Sitting of 4 May 1830

MINUTES.
On the Motion of Sir J. GRAHAM, the Clerk of the Crown attended and amended the Return for the County of Limerick, by substituting the name of J. H. Massey Dawson, Esq. for that of Colonel O'Grady, who had been declared unduly elected. On the Motion of Sir H. PARNELL, a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the Receipt; and Disbursements of the Holyhead

373
Roads. Mr. WILNOT HORTON obtained leave to bring in a Bill to direct certain Returns to be made to Parliament from all the Parishes of England and Wales; and to enable Parishes to raise Money for certain purposes of providing for the Poor therein set forth; providing for the probable charge by Annuities. Sir G. MURRAY obtained leave to bring in a Bill to Amend the Act of the 31 Ceo. III. with a view of making more efficacious the Provincial Government of the Province of Quebec—Bill brought in. Mr. FRANKLAND LEWIS obtained leave to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the Laws relative to the Office of Treasurer of the Navy. A Bill was brought in to appropriate the Fees of the Offices of the Courts of Common Law.
Returns presented. The quantity of Sugar exported from the Mauritius since 1825:—The Sums of Money voted by the House of Assembly in Jamaica, and applied to the payment of the King's Troops:—Copies of Instructions or Letters relative to the operation of the 5 Geo. IV. c. 51 and 57 in Newfoundland:—Copy of Conditions for granting Land in New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land:—Copy of a Letter dated April 8, 1830, from W. R. Hay, Esq. relative to Revenues and Expenditure of the Cape of Good Hope, and other Colonies:—Copy of the Laws and Ordinances of the Governor and Council of New South Wales:—Copy of Correspondence relative to the Supply of the Metropolis with Water:—Persons holding Offices in the Colonies not in the execution of their Duties.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Sir H. PARNELL, Hides imported, and from whence, between 1810 and 1815, and 1824 and 1829:—Quantities of Cinnamon, Mace, Nutmegs, Cloves, and Cayenne, and other Peppers, entered for Consumption, with the Hates of Duty payable on each, and Revenues derived from them in each year since 1818:—Quantities of Hemp imported, the Hates of Duty, and the Amount of Revenue derived from it during each of the last five years:—Quantities of Cheese, Butter, and Eggs imported in each year during the last seven years, the Rates of Duty on each Article, the total Amount of Revenue obtained from it in each year, and the country whence imported:—The number of Watches stamped each year at Goldsmiths' Hall since 1811:—Rates of Duty on Tallow, Wax, and Spermaceti Candles, the qualities produced, and Revenue derived from each in each year since 1800:—On the Motion of Mr. FOWELLL BUXTON, the number of Persons executed for Forgery during each of the last ten years, describing the nature of the Forgery. On the Motion of Mr. O'CONNELL, Monies received as fines by the Dublin Police, and paid into the Rank of Ireland for the last twenty years, with the Accounts of the Receivers of the Police of Dublin. On the Motion of Sir R. WILSON, all Prosecutions instituted under that clause of the Stamp-act which relates to entering Pamphlets.
Petitions presented. Against the Sale of Beer Bill—By Mr. Alderman WOOD, from the Inhabitants of St. Botolph, Aldgate; and from the Licensed Victuallers of Beccles, Suffolk:—By Mr. GUEST, from the Publicans of Merthyr Tydvill:—By Mr. BIRCH, from those of Nottingham:—By Mr. CROMPTON, from the Inhabitants of Derby:—By Mr. HUSKISSION, from the Burgesses and others of Liverpool:—By Mr. J. MARSHALL, from the Publicans of Bradford:—By Mr. RICKFORD, from those of Aylesbury:—By Sir C. HASTINGS, from those of Ash by de la Zouch:—By Lord STANLEY, from the Clergy and Magistrates of Blackburn:—By Mr. LEGH KECK, three Petitions from Parishes in Leicester:—By Mr. FLEMING, from a Parish in the Isle of Wight:—By Sir W. HEATHCOTE, from Fareham, Hams:—By Lord C. MANNERS, from a person named Watts; and from the Licensed Victuallers of Wisbeach.—By Mr. N. CALVERT, three Petitions from Hat-field, Bishop Stortford, and a Parish in Hertfordshire:—By Sir J. ASTLEY, two Petitions from Bradford and Trowbridge:—By Mr. RUMBOLD, from Publicans at Yarmouth:--By Sir T. FREMANTLE, from the Licensed Victuallers of Amersham; and from St. Mary's, Teddington:—By Mr. WARD, from those of St. Luke's, Bethnal Green:—By Lord Viscount MILTON, from the Publicans of Leeds, Huddersfield, and Halifax:—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from the Publicans of Kidderminster;—By Mr.
374
SLANEY, from Whitchurch:—By Sir H. MILDNAY, from Winchester:—By Mr. O. CAVE, from Sussex:—By Mr. COKE, from the Norfolk Agricultural Society; and the Yeomanry of the County of Norfolk:—By Mr. LITTLRTON, from eight places in Staffordshire:—By Sir E. KERRISON, from Ardale: By Mr. HOULDSWORTH, from Market-Harborough:—By Lord SANDON, from the Corporation of Tiverton, and the Victuallers of Tiverton:—By Mr. WELLS, from Maidstone and Aylesford:—By Sir W. INGLEBY, from Horncastle and Louth, in Lincolnshire:—By Mr. N, FELLOWES, from the Town of Huntingdon; and two other places in Huntingdonshire:—By Mr. B. BARING, from Thetford:—By Mr. MONCK, from the Brewers and Magistrates of Reading; from the Publicans of Reading; and the Publicans of the Isle of Wight:—And by Sir T. LETHBRIDGE, from the Owners of Public-houses, not being Brewers, ill Bath, Against the forced Contribution to Greenwich Hospital, by General PHIPPS, from the Seamen of Scarborough. For uniformity in the mode of keeping Parish Accounts, by Lord G. LRNNOX, from George Gunning, of Frendsbury, Kent. Against the Abolition of the Welsh Judicature, by the Earl of UXBRIDGE, from the Magistrates of Anglesey. In favour of the Abolition, by Mr. WYNN, from the Freeholders of the County of Montgomery. Against the Truck System, by Mr. BRIGHT, from the Clergy, Manufacturers, and others of Bisley and Brinseomb Port, of Painswick, of Caincross and Ebley, and of Nailsworth and Woodchester:—By Mr. BENETT, from the Manufacturers of Trowbridge:—By Mr. G. LAMB, from the Inhabitants of the Colliery Districts of Monmouthshire. Against the increased Duty on British Spirits, by Mr. O'HARA, from the Landowners and Land-occupiers of Galway:—By Mr. WESTERN, from Occupiers and Owners of Land near Colchester:—By Lord TULLAMORE, from the Landowners of Tullamore:—By Mr. DOWNIE, from Scarawalsh. Against the increased Stamps on Newspapers in Ireland, by Mr. O'CONNELL, from the Newspaper Reporters of Dublin. In favour of the Court of Session (Scotland) Bill, by Mr. ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL, from the faculty of Procurators of Glasgow. For protection against the rending of Tea by Hawkers and Pedlars, by Mr. BRIGHT, from the Tea-dealers of Bristol. For the Repeal of the Parishes Vestry Act (Ireland), by Sir H. PARNELL, from the Justices of the Queen's County. Against any additional Duty on Corn Spirits, by the same hon. Member, from the Farmers and others of Upper Ossory:—By Sir J. NEWPORT, from the Inhabitants of Spelburne, in the County of Kilkenny, For holding the Assizes for the West Riding of Yorkshire at Wakefield, by Lord MILTON, from the Inhabitants of Mirfield, of Henley, of Seammonden, and Pontefract. For protection to West-India Property, by Mr. HESKISSON, from Proprietors, Mortgagees, &C. of Plantations in Demarara, Berbice, and St. Lucia. For the Abolition of Slavery, by Mr. R. G. KISSEL, from Protestant Dissenters at Thirsk. Complaining of Distress, and praying for the Repeal of Taxation, by Mr. S. BOURNE, from the Inhabitants of Eling, Hants:-By Lord F. OSRORXK, four Petitions from Parishes in Kent:—By Sir W. HEATHCOTE, from several Parishes in Hampshire:—By Mr. O. CAVE, from Ansley, Leicestershire:—By Lord RANCLIFFE, from Thomas Warsop, of Nottingham. For opening the Trade to China, by Mr. LEGH KECK, from the Inhabitants of Hinekley:—By Mr. CAWTHORNE, from the Corporation of Lancaster:—By Mr. G. LAMB, from Dungarvon:—By Mr. T. DUNDAS, from the Clothing District of Horsforth. Praying for Relief, by Sir J. NEWPORT, from James Stanley, Parish Clerk of Killeedy (Limerick), who had lost hit employment and emoluments by the Parish Church having been burnt down by Insurgents. Against the Laws regulating the Admission of Surgeons into Colleges, by the same hon. Baronet, from the Surgeons of Waterford. Against the Duty on Tobacco grown in Ireland, by the same hon. Baronet, from the Cultivators of Tobacco in the County of Waterford, and from those of Kilkenny. For the Repeal of Stamp Duties on Receipts, by Mr. ROBINSON, from the Inhabitants of Worcester. Against the Poor-laws Amendment Bill, by Lord EUSTON, from the Guardians of the Poor of the Parish of Bury St, Edmund's, In favour of this

375
Bill, by Mr. J. MARSHALL, from the Overseers of the Poor of Leeds:—By Mr. T. DUNDAS, from the Inhabitants of several Parishes in the City of York. For the Abolition of the Punishment of Death for Forgery, by Mr. HUSKISSON, from the Inhabitants of Liverpool:-—By Mr. WESTERN, from the Inhabitants of Great Bardfield and Kelvedon. Against the Irish Vestries Act, by Mr. O'CONNELL, from the Inhabitants of St. Peter's, Dublin: and of St. Andrew's, Dublin. Against certain Tolls in Ireland, by the same hon. Member, from Naas. Against the Coal-duties (Ireland), by the same hon. Member, from the Householders of Balbriggan. By the same hon. Member, from certain operative Cotton Spinners of Manchester, against excessive Labour. In favour of the Jews Relief Bill, by Mr. T. P. COURTENAN, from the Inhabitants of Totness. In favour of the Poor-laws in Ireland, by Mr. SADLER, from the Town of Tullamore:—And by Mr. BROWNLOW, from the Parish of Kileleigh, Westmeath.

EMANCIPATION OF THE JEWS.
Mr. Brightin presenting two Petitions—the one from British-born Jews resident in Bristol, the other from a great number of Christian inhabitants of Bristol, of every denomination, praying that the Jews might be placed on an equality in respect of civil rights and privileges with their fellow-subjects—took occasion to observe, that the general feeling at Bristol was greatly in favour of the Emancipation of the Jews. The petitioners affirmed, that they knew the Jews to be distinguished for their loyalty and good conduct, and they thought this persecuted people were entitled to be placed on an equality, in respect to civil rights and privileges, with their Christian fellow-countrymen. Whenever the question should conic before the House he would be most happy to assist in removing the greater part, although, perhaps, not all of the disabilities under which the Jews at present laboured.
Mr. Protheroebegged to call the attention of the House to both these Petitions, as well deserving of it. As the argument against the Emancipation of the Jews seemed to have taken a religious tone, he must be allowed to observe, that the character of the inhabitants of Bristol was a; religious as that of any other body of individuals in the kingdom, and yet that there was a strong feeling among the intelligent classes in that city in favour of the emancipation. If they had the least apprehension that it would expose the Established Church, or the Constitution to any danger, they would be the last people of the Empire to petition in favour of it Whenever the subject came regularly be fore the House he should certainly vote for full and entire emancipation.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, he also had a Petition to present on the same subject, to which he begged shortly to call the atten-
376
tion of the House. It came from a number of Bankers, Merchants, and other inhabitants of Liverpool, stating that in their opinion the civil disabilities under which the Jews laboured were as contrary to the spirit as they were injurious to the interests of Christianity; and they consequently prayed that the bill in progress through the House, for relieving persons of the Jewish persuasion from all civil disabilities, might pass into a law. The Petition was signed by above 2000 persons; among whom were comprehended not only the Mayor of Liverpool and many members of the Corporation, but every banker, and almost every merchant of weight in the town. An hon. friend of his had told him that he had never known any petition from Liverpool more numerously and respectably signed. It was also signed by several clergymen of the Church of England. Under these circumstances, he trusted it would have the influence to which it was entitled. There might be exceptions; but he believed that, generally speaking, the persons the most religiously disposed in Liverpool were decidedly favourable to the emancipation.
General Gascoyneobserved, that although he most readily bore testimony to the number and respectability of the individuals who had signed the Petition, and agreed fully with his right hon. colleague that for many years no petition had been more numerously and more respectably signed; nevertheless, feeling as he did, that the principles which induced him to oppose the introduction of the Roman Catholics into an entire participation of the civil privileges of their fellow-subjects equally operated on his mind with reference to the Jews; he felt himself bound to say so. His right hon. friend acted consistently with the principles which induced him to vote for Catholic emancipation, in supporting the emancipation of the Jews; a proposition which it had been last Session foretold would be made before a year had elapsed. On the broad principle of an established religion being necessary, he should oppose the bill in every stage. After having voted against the Catholics it would be paying them a very bad compliment now to vote in favour of the Jews.
Mr. O'Connellthought that, so far from an opposition to the bill being a compliment to the Catholics, the only compliment the gallant Officer could make to them would be to vote for this bill, and for every

377
measure of religious emancipation. The political reasons which operated with many persons to induce them to oppose the Catholics could have no influence in the case of the Jews, and any opposition to them must be founded on principles of religious intolerance, which the Catholics did not wish to see acted on.
Sir John Brydgeswould give the bill all the opposition in his power whenever it came before the House.
Mr. Huskissonthought that those who had voted against the Catholics might consistently support the bill for emancipating the Jews.
Petitions to be printed.

PETITION OF INDO-BRITONS.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that he regretted that the duty of presenting the Petition which he then held in his hand had fallen upon him, in consequence of the indisposition under which his noble friend, the member for Woodstock (Lord Ashley) was labouring. He regretted that the Petition, when presented by him, would lose that weight which it would have derived from being presented by the noble Lord, not merely on account of his official character as one of the Commissioners for the Affairs of India, but also on account of the great diligence and attention which he was in the habit of bestowing upon all subjects connected with that country. He had to observe that the Petition was very numerously signed by the Christian, and he might call them very respectable inhabitants of Calcutta and the provinces comprised within the Presidency of Fort William, descended on one side from the European subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, and on the other from natives of India, who might therefore be denominated Indo-Britons, though they were more generally known by the title of half-castes. The grievances of which the Petitioners complained were numerous, but might, he believed, be comprised under two heads. Whilst they lived in Calcutta, within the limited jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, they were ruled in their civil relations by the laws of England; but the moment they passed beyond that jurisdiction, they complained that they were placed beyond the pale of all civil law, whether British, Hindoo, or Mahomedan. They likewise complained that they were excluded from all superior offices in the civil and military services of the East-India
378
Company. To this subject he had alluded last year, when he had the honour of presenting a petition from the natives of India, complaining that they were excluded from all offices of trust and emolument in the land of their fathers. For his own part he could not separate the cases of these two different classes of petitioners. This, however, he must say, that whatever arguments applied to the case of the natives of India, applied with much greater force to those unfortunate individuals who were the subscribers to this petition. They, at least, were of our blood and of our religion: many of them were educated in this country, and were thus possessed of capacity and acquirements of the finest description. Though they professed themselves to be, and actually were Christians, they were, when in the interior, amenable to the Mahomedan criminal law. They were thus deprived of all the advantages of Trial by Jury; and when accused of offences, were liable to be fined and imprisoned, and corporally punished, not merely by European, but also by Mahomedan officers of justice. Questions might arise as to the validity of their marriages; and all such questions must be decided, not according to the principles of Christian, but according to those of Mahomedan law. How great the disadvantages were which arose from this system had been made apparent in the inquiries which had been recently instituted into this subject by the committee now sitting on the East India Company's charter. A great many females, the daughters of European fathers by native mothers, were married to European officers high in the service of the Company at Calcutta. Among the officers who held the highest situations on the staff in the Company's service at Calcutta, there was not at present one who was not married to a female of Indian descent. Supposing that an offence was charged against any of these married couples, whilst residing in the interior, the husband would be sent to Calcutta, to be tried by Europeans, according to the principles of British law; but the wife might be tried and condemned before any Mahomedan magistrate. This was not merely a grievance in itself, but it gave rise to a feeling among the half-castes that they stood in a different situation from their European relations, with whom they would otherwise mix upon terms of equality, and to whom they were, in point of fact, equal in this country. There was

379
nothing in the law or constitution of this country to prevent any half-caste from being elected a Member of Parliament, or from taking his seat as such in that House, They were sent over to this country for education; whilst here they received an education equal to that received by any Gentleman whom he was then addressing; and they were thus able to discharge the duties of any situation. The grievance which they felt the most severely was their exclusion by the East India Company from all employments in their service, civil and military. Within these few years this injustice, glaring as it originally was, had been considerably mitigated, for the exclusion had been confined to the sons of parents who were both natives of India. Formerly, any one who had a tinge of colour in his skin was certain to meet with obstruction after obstruction in his road to preferment, so that it was impossible for him to rise like other persons not more meritorious. It happened that, on one occasion, the son of an English officer by an English woman was darker than suited the taste of our military critics, and there was, in consequence, a refusal to grant him a commission. He knew that there were those who talked of the inherent prerogative of Europeans to fill all offices of importance and emolument in India. He should be ashamed to argue with those who upheld such doctrines. He should blush if he were compelled, even for any temporary advantage in argument, to go through the names of those who, in spite of these regulations, had worked out their way to greatness by the commanding force of their talents. He had mentioned last year the case of Colonel Skinner, who, though he was excluded, owing to his descent from a native mother, from serving in the East India Company's army, had raised a corps of 8,000 men for it during one of the late wars, and who had by that very action earned for himself the rank of lieutenant colonel in the King's service, and obtained the cross of a Commander of the Bath. He had had evidence placed before him within the his two days, which proved that Colonel Skinner's influence in India was so great that he could raise 10,000 men at any time. That officer was as gallant a man, and as loyally attached to his Sovereign, as man could be; and was it wise, he would ask, to make such a man, with such influence the object of proscription? If
380
such a policy were to be permanently adopted, individuals in such circumstances would soon be animated with feelings of hostility to our Indian government. If the career of honour were shut against them, the talents which could not be used in its favour, would be used for its destruction. Others held it to be politic that these men should be systematically degraded, and why? "Because (said they) the natives of India look upon these half-castes in a very different manner from that in which they look upon Europeans." This mode of argument was really monstrous. The governors of India first placed these individuals in a state of degradation and then urged that degradation as a reason for continuing it. Whilston this subject he would refer to the opinion which had been given upon it by Sir Thomas Monro. The right hon. Gentleman then read an extract from that gallant officer's correspondence to this effect:—"With what grace can you talk of your paternal government of India, if you exclude the descendants of European fathers by native mothers from all offices, and if, over a population of 50,000,000 you enact that no one but an European shall order any punishment? Such an interdiction is a sentence of degradation on a whole people, from which no good can arise. How can we expect that the Hindoo population will be good subjects unless we hold out to them inducements to become so? If superior acquirements cannot open the road to distinction, how can you expect individuals to take the trouble of attaining them? When obtained, they can answer no other purpose than that of showing their possessor the fallen condition of the caste to which he belongs. This is true of man in all countries. Let our own native Britain be subjugated by a foreign force,—let the natives of it be excluded from all offices of trust and emolument,—and then all their knowledge, and all their literature, both foreign and domestic, will not save them from being in a few generations, a low-minded, deceitful, and dishonest race." The right hon. Gentleman then proceeded to declare, that the whole of the correspondence of the able officer, from whose work he had just quoted a passage, deserved the attention of the House; and he should therefore move that it be laid before the Committee sitting on the Affairs of India. He could assure hon. Members that if they would take the trouble to read it through, they

381
would be no less delighted than benefitted by the sentiments of enlightened humanity, and by the high-minded and liberal views which it contained. Before he sat down, he could not help observing, that the effects of this system of exclusion were not merely confined to a legal operation, but were also productive of great moral and personal degradation. He had found that to be the case during the period in which he had himself superintended the affairs of India. He had discovered that in a charitable institution, founded by Lord Clive, for the benefit of the widows and children of his companions in arms, and founded without the slightest intention of establishing any system of an exclusive nature, it was now arranged, that before any widow could receive the benefit of it, an affidavit must be made that she was not of native blood. By the regulations of the Military Fund, established at Madras in the year 1808, and at Bombay in the year 1816, it was stipulated, that it should be an indispensable qualification to any child who sought relief from it, that both the parent and the child should be European and of unmixed blood; and it was likewise added, that four removes from African or Asiatic blood should be considered as restoring the blood to purity. He considered that the state of society in which such regulations were publicly avowed and acted upon required revision and reformation. He therefore trusted, that whatever might be the issue of the inquiry now proceeding up-stairs, the House would take into its consideration the situation both of these petitioners and of the natives, and would admit them to every office which their education and acquirements rendered them qualified to discharge. He might perhaps be asked, "Would you wish the whole government of India to find its way into the hands of Asiatics?" To that question he would merely answer, that in his opinion the regulation, which he sought to obtain as matter of right for the half-castes, would never be extensively granted to them in practice, no matter in what hands the patronage of India might be hereafter vested, whether in those of the East-India Company or of the British Government. We might be sure that, under any Administration, favour would be shown to Europeans, and that nothing but decided merit would place an Asiatic on the same level with them. It was unwise to let the natives and the half-castes feel that
382
the career of honour was shut against them; and in a House of Commons, which had removed the exclusion which for so many years had operated upon a large class of its Catholic fellow-subjects, an exclusion which had only been justified on political grounds, even by those who advocated its continuance—in a House of Commons which had also taken the first step to emancipate the Jews from the state of degradation to which they had been so long consigned by the law of this country,—in such a House of Commons, he said, he did not expect to find any opposition made to so reasonable a prayer as this—that men should not be shut out from all offices of trust in the country of their birth, simply because they derived their being from its Original inhabitants. He moved that the Petition be brought up.
Mr. Stuart Wortleythought that as the whole subject of the government of India was at present undergoing the consideration of a committee above stairs, the present was an unfit opportunity to enter into a discussion of the situation of that class of persons from whom the Petition purported to come; yet, after what had passed, he should not feel himself justified, if he suffered the Petition to be brought up, without presenting a few observations to the notice of the House. The principal object he contemplated, in rising to address the House, was to assure the right hon. Gentleman, the House, and the petitioners, that the half-castes were not looked upon with any of that contemptuous feeling which they attributed to the government of India. He assured the House that there existed every disposition on the part of the Government to pay proper attention to the wishes and interests of the class of persons to which the petitioners belonged. Government was always ready to relieve them from any grievances under which they might suppose themselves to be labouring, provided it could be done consistently with the good government and safety of our Indian possessions. Amongst the grievances alluded to in the Petition, there were some such as the laws relating to marriage and succession, which might be remedied—there were others which required much caution and deliberation, because they involved important considerations respecting the government and even the safety of our possessions in India. He considered also, that it would be inconvenient to enter into any discus-

383
sion of them in bringing up a petition, more particularly as there was then a committee sitting to investigate all the affairs of India. It was to that committee rather than to the House, that he should wish to refer the whole subject, particularly as it had already made some inquiry concerning it. The committee had ascertained that the number of persons of the description of the petitioners in the province of Bengal was about 2,000, and of these, it had been stated by one of the witnesses examined before the committee, about 1,500 were fit for holding offices. Now he could not think that these people had much to complain of, for it was also given in evidence that about two-thirds of them, or 1,000 actually held offices of one kind or another. He did not mean to say that such a statement was an answer to the allegations of the petitioners, but it was a clear proof that in practice they were not excluded from employment to such a degree as their Petition might lead Members to suppose. He was one of the last persons to throw any obstacles in the way of the petitioners; he had no prejudices against any caste or colour, but he deprecated discussion on the important questions involved in the Petition, and he could assure the House that the Government was ready to give the subject that grave and serious consideration which it deserved.
Sir J. Macintoshsaid, he had had an opportunity of observing the conduct and character of that class of persons whose petition was then under discussion, and he had inquired and reflected much respecting them. He had heard much too, of the natural inferiority of particular races—that there was one race born to command, and another to obey; but this he regarded as the common-place argument of the advocates of oppression; and he knew there was no foundation for it in any part of India. This, he declared, he spoke upon due consideration, because he had observed boys of all races in places of public education. He had observed the clerks in counting-houses, and even in the Government offices, for some were admitted to the subordinate situations, and thus allowed to sit in contact as it were with all the objects of their ambition, though they were only tantalized by the vicinity of that which they could never attain. He was convinced that there was no race, not actually in a state of slavery which
384
was used with more needless harshness than that to which the petitioners belonged. He did not agree with the hon. Secretary to the Board of Control that the House ought not to enter into the subject because it was to come before the committee, for that committee could not go into all the questions connected with India; and unless the House look frequent opportunities to discuss many of hose questions, it never would be ripe for the proper consideration of the great and extensive subject of settling the government of our Indian possessions. He was surprised to hear the hon. Member insinuate a charge of exaggeration against the petitioners, for if he would reflect on their conduct, he must see that their patience had been exemplary under many years of negligence and insult; and instead of reproaching them for now complaining, he ought to have expressed admiration at their having been so long silent. The stigma, the brand, was still upon them, and they suffered all the inconvenience of a degraded situation; being deprived of those honours and rewards that ought to be gained by their exertions. It was no answer to him to say that these people were excluded by usage, but not by law. They were excluded by no fault of their own, by no actual offence on their part, and the exclusion, whether operated by law or usage, ought to be put an end to. The hon. Secretary left out of consideration some of their chief complaints. He referred to their marriages, but by what rules they were regulated he (Sir James Macintosh) did not know—certainly' not by the laws of England, and not by the Mahomedan laws, so that the half-castes were in a state of outlawry. The regulation about offices was intended only to exclude them from the highest offices of the Company's Service, but in fact it was acted on to exclude them from the meanest offices, even those held by Mahomedans. The law did not exclude them, but it was the evil of tyrannical laws that they led to still more tyrannical practices; and if the legislature wished to see the people tolerant towards each other, it must not set the example of intolerance by legal exclusions. All experience shewed that whenever the law declared one class of men inferior to another, the inferior class was visited by greater evils and more severe degradation than that contemplated by the law. Nobody who knew him would doubt the

385
esteem he entertained for the great majority of those with whom he had the happiness to be acquainted in India. He did not believe that greater generosity or a finer sense of honour was to be found in any class of men, either at home or in our foreign possessions, but he must nevertheless say, that, to him their conduct in this respect was not praiseworthy. The law of the half-caste which they had suggested, had a most odious appearance—one which he was almost afraid to mention, but which he would mention, because he thought it was well that the Government, should know what appearance it bore—it had the odious appearance of disfranchisement, made by fathers against their children. Those who made those regulations did not, it was true, contemplate them in this odious light, but seduced by motives of state policy, they had done as public men, what as private individuals they would have recoiled from with horror. He would not longer delay the House, except to express the delight he felt at having read that morning an account of a meeting held at Calcutta on December 15, at which the speeches delivered in the English language by two Hindoos of high rank and considerable wealth, would have done honour to any assembly of Europeans. One of them had embraced the Christian faith, notwithstanding the degradation to which natives professing Christianity were exposed. That man eminent, too for his learning, said that he was convinced that the more the Hindoos came into contact with English gentlemen the more they would improve in morality and knowledge. In this view he cordially concurred, and that improvement would be promoted by nothing so much as by abolishing all political and civil distinctions between the different castes. He therefore was ready to give the Petition his warmest support.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, that shortly after he had obtained the honour of a seat in that House, he had called its attention to the hardships suffered by the class of half-castes in India. He was happy to be able to say, that a liberal system was gradually making its way in India, and he was convinced that, in point of policy, the British Government must draw more largely than it had done on the intelligence of the native inhabitants of India. There were some statements in this petition that were questionable; but at the same time it was quite true that those per-
386
sons were in a painful situation, they could not tell what law they were under—they were treated neither as natives nor as Britons,—and he hoped that some means would be taken to put an end to the disabilities under which they now laboured. There was one point which had not been noticed, but which was deserving of consideration—he meant the situation in which those persons of half-caste, who were Christians, stood with regard to the other inhabitants of India. He thought that both in policy and justice these persons, being Christians, ought not to be subject to laws which were administered by Hindoos. He could bear testimony to the honour and ability of the half-caste, whom in those respects he considered equal to the European of full blood. The questions relating to the condition of these persons were well deserving of consideration. He trusted that the grievances of which they complained would be done away with, but the Government must proceed by degrees, and after grave deliberation.
Mr. W. W. Whitmore supported the Petition, and expressed his satisfaction that it had been brought forward, as it would show the Indian population that the House of Commons felt interested in their condition.
Sir C. Forbesconcurred with all that had been said as to the justice and propriety of removing the disabilities of the half-caste of Indo-Britons. He had been seventeen years in this country, after having been twenty-two years in India; the more he saw of the old country the better he liked the natives.
Mr. C. W. Wynnsaid, in reply to the observations of the hon. Secretary to the Board of Control, begged leave to stale that the highest office held by any of the class whose petition he had presented, did not yield more than 700 l. a year. They were excluded from all military-offices, and from all civil-offices directly under the Government, and all such appointments contained the words "provided he (the person appointed) be not a native of India." There was no reason why this exclusion should be continued, nor why native Christians should be worse off than any other class.
Mr. StewartWortley was not aware that these exclusions were contained in the instructions sent out by the directors, or in the appointments which emanated from them.
Mr. John Stewartalso bore testimony to the merits of this class of native population in India, and he hoped the Government would remove the disabilities under which they now laboured. He was glad even of this hasty discussion, and he did not think the opportunity an improper one, for the more the question was discussed the better would the House be able to legislate on the subject of India, when it was formally brought before it. He agreed in the representations made in the Petition. The petitioners by being excluded from European society, were treated with contempt by the natives, and were thus subject to more causes of irritation than were perceptible in the regulations.
The Petition laid on the Table.
Mr. Wynn Mr. Wynn moved for a copy of a Minute of the late Sir T. Munro, relative to the state and condition of the inhabitants of Fort St. George.—Ordered.

BEER-TRADE.
Mr. C. Culvertpresented a Petition, not from brewers or publicans, but from the Vicar, Curate, Churchwardens and Overseers of the Parish of Isleworth, against the Bill now brought in to allow the sale of Beer in houses without regard to the character of the occupier, the wants of the public, or the wishes of the neighbourhood, and without consideration for the ruin of those who had already invested their capital in public-houses. The petitioners stated, that they viewed the progress of this Bill with alarm, and were convinced, that if it became a law, it would be productive of much mischief. For his own part he believed that the House would soon regret the ruin it would be sure to occasion, and the country gentlemen who were now so anxious to support the measure, would, ere long, rue the day in which they gave it their assent. The same hon. Member, presented another petition from three hundred persons, Inhabitants of the Parish of Paddington, against the said Bill; and a third Petition from one Stanley Gainer, of Seacombe, in the county of Chester, who complained, that having laid out the sum of 3,000 l. in building a house intended as a public-house, that he was now in danger of being ruined by a person who, in anticipation of the change to be occasioned by the Bill then in progress, had purchased a small house, where at the expense of 30 l. a year he would be able to retail Beer to all the neighbourhood.
388
The three Petitions were laid on the Table.
Mr. Byngpresented a Petition, signed by 5,000 persons, occupiers and owners of public-houses in London, and its vicinity, against the Bill, and observed, that if it were passed into a law, it would decrease the ease and comfort of all gentlemen who lived in the country, and would be the ruin of many respectable men who had advanced their capital on speculations in public-houses.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonbegged leave to support the prayer of the Petition, many of the petitioners being among his constituents. He regretted very much that it was the determination of the Government to persevere in promoting this Bill; and he hoped, even in that case, that the part which allowed Beer to be drunk on the premises where it was sold would be struck out. He was of opinion that that part of the Bill would have a most pernicious effect on the morals of the lower classes. He had no objection, neither had the petitioners, to Beer being sold by a greater number of persons than at present, but they objected to those persons, without a license or any guarantee for their character, being allowed to supply parties with accommodation for drinking it on their premises. He was of opinion, that a great deal of mischief would result from the change, and he therefore wished that it should be made gradually—for example, it would be better to wait and sec what would be the effect of abolishing the duty on Beer, before allowing every body who chose, to set up a public-house. For his part he could not give his assent to so great and sudden an alteration as was contemplated by that Bill. He was glad that the member for Reading meant to move an amendment to it, for if everybody were allowed to sell Beer, every gentleman might be subject to the annoyance of having a public-house at his door, where the most abominable characters might plan the commission of every species of crime. He believed that all the vigilance of the new police would be insufficient to counteract such temptations to disorder. Moreover, the Bill set aside a number of Acts of Parliament, which, whether for good or evil, had secured to certain parties a monopoly, and induced them to buy and sell under that restriction, which gave a fictitious value to property. Were the owners of property that might be depre-

389
ciated by the new measure to receive no compensation for their loss? He recollected, that when a bill was brought in for altering the system of County Courts, by the noble Lord, the member for Northampton shire, that it was not carried into effect on account of the expense of compensating the officers of those courts. It was considered that the expense would be greater than the benefit to be derived from the alteration; in that case, and in many others which he could quote, the House recognised the principle of compensation, and if the proposed alterations were made in the Beer-trade, those who would suffer by those alterations ought to receive some compensation. If that were to be the case, the legislature should adopt a less extensive measure, which would enable it to compensate those whom it might injure. Let the trade be opened—but let it be accompanied with a prohibition to consume Beer on the premises where it was sold, except in regular licensed houses.
Mr. Alderman Waithmanthought, the call for compensation was made too soon, nor could he sec the analogy between opening the trade in Beer, and regulating the County Courts. The existing system was very bad; the alteration of the law was intended for the public benefit, and he therefore was favourably disposed towards it. At the same time, as much property-had been embarked under the old system, he hoped that some provisions would be adopted in the committee to give, as far as possible, protection to that property, so that the owners of it should not, for the public advantage, suffer a grievous injury.
Mr. Benettwas in favour of the bill, conceiving that the monopoly of public-houses by common brewers was a great evil, which would be remedied by the present measure. He saw no other vested rights endangered by it but those of the brewers, which ought not to be protected. Every poor man who had no other home than the public-house, should be allowed to enjoy himself freely there, and should not be taxed to support opulent brewers and publicans. He wished he could prevail on the right hon. Gentleman opposite to abolish the Malt-tax as well as the Beer-tax; the article would then be made much cheaper and the poor be proportion-ably benefited.
Petition to be printed.

LAW RELATING TO FORGERY.
Mr. F. Buxtonon presenting Petitions from Darlington, Kirk by Kendall, and Kings-bridge, against the severity of the law against Forgery, even as it was proposed to be amended, said that he did not mean to make any observations on the subject, but he begged leave to read the following extracts of letters from highly respectable bankers:—
"Sunderland Bank, April 21 st, 1830.
"The inefficacy of the existing law is most glaring, and bankers, who, perhaps, see more infractions of this law than all others put together, have long and keenly felt upon this subject. Between fifty and sixty years have elapsed since our first establishment, and dining the whole of this period, although numberless forgeries have passed under our observation, yet in no instance, excepting one, have we dared to prosecute, because we should have hazarded the life of a fellow creature; and in that one instance two individuals in all probability would have forfeited their lives, but for our withholding the fatal evidence."
"Banbury Bank, April 21, 1830.
"If the Home Secretary were made acquainted with the sentiments of the banking interest generally on this subject, he possibly might be induced to propose a less sanguinary punishment for offences of this description."
"Wakefield, Yorkshire, April 23, 1830.
"I am largely interested, as a banker, in the West Riding of this county, in the towns of Wakefield, Done aster, and Pontefract. After a long experience I can declare, that I shall rejoice to see the new law with milder penalties, conceiving myself now placed out of the protection of law, as I feel it impossible to prosecute offences where such a penalty is assigned."

IRISH CONSTABULARY FORCE.
Mr. O'Connellrose to move for a return of the number of persons who had been killed by the Police in Ireland since the passing of the Act for the establishment of the Constabulary Force in that country. The effect of that establishment had been, that whenever the people resisted the police, they were put to death by them. In England, resistance to the police was a misdemeanor; but in Ireland it was punished with death. As he was desirous to know how many persons had so fallen, he moved that an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased to order that there be laid before the House an account of the number of persons in Ireland that had been put to death by the police in that country since the passing of the Act

391
of the 3rd of George 4. cap 103, amended by the 5th of Geo. 4. cap. 28, for the establishment of a Constabulary Force in Ireland, distinguishing the number that had been put to death in each year.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerremonstrated with the hon. and learned; Gentleman on the form of his Motion. The hon. and learned Gentleman must surely be aware of the very great mischief which a return to such a motion would be calculated to produce. If the hon. and learned Gentleman persisted in his Motion he must oppose it.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that he was indifferent as to the form; all that he wanted was to get at the facts. He did not mean to impute any blame to the police; he only wanted to know how many lives had been sacrificed by them. However, he would withdraw his Motion for the present, for the purpose of bringing it forward in another shape.
Mr. Dohertysaid, that his right hon. friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had adverted to the extraordinary form of the hon. and learned gentleman's Motion; he (Mr. Doherty) begged to say a few words with respect to the comments by which that Motion had been accompanied. The hon. and learned member for Clare, if he (Mr. Doherty) had not misunderstood him, had stated broadly that in Ireland it was the practice, whenever resistance was made to the police by the people, for the police to put the people to death. Now really he was at a loss to conjecture how it could happen that a person of the hon. and learned Gentleman's knowledge and experience, accustomed as he was to measure his expressions, could make such an assertion as that, and subsequently declare that he meant no offence by it! If the fact were really as the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated it; if the police in Ireland were constantly in the habit of putting to death all persons who made any resistance to them, it was the hon. and learned Gentleman's bounden duty to submit the subject immediately to the solemn consideration of Parliament. He was the more surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman had indulged in such observations in making a motion, of which he had not given any notice, when he might have had such abundant opportunities of substantiating his charges, if they were capable of being substantiated, by producing the petitions against him
392
with which the hon. and learned Gentleman had been in trusted for the purpose of presenting to that House, but which the hon. and learned Gentleman had thought proper to transmit to the Irish Government. The hon. and learned Gentleman knew well, that on the occasion on which he had impugned his (Mr. Doherty's) conduct, that that conduct was calculated to allay the irritation which had grown up between the people and the police; and no man in the creation knew better than the hon. and learned Gentleman what bitter feelings had been cherished between them. The hon. and learned Gentleman well knew the fact that the police came out entirely blameless from the investigation of their conduct by several impartial juries, who pronounced a verdict of acquittal. He was not very skilful in construing the expression of the human countenance; but if he did not greatly deceive himself, he saw a smile on the hon. and learned Gentleman's countenance at the word "impartial." All that he wished was, that the hon. and learned Gentleman would but give him an opportunity of answering his words, and not his gestures. After the misrepresentations which the hon. and learned Gentleman had spread of him in Ireland, all that he wished was, that in the face of the House, and in the face of the country, he would join issue with him on the question. Whenever that time should come he would pledge himself to prove, that all which had been alleged respecting the trials in question was utterly false; he would pledge himself to prove, that the attacks which for the last eight months had been made upon him as prosecutors, both in the speeches of individuals and by the press, were entirely destitute of foundation. He utterly denied that he challenged any juror on those trials because he was a Catholic. He now asserted, and whenever the opportunity was afforded him, he was ready to prove, that a fairer and fuller investigation had never taken place than in those proceedings which the hon. and learned member for Clare had so often reprobated out of that House, but which it was a matter of so much difficulty to induce him to discuss within them. He begged pardon of the House for having thus occupied its attention; but if any of those who heard him were interested in the peace and tranquillity of Ireland, and entertained feelings of sympathy and kindness for the

393
deluded people of that country, they would feel the importance of endeavouring to protect them from the attempts which were making, by every kind of irritation, to keep up the spirit of discord among them. If lives had unfortunately been already lost, and if others should be endangered, let the blood be on the heads of those who, by their conduct, endeavored to excite the unfortunate people of Ireland in every possible manner to offer resistance to legal authority.
Mr. O' Connellwas surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman had expatiated so largely on the subject, as there was no opportunity at the present moment to go into the facts of the case. His (Mr. O'Connell's) only object in the Motion which he had just made was, to elicit facts, and to ascertain how many lives of his Majesty's subjects in Ireland had been sacrificed by the employment of an armed police. When he spoke of the lives which had been lost in resistance to the police, he spoke of evil resistance; and he did not mean to say that lives were lost on all occasions. If, however, a single life were lost in resistance to the police, he had no sympathy with those who did not contemplate with compassion the tears of the orphans and the widow thereby created. Whatever men high in office might think of such occurrences, by him they would always be deeply lamented. He did not know to what the hon. and learned Gentleman alluded when he spoke of his (Mr. O'Connell's) assertions respecting him. What he had asserted was derived from persons who had put their assertions into the shape of petitions, and said they were ready to prove them. He had been prevented from bringing the subject forward, because it appeared that, as far as the hon. and learned Gentleman was concerned, he had been guilty only of mismanagement, and if so that mismanagement had been favourable to the prisoners;—If the hon. and learned Gentleman had erred, he had erred only in favour of the prisoners. After he had sent the petitions to the noble Lord, a book was published, which gave a different account of the affair from that which he had originally received, and that induced him to pause until he could ascertain which was the right view of the case. The hon. and learned Gentleman courted investigation. He (Mr. O'Conncll) had not, however, made any declaration in
394
which the hon. and learned Gentleman was involved. As to the origin of an affray, in which several lives were lost, he knew nothing of it, though he cared not who imputed to him an effort to induce the people to resist authority, for it was well known that he, and those who voted with him had preached peace and submission to the people. The riot to which the hon. and learned Gentleman alluded, commenced casually at a fair, and had no more connexion with politics than it had with any of the abstract sciences. The only object of the Motion which he had submitted to the House was, to bring before it facts connected with the system of employing an armed police. He would, however, withdraw it, for the purpose of altering its form; and he would take the present opportunity of giving notice, that on the 10th of June he would move for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the Act by which Vestries in Ireland were empowered to levy a rate for the building of churches.—Motion withdrawn.

CATHOLIC CHARITABLE BEQUESTS.
Mr. O' Connell,in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to place the Charitable Bequests and Donations of Roman Catholics in Great Britain on the same footing with those of Protestant Dissenters, observed, that the necessity of the measure was obvious, and the propriety of remedying the evil which existed equally obvious. In Ireland, the Bequests or Donations of Roman Catholics, for charitable or benevolent purposes were fully protected, and with the exception of some expense for the renewal of the names of Trustees, when the former ones died or retired, they enjoyed the same privileges as the Protestants or Dissenters. In England the case was very different. Here the Legislature, in the repeal of various penal laws which affected the Catholics, as well as in the great Relief Bill itself, had proceeded on the principle, not of repealing the Acts, but of repealing the oaths imposed by these Acts, and substituting other oaths to be taken in their place. The consequence was, that in various Statutes, and particularly in those which related to Charities, and what were in former times called superstitious uses, the penalties remained, and the grievances under which the Catholics laboured did not come under the provisions of the Relief Bill. The result was, that although

395
even the Jews were protected in the disposal of their property for benevolent purposes, the Catholic trustee could not be called to account in a Court of Equity for a violation of his trust. There might be some doubt whether the Crown was at liberty to claim the money as a forfeiture; but there was none that the trustee could not be rendered accountable. Having thus briefly explained the law as it existed on this subject, and the grievances to which the Catholic was subjected, he thought it not too much to ask leave to bring in a Bill to place the Catholic on the same footing as the Dissenter. He disclaimed all intention of attempting to touch the Statute of Mortmain, or in any way affect the rights of Protestants.
Sir C. Wetherelldid not intend to oppose the learned Gentleman's Motion; but he could have wished to know what description of charitable bequests he desired to have protected—whether they were for the purpose of building chapels, or increasing monastic institutions? The hon. Member had not, in fact, told them whether he did not propose to support donations for superstitious uses, nor had he explained what those superstitious uses meant. He was willing to allow the Bill to be brought in, but he reserved any opinion on its merits until he had a fuller explanation of the details.
The Solicitor Generalunderstood the Relief Bill to be intended to place the Catholics on the same footing as other Dissenters, but. not as Protestant Dissenters. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wished by this Bill to go further, and confer on them new rights, then the question was one of great importance, and required due consideration.
The Attorney Generalalso guarded himself against any assent to the principle of the Bill by suffering it to be brought in, and declared his ignorance of the precise meaning which the learned Gentleman attached to the words superstitious uses.
Mr. O'Connellin reply, said, he merely wished to protect the donations of the benevolent for charitable purposes, and he could assure the House it had no reference to monastic institutions, for the Relief Bill forbade it. His intention was, to have the Bill printed, and if it were then opposed, he should not press it for the present Session, but take the sense of the House on it in the ensuing Session.
Leave given to bring in the Bill.

CATHOLIC MARRIAGES.
Mr. O'Connellrose, he said, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to render valid, in certain cases, the marriages of Roman Catholics in England by a Catholic Clergyman, and to abolish in Ireland certain penalties imposed on Catholic Priests for celebrating marriages between Catholics and Protestants. He wished, if possible, to earn the approbation of Gentlemen on the other side, or at least to avoid their censure, by being very brief upon this subject at present, trespassing on the attention of the House only to an extent sufficient to make his intentions understood. The object of the proposed measure was, to render valid, in certain cases, the marriage of Roman Catholics in England, and to abolish the penalties imposed on Catholic Priests in Ireland for solemnizing marriages between Protestants and Catholics. There were two different points for consideration, on which the House might be disposed to come to different decisions. The House might be ready enough to amend the law of Ireland, without wishing to interfere with that of England. He did not refer to a law making the marriages of Roman Catholics valid in themselves; in that respect but little alteration was desirable, for marriages celebrated by a Roman Catholic priest, between Roman Catholic parties, were perfectly valid at present. Such marriage entitled a female to dower, and conveyed the ordinary interest in property to the children. That law extended in Ireland also to marriages celebrated between Protestant Dissenters by clergymen of their own communion. There were three distinct laws relating to marriages in Ireland:—first, for marriages celebrated by clergymen of the Established Church; secondly, for marriages by Protestant Dissenting ministers; and thirdly, for marriages celebrated by Roman Catholic priests, which are valid only when both parties are Roman Catholics. That being the slate of the law, his object was to mitigate the penalties for any violation of that law by a Roman Catholic priest. There was no penalty on clergymen of the Established Church for marrying persons of different religious persuasions, none on Dissenters—upon the Roman Catholics alone was any penalty inflicted. He would briefly notice some of the statutes which authorised these penalties. The first Act to which he would allude, was passed for the purpose of preventing the taking away and marrying

397
children against the will of their guardians—a very (it object for a penal law, against which he had no design to make any objections. But in that Act, which was passed a great many years back, after prohibiting Catholic clergymen from celebrating such marriages, it was enacted, that any Roman Catholic clergyman who should celebrate such marriages, or marry any party or parties, knowing that they are of different persuasions, should incur all the penalties attached to the law. The first punishment was death; but a particular clause was introduced, providing that it should only be inflicted when the clergyman knew that one of the parties was not a Catholic. The next Statute to which he would call attention, was the 8th Anne, c. 11, s. 26, which continued these penalties. The House would recollect that the Roman Catholic clergyman was guilty of no offence unless one of the parties was a Protestant. The 26th Section enacted that Roman Catholic priests shall not many parties, when one of them has been of the Protestant religion, unless they get from the Protestant minister a certificate, certifying that the party was not a Protestant at the time of the marriage. This, however, raised a legal presumption that the priest knew that the party had been a Protestant, and to avoid that, he got from the Protestant clergyman a certificate, stating the negative. But the Act gave no means of forcing the Protestant clergy man to give that certificate, and if the priest could not get the Protestant clergyman to certify this under his hand and seal, and he should marry the parties, he fell under the penalties provided by the Act; that was not a state in which the law should be allowed to remain. By the 1st George 1st it was made felony without benefit of clergy for Popish priests to celebrate a marriage between two parties, one a reputed Protestant, and the other a Papist. When he coupled these statutes together, he found that in the one, knowledge was presumed, unless a certificate were produced; and that the other made it a capital felony to marry, not a Catholic and Protestant, but reputed Protestants, unless a certificate were produced, showing that they were not Protestants. This statute enabled Justices of the Peace to summon any persons, suspected of having been guilty of the offence mentioned, before them; and upon refusal to enter into recognizance's, to punish them by im-
398
prisonment for the space of three years. This inquisitorial punishment was of so serious a nature, that it ought to be altered. He knew two instances of it, one of which occurred at Londonderry, and the other at Long ford, where there were now four persons in gaol under the provisions of this section; so that it was by no means a dead letter. The next he would mention was the 19th of George 2nd, c. 13, which declared void every marriage celebrated by Catholic priests, between Catholics and Protestants, where either party had been a Protestant twelve months preceding the Marriage: and by 23 George 2nd it was enacted, that as the marriage was not valid, the clergyman celebrating it should be hanged;—that Act continued in force to this day, with this difference, that by the Relief Bill, 33 George 3rd, c. 21, intended to repeal the former Act, it was enacted, that such a marriage should be invalid, and it ordered that a fine of 500 l. should be paid by any Roman Catholic clergyman who should celebrate the marriage of a Catholic and Protestant. He must inform the House, that the question came before the Court of King's Bench in Ireland, when Lord Kilwarden was sitting as Judge, and he determined that the latter punishment did not remove the penalty of death; and the ground for his opinion was, that the one Act of Parliament had used the word "reputed," and that the other had not used that expression. So that, according to law, a Popish Priest, guilty of the offence mentioned in the Statute, might be hanged in the first instance, and fined afterwards! This was really too bad. Having thus stated briefly to the House the law on the subject, he might, perhaps, be asked what he proposed to do. To abolish the penalty of death altogether he would answer. He proposed to limit the fine to a small amount, and to remove the penalty in all cases, where the parties were Catholics at the time of the marriage, and not to go back one year previous to the marriage. That was the alteration which he proposed to make in the law of marriage in Ireland. He did not wish to carry the Relief Bill one particle further than it was carried already; but he wished to put out of the Statute-book, that capital felony, which, in his opinion, ought not to remain. He wished further to make the offence punishable only when the priest had a knowledge of

399
the religion of the parties, when the malus animus on his part was manifest. He wished to state to the House, that he had heard of instances in which Catholic clergymen had been betrayed into the performance of the marriage ceremony, by designing persons, from sinister motives, and was acquainted with one of great respectability who was obliged to flee the country for two years precisely under such circumstances. Two persons went to him, and alleged that they were Catholics, and got themselves married, for the mere purpose of afterwards prosecuting him. And it was not until some time afterwards, when the conduct of the parties was discovered, that the clergyman was enabled to return. There was another part of this subject about which he felt considerable anxiety, that was, the marriage of Catholics in England; he did not allude to the marriage of the richer Catholics, but to their poorer brethren, many of whom came from Ireland, and when they were in their own country, had been in the habit of seeing their brothers, sisters, and all their relations married by Catholic priests, and they could not believe that marriages celebrated by Catholic priests in England were invalid. He begged to inform the House, that a Catholic clergyman could refuse to celebrate a marriage, when required, without a breach of the Canon Law. What was the consequence of this in England? Why the husband could desert the wife—many melancholy instances of which had lately occurred, and all the children were illegitimate. He felt, however, that he had said enough on this subject, and would trouble the House no further. He should wish to bring in a bill to allow all Protestant Dissenters, as well as Catholics, to marry according to the forms of their own religion, but he would not introduce a clause on that subject, if the Legislature should be adverse to such a measure. He hoped that he might then be allowed to bring in the Bill, and he would take another opportunity of entering more fully into the subject. In conclusion, the hon. and learned Gentleman moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the laws respecting Marriages celebrated by Roman Catholic Priests.
The Solicitor Generalexpressed his satisfaction at hearing that it was not the intention of the hon. and learned Member to disturb in any manner the Catholic
400
Relief Bill of last year. He differed from the learned Gentleman in supposing that it would not be possible to bring in a Bill to apply to the marriage of Roman Catholics in England, which should not include all Dissenters; and he should object to any bill that was not of a general nature. As the hon. Member had given up that part of his Motion, and as there were many of the regulations which the hon. Member had suggested as to Ireland which appeared likely to be useful, he was not prepared to oppose the Motion. As he understood the matter, the Act of 1793 was intended to get rid of the severe penalties attached to the offence of celebrating illegal marriages, leaving no other penalty than the fine of 500 l., but as there was a doubt on the subject, it was proper that that doubt should be cleared up. Nobody, he was sure, would be ready to carry the law into execution, which sentenced the priest to death for celebrating such marriages. Understanding, therefore, that the hon. member for Clare limited the Motion to bringing in a Bill declaratory of the law, he should most certainly not oppose it.
Lord Leveson Gowersaid, it was not his duty to oppose, but to promote the hon. and learned Gentleman's Motion. He wished, however, to reserve his opinions on the subject, till a subsequent stage of the Bill, and he should certainly offer no opposition to it in that stage.
Sir J. Brydgessaid, he would not oppose the introduction of the Bill, but conceiving that after what was called the obsolete Statutes were repealed, there would be some motion to enact different laws, he should certainly oppose the Bill at its subsequent stages.
Mr. Northsupported the Motion. The Bill was to amend the civil law respecting marriage, and nobody who knew what that law was, whatever political opinions he might profess, would oppose that Bill. The hon. and learned Member, as he understood, did not intend to alter the law. But at present, the punishment to which a Catholic clergyman was supposed to be liable for celebrating illegal marriages was nothing less than death. In the opinion of many celebrated men, and in the opinion of an humble individual, himself, though his was a very conscientious opinion, the Relief Bill passed by the Irish Parliament in 1793 repealed the law inflicting this punishment. The punishment was no longer death—it was not

401
transportation—it was a fine of 500 l.; and the first object of the hon. member for Clave was, to reduce that penalty still further. He differed from the hon. member for Clare as to the point of determining the religion of the parties at the moment of celebrating the marriage, for it had happened to him to know that many parties went before the Catholic clergyman, and declared that they were Catholics, when it was known to the priest that they were born of Protestant parents, and had been at Church but a few months before: they said they had been converted. On this point, therefore, he disagreed with the hon. member for Clare; but in the general features of the Bill he concurred with him.
Mr. Crokerwas in hopes, that ere long something would be done to make the marriage law similar throughout the three kingdoms. It was, in his opinion, a most monstrous anomaly, that the marriage law, which was the very foundation of society, on which depended the rights and fortunes of all classes of citizens living under the same general scheme of policy, subject to the same system of Government,—it was a monstrous anomaly that this law, the foundation of the whole society, should not be the same for every part of the kingdom, and every description of persons. At present, however, this law was so extravagant, and so extraordinary, that there was now a case of marriage pending, as the learned Gentleman opposite knew, which, after the highest court of Scotland had declared the couple to be legally married, and their children legitimate, was about, he believed, to be set aside by a still higher authority here; and the children were to be declared illegitimate. He did not mean to enter into the question as to Ireland, but he did hope that his Majesty's Ministers, or some Gentleman of talents and weight in the House, would bring the state of the marriage-law under discussion, and would enable the people to know, at all times and places, whether they were legally married or not, and whether their offspring were legitimate or illegitimate.
Leave given to bring in the Bill; and Mr. Q'Connell and Mr. Jephson were ordered to bring it in.

BEER TRADE.
Mr. Calcraftsaid, in rising to move the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Beer Bill, that he
402
had hoped that it would have been unnecessary for him to take up the time of the House; he had flattered himself that the second reading of the Bill would meet with no opposition, and that any objections might be made in the committee, to which he understood it was the intention of an hon. Member to move an instruction—and that allowing the Bill to go into a committee, it might then receive such modifications as would make it palatable to the country. But having heard from the hon. member for Dorset shire that he intended to defeat the Bill in its present stage, he hoped, in deference to the strong feeling which had been expressed in the country, and in deference to the large body of publicans, whose interests it concerned, that the House would allow him to say a few words as a preface to the Motion for the second reading. The object of the Bill could not be misunderstood, he thought, by those who had read it. That object was, to promote the more general sale of Beer, and give an entire free trade to that article, permitting persons, on applying to the board of Excise in town, and to Excise-officers in the country, to obtain a license for selling Beer, on the payment of two guineas. He would not discuss the question, whether or not any qualifications or recognizance's should be required of these persons, as that subject would be properly discussed in the committee. In the committee also he should be ready to give his attention to every proposition which was not a breach of the principle of the Bill; but at present he would confine himself to the two great objections made to the principle. The publicans objected to the Bill that it would interfere with their business, would diminish their profits by introducing a great competition in their trade, and would be hurtful to their interests. So far he thought their opinion fair, and nothing more natural than their opposition; but. when they presented petitions to the House—and he had heard an hon. friend of his, the member for the city of London, support such a petition—claiming a vested right in their trade, they pushed the matter further than the nature of the case warranted. By pushing it so far, they hurt their own cause. When they advocated the propriety of defending vested rights, he must put it to the House whether there was any thing in the Bill which could fairly be interpreted as a diminution of vested rights. It was only

403
necessary to remind those publicans who made this complaint, of the uncertainty of the tenure by which they held their licenses, and of which they had themselves not long ago complained. Magistrates might interfere, and take away their licenses; and they depended on those magistrates to renew them from year to year, though they were not in general interfered with, if they did not misconduct themselves. He was aware that the capital invested in the trade amounted to many millions. Supposing that there were 60,000 publicans, and supposing that each of them had only a small sum embarked in the business, that would make, on the whole, a large capital. It ought certainly to be dealt with carefully; but the House ought not to suffer the consideration for that to bear down all consideration for the great body of the people, the chief object for the attention of the Legislature. The object of the committee, the object of the Government in giving its support to the committee of which he had had the honour to be Chairman, was disinterested, and it was only intended to introduce a better beverage into the country for all the subordinate ranks of the people. That was the simple object of the committee, which had no wish or intention to injure or promote the interest of any one class. By giving a free trade in Beer, it was expected that competition would introduce among the labouring classes a good old English beverage, which could not now be got in any part of the country, nor in many parts of town. He wished it to be understood that he was not by these remarks making any reflections on the great brewers. If the publicans would only let their customers have what they received from their brewers, they would get, he believed, a good beverage. But when it was seen every day by the newspapers that publicans adulterated their Beer, and when it was known that at present from five to six hundred publicans had had information's laid against them by the Excise—perhaps not those publicans who had petitioned the House, but others—and when it was known that these men were charged with selling liquor mixed with deleterious ingredients—he thought he might with great propriety say, that some measure was necessary to put an end to the practice of supplying the people with a spurious and an unwholesome beverage. Even when the publicans did not mix deleterious ingre-
404
dients with their Beer, they lowered it from twenty-five to thirty per cent after they received it from the brewer; that was, indeed an avowed custom, and though they did not thereby render it noxious, they still sold an article for which their customers did not bargain. Then again in the country, it was well known that the brewers owned the public-houses, and without that advantage, they would not be able to sell so much bad Beer as they now sold. It was hoped, that by the present Bill, this power would be taken from the brewers, without any infringement on their property, and that by a more general competition than at present, a better article would be sold, and that Beer would be made of various qualities, to suit all palates. The next objection made to the Bill was, that, adopting no limitation, no license, no restraint on publicans, there would be an unlimited number of tippling-houses in every part of the country. In the opinion of the petitioners, and this, too, seemed the opinion of most of the Gentlemen who had spoken on the subject, the Beer ought not to be drunk on the spot where it was sold. Those parties would, he believed, rest satisfied, if a restriction were imposed, not allowing the Beer to be consumed where it was sold. This would give, they contended, a great extension to the trade, and try that experiment on a limited scale, which, if it succeeded, might be afterwards extended. In his opinion, however, a limitation of that kind would prevent the principle of the Bill from having a fair trial. With respect to these tippling-houses, though it was intended to grant a license to every person who applied, they would still be subject to certain penalties, and exposed to restrictions—a control would be exercised over the new houses as strong as over the old ones; the magistrates were empowered to interfere with them, and if any nuisance of which they had reason to complain were not abated, they might put down the houses. It had been made necessary to take out a license, in order that too many such houses might not exist. No doubt some little confusion would arise at first from the great number of persons who would embark in the business, but that would soon subside. If the business were over-done, some of those who embarked in it would give it up. Persons would not willingly pay two guineas for a

405
license to carry on a losing trade. The publicans who carried on their trade under the present system would be left in the same situation as now, under the control of the magistrates, for it was not intended to interfere with them. They would carry on their business as before, with a Beer and a Spirit license, which the new description of Beer-sellers would not have, and they would continue to be regulated by the provisions of Mr. Estcourt's Act. The Bill, he believed, would not injure the publicans, except they allowed the new tradesmen to sell better Beer than they sold. An old house had a much greater chance of retaining its old customers than a new house would have of taking them away, if the old house only sold as good Beer as the new one; and to compel the present publicans to sell better Beer, which would thus be accomplished, or they would be ruined, was the object proposed by the Bill. If the measure should be unpalatable to the publicans of the town, and to the country brewers, they ought to recollect that they brought it on themselves by the numerous examples which had come to light of their having adulterated their Beer. The vender of bad Beer in the country could not get rid of it if the houses were not his own, which was the reason why the brewers obtained as many public-houses as possible. Something had been said about indemnity for those vested interests; but the House must give up legislating altogether, if it were never to interfere with any interests whatever. There was not a turnpike-road made, nor a steam-boat started, that did not interfere with one of those vested interests. He remembered that when he represented Rochester, some of his constituents, very respectable men, who kept inns, petitioned Parliament to put a stop to steam-packets, because they floated away their customers. He had told them that Parliament could not assist them, and that he believed, if they had a little patience, they would find themselves not injured by these new methods of traveling. It had turned out, as he expected it would, there were plenty of customers both for steam packets and stage-coaches; and all the injury the landlords suffered was to be obliged to be as attentive, and make their houses as comfortable as possible. Indeed, they might as well petition against stage-coaches, because they interfered with post-chaises, as against steam-packets.
406
A new shop could not be set up without interfering with some other shop, or some vested interest; the legislature could not move to the right nor the left, without interfering with some vested rights, and therefore, when interference was necessary, the legislature ought not to be debarred from interfering by an imputation that it was meddling with vested rights. It was not necessary, he believed, to trouble the House any further. He hoped that his hon. friend would give the Bill fair play, and allow it to go to a committee, where it might be made palatable to the petitioners, agreeable to the parties affected, and satisfactory to the great majority of the House.
Mr. Portmanrose to move that the Bill should be read a second time that day six months. He felt that it was necessary to make an apology to the House and to his hon. friend, from whom he was at any time sorry to differ, particularly as he had obtained much of his political knowledge from his hon. friend, for the course he was taking. He begged however, distinctly to disclaim having any feelings on this subject in common with the brewers and publicans; his opposition to the Bill being founded on general principles. His object was to stop the further progress of a Bill which he considered would prove most injurious to the people, in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman might be then induced to repeal a portion of the Malt-tax, which would confer far greater benefit on the country, or else that he would directly relieve the people by taking off the Excise-duties from soap and candles. The Bill the right hon. Gentleman proposed was not, in his opinion, what it professed to be. It was a Bill to establish a certain species of retail Beer trade, but it did not entirely relieve the publicans from magisterial control. Now he considered, that if magistrates were to have any authority at all, they should have sufficient authority to preserve order, as they were bound to do by the tenour of their oaths. The right hon. Gentleman, should either relieve them completely from the responsibility, or else invest them with befitting powers. He now opposed the Bill, because he thought it fairer to do so at that, the second reading, than to endeavour to stultify it by the introduction of some clause in the committee. He on tended there was no control in the provisions of this Bill against the use of dele-

407
terious drugs. At present the Excise might search for deleterious drugs, which was a great impediment to the use of them; but by this Bill all the power of the Excise was taken away, and the only thing substituted for it was competition. But it was not easy to get that competition in all districts of the country; and he was persuaded that when the competition did exist, it would be a struggle, not between new and old brewers, but between the brewers who were at that moment possessed of many public-houses, and those who had only a few. He wished the House to recollect that, were it only for purposes of police, the magistrates ought to have some control over houses, in which all classes and descriptions of persons assembled; for otherwise, the whole system of police must be destroyed. Suppose, the case of a Justice of Peace inquiring of a publican respecting a suspicious person traced to his house; according to the provisions of Mr. Estcourt's Act the person would be compelled to give a civil answer, affirmative or negative; but under the present Bill he might decline giving any answer whatsoever: he believed that the present system of licensing houses was essential to the police of the kingdom, and on that ground he should oppose the alteration. In his opinion, too, the Bill was not, as set forth in the preamble, expedient; because there was no party on whom it could confer any benefit. He did not believe an increased supply of Beer was necessary, for the number of brewers did not increase: increasing the number of persons who sold Beer only added to those who had to make a living by the trade. The Bill could not be of good to the poor, because the relief was not direct—nor would it make Beer cheaper, or of a better quality; it could not be of use to the agriculturists. True it had been held out by the right hon. Gentleman that there would be a great increase in the price of Barley; but if this were the case, how could that reduce the price of Beer? and even supposing both advantages could be co-existent, he maintained that they would not recompense the farmer for the destruction of morality amongst his servants, and the consequent loss of the control he had previously exercised over them. Neither could this Bill be of use to the anti-gin people. He was himself one of those who wished to discourage the use of spirituous liquors,
408
but it was impossible to regulate the tastes of the people by Acts of Parliament. He likewise opposed the measure, because it would occasion a great loss of property, for which any good it might produce, being so remote and obscure, could never compensate. He also, in common with all gentlemen well acquainted with the Western counties, felt an extreme horror of tippling-houses, from the experience they had acquired respecting Cider-shops, and the great difficulty in preserving-order in those villages in which they were. Then in distant villages, where there was no magistrate, how much greater would not the evil be? In conclusion he stated, that no modification of the Bill would satisfy him; he opposed its principle, and moved, as an Amendment, that it be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. Dickensonrose to second the Amendment. He gave the right hon. Gentleman credit for good intentions, but thought his Bill would be highly injurious. It would not be any bonus to the common people, who were now in a most deplorable state, and who were nevertheless, he regretted to add, in the habit of expending more money upon Beer than upon food. He did not think the brewers would produce a better liquor under the new regulations. He deprecated the destruction of property which would ensue, and the deterioration of the morality of the people which would be caused. Under these impressions he would support the Amendment.
Mr. Benettsaid, he entirely differed from the hon. Gentleman who had spoken last, and consequently felt it his imperious duty to support the Bill. The three parties who, it was argued, would be injured by it were the common brewers, the publicans, and the public at large, whose morality was to be compromised. As to the first, he had simply to observe, that there was a tax of three millions and a half taken from Beer, and that therefore this must increase the consumption of the article. This would be materially the case with respect to brewers' Beer, because it was the common brewers who paid the tax, and not the individuals who brewed their own Beer, who, even with this advantage, were not able to compete with the others in the quality of the article. Accordingly the common brewers would now derive a benefit from the taking off

409
of the tax, in the increased sale of Beer, which would amply compensate them for the loss they would sustain by their public-houses. As to the publicans, they undoubtedly would lose to a certain extent; but then it was positively absurd to talk of their vested rights. They had no vested rights. They had no more right to enjoy a monopoly of the sale of Beer, than any other class of persons had of the sale of provisions. Besides, these publicans had for a length of time made great profits, while they committed many faults. The practice of adulterating their Beer was proved by the fines so frequently imposed on them. Lastly, as to the public, and the destruction of their morals, he contended it was better that the unmarried labouring man should have a private room, in which he might drink his Beer, procure his provisions, and enjoy the advantages of fire and shelter, which he believed would be supplied him by such houses as this Bill would permit to sell Beer, than that he should be driven to the kitchen of a public-House, where he was liable to be brought in contact with all that was debauched and vicious throughout the country. He conceived that the Bill would both tend to supply the labouring classes with a more wholesome beverage than they now enjoyed, and preserve their morals from contamination. He begged to remind the hon. Gentlemen who opposed the Bill, that they had the power of introducing restrictive clauses into it, to prevent the existence of common tippling-houses. For himself, he thought the Bill was worthy of the times, and worthy of the hon. Member who proposed it to the House. It was the first step in the right path towards the reduction of the taxes pressing on productive industry. He trusted more would be done; he should have preferred the abolition of the Malt-duty to the abolition of the Beer-duty, but he was not willing to reject what had been offered. He anticipated from this measure, that in the course of next Session they might perhaps get rid of the Malt-tax, and proceed in this salutary course till the country was freed from all taxation upon its productive industry. It was a principle that must work its way through. The country could never go on unless the pressure was removed from the springs of her productive industry.
Mr. Heathcotesaid, he thought Government had exercised a sound discretion
410
in choosing the Beer-tax instead of the Malt-tax for repeal, intending to confer a benefit on the people, and he approved of the measure, especially when he considered that it would enable Government to do away with a most oppressive monopoly. Nothing could be worse than as things stood now. Taxes on Beer had been repealed, yet the price of it remained nearly the same. Upon a computation, made from the parliamentary returns, it would appear, that the quantity of malt used in brewing Porter was two bushels the barrel, just the proportion requisite to brew small Beer. It appeared that the tax upon Beer was charged treble to the public, and removing it would give nearly three times as much relief as repealing the tax on malt, besides getting rid of an odious monopoly. He would be ready at the proper time to examine any modification of the Bill which might be suggested: at present he was only defending its principle. To show in what manner this monopoly affected the public, he would observe, that the price of barley had fallen nearly one-half, while the price of Beer remained the same. As to the objections to the principle, he had to remark, that the object of the measure was, to increase the consumption of Beer, by enabling those to drink it who could not have done so before, and he really could not see how it would injure the morality of the people, that they should drink this Beer in three houses instead of one—that they should have a good instead of a bad beverage, or that they should have private rooms to drink it in, instead of congregating in the tap-room of a public-house. When hon. Gentlemen talked of morality, they frequently attached to it no definite idea, and without wishing in the least to oppose himself to the class to which he belonged, he must take leave to say, that he had on more than one occasion observed too great a disposition upon the part of gentlemen to interfere with the amusements and gratifications of the people. The poor had a right to procure their Beer where they liked: if they did wrong they might be punished; but certainly it was not fair or right to anticipate evil. As to the license laws, they were made, not for the benefit of the brewers, but for that of the public, although their effect had been directly the contrary of that intended. The holding of public-houses by brewers was an evil, and that evil the Bill would

411
get rid of. He would be glad indeed to see a clause introduced, demanding from all licensed publicans sureties for good behaviour, and certificates of previous good conduct. This, however, was not the time to dwell on such a topic; he would reserve what he had to say for the committee.
Mr. Sadleragreed with his hon. friend, the member for Dorset shire, in thinking the Government would have acted wisely in preferring the repeal of the Malt-tax to the repeal of that tax now proposed. Considering, however, the present measure us one of relief, he objected to it as partial. In many of the rural and agricultural districts of England, which were the most distressed, the people wore in the habit of brewing their own Beer. To them, consequently, the Bill brought no relief. The consumption of Beer on the ale-bench might be augmented, whereas the consumption at home would not be increased. He regretted that the Bill held out no inducements to private brewing, but on the contrary, by diminishing its comparative advantages, tended to encourage the trade of the brewer. Hitherto the arrangements connected with the supply of Beer to the public had been connected with the magistracy, and he would take upon himself to say, that they had always exercised the power which the law had put in their hands with credit to themselves, and with benefit to the community. No one could attempt successfully to carry on the business of a publican, without having obtained for himself a good character; and the great security for maintaining that previous good character was, that it was his interest to do so. It likewise appeared to him, that the supervision of the Excise was another security for the good quality of the Beer supplied to the public; though he would not enter further into that branch of the subject. The proposed system appeared to him to be nothing more nor less than offering a bonus to tipplers, with no likelihood of affording advantage to the body of the people. But besides the injury to arise to the community, the greatest damage would, by this measure, be inflicted on the vested interests of those most concerned in the measure. That publicans and brewers had gone on embarking their property in the trade was the fault of the Legislature, for it was the Legislature that, by its previous conduct, had persuaded the publicans that there
412
was no intention of altering the system. The principle that at present existed had not only been tolerated by the legislature, but actually dictated; and therefore it was bound to guard against injury before it committed an act that would otherwise lay waste the property of thousands and tens of thousands. He did not wish to look at this question with a cynical eye, neither was he for depriving the poor of any of those comforts which were calculated to afford them solace or support; on the contrary, there was nothing he wished for more than to extend their enjoyments: he had no desire to deprive them of those houses of entertainment, where company, in the beautiful language of the poet, conferred
"An hour's importance on the poor man's heart,"
but he did wish to make him rather find that importance in the increase of his comforts at home, than of enjoyments abroad. Moreover, public decency and public morality were paramount considerations; and they alike called for opposition to the measure that had been brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman. For these reasons, therefore, he should certainly vote for the Amendment of his hon. friend.
Mr. Fowell Buxlonhad always thought that the hon. member for Newark was the advocate of the poor. He therefore had been not a little surprised when he heard him advocate the repeal of the Malt-tax, in preference to that on Beer. Taxation ought to apply equally to the rich and the poor; or, if there were any distinction, it ought to be in favour of the poor. But how did the case stand with respect to the Malt and Beer taxes? If any body brewed his own Beer, it was some man who was comparatively opulent; the poorer classes, particularly in towns, were one and all obliged to buy Beer. Those who brewed their own Beer paid only the Malt-tax; those who bought their Beer paid also the tax on Boer. Barley was 35 s. a quarter, and the duty for the rich therefore, or those who brewed their own Beer, was sixty-five per cent, while to the poor, or those who bought their Beer, it was 166 per cent. For his part, therefore, he thought, as far as giving the people relief went, the Government had done wisely in abolishing the tax on Beer, instead of the tax on Malt. He had no complaint to make against the right hon. Gentleman who had introduced the Bill, except that

413
he had brought a charge against the brewers and the publicans of having demanded compensation; and this charge he founded on an isolated expression of the hon. member for London. As chairman of the committee, the right hon. Gentleman might have looked at the evidence, and he then would have seen whether so outrageous a claim had been made by the publicans. He would take upon himself to speak for the brewers of London, and say, that nothing could be more ridiculous than to suppose that they ever dreamed of demanding compensation. As well might the agriculturists say, that as corn was reduced from 80 s. to 40 s., they had a right to compensation! As well might the West-India planters claim compensation, because their property was not protected against deterioration. As well might the ship-owners demand compensation for the depreciation of their ships! But though the publicans had no claim for compensation, he hoped that the House would, in committee, remember that their interests were much injured by this Bill, and that it was but fair to do what could reasonably be done in their behalf: in order in some measure to meet the case, he thought that the House might very well prevent the drinking Beer actually in these new houses. It was not a permission called for by the public, because, though many petitions had been presented against it, he had not heard of one in its favour. The steps that were taken by the Legislature two years ago, when the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Estcourt) brought in his bill to regulate the Licensing System, were such as to induce the publicans to believe, that there was to be no alteration in the system; and in order, as it were, to confirm that belief, the right hon. Gentleman had stated in his place, that it would be necessary to continue the measure, if not for purposes of revenue, at least for purposes of police. It was unfair to charge the publicans with looking for compensation, or with having put in a claim on the ground of vested interests. They had done no such thing; but having embarked a large capital in this trade, on the implied faith of the Government, that no alteration would be made in the system by which it was regulated, they had now a strong claim to the consideration of the Government and of Parliament. As to the brewers, they were not afraid of the competition that was about to take place; they were, on the
414
contrary, anxious that the public should have an opportunity of seeing that it was not by selling a bad article, but by the advantage of large capital, and consequent machinery, and large consumption, that the London brewer was enabled to carry on his business successfully.
Sir C. Burrellthought, that the hon. member for Weymouth was wrong in his argument. If the Malt-tax were taken off, every man would be able to brew his own Beer, and would be encouraged to do so, while the removal of the Beer-tax appeared to be a benefit in favour of the rich, to the disadvantage of the poor. A parallel case to the present was that of the Leather-tax, in which it had been contended, that on its removal every shoemaker would become a tanner; but to prepare the under-leather for shoes required three years, and consequently a large capital. The same was the case with regard to Beer; the large brewers would still have the advantage of capital, and would monopolize the whole trade of the country. He did not intend to deny that the intention of Government, in the removal of the Beer-tax, was good: but it certainly appeared to him that they were proceeding upon fallacious grounds. They should consult practical men before they brought forward measures for the relief of the country, for otherwise they run a risk of bringing forward measures like the present, which would not be followed by the effects which they anticipated. They might as well try to learn in the depths of the sea, as in the streets of Lon-don, what would be beneficial to the country at large.
Mr. Maberlywould vote in favour of the Bill, the general principle of which he approved of, though he thought that something ought to be done in behalf of the publicans. He admitted that they had no claim upon the consideration of the House on the score of vested interests, but they had strong claims, on other grounds, to its consideration. They had embarked an immense capital in this trade, under a system which had continued for years, and which, at the time they embarked their capital, they had no reason to suppose would be disturbed. Ministers now turned round on them and said, that that system was founded entirely upon principles of bad legislation. He would, therefore, throw out a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman, that the permitting

415
the Beer to be consumed on the premises of the new houses should not be allowed at first: such a principle was adopted by Government when it found it necessary to take off the bounties on the linen trade. They were not removed all at once, as so much capital had been embarked in the trade, in the faith of those bounties being continued; but ton years were allowed, and a tenth each year was reduced. With respect to the brewers, he was bound to say, that their representatives in that House had always displayed the most liberal feelings; and he was glad to find that they had not departed from that feeling in the present instance. He should vote for the second reading of the Bill.
Mr. C. Culvertagreed with the hon. member for Weymouth in all that had fallen from him, and he should support the measure of the right hon. Gentleman. But when the House was in a committee, he hoped that something would be done for those persons whose property they were about to destroy, to an extent of which the House was not probably aware. As to any claims for vested interests, he, in behalf of the London brewers, disdained all such idea. Neither had the London victuallers claimed one farthing of compensation. The hon. member for London had not said a word to that effect which he had heard, and he had listened attentively to what had fallen from that hon. Gentleman. It however rested with that hon. Gentleman to explain what he had said.
Mr. R. Palmersaid, he should have preferred the reduction of the Malt-duty, and thought the present measure went too
Mr. C. Barclaysaid, that the hon. Baronet had contended that the taking off this duty would afford little relief to the poor in comparison with the removal of the Malt-tax. He was not of that opinion; and to bring the thing within the comprehension of every body, he would just state that the removal of the Malt-tax would save the public only a halfpenny per pot in the price of beer, while the removal of the Beer-tax would lower the price one penny. The result of taking off the Malt-tax would be that private brewers would pay no duty whatever, but hat would be of little benefit to the public at large; for it appeared that during the last year, the quantity of malt consumed was twenty-nine millions of quarters, of
416
which only four millions was consumed by the private brewer. The private brewer, therefore, would have to pay nothing, while the public brewer and all those who bought of him would have to pay the Beer duty amounting to twenty-five per cent on the retail price. He, therefore, gave his entire support to the measure, and also agreed with what had fallen from the hon. members for Southwark and Weymouth. What he had then stated was no new opinion of his. In the Committee of 1817, he had been one of the first to state that the present system was bad, and since that period it had been getting worse instead of better. He feared, however, that the present measure would not obviate any one of the evils now existing. He believed that the competition between the small retail beer brewers and the publicans would be such as to be extremely injurious to the peace of the country. Several plans had been proposed to obviate this evil, and among the rest it had been suggested to obtain securities, and to call for recognizance's. This would be inoperative. It had been so under the old system, for people often recommended persons for licenses who were worth nothing, and whose character was not worth having. He should certainly support the second reading, in order to afford the means of examining the Bill in the Committee, and because he believed the principle to be good; but when the Bill went into the Committee he should support the proposition of the hon. member for Reading, for though he thought the principle of the measure was good, he was not of the same opinion as to the details.
Lord Miltonsaid, that this Bill ought to be considered, not as a separate measure, hut as a part of that system of finance which the government had introduced in the present year. Looking at it under that aspect he was not disposed to object to it, but there were other considerations which would induce him to vote against it. He did not like the ambiguous support given to the Bill by the hon. members for Weymouth and Southwark, especially when he recollected that the former had confidently stated that the skill and capital of the brewers would save them from the effects of competition. The hon. member for Southwark would find that he had been mistaken in supposing the publicans did not claim compensation, for if he looked into the evidence of Mr.

417
Alderman Brown, who acted as their agent, he would find that they complained of no means of compensation being afford-ed them. Some hon. Members had attempted to show that this measure would benefit the rich, and not the poor; for the removal of the tax on Beer, while the tax on Malt remained what it was, would be no advantage to the lower classes. They would have to pay as much for their beer as before, the removal of the tax tending only to the advantage of the brewer and publican. Under these circumstances, he agreed with the hon. member for Newark, that the relief of the country, by taking off the Malt-tax, would be greater, and the benefit to the poor more than in taking off the Beer-tax. The present measure, indeed, seemed little calculated to benefit the people; for though it would diminish the price of beer to artisans in large towns, he did not think it would be any advantage to the agricultural peasantry. There was one point in which he even thought this measure would be injurious. He was informed, on very good authority, that the operatives of Bradford, Halifax, and Huddersfield, brewed for themselves. He believed that the reduction of the duty on Beer, and not on Malt, would tend to discourage domestic brewing, and to diminish that practice among them; and they would go to the beer-houses and public-houses for their beer, a change which he was far from being desirous of producing. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman in what situation the revenue would be placed? Brewing would be free from the Excise, but malting would be still under its inspection. But, by far the larger portion of the tax paid by the consumer consisted of the tax on Malt, and the temptation would therefore be infinitely increased to use drugs instead of malt; and when the House considered the advances which chemical science had made in this country, there could be no doubt that such would be found to be the result. He was afraid, therefore, with respect to the revenue, that the effect of this measure would be to diminish the productive duty on Malt. He was satisfied that those who were now friendly to this measure would find themselves deceived in its operation.
Mr. C. Culvertexplained, that alderman Brown was not the agent of the publicans, and they were no more answerable for what he said than a client was for the
418
argument used by his counsel. Alderman Brown was the counsel employed by the publicans.
Mr. Houldsworthsaid, that the cider-houses in the West of England were great evils; but that the regularly licensed alehouses were well conducted; and he feared that the beer-houses to be created by this Bill would be like the cider-houses of the West. He objected particularly to a clause which went to mix up the jurisdiction of the county and borough magistrates.
Lord Granville Somersetsupported the Bill, and did not think it would be found liable to the objections made by the hon. Member. He should vote for the Bill, because he thought the peculiar circumstances of the times and the bad quality of the liquor now sold by publicans required some alteration. He did not, however, impute the bad quality of the liquor to the great brewers. The provisions of this Bill were, in his mind, more likely to prevent the improper conduct of persons keeping ale-houses than were any of the enactments of the old law. He did not mean to find fault with the magistrates—it was their duty to be strict in granting licenses, but it was also well known, that the decisions of different magistrates in different parts of a county did not always harmonise with each other. He believed that the old system had occasioned much of the adulteration of beer and the habit of gin-drinking, and he therefore objected to it. The present Bill went upon the principle of substituting good beer for an abominable adulteration and for gin, and he thought it was well calculated to effect that object. He could not conceive why the noble Lord opposite should imagine that the Bill would only be of advantage to artisans in towns, and not to labourers in the country. It was said that the vested interests of brewers and publicans would suffer from this Bill, but just in the same proportion was it clear that the public would be benefitted by it. He should, therefore, cordially give it his vote.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, that the great point which he thought the House ought to consider in this case was, whether the proposed measure would be a relief to the poorer classes. Now one noble Lord had said it would be but a partial relief to them. In his mind the relief to them by this Bill would be but as a flea-bite. He

419
trusted that, for the benefit of these classes, the House would go much further, and following up the vote of last night, and the demonstration of opinion they then made, that they would, by opposing this Bill, throw such a stumbling-block in the way of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as would compel him to give them the greater relief of the reduction of the duty on Malt.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that with respect to this question he stood in a peculiar situation. In the year 1822 he introduced a bill on the subject, which went the length of a second reading. In the year 1823 he introduced a similar bill, which reached the same stage. Into that bill he introduced a restrictive clause, more in deference to the opinion of others than from any conviction of his own mind; but the bill was thrown out. As to the present measure, there were those who thought that the restrictive clause would have been an improvement to it. He expressly added that clause, because he found that, in the then state of men's minds, there was no chance whatever of its otherwise obtaining the concurrence of anything like a majority of that House. He expressed his confident belief, that not only would the present measure afford great relief to the landed interest, by the increased consumption of malt, but that it would be a substantial improvement to the condition of the humbler classes, by producing an improvement in the quality of the article supplied; that improvement in the liquor, he considered, would be a great and valuable relief to that class; and he marveled much that his hon. friend, the member for Dorset did not see the matter in that light. To open the trade must be attended with the inevitable consequence of improving the quality of beer, for whereas brewers and publicans were, up to the present time, without competition, when that alteration was made which the Bill proposed to effect, brewers on a small scale and of moderate capital could get into the trade and promote competition. But it was more important to recollect that there would also be less adulteration of the liquor, for he believed that all the adulteration of the liquor took place at the publican's. The brewer was subjected to the visits—he might more properly say the visitations—of the excise officer, and he was also open to the influence of the informer. The publican was
420
open to no such superintendence. He might tamper with the liquor in private—not that there was any suspicion of his putting into it any deleterious drugs—no, there was no danger of that—no apprehension that he would put anything into it, except good wholesome spring water, by which he would be enabled to make four quarts out of three—what they might now expect was, that they would have better and honester beer brewed; more than all that, they would also effect, if he might be allowed to borrow a phrase from the hon. member for Newark, they would effect an improvement in their "moral police;" they would bring beer into competition with gin—the brewer into competition with the distiller—the beer-shop against the gin-shop; and they would effect that upon sound principles; they would effect it at the same time that they respected the rights of the subject, by taking care not to impose a high tax—they would proceed by surer and more wholesome and juster means than by high duties; they would have good beer instead of bad spirits; and so long as it might be thought necessary or expedient to afford to the people that species of exhilaration, and to encourage them in its use for the sake of avoiding a worse, so long he thought the lawgiver was best performing his duty by giving to them what, under present circumstances, might be called a moral species of beverage. The hon. Baronet, the member for Shoreham had laid much stress upon the information which practical men were capable of affording, and upon the weight and value of their opinions; and he feared that that hon. Baronet would chide him as visionary and speculative in calling the attention of the House to the great and fatal increase of gin-drinking, and the necessity of furnishing the people with a cheap and wholesome beverage. But he, as a practical man, would state to them some facts which came under his own observation. He was not a brewer nor a distiller of gin, but he had some means of practical observation. The facts he spoke of were sworn to, not by one or two, but by a cloud of witnesses, on a recent trial; and the effect of their testimony was, that many present, who thought that beer-drinking could never be made to supersede the consumption of gin, were then induced to alter that opinion. The subject of the trial was a public-house of

421
considerable value, the property, of course, of a neighbouring brewer,—the publican was also, of course, compelled to take beer of his landlord; but then it happened that the brewer brewed very bad beer, and at his death, the brewery falling into other hands, the beer fell off from bad to worse, and the consumption of it at the public-house sunk to little or nothing—gin, rum, and brandy supplied its place. The publican could bear this no longer, he resolved to face the indignation of his landlord, and he went to another brewer. The demand for beer at his house before the end of a month reached its former pitch, and supplanted the spirits. These were facts, and they could not be overlooked by those who valued themselves on regarding that alone which was practical. Take off the Malt-tax, and the rich were relieved; but the removal of the Beer-tax gave relief to the poor man, while the repeal of the Malt-tax would but diminish the expense of one amongst a thousand other luxuries and superfluities already enjoyed by the man of wealth. To the poor the Beer was next to a necessary of life. The conduct of the brewers upon the present occasion did them infinite credit—it even did them infinite credit when brought in contrast with their own former conduct six or seven years ago.—When he brought forward his bill in the year 1822, he had them all on his back; and, after having diluted them with some deleterious ingredients, he found that he might as well, after all, have retained the adulterating portion of his bill—have kept in his water and coculus indicus, for his measure was thrown out as speedily, and by as great a majority, as if at that period he had brought in that very Bill without the restrictive clause which was then before the House, and which he anticipated would be agreed to, leaving its opponents in a very small minority. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that the Bill then under discussion had been brought in under happier auspices than was his bill. He could not, however, allow himself to doubt but that the previous propositions had contributed to that object. It was an observation of one who well knew that House, who long had been an ornament to it, as he was to the country and his profession—he alluded to the celebrated Lord Coke—that "Never was a good proposal made in Parliament that was wholly lost to the coun-
422
try. Make the proposal once, it may be defeated; repeat it—it may be defeated again; still persevere, and depend on it that if it be worth acceptance, it will ultimately be accepted."
Mr. Bransby Cooperapproved of the general principle of the Bill, but disapproved of the clause allowing Beer to be drank on the premises where it was sold.
[The remaining observations made by the hon. Member were rendered inaudible by universal cries of "Question."]
The House divided, when there appeared—For the original Motion 245; Against it 29—Majority 21G.

List of the Minority.

Bell, M.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Milton, Lord

Byron, T.

Rick ford, W.

Chandos, Marquis

Sadler, M. T.

Drake, T. T.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Drake, W. T.

Tynte, C. K.

Fane, J.

Vyvyan, Sir R. R.

Foley, E.

West, F. R.

Fremantle, Sir T. M.

Wells, J.

Gordon, R.

Williams, O.

Heathcote, R. E.

Williams, T. P.

Heatheote, Sir W.

Willoughby, H.

Hodgson, H. A.

TELLERS.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Dickinson, W.

Keck, L.

Portman, E. B.

MINUTES.
The Malt Duties Bill was brought up from the Commons. The Earl of ELDON presented a Bill for amending the Bankrupt Laws, which was read a first time.
Returns presented. The aggregate Amount of all Balances of Public Money in the Hands of the Bank of England on the 1st and 15th day of each month for 1829:—Bank of England Notes in circulation on February 26th and August 26th in each year, from February, 1819, to February, 1830:—Advances made by the Bank of England to Government on Exchequer Bills, and other Securities, on August 28th, 1829, and February 28th, 1830:—Money paid or payable at the Bank of England for the Management of the Public Debt in 1829:—The quantity of Corn Spirits of Home-distillation, and of Rum which paid Duty for Home-consumption in the four years ending January 5th, 1826, and in the four years ending January 5th, 1829:—Of Exports and Imports from I798 to 1820:—Evidence taken before the Committee relative to Coin in 1828:—Coals shipped from the Port of Cardiff.
Petitions presented. For throwing open the China-trade, by the Duke of PORTLAND, from the Magistrates of the Burgh of Ayr and Kilmarnock:—By the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from the Incorporated Trades of Glasgow. For holding the Assizes of the West Riding of the County of York at Wakefield, by Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from Pontefract. For an alteration in the Tithe-laws, by the Duke of RICHMOND, from Mr. James Hantler. Praying for Relief under Distress, by the Earl of RADNOR, from the Inhabitants of High Holder, of Great Yarmouth; and the operative Stone-masons of London and Westminster:—And by Earl.STANHOPR, from several Parishes in Kent. For the Abolition of Death as the Punishment of Forgery, by the Earl of RADNOR, from Bolton, Lancashire:—And by the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from Portsmouth. Against the Duty on Coals imported into Ireland, by the same Nobleman, from the Inhabitants of St. Audeons, Dublin, and of Drogheda. Against the additional Duty on Spirits, by the same Nobleman, from the Magistrates, Farmers, and others of Upper Ossory:—And by Vise. MELVILLE, from the Farmers attending Edinburgh Market. Against the proposed alteration in the Welsh Judicature, by the Earl of ELDON, from the Inhabitants of Haverford west, of Cardigan, and of Pembroke.

HICKSON'S ABDUCTION AND MARRIAGE DISSOLUTION.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, he rose to present to this House, according to the notice which he had already given, the Petition of Mary Anne Wayte, (mother of Elizabeth Hickson,) and George

355
Wayte, her husband, for leave to bring in a Bill to annul that young lady's Marriage. In the year 1828 she had the misfortune, being then under age, to contract a marriage with Thomas Buxton. The parties eloped, the marriage ceremony was performed, but the young lady was speedily overtaken by her uncle, who extricated her from the grasp of her husband before the marriage could be consummated. The young lady soon became sensible of the impropriety of the step which she had taken, and extremely desirous to be emancipated from the society and control of Thomas Buxton. It appeared from the statements in the Petition, that Buxton had for a long course of time addicted himself to every kind of profligacy and vice, and a good deal was mentioned in it of the prosecutions and legal proceedings which had arisen from the conspiracies of which this unfortunate young lady had been the victim. Among these was an attempt he made to have her produced, by virtue of a writ of habeas corpus, before the Court of King's Bench; but in that instance the Court declined to interfere, because it would have had to try, by a sort of side wind, the validity of the marriage. The petitioners stated, that Thomas Buxton had, in the whole course of this unhappy transaction, conducted himself with fraud and treachery, and the young lady herself declared, that to be compelled to live with him would be only to entail upon her permanent unhappiness. Under these circumstances, the petitioners hoped, that in consequence of the clause of the Marriage Act, which provided that a marriage should be null and void, when the banns had been published in a parish where the parties did not actually reside, they might have the relief for which they prayed. But he observed, that by a subsequent clause of the same Act, all evidence of such a marriage was interdicted. It seemed, however, to have been the intention of the Legislature to declare a marriage so obtained null and void, and at the same time to declare, that the law would not interfere to allow the parties to prove the circumstances of their alleged marriage. The petitioners nevertheless hoped that their Lordships would hear such evidence, that considering the fraud which had been practised, and more particularly considering that the marriage had never been consummated, which was a most essential circumstance, they hoped that their Lordships would feel it to be an act of justice
356
to nullify such a contract. He was aware that public policy required that their Lordships should rarely interfere in abrogating such engagements, but parliamentary interposition might be justified in cases of deliberate fraud and informality, such as was the case he brought under their Lordships' notice. The young lady herself implored to be saved from the effects of her own impropriety; her life would be miserable if consigned to the association of this man. She was herself an heiress; her uncle was likewise in possession of a still more considerable property than her mother, he had no other relation so near to him as this young lady, and his mortification would be great if his property were to run the risk of passing into the hands of so profligate a person as Buxton, who not contented with fraudulently enticing the young lady away from her home, and palming this marriage upon her, had persecuted her ever since with the most pertinacious annoyance. At all events, he hoped that their Lordships would give a calm hearing to the solicitation of the petitioners, and would allow him, on a future day, to submit it to the judgment of a committee of the whole House.
The Bishop of Lichfieldseconded the Motion.
The Earl of Eldonwas of opinion, that the subject then before their Lordships was one which required very serious consideration. No cases, in the view of the law, were more complicated than those which related to clandestine marriages. Conspiracies of this kind were frequent, and when he had the honour of holding the Great Seal, they were often brought before him, and he had to dispose of them in the same manner as his predecessors had done. He was aware that when the banns have been fraudulently performed, a clause in the Marriage Act declared the ceremony to be null and void; but he was also aware, that the subsequent clause which forbade the circumstances of such marriages from being given in evidence, counteracted the means of establishing the nullity, so as to bring it under the previous clause. If the marriage be null and void, he wished their Lordships to see whether the parties could not have their remedy at common-law without coming here; if they had not, then their Lordships must see whether the special circumstances of this case resembled those upon which the legislature had heretofore acted. It would be their duty, when they came to consider the case, not to confine

357
their attention to it alone, but to sec how any decision respecting it would bear upon the general principle which ought to govern all such cases. The party complaining had here, as he understood given her free consent to the marriage and in relation to the general question, that circumstance was very important. No man wished more than he did that the legislature should enact the strongest provisions against the base and scandalous frauds which had been of late years so prevalent amongst us. Of the old Act of Parliament he was convinced, from his own experience, while holding the Great Seal, that it was imperfect and inadequate, and he believed that the inefficient clause was literally copied into the new Act. Of what use was it to provide that the wrong publication of the banns rendered the marriage null and void; when in the next clause, forbidding the circumstances of such marriage from being given in evidence, the law deprived the party wronged of the only means of proving the fraud which had been perpetrated? What could be more absurd than that,—and yet it was the law of the Marriage Act? The banns were, in fact, never legally performed. The Act provided that no clergyman should be obliged to publish banns, until he had received seven days previous notice; and yet that provision was evaded every day; indeed, it had, on more occasions than one, been his painful duty as well as that of his predecessors, upon complaint of the illegal publication of banns, to drag into Court some of the most respectable of our clergymen to answer for that offence. The Act of Parliament said, that the clergyman must have seven days notice of the intended banns. But he did happen to know, and so most likely did their Lordships, that just before the clergyman began the second lesson, the clerk handed him up a paper, which was for the publication of banns, and he published them immediately, without further inquiry, or, indeed, without having, at such a moment, any means of making any inquiry. The clergyman then became inadvertently culpable, and amenable to the law for this offence. Ought such a state of things, with reference to such a ceremony, to exist? Certainly not; the whole subject ought to be examined and revised. The present question was merely whether their Lordships should examine into the circumstances of this particular marriage, and then, if they found the banns to have been illegally published,
358
declarc the marriage void by an Act of the Legislature? There might be circumstances, as in Miss Turner's case, which would justify their Lordships' concurrence in the prayer of such a petition. There was not a man, he believed, whose heart beat rightly in his bosom, who would not feel happy to put an end to such wicked contrivances; but their Lordships should anxiously look into all the particulars of such cases, and take care not to infringe general principles. At all events, he agreed cordially with the right reverend and learned Prelate, that the Petition was entitled to their anxious consideration before they decided upon it.
The Petition read, and referred to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

CHURCH REFORM.
The Earl of Mountcashellsaid, he had a Petition to present from New Ross, in the county of Wexford, signed by several magistrates and men of property in that county, praying for inquiry into the means of remedying the existing abuses of the Established Church in Ireland; and also a Petition to the same effect, that originated from a meeting of the friends of the Church of England in the county of Cork, which was signed by upwards of 3,000 bonâ fide members of the Church of England, including sixty magistrates of the county, He would not trouble their Lordships with having the latter petition fully read, as it had already appeared in the public prints, and should merely observe, that though the number of signatures was by no means unusually great, it was the largest consisting exclusively of members of the Church of England, that had perhaps ever been attached to any petition presented to that House, on the important subject to which it related, and was therefore, if on no other ground, entitled to their Lordships' consideration.
The Petitions having been laid on the Table, the Order of the Day was read for their Lordships to take into consideration a motion relative to the Reform of the Church of Ireland.
The Earl of Mountcashellproceeded to say, that pursuant to his express intention, he should then submit to their Lordships a motion founded on the prayer of these petitions, of which he had already given their Lordships notice. In doing so, he begged leave to assure them that he never felt more deeply embarrassed on account, he could sincerely say of a conscious want

359
of ability to do justice to the very important subject involved in his Motion. His embarrassment was heightened when he recollected with regret, that upon so young a member of that House as he was, and upon one consequently so inexperienced in its proceedings, and so unable to command its attention, a task of such difficulty and such importance should have devolved. He, indeed, should have wished that other noble Lords, more gifted and more influential, had taken the subject into their hands, and thus relieved him from much responsibility—responsibility which nothing would have induced him to incur but a deep sense of duty, and a strong conviction that somebody should open the way in calling the attention of that House to a matter of paramount interest to the spiritual welfare of millions. Trusting, then, in the courtesy of the House, and that noble Lords better able to illustrate the subject he intended to bring under their notice than he was, would help him out, he should proceed to state, but not too strongly, the points of his case. But before he did so, he thought it light to observe, that he feared it might be alleged that he was actuated by motives of hostility to the Church of England, of which he was born, and of which he trusted in God he should die, a member. He disclaimed—earnestly, sincerely disclaimed—being actuated by such an unworthy motive. No; he was, he solemnly assured the House, a devoted member of the Protestant Church of England—warmly attached to its episcopal form of government—to its usages, its tenets, its rites, its discipline, and, he would add, its lawful privileges. Indeed, he brought his present Motion forward in the spirit of an attached friend of that Church, and he trusted it would appear that he acted as its best friend in directing the attention of the legislature to its undeniable abuses, so as to strengthen its trunk by lopping off its excrescences. It was in this spirit he brought his Motion forward; and instating facts to illustrate and bear it out,—and he begged to say he had a multitude of such facts, stubborn, undeniable facts—indeed he was armed with them, he wished to be understood as meaning any thing but disrespect to the Established Church of either England or Ireland. His only object was, in a word, to make that Church respected, and what it ought to be—an instrument of salvation to millions of benighted souls in the Empire. He had said he was a member of the Church of England, that he consci-
360
entiously believed its doctrines, and was ardently attached to its discipline. He was so, but not implicitly and without inquiry. He was not a member of the Protestant Church of England merely because he was born in it: he had not subscribed to its articles as a school-boy does to the grammar rules he learns by rote: he had inquired into the scriptural validity of those articles; he had examined for himself into the gospel characteristics of its tenets, and the result was, that he was a more attached member of it than he possibly could otherwise have been. Indeed, indeed, he wished from his soul that he could make others as attached members of the Protestant faith as he was, from conviction. But still he felt there was much in the Established Church that he wished to see altered, much amended, and much placed altogether on a different footing from that on which it at present stood. He wished to see all its ministers—ministers in soul, in heart, and in spirit—ministers of religion—ministers of the Gospel. He had learned that the great utility of religion—that is, of Christianity—was its tendency to enlighten the minds and purify the hearts of men; and he knew that Christianity differed from all other systems of religion, including Paganism, in its being emphatically the religion of the heart. But for this, the great leading feature of Christianity, it would, in a legislative point of view, be little superior to Paganism: but as this was its great, its all-important excellence, it was the solemn duty of the Legislature to encourage, by all means in its power, its growth, and to prevent, as far as it could, the introduction of abuses. And here he would observe, that he feared, so far as the spirit of Christianity was taken into account, he feared—that Paganism had but too many votaries in this country; but on this point he would not expatiate. He had said it was the duty of the Legislature to foster and guard the institutions of Christianity; but he did so, fully aware that other avocations so much engaged the attention of legislators as to preclude the possibility of any attention being bestowed on the far more important matter of religious politics. And yet it was evident that, to the general weal,—he spoke politically,—religion, that is, Christianity, was necessary; and to good religion a good system of discipline was essential; and to secure a good system of discipline, they should guard against the introduction of abuses such as those in the Protestant

361
Church of England and Ireland, to which he would then invite the attention of their Lordships. He would first bring under their notice the state of the ecclesiastical laws. He might perhaps be told that that was a subject which had better be left in other hands,—that something had been done towards amending these laws, and that more was in progress, as a commission then was actually inquiring into their operation. To this he need only say, that if he understood rightly, the powers of that commission extended merely to the regulations of the ecclesiastical courts, and did not reach the letter or the spirit of the ecclesiastical laws. So far, therefore, as that commission was concerned, the ecclesiastical laws were left within the scope of his inquiry, the rather as it embraced the Church of England with that of Ireland. He had examined, with no ordinary care, in relation to those laws, a work to be found in their Lordships' library, namely, Gibson's Codex, which was acknowledged to be the best manual of ecclesiastical law, and he found, in the first place, that there were nominally in force, as part and parcel of the law of the Church of England,—some canons which were every day violated, though they seemed to be proper institutions, and which ought to be observed or repealed. There was a second class of those ecclesiastical laws, which were absurd and ridiculous; and there was a third class actually opposed to the principles of the Protestant religion. As an example of the first class, he would refer their Lordships to page 157 of Gibson's Codex, where they would sec that it was one of the canon laws of the Church of England that "no clergyman should exercise secular functions." He would not then stop to inquire into the policy and wisdom of this law, but should merely observe its irreconcileableness with the every-day fact of clergymen's exercising secular functions, even as civil magistrates. Either, therefore, it was or it was not an acknowledged canon of the Church of England. If it were, then the clergymen of that church deserved ecclesiastical censure for violating it; if it were not, the sooner they were relieved from the onus of thus violating one of their canons the better. In the same work they would see set down, as the 75th canon of the church of England, that no minister of that church "should engage in servile labour." He need not trouble himself with an explanation of the meaning of the phrase "servile labour," as it plainly resolved itself into a reiteration of the
362
injunction against the exercise of "secular functions." Nor need he trouble their Lordships or himself with quoting facts to show that this canon was every day violated. He knew of clergymen, he was sorry to say, who acted as land-agents, and in other offices of "servile labour," though an Act of Parliament had been passed, to in some degree enforce the canon, which was, however, as they all knew, every day evaded. Either, then, this canon should be expunged or enforced—there was no other rational straightforward course for all parties. Again, in page l62 of Gibson, their Lordships would find a canon of the Church of England, by which its ministers were prohibited from "indulging in cards, dice, and other unlawful games." He would not stop to inquire how far this ecclesiastical law was obeyed, hut it was plain that in the canons he had referred to there was nothing absurd or reprehensible. He would then proceed to the next class, such as were ridiculous and absurd, and the first he would mention was to be found at page 168, canon 74, by which all clergymen were forbidden to appear in "coifs and night-caps of cotton, or black silk or velvet" [a laugh.] He was not surprised that the mention of this canon had disturbed the gravity of their Lordships, and he would put it to them whether such laws did not require revision and amendment? But he would next beg leave to direct their attention to canons of much more serious importance, which he thought imperatively called for some change, one which they would find in page 170 of Gibson, and which were, in fact, a part of the "Constitutions of Otho." It might, perhaps, surprise some of their Lordships to whom the fact might not be familiar, to hear that the decrees of Popes and of Popes' legates should still constitute a portion of the ecclesiastical law of the Protestant Church of England; but such was the fact. By the canon he had just mentioned it was declared, that "the Bishops should reside in their sees, and celebrate high mass on holidays." That canon was at the present moment a part of the regulations of the Established Church of this country, though with what propriety it was not easy to determine. All such rules, he thought, ought to be expunged from our canons, which should be repealed or enforced, according to the intention of their framers. Then there was the 88th canon [page 191 of the Codex], by which it was forbidden to hold "plays, ungodly banquets, or pro-

363
fane usages in churches, and even in the churchyard." He should like to know how the holding of concerts in churches could be reconciled with this canon, which, he might observe, was laid down in 1603? Was there not something of "profane usage" in the converting the sacred edifices of religion into a kind of opera, with money-takers, public singers, and other circumstances totally opposed to the letter and spirit of the canon? In opposition to this canon also, money was continually lavished in ornamenting and decorating churches, so that they were rendered more like places of profane entertainment than of holy worship. Should they not, he again asked, have a code of ecclesiastical law which should be obeyed, and not one containing canons which were violated with impunity? Was it not, in fact, expedient that the clergy should know what ecclesiastical laws they were bound to obey, and that the laity should know what those ecclesiastical laws were? The next subject he would direct their Lordships' attention to, was the state of the parishes in England and Ireland, so far as they were provided with churches and efficient resident clergymen—a subject which had occasioned much well-founded complaint in both countries. The noble Lord repeated, that he was not actuated in his intended statements respecting the want of churches and efficient clergymen by any feeling of disrespect to the discipline and privileges of the Established Church. He still felt it, however, to be his duty to state, that much amendment was necessary in this branch of the Church government, that too many clergymen were unqualified by education and previous habits of life for the duties of their high station, and that many most zealous conscientious men were prevented from entering into the ministry by some of the regulations of the existing canon law, which regulations a right rev. Prelate had declared must be in force till that law was modified. He meant no charge against the clergymen of the Church of England as a body, when he declared that many, too many, individual members of it had been unfaithful and negligent in the discharge of their sacred duties; and that, as a consequence, the spiritual welfare of thousands had lamentably suffered. He wished that this distinction between a censure on an individual, and an attack on the body, of which that individual was a member, should be continually borne in mind in the present discussion. Animadversion on an individual member of the Bar or of the
364
Army was not construed into an attack on either profession as a body, and neither should it be with the ministers of the Church of England. "All I can say," said the noble Earl, "is, that I am not induced to bring forward my present Motion by any unworthy feeling towards the Church of England in the aggregate. Far from it. I thank—solemnly thank—my God, that my conscience acquits me of all other motives than anxiety for the best interests, the spiritual welfare of the people. When we are all rotting in our graves, and when my soul shall be summoned to the judgment scat of my Creator, it will, I humbly trust, be seen that I am actuated solely by a solemn sense of duty." He trusted, the noble Lord continued, though unable to express himself as he should wish, that justice would be extended to the purity of his feelings. The noble Lord next proceeded to contend that there was not a sufficient number of churches for the members of the established religion in Ireland. In a report of the other House of Parliament, he found that in 1820 there were 1,155 churches in Ireland, which, on the average, would accommodate but 1.50 persons each—that is, but 173,250 persons altogether. Now, he had the high authority of Mr. Leslie Foster for the fact, that the members of the Church of England amounted in Ireland to 1,269,800 souls. Let them deduct from that number 70,000 for infants and children too young to attend divine service, and they would have still 1,200,000 persons, speaking in round numbers, for whom there should be church accommodation in that country. And yet, according to his estimate, there was not accommodation in 1820 for one-sixth of that number. This was, as it appeared to him, in a great degree owing to the improvident mode in which the money voted and subscribed for the building of churches in Ireland was expended. Every thing was done for show,—for an architectural display of cut stone, and so forth: the spiritual welfare of the flock was a secondary consideration. Every thing, he repeated, was sacrificed to ornament and appearance, and for comfortably providing for the few richer parishioners: no pains were taken to ensure accommodation in the temple of prayer for the poor. This was not as it should be, and he trusted it would not be so henceforth. He was ready to admit that efforts had been here and there made to remedy the abuses to which he was alluding; but they were on far too limited a scale to be productive of essential

365
benefit. For, even supposing that 26,750 persons more might be accommodated in the churches of Ireland, there was still 1,000,000 of souls for whose spiritual welfare there was no church provision: that is, that for every five out of six of the Church of England Protestants of Ireland there was no accommodation in the places of worship. Was this, he would again ask, as it should be? Then, with regard to England, the case, he was sorry to say, was not much better. He need not go beyond the precincts of the metropolis in which they all then lived for a sad proof of the neglect of a proper provision for the spiritual welfare of the people. The inhabitants of this mighty city had been estimated at not less than 1,400,000 souls, and yet of these not less than 1,000,000 were said to be habitually negligent of the worship of their Maker. When he inquired into the progress of the Church of England doctrines throughout the country at large, he found proofs of the neglect of providing accommodation for the members of that Church in the growing numbers of Dissenters. Their Lordships had authentic public documents to convince them of this lamentable fact. From one which he held in his hand, it appeared, that out of a population of 4,937,820 persons, there were but 2,533 churches for 1,856", 108 members of the Established Church; while there were, in the same district, not less than 3,413 places of worship for the Dissenters. In the province of York, the Dissenters had 310 more places of worship than there were churches. In Devonport, containing a population of 40,000 inhabitants, there was but one parish church, and three chapels, while the Dissenters had twenty-three places of worship. And so in other places, as their Lordships might satisfy themselves by inquiry. Connected with this want of churches was a want of clergymen—particularly of resident-clergymen. In Ireland there were 1,263 benefices; in which 390 incumbents were permanently non-resident and only 873 resident. The noble Lord proceeded to animadvert upon the mischievous consequences of the non-residence of the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland. The evil was of ancient date,—as old as the exemption law of Henry 8th; it was much aggravated by the 57th of his late Majesty; and had arrived at a pitch that loudly called for reform. The whole system of exemptions should be revised. He saw no reason why the holder of a living should continue to
366
reside at college till he was thirty years of age; as, indeed, he saw no just ground for many other admitted exemptions, by which the spiritual welfare of the people was much neglected. Nor was the system of non-residence unfortunately confined to Ireland. In England he found, in 1810, there were 4,471 non-residents, out of upwards of 10,000 incumbents, and 1,846 of these were wholly non-resident, having livings in other places. Since the year 1814 there had been a decrease of incumbents to the amount of 2,500,—a fact which necessarily induced the inference that there must have been a proportionate increase of pluralities during the same period. The existing state of the parochial schools he considered to be another proper subject for inquiry. Certain it was, that Protestant parents in Ireland were frequently constrained to send their children to Roman Catholic schools for education, in consequence of the manner in which the Protestant seminaries were conducted. The noble Earl then proceeded to condemn the system, of pluralities in the Church of England, asserting that clergymen were to be found who united ten benefices in their own persons. This practice, he contended, was inimical to the true interests of the Christian Church, in support of which opinion, he cited a pastoral address of Bishop Burnet, expressive of sentiments similar to his own. He wished also to call attention to the present economy of Church property, which appeared to him highly objectionable from many considerations. It in some respects resembled the large farms in England, as the greater part of the church property was engrossed by a small number of persons. The small estates and the small benefices had disappeared, and the land and the Church property were both divided into large masses, to enrich a few individuals. This was likewise a subject that required parliamentary inquiry, and he trusted that they would soon come to a determination to turn over a new leaf. There was one point, however, that related to Ireland which he was sorry to touch upon. He alluded to the Ecclesiastical Reports, relative to the affairs of the Irish Church. The information which these documents contained was in many particulars inaccurate and defective. They were for the most part compiled by the Bishops' Registrars, and the task had been very inefficiently performed. Parishes were described as not worth 40 l. a year, the income of which was found to be quadrupled in the tithe

367
composition. Some were ascertained to be even five or six times the amount stated in the reports. The amount of acres had been similarly misrepresented, and in the last return there was a misstatement of not less than 13,000 in number. He neither wished to pull down the Church, nor to deprive it of an acre of its rightful property, but merely desired to prevent their Lordships from being led astray by erroneous representations. Some parishes also had been omitted in these reports, and these omissions were so frequent that nine parishes in one diocese were forgotten altogether. On a subject intimately connected with what he had just referred to, he wished to say a few words. He was favourable to the general introduction of tithe composition, as nothing, in his opinion, had more conduced to cement peace and concord between the laity and clergy in Ireland, so far as he could judge of its effects, than the act for this purpose. He had in his possession letters and documents that would prove to the fullest extent the truth of what he asserted. In one parish the clergyman had actually distrained, amongst other chattels, a poor woman's Bible to satisfy his demands. Few of his reverend brethren, he believed, would have proceeded to such lengths; but certainly, while such a system was acted on, parishioners could scarcely be expected to listen with much relish to the most eloquent discourses that their pastor could deliver. A curious illustration of the effect of the present mode of receiving tithes had lately come to his knowledge through the medium of a correspondent. A clergyman was not long since riding in company with a naval officer to receive his dues, when, chancing to meet a goose, accompanied by a certain number of goslings, in his neighbourhood, he immediately proceeded to count them; and the result was, that his reverence laid claim to one of the latter. Soon after he practised a similar process of arithmetic on a litter of pigs, and made lawful seizure of two of them also. Occurrences like these did not beseem the clerical character, and he therefore wished to see a general adoption of commutation of tithes. The dissention created by the prevailing system was well exemplified by the murder of Mr. Parker, for it appeared that the dispute which provoked the crime had emanated from the collection of tithes. Another source of injury to the Church might be traced to improper appointments, which were at present of but too frequent recurrence. He thought it
368
desirable that more care should be observed in the examination of candidates for ordination. As it was, a knowledge of classics seemed to be held paramount to every other consideration, and the result proved to be, as might be anticipated, a devotion to secular rather than to spiritual concerns. But of all points that which he most desired to insist on was the custom of selling the next presentation to livings, which, however unseemly, was practised to such an extent that it met the eye in our public papers almost daily. This alone was calculated to bring the Church into disrepute, as it opened a door to the admission of persons who were particularly unfit for the discharge of the sacred functions. Whoever had money might enter the clerical profession without delay, sure of promotion, as his father could appoint him, by virtue of his purse, to almost any living he should choose to select, although the transaction would amount to simony if a Bishop were a party to it. These observations applied both to England and Ireland; but in making them he had no other object in view than the interests of the United Church. Amongst the clergy there were undoubtedly many pious single-hearted men, who were sincerely devoted to the hallowed duties of their calling, but there were likewise others, he lamented to say, who were careless of their character, indolent in their office, and dissolute in their lives. If he appeared to expatiate with any invidiousness on the errors of the church and its ministers, he desired it might be remembered that it was his object only to direct attention to what was wrong,—not to eulogize what was deserving. Setting aside the Irish curates, he wished for a moment to notice the clergy of the same rank in England. According to the statement put forth in the year 1810, the number amounted to 3,694, of whom 455 had more than 50 l. per annum, whilst 3,239 had even less. A great improvement, he admitted, had unquestionably taken place since that period, as the 57th of George 3rd, limited the sum to 75 l. a year; but that income itself, it must be acknowledged, was a miserable stipend, amounting only to 4s. 1d. per diem. Some men were getting large sums fordoing nothing, whilst others, who had received a good classical education, and devoted all their time and ability to spiritual instruction, were thus scantily remunerated. The operative clergyman he should like to see more adequately rewarded, for a labourer in the vineyard was worthy of his hire. The fact that there was "a house of call" for

369
clergymen in London, who were thence called journeymen parsons, sufficiently demonstrated to what melancholy resources the profession was reduced. In further confirmation of what he asserted, the noble Lord here read an advertisement, which bore date December 10, 1829, from a respectable clergyman, aged seventy-nine, who had been fifty years in orders, setting forth that he had suffered for months from ague, and was then confined with a sore leg, and supplicating for relief. Many similar cases he had no doubt occurred, although they did not happen to come so directly under the notice of the public. With respect to resident clergymen he should observe, that he knew some who resided and did no duty whatever, while he knew others who did worse, devoting their time exclusively to secular employments, to the duties of magistrates, which were contrary to the Ecclesiastical Law,—and to agricultural speculations, which the old law had not permitted. The 57th of Geo. 3rd. however, allowed clergymen to cultivate farms to the extent of eighty acres, provided their income did not exceed a certain amount. In the "Belfast Commercial Chronicle," February 6, 1830, he found an advertisement stating the bankruptcy of the Rev. R. Gregg, dealer and chapman, and appointing the following Thursday for the sale of his effects, consisting of furniture, hay, wine, whisky, &c, and naming the succeeding Friday for a meeting of creditors at a Belfast hotel, with a view to making arrangements respecting his real property. This was forbidden by the canon law, and it could not be denied that it was in the highest degree unseemly for one laying claim to the office of a gospel minister to come in such a character before the public. He understood also that it was equally repugnant to the canons of the Church, that clergymen should engage in those field sports which might be lawfully indulged in by the laity; yet he knew many instances in which this regulation was disregarded. He knew an archdeacon in Ireland—he would not mention his name—who kept one of the best packs of foxhounds in the county. Another clergyman, not seven miles distant from the former, had also an excellent pack of fox-hounds, with which he regularly hunted; and he had heard of a clergyman who, after his duties in the church had been performed, used to meet his brother huntsmen at the communion table, on the Sunday and arrange with them where the hounds were to start from on the next day. These were gross
370
abuses, and perhaps the best mode of correcting them would be to give them publicity; for if he should not succeed in obtaining the commission for which he should move, what he now said might go abroad and produce some salutary effect. He was unwilling to detain their Lordships, or he might state many instances of such abuses, similar to those he had mentioned, and many of a much more serious nature. If their Lordships knew the many facts of this nature which had come to his knowledge within the last six months, they would feel astonished; but he would not publish them, as well on account of the nature of the facts themselves as of the disgrace which must attach to certain parties, and through them to the Church, from their disclosure. He did trust and hope, however, that something would be done to check such scandalous abuses. It was a disagreeable and painful subject upon which to enlarge; he did it with reluctance, for he knew it must be unpleasant to the House, but he begged of them to consider well before they negatived his Motion. Let them not be averse from every change—it was a law of nature that all things should change—nothing remained stationary; all things became in time either worse or better. He felt that in bringing forward the present Motion he ran some risk, but he had made up his mind to incur that risk. Some noble Lords might think there would be danger in what he intended to conclude by proposing, but he begged to remind them that they had only to do what was right—to obey the dictates of their consciences, and leave consequences in the hands of Almighty God. If they acted conscientiously, they might depend upon receiving the direction and guidance of the Holy Spirit; they had the warrant of God's word for that, and a surety that they would be safely carried through every difficulty into which they might be led from acting in accordance with a sense of duty. The greatest danger indeed that could occur to the Church would be to leave those matters without a remedy; for if they were neglected by those whose duty it was to check them, the consequences would be severely felt hereafter. It was only putting off the evil day, like the debtor who put off his creditor from time to time: the debt was claimed at last, when he was least able to pay it. Those who objected to the present application of the remedy, lest it should give an advantage to the enemies of the Church, should recollect, that those enemeis would become more powerful by the delay.

371
He wished the matter had been introduced years ago, and he should have felt it his duty to do so, had it fallen to his lot to have a seat in the House at that time. One reason why he introduced the subject just now was to be found in what had been stated in the other House by the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department—that the Church must now be defended by its own purity. The same opinion had been pronounced by the noble Duke (Wellington,) in that House—that the Church was to be defended by its own purity. But let no one be deceived by this. If they were to ask, where was the purity of the church, might they not be following an ignis fatuus? It was absurd to talk of relying upon the purity of the Church while such abuses as he had mentioned were allowed to remain without a remedy. Another reason for his Motion was, that the Church did not augment her forces, but that they were rather on the decline, in comparison with those of other Christian denominations. He found by a book,—the "Directory of the Roman Catholic Laity" that from the year 1824 to 1829, there had been an increase of fifty-three Roman Catholic chapels in England and Wales. There were fifty-three additional congregations of that communion since that period. He had also seen letters, stating, that since the passing of the Catholic Bill, 100 Protestants in Leicester had become converts to the Roman Catholic faith. He did not include amongst these the instance of a recent distinguished individual who had left the Protestant Church to embrace the Roman Catholic creed. He might also mention the increase of the numbers of those belonging to other religious communions as compared with those of the Church of England. When their Lordships saw these things, he thought they could not reasonably deny that an investigation of the cause was necessary. Another reason, and perhaps the strongest of all, for bringing forward this Motion, was the state of the country with respect to the increase of crime. If we wished to judge of the state of religion in the country, we might, with much propriety, look at the conduct of the people, and see how far, taken as a whole, the nation was advancing in morality. He found, by the returns made to Parliament, that in the year 1823, the number of persons committed for crimes in England and Wales was 12,663, while in 1829 it was 18,675. The convictions in 1823 were 8,204, and in 1829 they were 13,261 l.. In
372
fact, the convictions in 1829 amounted to more than the committals in 1823. They had increased 6,000 in the course of six years. A stronger proof could not be given that the people were becoming less attentive to their religious duties, than that the moral conduct of the great mass was becoming worse and worse. He knew that there were two ways of correcting wickedness—by impressing on the mind the fear of offending God, and by the fear of the laws of men. The laws relating to offences had been much improved—our police establishments had been much improved, and these ought to tend to decrease crime; yet it was found to be daily on the increase. The habits of the lower orders were becoming daily worse and worse. Were they more attentive to church on Sundays? On the contrary, were not the gin-shops as open on those days as on any days of the week? Public houses were more frequented on that day than on any other, and it was well known that such was the state of drunkenness of the working classes on that day, that it was extremely difficult to get them to attend to their business on the Monday. Such was the state of the population, and it was evident that the Church was inefficient in correcting the lives of the people, notwithstanding its professions and pretensions were great, and its revenues and privileges immense. The cause of this insufficiency and of great laxity of moral and religious feeling, was a subject deserving of the most serious consideration; and with the view of instituting a proper inquiry into it, he should now beg leave to move—" That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased to appoint a Commission to inquire into, and state whether any and what abuses existed in the Established Church of England and Ireland, and if any, to report what measures would be most expedient for the removal thereof."
Motion negatived without a division, there appearing only the voice of the noble Mover in its favour.