Sitting of 4 March 1830

Preamble
MINUTES.—Mr. PHILIP PUSEY took the oaths, and his seat for the borough of Rye.
MR. M. A. TAYLOR brought in his bill to diminish, in certain cases, the inconvenience and expense of Writs de Lunatico Inquirendo.—It was read a first time.
On the Motion of MR. C. PALLMER, there was ordered to be laid before the House copies of any Correspondence between the Chairmen of any of the Water Companies in the Metropolis and the Secretary of State for the Home Department, respecting a sufficient supply of Water. Also of the Letters Patent for incorporating any Companies for the supply of Water in Christ church, Bermondsey and Southwark.
MR. O'CONNELL gave notice, that on Tuesday, the 4th of May, he would move for leave to bring in a bill to place investments of property for charitable purposes by Catholics on the same footing as similar investments by Protestant Dissenters:—That on the same day he would move for leave to bring in a bill to render valid, in this country', the marriages of Roman Catholics by their own priests; and also, for the repeal of certain penalties to which Catholic priests in Ireland were at present liable, for marrying a Protestant to a Roman Catholic—and, that on Thursday, the 6th of May, he would move for a Radical Reform in the Representation in the Commons House of Parliament.
On the Motion of ME. PROTHEROE, there was ordered to be laid before the House an account in detail of the money paid to the Commissioners of Public Records, and its application; also an account of the number of Works printed by them; also an account of the number of persons employed by the Commissioners, the nature of the employment or each, and the amount of salary.
An Account was presented of the Bank Annuities and Long
1256
Annuities, and of sums received and paid by the Commissioners on account of Savings Banks.—Accounts were ordered of the quantity of foreign meal, corn, and flour imported, and of the quantities imported from Ireland.

LEEDS AND SELBY RAILWAY.
Mr. Sadlerpresented a Petition from certain proprietors of lands in the neighbourhood of the line of the projected Railway between Leeds and Selby, against the bill now in progress; and on Mr. Marshall moving the second reading of the bill,
Mr. Sadleropposed the Motion, on the ground of the injury and inconvenience which the railway would occasion to the petitioners. The utility of railways in cases where water communications existed was as yet doubtful; but let it be established that they were of importance, and the petitioners were ready to sacrifice their private convenience to the public good, and abandon all opposition to the bill. The experiment as to the advantage of railways was in progress; when it should have been completed, it would be time enough to pass such a bill as the present.
Mr. Marshallspoke of the advantages that would result from the proposed railway, and added that the great majority of landed proprietors upon the line had assented to the measure.
Mr. F. Wilsonopposed the bill, as involving an attack upon the interest of the proprietors of the Aire and Calder navigation.
Mr. Sykessupported the bill. The intended railway would be of the greatest public benefit. He was not surprised at the opposition of the hon. Member for York, who received dividends to the amount of 10,000 l. a year out of the Aire and Calder navigation, though he was at the opposition of the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Sadler), who being interested in the town of Leeds, might be expected to support the bill.
Bill read a second time.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS.
Mr. Wardpresented Evidence taken before the Committee upon the Charter of the East-India Company, and moved that it be printed.
Mr. Humesaid, this was evidence which had occupied the Committee a fortnight, and that it formed a great mass. He rose for the purpose of suggesting that, as soon as each witness had been examined and cross-examined, his evidence should be printed. This mode would enable Gentle-

1257
men to follow the evidence, which they could not be expected to do if it were to be presented in such large masses, and if the Committee always waited till they could present a whole fortnight's evidence at once.
Mr. Stewartthought there could be no objection to so reasonable a proposal. Besides, it was of great importance that the evidence should go forth to the public, which it could not, unless it were given to the House in small quantities.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerknew that there had been some discussion on this point in the Committee, but thought it had been settled that the evidence should be presented every fortnight. At all events, this was a question for the Committee. He believed it was not the usual course of the House to interfere in a matter which had been left to the discretion of a Committee.
Lord Althorp, though not a member of the Committee, said, he thought that if the Committee itself did not object, it would be very convenient to the House that the evidence should be reported in small parcels, so that it might be more speedily in the hands of Members.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that as it could not be known to what length the examination of a witness might extend, it would be better to have the evidence reported at fixed periods.
Mr. Wardsaid, that he had not understood it to be the intention of the House that the Committee was to give the evidence in such very small parts. Neither had he expected that the hon. Member (Mr. Hume) would have called the attention of the House to this subject. He had understood it to have been the hon. Member's intention to confine himself to a remark upon the necessity of expediting the printing.
Mr. Spring Ricehad also understood that the reports of the Committee were to be at the end of six days of actual sitting, which would include a fortnight of time, as the Committee sat only on three days of the week. To report at shorter periods might be sending the evidence in a very unsatisfactory manner before the House. Sometimes it might be desirable to report at the end of four days, and sometimes not before the end of eight; but he thought it would be better to leave the matter, as it had been already left, to the discretion of the Committee.
Mr. Humedid not wish that the House should interfere. His wish was, that when the evidence of one witness was complete it should be presented to the House.
The Report was ordered to be printed.

IRELAND:—CASE OF FRANCIS M'BRIAN.
Mr. O'Connellwished to know from the noble Lord (F. L. Gower) opposite, whether he had any objection to the production of a Petition or Memorial forwarded to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, from a person named Francis M'Brian, a prisoner in Enniskillen gaol, complaining of the conduct of the Sub-sheriff of Fermanagh. He also wished to know from the noble Lord whether the proclamation issued last year by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, for putting down party processions, was issued by the advice of the law officers of the Crown in that country. His reason for asking for this information was, that one of the Irish Judges, in going a circuit soon after, was reported to have delivered a charge very contrary to the law as laid down in that proclamation, and that same learned Judge had recently selected for his circuit that one where there were most trials for infractions of the law, as laid down in the proclamation, to be tried, and where, in fact, the point at issue would be, whether the explanation of the law given in the proclamation, or by the Judge, was the correct one. He wished also to know, whether the Lord Lieutenant was aware of the opinions delivered by the learned Judge on the occasion alluded to, and whether he also knew of his having selected that particular circuit. The hon. and learned Gentleman then moved that the petition of M'Brian to the Lord Lieutenant be laid before the House.
Lord F. L. Gowerhad no objection to the production of the petition. As to the hon. and learned Member's questions, he would state, first, that the proclamation alluded to was certainly issued by the advice of the law-officers of the Crown. It was signed by the privy councillors, one of whom was the Attorney General. With respect to the second question, he would state that the Lord Lieutenant had no control over the Judge, and no official knowledge of the charge delivered by that learned person. All he could know of it was in that way which was open to any other individual. In the selection of circuits by the Judges the hon. and learned Member must be aware that the Lord

1259
Lieutenant did not interfere. There was nothing which would excite greater jealousy in and out of the House than such interference, and it was wisely abstained from.
The Motion was agreed to.

IRISH CLERGY.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he had to present to the House three Petitions from inhabitants of five parishes, composing the union of Foxford, in the county of Mayo. One of the petitions was from the Protestant inhabitants of those parishes, and he considered it a great honour to have it intrusted to his care. The hon. and learned Gentleman then detailed the substance of the petitions, which was to this effect;—that the rev. John O'Roorke was appointed vicar of the parishes in 1817, since which time he had never resided or possessed any place of residence, or performed any duty, in the union, except on a few Christmas and Easter festivals, but had resided at a town fifty miles distant, in another county and diocese, where he carried on business as a tithe-farmer and grazier; that he never contributed any thing beyond 40s. a-year to the parish; had no school there; and that the consequence was, that the children were dependent for instruction on a school established by Roman Catholics, and that many of them had lapsed from the Church of England, and embraced what they called, the errors of the Church of Rome; that the petitioners had been grievously harassed by the conduct of the said rev. John O'Roorke, whose demands for tithes had been every year increasing, while the manner of collecting those demands became every day more oppressive; that the vicar refused to take a composition of 500 1. a-year of the present currency for his half share of two out of five of the parishes, though none of his predecessors had received more than 300 l. a-year for the tithes of the whole union; that the vicar had demanded tithe on hay and wool, never before demanded in these parishes; that the parishioners suffered great hardships by the prosecution of those claims by the vicar, many of them being obliged to attend, pursuant to summonses issued, at the Episcopal Court, at Skreen, a village thirty-five miles distant from the centre of the union: and that in the last three years, 2,521 suits for tithes had been instituted by the said vicar. The petitioners prayed the House to take these matters into consideration, and. to afford them relief.

ROMAN CATHOLICS or GALWAY.
Mr. Spring Ricepresented a Petition from the inhabitants of Galway, the only town in the United Kingdom where, since the act of last Session, any civil disabilities on account of religious opinions existed. The nature of the petition he would state in a very few words. By an Act passed in the reign of George 1st, any Protestant merchant resident for a certain time in Galway might claim his freedom of the town as a matter of right. The object of that Act was, in the spirit of that day, to support what was called the Protestant interest. The principle of the Catholic Relief bill, passed last Session, rendered it expedient that any statute creating civil disabilities on account of religious differences of opinion between Christians, should be expunged from the Statute-book; and in the spirit of that Act he thought the Catholic merchants and traders of Galway should be placed on an equal footing with their Protestant fellow-townsmen. Galway was an improving town, the Roman Catholic inhabitants of which had, as the petitioners very properly stated in their petition, ever been distinguished by their loyalty; and now that religious disqualifications were abolished all over the kingdom except that town, he thought they should be got rid of there also. He would not go further on the subject at that moment, but would give notice, that on Wednesday next he would move for leave to bring in a bill to remove the disqualification, by placing Catholics and Protestants on an equal footing.
Petition brought up and read.
Mr. Protheroesupported the prayer of the petition, and said, that from an assenting smile of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Peel) at some of the remarks of his hon. friend, he had reason to hope that the bill for which the hon. Member intended to move would receive the support of Government.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, the hon. Gentleman had interpreted his smile rightly. He thought that, consistently with the principle of the measure on which Parliament had acted in the bill of last Session, Roman Catholics ought not to be allowed to remain under disqualifications on account of religious opinions. So far he admitted the principle of the hon. Member's measure. On the manner in which that principle might be carried into effect, he would now offer no opinion, but, without

1261
pledging himself further than the principle he had stated, would wait till he saw the bill.
Lord F. L. Gowersaid, that he also would abstain from any pledge on the subject. He fully admitted the principle stated by his right hon. friend, and was prepared to act on it. If the measure were to be introduced as a private bill, he could not give it his support; though, as a public measure, the principle which the hon. Member for Limerick had stated had his sanction.
Sir R. Inglissaid, that the question was not so much one of a public principle, as of the rights of a corporate body, He did not think the House could interfere without violating the charter of the town of Galway.
Mr. Peelsaid, the right which the Protestant might claim of being admitted a freeman, was not one depending on the corporation; the Protestant could insist on it, as one conferred on him by act of Parliament. Now, in the spirit of the bill of last Session, Protestant and Catholic ought to be put on an equal footing in this respect. This might be done either by giving the right to the Catholic, or by depriving the Protestant of it; but the application of the general principle did not at all affect corporate rights.
Mr. C. Wynnhoped, that an equalization of the rights of the two classes would not be effected by depriving the Protestant of any right he already possessed; but rather, by conferring a similar one on the Catholic. If the corporation had no power to refuse the Protestant, it was not a corporate right, but one created by Parliament, with respect to which both parties should now be equal.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he would not enter into the question then, farther than to re-state his opinion, that on the matter in question, Catholics and Protestants should be placed on equal footing, according to the principle of last year's bill.
Mr. O'Connellconcurred with the right hon. Gentleman that that bill made Catholics and Protestants equal in all parts of the kingdom except Galway; and that, to follow up that principle, they should be put on equal footing there also.
Mr. Spring Riceasserted that no unjust interference with corporate regulations was contemplated or required. The policy which originated the grievance alluded to was henceforward to be considered obso-
1262
lete, and, therefore, all partial traces of its existence ought immediately to be removed.
Mr. Dalycontended, that the innovation proposed would in effect abrogate the rights of the corporation altogether.
Sir C. Wetherellobserved, that it did not follow as a necessary consequence of the late Relief bill, that they should infringe upon local privileges, and interfere with long-established customs and regulations of a partial operation.
Mr. Northvouched for Galway being a very Catholic place, where the great mass of the population had always been of that persuasion. By the law of the corporation, any Protestant tradesman who resided amongst them for the space of seven years, might claim his freedom; and this was held forth by way of inducement to others of the same church to come and settle with their families in the town. Those days, however, had now gone by, and a more liberal policy had been introduced, in accordance with which he maintained that the members of both churches should be placed on a perfect equality. There was in fact no longer any reason for continuing the law. The House, by making both parties equal, would only withdraw from the present Protestant generation an unfair privilege, which ought never to have been granted. The principle on which it was originally established was now no longer recognized as part or parcel of the Constitution, and consistency demanded that the legislature should in this instance, as in every other, raise their Catholic fellow subjects to a level with themselves.
Mr. Lambertbore testimony to the respectability of the meeting which was convened for the purpose of getting-up this petition. There was no desire whatever on the part of the petitioners to put down the Protestants, or attack their legitimate interests. They merely sought to remove an invidious regulation, which only produced mutual jealousies, and kept alive the recollections of caste, and prevented the animosities of party from subsiding, as in due course they must necessarily otherwise have done. There was no peace at elections, in consequence of this unpopular enactment, as the native respectable inhabitants were naturally disgusted at the number of non-residents and strangers who were, on such occasions, brought up to vote. So odious was this system to the people in general, that he had actually seen the

1263
steward of the hon. Member opposite, conducted to the hustings under the protecting escort of a file of soldiers. By the last census it was ascertained that the number of inhabitants amounted to 40,000, of which only 1,000 were admitted to the freedom of the corporation.
Mr. O'Harasaid, he should be always ready to vote for any measure which would contribute to promote union in society.
Petition ordered to be printed.

DUTY ON PRINTS AND MAPS.
Mr. Bernalrequested that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would give him some information explanatory of the increased duty which had lately been charged at some of our out-ports on prints and maps which were intended to be illustrative of literary works. He had reminded the right hon. Gentleman of the circumstance yesterday, and now again begged to call his attention to the subject.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that it was probable a difference of opinion might arise between the parties interested and the Custom-house officers as to what were legitimately chargeable and what were not so. The Revenue regulation was simply this;—all maps and prints which merely illustrated works of literature were certainly exempt from the duty referred to, as they passed with the book, being included in the 51. per cwt. But when the letter-press was only an explanation of the prints which it accompanied, they were in that case liable to be charged separate duty.
Mr. Bernalstated, that he had been informed the Custom-house officers observed neither the spirit nor letter of such a regulation; as they lately made it a practice to charge a separate duty on maps and prints, which, according to the fair interpretation of the rule in question, would be exempted, being a necessary component part of the works to which they were attached. The hon. Member mentioned a case of the maps belonging to a geographical work having been charged with the separate duty, and other cases, in which the prints were charged 6d. each respectively, in addition to the regular duty on the works illustrated. This system, he apprehended, must originate in some mistake on the part of the officers themselves as to the meaning of the regulation which it was their duty to enforce, It
1264
would be desirable, therefore, that it should be more fully explained by an official communication, to be transmitted to the outports, and also promulgated at the Customhouse itself.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he should be happy to be informed more precisely of the particular cases to which the hon. Gentleman had adverted.

LAW REFORM.
Mr. Peelmoved, that an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, requesting that he would be pleased to order that there be laid before the House a copy of the second Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the present Administration of Justice in the superior Courts of Law.
Mr. Broughamstated his intention to postpone the Motion on this subject, of which he had already given notice, as it would be desirable that he should have an opportunity of referring to the report of the commissioners, although it was necessarily but limited and partial in its details. Members, of course, would have access to it when printed, and they would in consequence, be better informed after having read upon the subject than they were now. It was therefore his wish to renew his notice for Thursday, the 29th of April, which would be the first open day after the Easter recess.

REFORM IN THE COLONIAL JUDICATURE.
Mr. Brougham, on presenting a Petition from certain inhabitants of Yorkshire, praying for the Abolition of Slavery in the West Indies, inquired of the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies, whether it was the intention of Government to postpone for this Session the introduction of any measure for the purpose of effecting a Reform in the Colonial Judicature.
Sir G. Murraystated, in reply, that the expenses attendant on such a proceeding would be very great; but he could not at present ascertain the exact amount. Certain difficulties existed, nor could they be immediately removed; but he would endeavour to facilitate the introduction of Reform, and some measure for that purpose would be mooted even before the expiration of this Session, if circumstances permitted the Government so far to consult its inclinations.

MILITARY PUNISHMENTS.
Sir F. Burdettdesired to ask the right hon.

1265
Secretary at War whether he would have any objection to cause a return to be made of the number of corporal punishments inflicted in each regiment of the line respectively, during the past year.
Sir H. Hardingesaid, he certainly should object to a return of such a description as to specify the relative punishments of regiments, well knowing that it would be considered in the army as a proceeding of a very invidious character. Some regiments might appear to be stigmatised and unfavourably reported,—not on account of peculiar misconduct, but merely because they were placed under circumstances of greater temptation than their brother soldiers had been. He would readily supply the hon. Baronet with information personally, if he required any, but he could not consent to a statement of comparative punishments being laid before the House.
Sir F. Burdettinquired whether in former times such regimental returns had not been made?
Sir H. Hardingeadded, that no such returns had ever been made. At the same time he should have no objection to state to the hon. Baronet the number of punishments in each regiment, although he could not consent that it should be made the subject of a formal return.

CHURCH OF IRELAND.
Sir John Newportbrought forward his Motion on the state of the Established Church of Ireland, and commenced by claiming the indulgence of the House, necessary to him at all times, but more particularly at his advanced period of life. He was quite sensible that he was about to introduce a subject demanding much greater abilities than any he had ever possessed, but he hoped that his deficiencies would be amply supplied by the exertions of other Members. It was his most anxious desire that the revenues of the Church of Ireland should be apportioned to the duty discharged; that the emoluments should depend, in some degree, upon meritorious service; whereas he had good reason to know, that at present the payment was most disproportionate to the employment. Those who laboured in the vineyard most industriously ought to be paid most liberally; but the abuses that had crept into the Established Church of Ireland from an early period, had defeated any such just and reasonable arrangement, Pluralities and, unions
1266
of livings had been introduced, to the great injury of those who were the most deserving. Before he stated the precise nature of his Motion, he wished very shortly to call the attention of the House to the progress of the establishment at different periods, prefacing what he had to say upon this subject by the remark, that he had no wish to impair, but to support that establishment. The best friend of the Established Church of Ireland was he who, seeing abuses, exposed and denounced them; and not he who, knowing of their existence, endeavoured to uphold them. Lord Bacon, among the wise aphorisms by which he was distinguished, put a very pointed question upon this subject; he asked, "Why should the civil state be purged and restored by wholesome laws passed every three or four years in Parliament, devising remedies as time breeds mischiefs; and contrariwise, that the ecclesiastical state should continue in the dregs of time and receive no alteration?" It was most true, as was advanced by the same authority, that time was the greatest of all innovators, and remedies ought to keep pace with the growth of abuses. The commencement of the Reformation in Ireland presented one of the most extraordinary instances of legislation in the history of legislative absurdities. The Act of Uniformity, passed in the reign of Elizabeth, was verbatim extended to Ireland, with the addition of the following remarkable clause, providing, that as in some parts of Ireland neither the priests nor the people understood English, the matins and the rest of the service should be performed in Latin, of which both priest and people were equally ignorant. "And forasmuch as in most places of this realm, there cannot be found English ministers to serve in the church, or places appointed for common prayer, or to minister the sacraments to the people; and that if some good means were provided, that they might use the prayer service, and the administration of sacraments, set out and established by this Act, in such language as they might best understand, the due honour of God would be thereby much advanced; and for that also that the same may not be in their native language, as well for difficulty to get it printed, as that few in the whole realm can read the Irish letters, we pray that it may be enacted, that in every church or place where the common minister or priest hath not the use or knowledge of the Eng-

1267
lish tongue, it shall be lawful for the same common minister or priest to say and use the matins, evening service, and celebration of the Lord's supper, and administration of each of the sacraments, and all their common and open prayers in the Latin tongue, in such order and form as may be mentioned and set forth in the said book established by this Act." Nor would it be fair to impute this blunder to Ireland: she had enough of her own to answer for, without the addition of those of Elizabeth, Lord Burleigh, and the rest of the Privy Council. Coming down to the reign of James 1st, he would refer the House to the statement made by Sir John Davies to the Earl of Salisbury, on the ecclesiastical state of Monaghan, Fermanagh, and Cavan, which was this: "We did not, he says, omit to notice the number and value of parsonages and vicarages, repairs of churches, and qualities of incumbents. The greater number of parsonages were appropriated to two great abbeys, Fore and Kells, fourteen to the former, and eight to the latter. The vicarages were so poorly endowed, as that ten united were scarcely sufficient for an honest minister. The churches were mostly in ruin, those said to be in repair, covered with thatch. But the incumbents, both parsons and vicars, were such poor, ragged, ignorant creatures, as to be scarcely worthy of the meanest of these livings, albeit many not worth 40 s. annually. This county doth he within the diocese of Kilmore, whose bishop was, and is, parson of Trim, in Meath, the best in all the kingdom. He doth live now in these parts, where he hath two bishopricks, but there is no divine sermon or service to be heard in either diocese. His Lordship might have saved us (the Lord Deputy Chichester and others appointed with Sir J. Davies to carry into effect this visitation of the district) this labour of inquiry, touching matters ecclesiastical, if he had been as careful to see the churches repaired, and supplied with good incumbents, as he is diligent in visiting his barbarous clergy, to make benefit out of their insufficiency, according to the proverb which is common in the mouths of our great bishops here, that an Irish priest is better than a milch cow." In the diocese of Kilmore, at the present day, one living had a glebe of 1,300 acres; yet the incumbent was non-resident, and lived in another diocese, where he had another glebe of 400 acres, The 12th
1268
George 1st was passed to remedy the evils of non-residence, but had failed to effect its object. The same act deprived Roman Catholics of the right of voting in vestries, because they obstructed votes for the repairs of Protestant churches; and as from that time Protestants had the sole management of the affair, if the churches fell into decay, they had only themselves to blame. Nevertheless, since the Union, large sums had been borrowed, to be repaid by all the inhabitants of the parishes, for the repair of those churches; and the Roman Catholics might naturally think it hard, that having been excluded from all share in vestry proceedings, they were required to pay because the Protestants had neglected their duty. They were shut out from all connexion, directly or indirectly, with Protestant congregation, and Protestant churches, which they were obliged, notwithstanding, to rebuild when decayed. By the twenty-first George 2nd, the Privy Council were empowered to unite and disunite parishes at pleasure. In 1819, a document had been laid upon the Table, showing the progress made in uniting and disuniting parishes in Ireland under that Act, and hence it appeared, that in the sixty-two years after it was passed, thirty-seven parishes had been united, and as many disunited. At that time the country was very much in pasture; but from about 1780 to 1800, the tillage of Ireland was much increased, and of course the necessity for uniting parishes was so far diminished; yet, in that period, twenty-five parishes had been united, and only seven disunited; so that the operation proceeded in an inverse ratio to what it ought to have been. In the eighteen years down to 1818, the same result was more strongly exemplified, for thirty-four parishes were united, and only four disunited. Notwithstanding the expense to which the country was put for the maintenance of the Established Church, notwithstanding the large revenues the bishop derived from lands belonging to the see, many of the cathedrals were out of repair; and of many that were not dilapidated it might be truly said, that they were not made use of for the purposes for which they were intended; there were in many instances no services performed in them. It had been long a source of regret to the well-wishers of the Reformation, that the principles of Protestantism had made such slow progress in Ireland: he feared the cause would be found to

1269
exist in this state of the Established Church of that country. Though there was no cathedral service, a rate was regularly levied on the Catholic population, not only for that service, but for the repairing and rebuilding those very cathedrals, which, he might add, to all intents and purposes, were useless as Protestant churches. It was not to be wondered at, when the state of the Protestant church in Ireland since the days of Elizabeth was considered, that the progress of the reformed doctrines should be slow; but perhaps the House were not aware of the extreme degree of that slowness. From a paper which bishop Pococke left behind him, it appeared that in his diocese of Ossory, in the year 1731, the number of Protestant families amounted to 1,180; and from the survey of Mr. Tighe, it appeared that in the year 1800, the number was reduced to 711. In the former year the aggregate population was 41,200, in the latter year 83,000. Among the matters to which he wished to call the attention of the House, as requiring amendment in the Established Church in Ireland, there was none in which he thought more abuses prevailed than in the system of parochial unions. Hon. Members would not readily credit the extent of the mischievous effects of these unions. He knew of one parish, containing 20,000 acres, in which there were 549 acres of glebe land, and yet no resident clergyman, the parish being united to five others, one of which contained but three acres of glebe. The attention of the legislature should be earnestly directed to the state of the Bishops' Lands, of which there were upwards of 600,000 acres in Ireland, an amount equal to the productive surface of the counties of Meath, Westmeath, and Dublin. This was the more necessary, when the grievance to the Catholic population, of paying taxes for a church and clergy whom they did not want, and who in some places had no flock whatever, was taken into consideration. He knew of one parish, which was united to another eleven miles distant, in which the Catholics were assessed 1s. 1d. per acre for the repairing, &c. of a church to which there did not belong, within his recollection, or that of the oldest resident, one Protestant inhabitant; except for two years, during which a Protestant gentleman had a shooting lodge in the neighbourhood. The injustice was so apparent, that the parishioners of the one parish
1270
came to a resolution that the others should pay only two-thirds of the rates heretofore imposed on them; and a noble Lord, the Member for Kilkenny, and he (Sir John Newport), took upon themselves to see that arrangement carried into effect; but they found they could not do it under the present Act. The inhabitants of the parish in which the church was not situated were obliged to pay as before. But he did himself and the noble Lord injustice—as they had undertaken to see that the thing should be done, they would not allow the poor people to suffer any disappointment; they paid the money themselves. The grievance of which he complained was one which called for an immediate remedy, for it operated one of the most flagrant pieces of injustice that could well be imagined—an injustice not surpassed in any country but in Ireland. Complaints had been made in various places of the unnecessary splendor of the new churches in Ireland—unsuited as they were to the circumstances of the people, and the character of the surrounding buildings. In answer to that complaint, he heard it said, that no more was ever granted by the Board of First Fruits for re-building than 1,400 l., that was the highest sum. This he should not have mentioned, had it not been gene-rally stated, and currently believed throughout Ireland. He made it his business to inquire into the matter at the proper office in Dublin, and there he learned, that so far from 1,400 l. being the maximum, there were instances as high as 3,700 l. and even 4,000 l. having been granted for rebuilding, and in one case the sum of 10,000 l. Since the Legislative Union between this country and Ireland, a sum of 250,000 l. was expended in the rebuilding of churches, the whole of which expense devolved upon the people—a people, not only not interested in the repair, but a people no way concerned in permitting the dilapidation which made that rebuilding necessary. These churches too had ample means in their own funds to keep them in perfect repair. One object of his Motion was the remedying the evils of the present system, by making the cathedral or the church to be repaired bear the expense itself,—that is, to devote a portion of its income to that purpose. He had a precedent in the reign of his late Majesty, when Litchfield cathedral was about to be repaired: to that effect the salary of two of the prebends was applied, the office, so

1271
to speak, being suspended till the repairs had been completed. He wished to extend the principle to the repairs of Irish churches and cathedrals. The subject to which he would next advert, was the condition of the unbeneficed curates; that condition was most forcibly exemplified in the case of a poor gentleman, from whom he had received a letter, some portions of which, with the permission of the House, he would read. The hon. Baronet then read extracts which, in substance, were as follows:—The writer stated that he was ordained on the 2nd of June, 1773—that he entered upon his duties at a salary of 40 l. a year, that he had officiated at that rate during a period of thirty-six years, always, of course, residing with his parish, that for the first few years he lived in an old glebe house, which soon becoming uninhabitable, he was obliged to provide a residence for himself, and had ever since been paying rent for one. On the benefice where he did duty becoming vacant, he applied to be appointed to it, but a young gentleman was sent to fill the vacancy who had not been born till after the writer entered the church. The living again became vacant, and another young gentleman was appointed. For a period of fifty-five years he had done the duties of a curate for non-resident incumbents. That his salary was at first 40 l. then 50 l. then 60 l. and at length, under the Act of Parliament, it was raised to 75 1. Irish currency, equal to 69 l. 4s. sterling. During those fifty-five years he had been under the government of six several bishops, to each of whom he applied—they admitted his claims, but gave him no preferment. He was at the time of writing the letter seventy-nine years of age—was likely soon to be incapable of performing the duties of a curate, and as there was no fund for superannuated curates, he was in the utmost danger of being reduced to want. On this letter the hon. Baronet said, he had to observe, that it presented one of the strongest cases that could easily be supposed capable of occurring. He had made inquiries into the character of the writer, and found that that character was perfectly unimpeached, none need be more respectable; yet six successive bishops passed him by, and promoted those who were junior to him, and who had, to say the least, no better claims than his. It was rather remarkable that one of these six bishops happened to be the
1272
present bishop of Ferns; the transaction of which he spoke took place in the see of Limerick. Now it was pretty well known that the bishop of Ferns could see no abuse in the present state of the Irish Church; yet that bishop went out of the see of Limerick, leaving this poor curate exactly as he found him, though his claims were stated to, and admitted by, that prelate. It is generally supposed that the curates receive a salary of 75 l.; that has been reduced to 69 l. 4s., though the incumbents do not receive their incomes in the depreciated currency. But that was not the only deduction from their salaries; the law declared what their salaries should be, but it specified no deductions; nevertheless deductions were made. He next called the attention of the House to a letter from Cork, from which it appeared that in that city there were but three curates possessing salaries of 75 1. From this subject he again returned to the case of the curate whose letter he first read, and dwelt upon the injustice of leaving a man of his excellent character so long as thirty, forty, and even fifty years in the subordinate and distressing situation of a curate, at the same time putting boys, just ordained, over his head. He then mentioned the case of another curate, who had been, a curate eight-and-twenty years, and doing the duty of three parishes; for one of these he received 18 l. 9s. 2d., for another 9l. 4s. 7d., for the third 9l. 5s. 3d., making his total income 36 l. 18 s.—that was an income upon which he could not live, did he not possess some private property. Could there then be a stronger case calling for a modification of the laws relating to the salaries of curates? The situation of the unhappy curate was just this—the rector might refuse to pay him anything but what he pleased; and in any manner he pleased; and the unfortunate curate was without remedy, for did he venture to complain the incumbent immediately would reply—"Do as you please; go about your business; I can do the duty of the parish myself, or I can find others who will." One object of his Motion would be to remedy this grievance, and to prevent men of character, who had spent the most valuable years of their lives in active duty, from continuing forty or fifty years as unbeneficed curates, merely because other clergymen—boys very often—happened to possess more family influence through which they were

1273
put over their heads. He also would endeavour that curates should be paid the salary stipulated for them by the legislature. At present they were frequently not paid half, though they discharged not only their duty, but that for which some non-resident Incumbent drew a large income. He would now come to the subject of Pluralities. He understood it to be the fact that the primate had no power of refusing faculties for holding pluralities, provided the livings are within thirty miles of each other. Some time since he introduced a bill for remedying that defect in the state of the law, and he was induced to withdraw it, on the assurance that the primate was doing all in his power to remove the inconvenience, and the injustice, against which the bill was directed. Those exertions, however, were not attended with success; and, therefore, some new measure on the subject became absolutely necessary—something of the sort must be done; there was no postponing it any longer, the time for legislating upon the subject of the union of Irish livings had arrived; and an attempt to protract the period must be attended with the worst effects. The right hon. Baronet concluded by moving an address to his Majesty, for
"The appointment of a Commission, selected from the Privy Council of Ireland, instructed with as little delay as may be practicable, to proceed in a systematic examination of the several diocesses of Ireland, as to the state of the unions of parishes contained therein, the authority under which such unions have been effected, the value of the several parishes so united, their contiguity or remoteness from each other, and from the several churches contained therein, and the fitness or impropriety of their continuing so united whenever the benefices in which they are comprised shall become vacant by death or otherwise; and to report, from time to time, their proceedings in such examination to his Majesty.
"That his Majesty may be pleased to direct that strict inquiry be made by the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland from the beneficed clergy of Ireland, assembled at their visitations and otherwise annually, as to their exact payment of their several curates of the full sum of money stipulated by the Act of Parliament to be paid to them for performance
1274
of the duties devolving on such curates, in British currency, without any other deduction there from than such as is expressly stipulated by the said Act.
"That his Majesty may be pleased to direct that there be laid before this House such information, respecting the legal powers under which the granting or with holding faculties for possessing pluralities of benefices are now exercised, as may enable the House to judge of the expediency of proposing any modification of such powers, or of removing any obstruction which may now legally exist to controlling the same, and restricting them so as to be most beneficial to the real interests of the Church Establishment, and of the people committed to their care.
"That we particularly recommend to the consideration of his Majesty, the propriety of suspending the appointment by the Crown to any dignity or benefice within the gift thereof, as vacancies may hereafter occur, until inquiry shall have been made into the state and condition of the cathedral or other church connected with such dignity or benefice, and, where it is found necessary to rebuild or repair the same, of appropriating to such rebuilding or repair the revenues arising from such dignity or benefice, after deducting there from the necessary provision for the celebration of divine worship, and the temporary discharge of the duties connected with such dignity or benefice during such suspension of permanent appointment, as was some years since effected in the case of Litchfield cathedral."
Mr. Spring Riceseconded the Motion.
Sir Robert H. Inglisobserved, that he had heard, since he had had the honour of a seat in Parliament, the right hon. baronet make, every year, the very same complaint of the Church of Ireland with which he had just favoured the House. But the right hon. Baronet should recollect, that the Reformation in Ireland was not universal; that therefore it was not to be expected that the whole state and Government of the Church should there stand upon as satisfactory a footing as in England. Upon former occasions the right hon. Baronet had explained to the House the grounds of his belief that the principles of the Reformation were not advancing, pari passu, with the population of Ireland

1275
but had, on these occasions, made the withholding of the Catholic Relief bill the cause of this declension. He thought, therefore, that the right hon. Baronet's Motion ought to wait for the progress of that improvement which the right hon. Baronet contended would be the result in Ireland. Or rather, he should say, not wait for that improvement; but be relinquished altogether; for its rapid progress might render any such motion unnecessary. He would not go back to inquire into the state of the Protestant church in Ireland in the time of Elizabeth, or of Primate Boulter, or Bishop Stone; but he would ask what was likely to be its condition under its present prelacy, and what was likely to be its probable success, as far as might be predicted from that condition. He could show that since the time mentioned by the right hon. Baronet there had been a large increase of the number of residents, in fact to an extent equal to the whole number of beneficed clergymen in the year 1796. Indeed, he believed that it was unnecessary to give the clergy of Ireland the assistance of the legislature to promote the residence of their body, as the tendency of all their acts was, to ensure so desirable an object. The number of resident clergymen had greatly increased within the last twenty years. The increase amounted to 697, which was nearly equal to the whole number of resident clergy in Ireland in the reign of George 1st. When such were the operations of the Church, when left to itself, he thought that any legislative Act of that House would only retard the reform which was already in progress. That there were insulated places where curates were pining in obscurity and poverty he admitted; but he did not think that they formed a sufficient ground for interference. There was already an Act in existence for the diminution of this evil, and it was in the power of the bishops and the curates themselves to obtain a fair hearing of their case. In the diocese of Armagh the number of residents in 1828 was equal to the whole number of residents in all Ireland in the year 1792. As to glebe-houses, he could say that, in the single diocese of Armagh, at present the number erected exceeded by 200 that in all Ireland in the year 1800. In his opinion, the facts stated by the right hon. Baronet were not sufficient to evince that the Church of Ireland was too largely endowed; and it
1276
was to be remembered that there were 1,480 glebes in the hands of laymen; so that if he could concur in any part of the right hon. Baronet's Motion, it would be for the purpose of ascertaining what portion of the property of the Church was in the hands of impropriators, being laymen; and he believed that it would turn out that the Church was in possession of a very small proportion indeed of Church property. If the right hon. Baronet had contented himself with moving such an address as that which he had moved on the 22nd of April, 1819, in which "the Prince Regent was requested to direct an inquiry, by communication, into the state of the Church of Ireland, by a communication with the Archbishops and Bishops of that part of the United Kingdom, similar to the inquiry instituted in June, 1806," he (Sir R. Inglis) would not have objected; though he still should have been of opinion that the better course would have been to have left the matter quiet. As it was, however, he felt bound to move the previous question. The right hon. Baronet had said, that the Reformation never fully took effect in Ireland, and certainly it was a long time before it was fully embraced and at work there. This being the case, he would ask whether the actual state of the Church of Ireland was not much better now than could have reasonably been expected, under the discouraging circumstances with which it had met? With such discouragement on the part of the Crown, from the period of the Revolution to that of the Union, he would ask whether there had not been more done, or whether there was not more doing by that Church, than could fairly have been anticipated? He put it to the right hon. Baronet's candour, whether this was not the case? and he therefore requested him not to retard what was already doing, by an attempt at any legislative measure.
Lord F. L. Gowersaid, he was not able to assent to the proposition either of the right hon. Baronet, or of the hon. Member for Oxford. When the right hon. Baronet had quoted a passage from lord Bacon, in which he adverted to the operations of time, and stated that those operations which had effect on all things, were totally nugatory and inefficient with respect to ecclesiastical establishments—if the right hon. Baronet extended that doctrine to the Church of Ireland he must

1277
totally deny his conclusion. If he were disposed to agree in a considerable portion of the right hon. Baronet's Motion, it was because he thought that an inquiry would tend to show that the operation of time and events had been most salutary on that Church, and that the removal of those abuses, which it could not be denied had existed, was chiefly owing to that circumstance. It was his belief, that innovation had been more powerful with respect to the Church of Ireland than most others. The right hon. Baronet, in the course of his observations, had gone back somewhat further than was perhaps necessary; but there were one or two observations on which it might be as well to say a few words. He should say that the intention of Queen Elizabeth, in establishing the performance of service in the Latin language, was a proof that she was desirous of acting with more regard for the feelings and prejudices of the people of that country than her father, Henry the 8th. If he remembered rightly, one of the attacks which that king made on the prejudices of the Irish, was to compel them to tell their beads in the English tongue: it struck him that the sagacity of the daughter made her discover that an experiment of that nature would meet with a signal failure. The right hon. Baronet had said, that there had been a great increase of unions since the Revolution. He could not profess the great knowledge of the right hon. Baronet on this point; but as he looked at it, such a circumstance might have arisen without attaching any odium to the bishop. He believed that it had sometimes happened that unions of nine parishes had been dissolved into unions of three; and if that were the case, the account would stand—one dissolution against three unions; in which event, what the hon. Baronet was standing up for was substantially effected. With regard to the operations of the Privy Council, since power had been given to it over the hierarchy of Ireland, with respect to the unions, he did not know to what the right hon. Baronet had adverted when he expressed his disapprobation of them. Since he had had the honour of holding office, he did not remember any cases brought before that body; but he could take upon himself to say that the feeling of that body was in favour of dissolution, whenever it could be effected without prejudice to the interests of the
1278
country; and in saying this, he begged to state that he spoke from his own actual knowledge of the feelings of that body. Melancholy as the facts were which the right hon. Baronet had stated with regard to the curates of Ireland, he must say that he knew of no profession (not even excepting that of the law) in which the merit of particular individuals would so long linger on in obscurity. It was, perhaps, hardly consistent with that laudable tone in which the general tenour of the right hon. Baronet's speech had been conceived, to single out an individual, who, though he had been mixed up in the polemical matters of the Church; was in his powers of mind, of such a calibre as to need no compliment from him. It was, he repeated, hardly fair to single out this individual for reproof or sarcasm, because it happened that there were curates in his diocese who were living in poverty and neglect. He could take upon himself to state that there was every disposition in the bench of Ireland to bring forward and remunerate the curates of that country. For the reasons which he had stated, he should, in the Amendment which he was about to propose, agree with every part of the right hon. Baronet's Motion, which would tend to enlighten the House by information, and enable them to judge more accurately of the real state of the Church of Ireland. He was convinced that it would be wrong to attempt to wrap the situation of that Church in mystery, and he was confident that he spoke the sentiments of the heads of that Church, when he said they were ready to afford the fullest information on every particular connected with it. That information might show that there were difficulties, but the more it was extended the more it would add to the satisfaction of those who were already its well-wishers; and the more it would alter the opinions of those who had fallen into the idle and dangerous habit of indulging in contumely and a censorious disposition towards that Church. There was one paragraph in the right hon. Baronet's Motion to which he must offer his opposition. The right hon. Baronet proposed that the House should recommend to the consideration of his Majesty the propriety of suspending the appointments by the Crown to any dignities or benefices which hereafter may be vacant, and in the gift thereof. In proposing this, the right hon. Baronet had

1279
certainly proposed what was within the power of the Crown to do; but when he went on to propose, that in the event of its being necessary to build or repair any of the churches, his Majesty should be pleased to appoint the revenues arising from such dignities or benefices, after deducting what may be necessary for the celebration of divine service and the discharge of the customary duties, it was not within the Crown to make this arrangement—for he apprehended, that although, when benefices became vacant, they might remain so, it was obligatory on the bishop to sequester the revenue for the use of the next incumbent. He therefore had a distinct legal objection to this portion of the proposed Resolutions; besides which, he thought it improper to mix up with a Motion for information, anything so like a radical change of the present state of the law. The noble Lord then concluded, by stating that he should move the following Address as an Amendment: "That his Majesty may be pleased to appoint a Commission, to proceed with as little delay as may be practicable, to inquire into the state of the several parochial benefices in the respective dioceses of Ireland, with a view to ascertain how far the same consist of separate or united parishes, and to report, in the case of unions, the authority under which such unions have been effected, and the date thereof: the annual value of the several parishes so united; the contiguity of such parishes to each other, and of the churches or chapels within the same, and the possibility or fitness of dissolving such unions at any future period. That the said Commission be further directed, to examine and report how far the salaries required by law have in each case been paid to the several curates, residing within the said parishes or unions. That his Majesty would be graciously pleased to direct that there be laid before this House, an account of the number of faculties or dispensations which have been in each of the last ten years, granted in Ireland, for the purpose of enabling ecclesiastical persons to hold more than one benefice, and of the rules and regulations under which such faculties are now granted.
Mr. G. Mooresaid, he should support the hon. Member for Oxford's Amendment in preference to the Amendment of the noble Lord. He was sure that the Church of Ireland could have no objection to afford the fullest information, which
1280
could only tend to advance its character still higher than it was at present. The right hon. Baronet, in making his Motion, had travelled back to a very distant period; and he must, in a great measure, agree in the picture which he had drawn; but he would ask whether that very picture did not show how much had been done by that Church of late to vindicate its character and elevate its condition—affording a most flattering contrast between the ministers of those days and of ours? He did not appear there as the advocate of the Church of Ireland, but as a witness in its favour; and he could give his testimony from his own observations and from public documents, sure of being supported by every Irishman who had watched the conduct of that Church, and its progress towards the amelioration which had taken place. The right hon. Baronet had stated, that in one district there had been an alarming decrease of Protestantism; and on that ground had insinuated, that the same circumstances extended to the whole of Ireland. The right hon. Baronet would find, that by the last census, which was taken—he believed in 1824—there had been of late an approximation between the number of Protestants and the number of Catholics, and that now the latter did not exceed the former in so great a proportion as they did some years back. There were, he believed, now 2,000,000 Protestants to 5,000,000 Catholics. It was stated that the Irish Church did not reform abuses; but in that Church, and particularly in the hierarchy, there was a great disposition to reform abuses. During the last twenty years, not less than 132 beneficed clergymen had been added to the establishment, by the dissolution of unions. During the same twenty years also, there had been a great number of pluralities done away; so that the 600 beneficed clergymen, of which the establishment formerly consisted, were now converted into 1,200. Something had been said by the right hon. Baronet of the bishop of Ferns, when bishop of Limerick, not having promoted a deserving curate. Of that particular case he knew nothing; but he knew that the bishop of Ferns, since he had been in possession of his present see, had shown a great disposition to promote deserving curates. He had promoted 15, from livings of 150 l. to livings of 500 l. a-year, though he had no other acquaintance with them than that which

1281
he had formed by becoming acquainted with their services. It was his intention to support the motion of the Member for Oxford, and get rid, if he could, of the motion of the right hon. Baronet. If his noble friend would afterwards make a motion for an address to the Crown, to bring down to the House a full account of what had been done to improve the Church of Ireland up to the present time, he should not have the least objection to it, as he should be well pleased that the House and the public should be put in possession of all the circumstances connected with the Irish Establishment; and he was sure, that if such information were made public, many false impressions would be removed.
Mr. Humewas glad to hear these sentiments from the hon. Member; and should found on them a claim to his support, when he should make a motion for a Committee to Inquire into the State of the Irish Church. He thought with the hon. Member, that by inquiry many erroneous impressions would be done away, and the House and the public would be fully informed of the state of that Church. He agreed, therefore, with the hon. Member; and, before the Session was closed, should ask him for his vote. At the same time, the hon. Member's statements were quite inconsistent with his vote. The proposition of the right hon. Baronet was but a milk-and-water one. It was high time that the whole establishment of the Irish Church should be inquired into, revised, and reduced, so as to accord with the state of the country. He should vote for the Motion of his right hon. friend; but he did not do so from supposing that this Motion was adequate to the circumstances of the country. Inquiry must, in his opinion, go much further; and he hoped to see the establishment reduced to two or four bishops. He should like that sixteen or eighteen bishopricks were swept away at once; and he heartily believed that, in this respect, the population of England and Ireland would go along with him. Instead of repairing the cathedrals, if they could not be converted into parish churches, he would pull them down. Why should the people be compelled to keep structures of brick and mortar, of which they made no use? Instead of appropriating the revenues of benefices, as they became vacant, to clerical purposes, he would cause them to be paid into the
1282
Consolidated-fund. That would be of some benefit to the people. He would support the Motion of his right hon. friend, though he thought, it wholly inadequate, being persuaded that if the affairs of the Irish Church were inquired into fully, a great reduction might be made with great advantage. When he brought forward his motion on the subject, he should expect the support of the hon. Member for Dublin.
Mr. G. Moorewas understood to say that when the hon. Member made a motion for inquiry, he would second it.
Mr. Spring Ricethought, that of the motions before the House, the preference was due to the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord. He was deeply interested in the Irish Church Establishment, and in his attachment to it he did not yield to the hon. Member for Oxford (Sir R. Inglis); but if that hon. Member thought that the interest of the Church was to be supported by resisting every change, every attempt at improvement, come from whatever quarter it might, he was mistaken. The members of the Irish Church did not participate in the hon. Member's views; and though they had been disposed to resist every change, they had now become sensible that changes were not necessarily injuries. They had at first opposed the Tithe-composition bill, but they had afterwards assented to it, and they found that much good had resulted from that Act to them. The Vestry Act was another act of the same kind. Whatever charges had been made against that Act, and a great many had been made, it had never been said that it was inimical in its results to the interests of the Clergy. If the hon. Member for Oxford looked at the acts of the legislature, he would know that the right of the legislature to interfere with Church property for Church purposes was recognized by many acts of Parliament, and acted on. The legislature might therefore again interfere with it to raise the stipends of curates, as it had before. The hon. Member also seemed to have confounded parishes with benefices; but in Ireland they were not the same. If the previous question should be carried, he hoped that then they should all concur in the proposition of the noble Lord. He looked to the result of the inquiry to make the Church of Ireland more efficacious than at present. Already a great improvement, he was willing to

1283
admit, had taken place, but there was no part of our Establishment in which improvement was yet so much wanted.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerexpressed his surprise at the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Oxford; and he was still more surprised that the amendment was supported by the hon. Member for Dublin, who thought inquiry would remove false impressions concerning the Irish Church, and be a full refutation to the charges brought against it. He was sure that, the result of the inquiry proposed by the noble Lord would be, to show, what he had always asserted, that during the last twenty years the clergy of Ireland had zealously performed their duties, and that no church had a more zealous and deserving clergy. He hoped that the hon. Member for Oxford would withdraw his motion, and not compel the House to vote on it. As to what the right hon. Baronet had said of the present bishop of Ferns not having promoted a respectable curate when he was bishop of Limerick, he could say nothing; but since the bishop had filled his present see, he had selected for promotion men of abilities and long standing in the Church, with whom he had no connection whatever, except by their services as curates. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer also asserted that the primate of Ireland, had been more cautious and careful than some of his predecessors, in granting faculties, in doing which he had been actuated by a sincere desire to perform his duty; and he concluded by requesting the hon. Member for Oxford to withdraw his amendment.
Mr. Trantmaintained that the Church of Ireland was not to blame—it had no abuses, it was in the most progressive and satisfactory state of amendment; if the Church of England was to be pulled down, let it be pulled down by honest hands. The commission was to reform what needed not reformation, and the records of that House furnished the refutation of the charges brought forward against the Church.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he presumed that Gentlemen who had just entered the House, and had not been present at the debate, must, from the speech of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Trant) suppose that some formidable proposition was under consideration for the destruction of the Church of Ireland. The course of proceeding that the right hon. Baronet proposed was, that
1284
the Crown should be advised to appoint a Commission to examine into the state of the Church of Ireland, with reference to the union of benefices—that it should inquire into the value of each separate parish, which constituted such union, and into the proceedings adopted to sever such unions, as well as for the purpose of facilitating the appointment of a greater number of ministers of the Church of Ireland, as for' the purpose of the better performing the sacred duties of the ministry. It was proposed that a Commission, composed of privy councillors, should inquire into the grant of faculties, or dispensations, by which pluralities were held. A further proposition was, that the Crown should not appoint to any benefice in which there was a deficiency of a glebe-house, a church, or cathedral; and that the profits of such benefice should be appropriated to the building of such glebe-house or church, or to the repairs of such cathedral. His noble friend objected to that, and the right hon. Baronet had submitted to the validity of that objection; and the whole proposal, as it now stood, was for a Commission to inquire into the state of the union of benefices, and to facilitate a greater appointment of working ministers, and to prevent the holding of pluralities. Did the hon. Member for Dover, professing his anxiety to maintain the interests of religion, conceive that he could impose upon any man by his cry of the ' Church in danger.' Did the hon. Member not know—was he so totally ignorant of all that was passing around him as not to know that the Crown had already appointed a commission to inquire into the whole state of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of this country? That commission had not yet extended to Ireland. He would venture to inform the hon. Member, however, that the Church of Ireland was gaining in strength, by adopting moderate and well-considered reformation. For that Church he professed as sincere a respect as the hon. Member for Dover; and he could affirm, from his own knowledge, that for twenty-five years, great efforts had been made by the clergy to improve its condition; and, at that moment, the Church of Ireland could present a ministry, speaking collectively, as devoted to the discharge of its spiritual functions as the ministry of any Church or ecclesiastical establishment in any country. If the time should ever arrive when an attempt should be made to deal with the

1285
property of the Church upon other principles than with the property of other establishments, then would be the time for the exertions of those who dreaded the subversion of that Church. The hon. Member for Oxford could not mean to push his doctrine so far as others that night had pushed it. He could not mean to say that any part of the revenue of the Church, such as the stipends of curates, was beyond the reach of the law. With reference, however, to the appropriation of the revenue of the Church, the question ought to be approached with the utmost delicacy, and an enlarged view ought to be taken of the effect of an unequal distribution of that revenue upon the promotion of learning and religion. When any attempts were made upon the revenue of the Church, he would resist them; but he would not permit the imprudent sarcasms of the hon. Member for Dover to prevent his acceding to a motion which, he believed, was not couched in the spirit of hostility to the Church, and which would tend to promote its best interests.
Mr. Sadlerhad not been present during the whole of the discussion, and he should address himself only to the observations of the right hon. Secretary opposite. He must say, that the proposition came with a peculiarly bad grace from those who refused all commissions of inquiry into civil establishments. It would as well become the House to attend to civil pluralities, which were evils as crying as the ecclesiastical; and in many cases civil pluralities were held which were totally incompatible with each other.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, that the right hon. Secretary had argued that there was no harm in granting this inquiry quoad Ireland, because it was already granted quoad England [Cries of "No, no!"] If the right hon. Gentleman's argument was not so, why it was not so. If this were not his argument, whatever he said about the commission in England ought to be struck out of his speech; and if it were his argument, he would take the liberty of saying it was no argument at all. The Ecclesiastical Commission in England was confined to the amelioration of the Ecclesiastical Courts; and every body well knew that that branch of the administration of justice in England, like all other branches, required in a certain time to be rebuilt. But the present commission was to address the Crown to carry into effect the grossest
1286
violation of the law, if bishoprics were to be kept vacant where cathedral churches wanted repair. [cries of "No, No."] He wished his friends would set. him right, and not set him wrong. He did not mean to say that there were not provisions to prevent pluralities which the Crown might carry into effect, though, generally speaking, this was out of the power of the Crown. Two thirds of the Address called upon the Crown to violate the law and the Coronation Oath; and therefore, when Ministers approved of part of the Address, he did not think their approval was in very good company. This was not the mode in which the inquiry ought to be admitted. Every gentleman who had spoken from the Ministerial benches had given arguments against that part, of the Motion which they were disposed to support; and why? Because there already existed in the Privy Council a right to do that which was to be done by this commission, if the Privy Council of Ireland had violated its duty, that would have been a good argument for this inquiry; but instead of this, Ministers said—"We don't object to inquiry, although there exists a competent authority to make the inquiry, and which is unimpeached." This was to stigmatise the Privy Council of Ireland for not performing its duty, and yet the right hon. Baronet had not been able to state any thing against the Privy Council of Ireland. Under these circumstances, he did feel himself disposed to support the motion of the Member for Oxford. On neither side of the House had there been suggested any reason why the powers of the Privy Council of Ireland should not be called into action. He never could approve of any address which called upon the Crown and the Government to commit a gross infraction upon the rights and property of the Church; and though he concurred in the right hon. Baronet's object, he could not concur in the mode of attaining that object. "Where sits the Government? [laughter) There sits the Government, [pointing to the Opposition Benches] That Government opposed every thing proposed by this side of the House, whilst every thing they proposed was enacted by Ministers. There resides the initiative [pointing to the Opposition—loud laughter]; they are the persons who look after the agricultural and manufacturing distress; they put their proposals on the Table of the House; they are the active, efficacious agents who bring

1287
under the control of Parliament those great practical measures which the necessities of the country call upon the House to discuss." Under these circumstances, he should take the liberty to say, that if the hon. Member for Oxford carried the previous question to a division, he would vote for it; and if, afterwards, the right hon. Baronet brought forward his measure in better company—not to address the Crown to demolish and despoil the Irish Church [cheer]—"if that cheer comes from an Irish Lawyer"—
Mr. O'Connellanswered, "No, no."
Sir C. Wetherell.—"I, then, am in the wrong, and the cheer comes from an Emeritus lawyer (Mr. M. A. Taylor), who sits behind him—however, some person sarcastically cheered my statement; or if no person sarcastically cheered, why then I am in possession of my statement." [laughter] But he was to be put down not by cheers but by arguments.
Mr. Peelrose to explain.—He must confirm the just and striking observation of the learned and hon. Gentleman, that if a certain argument was not his (Mr. Peel's) argument, why then it was not. He (Mr. Peel) had never represented the commission in England as precisely the same as that now proposed for Ireland, but he did doubt if the commission upon the whole Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of England, and upon the control of the bishops over the Clergy, were not as important and as extensive as the commission now proposed.
Mr. M. A. Taylorsaid, he had certainly felt very indignant at his learned friend's expression of the spoliation of the Church; and he (Mr. Taylor) did express himself more loudly than he ought to have done. He would, however, say that the imputation of a wish to despoil the Church against those who only wanted to reform it, was unfounded and unjustifiable. He looked upon the Church Establishment of England and Ireland with veneration; and he considered that the only effect of the proposed commission would be to place the Churches of England and Ireland on the most solid foundation.
Mr. Broughamrose amidst cries of Question, and turning round and shaking his finger at the criers, he said, "You will have Question in proper time." He could not let the observations of the learned Gentleman pass without some explanation; for, without any explanation, he might be supposed to give his vote upon grounds which he repelled as much as any man.
1288
He had never heard a more complete misrepresentation, even in that House, than that given of the right hon. Secretary's speech by the learned Member. The hon. and learned Gentleman must surely have forgotten all that had taken place during the last three years. He must have forgotten, at that moment, that a commission was issued in this country for inquiring into matters connected with the Church Establishment. But then the hon. and learned Gentleman would say there was a difference between this English commission and the commission which had been moved for by his hon. friend the Member for Waterford; inasmuch as the latter referred to Ecclesiastical property, and the former to Ecclesiastical Courts of Judicature. But if there was any one thing which the Church was anxious to avoid, it was any interference with its courts for the administration of justice. There was no one right or privilege so dear to the Church as that administration. For ages the Church had most zealously defended it. By whom were the Judges in those courts appointed? In whom was the patronage vested? One of the highest of the Judges was appointed by a Bishop, and another by an Archbishop. If the Motion had been for an inquiry into the Ecclesiastical Courts of Judicature in Ireland, it would have been held to be more objectionable to the Church than an inquiry into its property. In no way whatever, however, did his hon. friend's Motion deserve the name of a spoliation of the Church. The hon. and learned Gentleman had declared that nine-tenths of the Motion consisted of illegality, and that it was contrary to the Coronation Oath. Were it not for his knowledge of the extraordinary vivacity of his hon. and learned friend's imagination; were it not that he knew his hon. and learned friend's imagination sometimes superseded his memory of facts he should have been exceedingly surprised at this last assertion. What was the case? At the end of the Motion there came a little clause which certainly did appear to call upon the Crown to exercise a power not justified by the law. To that clause an objection was made, and his right hon. friend (the Member for Waterford) candidly consented to withdraw it from his Motion. He objected, however, to the application of the phrase "spoliation of the Church," even to that small part of

1289
his right hon. friend's original Motion. All the rest of the Motion was mere inquiry. It had no tendency to any particular charge. It went to examine—not to decide. That alone—that small part—calling upon the Crown to order the suspension of certain ecclesiastical revenues until certain repairs of the church were carried into effect, was the objectionable passage. But who, except his hon. and learned friend, or one of equally inflated imagination, could consider this as an attempt at despoiling the Church. So far from being for the spoliation, it was for the protection and improvement of the Church. The same thing had been done by act of Parliament, in the case of the Cathedral at Litchfield. But his hon. and learned friend, in his indignation against his Majesty's Ministers for acquiescing in the substance of the present Motion, charged them with constantly adopting the measures of their political opponents. But that was no more their practice at present than it was during the period when his hon. and learned friend sat on the Ministerial benches. Why did he not then say that Ministers took their measures from their opponents, who were the real efficient Ministers? Never did anything of that sort drop from his hon. and learned friend until the Catholic Question had been carried; and yet there had been many measures adopted by his Majesty's Government which would have been liable to a similar remark. There were the Free Trade measures, the Commissions of Education, the abolition of the Orders in Council, the Commissions for Judicial inquiry, the Irish Census, and many other measures which proceded from the Opposition side of the House; but which, with great candour and bounty, were adopted by his Majesty's Government; although never, until now, had a charge for doing so been brought against Government by his hon. and learned friend; and yet there was no man of more honest and honourable feelings, and who had shown himself more disposed to speak his undisguised sentiments, at whatever sacrifice of personal advantage. To return, however, to the question before the House. In the first place, it was said to be an interference with the power of the Privy Council in Ireland. That he denied. They had the power, by the Act of George the First, of forming unions, and dissolving them, in
1290
particular cases. But he had yet to learn, that by either common or statute law, the Privy Council had the power of sending a roving commission all over Ireland. In the next place, it was said to involve a censure on his Majesty's Government. It did no such thing. What! Was every address of that House to the Crown to issue a commission, which the Crown had a right spontaneously to issue, to be considered a censure? It amounted to no more, in all cases of the kind, than to this—that the House advised the Crown to rouse into action a power which it possessed, but which was dormant. He altogether denied that the Motion was conceived in a spirit hostile to the Established Church. It was a Motion for inquiry, and for inquiry alone. It could never lead to any spoliation of the property, or violation of the rights of the Established Church. The hon. Member for Oxford, however, had told the House (and a new kind of legal doctrine it certainly was), that there was something so peculiar in the character of Church property that it was not competent to the House of Commons to interfere with it. That was denying the supremacy of Parliament. That was maintaining that the Church was not only sacred, but that it was sacro-sanct. He had frequently heard of Church and King; and he knew that, under that name, many abuses had been committed, and many false principles maintained; but he had never before heard the most wild or fanatical supporter of Church and King principles place the claims of the Church on a level with those of the Sovereign. That they were equal was not the language of the Constitution, or of the Law; which declared that the King was the head of the Church. But the hon. Member for Oxford went much further than this. He declared that the Church was higher than the King, that it was higher than the Parliament. According to the hon. Member, Parliament had no power to interfere with the property of the Church, But had Parliament never; so interfered? Why, it had done nothing else for centuries. It had changed the disposition of that property over and over again. It had altered the distribution of it among the members of the Church themselves. Did the hon. Member for Oxford recollect the Stipendiary Curates' Bill? Did he recollect that in old times

1291
—in good old times, as the hon. Member would call them, in good old Catholic times—that interference with the property of the Church was by no means infrequent? Did the hon. Member recollect the statute of Richard 2nd on the subject? The hon. Member for Oxford maintained that it was not competent in Parliament to interfere with the property of the Church. By that statute, a fourth of the proceeds of a living were set aside for the bishop, a fourth for the repairs of the church, and a fourth for the support of the poor. If his hon. friend, the Member for Aberdeen, or any other hon. Member, were to propose the revival of that statute, of course the hon. Member for Oxford would call the proposition a spoliation of the Church. Vet it would be only a return to what had been the law on the subject. He confessed, however, that he was surprised to hear any hon. Member at the present day urge the old and exploded doctrine, that inquiry weakened the authority of any establishment, or sapped its foundation. They who really valued an establishment, and highly estimated its privileges and authority, were, in his opinion, called upon to promote and not to discourage inquiry. The time had passed by when the character of any establishment was considered venerable in consequence of the obscurity by which it was enveloped. Let the light shine upon all our institutions. If they were calumniated—if the abuses imputed to them had no foundation in truth—let light in, and the calumny would be refuted, the imputation would be wiped away. But if they persisted in maintaining obscurity, they would play the game of the calumniators—they would give countenance to the grossest, and perhaps the most groundless accusations. On that principle, he was prepared to vote for his hon. friend's Motion. So long as the object was to inquire into the existence of abuses, that object he was always prepared to support; although he would be the last man in the House to retrench, eighteen bishops, or pull down the walls of a single Irish cathedral.
Sir J. Newportsaid, after what had been stated on the other side of the House, he would withdraw his Motion.
Sir R. Inglis, to save the time of the House, would withdraw his amendment.
Lord Leveson Gowerthen moved the Address in the terms already described.
Motion agreed to; and the Address
1292
ordered to be presented by such hon. Gentlemen as were members of the Privy Council.

PORTUGAL.
Lord Palmerstonsaid, that as the debate on the motion of the hon. Member for Waterford had lasted so long, and as another important question was about to be agitated, he would postpone his intended motion, although he was desirous, for reasons which must be obvious to all, to bring it on with as little delay as possible. He hoped he should be able to make his motion on Tuesday next. His only reason for doubting it arose from the circumstance that a motion of great importance, by an hon. and learned friend of his near him, stood for that day; and would probably give rise to a long discussion. He would, however, put it to his hon. friend, if another day might not equally suit his purpose?
Mr. Wilmot Hortonexpressed his readiness to oblige his noble friend, but could not consent to postpone his motion.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
Mr. Stewartsaid, he rose to move for certain papers referring to the interference of the local government with the administration of justice in the Supreme Court of Bombay. To recommend this Motion to the House, he did not deem it necessary to enter into the origin of this Court, but perhaps he might be permitted shortly to advert to the circumstances under which it was established. In the year 1774 or 1775, the extortions and oppressions of some servants of the East-India Company were found to press so very heavily, that Government was implored to come to the assistance of the people; and in consequence of some petitioners setting forth their grievances, and stating the necessity of their having some tribunal to protect them, were this and other courts of a similar nature established. He had to observe, that in 1782, Sir Elijah Impey was impeached for a dereliction of duty, and called to answer for having accepted office in one of the Company's courts, he being at that time Chief Justice in a supreme "court of judicature; and from this he argued that the Government at home had recognized the independence of these courts in India, and acknowledged their right to exercise a control over the local authorities, Lately, notwithstanding this establishment

1293
of the independence of the Supreme Court of Bombay, the government of that presidency had taken upon itself to exercise an authority over the proceedings of the Court that must prove altogether fatal to its independence. The Governor had addressed a letter to the Judges of that Court, telling them that they were not to use their own discretion in the case before them, whatever might be their opinion of the law. This letter was addressed to Sir John Grant. He would read it.'—
"To the honourable Sir C. H. Chambers, Knight, Acting Chief Justice, and the honourable Sir J. P. Grant, Knight, Puisne Justice of the honourable the Supreme Court of Judicature.
"Honourable Sirs;—We are quite aware that we transgress upon ordinary form in addressing this letter to you; but the circumstances under which we are placed will, we trust, justify this departure from usage, and our knowledge of your private and public character leads us to hope that what we state will be received in that spirit in which it is written; and that, notwithstanding your strict obligations to fulfil every part of your high and sacred duty as British Judges, you will, on this extraordinary occasion, deem yourselves at liberty to consider as much the objects, as the rules of that Court over which you preside; and viewing the intention of the legislature in its institution as directed to the aid and support of the government intrusted with the administration of this Presidency, you will, for a short period, be induced, by our representations, to abstain from any acts (however legal you may deem them) which, under the measures we have felt ourselves compelled to take, and which we deem essential to the interests committed to our charge, must have the effect of producing open collision between our authority and yours; and by doing so, not only diminish that respect in the native population of this country, which it is so essential to both to maintain, but seriously to weaken, by a supposed division in our internal rule, those impressions on the minds of our native subjects, the existence of which is indispensable to the peace, prosperity, and permanence of the Indian empire.
"This conclusion refers to a variety of circumstances, which we are equally forbid from explaining, as you are from attending to such explanation; but we deem it necessary to state our conviction of the truth of what we have asserted, expecting that it may have some weight with the preservation of that strength in the Government, which in all our territories—but particularly those we have so recently acquired—is the chief, if not the only power we possess for maintaining that general peace, on the continuance of which the means of good rule, and of administering law under any form, must always depend.
1294
2. "In consequence of recent proceedings in the Supreme Court, in the cases of Moro Ragonath and Bappo Gunness we have felt compelled, for reasons which we have fully stated to our superiors, to direct that no further legal proceedings be admitted in the case of Moro Ragonath, and that no returns be made to any writs of Habeas Corpus of a similar nature to those recently issued and directed to any officers of the provincial courts, or to any of our native subjects not residing on the island of Bombay.
3. "We are quite sensible of the deep responsibility we incur by these measures; but' must look for our justification in the necessity of our situation. The grounds on which we act have exclusive reference to considerations of civil government and of state policy; but as our resolution cannot be altered until we receive the commands of those high authorities to which we are subject, we inform you of them, and we do most anxiously hope, that the considerations we have before stated may lead you to limit yourselves to those protests and appeals against our conduct in the cases specified, that you may deem it your duly to make; as any other conduct must, for reasons already stated, prove deeply injurious to the public interests, and can, under the resolution taken and avowed by Government, produce no result favourable either to the immediate or future establishment of the extended jurisdiction you have claimed.
4. "A very short period will elapse before an answer is received to the full and urgent reference we have made upon this subject; and we must again express our hope, that even the obligations under which we are sensible you act, are not so imperative as to impel you to proceedings which the Government has thus explicitly stated its resolution to oppose.
"We have the honour to be,
Honourable Sirs,
Your most obedient servants,
Signed, JOHN MALCOLM.
T. BRADFORD. Lieut. Gen.
J. J. SPARROW.
JOHN ROMER.
Bombay Castle, 3rd October, 1828."
The object of this communication, it will be recollected, was to put a stop to further proceedings in a case wherein a native of high caste was summoned to appear before the Supreme Court, and had pleaded in return the privilege conferred upon him by the promise of the Government, which exempted him from such attendance. The question respecting the jurisdiction of the Court came on in regular course before the Privy Council, and it was decided that the Court was wrong upon the point of law. But the Privy Council had not said whether the interference of the local government was or was not right; or, if it were right, whether it were

1295
made in the most advisable manner. The correspondence he moved for might perhaps show that the Government was right; and if it did, this would be a great satisfaction to the country; for decidedly a strong feeling had been excited by some most extraordinary language which had found its way into the newspapers, and which was attributed to the noble Lord at the head of the Board of Control. This occurred in a Letter stated to have been addressed by that nobleman to the governor of Bombay. In this the noble Lord said, "I believe there is but one opinion in this country as to the conduct of the Supreme Court." He differed with the noble Lord in this. He apprehended also, that between the noble Lord and the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Judges of our Courts, a very serious difference would prevail upon this question. He doubted if the decision of the Privy Council would be enough to set the matter at rest forever—he doubted if the question would not again arise in India—he doubted if future Judges would be guided, or consider themselves bound by the decision of the Privy Council. Some declaratory Act of Parliament was, he thought, necessary. But, perhaps, in speaking of this "one opinion," the noble Lord merely alluded to his own opinion, fancying that he was the only man in the country competent to form an opinion on the subject; or, perhaps, he alluded to the "one opinion" which was alone permitted in the cabinet, all others being compelled to vanish before it. The noble Lord then proceeds to say—"Their law is considered bad law; but then errors in matters of law are nothing in comparison with those they have committed in the tenour of their speeches from the bench. Had Sir C. Chambers lived, I think he must have been displaced. Sir J. Grant seems to have confined himself more strictly to a legal argument. He may have been led by his erring chief: still there is much to censure in his conduct, and although I think it will probably not be considered necessary to recall him, his case is by no means decided upon. I am to have some conversation upon it with the Chancellor in a few days. We are so much occupied with our Roman Catholic Relief Bill at present, that we have little time for other matters, however important: to this circumstance must be attributed the delay which has occurred on the part of the law-officers. There was none in
1296
sending the case to them. In the mean time the King has, on my recommendation, made your Advocate General, Mr. Dewar, Chief Justice. I advised this appointment, because that gentleman appears to have shown ability and discretion during the late conflict with the Supreme Court, and because he appears to take a right view of the law, and to be on terms of confidence with you. I thought the putting him over Sir J. Grant's head would do more to notify public opinion, than any other measure I could at once adopt; and you have him in action two months sooner than you could have any other sent from here. I hope this arrangement will be satisfactory to you." Now it might be difficult to discover the writer's drift; but if there was any meaning in the passage, it was this—I send you a fit person to answer our purposes, he will at once succumb to your authority, and would willingly make his Court the instrument of oppressing the people. He hoped, however, the noble Lord would be disappointed in the opinion he had formed of this gentleman, who, he trusted, would not suffer himself to be influenced by private feelings or Government patronage, but would distribute justice from his seat with honour and independence. Next the noble Lord said:—"The Puisne Judge appointed in the room of Sir C. Chambers is Mr. William Seymour, of the Chancery Bar. The Lord Chancellor has a very good opinion of him, and generally, I think, he appeared to have higher claims than any other candidate. He is a gentleman in his manners, and a man of cultivated mind. He seems to have right notions of his duty, and of the law which has been so strangely misinterpreted. He will rather support Government than use the authority of the Supreme Court as a means of raising opposition. At least, if he is not all this, I have been deceived in him. He will embark in less than two months. He will probably be knighted before he sails; and as it will not be right that the Chief Justice alone should not be knighted, we must consider in what manner that can be best effected. I believe it maybe done by patent; but my present idea is to empower you, as Governor, to confer the honour of knighthood on Mr. Dewar. This will evidently place the Governor above the Court. It will mark you out as the King's representative: you may make the ceremony as imposing as you please. I have

1297
written to the Heralds' Office, to know if the thing could be done according to precedents."
Was not this, he would ask, opposed to the express intention of the Legislature, and contrary to the Constitution as concerning the Courts of this country; and contrary to the practice of all provinces in which justice was fairly administered? The Supreme Courts in India had been made independent of the local authorities by the Government at home; and he hoped they would be restored to that independence by a vote of the House. An hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. Bankes) had stated, upon a former occasion, that in one of the succeeding paragraphs the principal word was, in a copy of the letter sent from India, review, and not renew the Charter. He could only say that in the copy he had received from India the words stood as they had been originally published in this country. In his opinion, however, it was no matter which of the two words was used, since the sense of the passage evidently was that the Government had made up their minds to renew the Charter.
"As we may not impossibly renew the Charter next year, we may take that opportunity of rectifying the expressions of the Act of Parliament, should they require it. Many persons think it would be inexpedient to open a discussion on Indian matters this year, if it could be avoided. But as I tell you, no decision is yet come to. You will see that there is no intention of deserting you. You have acted with much firmness and prudence. I entirely agree in the view you have expressed of the dangerous consequences which would result from the extension beyond the limits of the Presidency of the powers claimed by the Supreme Court. Orders have been given for expediting the patent of the chief judge. It is with deep regret that I have heard that the Company and the country are so soon to lose your services in India. I could not ask you to stay one hour to the danger of your valuable life; but I am confident you will stay till you have re-established the authority of Government in the opinion of the natives. I trust, indeed, that the unbending firmness you have displayed will have prevented much of the evil which might have been expected to flow from the conduct of the Judges. I feel satisfied that you will act with the same firmness under all circum-
1298
stances, and at the same time with moderation and discretion. You may thus depend upon the support of the Board of Control, which I have the honour of presiding over."
Now he would say, after reading this, that it was quite clear from the context, that the noble writer meant to give Sir J. Malcolm to understand that the question respecting the East-India Company's Charter had been already decided by the Administration. He apprehended, too, that there was no reason to suppose that the authority of the Government at Bombay had been shaken by the events which had recently taken place there; while that of the Court was decidedly affected by them. In conclusion, he pressed upon the House the necessity of an inquiry into the conduct of the Bombay Government, as it was only by the greatest care that our dominion could be preserved in India. If interference with the administration of justice were tolerated in India, the House knew not how soon it might be, attempted here. The Government at each presidency was of a military character, and the Judges could not, therefore be too cautious in suffering their privileges to be interfered with. This ought to be considered, and he hoped the House would adopt some measure to remedy the mischief which had been done, and to prevent its recurrence. He then moved for the "Correspondence between his Majesty's Commissioners for the Affairs of India, or either of them, and any of the authorities of Bombay, respecting the interference of the Bombay Government with certain proceedings of his Majesty's Supreme Court of Judicature at that Presidency, in the months of August and September, 1828, or at any subsequent period."
Lord Ashleyreplied, but in so low a voice, that his speech was very imperfectly heard. He was understood to say, that he was afraid that the minds of the members were prepossessed, supposing that a gross outrage had been committed on those persons on the sacredness of whose character and functions all classes had to depend for the security of their lives and property. He hoped the House would not think he was going to argue against the independence of courts of justice. He knew that it was essential to the tranquillity and security of a country that they should, enjoy perfect freedom But

1299
it should be remembered that it was not the same with respect to our Courts, in which the Judge and the aggrieved party were, perhaps, alone to be considered, and the Courts of India. The question lately under discussion there affected sixty millions of persons. The House should look to the state of the provinces under the Bombay Government. Those in the Deccan had been but lately acquired by us; and a great part of the population was in a state of great disorganization. The object of the Government was to bring these men gradually within the pale of the law, and this inquired a delicate and prudent administration, in order to avoid intimidation. Certain privileges had accordingly been guaranteed to the higher castes of natives in the Deccan, particularly an exemption from personal appearance in our courts of justice, which was repugnant to the prejudices of these high caste men. Sir John Grant, however, had opposed himself to this course, by issuing a writ of habeas corpus to bring up the person of a native of Poonah, named Moro Ragonath, who was under the guardianship of his uncle, Ramchunder, a person of high birth, being nearly related to the late Peishwah. He was called upon to obey the process of the Court, notwithstanding the guarantee that he should not be compelled to appear in a Court of justice. Sir John Malcolm felt that he incurred a severe responsibility; but he saw, although there was great difficulty in the way of resisting the process of the Court, that he should expose the empire to great danger if he suffered this innovation in a country recently acquired, and scarcely brought into order. There were peculiar circumstances which rendered decisive steps necessary. The alarm amongst the natives of the Deccan was general. The inhabitants of Poonah congregated in large masses to inquire into the nature of this mysterious process, which was represented to be of so potent a nature that it would place the Governor and Council in confinement. The peculiar circumstances of the Deccan had great influence on the mind of Sir John Malcolm. He knew that there was a vast proportion of seditious men there who would take advantage of any discontent. It was to be recollected that our empire in India was held entirely by opinion, and if the natives observed a discord between two branches of the government, they would
1300
be less disposed to obedience. To show how far the alarm had extended, in a communication with the Rajah of Guzerat, that prince refused to pay a loan which he had contracted, alleging that he could be released from it by the process of the Supreme Court; and the Bombay Government was obliged, in consequence, to sequestrate a part of his property. Again, the Rajah of Satara, one of the most powerful of the Mahratta Princes, when going down to Bombay, in the programme of the ceremonial, which gentlemen who have been in India know is a matter of great moment, was anxious, not how he should meet the Governor, but how he should meet the Judge of the Supreme Court. This was not all; the Supreme Court had, previous to issuing the writ of habeas corpus to bring up Moro Ragonath, who was not subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, issued, on the 11th of September, 1828, a writ directed to the gaoler of a Zillah Court, in Salsette, for bringing up a native, named Bappo Gunness, who had been guilty of embezzlement, a crime very common in India, and had been sentenced to two years' imprisonment. This man, who had been imprisoned only since May, was set at liberty by the Supreme Court, and was allowed to go into the Deccan, or wheresoever he pleased. The Government was anxious to avoid all collision, and therefore made no opposition to his enlargement. When Bappo Gunness was brought up, and the sentence of the Zillah, or provincial court, was returned, Sir John Grant said he did not know such a court as a Zillah Court, which was equivalent to a declaration to 6,000,000 of men, that there was no court which could take cognizance of their crimes. The House must not suppose that this was said to a parcel of men who could not understand it, but there were acute men amongst them; and the transactions in the Supreme Court were transmitted to Poonah quicker by the native agents than by the Government couriers. He did not mean to say that the natives of India were averse from the principle of the English laws. They might have objections to our process and operation, in some instances, which appeared to them absurd and unintelligible. Of this a better illustration could not be given than the saying of one Hindoo to another, who inquired his opinion as to some judicial proceedings at which he had been present. The party

1301
replied, that "he could make neither head nor tail of them, and that it took an hour and a half to prove that Budjee Row was in existence, although he was known to every one in Bombay." It was clear that Sir John Malcolm had no alternative, and that he was compelled to take the course he had adopted, except he chose to render our laws and government offensive and unpopular amongst the natives. If we desired to introduce English laws and usages among the Hindoos, we must innovate gradually, and with extreme caution, and spare no effort to conciliate their prejudices, in order that we might be enabled to render the people as great, as happy, and as independent as possible.
Mr. Robert Grantsaid, that although the intimate friend of one of the Judges, and bound by a much closer tie to another, now no more, he could not allow himself to deny that they were not wrong in the course they adopted on this occasion. But if the Judges had acted imprudently and indiscreetly, the Government had on its part made as many mistakes as the Judges. When the Governor found it necessary to assert his authority, he should not have contented himself by sending a private letter on a subject of such great public importance. The Judges were applied to publicly to grant a writ of pressing haste, and which, from its very nature, brooked no delay; and he ought therefore to have taken some public step at all hazards and consequences, even if it had been necessary to issue a proclamation. It was plain that if not legally, he was morally justifiable in adopting that course; and the Government at home would not have hesitated to pass an Act of Indemnity to free him from the consequences, in the same manner as they had done to the Bengal Government in 1781, when it resisted the orders of the Supreme Court by force, on the ground that those orders, though legal, were unjustifiable and inexpedient. The bill which was then passed adopted the same opinion, and its preamble expressly declared, that the conduct of the Supreme Court had not been strictly justifiable, although legal. Passing to the Letter of a noble Lord, which had been so often mentioned, he must say that, although it was said to have been written in haste and without due consideration, all the substantial parts of it had been fully acted on. In the various debates on the subject of
1302
this letter, it had always been contended that the measures it recommended, and the declarations it contained, were forced from the Government in consequence of the communications from Bombay. Now, if that were the case, how could the House form any judgment of the propriety of that letter, unless the correspondence was produced which formed the grounds for it. A great deal had been said of the independence of the Judges; but if they were to remain under the control of the Governor, that independence was a mockery, and they were reduced to mere machines, that could not pass a foot beyond the boundary prescribed to their motions. In the case of Sir Elijah Impey the House had acted upon a very different principle, for they actually threatened him with an impeachment for having acted in his judicial situation in such a manner as to make the Supreme Court dependant on the Government. In that instance the House passed a resolution, in which they stated that Sir Elijah Impey had done what in itself had a tendency to place the Supreme Court in dependence on that which it ought to control; and that, in so doing he had been guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours. That was the conduct of this House on a former occasion; why it should adopt an entirely different course at the present moment was what he could not understand. In his opinion, the letter which had been so much referred to, had degraded Sir John Grant—had been opposed to the spirit of the resolution, which, on the former occasion, this House had agreed to, and had been unadvised in point of policy. He would waive all discussion on the law of the case: but still he did not think it fitting that even so high a tribunal as that of the Privy Council should set aside a decision which was in accordance with the preceding authorities, which were recognised as the general law of the land. It was impossible to say that Sir J. Grant had been misled by the authority of Sir Charles Chambers. He was too high in spirit to wish to cast his own fault, if fault it were, upon any other person, and the stand he had made in defence of his own opinion showed that it was essentially his own. He could not have asserted it more distinctly if he had been led to the stake for it. As to Sir Charles Chambers himself, no one could doubt the purity of his motives or intentions, for every one was

1303
aware that the manner in which he had administered justice in India was such as to endear his memory to the native population. His death, indeed, was hastened by that over-anxiety to discharge his duty which minds like his always felt, and which was always destructive to their possessors in such a climate, where perfect freedom from anxiety was the best, if not the only, preservative of health. Yet this was the man whose relations yet living were doomed to sec posthumously disgraced! On the subject of an independent judicature he would beg, in conclusion, to read the words of Sir W. Jones, whose opinions had been fully confirmed by that resolution which he had previously mentioned. The words of that great writer were:—"Whatever might have been the reason for the first establishment of the Supreme Court, of which I am not perfectly apprised, I will venture to say that it has been continued for one obvious reason—namely, that an extensive dominion without a complete and independent judicature, is an anomaly of which this world does not offer one example."
Colonel Grahamcontended, that the provincial Courts enjoyed an independent jurisdiction, and that the attempt of Sir John Grant to establish the authority of the Supreme Court in the manner he had done, and his discharge of a convicted person, was contrary to the letter of the law, and gave the natives reason to believe that there was some mysterious process by which a guilty man could be set at liberty and left to continue with impunity in his course of crime. This country had recognised the independence of the provincial Courts, and having done so, it was extremely improper in a Judge of the Supreme Court to set aside their authority, and quite wrong in any one to support such an act. He believed that no one had ever denied that Sir J. Malcolm had done his duty in openly resisting an authority which he believed to be illegal, and which, when attempted to be enforced, had created much disturbance and confusion.
Mr. Humeobserved, that this question was one of considerable importance to the inhabitants of our Indian possessions; and after the misrepresentations of facts—misrepresentations which documents in his possession would fully prove—he did not think that it would be just towards India to suffer the discussion to be so hastily disposed of as it must be at that hour of
1304
the night. He therefore moved, that the question be adjourned, and said he should be ready to allow the adjournment to stand for any time that might be the most convenient to the House.
Some discussion followed as to the time to which the question was to stand adjourned, when it was finally settled that it should be adjourned till to-morrow (this day); but that the motion of the hon. Member for Hertford, upon the subject of East Retford, should take precedence of it.

SALE of BEER.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that being extremely desirous that no time should be lost in the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the laws relating to the Beer Trade, he meant, even at that late hour [past one], to move, with the permission of the House, for its appointment. He would, however, occupy the House only for a few minutes, while he stated the general principles on which he should found his propositions. The subject of granting licenses to public houses had been often brought under consideration, and sufficient had been already done towards giving freedom to the retail trade in Beer to justify the institution of an inquiry into the propriety of giving it still greater freedom. It had been shown by previous inquiries, that the present system of licensing had given rise more or less to a degree of monopoly in the Beer Trade which had produced two evils:—1. a deterioration in the quality of Beer—2. an enhancement of its price: both of which were, in effect, a severe tax on the poorer classes. Both these he hoped to remedy, but he begged to be understood as not at all yielding to the imputations thrown upon a wealthy and respectable class of individuals engaged in the manufacture and sale of Beer; the fault, if fault there were, was the fault of the law. His view was, that by opening the trade the means of consuming Beer would be extended, and that no injury would be inflicted upon the brewer, while an important benefit would be conferred on the public; and he was convinced that the apprehensions felt by many persons interested in the present system, when any alteration was spoken of, would turn out to be unfounded. He was quite sensible of the advantage of extending the sale and consumption of Beer; but at the same time, he did not mean to put out of sight

1305
the necessity of keeping over public-houses a vigilant superintendence by the Magistracy for the preservation, both of the public peace and of the public morals. The advantage resulting from opening in some degree the trade in Beer, he thought, had been already established. He, doubtless, should be told by some that that opening had ruined the interests of those whom it was meant to serve; and he supposed it would be asserted by others, that, its effect had been to increase habits of drunkenness. He did not, however, concur in the, correctness of either position. He was of opinion that the interference with the monopoly had been too limited to effect the object which the legislature had in view had it been carried further, the plan would have succeeded. The great evil was, that the alteration sent the public to a very few individuals, in any district, to procure this particular liquor, and this led sometimes, as crowds collected together, to a disturbance of the peace. But. that would, he conceived, be counteracted by throwing the trade entirely open. The committee, he would take care, should comprise in its members persons of various opinions, and who were well able to support those opinions; and he could not help hoping that the result would be beneficial to the lower orders of society, and that, sooner or later, the alteration which he wished to see effected would lead to a great improvement, both of the health and of the morals of the people. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Laws regulating and restricting the Sale of Beer."
Mr. Slaneyhighly approved of the Motion, and congratulated the country upon the benefit that was likely to result from the investigation. The lower orders looked upon Beer as the second necessary of life, and the first advantage from a change in the present system would be, that they could obtain it cheaper and better; secondly, that their morals would be improved; and thirdly, that the distresses of the agriculturists would thus be partially relieved, because an increased consumption of Beer would necessarily create an increased demand for agricultural produce, which was greatly restricted by the existing system. For his own part, it appeared to him that general competition would best serve the interests of the respectable individuals who were engaged in
1306
the manufacture of Beer. If they manufactured a good article, they would suffer nothing: if, on the contrary, they manufactured an indifferent article, the public would be greatly benefitted, as they would have an opportunity of supplying themselves elsewhere. In consequence of the 'system which had been long pursued, the consumption of spirits had greatly increased. Between the years 1807 and 1827, the number of beer and ale licenses had fallen off very much; while, in the same period, spirit licenses had increased to the extent of 11,000. During that time, also, the consumption of spirits had advanced from 12,000,000 to 24,000,000 of gallons; and the demoralizing effects of this change were observable throughout the whole country. He was decidedly of opinion that the proposed mode of proceeding was preferable to any other.
Mr. C. Barclayregretted that this important subject had been brought forward at so late an hour that it was impossible to enter into the real merits of the question. He had no doubt that the members of the committee would be fairly chosen, but he could not agree that any such investigation was necessary, or that it would be productive of any benefit. He believed that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would find himself, like his predecessors in office, entirely mistaken as to the consequence of a change; and, did time allow, he was prepared to show that the anticipations of Lord Goderich, when, in 1825, he brought forward the Intermediate Beer bill, had been wholly disappointed. The sale and manufacture of Beer was not so restricted as the right hon. Gentleman imagined. It was by no means a monopoly; a great portion of the trade was free. Property to a large amount would be seriously affected by the change, not of the large brewers, for they were out of the question, but of a very respectable class of the community, the owners and occupiers of houses independent of any brewer. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would note and recollect his words, when he said that the proposed alteration of the law, allowing the sale of Beer in shops, would only operate as a transfer of the trade from one class to another, without at all increasing the consumption of the article. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to induce the community to drink more Beer, the only effectual means of doing so was to

1307
lower the duty; for the price, at the present cost of materials, could not bear reduction. The real and great evil was the present amount of the tax.
After a few words from Mr. Benson, expressive of his opinion that the inquiry would be attended with advantage, both to individuals and the public, the question was put and carried, and the Committee was named.

MINUTES.
The royal assent was given by commission to the Consolidated Fund Bill, and the Clerks of the Peace Balances Bill.—Returns were laid on the table relative to the Long Annuities, the Savings Banks, and the Affairs of India.

COMMITTEE ON EAST-INDIA AFFAIRS.
Earl Bathurstmoved, that the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the East India Affairs, do, from time to time, report their proceedings to the House.—Ordered.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, he felt very great satisfaction at the motion which had just been made by the noble Earl. He was about to present three or four petitions on the subject of the East-India Company's Charter, the prayer of which was similar to the prayer of other petitions which he had already presented with reference to that question. He begged leave to take that opportunity of stating, that the Representatives of various bodies of individuals, in different parts of the country, who were sent to town to watch over the interests of many who were anxiously awaiting the result of this inquiry, had expressed to him, and, he believed, to other noble Lords, a wish to be made acquainted with the proceedings before the Committee, in such manner as might seem most proper to their Lordships, in order that they might be enabled to form an opinion on the evidence (the subject being one in which they felt a deep and important interest), and to judge how far it would be expedient for them to bring forward other evidence relating to this question. He felt, whatever the rules of their Lordships' House might be upon this point, that it was highly necessary and proper for those persons to be made fully acquainted with the proceedings of the Committee, and the subjects to which they directed their inquiry. Many of them understood the question perfectly well; and they possessed information which probably was not before the Committee, and which they were anxious to tender to their Lordships. He confessed that he was one of those who wished that course to be taken, although he was aware that some difficulties might arise in effecting the object to which he alluded, in consequence of the formation of their Lordships' Committees. He gave his full concurrence to any measure which was likely to give to those persons the satisfaction they desired; and therefore he heard with much pleasure the motion of the noble Lord, the President of the Council, who presided over the Committee. That motion arose out of a Resolution which the Committee had agreed to on that day, and which empowered it, from time to
1246
time, to order the publication of the evidence. He hoped that the proceedings would be reported as frequently as possible, by which course the parties would be put in possession of those facilities which they anxiously wished to attain: and they would thus have an opportunity, when they saw the proceedings, of suggesting whether it would be necessary to adduce other evidence. Hoping that their object would be fully attained, he would trouble their Lordships no further, but move "that the Petitions be brought up."
The Petitions were then read. They were from the merchants, bankers, manufacturers, and inhabitants of Glasgow, and Blackburne, and from the Dock Company of Hull, and prayed that the East India Company's Charter might not be renewed.

DISTRESS OF THE COUNTRY.
The Duke of Graftonpresented a Petition from the owners and occupiers of land in the county of Suffolk. His Grace observed, that the object of the petition was to call their Lordships' serious attention to the distressed state of the Agricultural interest, and particularly to the melancholy situation in which the class of labourers was placed. The Petitioners recommended, and in their recommendation he cordially agreed, the most strict and rigid economy; and they prayed for a remission of those taxes which bore most immediately on the labouring classes. Although it was evident that great and extensive distress was felt throughout the country, yet he was not one of those who despaired of seeing that distress alleviated. In the last Session their Lordships were occupied with a question which absorbed all others, and prevented them from looking narrowly into the state of the country; but he hoped that in the present Session, some great and well-digested measure would be introduced—that some extensive and effectual remedy would be devised—for the relief of the labouring population. The interests of the country, and, he might add, the interests of humanity, peremptorily required a measure of that nature.
The Earl of Stamfordbore testimony to the fact, that very great distress existed throughout the country, not only in the agricultural, but in the manufacturing districts. In consequence of the act of the legislature by which the currency was

1247
altered, men who were formerly in respectable circumstances were reduced to comparative poverty: their stock was sold to pay rates and taxes, and in numerous parishes they were reduced even to the necessity of mending the roads. Many of the labourers were obliged to take refuge in the workhouse, while others were passing their time in idleness, engendering feelings of insubordination and disaffection. If the tradesmen were asked how business was going on, their uniform answer was, that it was never so bad. The timber merchant would tell them that the same timber which brought 6s. a foot in 1814 was now almost unsaleable at 3s. a foot; and the butcher complained that he had not one-half the demand for meat which he could boast of a few years ago. He did not make these observations for the purpose of casting censure on his Majesty's Government, but he felt it right to say thus much in support of the statements contained in the petition.
Lord Calthorpesaid, that the privation experienced by the people at the present moment was, he believed, universal, scarcely any part of the empire was free from it. Most certainly the pressure was general, and was felt most severely. While, however, he admitted the existence of distress, he must be allowed to observe that, in different places, it differed extremely in degree. It appeared to him, however, that the existence of such a degree of privation as every man knew to prevail throughout England, called urgently for very strong measures at the hands of Parliament, and of his Majesty's Ministers, to meet the exigency of the time. It was the imperative duty of Ministers to do their utmost to diminish those burthens which bore so heavily on the country. He, for one, did not withhold from Ministers that credit which was due to them, for a sincere and honest anxiety to reduce the existing taxes. But he certainly must say, that if the work of retrenchment and the improvement of the country were not speedily undertaken,—if his Majesty's Ministers did not afford the utmost facilities for a full and ample inquiry into the degree and extent to which that retrenchment might safely be effected, and if at the same time the resources of the empire were not permanently enlarged and ameliorated by positive remedies,—the people would have much reason to complain. More than one remedy had been urged
1248
upon the House, and particularly by a noble Viscount (Goderich), who stated his views on the subject a few evenings since. Many of the measures adverted to by him might be carried into effect with the greatest advantage. The taxation, on which the noble Viscount particularly touched, and which pressed with extreme severity on the industry of the country, might, he conceived, be diminished without any loss to the Revenue, but, on the contrary, with considerable benefit to it.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, there was no objection whatever, on the part of his Majesty's Ministers, to afford every information in their power, with respect to the expenditure of the country. It could not certainly have escaped the notice of noble Lords, that the estimate of the expense of the country had been very considerably diminished in the present Session of Parliament, in comparison with that of the last and the preceding Session, considering at the same time what reductions had been made in those Sessions on the estimate of former Sessions. He could safely say that he had done every thing in his power, and all the other Ministers of his Majesty had done every thing in their power, to reduce the expense of the country to the smallest possible amount: There was no expense incurred that was not expressly necessary to maintain the honour of the country, and to uphold its interests, extended as they were to every quarter of the world. It was perfectly true that this island was but a small portion of the globe, yet its interests were extended all over the world, and must be maintained, though at a great expense. The expense necessary for the maintenance of the honour and interests of this country was at present only 12,000,000 l. of money; for there had been a decrease, in the last three Sessions of Parliament, of not less than 2,000,000 l. on this part of the expenditure; and their Lordships must know that the other portions of the expenditure, such as the payments for half-pay and for the interest of the national debt, could not be touched at all. Having said this, he must claim for himself and his colleagues credit for an anxious desire to do every thing in their power to diminish the expenditure. With respect to the amount of expense incurred on account of the Colonies, he believed that the number of troops in the old colonies, and places occupied by a military

1249
force previously to 1792, was now reduced lower than it was in that year. This country had., however, in the course of the last war, made very considerable conquests, and those conquests required for their maintenance large bodies of men, and consequently created a great additional expense. They required for their protection, very nearly as many troops as the old colonies. In some parts of the world England had very important ones now, which formerly were not in her possession, to maintain which a certain force was obliged to be kept up. Before the war we were not masters of the Cape of Good Hope, of the Mauritius, nor of Ceylon. In the Mediterranean we had formerly no station, except Gibraltar, which was not the case now. It was obvious, that all the colonies which we had acquired demanded a large force for their protection. These things considered, it appeared to him that the military establishment had been reduced as far as it could be reduced, a proper regard being had to the interests of the empire. With respect to the naval establishment, it was a little higher than it usually was in time of peace; but the necessity which had arisen for employing fleets in different parts of the world, where war was still, or had been very lately, carried on, necessarily called for a greater number of men, and, consequently, created a greater expense than would have been required under ordinary circumstances. The question then was, whether it were possible to do without those stations? He thought it was not; and therefore the matter came to this—that we must maintain them; and Ministers were anxious to do so at the lowest possible expense.
Lord Calthorpeadmitted, that it was quite clear, that the retention of those colonies and stations must inevitably be attended with a certain expense; but still he was by no means prepared to say that greater reductions might not be effected.
The Earl of Malmesburysaid, there was one point which had not been alluded to when mention was made of our foreign possessions, to which he would call their Lordships' attention: it was a very important point, for the station which he was about to notice had cost this country infinite sums of money, as well as the lives of our best soldiers and seamen. He believed that the subject was somewhat unpopular, but still he thought it right to express his
1250
opinion on it. He adverted to the settlement of Sierra Leone, which was still kept up, on the coast of Africa, for the purpose of checking and controlling the slave-trade. Now he wondered, when he heard economy so much spoken of, that no notice was taken of that settlement. He believed he might say, that in the way of money, it was a heavy expense to this country; but that circumstance was not one-half so much to be regretted, as the thousands and tens of thousands of lives which it cost the country. Our troops became the victims to that pestiferous climate, and our brave seamen perished on its equally pestiferous coast; for he believed that it made no difference whether the men were on shore or were employed on the coast: in either case, the result was equally fatal. In his opinion, very considerable savings might be made in the colonies. He thought that the expense which was incurred on account of them might be materially diminished. There was one of them, New South Wales, which was discovered between 1780 and 1790; and he found that at the present time the mother country was put to the expense of keeping two regiments of infantry there, besides a civil establishment. Whether that establishment was on an extravagant scale or not, he could not say; but certainly the colony ought to bear some portion of the expense. The subject to which he had first pointed their Lordships' notice was a very important one, whether it were viewed with an eye to economy, or to the feelings of humanity. Ministers ought to take into their serious consideration, whether they would persevere in the system so long persisted in,—whether they would continue the attempts made (from the most laudable motives he believed, but with very little effect) to do away with the slave-trade by preserving the settlement of Sierra Leone. They must know the dreadful loss of human life which was sustained there, and they must be equally aware of the waste of treasure which that settlement had occasioned. He begged pardon for detaining the House so long; but he thought this was a subject which deserved consideration. With respect to the distress of the country, he really did not see any material advantage that was likely to be derived from the remedies pointed out in some places. Many causes might be assigned for that distress, but he would allude only to one,—he meant

1251
the change in the currency. If the subject were made matter of inquiry, he thought it would be found practicable to resort to a paper currency, on a certain and defined principle, by which the country would be benefitted. There was a paper currency in Scotland, and why might not we assimilate our system to the system which prevailed in that prosperous country? The noble Lords who moved and seconded the Address on the first night of the Session, who were connected with Scotland, and knew its condition well, stated that there was no distress in that country, yet they had that small paper currency there of which we had deprived ourselves. That might, he thought, be considered as one cause of the distress. But there was another, and that a very powerful cause; he alluded to the state of the Poor-laws. An enormous tax was levied in that shape, and he wished to direct their Lordships' attention to it. He would first notice the mode of its assessment; and, secondly, the manner of its appropriation. In one way or other 8,000,000 l. was collected under this head, and it was grossly misapplied. It was called poor-rates, but it was applied to fifty other purposes. Was it to be believed that no moans existed by which it could be mitigated, and made to fall more equally? Various were the purposes to which this tax was diverted,—building bridges, making roads, &c. Was it fair, he would ask, to compel him to pay for building a bridge, over which a London Alderman might walk gratis, when at the same time he was obliged to pay a tax levied on coal, for the erection of London Bridge? This money was also applied to pay the expense incurred for the conviction of offenders. Very few of their Lordships, he believed, knew the amount of the sums paid in this way. He contended, that expenses incurred for the conviction of offenders ought to be paid out of the public purse. He instanced these things, to show how necessary it would be, to go into an inquiry on this subject. More good would result from such an inquiry than would be derived from any general inquiry, which never reached any specific object.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, no one could doubt but that his Majesty's Ministers intended to make some reduction; and it must be admitted that some useful reductions had been made in preceding years; at the same time it must occur to
1252
their Lordships, that however favourable might be the disposition of any Government towards retrenchment, it was impossible to say what should be done until the subject was fully investigated. As a proof of this, he would instance the fact, that it had been confidently stated by former Governments, and he had no doubt it was their sincere belief, that the reduction of expenditure had been carried to the utmost extent to which it could safely be carried. But afterwards, stimulated by the attention which Parliament paid to the subject, they found that farther retrenchments might be made with perfect safety to the interests of the country; therefore, he meant not to throw any imputation on the noble Duke opposite, when he stated that he could not assume it as a decided fact, that there might not hereafter, or even in the course of the present Session of Parliament, arise an opportunity for making an effectual and useful reduction in the expenditure of the country, although the noble Duke did not at present contemplate such an event. Knowing, however, as he did, that much of the future relief of the country depended on the hope of a very considerable reduction of expenditure, to that hope he would cling even to the last day of the Session. The noble Duke had alluded to the colonial expenditure. Now, there were two views connected with that subject. The one was that which the noble Duke had taken,—that of considering the minimum of military defence and civil establishment, by which those colonies might be kept in security and connexion with the mother country: the second was, after having ascertained to what that minimum of expenditure might be brought, to consider by what means the colonies could be induced to assist themselves and relieve the mother country from a portion of the burthen. That was, he thought, one of the greatest points of policy that could be looked to; for, numerous as our colonies were, and reaching, as the noble Duke had truly said, to every quarter of the globe, they must be divided into two classes; one consisting of purely military stations, the expense of which must inevitably be thrown on the mother country, and the other composed of colonial dependencies connected with the trade and commerce of the mother country, and possessing a wealthy population. Now, in proportion as there was extended to the latter the advantage of a good Government and

1253
a considerable share in the administration of that Government, he thought those colonies ought to give every facility for defraying a part of the expenditure connected with them. If this country afforded them naval defence, as no doubt it always would, he thought they ought to be made to defray the whole of the military expense. Let their Lordships look to Canada: the people there were now enjoying a government, somewhat different indeed from what it was, but one under which they lived happily, and which seemed to meet the feelings and wishes of the whole population. In his opinion, such being the case, that colony ought to defray the greater part, if not the whole amount of the expense incurred for a military force.
The Petition was then read, and laid on the Table.
The Duke of Richmondpresented a Petition from the town of Lowth, in Lincolnshire, complaining of distress. He expressed a hope that the noble Lords whose sentiments he had listened to that evening, would support the motion which he intend to submit shortly.

TIMBER.
Earl Darnley, in rising to move for a return of all Contracts made for Timber for the use of his Majesty's Dock-yards, since January 1st. 1810,stated that his object in moving for the Return was, to put at rest those differences of opinion relative to the price of Timber which had been lately stated in that House. He wished also to make the Admiralty aware of the necessity of putting a stop to the practice of laying in such a vast stock of Timber as was piled up in the Dock-yards. Large sums were expended every year for the purchase of Timber, which night, he thought, be saved He by no means wished to cripple the efficiency of the Navy, for he believed that to be essential to the national safety—he wished to make no reduction in the number of seamen employed, for that part of the service could not be too effective: he thought, indeed, that the coast blockade might be dispensed with, but he objected to keeping up such an immense dead stock in our Dock-yards, which perhaps might never be wanted, and was purchased apparently only to decay. When the Returns, for which he should move, were laid before their Lordships, they would be as sensible of this as he was. The vote, he
1254
believed, for the purchase of Timber and other Stores for the next year, was not less than 784,000 l.,* which seemed to him so enormous that some reduction ought to be made in it. He was willing to confide in his Majesty's Government, but he earnestly pressed it on the noble Duke (Wellington), or on the noble Viscount (Melville) to consider of the propriety of curtailing this enormous branch of expenditure. Before he made the Motion he would observe, that much of this Timber, he believed, came from Sierra-Leone, his opinion concerning which colony was precisely the same as that of his noble friend who had addressed their Lordships that evening. His Lordship concluded by moving for, "an Account of all the Timber contracted for the use of his Majesty's Dock-yards since January 1st, 1810, specifying the quantity and quality of the Timber supplied under each contract, the country where the Timber was grown, the price per load (except the price of contracts now in existence) and the amount of Duty paid on Timber of foreign growth."
Viscount Melvillesaid, he did not rise to oppose the Motion, but only to assert for himself, that he had a strong desire to make every possible reduction; at the same time he was bound to inform their Lordships, that he did not think a diminution of the supply of the materials of shipbuilding was consistent with the national safety. As long ago as the time of Lord Sandwich, a regulation was made to keep in the Dock-yards three years' supply of Timber, that, in case of any sudden emergency, seasoned Timber might be obtained. The regulation, however, was not carried fully into effect, till the very last year of the late war. He would not enter into details; he would only assure his noble friend, that much less Timber was made use of than formerly, and his Majesty's Government was anxious to reduce the expenditure to the lowest possible scale.—The Returns were ordered.

FOREIGN CORN.
The Earl of Malmesburyrose, to move for some Returns, to which, he said, he understood his Majesty's
* This sum includes the expense of the repairs of docks, wharfs, and buildings; and the price of old Stores 104,000 l. must be deducted to get at the sum voted by the House of Commons; there remains 680,000 l. as the sum voted for Timber and other Stores in one year.—See Navy Estimates, for 1830, page 14.

1255
Ministers would make no objection. The noble Earl accordingly moved for "a Return of the quantity of Wheat entered for home-consumption, under the Act of 9 Geo. 4th, cap. 60, in each week since the passing of the Act, with the amount of; duty received thereon; distinguishing the average price, and the rates of duty charged; also a Return of the aggregate average price of Wheat, from the first week of: October, 1828, to the second week in February, 1829; and also the same Return from the first week in October, 1829, to the second week in February, 1830." His wish was, to ascertain the quantity of Wheat entered weekly for home-consumption, since the passing of the Act alluded to in July, 1828. In seventeen months from that time, no less than 2,200,000 quarters of Wheat had been imported into this country, and he had no doubt but these large importations joined with the still greater importations of Wool, had contributed materially to cause the agricultural distress. By the last Return their Lordships would see, that the farmer had not been receiving, by 4s. per quarter, that price which the legislature deemed necessary as a remunerating price.—The Returns were ordered.