Sitting of 4 June 1824

CORPORATION AND TEST ACTS—PETITION FOR REPEAL OF.
Mr. Humepresented a petition from the Protestant Dissenters of several denominations in Chichester, praying for the repeal of these acts.
Mr. J. Smithsaid, that the acts were most absurd, and a disgrace to the Statute-book. He hoped to see more of such petitions, and that, at an early day next session, the subject would be brought before the House.
Sir J. Newportremarked, that dean. Swift, when speaking of the test and corporation acts, had expressed a strong opinion, that if those laws were repealed, the Dissenters would, in a short time, succeed in overthrowing the church establishment in Ireland. They were, however, repealed in the year 1782, by one of the shortest acts on the Statute-book. It was, however, well known, that they had been productive of no such effects as those dreaded by the dean. "To show," continued the right hon. baronet, "how little was known of the repeal of those acts by his majesty's ministers in this country, I may mention that, within these five years, I was speaking to one of his majesty's ministers on the subject of Catholic emancipation, and he told me that one of his greatest objections to that measure was, that if it were carried, it would be impossible to prevent the repeal of the test and corporation acts—a measure by which the Dissenters would be enabled, in a short time, to destroy the Protestant church of Ireland. I told him, that the measure of which he spoke with so much alarm had been already carried; that the test and corporation acts in Ireland had been repealed, so far as Protestant Dissenters were concerned, forty years ago. He would not believe the fact at first, and was only convinced by my producing the statute. Such is the effect of being led by prejudice, rather than by judgment."
Mr. W. Smithconcurred with the prayer of the petition; and at the same time gave notice, that soon after the holy-days, he would present a petition on the subject.
Mr. Brightexpressed himself favourable to the petition. The case of the Protestant Dissenters was very different from that of the Roman Catholics. The House should recollect how much of their civil liberties they owed to the ancestors of those Dissenters.
Lord John Russellthought it disgraceful to our system of laws, that such degrading stigmas should be fixed upon so highly respectable and inoffensive a class of the community.
Ordered to be printed.

EARL OF MAR'S RESTORATION BILL.
A message from the Lords announced that their lordships had passed an act dispensing with the taking of certain oaths by Mr. Erskine, previously to the passing of an act for the restoration of the title of

1091
which his ancestors had been deprived; and they prayed the concurrence of the Commons.
Mr. Secretary Peel Mr. Secretary Peel moved, that the bill be then taken into consideration, and trusted that the House would not object to its being passed through all its stages that evening. By an act of James 1st, it had been enacted, that no person whose blood had been attainted could be restored to the rank which his ancestor had held, until he had taken certain oaths. Now, it would require the presence of Mr. Erskine in London to take those oaths; but, in consequence of his age and infirm state of health, that could not be done with convenience. The present bill, therefore, was to dispense with the taking of the oaths at present.
MR. Broughamfully concurred in the principle of the measure for restoring the forfeited tides which gave rise to the present bill; but there were certain limitations in those bills which would be the subject of remark when they came before the House. He concurred entirely in the propriety of not requiring the attendance at present of the very estimable individual whose family title was about to be restored.
The bill went through all its stages, and was passed.

TRANSPORTATION OF OFFENDERS BILL.
Mr. Secretary Peel,on moving that this bill be committed, stated the object of it. It was, he said, to renew the Transportation act, which would expire in the present year, and to simplify some of its enactments. Formerly convicts were transported from this country to North America, and it was the practice, before the sailing of any ship, for the king, by an order in council, to appoint the particular place to which the convicts on board were to be conveyed. It was, therefore, necessary, as the law now stood, that a council should be called before the sailing of every ship; but as this might not be convenient, the present act gave to his majesty a general power of nominating the place to which the convicts should besent, without the necessity of assembling a council for that purpose. This bill also did away with the necessity of a particular contract being entered into with every county for the transport of its convicts. It went, likewise, to regulate the treatment of convicts. Transportation was in itself a very unequal punishment. To a
1092
married man of generally regular habits, or with a family of eight or ten children, transportation was a severe punishment; while to the young single man, of irregular habits, it was matter of not very great regret. By this bill, the government of New South Wales would be empowered to send convicts of the latter description to distant settlements within the colony, while convicts of less vicious habits and more regular conduct would be allowed to reside at or near Port Jackson. It should be known, that it was intended to make transportation a much more severe mode of punishment than it had generally been hitherto; and that that severity would be proportioned to the conduct of the convicts themselves.
Mr. Scarlettsaid, that the right hon. gentleman was introducing a new principle into our penal law, by vesting in the executive the power of increasing or diminishing the punishment. The Crown had certainly the power to remit the whole or any part of a sentence, but he objected to the principle that a sentence, not remitted in whole or in part, should be habitually modified by the Crown in the execution of it, so as to take away that certainty of punishment which was so desirable in every system of law.
Mr. Secretary Peelobserved, that the Crown had always exercised the power of determining the place and manner of transportation. The sentence of transportation was beyond the seas; the place to which the convict was sent was always left to the Crown; and it would be admitted, that if a person transported had not been, from his station in life, subjected to labour, the punishment would be improperly aggravated by subjecting him to the labour, which, for men of another description, would not be an improper accompaniment of the punishment. But whatever might be said of this discretion, it was not given by the bill before the House; it had been previously exercised, and the arrangements which he had spoken of only tended to make it more systematic.
Mr. Wilmot Hortonsaid, it had been complained, that, from the circumstances of the colony of New South Wales, the convicts employed as servants about the towns, suffered little by what was intended as a punishment. Under the arrangements now made, they would be spread over the agricultural part of the colony, and be made to labour; which would, to

1093
the class of persons who were operated upon by the transportation laws, make the punishment more an object of terror than it now was. The convicts, too, of the worst class, would be sent to one of the dependencies of New South Wales, Norfolk-Island, where the severity would be increased. He wished to have it generally understood, that transportation would now become a severe and real punishment.
The bill was then committed.

NEW CHURCHES BILL.
On the order of the day for receiving the report of the committee on this bill,
Colonel Davisopposed the motion. He adverted to the returns laid upon the table of the House to show that even under the late erections, no attention was paid to the accommodation of the people. He instanced the populous places of Manchester and Bristol in support of that inference. He had no hostile feelings towards the national establishment, of which he was a member; but he felt persuaded, that in guarding against such a profligate waste of the public money, he best proved his respect for its character. He then moved as an amendment, "that the report be received upon that day six months."
Mr. Leycestersupported the amendment. It was pastors and priests that the people wanted, and not edifices of brick and mortar. The people sought for spiritual bread, and the chancellor of the Exchequer gave them a stone. He objected to such demands from a richly endowed church upon their dissenting brethren. It could leave no other impression on the people, but a conviction of the cupidity of our establishment.
Mr. B. Cooperdefended the bill, as the best means of assisting the national church, and preventing the continuance of that want of accommodation which tended to wean so many from the established church and fill the congregations of the Dissenters. He had heard with regret the term profligate expenditure of the public money applied to the measure. That appeared to him most extraordinary language—and only applicable to brothers. If the law permitted Dissenters to sit in that House, good sense and good taste should induce them not to speak in such unmeasured and inappropriate language.
Mr. Humedeprecated the language made use of by the hon. member. He defended the conduct of the Dissenters,
1094
and contended for the right of that body to deliver their sentiments upon the church establishment whenever they pleased; unless, indeed, they were to be fleeced of their money without complaint. He strongly opposed this bill, as tending to make the clergy less useful than before, and to encourage a profligate expenditure of the public money for partial purposes. This work ought to be effected by private contribution, and he would not vote one shilling of the public money for it out of the pockets of the Dissenters and Catholics. No parish in England ought to receive a shilling of the grant, unless it was proved to be unequal to the expenditure. It was in vain to build churches unless clergymen were provided calculated to give satisfaction to their congregations.
Mr. Carus Wilsoncontended, that the measure was highly acceptable to a majority of the community.
Mr. Hudson Gurneyasked, whether it was intended to empower these commissioners to supply the whole funds for building the churches which might be found wanting in populous districts, or whether they were simply to grant an aid to such districts, the principal expense being to be borne by the parishioners? He asked this question, because, if the first were intended, it seemed to him to be unfair to tax the country for building churches in the towns.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer,in answer to the hon. gentleman, observed, that the commissioners under the bill had the discretion of distributing or lending the money according to their view of the means and securities of particular parishes.
Sir J. Newportcomplained of the inconsistency of making the Catholic population of Ireland pay for building Protestant churches. The extension of the new churches in England ought to be made in a different manner from that provided by the bill. He was apprehensive that this grant would be abused here as a similar grant had been in Ireland. It was extraordinary to hear the advocates of the established church talking of the great liberality with which they treated their dissenting brethren, when it was an undisputed fact, that in France and Hungary, both Catholic countries, the pastors of the Protestant church were all supported at the expense of the state.
Mr. Grattantook the same view of the

1095
subject as his right hon. friend, the member for Waterford.
Mr. Philipsfelt that it was a disgrace to the House that no grant should be made for the religious instruction of the population of Ireland, where such aid was particularly wanted, and yet that 500,000 l. should be granted for the purpose of erecting new churches in England, in places where the inhabitants declared that such buildings were not wanted.
Mr. Monckwould support the measure, if he thought it would conduce to the interest of the established church. He could not, however, convince himself that it was required by the interest of the establishment, and he must therefore pause before he gave it his support. He complained that the church of England had not, at present, its root in the affections of the people; and attributed its unpopularity to a want of zeal in its teachers, who, however respectable they might be in other attainments, were certainly deficient in attention to the spiritual wants of their flocks. Adverting to the manner in which the money already granted had been expended, he observed that large sums had been advanced to parishes where the inhabitants were rich; but that nothing had been advanced to parishes equally large and populous, where the inhabitants were poor. He attributed this circumstance to the regulations of the bill itself, which were exceedngly faulty. He believed that if the Methodists were allowed to build churches, and to retain the patronage of them in their own hands, it would bring back a numerous and respectable class of Dissenters to the pale of the church. In conclusion, he wished the bill to be postponed till next session, in order that the subject of it might undergo the further consideration of government.
Sir I. Coffin—I say, Sir, let us go on, and have the churches.
The House then divided: For the amendment 9: Against it 42. The report was then brought up.

HORSES SLAUGHTERING BILL.
On bringing up the report of this bill,
Mr. Wynnexpressed his disapprobation of this species of legislative enactment. He thought it of very little use to insist on the knackers keeping a register from day to day of the fodder they gave their horses, as it was not to be supposed
1096
that these men, so accustomed to cruelty, would stick to the truth.
Mr. R. Smithconsidered the measure as unnecessary. Under the bill to prevent cruelty to animals, cognizance might be taken of the offence against which this enactment was directed.
Mr. R. Martinsaid, he had been solicited by a number of highly respectable persons to introduce this measure. One gentleman, a distiller of large property in the neighbourhood of Whitechapel, where these slaughtering houses were chiefly situated, informed him, that he was obliged to remove, with his family, four miles into the country, in consequence of the disgusting scenes which they were daily obliged to witness in those haunts of cruelty. Gentlemen mistook the matter greatly, if they supposed that it was a fit object for ridicule. Had they witnessed that which he had observed with his own eyes, they would not refuse their support to the bill. He had been to see this slaughtering-house in the neighbourhood of Whitechapel. He there beheld eight or ten horses, some with their eyes knocked out, others hopping on three legs, all miserably maimed, which had upon an average been kept there several days without food. He gave the man in wailing a few shillings to procure two or three trusses of hay, which were brought accordingly. The horses, instead of their natural deliberate way of feeding, ran at the hay, and gorged it greedily, like hounds. The man who was standing by said "There now, you'd much better gi'd me the money to drink." "I would see you d—d first," was his reply; upon which the ruffian said, "that he would trample down the hay, and make it impossible for the horses to eat it." This compelled him to compromise with the fellow, to whom he gave two shillings; but he took ample vengeance upon him afterwards, by sending more than 200 letters, appointing him to come to various parts of the town to bring away dead cows and horses. Surely every gentleman ought to be anxious to save the horse that had been instrumental to his use and pleasure, from so appalling a fate. For his own part, he never allowed a horse, over which he had once thrown his leg as its owner, to be sold: and he had left directions in his will for having them shot, if his successor should attempt to do so. The hon. gentleman related several other instances of outrageous cruelty practised

1097
upon horses which were sold for slaughter; and invited the learned member for Lincoln, who had opposed the bill on the ground of the style of its composition, to assist him in fitting it for the approbation of parliament.
The bill was ordered to be re-committed.

WELCH JUDICATURE BILL.
Lord Kenyon Lord Kenyon moved the second reading of this bill. His lordship explained, that the object of it was, to amend the Judicature in Wales.
Lord Cawdorwas unable to discover the principle of the bill. It introduced many anomalies, and he would therefore move, as an amendment, that the bill be read a second time that day six months, and that an humble address be presented to his majesty, praying him to grant a commission to inquire into the state of

1089
the tribunals of Wales. His lordship further objected to the bill, that it was opposed to the recommendation of the committee, and he, for one, would object to placing more power in the hands of the Welch judges until they were rendered more dignified in the eyes of the people.
Lord Redesdalesupported the bill. The object of it was the improvement of the administration of justice in Wales. There might he objections to some of the clauses, but the present was not the stage for discussing them.
Their lordships divided on the amendment: Contents 8: Not Contents 29. The bill was then read a second time.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL.
Lord Calthorpe Lord Calthorpe moved the second reading of the bill for preventing Cruelty to Animals.
The Earl of Rosslynwas not aware of the existence of this bill, but he was far from approving of it. Under the provisions of the laws which were passing on this subject, it would soon be impossible to tame a horse. If a man were to cut a horse's tail or ears, according to this bill he would be guilty of a misdemeanour. He objected to the increase of the penal laws, and disapproved of the principle of teaching people humanity by law.
Lord Suffieldwished the bill to pass, because it limited the discretion at present possessed by the magistrates. As the law now Mood, a man could be fined 5l. for cutting the tail of his horse.
Lord Culthorpesaid, there was a great distinction between compelling men by law to be humane, and preventing them from being cruel.
The Lord Chancellordisapproved of the bill and would oppose it in a future stage.
The bill was read a second time.