far from thinking it illiberal and uncharitable

1483
to oppose any further encroachments of the Church of Rome upon the Church of England; or to think and speak of that foreign Church in the language of our own Church Articles and Homilies; that I cannot suppress my reasons for the vote that I shall give this night against admitting Roman Catholics to offices of trust and profit, and to the elective franchise. My lords, the oath and declaration, which it is the object of these bills to repeal, were intended to exclude Roman Catholics from offices of trust and profit, because the principles of their Church were held to be inconsistent with the safety and tranquillity of the state. My lords, those principles are precisely the same now, as they were at the enactment of the oath and declaration; it is the boast of that Church that they are so. Persons, therefore, professing those principles are as inadmissible to offices of trust and profit now, as they were formerly. They are inadmissible to those offices, because they are incapable of the allegiance which is due from subjects to their Sovereign. My lords, they are incapable of that allegiance, because they are bound by a contrary allegiance to a foreign Sovereign.
My lords, the oath which one of these bills proposes, as a security for a Roman; Catholic's allegiance, is perfectly nugatory, because it is superseded and nullified by the solemn declaration of true obedience to the Pope, which he has already made, or which is implied in his submission to the Pope's supremacy—that supremacy, which they hold to be superior to the sovereignty of the realm. My lords, "the Romish Clergy," says Black-Stone, in his chapter of Treasons, "when they take orders, renounce their allegiance to their temporal sovereign, that being inconsistent with their engagements of canonical obedience to the Pope." By those engagements they are bound to oppose, to execrate, and, as far as in them lies, to extirpate every thing heretical, that is, every thing which is contrary to the religion of the Church of Rome.
My lords, this principle of extirpation is not a dormant and obsolete principle. It is at this moment, in Ireland, in full arid active operation. We have been told very lately on the best authority, that the leaders of the sanguinary bands, which infest that country, declare boldly and candidly, that their object is, to drive the heretics out of the country, and to take
1484
their property. My lords, the most effectual way to tranquillize Ireland is, not to encourage popery, but to strengthen the hands of Protestantism, and at the same time to afford that protection to converted priests, which was granted to them formerly, which is absolutely necessary to the free exercise of their will; and without which they are in danger of assassination in one country, or of destitution in the other. It is indeed to be hoped, that another session of parliament will not be suffered to pass without reviving that humane and beneficial act, which expired on the 24th of June, 1800, by which a provision was made for the subsistence of destitute clergymen, who had renounced the errors of the Church of Rome, and were conformed to the Church of England.
I object, then, my lords, to the admission of Roman Catholics to offices of trust and profit, because the principles of their Church are contrary to the allegiance which is due from subjects to their, sovereign, and inconsistent with the safety and tranquillity of the state. The grant of the elective franchise would be attended with still greater inconsistencies and mischiefs. I need not remind your lordships that parliament is convened by the writ of summons expressly for the defence of the kingdom and of the Church; not of the kingdom only, but of the kingdom and the Church. A representative of a Roman Catholic district, if true to his constituents, must, instead of defending the Church of England, be the advocate of measures most adverse to the king's prerogative, and most hostile to the Protestant religion. The elective franchise has been very injurious to the peace of Ireland, and productive of many ill consequences, especially by the sub-division of property, which it has led to. It could not, indeed, do so much mischief at present in England, on account of the comparative paucity of Roman Catholics here. But the grant of this important privilege would add greatly to their numbers, activity, and influence. And why should we, in defiance of the constitution, and of experience, put the tranquillity of England to such a hazard, and expose it, in any degree, to the degrading and demoralizing consequences which have resulted from this fatal boon in Ireland? For these several reasons, I shall give my vote against both the bills now before the House.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he could never be induced to give his consent to these concessions, unless he were satisfied that they could be granted consistently with the interests of the public. He had long had the happiness of knowing the right reverend lord opposite (bishop of Norwich), and no man could entertain a higher respect for him than he did; but he could not understand how that right rev. lord could reconcile with his duty, the sentiments which he had uttered that night. He was so far from agreeing with the right rev. lord, that the opposition to the Catholic claims had diminished in this country, that he was satisfied it had greatly increased within a recent period. He would not impute to the parties who had brought in these bills, that they had intentionally introduced them at a period of the session when it was impossible that they could be fully discussed, but certainly, if he had been a friend to those claims, he should have avoided bringing them forward at such a time. Such a proceeding was not consistent with the dignity of the House; and, if it were for that reason alone, he should vote that these bills be read a second time that day three months. If, however, their lordships should think differently, it might be necessary to call their attention to the nature of these bills. They were, in fact, one of the most extraordinary pieces of legislation he had yet seen. If it was meant to absolve Roman Cotholics from taking the oath of supremacy, why was not this stated in the preamble of the bill? If it was meant to weaken the prerogatives of the Crown, which he would never consent to do, by liberating Roman Catholics from taking the oath of supremacy, why was this not recited in the preamble? He would never admit that any man could be said to bear a true and faithful allegiance, who denied the supremacy of the Crown. If these bills were brought forward at a proper period of the next session, he had no objection to their discussion; but he could never give his consent to a measure of so much importance, at a period when it was impossible that it could be fully debated. When it was proposed to repeal the 7th and 8th of William III., it was not considered that other acts of parliament must be repealed, before that repeal could take effect. The right rev. prelate had culled the Revolution an innovation. It was the first time he had ever
1486
heard it so called. The Revolution was, not an innovation; hut a restoration of the constitution of this country. Unless some distinction were maintained between the established Church, and those who dissented from it, there would be no toleration in this country. If we looked, to the state of this country between the Reformation and the Revolution, we should, find, that there was a constant squabble between the established Church and the Dissenters. It had been well said by bishop Hoadly, that the Reformation would have been no blessing without the Revolution. It was the Revolution which had established the union between the Church and the State, by giving a supreme head to the Church. With respect to the policy of concession, his mind had been long made up. It was too late for him to alter his opinions; and they could never be affected by any opinions which could be opposed to them. He should vote for the bill being read that day three months; because he could not but feel that the House was treated with indignity, in being called upon, at that period of the session, to pass a measure, which the advocates of Catholic Emancipation had never proposed during the twenty years that the general question had been agitated.
The Earl of Harrowbysaid, that the bill of which his noble and learned friend chose to complain, had been for two or three months before the other house, of parliament; and the pressure of business there was the only cause that it had not come earlier before their lordships. He would admit with the learned lord (Redesdale), that the act of the Irish parliament in 1793, in not limiting the grant of the elective franchise to the higher order of the Catholics, had been productive of many of the evils under which Ireland at this day laboured. The effect of the general admission of all the small freer holders to that privilege, had been the great subdivision of land into very small portions, so as to give votes; and that had caused much distress and great immorality amongst the lower classes. He did not, however, object to granting this class of persons the elective franchise as Roman Catholics: but he objected to it, because the great portion of them were paupers, and because it gave political influence without property; which was liable, under such circumstances, to great abuse. But, could the same objection be

1487
made to the Catholics in England? Was their condition, with respect to property, or conduct, or general loyalty, such, that they ought to be continued in a situation inferior, not only to all their Christian brethren in this country, but to their own brethren in Ireland? The noble lord then adverted to the observation of the lord chancellor, as to the allegiance of those who refused to take the oath of supremacy, and contended, that the most distinguished loyalty was perfectly consistent with the conscientious refusal of the Catholics to take that oath. The noble lord then proceeded to advert to the singular anomaly in our laws, which admitted a Catholic general or admiral to combat, at the head of armies and fleets, against the enemies of their country, and yet refuse, them the privilege of voting as 40s.-freeholders. Let their lordships recollect what had been done in Ireland. In 1792, the Catholics of Ireland petitioned to be admitted to the elective franchise with a higher qualification than was required from Protestants. That petition was rejected by an immense majority—and what followed? Why, in the very next year, whether influenced by lights from above, or by meteors which blazed around, he would not say, but the same parliament granted, not only what the Catholics had asked in the preceding year, but they gave the elective franchise to all Catholic freeholders, with the same qualification, as to amount, as Protestants. We were not now, happily, in the same situation as Ireland then. Whatever was granted would be received as a boon; and, as such, he would in treat their lordships to accede to the present measure.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he would give his support to the bill for granting the elective franchise to Roman Catholics in England, but he would object to the bill, respecting the eligibility of English Roman Catholics to certain offices,—at least, to its further progress at present, and in the particular shape in which it was introduced. The noble lord went on to contend, that the present was a question which must be viewed on its own grounds. Without going into the merits of what had been already granted to the Catholics, in Ireland, he would say, that we could not now without an imperious necessity, undo what had been done by the Irish parliament in that respect; he would, however, contend, that there was
1488
not that anomaly in the case which was stated; but if there were, that would be of itself no argument in support of the present measures. We had laws and customs in Scotland totally different from those in England; but it did not thence follow, that what was right in one country must be equally right and applicable in another. The question before their lordships, as it affected England, should be viewed without reference to what was or was not the law in other parts of the empire. His noble friend who spoke last had alluded to the refusal of the Irish parliament to accede to the petition of the Catholics in 1792, and to their great concessions in the next year. He (lord L.) looked upon that refusal as most unfortunate; for it led, in the next year, to granting all the concessions, and to giving to a large portion of the Catholics a political influence, out of all proportion great, when compared with their property. With respect to the bills before the house, he had no objection to the first. The Catholics of this country were a highly respectable body, and he freely admitted their uniform loyalty. He had no objection to admit them to the possession of the elective franchise, taking their oath of fidelity, and. not requiring the oath of supremacy. As to the second bill, he did not oppose the object in view, but he objected to the manner in which that object was sought. The bill proposed to make the Roman Catholics eligible to all offices, with certain exceptions, without taking those oaths which Protestants were required to take. Now he objected to this. He wished the hill to point out the particular offices to which Catholics were to be rendered eligible, and then their lordships would know exactly what it was they were called upon to grant, for this reason, and as there was not now sufficient time to modify the second bill, he would oppose it in its present shape, and would therefore suggest the delay of it until the next session.
Lord Melvillesaid, he would support the first bill, taking it for granted that it would not extend to Scotland. With respect to the second bill, he cordially admitted its principle; but if it went into a committee, he would move a clause to prevent its application to Scotland. His object was to prevent what he considered a breach of the articles of Union.
The Marquis of Lansdown, in reply, said, he would consent to defer the second

1489
bill until next session, in order to give time for its full consideration. As to the first, he had, he confessed, heard nothing in the shape of argument against it. He had, indeed, heard anin sinuation that the several millions of his majesty's subjects who conscientiously objected to the oath of supremacy were not constitutionally loyal. To this he would answer, that if he held such an opinion, he would not be deterred by any motive whatever from endeavouring to withdraw all political power from such disloyal hands. But the learned lord on the woolsack, who objected to the loyalty of those who refused to take particular oaths, had on a former occasion, admitted the very principle against which he now contended. In a bill which had passed their lordships' House, and to which the learned lord had made no objection—it was stated, that certain oaths there prescribed were a sufficient test of loyalty, without requiring those which were generally required as such,
The Earl of Liverpoolwished his objection to the second bill to be distinctly understood. He did not object to its principle, but to its not specifying the particular offices to which the Catholics were to be made eligible.
The House divided: Contents 43. Proxies 30–73. Not-contents 41, Proxies 39–80. Majority against the bill 7.

IRISH TITHES COMPOSITION BILL.
On the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill,
Lord Clifden Lord Clifden moved, that it be an instruction to the committee, to introduce a clause to empower the Lord Lieutenant to appoint a commission for the purpose of settling the amount of composition for tithes, such amount to be determined with reference to the sums paid for tithes for a specified number of years previously to the valuation being made.
The Earl of Liverpool, although he believed that ultimately it would be necessary to add a compulsory clause to the bill, was of opinion, that more advantage would result from trying it as a voluntary measure in the first instance.
Lord Kingsaid, that without the introduction of a compulsory clause the bill would be nugatory. That the reverend lords opposite well knew. To get rid of the tithes in Ireland was, in his opinion, the best means of affording Ireland relief. The church of Ireland was a principal cause of
1490
the unhappy condition of that country. The established religion insulted the people by its ascendancy, and impoverished them by its exactions. It made that country a hell upon earth. It held forth, not the principles of peace but the sword. It did not, as it ought, promote good will among men. Indeed those who lived by it did not venture to assert that it did good. It was a profanation of the name of Christianity. The situation of the Irish people was really deplorable. An Irish farmer might not improperly be compared to a jaded mare, which was compelled to carry two riders, one on the saddle and the other on the crupper. The poor farmer had to bear his own priest and one of the established church also. One spurred him in the shoulder, and the other in the flank. He knew that some people thought that a large church establishment was a good thing, and that there could be no dignity or grace in the performance of religious duties without it. Now, he would appeal to the noble Secretary of State opposite, whether he did not see the service performed in Hatton-garden with as much grace and dignity as ever it had been performed by a bishop. Yet the service in Hatton-garden was not bottomed on tithes. He might also appeal to the noble earl at the head of the Treasury, who, he understood, had also been to Hatton-garden, as to the excellent manner in which the service was performed there. If the minister had been aware that he had for a hearer the protector of mitred heads, he might in the language of his church have advised him not to promote priests with priestly hearts. The noble lord concluded by declaring that the church of Ireland ought to yield some of its privileges with regard to tithes, in order to preserve the rest.
Lord Ellenboroughthought that the bill would be less exceptionable if the compulsory clause were introduced, than it was in its present form; but still he would not vote for it, because the measure was not what the people of Ireland required. They wanted a bill for the commutation of tithes, and not one for the composition.
Lord Hollandfelt himself called upon to state the grounds upon which he intended to vote for, or rather the reasons which would induce him not to vote against, the motion for going into a committee. The learned ford on the wool-

1491
sack the course of a former debate which had taken place that night, had endeavoured to weaken the effect of the speech which had been delivered by the rev. prelate opposite (the bishop of Norwich), a speech fraught with more Christian charity and real wisdom and learning than any which he had ever heard in that House, by relating an anecdote of bishop Hoadly, with whom, perhaps, the rev. prelate opposite was the only bishop that could for one moment be compared. The learned lord had, however, incorrectly quoted the words of bishop Hoadly, when he said that that eminent prelate had declared, that the Reformation was no blessing without the Revolution. The declaration of bishop Hoadley was, that the Restoration was no blessing without the Revolution. So he (Lord H.) thought, that the bill before the House would be no blessing without the compulsory clause was introduced into it. He considered the bill as a recognition of the intention of the House to redress that which Mr. Pitt had twenty years ago declared to be an evil. The bill was the only miserable pittance which; during twenty-three years, the wisdom arid justice of parliament had condescended to give to the people of Ireland. On that account, he would vote for going into a committee, without pledging himself to assent to the third reading, unless the measure received considerable improvement in the committee. But he wished it to be understood, that he would not vote for the committee on the grounds which the noble earl opposite had on a former night urged, to obtain the support of the rev. prelates to the bill. The conduct of the noble lords on his (lord H's.) side of the House was more ingenuous than that of the noble earl; for they plainly stated, that they Wished to compel the Church to consent to a commutation of tithes, on the broad principle that necessity and the salus populi required it. The noble lord then proceeded to take a brief review of the various clauses of the bill, with the imperfect nature of some of which he expressed himself extremely dissatisfied. He had thought that this progeny of so many Jupiters and which had been so long in begetting, would have come into the House in its full vigour, like a young Hercules, to crush at one blow the Hydra which it was fated to destroy. But, how abortive did it appear! what a sine viribus infuns! How puny a bantling! It could
1492
not even be aided by the soft and smooth speeches of the noble earl. The relief to Ireland, if afforded at all, must be afforded speedily. It was not only the wish of every man who had a regard for the interests of the country, but it was the duty of that House, commissioned as it was to watch over the welfare of the. People, to adopt such measures without delay; and he called upon their lordships to do so, if they would save the: empire, and gratify the people. At an earlier period of, the evening, they had heard from the learned lord on the woolsack the expression of the public opinion with respect to Catholic Emancipation. That learned lord had told the House, that that question was now more generally disapproved of than it had been for many years. Now, he (lord H.) thought, that the parliament was the representative of the public opinion. The House of Commons, although it had some years ago rejected that question, had recently passed bills recognizing it. But the lord chancellor had thought fit to say that the people of England now repudiated the Catholic question. Did the votes of the House of Commons or the lord chancellor, speak the sense of the people? The concession, of which so much was said, would be made to one-fourth of the people; and let it be remembered, when the Catholics were charged with a want of loyalty, that no man could stand up in either House of Parliament and say, "I am a Catholic, and I have as much loyalty as any man." He then quoted the opinion of Mr. Pitt, who (though he was no great authority) had said, that the power of the country could never be consolidated, until the Catholic question should be passed, and reproached the persons who availed themselves of the weight of that statesman's name, if weight it had, with not practising his precepts. He then reverted to the motion before the House. if adopted, he believed it would materially improve the bill. If the compulsory measure were introduced, the seed would at least be sown, and he should have some hope that the harvest would be reaped at some period^ however distant.
The Earl of Liverpoolhad no hesitation in saying, that a compulsory measure was necessary; but it was also necessary first to know what was exactly meant by compulsion. To fair and equitable compulsion he had no objection. It had formed a part of the former bill, and had

1493
only been struck out, because differences of opinion arose with respect to the sort of compulsion. He contended for the Equity and legality of the principle of treating with tithes by act of parliament. The right of ownership in the land was a right subject to the charge of the tithes, and the tithes could not belong to the owner of the land under any circumstances. He was not prepared to advocate every law which stood upon the Statute-books, and among those which he admitted to be unjust he should not hesitate to reckon that of agistment passed by the Irish parliament. He defended from the attack of the noble baron the clergy of Ireland; than whom, he believed, a more respectable body did not exist in any country; and as to their conduct with respect to tithes, he believed no persons behaved more liberally. He did not mean to say that the measure before the House was a perfect one; but it was only by the operation of this bill that the real difficulties of the case could be under-stood. For these reasons, he felt obliged to oppose the motion.
The House then divided: For the motion 11. Against it 34. The bill then went through the committee.