Sitting of 21 April 1826

LICENSED VICTUALLERS.
Mr. Hobhousepresented a petition from the Licensed Victuallers of St. James's Westminster, complaining of the present system of closing public-houses at night. According to the existing law, the magistrates had the power of punishing publicans for keeping their houses open at what were called "unseasonable hours," the definition of which they themselves had to decide upon. It was a great hardship that, under that regulation, publicans were liable to be punished, upon the statement of a common informer, without having any riot or disturbance in their houses. Tradesmen in general were unable to leave there business before ten or eleven at night, and it was too bad that they should be deprived of that fair recreation which they were in the habit of indulging in the parlours of public-houses. The publicans had no objection to clearing their tap-rooms, the place most likely to be visited by idle or disorderly persons, at the prescribed hour; but it was a hardship to close their doors and empty their parlours at that time. And to this they were subject; while oyster-shops, coffee-shops, saloons, and other disorderly places, were allowed to remain open all night. If the present system was persevered in, it would ruin the best part of the trade.
Mr. Estcourtsaid, that the hon. member must be aware, that some such regulation

535
as the present was necessary to preserve the quiet of the community; besides, there was, in those cases, an exception in favour of travellers. In the present state of the session, it would be ridiculous to think of carrying such an effective bill upon this subject as ought to be placed upon the Statute-book. He should therefore proceed no further with his measure this year. The most advisable course would be, to bring in a short bill to continue the present law for another year, and in the next session to make a new law altogether.
Mr. Hobhouseregretted, that the hon. member did not mean to press his bill. As to the petitioners, they were anxious to be placed more under the inspection of their respectable neighbours, and less at the mercy of common informers.

COURT OF CHANCEKY—DELAY IN TAXATION OF COSTS.
Mr. Sykessaid, that he held in his hand a petition on an interesting and important subject; namely, the abuses of the court of Chancery. Though he would not adopt the energetic language of his hon. friend on a former night, when he stated that the court of Chancery was a curse to the country, he would assert, that he thought its administration any thing but a blessing. He meant nothing personal to the learned lord who presided there; but complaints of suffering and abuses came from so many parts of the country, that he might go so far as to say, that the court of Chancery was a nuisance, and that, like other nuisances, it ought to be abated. The petition with which he was intrusted, was not from a suitor of the court, but from an individual who had, for twenty-five years, faithfully and honourably discharged his duties as a solicitor, and to whose character he could personally bear testimony. The petition was almost as prolix as a bill in Chancery, but the substance might be more briefly stated. The petitioner had been engaged in a lunatic commission, and the gravamen of his complaint was, that although his bill of costs, as long since as 1814, had been taxed allowed, and actually paid, yet, that in 1826, it had been again opened by a proceeding in Chancery. His clerk was dead, his documents dispersed, but receiving the order of the court, he had hastened to town, and consented to the re-taxation: day after day, and week after week, he had attended, and the result was, that
536
only 3s. 6d. was deducted from the sum allowed in 1814. He had left his home and his business, to his great inconvenience and loss: indeed, the proceedings had been so wearisome and expensive, that he ultimately abandoned the suit, gave his opponents their own way, and returned into the country totally ruined. The petition, which was from Mr. Garland, a solicitor, in Kingston upon Hull, was then brought up, and read. It prayed, that the House would give such assistance to the petitioner as to them, under the circumstances, should seem meet; and that the Report of the Chancery commissioners should speedily be taken into consideration.
The Solicitor Generalstated, that the petition had been communicated to him, and that he had in consequence made inquiries into the circumstances of this case. He thought no clear case was made out, even on the petitioner's own shewing; but this he thought was clear, that there existed a systematic attempt to hunt down the lord chancellor. The hon. member for Montrose came with a petition, complaining of a bill of foreclose, and pronounced the Chancery, and the lord chancellor, to be a curse to the country; and then came the hon. member for Hull with a petition, complaining of the issuing of a taxation of costs, upon the same system of running down the lord chancellor. The petition was a long one, but did not shew a very favourable case. However, the real state of the case was this: the petitioner, an attorney, sued out a commission of lunacy, and acted for a committee and the next of kin; and had got a considerable sum of money in his hands. He took a bond besides for the payment of costs at a particular rate, and this bond was illegal, for it was illegal for a solicitor to take any bonds from his clients for the payment of a larger sum in the way of costs than was allowed by the rules of the court. He had got his costs taxed, and they had been allowed without opposition, because one of the parties had become bankrupt, and there was no opposing party to check them. The costs had been therefore improperly taxed; and then a few years after there came a petition from the next of kin, stating these matters, and that the petitioners had charged for copies of papers which he had never made. What was the lord chancellor to do under such circumstances? He acted in the manner which even the

537
Chancery report recommended in cases of solicitors acting for both parties. The chancellor found that the costs had been taxed unfairly; he did not wish to use a harsher term; and, if unfairly taxed, then the lord chancellor was bound, on principles of public policy, to open the taxation. This, then, was the description of cases which were supposed to justify calling the Chancery and the lord chancellor a curse. A solicitor acted for both parties; he got an undue allowance; and then the lord chancellor was to be blamed for opening the taxation. He was astonished that any solicitor should have presented such a petition, and still more astonished at the hon. member, when he said that it could admit of no answer. Surely the hon. member had not read the petition, which contained an answer on the face of it. The lord chancellor would not have done his duty if he had not sent these costs to be taxed again. This explanation he thought himself bound to give to the House, having been enabled to do so by the communication made to him of the contents of this petition. He had examined the case, and he had no hesitation in saying, that it was part of the system of hunting down the lord chancellor.
Mr. Humesaid, he would take that opportunity of stating, that, after having had time for consideration, he was still of the same opinion as before, with respect to the court of Chancery. Such an opinion he thought himself justified in entertaining and expressing, of a system, by which justice was in effect denied to millions, and the severest mental torture inflicted; and he called upon those who had exerted themselves so zealously in opposition to the infliction of bodily torture, to do every thing in their power to put down this dreadful nuisance. This, which was called a court of equity, was, in fact, a court of iniquity. The hon. and learned gentleman said, that a "few" years after the costs had been taxed, the taxation had been opened. How many of these "few" years did the hon. and learned gentleman expect to have in his life? The hon. and learned gentleman thought twelve years a very moderate time, parliament ought certainly to put an end to such a method of proceeding. When the matter was formerly under consideration, the hon. member for Surrey, and others, had held out the Chancery and the lord chancellor as blessings to the country; but God preserve him from
538
such blessings! He wished the hon. member for Surrey had been present at the presenting of this petition, that it might be seen whether he adhered to his former sentiments. This was said to be a court of equity, established to temper the rigour of the law. But if it was a court into which, if one entered, the suitor had little chance of leaving it during his life—if it was a court of hope deferred—of anxious expectation—of mental despair—could it justly be called a court of equity, or of justice? Was it not rather a court of injustice? The injustice of the grand seignor was not half so galling. The injustice there was at least speedy, and inflicted death without torture; the injustice of the court of Chancery was death with lingering torture. It had been said, that he, as well as others, had their share of the blame. He denied that any part of it belonged to him. Had he not always supported motions for a reform of these abuses, when the hon. member for Surrey and the ministers had opposed such motions? He maintained, that such a charge was unfounded; and that no man had a right to make such a charge against him when he had voted for inquiries which they had opposed. If they looked at the report on the table, they would find that a sum of about thirty-nine millions sterling lay locked up in the court of Chancery—a pretty nest egg for the chancellor of the Exchequer, or his successors. The sum belonging to the suitors had greatly accumulated within no very long period of years, and was now no less than the sum he had stated; and what a mass of good would have been done, if such an immense sum as this had been distributed to the parties? But he believed it would never be liberated by the present chancellor. He repeated that, under the semblance of justice, delay and anxiety were the characteristics of that court. He insisted, that he was right in saying, the other night, that the court was a curse to the country; and, considering that no material reform had taken place in the long period of a quarter of a century, he could not separate from the individual what he had said of the court; and it would be better that the court should be abolished entirely, than that it should remain what it was. There was no man who had any thing to do, as a suitor, with that court, but would agree with him, that it was a vexation and a misery to the country.
Mr. Greensaid, he heard with pain the personal remarks which had been made on the lord chancellor, and considered it an unjustifiable use of the privileges of that House to drag, needlessly, as he conceived, the name of an individual who filled a high public office, into their discussions.
Mr. Sykesasked whether the hon. and learned gentleman really thought that he had made out no case The hon. and learned gentleman said, that the costs had been improperly taxed. How did that appear? They were taxed in the usual mode of the court; and what else could be called a fair and proper taxation? Then it was said that the petitioner had been solicitor for opposite parties. He denied it. He had been solicitor for two parties, but not for opposite parties. This was quite common in the practice of the court; and he understood that the Chancery report now on the table permitted it. Then the hon. and learned gentleman said that it was only in a few years after the costs had been taxed, that the taxation had been opened. Was a period of twelve years so little thought of in the court of Chancery? It appeared that they reckoned there, not by years, but by generations! Nothing under twenty, thirty, or forty years, was worth consideration. He contended that no sufficient answer had been given to the petition.
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, that the petitioner admitted, on the face of his petition, that he had made illegal charges; that he had charged for copies which he had never delivered. He was astonished that such a petition should have been presented, and still more astonished that it should have been presented by the hon. member. The hon. member had adverted to the expression of a few years; but it was not till a lapse of ten years after the transaction, that there existed any free agent to apply for opening the taxation. Even in the law courts, although costs had been regularly taxed, yet, if it appeared afterwards that the taxation had been illegal, that taxation would be opened. This power in the courts was absolutely necessary, in order to their having a proper control over agents and solicitors. So that, even on the face of his own petition, the petitioner had made out no case.
Ordered to lie on the table.

PROCLAMATIONS—IRISH NEWSPAPERS.
On the reading of the resolution
540
of the committee of supply, "That a sum, not exceeding 6,000 l., be granted to his Majesty, to defray the expense of publishing Proclamations and other matters of a public nature in the Dublin Gazette and other Newspapers in Ireland, for the year 1826; and that the said sum be issued and paid without any fee or other deduction whatsoever,"
Mr. Humesaid, that he had long been endeavouring to persuade the House to pay attention to the description of vote called for in this instance. In his view of the case, it was partly intended to bribe the public papers in Ireland. He had lately moved for a return of the sums allowed to the different papers in Ireland; and the conclusion might naturally be, that the largest sums for proclamations and advertisements would be allowed to the papers of greatest circulation. No such thing. It appeared, that the "Patriot" had been established by Mr. Wellesley Pole, when Irish secretary, to oppose the "Correspondent," then an opposition paper; and that 1,200 l. of this money had been given to the "Patriot." A reduction having since taken place to 900 l. Soon after the "Correspondent" turned, and received 7 or 800 l.; so that the "Correspondent" and "Patriot" had about 2,000 l. of this money between them. These and other papers received money, not according to the business done, but for inserting news from the London papers, and from the Gazette. In 1819, 519 l. was charged by one paper for inserting news from the Gazette; and in some of the papers proclamations were inserted, fifteen, sixteen, or twenty times. He was, however, informed, that lately they had not been inserted more than three times in any one paper. In looking at the printed papers, it would appear that the sums had been made up to the papers to much the same amount in each year. It appeared that money was paid to papers in the names of members of parliament; for 130 l. had been paid to sir Robert Shaw, a member of that House, for the "Kerry Evening Post." The regular bargain seemed to be, that, as long as the paper supported the government, the usual sum would be made up to it, in some way or another. In the year 1822, all the papers, however, appeared to have received one fifth more than they had received since. He then stated several instances in which papers of small circulation had received considerable sums; others, of great circula-

541
tion, received in some years little, and in other years nothing. While "The Dublin Evening Mail," having a circulation of 395,500 stamps—a circulation far exceeding that of any other paper in Ireland—had received only a few pounds from the proclamation money; the "Correspondent" and, "Patriot," which, together circulated only 145,000 stamps, had received at the same time 1,200 l. Then, he observed, that the public boards employed the government papers for the insertion of their advertisements, and no other papers. He should be able to prove, if he were allowed to go into a committee on the subject, that the present secretary for Ireland, on the reduction of the sum allowed for proclamations, had been obliged to apply to the commissioners for widening the streets of Dublin, to make up the usual sums for the papers, according to contract; and he also thought he could prove that the master in Chancery behind the Treasury bench, made it a point to insert his advertisements in the government papers, although of small circulation, and in no others. The street commisssioners had, for a considerable time, given them large sums in aid of the government supplies. He would take the sense of the House on this resolution, unless it could be shown that there was something particular in the government of Ireland, and that it could not be carried on without this sort of support.
Sir J. Newportsuggested that the whole difficulty respecting this question might be obviated, if the duty on advertisements was relinquished, and the papers compelled to insert the government advertisements gratuitously. At present, the object of publicity was defeated by the practice of giving those advertisements to the papers which had the least circulation.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, he should detain the House with only a few observations; but he trusted they would be quite conclusive. The hon. gentleman had never dealt more unfairly towards any individual, than he had that evening towards him. What was the charge against him? That he had been guilty of bribing the press of Ireland. On what did the hon. gentleman found his arguments in support of this charge? Principally on a paper laid before the House in 1819, long before he had any connection with the Irish government. Another evidence of the unfairness of the hon. gentleman was, that he had
542
taken the amount of the circulation of the Irish papers from a return made during the present year, while the return of the sums expended for advertisements was obtained in 1819. The hon. gentleman recommended the Irish government to have recourse to the English practice. The custom in this country was, to appropriate 50 l. to the issue of each proclamation. If that course had been followed in Ireland, the charges during the last year would have been 9,500 l., instead of being, as they were, only 6,000 l.; though the hon. gentleman had, in the spirit of exaggeration, stated them to be 7,000 l. From that sum of 6,000 l. the expenses of the Gazette, amounting to 2,000 l., ought to be deducted. The whole charge, therefore, was for the present year only 4,000 l., and the same sum, it was estimated, would be sufficient for the next. With respect to the characters of the different newspapers, he confessed he was net competent to enter into the consideration of the petty details relative to their management. If the hon. gentleman had as many important duties to perform as he had when he was in Ireland, he would find his time much better occupied than in deciding on the comparative merits of newspapers. For what purpose could he be supposed to be guilty of bribing the Irish press? The frequency of the attacks on him personally was, he thought, the best proof that he did not interfere to stifle the free expression of opinion. He declared that he was entirely ignorant of the politics of the Irish newspapers. He knew not whether "The Mail" or "The Herald" was friendly to government. But the hon. member had gone the length of asserting, that money had been paid to members of parliament corruptly, on account of these papers. He had stated, that money had, in this manner, been paid to sir Robert Shaw on account of "The Kerry Evening Post." It would be enough to explain this transaction, if he told the House, that the Kerry Evening Post was a country paper; and that sir Robert Shaw, who was a banker of Dublin, had, as agent of the newspaper, merely received the amount of a bill due to it. He would assure the hon. gentleman, that if he was liable to be deceived into an improper expenditure in favour of some of these Irish papers, the hon. gentleman was much more liable to be deceived by those who, as he had alleged, had given him information which it was

543
their duty to have withheld. He would advise the hon. gentleman to be cautious how he received information, and charged corruption, on the authority of persons who, even if they spoke truth, betrayed their trust.
Mr. T. Ellisrepelled the imputation, that the masters in Chancery in Ireland gave their advertisements unfairly to particular papers. On a former occasion, he had told the hon. gentleman, that his informants were guilty of wilful misrepresentation. He repeated that assertion, and he challenged the hon. gentleman to support his statements by proof. When he first came into office, he found that, twenty years ago, certain papers had been selected by the four masters, as the most fitting for their advertisements. It was for the interest of the suitors that the same papers should always be used, as by following that course, the public knew where to look for notices of that nature. One of these papers was "Saunders's Newsletter," a paper almost exclusively devoted to advertisements, and circulating, principally in the city of Dublin. No political feeling could have led to the selection of this paper, as it was a singular feature in it, that it had no politics at all. "The Correspondent" was another paper comprised in this selection. The circulation of that paper was 300,000, the maximum of the Irish papers being 334,000. Twenty years ago, when the selection was made, it had the greatest circulation in Ireland. No statement, therefore, could be more unfounded, than that the masters had been guided by political feelings in the distribution of their advertisements. Another fact stated by the hon. gentleman opposite, he was prepared to contradict as unequivocally. He alluded to the alleged contract between government and the Wide-street Board, by which the latter had agreed to supply to particular papers the deficiency of what the former disbursed in advertisements. He was one of the commissioners of that Board, and it was impossible that any such contract could have been made without his knowledge; and he therefore could tell the hon. gentleman again, that his informants had been guilty of wilful misrepresentation. The expenses of the Wide-street Board had diminished one-half during the very time when this contract was stated to have been in operation.
Mr. Hume, in explanation, stated, that
544
he had not derived any part of his information respecting the Irish Newspapers from anonymous information, but from the official returns to that House, which were then lying on the table. He found that it was not a Kerry paper, but the "Cork Advertiser," on account of which the payment had been made to sir R. Shaw; but, he repeated, the account was made out in that hon. baronet's name.
The House divided on the resolution; Ayes 40; Noes 18; Majority 22.

CHURCH RATES (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. Goulburn Mr. Goulburn moved the order of the day for the House resolving itself into a committee on the Irish Church Rates' bill. On the question, that the Speaker do now leave the chair,
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that, before he submitted the motion of which he had given notice, he was anxious to remove some misconceptions which prevailed as to the true nature of the object he had in view. It was erroneously conceived by some persons, that he proposed to make it imperative on vestries to assess the respective parishes for the expenses of building Roman Catholic chapels; such was not the case. It was also stated that he wished to make some new and daring alteration.—Both suppositions were untrue. In fact, he proposed no novelty, but rather to legalize a practice which had, in some instances, been already resorted to. The proceedings in vestries had generally been of a very loose description; some of the items, as detailed in the parochial returns presented to the House were not only unwarranted by law, but in direct violation of legislative enactment; whilst others were of a very ludicrous description. In one case, a charge had been made on the parish for the expense of a suit of robes for a favourite rector, who had received preferment, and it was deemed fitting to present him with robes suitable to his doctor's degree, and this at the expense of the parish. If he understood rightly the object of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) in introducing the bill now before the House, it was to introduce a legal mode of proceeding in vestries, and to prevent them from raising money not strictly warranted by law. Now it so happened, that hitherto, although many improper assessments had been made, there were others, which, though not strictly legal, were still justified by good fellowship and christian feel-

545
and in no country more than in Ireland was it desirable that such a feeling should be encouraged. Of this class were the sums voted for enlarging and repairing Catholic and Presbyterian places of worship. If the bill of the right hon. gentleman passed without the introduction of some such clause as he intended to propose it would be quite out of the power of vestries to repeat in future such praise-worthy conduct. The House should bear in mind that the vestries in Ireland were composed exclusively of Protestants. The inheritors of the soil were also, to a great extent, Protestants; whilst the payers of the church-rates were nearly all Roman Catholics. At these vestries large sums were voted for the erection and repairs of the Protestant churches; and it often happened that the first intimation which the Catholic received of these assessments was from the tax collector. He trusted the House would not be lightly induced, by agreeing to the bill in its present state, to put an end to the system which had so long prevailed, and in consequence of which, in instances too numerous to be specified, the Protestant vestries of that country had come to the aid of their Roman Catholic brethren. He would not detain the House by reading from a list which he held in his hand many of those instances: they were in the knowledge of all who were acquainted with that country. Several of them had occurred in parishes which were under the immediate superintendence of the Protestant bishops; a circumstance highly to the praise of the Protestant hierarchy, as exhibiting their enlarged and benevolent views. There was one peculiar instance, however, to which he particularly wished to call the attention of the House, because it put the whole case in so clear and palpable a light, that it tended to support his proposition better than any argument which he could advance for that purpose. It appeared that, in a parish in the diocese of Dromore, the sum of 130 l. had been voted at the Protestant vestry, without a dissenting voice, for the repair of the meeting-house and chapel, which was stated to be "as a return for the liberality that had been evinced by the Roman Catholic parishioners towards the Protestant church." If the House felt that such an act, so performed, was calculated to do great good, by conciliating the great mass of the people, he trusted they would not hesitate to agree to a
546
clause which went, not to introduce any novelty, but simply to continue a practice which had long been in existence, and from which nothing but good could follow. He could not conceive that any one could be adverse to the encouragement of religious instruction and worship in Ireland. He certainly wished that the condition of society in Ireland were such, that there might be but one description of place of worship, and one ritual for the whole community; but as that was not the case, he maintained that the State had a deep interest in the religious instruction of all the various classes of which the existing community was actually composed. Closely connected as that instruction was with the morals, with the political relations, and with the well-being of society, he could scarcely believe that that House would refuse to accede to any proposition by which its blessings might be diffused. To those who had seen Ireland—who, like himself, had seen the numerous Protestant places of worship in that country, raised at great expense, and frequently for the benefit of a very few only, and the adjoining miserable and wretched hovel, incapable of containing a tenth part of the Catholic population of the parish, the far greater part of whom were consequently compelled to kneel and perform their devotions on the outside, exposed to all the inclemencies of the weather,—to those who had witnessed such scenes, it could hardly be necessary for him to urge the expediency of not putting an end to a system by which the evil was in many cases materially diminished. The proposition which he was about to take the liberty of making, was merely to continue to the Protestant vestries of Ireland the means which they had hitherto possessed of exercising their bounty, liberality, and benevolence towards their Catholic brethren. It introduced no novelty—it gave no right. If, however, the clause that he was about to propose, should be rejected, he gave notice, that in the progress of the bill he should move another clause, providing that the amount of church-rates should be thrown, as tithes were thrown by the Tithe-bill, as a charge on the lessor of the land. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving, "that it be an instruction to the committee to receive a clause empowering the Protestant parishioners, in vestry assembled, to assess their respective parishes in certain limited sums towards the building, enlarging, and re-

547
pairing Presbyterian meeting-houses and Roman Catholic chapels."
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that he would omit to notice any of the other considerations which pressed upon his mind, not because they were unimportant, but because the hon. gentleman had put them out of the question, and would confine himself to the single point of the power which ought or ought not to be given to the Protestant vestries of Ireland, in the terms comprehended in the proposed instruction. The hon. gentleman had said, that the present bill had grown out of a wish to repress the variety of assessments by Protestant vestries—assessments which had extended to objects which were not contemplated by the existing law. Undoubtedly, it was to correct this evil, which went to an extent demanding the interposition of parliament, that the present bill was introduced, and introduced, as he had thought, with the unanimous concurrence of all who were acquainted with the merits of the subject. It was a measure which was in a great degree founded on the recommendation of the committee on Irish affairs, which sat during the last session; and it merely limited the province of the vestry to those objects which they were legally entitled to assess for. The hon. member appeared anxious to impress upon the House that the bill tended to introduce a new practice, and that, if passed, it would take away the power which the Protestant vestries at present possessed of assessing for the repair of Roman Catholic chapels. But that was by no means the case. Whatever power the Protestant vestries possessed now they would possess after the bill had passed into a law. To make a compulsory assessment on the parish for the building or repair of a Roman Catholic chapel was at present illegal; and so it would remain after the passing of the bill. The bill would throw no obstacle in the way of any Protestant who might like to contribute to the building or repair of a Roman Catholic chapel, or a Presbyterian meeting-house. He might still yield whatever aid of that description he thought proper to afford. To the assessment for such a purpose by the majority of a Protestant vestry he objected; because, instead of being liberal themselves, it only gave them the power of being liberal at the expense of other persons. They did not contribute out of their own pockets, but they assessed a body of unwilling parishioners, for a pur-
548
pose, in the furtherance of which it was not improbable that interested motives occasionally mingled. The vestry might be unanimous; but who could tell what were the feelings of the poor parishioners, who were compulsorily assessed, and who, perhaps, had their goods distrained and their cattle impounded, because they were ignorant that the law would give them redress on that subject, even against the unanimous opinion of a Protestant vestry? He concurred with the hon. gentleman, that the existence of one faith, of an universal ritual in Ireland, was a consummation devoutly to be wished. But as that was not the case, if the Protestants were called upon to repair the Roman Catholic chapels, why might they not be called upon with equal propriety to pay the priests, without whom no service could be performed in those chapels? Why not call upon them, through the medium of vestries, for other purposes? Why not call upon them, for instance, to contribute to Bible societies? We had no right to give power to the majority of a vestry to tax the parishioners for one object, when the parishioners might think that the money so taken from them ought to be applied to another object. In some parishes, the continuance of the existing practice might not do any harm; but in others it would be productive of considerable evil. Would any man say, that if the proposed clause were introduced into the bill, although it merely gave the vestries the power to assess for the purposes described, a refusal to exercise that power might not, in many cases, be followed by serious consequences? Would it not be said to them, that by adopting that clause parliament had pointed out to them what it was expected they should do? Was that a situation in which the vestries ought to be placed? He objected to the principle of the clause proposed by the hon. gentleman. He was perfectly willing that every individual should exercise his own discretion, and pay what he chose towards the objects in question; but he objected, and he should ever object, to enable the majority of a vestry to lay a compulsory tax on a parish, opposed to the views of the minority of the vestry, and perhaps to that of the whole body of the parishioners.
Sir J. Newportadverted to the extraordinary inequality of the treatment which the Catholics and the Protestants received

549
at the hands of his majesty's government. The clause proposed by his hon. friend went only to permit the Protestant vestries to assess for assisting in the building and repair of Catholic chapels, and it was objected to; while the Catholics throughout Ireland were constantly called upon to contribute largely to the support of the most wealthy church establishment in the world. That the purpose, however, which the clause went to recognize was acknowledged to be advantageous, as far as its frequent practice established that acknowledgment, his hon. friend had adduced various facts to show. He would add another. The view which one of the Irish bishops took of the way in which the power given to the vestries ought to be exercised, was shown by the fact of the sums assessed by his parish in three successive years. In the first year they assessed 300 l. for the repairs of the cathedral, and 20 l. for the repairs of the chapel; in the second year, 200 l. for the repairs of the cathedral, and 40 l. for the repairs of the chapel; and in the third year, 300 l. for the repairs of the cathedral, and 50 l. for the repairs of the chapel. The inference distinctly was, that these assessments were approved by the bishop. Now, the bill which the right hon. Secretary had introduced, would do away the possibility of any such assistance being granted to the Catholics henceforward. The right hon. gentleman objected to the parish vestries taxing the Protestant parishioners for the repair of the Catholic and Presbyterian places of worship; but he did not see any objection to the parish vestries taxing the Catholics and Presbyterians for the repair of the Protestant places of worship. He was so good, however, as to tell the House that he was not disposed to prevent the private subscriptions of benevolent individuals, for the assistance of the Catholics, in the repair of their chapels. The wonder was, that the right hon. gentleman's bill did not prevent such subscriptions! The wonder was, that in his wisdom, the right hon. gentleman did not point out to the various noblemen and gentlemen who exercised their bounty in the aid and relief of the unfortunate Catholics, that the course which they pursued was an unjustifiable one! They were really much obliged to the right hon. gentleman for his forbearance! When it was considered that the vestries imposed taxes on the Catholic population for the very orna-
550
ments of the Protestant churches, as well as for the houses of the clerks, sextons, &c, was it too much to allow the Protestant parishioners to give a small share of their opulence to their poor Catholic brethren? If the right hon. gentleman had ever seen the miserable manner in which the Catholic population in some parts of Ireland were compelled, although with as much sincerity as the Protestants in their splendid churches, to offer their devotions to the common Deity, he surely would not grudge the means of affording them the accommodation which was so loudly called for. His hon. friend's proposition had his most hearty assent; and if it should fail to meet with the concurrence of parliament, he should warmly support his hon. friend's other clause to make the payment of these taxes obligatory on the proprietors of the land, and not on the tenants.
Sir R. H. Inglisobjected to the measure of his right hon. friend, the Secretary for Ireland, because it compelled the House to decide upon two such propositions as the clause now brought forward, and that relative to an assessment for the poor, of which notice had been given. He admitted, as he had done on a former occasion, that there were great legal irregularities in the expenditure of the church-rates in Ireland; but he contended that these irregularities were not of a nature or an amount to justify legislative interference. In respect to the assessment upon land by a Protestant vestry, for the support of a Homan Catholic chapel or dissenting meeting-house, he had shown, on a former occasion, repeated instances of the willingness of the Protestants of Ireland to exceed the law for the benefit of their Roman Catholic and dissenting neighbours, and he had no objection to such exercise of their benevolence, so long as it could not be claimed under any law; but, though he would not pass a law forbidding it, and though he could not, therefore, concur in the bill itself, because he thought that it fettered unnecessarily the parishes of Ireland,—certainly took away the discretion which they had hitherto exercised in a way calculated to increase general good feeling,—he would not, on the other hand, make himself a party to legalizing the erection of a Roman Catholic chapel by an assessment which would be compulsory on the Protestant minority in a parish. The clause, if carried, would take

551
away all the grace and all the usefulness of the liberality now exercised; and, indeed, would soon render that liberality very little gratuitous; for if, when the Protestant vestry were assembled in their room, the Roman Catholic inhabitants, with their priest at their head, could come to the door, and, under this act, ask them to exercise the power which the law would then give them, of assessing the parish for the service of the Roman Catholic chapel, it was not difficult to see that, in many instances, that which is now the indulgence of a kind and benevolent feeling towards their Roman Catholic brethren, would become a measure of compulsion. At present it is gratuitous kindness, because no man need pay the assessment: he knows that it is illegal, and he may resist it accordingly by an appeal to the proper tribunal; but the charm would be gone by the adoption of the proposed clause. He could never, therefore, give his consent to it. In respect to the other clause to be brought up by his hon. friend, the member for the county of Wicklow, for enabling parishes to assess themselves for the relief of the poor, he felt almost as much the evil of compelling the House to decide upon it. The practice prevailed in Ireland to an extent which showed how cautiously the House ought to proceed in the matter. The bill of his right hon. friend (Mr. Goulburn) defined too closely the limits within which only the church-rates should be applied; if he had pointed out any corruption in the application, or had showed any want of due power, or of will on the part of the constituted tribunals, to redress that corruption, he would have made out a case for the interference of the legislature. His right hon. friend had said, that he thought that all parties had concurred in the expediency of the alteration, and therefore he brought forward his bill. He, for one, considered that little, if any thing, ought to have been done. The evils were so slight, and partook so little of corruption, that they might safely have been left since they cannot be rooted out, without endangering much that is good by the clause now proposed, either a legal existence was given to an assessment upon land for the relief of the poor, or by the bill, without it, the system actually adopted in a very great degree was destroyed, and distress and inconvenience were thrown upon parishes. He had examined the returns
552
upon the table from a large part of Ireland; from the whole of the province of Armagh, which is more than coincident with the civil division of Ulster; and which contains about two-fifths of the benefices of Ireland. He had looked over these details of nearly 400 parishes, extending over a period of twelve years, and he could say, that a very large majority of them contained items which, in England, would be found in a poor's-rates only. This was the practice, a practice which never could be carried to any excessive and grievous extent, because, after all, being illegal, and being defrayed by voluntary assessment, it could be resisted by any one. Now, he complained that the bill before the House compelled the House to decide whether they should, by adopting the clause, legalise the introduction of something like a system of English poor-laws; or, by rejecting it, and passing the bill in its present state, limiting so closely the powers of parishes to assess themselves, deprive them, in an immense proportion, of a discretion which they have hitherto exercised. He would not now enter into the general question of the introduction of this system; but he regretted that the House was thus indirectly called upon to decide one of the greatest questions in political economy, and one of the most vital importance in its application to the state of Ireland. He would reserve himself for this matter till the clause came regularly before the House. He would only say that, if he were compelled to give a vote upon this matter, it should be in favour of that clause, which confirmed to parishes the option which they had hitherto exercised, of assessing themselves for the relief of their poor; but he should greatly prefer leaving the system, as it now stands, in its purely voluntary, and therefore most healthy, operation. He had great objections to the bill of his right hon. friend. It proceeded upon the assumption that great evils existed under the present system, and therefore it affected a corresponding change. The proof of those evils, as related either to the assessments in Ireland, and to their burthen upon the people, or to the inconvenience of getting redress in the ecclesiastical courts, must be sought either in petitions to this House, in the evidence before the committees last year, in the returns upon the table, or in the statement of his right hon. friend. Of petitions to the House, from the time of

553
the union to this day, upon this subject, he could find in the journals only three. Of evidence before the committees, the first witness (Mr. Blackburne) stated, that the collection of church-rates had not, in his district, excited any dissatisfaction. Another gentleman states that it is a very great grievance; but, except in one year, he had never paid more than 5½d. an acre. The witnesses before the committee say, in fact, little upon the subject. The returns before the House show that, in the country, the rate seldom exceeds 8d. an acre; is more often 3d. and sometimes one penny, and even one farthing, an acre. The amount, therefore, in a country where land is often let at 20 s. or 30 s. an acre, cannot be a great grievance, if the expenditure be not. The statement of his right hon. friend has not furnished any proof, or even any allegation, of malversation in these matters; and has laid no parliamentary ground for this bill; and yet, without any proof, or even any allegation on the part of his right hon. friend, of abuse of their powers, the whole jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts in these matters is cut off, and the maintenance of the external part of the church establishment is transferred from a tribunal which is not only Protestant, but must be connected with the hierarchy; and is transferred to a tribunal which may be Roman Catholic and hostile, or latitudinarian and indifferent.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he thought the great advantage of this bill was, that it made the charges, to which a parish was subjected, definite. He agreed with the right hon. baronet opposite, that it was a great abuse for the Protestant vestry of a parish to make rates of the sort he had alluded to, such as building houses for the parish clerks, and supplying a profusion of wine; they were, doubtless, great abuses, and ought to be prevented by law, and this bill would have the effect of doing it. These vestries were to be considered as so many little parliaments in their several parishes; but their powers ought to be as clearly defined as possible. It ought to be distinctly laid down to what objects the money raised under their authority should be applied, According to the present practice, many of the parishes in Ireland, in reality, levied poor-rates. The practice was gradually creeping into more extensive adoption; and deprecating, as he did, the application of the poor-laws to that country, he must con-
554
demn this practice, and declare that measures ought to be adopted to prevent its spread. If poor-rates were to be introduced, let it be on the authority of parliament; but let not such principles be introduced partially, according to the notions of particular parishes. The principle ought to be generally applied, or not at all; and, if it were thought that it ought to be applied, let parliamentary sanction for it be obtained. As to the particular proposition now before the House, if it were right to maintain an established church, then the parishioners must be subjected to the charge of the church; but, if they were also to be subjected to contribute to other places of worship, what was that but telling them there was no necessity for maintaining an established church? His hon. friend had included the Presbyterians in his motion. He doubted much whether they wanted the assistance proposed to be given them; but his hon. friend felt the distinction would be too marked, and therefore he had included them. But why stop there? There were other classes of christians equally entitled to consideration. Why not include the Quakers and the Wesleyan Methodists? Did not his hon. friend think it would be hard on the Quaker, who was called upon to maintain his own church, and to contribute to the established church, if he were also called upon to maintain another church, against which he was decidedly and conscientiously opposed? The clause did not define the power to be given to vestries, and it would engender endless disputes and debates. Besides the machinery of it was undefined. If he were to admit, which he did not, its necessity, he must say that he did not understand the details of the manner in which it was to be executed. But he opposed the clause in principle, because, to admit that, would be to give up the principle on which an established church was founded.
Mr. W. Smithsupported the clause, and said, that all the difficulties which were met with in Ireland, and in no other part of the empire, or of the world, arose from the anomalous nature of her church-establishment. In other countries, the church-establishment was agreeable to the majority of the nation. In Ireland, the church-establishment was the religion of a very small minority, who imposed their own rates on the large majority. Why did not difficulties of this kind arise

555
in England or Scotland? Because the establishments were rooted in the affections of the majority of the people. Were these difficulties to be found in Canada: No. And why? Because, in that country, we had adopted a policy the very reverse of that which we had adopted with regard to Ireland.
Mr. Trantsaid, he was for supporting the church-establishment of Ireland, not for Ireland alone, but as Ireland formed a part of the empire; and, as he could not agree to the latitudinarian principle of the clause, he should oppose it.
The House divided: for the instruction 18. Against it 40. The House having resolved itself into the committee,
Sir John Newport, agreeably to the notice he had given, rose to move the repeal of the 5th section of the act of 4 Geo. 4, cap. 86, which authorizes the archbishops and bishops, in cases where there is no church in a parish, to order the assessment of rates for repairing the church of the next adjoining parish; such rates to be levied on the inhabitants of the parish having no church. He contended, that this clause was a most tyrannical one, and liable to very great abuse, as there were many parishes in Ireland in which there was not a single Protestant, yet those parishes would be compelled to pay rates for the repairs of the adjoining parish church.
Mr. Goulburndefended the law as it stood. The principle of it was not new, or applicable to the Irish church only; for the same principle prevailed in the law of England.
Mr. S. Ricesaid, the cases of England and Ireland were not at all parallel. If the question were left to the constituted bodies of the two parishes to make the union if they thought proper, he would be quite satisfied.
Mr. Peelsaid, he believed, as the law now stood, the bishop was authorized to order a church to be built in parishes where there was none; and as there might be two parishes adjoining, and one church sufficient for both, it would be a saving to the parish having no church to contribute to the rates of the adjoining parish, instead of being obliged to build a new one for themselves.
Mr. S. Ricesaid, that the bishop had no more power to compel the erection of a church in an adjoining parish than the grand jury had to compel the making of a road in an adjoining county. The
556
bishop might, indeed, apply to the Board of First Fruits for such a purpose; but, in such a case, the assent of the parish to build a church was necessary.
Sir J. Newportsaid, he knew the case of one parish in which there were no Protestants, except the police stationed there; and to that parish the bishop united another, and the parishioners had more than five miles and a half to go to attend divine service. The great evil was, that the hierarchy of Ireland had, within the last 150 years, allowed the churches to go to decay, and now there was a call upon the Roman Catholic population to repair them. The more this grievance was looked into, the more severe would be found the pressure upon the members of that persuasion. He regretted to see this system of taxation by the church treated with such indifference by that House.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that he had never meant to defend any abuse in the levying of the church-rates, but he had merely remarked, that if a parish church happened to be out of repair, the bishop had a strict legal right to compel the parishioners to repair it.
Sir R. H. Inglissaid, that, in reference to the last point, he believed there was in existence a very curious return, stating the number of churches in Ireland in the beginning of the 17th century. He was informed, that this return stated, that in Wexford there were, at that time, twenty churches. In the year of the Restoration, 1660, only one was left, the rest having been destroyed, not by the neglect of the bishops, but by the consequences of great rebellion. In reference to the first point, the grievance, upon the ground of which alone the right hon. baronet had introduced his clause, which only, at least, he had alleged in illustration of the necessity of it, was, he apprehended, the case of Clonarmy, from which the right hon. baronet had presented a petition a few weeks ago. Now, this case of grievance was as follows:—it was a parish of 1093 acres, inhabited by a considerable population, probably, therefore, good land, and the tax was, in the first year of its union with Castletown Delvin, 6¾d. an acre; the next year, 3½d.; and the next, 3d.: the aggregate amount paid was never 30 l.; and he believed, that not more than 22 l. was raised in one year, and about 11 l. in the next. So much for this case of great hardship.
Sir J. Newportsaid, that there were two churches within ten miles of his house, which were suffered to go to ruin; and when a remonstrance was made to the then diocesan on the subject, he treated the representation with neglect. The consequence was, that the Protestants left the place; and those churches were now ordered to be rebuilt at the expense of the Roman Catholic inhabitants.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that the duties of the clergy in Ireland were now, at a moment of peculiar delicacy and difficulty, discharged in a manner which, when compared with any former period of history, redounded highly to the credit of the established church.
The amendment was negatived.
Mr. Grattansaid, he rose for the purpose of submitting a clause to the committee, which he should think himself in some degree criminal if he did not propose. The object of it was, to enable such parishes as might be so disposed, to make an assessment for certain classes of the poor. This had been done in several parishes in the county of Armagh, and no inconvenience was found to result from it. The priest very willingly cooperated with the rector, and great good was thus produced. It would be desirable that parishes should at least have the discretion of making such provision if they should think fit.
Mr. Crokerthought it would be better if the hon. member brought forward the proposition in some way more calculated to excite attention. It was a subject of importance, and worthy of more consideration than could be given to it at present.
Mr. J. Smithsaid, he had for some time been endeavouring to ascertain what the state of the poor in Ireland was. The subject was worthy of serious consideration, and he could not now allow any clause of the kind to pass, unless accompanied by a full inquiry into the state of the poor of Ireland. He hoped, therefore, that his hon. friend would withdraw it for the present. It was matter of serious charge against the government, and against the committee which had been sitting for two years, that they instituted no inquiry into the subject. The committee omitted what they were bound to have done, by making no report on the state of the poor.
Sir R. Heronsaid, he never would consent to entail upon Ireland the additional misery of a system of poor-laws. In a
558
country so circumstanced, it must prove even more mischievous than it had done in this. It could not be introduced without being productive of the worst effects.
The clause was withdrawn, and the House resumed.

CATHOLIC ASSOCIATION.
Lord Kingrose to present a petition to their lordships from the Catholic Association,

533
though he believed he must not call it by that name. He would say, then, that it was a petition from the ghost of that Association; and he believed the ghost would be found quite as terrific as the Association itself in its material form. The ghost was not yet laid, in spite of the exertions of all the right reverend prelates opposite, who were so powerful at laying ghosts, even though they had been zealously supported by the noble and learned lord. The petitioners complained of the great abuses which existed in the corporate towns of Ireland. He could state, not from the petition, but from the evidence given on oath before their lordships, that abuses—flagrant abuses—did exist. From that evidence it appeared, that the provost of Tralee was in the habit of taking particular sums of money for giving bail. For a capital felony he charged ten guineas; for a minor offence the charge was five. It appeared in evidence, also, that if the magistrate was convicted of such offences, he was not displaced; if prosecuted on a criminal indictment, the magistrate was not dispossessed. There were other abuses in these corporations. Between thirty and forty years ago, the Catholics were by law, permitted to belong to the corporation of Dublin, but in fact they were always kept out of it. He had, last year, presented a petition from an individual who had undoubtedly a right to enter this corporation, but who, being a Catholic, was rejected. Another person had obtained a mandamus, but he died. The Catholics were not permitted to be magistrates in any corporate towns in Ireland. They could neither be mayors, sheriffs, nor common-council-men. The petitioners wished to see the monopoly of the corporate bodies done away; but fearing that their lordships would not go along with them they prayed that their lordships would take some measures to rectify the abuses complained of. The petition was then read, and appeared to be from certain Catholics in Ireland.
The Earl of Limericksaid, that in the city of Limerick there was a Catholic gentleman a magistrate.
Lord Kingsaid, that by the new rules in all the large corporate towns no Catholic could be either a mayor, a sheriff, or common-council-man.
The Earl of Limericksaid, that the individual in question, a Mr. Roche, had been made a magistrate of Limerick by the government, under authority of a special
534
act of parliament passed for the purpose, of remedying the abuses of that corporation.
Lord Clifdensaid, that Catholics were excluded from the corporation of Dublin. He reminded their lordships that he had predicted that they could never put down the Catholic Association. That Association spoke the sentiments of one fifth of the population, having a common object; and they were no more to be put down, except by removing from the Statute-book the last remnant of those laws which were a disgrace to it, than the sun was to be stopped in its course. He reminded their lordships of what had passed in Ireland in 1782, and predicted, that if they went on, year after year, denying the Catholic claims, a time of difficulty would come, when those Catholics would extort from fear what was denied to justice.