Sitting of 14 June 1825

EXPORTATION OF MACHINERY.
Mr. Littletonsaid, he presented a petition from the inhabitants of Nottingham, stating that they had heard, with great alarm; that a select committee had been for some time deliberating on the expediency of allowing the free exportation of machinery, and praying that the House would not repeal the existing laws on that subject. The petition detailed, with great clearness, the progress of machinery in this country, and the immense advantages which the
1136
exclusive possession of it gave to our manufacturers, as compared with the manufacturers of foreign countries. These advantages were also shared by the agriculturists of this country, as the superiority of our manufacturers enabled them to purchase agricultural produce at a much higher rate than they would otherwise have the means of doing. The petitioners also stated, that if, in compliance with the present fascinating doctrines of free trade, permission were given to export their machinery, they must become citizens of the world, and accompany it; as a continued residence in their own country, exposed to the evils of extensive competition with foreign manufacturers, whom such a measure must enable to meet them triumphantly in the market, would be impossible. He strongly recommended the petition to the attention of the House. If it should be deemed advisable to make any change in the present law, he thought it would be well worth while to consider whether it would not be expedient to empower the board of trade to exercise their discretion with respect to the particular description of machinery, the exportation of which might be prejudicial to our manufactures.
Mr. Birchperfectly concurred in the sentiments of his hon. friend.
Mr. Huskissonobserved, that he had listened with great attention to the statements of his hon. friend, on a subject which was certainly of great importance. The final report of the Select Committee, which had been appointed in the last session, and renewed in the present, for investigating how far it might be expedient to repeal all the prohibitory laws in our Statute-book, had not yet been made. For himself, he was certainly inclined to think, that such a repeal would be very advantageous, but he well knew that a strong persuasion existed among a large body of the manufacturers that it would be attended with the greatest injury to their interests. He had no doubt that the further reports of the committee would throw great light upon the subject; and enable it to be more distinctly seen how far the superiority of our manufacturers was attributable to machinery, and how far to other causes. It ought to be recollected that we had already permitted the free exportation of labour. Our mechanics might go whither they choose. Why the exportation of machinery should be placed on a different footing he was at a loss to conceive.

1137
He was, however, by no means disposed, in the present state of alarm on the part of the manufacturers, and without the production of some further information on the subject, to propose the repeal of the existing prohibition. He could not help adverting to the observation of his hon. friend, that he should not object to the repeal of the prohibition, provided the Board of Trade were empowered to use their discretion with respect to the exportation of certain articles of machinery. Now, he felt considerable doubts with respect to the expediency of such a course. It would throw on the Board of Trade a most invidious task, and would inundate them with applications, on the merits of many of which they would find it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to decide. He could also assure his hon. friend, that as the Board of Trade was at present constituted, it had as many duties to discharge as it could well get through.
Mr. Humeagreed with the petitioners that it was a question of great importance and one on which greater prejudices existed among the manufacturing community, than on any question whatever. On that account, he was anxious not to press forward the question of repeal in any manner that might have the appearance of precipitation. He was convinced that the preeminence of the manufactures of this country, might be attributed to many other causes besides machinery. Nor did it appear to him to be less evident, that notwithstanding the apprehensions of the manufacturers were great, they had not adduced a single fact, or advanced a single cogent argument to show, that those apprehensions were well founded. He trusted the committee would soon be able to lay a report on the table of the House; although throughout the session they had not obtained any very extensive information on the subject; which was extraordinary, when it was considered that those individuals, who like the present petitioners were hostile to the exportation of machinery, had been requested to send to the committee persons to explain their views, and to point out what were the particular articles of machinery, from the exportation of which they apprehended so much injury. The fact was, that, at present, by means of smuggling, machinery of all kinds was very extensively exported. The Board of Trade now gave licenses for the occa-
1138
sional exportation of machinery, which was contrary to law. What he wished was, that that should be done legally, which was now done illegally.
Mr. Baringwas glad to find, that there was no disposition in any quarter to hurry the decision of the question. If any rational doubt existed, the interests of our manufacturers ought certainly not to be risked. It was clear, however, that many articles of machinery might be exported without any danger to the interest of the manufacturers. It was necessary that a discretionary power should be reposed somewhere, and he did not know where it could be so well reposed as in the Board of Trade. With regard to the weight of the existing duties of the Board of Trade, no man could be more ready than himself to acknowledge the unwearied diligence of the right hon. gentleman and his colleague, and the great benefit which the country had derived from their exertions. It might, however, be desirable to extend the Board for this particular purpose, by the introduction of some persons capable of forming a judgment with regard to the descriptions of machinery, the exportation of which ought to be either restrained or permitted. In a short time a body of precedents would be formed which would serve as a guide to all parties. As he had adverted to the Board of Trade, he would express his surprise that there was no public provision made for its members. Discharging as they did the most arduous duties, it was extraordinary that they had no public provision. He should cordially concur in any proposition that might be made to that effect by the chancellor of the Exchequer, from whom it could with more propriety come than from any other quarter.
Ordered to lie on the table.

CONDUCT OF MR. KENRICK, A SURREY MAGISTRATE—PETITION OF M.M. CANFOR.
Mr.Denmanin presenting a petition from a person named Martin Can for, thought it incumbent upon him to call the attention of the House to the contents of that petition, which appeared to him to contain matter, and to involve consequences of the utmost importance. In consequence of some mistake, the notice he had given upon the subject had been construed into a notice relating to the body of the magistracy in Surrey; but the petition was only against one individual magistrate,

1139
who was also one of the judges of the Principality of Wales, and whose name was Kenrick. He felt it incumbent upon him, to call the serious attention of the House to the whole conduct of that individual, with reference to certain transactions of a nature which made it necessary that the Crown should be informed of the manner in which he had dishonoured his magisterial functions. He was quite aware of the difficulty of the subject; for, since the Judges had held their appointments upon the condition of their good behaviour, no motion of this sort, had come before the House. This might be ascribed to the circumstance, that no judge had placed himself by impropriety of conduct in such a situation that parliament could interfere; or, it might arise from an unwillingness to bring forward charges against persons exercising such high and important functions. No honour was likely to be gained by any member, in bringing forward charges of such a serious nature. It would have been by far more satisfactory to him, and certainly more decorous to the public, if this business had been taken up by his majesty's ministers, who had, or were supposed to have, a more than ordinary solicitude for the characters of those who administered the laws. The subject divided itself into two parts. The first related to the facts disclosed in the petition; and the second would involve a variety of facts disclosed in affidavits brought before the court of King's-bench, in last Hilary term. The statement which he held in his hand, appeared to afford sufficient proof, that Mr. Kenrick had conducted himself, in the exercise of his duty as a magistrate, in a manner so highly objectionable, as to render him a very unfit person to hold any judicial or magisterial office. It fixed upon him the guilt of partiality, violence, and malignity, exhibited in his imprisoning an individual who was in some degree under his protection. Mr. Kenrick was bound by every sense of duty as a magistrate to protect the individual from that oppression from others, which he practised against him himself. The whole of these filets were stated in an affidavit produced in the court of King's-bench. But this was not the only part of Mr. Kenrick's conduct that was open to the most serious animadversion. There was another case, in which Mr. Kenrick was not acting as a judge, but as an individual prosecuting a poor neighbour. This case had excited the
1140
strongest sensation, and much anxiety had been evinced as to what the conduct of government would be upon the occasion. In that case, he could undoubtedly prove, by Mr. Kenrick's own affidavits, that he had conducted himself in a manner which rendered him totally unfit to occupy the offices which he continued to hold. He should propose that the petition should be printed; that the affidavits produced in the court of King's-bench should be moved for, and afterwards printed; that the whole of these papers should be put into the hands of the members, and then inquiries might be pursued, and proceedings adopted relative to the individual concerned, in the first case, and finally, relative to the pure administration of justice.
Mr. Denisonsaid, he had the honour to represent the county of which Mr. Kenrick was a magistrate, and he was also a neighbour of that gentleman. He was therefore acquainted with his private and public character, and he could bear testimony to the propriety of his conduct in private life. Mr. Kenrick had personally communicated to him his most earnest wish, that his conduct should undergo the strictest examination; that the affidavits should be printed; and that the whole business should be brought forward. But it certainly was the wish of Mr. Kenrick that the affidavits should not be printed before the matter was in a course of investigation.
Mr. Secretary Peelcomplained, that the learned member had not given any notice of the probability of his calling upon the House to exercise their functions of addressing the Crown for the removal of a judge. The course adopted by the learned gentleman was perfectly correct—to bring up the petition, and not to notice it until all parties should have had an opportunity of examining it. He was far from wishing to throw any obstruction in the way of fair investigation; and he only complained that the learned member had not given sufficient notice of his intention to move for the affidavits. The first question in his mind was, whether the affidavits would contain a correct, impartial, and entire statement of the case? His other objection was, the advanced state of the session. If there were no probability of prosecuting the subject in the present session, he put it to the House, whether it was quite fair to present charges against an individual six months before the case could be investigated?
Mr. Denmanthought, that the present session would afford sufficient time for all the necessary proceedings upon this case. He did not maintain that the affidavits were sufficient; he only moved for them as documents that ought to be attended to by the House. Their production would not put Mr. Kenrick in a worse situation than that in which he had for some time stood; for the substance of those affidavits had appeared in all the newspapers, and they had been discussed fully in the court of King's-bench.
The Attorney-Generaldenied, that the merits of this case could be ascertained by any thing that had passed in the court of King's-bench. The defence of Mr. Kenrick had never been heard; his counsel had not been allowed to address the court in his favour en account of the case going off entirely upon a point of form. The counsel were heard in opposition to Mr. Kenrick. One of them alluded to an affidavit, by. which it appeared that Mr. Kenrick, in reference to an article in "The Morning Chronicle," had made an objectionable statement in the Stamford newspaper. Upon this the court interposed, and would not interfere with reference to the publisher of "The Morning Chronicle." Mr. Kenrick's rule was discharged, but the opposite party did not obtain the costs. The court had passed no opinion upon the subject of Mr. Kenrick's conduct to Franks, nor ought any member to pass his judgment, until an opportunity had been afforded of investigating every part of the case. With respect to the case contained in the petition, the trial never did take place. The plaintiff's counsel had agreed to a compromise; and the House might judge of the serious nature of the charge, when they were informed that the terms of the compromise were, that Mr. Kenrick should pay the sum of five pounds, with the costs, as between attorney and client.
Mr. Scarlettthought it would be an act of great injustice to Mr. Kenrick to have the affidavits printed, unless the House were to enter immediately upon an investigation of the case. Mr. Kenrick, by the rules of the court, had had no opportunity of replying to these affidavits, nor could he now reply to them if they were to be printed by the House. If the affidavits were true, Mr. Kenrick was certainly a very improper person to hold the office he did hold; but they might not contain all the truth, and even the truth they
1142
did contain might be palliated by circumstances.
Mr. Secretary Peelexpressed a hope, that the learned member would not press for the production of the affidavits; but that he would bring the measure forward in the shape of a specific charge.
Mr. Denmansaid, he was anxious to give the learned gentleman the fullest opportunity of defending himself. The papers he sought to bring forward were not the affidavits on the other side, but the documents produced by Mr. Kenrick, and upon which the court of King's-bench refused to make absolute the rule for a criminal information against "The Morning Chronicle." He took the case as it appeared in the affidavits. If the allegations therein contained were true, then Mr. Kenrick was unfit to hold a judicial situation; if they were false, then the most effectual way of contradicting them was by an inquiry, such as that which he now proposed.
Mr. Wynnpointed out the expediency of following the course pursued in the case of Mr. Baron Page, against whom charges had been preferred, and who was allowed to be heard at the bar. If the charges against Mr. Kenrick were to be made upon oath, he would have no opportunity of denying them with the same solemnity, unless the matter went to a committee, in the same way that the charges against the chief baron of Ireland did.
Sir M. W. Ridleysaid, it would be showing great kindness to the individual in question, to proceed with all possible despatch, as he was most anxious to have the imputations cast upon him removed as quickly as possible. Indeed, that gentleman felt that he could not, with propriety, proceed to the exercise of his functions as a judge, until those charges were satisfactorily cleared up.
Mr. Secretary Canningthought, that after the appeal of the hon. baronet, the case ought to he investigated as speedily as possible. But the difficulty was this—the learned member proposed to the House to receive, not the substance of the case, but the sworn affidavits presented against Mr. Kenrick in the court of King's-bench. Now, if this were done, he knew of no course which would enable the accused party to oppose to those statements a negative of equal authority or solemnity. As the only negative—the House not having the power to examine upon oath—

1143
would be a mere verbal one. The affidavits sought for contained a great deal of irrelevant matter, and did not exactly apply to the case. Under such circumstances, he put it to the learned member, whether it would not be better to shape his case according to the recommendation of his right hon. friend.
The petition was then brought up and read. It purported to be the petition of Martin Money Canfor, formerly of Charlwood, Surrey, farmer, but now of Church-street, Stoke Newington, Middlesex, butcher, and setting forth,
"That in May 1821, the Petitioner lost several sheep from their feeding on Charlwood Common; that the petitioner immediately commenced an active search and inquiry for many miles round the neighbourhood of his residence, and ultimately discovered that one of such sheep was in the possession of a person of the name of William Beale, residing near Betchworth: that the petitioner thereupon proceeded to the place of the said W. Beale's residence, and instantly recognized his said sheep, although it was in a fold with others, and had been shorn of its fleece, and he thereupon claimed it of the said W. Beale as his property, and required the production of the fleece, which the said W. Beale admitted he had himself taken off, but the said W. Beale refused either to show the fleece to the petitioner or to give up the possession of the said sheep; that the petitioner, therefore, determined to exhibit a charge of felony against the said W. Beale, but being a stranger in the neighbourhood he inquired for the residence of the nearest magistrate, and was directed to William Kenrick, esq. of Betchworth aforesaid; that the petitioner immediately proceeded to the House of the said W. Kenrick, and saw one George Adams, his butler, who, ascertaining that the petitioner had a charge of felony to prefer, refused to introduce him to the said W. Kenrick until he had communicated all the particulars of such charge, which the petitioner was therefore compelled to detail to the said G. Adams; that upon the petitioner's introduction to the said W. Kenrick, he repeated the circumstances of his charge against the said W. Beale, and requested the said W. Kenrick would grant him a search warrant, in order to enable him to secure the fleece of his said sheep, expressing his apprehension that the said W. Beale would otherwise destroy or conceal it, in order
1144
to prevent satisfactory proof of the petitioner's property; that the said W. Kenrick thereupon began to write something on a slip of paper, and the said G. Adams having offered him the form of a search warrant; the said W. Kenrick observed, the note I am writing to Beale will do as well;' but the petitioner, humbly representing to him that he was apprehensive that a note would be of little use, as the said W. Beale had already refused to produce the fleece, and that he therefore was anxious to have a search warrant, the said W. Kenrick became much enraged, expressed his determination not to proceed on the complaint, and ordered the petitioner to quit his House; that the petitioner finding that he had no chance of obtaining a search warrant from the said W. Kenrick, and being desirous at all events to secure his property, he submissively requested the said W. Kenrick to finish the note which he had originally proposed to send to the said. W. Beale; that the said W. Kenrick accordingly wrote such note, and delivered it to the petitioner unfolded, and which note is in the words following:—'These are to request you will deliver to the bearer the fleece of a sheep admitted to have been taken by you from Westwood, in order that it may be produced as evidence before me on a charge of felony, or bring it with you to my house, and show cause why you should not do so.—W. KENRICK. That after the said W. Kenrick had written such note, he required of the said G. Adams, the Christian name of Beale, the person accused, who answered William, ours is named James' (as the petitioner understood), and the petitioner has since discovered, that the word ours,' referred to a brother of the said W. Beale, who is in the service of the said W. Kenrick as his bailiff; that the said W. Kenrick desired the petitioner to deliver the said note to the said W. Beale in the presence of a constable, but immediately afterwards observed, you may deliver it yourself, a constable is unnecessary;' that the petitioner accordingly carried the said note to the said W. Beale, who refused to receive it, whereupon the petitioner, in the presence of several persons, read the same to him, but the said W. Beale treated it with indifference, and stated that he would not give up the sheep or produce the fleece; that, the petitioner discovering that the said note was so utterly ineffectual, and being

1145
apprehensive of making another application to the said W. Kenrick for a search warrant, he went before Imp Burgess, esq. a justice of the peace residing at Reigate, who declined to interfere in a charge which had beet before another magistrate, and recommended the petitioner to call again upon the said W. Kenrick on the subject; that the petitioner, in consequence of such advice, returned to the said W. Kenrick, on whose grounds, near his house, the petitioner found the accused person, the said W. Beale; that the petitioner was interrogated by the said G. Adams as to the object of his visit; and having informed him of the said W. Beale's disregard of the said note, and of the petitioner's desire, in consequence, to prefer his charge against him, the said G. Adams informed the petitioner that the said W. Kenrick would have nothing further to do in the business, and that he refused to see the petitioner again; that the petitioner expressed his regret that, after the trouble he had taken, and the expense he had incurred, he should be deprived of redress, provided as he was with clear evidence to prove the unlawful taking of his property by the said W. Beale; whereupon the said G. Adams observed to the petitioner, that the said W. Beale had stated, that the petitioner had agreed to refer the question of property in the said sheep to a Mr. Cutler, which the petitioner instantly denied, and thereupon the said G. Adams requested the petitioner to call the said W. Beale, who did not repeat such statement, but pressed the petitioner to refer the matter to Mr. Joseph Nash, who is the land-agent of said W. Kenrick, and resides it his neighbourhood; that the petitioner, despairing of further assistance from the said W. Kenrick in the investigation of his charge against the said W. Beale, and apprehending from the refusal of Mr. Burgess, that no other magistrate would interfere, and that he was in danger not only of losing his property, but of incurring the imputation of preferring a groundless accusation, he was induced to abandon his charge of felony, and to consent to accompany the said W. Beale to the house of the said J. Nash; that the said W. Beale having produced to the said J. Nash, and a Mr. James Ede, the fleece of the said sheep, and the petitioner having shown them the fleece of another sheep of the petitioner's with a corresponding mark, they instantly decided that
1146
the fleece in the possession of the said W. Beale was the property of the petitioner, and they ordered the said W. Beale to give up the same, together with the said sheep, which he accordingly did, and the said J. Nash and J. Ede gave to the petitioner two notes or certificates of their judgment on the subject; that the petitioner, having thus obtained his property, and being in the neighbourhood of the said W. Kenrick's residence, he considered it right to wait upon him, in order to inform him of the result of the investigation, and the petitioner took with him the fleece which had been so restored, and the two notes or certificates before-mentioned; that the petitioner, upon his arrival at the said W. Kenrick's house, was shown into a room in which the said W. Kenrick and the said G. Adams were; that the said W. Kenrick desired the said G. Adams to shut the door, and immediately desired the petitioner, in a peremptory manner, to deliver up the note which the said W. Kenrick had written to the said W. Beale, and whilst the petitioner was in the act of producing it, he again, in a very loud tone, commanded him to produce it directly; that the petitioner, not attaching much importance to the said note, had no intention of withholding it from the said W. Kenrick, but being surprised at the shutting of the door, and at the agitated manner of the said W. Kenrick, he requested to be permitted to take a copy of such note; whereupon the said W. Kenrick became more violent, and addressing himself to the said G. Adams, said, 'I appoint you a special constable; search that man for the note;' that the petitioner resisted the attempt of the said G. Adams to search him, as he was clothed with no proper authority for that purpose; and the said W. Kenrick therefore directed that one John Batchelor the constable of the parish, should be sent for; and the petitioner was confined in the said room until the arrival of the said constable, for the space of nearly an hour; that when the said J. Batchelor entered the room, the said W. Kenrick pointing to the petitioner, said, 'There constable, is your prisoner;' and as the said John Batchelor hesitated, apparently waiting for the particulars of the charge, the said W. Kenrick, addressing him in a tone of great anger, said, constable, do your duty; seize him, and search him for a note;' that the petitioner having ascertained that the said John

1147
Batchelor was really a constable, he submitted without the slightest resistance; and the said John Batchelor, having collared the petitioner, searched him, and took from him the said note, and also, by the direction of the said W. Kenrick, took possession of the said fleece; and the said W. Kenrick then ordered the petitioner to quit his house, which the petitioner left immediately, under the apprehension of further violence; that for this imprisonment the petitioner brought his action against the said W. Kenrick, and the cause stood for trial at the last assizes for Surrey; that the petitioner might reasonably have expected considerable damages for the injury he had sustained; but, being actuated by no vindictive motive, and being solely anxious for some acknowledgment, on the part of the said W. Kenrick, of the impropriety of his conduct, at the request of the counsel of the said W. Kenrick, the petitioner consented to accept a verdict for five pounds, upon the express understanding and condition that the petitioner was to be at no expense in the matter or the cause; that the costs of the said action have been taxed and paid, but the petitioner has sustained a considerable loss in tracing and obtaining possession of his property, for which he has not received the smallest satisfaction or indemnity; that the petitioner disclaims all personal hostility to the said W. Kenrick, which he submits, has been sufficiently indicated in his desire, by the compromise of the said action, to prevent a detail of the foregoing facts, where the interests of the petitioner were alone concerned, but inasmuch as the petitioner feels, that there was a denial of justice on the part of the said W. Kenrick, in the case of the said W. Beale, by which a charge of felony was suppressed and defeated, the petitioner is led by a sense of public duty to state the circumstances for the consideration of the House, offering at the same time to verify all that he has alleged, in such manner as may be considered expedient and necessary; that the petitioner is induced to consider an investigation of this case more peculiarly important, from the circumstance of the said W. Kenrick being one of his majesty's justices of the great sessions in Wales; the petitioner does not presume to suggest the course to be adopted in the event of the establishment of his charges against the said W. Kenrick, but submits in all things to the discre-
1148
tion, authority, and wisdom of the House; the petitioner, therefore, most humbly prays, that the House will be pleased to institute an inquiry into the truth of his statement, and that they will adopt such proceedings thereupon as to them may seem meet."
Mr. Denmansaid, he wished to explain to the House the disadvantageous situation in which he was placed. If he had not founded his motion upon affidavits, he would then have been told, that he rested his case upon hearsay, and unfounded report. But now that he took a different course, he was told that the grounds upon which he went were too grave and solemn to be met by the simple denial of Mr. Kenrick. All he wanted was the production of the affidavits of Mr. Kenrick, upon which the court of King's bench refused to make absolute the rule for a criminal information against "The Morning Chronicle."
Mr. Baringsaid, that the sort of objections urged on the other side would almost lead to the suspicion (undoubtedly unfounded) that it was the desire of ministers to screen the individual against whom the charge was made. They incurred a heavy responsibility in the course they now pursued, and he thought merited reprehension for not themselves bringing the case before the House. It ought not to have been left to his learned friend, from a sense of public duty, to submit a motion upon it. The first information he (Mr. B.) had obtained of the case was from the speech of the Attorney-general in the newspapers; and after that speech, censuring as it did the conduct of a judge of the land, it seemed strange that he should be allowed still to preside without inquiry, in some shape or other, into his case. Had the power, as formerly, remained with the Crown, it would have been unquestionably the duty of ministers to have investigated the subject; but, though the power was now vested in parliament, ministers ought not to have waited until a volunteer on the opposition side of the House called its attention to the misconduct of the judge. Yet that judge had been allowed to go his circuit in Wales as usual, even after the speech of the Attorney-general. [The Attorney-general said, across the table, that he had not made that speech in his official capacity.] He was aware of that circumstance, but the charge was aggravated, and it was pressed by the Attorney-

1149
general with a degree of earnestness, and apparent sincerity, which ought to have induced government to institute a solemn inquiry. In what state did the question at present stand? The whole subject was to remain over until next year, because it was late in the session. The right hon. gentleman had expressed his hope, that, in the mean time, the House would suspend its judgment; but, would the individual against whom the charge was made, in the meantime suspend his judgment? No; he was to be permitted to go his circuits, and to dispense justice, as a judge of the land, as usual, with very grave accusation hanging over his head. Suppose the charge had, by possibility, related to any of the judges of England, such a state of things would not have been endured; and he saw no reason why Wales should not be treated as England, merely because it was a little further off. Next, as to the partiality of the proceeding: his learned friend was willing to rest the whole case on the testimony Mr. Kenrick had given for himself. If so, there was an end of all supposed injustice, and want of equality and reciprocity on the ground of evidence. It seemed to him, therefore, that the House might form a fair decision on the question without delaying it until another session.
Mr. Denmanthen moved for a copy of the affidavits filed by Mr. Kenrick in support of a rule for a criminal information against William Innell Clement, and the affidavit of Mr. James, filed to prove Mr. Kenrick the author of a letter printed in the "Stamford News"; which was agreed to.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH IN IRELAND.
Mr. Hume,in rising to submit a motion relative to the present state of the Church Establishment in Ireland, said, he was fully aware of the importance of the question, and of the responsibility attaching to any individual who introduced a proposition of this consequence into parliament. But, being strongly impressed with the opinion that much of the evils which had so long afflicted Ireland arose from the present condition of its church establishment, and that that establishment, so far from promoting the welfare and happiness of the people, produced a precisely contrary effect, he had determined to bring this most important subject fully before the House. He would have declined to do so, but that he believed, so long as that establishment
1150
existed on its present footing, there could be neither peace, unanimity, nor security for Ireland. He would shortly state the grounds upon which he had come to such an opinion, and why the House ought to entertain his proposition, and, at an early period of the next session, inquire into the state of this establishment, with a view to effecting such changes in it as the circumstances of the times might seem to require.—Having in three preceding sessions entered at great length into the principles, and stated the details upon which that proposition was bottomed, he would not now detain the House by going over the same matters again. Many of the facts that he had advanced on former occasions, and which were then strongly contested, had been since conceded by those who then opposed him; and much of the argument with which he was then met had been since, as if it were by common consent, withdrawn. The main object of his motion, therefore, he could not help thinking, had made some progress. He was well aware of the necessity and importance of religious instruction in every community; and was quite satisfied, from his own experience in Scotland, of the benefits to be derived from a system, the pastors of which attended regularly to their sacred duties—were never absent from the sphere in which they were to be discharged—and were, from January to December, occupied in the anxious care of those who were confided to their ministry. From a system like this, much real benefit had been, and ever would be, derived: the public approbation must sanction it; and it would be found of the highest advantage to the community among which it obtained. He did not object, therefore, to the establishment, as an establishment for affording religious instruction to the people; but he called upon parliament, as it formerly adopted the Protestant profession as the best calculated for the interest of the English people, and the Irish reformed church as the best adapted for Ireland, to say, whether, in regard to the latter country, circumstances had not since occurred which made it expedient for the legislature to revise what it had so done? If it should be found that the present Irish church establishment was not in any respect adapted to the due discharge of the duties it had to perform—or was larger than the state of that country, or the nature of its society, required—or was better paid than was necessary, was

1151
it too much to say, that the House would not be performing their duty, if they did not alter its condition? Dr. Paley had described a church establishment to be "only a means towards an end;" and the same authority declared, that "religious establishments could not be shown to form any essential part of Christianity, but were only the means of encouraging it; for it could not be proved among the early christians there was any religious establishment." From this authority, he (Mr. Hume) inferred, that as christians they were not bound to any particular established form of worship; but that it was competent to the legislature, as heretofore, to decide, if the establishment which it had formerly authorized should be found not to have answered the ends proposed, upon altering it; that as parliament had once determined for the Protestant, and at another time for the Roman Catholic religion, as the religion of the state, so it might again change its determination in this respect. It was a favourite maxim with some, that with the established religion of any state, the state itself must fall. He thought a more dangerous maxim was never broached, either as regarded the welfare of the government, or of the church. The. hon. gentleman then went on to contend, that the church in all ages had manifested its sub-serviency to the government; which the latter had recompensed by the gift of proportionate privileges and property. But he was of opinion, that the government should always stand upon its own footing, independent of the church. It was highly proper that the state should render the church the means of instructing the people, but the church had never benefitted in character or religious principle by its political connexion with the state. He begged that this distinction might be kept in view, that hon. members would exercise a common degree of discrimination, and then he should not be again cavilled at for revolutionary intentions when he called upon the House to interfere.—This course of reasoning brought him to the question, what prevented the House from inquiring into the state of the church establishment of Ireland? The law, it might be said, had constituted the Protestant the established religion of Ireland; but, the power that made that law might revoke it, and if it saw reason, might make the Catholic, or any other religion, the religion of the state. Referring to the
1152
events which had taken place in the reign of William 3rd, he found good ground for believing, that that monarch intended at one time to make the Catholic he the established religion of Ireland. In one of his letters to the government of Ireland, he had required them to pass an act, establishing that church which should be most consonant with the wishes of the people. Circumstances intervened to prevent the accomplishment of this injunction; and matter of endless regret it must be, that they should have done so; for had Ireland obtained the Roman Catholic as her established religion, in the same way that Scotland had obtained the establishment of the Presbyterian as hers, there was every reason to believe, looking to what had happened in Ireland within the last 120 years, that she would have enjoyed by this time a century of peace, happiness, and prosperity, instead of anarchy and misery—that she would now have been a flourishing nation, and that England, instead of her gaoler, as it were, would have been regarded by her as her benefactress. In what a condition was Scotland when it was attempted to force upon her a religion which was not more generally disliked by the Scotch than Protestantism now was by the great body of the Irish people? Did not bloodshed, violence, and insubordination prevail, until Presbyterianism was finally established as the religion of Scotland? It was not for him to say whether the Catholic, Protestant, Presbyterian, Hindoo, or Mussulman religion was the true faith. He was not called upon to decide that point. The question was, what ought to be the conduct and policy of a government in this respect, which wished to promote the prosperity of the people. He was satisfied that all that had happened to Ireland, since the time when Scotland obtained a religion of her own choice and settlement, might have been avoided if just measures had been adopted. She had been deprived of the hard earnings of her industry; had been degraded far below her true rank in society; and had been most unjustly deprived of her civil rights. The page of history could furnish no instance of a country in the condition of Ireland for the last century. The truth was, that the governing power in England was worse than in any other part of the world; yet it claimed to be superior, and would fain establish an exclusive right to the title of liberal. If then, under this

1153
superior, this liberal government, such a train of fatal consequences had followed the establishment of the Protestant religion in Ireland, was it not now time to inquire? Why had not the House, during this long series of years, endeavoured to discover the cause of the existing evils, and to ascertain whether they did or did not originate with the church? Four years ago he had been anxious that a committee should be appointed; and if the motion had been carried, the foundation might already have been laid for important improvement. It was not a question of religion that he wished to impress upon the House, but a question of state policy and of humanity towards Ireland. Parliament would abandon its character, if, knowing the evils, it did not do its utmost to ascertain their cause, and to apply a remedy. In the early part of the session he had been anxious to bring this topic under the consideration of the House, but he had given way to the more general motion of the hon. baronet (the member for Westminster). The fate of the measure of the Catholic Relief bill, which had passed one House of parliament and was thrown out in another, left no doubt, that the church, and the church alone, had prevented the accomplishment of so great a good. Regarding emancipation, therefore, as essential to the happiness of Ireland and to the security of England, he could not too strongly impress upon the House, the necessity of removing all impediments to its attainment. As long as the church of Ireland maintained its present preponderating influence, the meed of justice would never be conceded; England would never have the satisfaction of granting, nor Ireland the benefit of receiving. He well knew that all future attempts of the same kind must be hopeless, unless the government of the country took up the question, and supported it as a government; if that course were pursued, the church would soon discover, for no class was keener-sighted in matters that concerned their own interests, that it was necessary to give its sanction to the measure of emancipation. Much had been said on former occasions regarding the danger to religion, and he would here notice an opinion, of sir W. Temple, which he had found only a few days ago, and which seemed singularly in point as to the views and objects of the clergy. Attempts had been made to introduce some alteration, for the benefit of the community, at the expense of the
1154
church, and which, of course, the church resisted, upon which sir William observed, that "the clergy were united more than any other body in society, by one common bond, in the pursuit of one common interest; they professed that their object was the greatness of the church, but it was indeed their own: they sought their own honour, power, and riches, and not the honour, power and riches of the church: that was their object, their consideration, and their care." Such were the words of sir W. Temple. It was a question, therefore, entirely of property—the church benefices and the church bishopricks. Leaving, then, the religious part of the subject, he would ask why, if it could be shown that the present number of bishops and clergy generally was not required in Ireland, that they were payed at a higher rate than they deserved, and than the people could afford, an inquiry was not to be instituted? If the army, the navy, or any other establishment of the kingdom were too large, or too expensive, the House consented to reduce them; and what was there that should make the church an exception to the rule? Attempts had, indeed, been made, to distinguish the clergy from other branches of the state; but there was no just ground for any such distinction. Nobody would deny that the origin of property was in the law; and, therefore, if the public good required it, it was in the power of the law to take away the church property. The clergyman did not know his successor, nor could he leave it to whom he pleased; and in that lay the grand difference between church property and individual property. If, then, it was not in a clergyman's power to dispose of his property, it would be no act of injustice in the law to make a fresh arrangement as to that property. He would ask any reasonable man, when he found how completely the present arrangement in Ireland had failed, whether it was not necessary to consider of some plan for remodelling the system? If the clergy were the only means to amend, he would like to ask them what it was they proposed to do as to the education of the poor? Of the population of Ireland, one-fourteenth were Protestants, one-fourteenth Dissenters, and the remainder, six-sevenths were Catholics. If this was the just proportion, he maintained that the established church of Ireland was much overpaid; since the money it received was given for the education of all the poor, while in

1155
fact it was only a very small portion of the population that received instruction at his hands; yet no one would hear of reduction in any way, though there were 550 persons connected with the church, and receiving the clerical sums of Ireland: at one period the number had been reduced, and he therefore saw no reason why they should not again be doubled up. For his part, it was his firm belief, that the church business of Ireland would be better done if the number of bishops were reduced from twenty-two to four. He did not intend to complain of any of the bishops; for he dared to say, that if he was one of them, he should be as anxious as they were to continue to hold the lands. What he objected to was the system, and not the men. On viewing the whole property of the church, from the best statements, he did not think that be was over-rating it, if he set it at two-millions and a half, exclusive of the tithes; and he was thoroughly satisfied, that with one hundredth part of that sum the system might be as effectually carried on as it was at present. He would, however, just allude to a printed speech that had been made in another place, by the bishop of Limerick, in which that right rev. prelate had observed, of his statements, that they would have come better from the convicted libellers of Ludgate-hill, than from a member of the House of Commons, in his place. However, as the language of the bishop turned out to be rather abusive, he thought, that if it would inflict disgrace any where, it would be on the right reverend prelate himself, and not on him. He (Mr. Hume) had formerly stated, that there were 531 non-resident incumbents in Ireland; but in this he had been contradicted by a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Plunkett), who had maintained, on the authority of a bishop, whom he had consulted for that purpose, that they only amounted to from 25 to 30. His (Mr. Humes) calculation had been formed on the principle, that those who did not live on their livings were non-residents; and consequently, when any clergyman held several benefices, he was necessarily non-resident on all but one, if not on all of them. The pamphlet of the bishop of Limerick, in which that reverend person professed to refute the statements which he (Mr. H.) had made with respect to the non-residence of the clergy was full of misrepresentations. Upon his own shewing, there were no less than thirty-three clergymen in his diocese who were not
1156
incumbents; though he had excepted them from the class of non-residents, because they had duties to perform elsewhere. The bishop of Limerick had declared, that the precise amount of the income of the bishops in Ireland was not known; nor did he wish that any inquisitorial examination should take place with a view of ascertaining it. The tithe system in Ireland called loudly for reform. He (Mr. H.) had in his possession warrants for enforcing the collection of tithes on the poorest classes of the community, the amount of which tithes in some cases did not exceed 2d. and 2½d. The payment of tithes was enforced with the greatest rigour in parts of the country, where the greatest distress prevailed. In the county of Clare there had been 153 trials for the recovery of tithes within a limited period, in Kilkenny 712, in Limerick 823, in Tipperrary 819, in Waterford 347, and in Tyrone 317. When cases of this description were brought before the Consistorial Courts, it was impossible that justice could be done to individuals by a court which might be considered as itself a party. In his opinion, it was highly improper that any clergyman should be allowed to sit on the bench in any case connected with tithes, since it tended to bring their character, which ought to be sacred, into contempt. Thus, a bench, where a majority of clergymen presided, was commonly designated, in derision, a black bench. It was quite preposterous that the present ecclesiastical system, comprehending an establishment of 22 bishops, and 1,200 or 1,300 livings, should subsist in a country, where the proportion of Catholics to Protestants was, in many parishes, 100 to one, and in some not single Protestant was to be found. Suppose the Protestants were to disappear altogether from the face of Ireland,—a supposition, which was far from improbable—he would then put it to his majesty's government, whether they would in that case be prepared to continue the present system? Such a proceeding, he apprehended, would be too preposterous to be tolerated by that house, or by the country. The report of the commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of education in Ireland, developed a tissue of digraceful proceedings, which called loudly for the interference of that House. The bishops, who took an oath, on their institution, to support parochial schools, had entirely neglected their duties. If, as he contend-

1157
ed, the church of Ireland answered no one beneficial purpose, for which it was intended, it became the duty of that House to alter the existing system. The hon. member concluded by moving, 1. "That the property now in the possession of the established church in Ireland is public property under the control of the legislature, and applicable to such purposes as in its wisdom it may deem beneficial to the best interests of religion and of the community at large, due regard being had to the rights of every person in the actual enjoyment of any part of that property." And 2. "That this House will, early in the next session of parliament, appoint a select committee for the purpose of considering the present state of the Irish church, and the various charges to which ecclesiastical property is liable."
Mr. Secretary Canningsaid, that whatever fault he might be disposed to find, either with the motion or the speech of the hon. gentleman, at least he could not impute to him any concealment of his views, or any design to keep out of sight the fullest explanation of his motives. In justice to the hon. gentleman he must say, that he had fully stated his object. But before he proceeded to apply himself to any part of his speech, he must request of the Clerk to read the 5th article of the act of Union.
The Clerk then read the 5th article of the Union, the purport of which was, that the doctrine and discipline of the church of Ireland, should remain in full force as an essential and fundamental part of the Union.
Mr. Canningresumed. It was, he said, an advantage, that in coming to the consideration of the question, the House were placed in no circumstances of uncertainty. The sense of the legislature on the subject was not to be gathered from statutes, the construction of which might be doubtful, but they had a clear distinct authority, only twenty-five years old, to compare with the hon. member's resolution, and to help them in coming to a decision, as to whether it was possible to pass that resolution, consistently with that statute. He thought he should have the admission of the hon. member himself; that the statute to which he had referred stood in his way. The hon. member had, to be sure, expressed his disapprobation of the settlement made at the Union; but, with respect to the state of the law, there could be no dispute. The compact which had been
1158
made at the Union might be broken; but, until that was done, it became parliament to act with good faith on their part. Parliament could not, without a violation, which would lead to the apprehension of violations of all kinds, concur in the resolution of the hon. member, which went to put out of the purview of the settlement made at the Union the whole of the property of the church of Ireland, and to declare that it was a thing with which parliament had a right to deal with as it thought fit. The difficulty of the hon. mover's case was, that it went directly against all that hitherto had been considered as established. The church property of Ireland might be compared to a corporate property, which had been revised and conferred by act of parliament; but, the hon. mover seemed to think that he had a right to go back to a period antecedent to the establishment of a right to the property on the part of the church, and when that property remained to be distributed among mankind, for the benefit of particular classes. If the House should agree to the resolution, there was nothing to prevent them from seizing upon the property of corporations. Then, again, why was the House to stop with the tithes of the church? Why not, also, possess themselves of the lay tithes? In short, the proposition of the hon. member was so monstrous, so likely to lead to the most alarming consequences, that it was, he was sure, quite impossible that the House could, for a moment, hesitate as to the course which they should pursue regarding it. The hon. member had, in the course of his speech, remarked, that the session had been wasted in fruitless attempts to carry the Catholic question. Now, the greatest enemy of that question could not devise a surer means of procuring its defeat than by causing to be inserted on the journals of that House a resolution contemplating the spoliation of the Protestant church property next session. It was, he was convinced, the fear of such a proceeding which originated much of the opposition to the Catholic claims. He was therefore rather pleased that the hon. gentleman had afforded the House an opportunity of shewing how they would meet any such proposition. He was confident that the vote to which they were about to conic would tranquillize any fears which might be entertained on the subject. The right hon. gentleman concluded by characterizing the motion as one of the most bare-

1159
faced propositions of injustice that had ever been submitted to parliament. His firm belief was, that to such a resolution the hon. member would find few supporters in that House; and still fewer in the country.
Sir F. Burdettcontended, that the right hon. gentleman had not applied himself to the facts stated by his hon. friend; neither had he made out the two propositions with which he had commenced. The right hon. gentleman set out with saying, that to accede to the motion would be a violation of one of the articles of the Union. But, in the words of that article, he found nothing to warrant the argument founded on them by the right hon. gentleman. There was not a single word in it respecting tithes: the article only said, that the established church (meaning the religion) of England should be maintained in Ireland. Now, he would contend, that even had the words of the article applied more closely to the subject under discussion, it was competent to parliament to alter or annul such article, if necessary, for the benefit of the country: for it would be absurd to contend, that articles should be held inviolable, the effects of which were the direct contrary of those intended by the contracting parties. The article in question was not entitled to any very great veneration; for the Union itself was the produce of the most shameful, scandalous, indeed, shameless corruption, that had ever disgraced the annals of a nation. One parliament sold its country—another parliament became the purchaser—and the sale was made good by the assistance of military power. The article of the Union, therefore, by no means bore out the right hon. gentleman in his first argument. With respect to the other branch, the sacredness of property, it was easy to prove that it was not tenable; for he was sure it would not be contended, that the legislature had not the power to effect a modification of private property, if necessary to the public welfare. For the same reason, he did not consider that the property of the church should be held more sacred; but less so; for it was, to all intents and purposes, public property; and, therefore, more liable to be dealt with for the public good. The payments to the clergy of the church of Ireland were enormous; while the duties of that church were ill performed. He denied that the Catholic question was connected with that before the House. They stood on differ-
1160
ent grounds, and had totally distinct objects. The concession of their claims was equally the right of the Catholics, whether the church property of Ireland should be reduced or not; and he could not help saying, that the established church of Ireland had placed itself in en awkward predicament, and in an invidious point of view, when it set itself forward in opposition to the just claims of a great majority of his majesty's Irish subjects. For these reasons, he could not see how the Catholic question could be mixed up with, or injured by, the motion of his hon. friend, who only wished to put upon the records of parliament, a motion founded in reason, and perfectly harmless in its nature. He was convinced that no danger could be apprehended from the success of it; and he thought the right hon. gentleman wrong in endeavouring to shut out all inquiry into the subject.
Mr. Trantsaid, that the hon. mover had stated that the existence of the church of Ireland was incompatible with the happiness and welfare of Ireland. Now, he for one, thought the hon. member who meddled with all sorts of things, and who did not know much of Ireland, was not a good authority, and he should not rely on him. He had done the question of Catholic emancipation more harm by his resolution than he had ever done it good.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, that his hon. friend did not wish to despoil the church, but for a more equal distribution of its amazing wealth.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that the hon. baronet had not shaken a single argument of his right hon. friend. The hon. baronet said, that the argument of his right hon. friend, founded upon the article of the Union, was not tenable there being no mention made in it of tithes. But, there were other subjects similarly omitted in special articles. which were, nevertheless, recognized in subsequent ones. The act of Union settled the mode by which Ireland should be represented in the House of Peers, fixing the manner of their election, and specifying that four of the Irish prelates should sit there in rotation. The present constitution of the Irish church was thereby distinctly recognized; and he wished to remind the hon. baronet, that in the bill lately introduced by the hon. baronet himself, the church of England and Ireland, as by law established, was declared inviolable. With

1161
regard to the number of bishops, the hon. mover proposed to double them up; and the manner in which he proposed to effect that operation was a curious one. There were twenty-four bishops and archbishops in Ireland, and the hon. member thought they ought to be "doubled up" to two. He considered two quite enough; but, feeling that he had to deal with a prejudiced House, he consented, in the excess of his liberality, to double them up to four. The hon. baronet admitted, that public property was equally sacred with private property: but then he declared, that he was ready to support the motion, considering it perfectly harmless, as applied to private property. Now, had the hon. baronet read the resolution? With all the hon. baronet's liberality, he thought he had, at the same time, too much consideration for his own private property, to consent that it should come under the operation of the resolution before the House. That resolution began by stating, that "the property of the church of Ireland is public property." The hon. baronet, he was sure, would not like that description to be applied to his private property; and, if the property of the church was to be treated in the same manner as private property (which the hon. baronet contended), then he would call upon him to vote against the motion.
Mr. Broughamsaid, he did not mean to enter into the general question, but he wished to say a few words, both to guard himself from its being supposed that he differed from his hon. friend, and to shew how much beyond accuracy those who maintained that the church property was inviolable, had pushed their principle. As to what had been stated by the hon. baronet, that the legislature might make the same declaration as to private property which it was proposed to make as to church property, he fully agreed, that the legislature had the power of disposing even of private property, when it was necessary for the safety of the state. But, God forbid, that he should contend that the church had the same power over its property that individuals had over theirs. He admitted the existence of a church known to the law as a corporate body having rights, and to which wrongs might be done. But he contended, that both the mode of establishing church property and the mode of dealing with it, were very different both in argument and in practice, from the mode of establishing and dealing
1162
with private property. He would first say, that the property of the church must be regarded, in the strict sense of the word, as public property; if the church were considered not as individuals only, but as a large body of 2,000 persons and upwards having duties depending on their situations. Another material difference between church and private property was, that the private individual might do what he liked with his property: he carried it about with him; no person had any control over it, except the legislature, as stated by the hon. baronet; and of this he had no right to complain, for he gave his assent, or was supposed to give his assent to its measures. His private property was inseparably attached to his person; he might transfer it, sell it, burn it, break it up into parcels; in short, do with it whatever he liked, without any control, except that imposed by settlements, and this was the act of a person disposing of property which he held in fee. He might bequeath his property by will, or he might allow it to go to his eldest son, to his nearest of blood, or to any body he pleased. But to whom could the parson leave the property of the church? to the next succeeding parson, a person whom he probably never saw, and who might be his mortal enemy. He had no power to dispose of this property; it must go to his successor. The control, therefore, which the church and which individuals had over their property, could not be called the same.—The next point he would mention should be the consequences of the legislature meddling with private property, and with the property of the church. By taking away the property of an individual, he was deprived of his means of providing for his family and children. But, if the legislature were to say to the priest of some parish, containing five hundred Catholics and one Protestant, "After you are dead, there shall be no longer any parson in this parish," who would be injured by this? A person who never enjoyed it. Was there in this case the same injury inflicted as in the other? In the one case, you deprive a wife and children of the means of subsistence; but, in the other, there is nobody to suffer but an unknown, and, perhaps, unborn parson. There was, therefore, no analogy between the two cases. —The last difference he would mention, and it was an important one, was, that private property was held on no conditions whatever;

1163
there was no duty imposed or annexed to the enjoyment of the right; but the church consisted of two thousand office-bearers, clothed with a sacred character; indeed, extremely useful to the state—a body of men, set a part for a particular service, but who received their property on condition of performing these services, fulfilling these duties, and who might be stipendiaries, or who might be paid by salaries, instead of tithes and land, as they were in most of the countries of Europe. But, it had suited the policy of this country to pay them by tithes. This did not make them different from other public officers, or other public servants. There was no sort of analogy, then, between church property and private property, which should lead to the conclusion, that the former possessed the same sort of inviolability as the latter. The church receives its property for the performance of certain services, but private property was held unconditionally. As well might the pay of the army, as the property of the church, be called inviolable and private property. The army was a corporate body, larger, indeed, and more numerous than he wished it to be—it was a great public body—it had Chelsea Hospital, and the navy had Greenwich Hospital, richly endowed with land, for the use of the navy under certain conditions; but, was it ever supposed that either of these bodies could regard their pay or the property of these hospitals as theirs, and to be held inviolably sacred? He contended that the property of the church was conferred by the state for the performance of certain services, and that the legislature might deal with it, when it was necessary, for the benefit both of the church and the state. In this opinion, he agreed with the hon. member for Westminster.—After showing that church property might be disposed of for the benefit of the country, he would proceed to inquire into what the legislature had done with regard to church property. Without going back to the period of the Reformation—without adverting to the appropriation of the property of the monasteries—without even saying any thing of the abolition of tithes in Scotland; where tithes had formerly existed till they were abolished by the act of Charles the 1st. Passing by all these remote examples, he would just ask what had been done with church property in Ireland? Had the House forgotten that the parliament of Ireland passed an act depriving the
1164
church of Ireland of all the tithe of agistment, and that this act was incorporated with the Union? By this act, the church was deprived of all the tithe from grass land, to the benefit of the more opulent, and to the injury of the poorer classes. When the right hon. Secretary pointed out the circumstances which led to the Union, he should not have forgotten that unless this spoliation of the Irish church had been incorporated with the Union it would not have been carried. He was surprised that the right hon. Secretary should refer to the Union for the inviolability of church property, when this spoliation was recorded in that Union, and when he paid so little regard to the promises held forth at the Union, that the Catholics should enjoy the same privileges as the rest of their countrymen, and that Catholic emancipation should be granted. Were not these pledges given to the Catholics of Ireland by the marquis Cornwallis, a nobleman notorious for good faith—pledges in which the then Secretary for Ireland concurred? It was true they were given in private; but being so given to leading public characters, they were as binding as any public declarations. And yet these pledges, without which the Union could never have been accomplished, remained for the last twenty-five years unredeemed. But, what said the very article of Union on which the right hon. Secretary for Foreign Affairs had laid such particular stress? It was a provision to maintain the faith and discipline of the Protestant establishment of Ireland. The faith, he trusted, the established church would continue to maintain as steadfastly as they did its wealth. But, what had faith to do with money? He trusted the bishops would preserve the faith of the church with as much tenacity as they now struggled for the tithes, even though it should happen that they should not receive the latter. Much had been said of the compact of the Union between Great Britain and Ireland, and its inviolability. Yet, who that looked at the previous Union between Scotland and England, but must be convinced, that it was incidental to such treaties or engagements to be subjected to the future consideration of the legislature? In the Scottish compact, though many of the provisions were left open to the future deliberation of the united parliament, yet there was one on which, from many considerations of local circumstances, front feudal at-

1165
tachments, from personal feelings, the compact of Union was precise and most strict—it was the institution of heritable jurisdiction, which, though guarded by such barriers from interference, was, forty years after, abolished by the enactment of the legislature—abolished, because they were felt to be more oppressive to the vassal than beneficial to the lord. The language of the statute of repeal was, that they were worse than useless—that they were pernicious. He was free to admit, that with regard to those religious feelings, which were always intermixed with respect to the church property, he would proceed with delicacy; but though that might afford an argument against any precipitate course, it offered none against an inquiry which merely sought for information. Taking the state of that church in Ireland—viewing the state of the population, who, though obliged to support it, received no benefit from it—it was most monstrous to say, that such a system should never undergo legislative revision. As to the claims of the inviolability of the property, was any man so romantic as to expect that any arrangement as to the question of tithes would satisfy every individual clergyman? And yet, if all were not satisfied, it was a spoliation of property as to the individual, as much as if the whole were discontented. They were all agreed, that that would be a most extravagant length to which any opposition to the relief of the tithe system could be pushed. He had seen an estimate of the value of the glebe lands of Ireland, which stated that property to be 160,000 l. a-year, independently of the renewal of leases. That estimate he thought to be correct. Was it not natural therefore, to require information, whether or not some arrangement might be made by parliament calculated to secure the stability of the church, by removing the very natural dislike which the great population of Ireland must feel towards such an establishment? That establishment stood on very different grounds from the church of this country. In this country down to the reign of Elizabeth, the tithes were applied to four different purposes—first, the remuneration of the bishop; secondly, the allowance to the parson; next, the repairs of the church; and, lastly, the support of the poor. In an evil hour, the statute of Elizabeth, by throwing on the people the whole relief of the poor, had interfered with that dis-
1166
tribution. He threw out these views of the subject as proper questions to be hereafter considered. He should recommend to his hon. friend, to withdraw his first resolution, which, though true, did not bear on the question, and to take the sense of the House on the second resolution.
After a few words from Mr. Hume, in reply, the first resolution was negatived without a division. The House then divided on the second resolution: Ayes 37; Noes 126; Majority 89.

COLONIAL INTERCOURSE BILL.
Earl Bathurstin moving the second reading of this bill, entered into a history of the law respecting Colonial Intercourse, and stated the object of the present measure. After describing the dispute which had arisen with the United States on the subject of trade with the British colonies, he observed, that in all former measures for regulating the colonial trade, prohibition was the rule, and admission the exception; whereas, in the present bill admission formed the rule, and prohibition the exception. Besides the regulation of the colonial trade, the extension of the warehousing system was another object of this bill. The part which related to that object allowed all goods to be warehoused either for importation or exportation, and authorized re-exportation, without subjecting the merchandise to any additional duty. There were certain articles which after importation could not be exported without paying a duty imposed for the protection of British trade; but it was not thought necessary that this protection should any longer exist. Warehouses might therefore be established on a more extensive system than the former state of the law authorised. Their lordships would observe that this was a complete abandonment of what had hitherto been regarded as the English colonial system; but it was an alteration which the changes in the political and commercial relations of other nations with respect to this country required. The trade of the colonies would, by this bill, be identified with the trade of the mother country. Formerly, no trade was allowed between the colonies and this country, except in British ships; no trade was allowed between one colony and another, except in British ships; and, in the same manner, no trade was allowed between one port of this country and another, except in British ships. It could no longer be said that we placed our colonies in a worse situation with respect to trade than the United States. The colonies would now not only enjoy the same advantages as the United States, but colonial vessels would be entitled to all the advantages of British ships. In short, the colonies were now placed in the same situation, with respect to trade, as if they formed parts of the mother country. The changes which Europe and the new

1133
world had undergone had naturally produced this change in our colonial system. Whether the states of America which had recently separated from their European connexion would make the same stupendous progress with those which had set them the example remained to be seen. They were still exposed to warfare, and the contest in which they were engaged might be continued; but, in the midst of that warfare they presented to other countries the advantages which were to be derived from neutral trade.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, that the present bill, which proposed to make a most important revolution in the navigation-law of this country, had his cordial assent. He owned he felt great satisfaction at seeing this measure brought forward; not merely because he had long entertained the opinions which it was at last proposed to sanction, but because he himself had endeavoured to carry the same principle into practice. He had, in the other House of parliament, recommended a more liberal intercourse between our colonies and America; and now, after the lapse of nineteen years, that course was about to be adopted. The measure which he recommended was, indeed, compared with the present, weak and partial; but, feeble and inefficient as it was, it was the subject of repeated divisions in parliament, and out of doors; it was denounced, solely on the ground that it had a tendency to do what this bill proposed to do. The friends and present supporters of the noble earl opposite cried it. down, because it led to that freedom of intercourse which ministers now took credit to themselves for establishing. Their lordships must now perceive that if they wished to retain the colonies, the best way would be to render them, as far as possible, capable of engaging in every kind of trade, and susceptible of every advantage which would be open to this country. He was aware, that, upon whatever principle they proceeded with respect to the colonies, it was still possible that a crisis would arrive that a separation must take place; but it was their duty to try to endeavour to retard it to a distant period. At the same time, while they were sensible that it could not be prevented, they ought to make provision that when it did occur, it should take place with circumstances as little injurious as possible. Of the good effects of what had already been done they had an example in the increase of trade—
1134
not merely of trade by foreign shipping but by an increase of British navigation. He had understood that other measures in connexion with the present were to have been brought forward. One of them, he understood, was a regulation which would have the effect of removing duties on certain articles of West-India produce, which could not enter into competition with British produce or manufactures. Nothing could be more desirable than the adoption of a system which would tend to the establishment of a system of free labour. All their lordships, he was sure, were earnestly desirous to see free labour substituted for the system which at present prevailed in the sugar colonies.
The Earl of Liverpoolthought that the bill had been wisely introduced. A measure had been brought forward on this subject when the noble marquis was chancellor of the Exchequer; and he had felt it his duty to oppose it, thinking that the time and circumstances, in which it was brought forward were unfavourable to its adoption. Now, however, circumstances were much changed. South America had nearly effected its independence; and when that was once established our colonies would cease to exist as such, and must be considered as integral parts of Great Britain, as much as London, or Liverpool. By placing them on that footing, we secured their attachment; and, if at any future time they should be separated from us, that separation would thereby be rendered much less dangerous. The bill before their lordships could not be looked upon as an infringement of the navigation-laws. It allowed foreign ships to bring to the colonies only the produce of their respective countries, and take back to their own countries the commodities of the colonies; but it did not admit such ships to any part of the carrying trade, so as to take the produce of the colonies between nations to which such ships did not belong.

EQUITABLE LOAN BILL.
Lord Dacremoved the second reading of this bill.
The Earl of Lauderdaleexpressed his surprise, that after all that had fallen from counsel on the subject of the illegality of this bill, his noble friend should have moved the second reading, without stating any one ground why it should be so read. However, he would consent to the bill being sent to a committee, in order to have the deed made a part of it; and, on

1135
the third reading it would be for their lordships to consider how far it ought to receive their sanction. His objection to this bill did not arise from wanton prejudice, but from a strong feeling he had of the injurious tendency of joint-stock companies. He could not concur in the assertion, that joint stock-companies encouraged competition. So far from it that he thought the direct effect of them was to destroy all competition, and to bring the most ruinous consequences upon trade. From t he nature of such companies, they could not carry on trade so beneficially to the country as private individuals.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that if this company were not illegal, it might be for their lordships to consider whether it would be useful to the community to grant them the privileges for which they sought; but, if they were illegal, it might be asked on what ground did they claim any privileges at all? It was admitted, that until the signing of the trust-deed, the company was unquestionably illegal. He had no objection to allow the trust-deed to form a part of the bill. After it had passed the committee, it would be competent for their lordships to discuss whether the bill, as it would then stand, was or was not a fit measure for legislative sanction; and he would take care that the twelve judges should be summoned to give their opinion as to its legality. He begged to be understood distinctly as neither admitting or denying the legality of the company, until the deed formed a part of the bill.
Lord Dacreexpressed a hope, that when the deed was embodied in the bill, their lordships would give the measure all that consideration to which it was so well entitled.
The bill was read a second time.