Sitting of 25 November 1830

MINUTES.
Petitions Presented. For the abolition of Slavery, by Colonel POWELL, six from places in Wales:—By Mr. ADEANE, five from the Isle of Ely, and other places in the County of Cambridge:—By Colonel ABERCROMBIE, from a Parish in Scotland:—By Mr. SCHONSWAR, from Hull, and from two other places: — By Mr. LESTER, from Poole:—By Mr. GUEST, from Honiton, Devonshire:—By Mr. TYRELL, two from places in Suffolk:—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from New Ross, in Ireland:—By Mr. N. CALVERT, from several places in Herefordshire:—By Mr. KEMP, from the Town of Lewes:—By Mr. WARBURTON, from Bridport:—By Lord W. POWLETT, from several places in Durham:—By Mr. PENDARVIS, from places in Cornwall:—By Mr. HUME, from Arbroath and Hammersmith:—By Mr. SEVERN, from places in Radnorshire and Monmouthshire:—By Lord STANLEY, from Bolton, and other places in Lancashire:—By Sir W. JOLLIFFE, from Petersfield:—By Mr. CURTEIS, from Horsham:—By Lord J. STUART, from a place in Glamorganshire:—By Mr. W. STURT, from four places in Bedfordshire:—By Mr. J. WOOD, from a parish in Lancashire:—By Mr. FORTESCUE, from two places in Devon and Lancashire:— By Mr. GROSVENOR, two from Chester:—By Mr. WILKS, from Matlock, Westham, Essex, and a place in Lincoln:—By Mr. EVANS, from several places in Kerry:—By Mr. RICE, from Youghall: —By Mr. JOHNSTONE, from Dunfermline:—By Sir R. BATESON, from Downpatrick. By Mr. WYSE, from certain inhabitants of the Town of Galway, praying for an extension of the Elective Franchise in that place. By Mr. MACNAMARA, from Ennis, for a Repeal of the Legislative Union, between England and Ireland:—By Mr. BOYLE, from Cork, against the Repeal. By Sir W. W. WYNN, from certain inhabitants of Denbigh, against the Truck System. By Mr. O'CONNELL, from the Rev. Thomas Smith, of the City of London, complaining that he had been seventeen years in Orders without obtaining any Church preferment, while benefices were lavished upon wealthy Bishops, and other non-resident Pluralists; and from Roman Catholic Inhabitants of the County of Mayo, complaining of the unequal distribution of Public Grants for Education in Ireland.
Bills brought in. By Lord HOWICK, to give validity to acts done by the Governors of Colonies, in his late Majesty's name, after his decease. By Mr. SPRING RICE, to apply money out of the Consolidated Fund for the service of 1830.

BEQUESTS OF ROMAN CATHOLICS.
Mr. O'Connellobtained leave to bring in a Bill for the better securing the Charitable Donations and Bequests of his Majesty's subjects in England and Wales professing the Roman Catholic religion. The hon. Member observed, that he had brought in

669
a similar bill last year. He did not intend to press it beyond a first reading till all the Ministers should be in the House; but he wished to have its principle understood. In Ireland, the charitable establishments of Protestants and Catholics were upon a similar footing as regarded the security of bequests made for their support. The case was different in England; there was, indeed, no Statute at present in force to prevent the erection of Roman Catholic schools, or the establishment of Roman Catholic charities in this country. Lord Eldon had decided that point; but at the same time he declared, that the existence of Roman Catholics in England being contrary to the spirit of the law, there could be no protection for Catholic charities. The noble Lord was undoubtedly right in his interpretation of the law as it then stood; but since that period the Relief Bill had been passed, and it effected an important alteration in the spirit of the law, by conferring legislative rights upon the Roman Catholics, and declaring that they were entitled to all other civil privileges, upon taking certain oaths. Thus, with respect to Catholic charities, what was merely toleration before became now a right. His wish was, that a law should be passed declaratory of this right, and which should place the Roman Catholics of England and Wales upon the same footing in this respect as Protestant Dissenters.

CHURCH RATES.
Mr. Wilksmoved for a return of the amount of Church-rates levied, and of mortuary and burial fees received, &c, by the various Churchwardens in England and Wales, and how expended, in the year 1830. The hon. Member expressed his surprise that such returns were not annually made to Parliament as they were of great importance. It was not generally known what immense sums were raised in the name of the Church of England. Some returns though inaccurate had formerly been made to the other House, and by them it appeared that very nearly a million a year was collected under the name of Church-rates. He hoped that there would be no objection to the motion.
Mr. Spring Ricewould not oppose it, but he hoped that notice had been given of the hon. Member's intention.
Mr. R. Inglissaid, that the returns in question could not be made out without
670
immense labour on the part of those from whom they were required; that great expense would be incurred in procuring them, and that commensurate advantage would not be derived from them. He therefore recommended that the Motion should be withdrawn or he should oppose it.
Sir C. Wetherellalso opposed the Motion as being of no utility.
Mr. Humedid not think that the labour would be so great, for accounts of such receipts and expenditure must be kept by the Churchwardens in the various parishes in the country; and if they were not kept, they ought to be kept.
Mr. G. Lambsaid, that there would be excessive difficulty, delay, and expense in procuring such returns. He believed too that no care could make them accurate. No less than 14,000 letters must be written. He had, otherwise, no objection to the Motion.
Mr. Warburtonsupported the Motion, on the ground that it would be a warning to all Churchwardens and public officers to keep their accounts in a state for public inspection.
Mr. Goulburnopposed the Motion, on account of the inconvenience and expense attendant upon the making out of such returns. It would make the House the auditor of all the parish accounts in the kingdom which was quite unnecessary as those accounts were already audited by those who were more interested in curtailing the expenditure. The returns would, he believed, be quite useless after causing an immense expense to procure them.
Mr. J. Woodsaid, that one of the great grievances of which the people had to complain was, that in many instances their parochial affairs were managed by select self-elected vestries, and he therefore should support this Motion. Such returns would check the extortion of parish parliaments,
Sir R. Peeldid not understand that there was any unwillingness on the part of the Government to afford every information on this subject, but the present motion was resisted on the grounds of inconvenience and expense. He (Sir R. Peel) should have no objection if the hon. Member who had spoken last would move for the production of those parochial accounts in which he was personally interested—to wit, those of the town of Preston,—to give his assent to such a motion.

671
He recommended the hon. Member who had moved for these returns to withdraw his motion for the present, and to endeavour by local inquiry to ascertain what might be the result of such returns, and whether they could be furnished at a moderate expense commensurate with the advantage to be derived from them. Such an inquiry should be made before they proceeded to incur an expense of at least 1,000 l. or 2,000 l.
Mr. T. P. Courtenayconcurred in the observations of his right hon. friend, and opposed the Motion.
Mr. Leadersaid, that such information had been already obtained with regard to the parishes in Ireland, with little difficulty or expense, and he did not see why it might not be also obtained with respect to the English parishes. In the present state of the country no species of inquiry should be refused which would enable people to ascertain the amount and extent of their burthens.
Mr. Spring Ricedid not think that, without a suggestion of general abuse, they should go into a general inquiry. The returns which had been procured from Ireland had been obtained at very great expense, and they had been found almost totally useless for the objects which he (Mr. S. Rice) and others had in view when they were called for.
Mr. Wilkssaid, he should withdraw his motion for the present. At the same time he was of opinion that the returns of such an expenditure as 700,000 l. or 800,000 l. a-year, which was the amount of the Church-rates, should be laid before Parliament and the country; and he was determined to take another opportunity again to bring forward this subject.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. S. Ricemoved, that the House should, at its rising, adjourn to Tuesday next. He named that day for the adjournment, as a ballot for an election committee was fixed for it. Of course no debateable business would be fixed for that day, and the bills which he (Mr. S. Rice) had fixed for it would occasion no discussion.
Sir G. Clerktook that opportunity to state, that a petition from the agent for the Queenborough petition had been put into his hands, praying that the ballot for the committee on that petition should be postponed from Tuesday next until after the recess. Probably there would be no
672
objection on the part of the House to comply with the prayer of the petition.
After a few words from Sir C. Wetherell, Mr. Fyler, and Mr. Wynn, who conceived that it would be impossible to grant the prayer of this petition, Sir G. Clerk consented to withdraw it.
The Motion for the adjournment was then put, and agreed to.

LAW OF REAL PROPERTY.
Mr. Campbellgave notice, that it was his intention, soon after the recess, to move for leave to bring in bills for the alteration of the laws of property and succession; for a change of the law as it respected dower, for the purpose of enabling parents to become the heirs of their children; for the abolition of fines and recoveries, with a view to the substitution of other assurances in their stead; and also for a change in the law of Limitation. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated, that he did not apprehend that the bills in question would meet with much opposition, as they had been framed in compliance with the unanimous recommendation of the commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of the law.
On the Motion of Mr. Rice, it was ordered, that the Speaker should issue a supersedeas on the new writ for the election of a Burgess to represent the borough of Preston, in consequence of a legal informality in the hon. E. G. S. Stanley's acceptance of the office of Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. For the abolition of Negro Slavery, from various parts of the country, by the Earls of HARDWICKE, HADDINGTON, SPENCER, RODEN, and CARNARVON, by the Lords WHARNCLIFFE and DURHAM, and by the Archbishop of YORK, and the Bishop of DURHAM. For the Repeal of the Duty on East-India Sugar, by the Earl of RODEN, from Wexford.
NEW POLICE.
Lord Durhampresented two Petitions, one from the parish of St. Leonard, Shoreditch, signed by 4,000 persons, and the other from the parish of St. John,Southwark, against the Metropolitan Police Act The petitioners, he said, called for the abolition of the force called into existence by that Act. After what he had said on a former night on this subject, it was scarcely necessary for him to say that he did not concur with the petitioners in calling for the abolition of the force. At the same time he thought that an inquiry ought to be granted into the subject.

REFORM IN PARLIAMENT.
Lord Kingrose to present a Petition from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Corporation of the City of London, in Common
666
Council assembled, praying for a Reform in Parliament. He presented this petition with great pleasure, as he had long been a friend of reform; and he presented it now with greater satisfaction than he could have done had he presented it ten days ago, when it first came into his hands: because then there presided over the country a Ministry, which had declared by its chief in that very House, that he had no plan of reform to bring forward himself, and that, if any other person brought forward a plan, he would always oppose it while he remained in office. After such a declaration, he should have felt that the presentation of this petition, so far as regarded the fulfillment of its prayer, was a hopeless task. He presented it, however, to their Lordships now, after the gratifying declaration which had been made on a recent evening by his noble friend opposite, with a strong confidence that it would meet with a more satisfactory reception. He would take that opportunity of observing, that the declaration of his noble friend was satisfactory to him, as he hoped it would be to all reasonable persons. They could look for nothing more than that the plan of his noble friend should give satisfaction to the country, and restore the confidence of the people in the Commons House of Parliament. That was as much as could be expected from his noble friend in any declaration of general principles. He had no doubt that his noble friend would follow up his declaration in the most proper and advantageous manner. That there were defects and blots in the representation of the people in the House of Commons, was a point that no man could deny. The defects were, that the great towns, which had grown into importance during the last two centuries, or rather during the last century, were not represented; the blots were to be found in the existence of what were generally denominated the nomination boroughs. It was notorious that a scandalous traffic had long existed of votes for patronage. Those whom Mr. Grattan had well described as the proprietors of Parliament had too long enjoyed a monopoly of patronage. He firmly believed that no plan of reform would give satisfaction to the country which did not put an end to the nomination boroughs, which were now used only for the detriment and oppression of the people. It was owing to the influence exercised over

667
Ministers in the Commons House of Parliament by those proprietors of Parliament, that the country had been burthened so long with the most expensive, the most extravagant, and the most profuse Government that the world had ever seen. As to the other object which his noble friend had expressed his desire to accomplish,—namely, cheap Government,—he would only say that it was his firm conviction that an unsparing retrenchment could not be carried into effect without a reform in Parliament. The petitioners prayed, he said, for such a reform as would restore to the House of Commons that control over the taxation of the country which it had formerly possessed, and which it ought always to exercise The greatest and best argument in favour of Reform was, that the House of Commons had not exercised that control for years; and to him the want of reform appeared clearly proved by the fact, that those reductions which might have been made, and which therefore ought to have been made, fifteen years ago, were only made within the last year or two, when the demand for them became so strong that it could not be resisted. As this petition came from so respectable a body, and as its statements were very short, he begged that it might be read at the Table by the clerk.
The Petition read.
Lord Kingpresented a Petition from the Burgh of Brechin, praying for a reform in the representation of Scotland. He would only call the attention of their Lordships to one fact contained in this petition, and that was that the forty-five Members for Scotland were elected by 3,000 persons.

REGENCY BILL.
Lord Lyndhurstgave notice, that he should move the second reading of this Bill to-morrow, and then requested that their Lordships should be summoned for that day. He said that he gave this short notice of his intention to bring on the second reading of this Bill to-morrow, on the assumption that no opposition would be made to its principle. From what had occurred on the night when he brought in this Bill, he did not anticipate any objection to the principle of the Bill. Any alteration that might appear necessary in the details of it, could be best made when the Bill was in Committee.
Earl Greyrose to confirm his noble friend in the assumption which he had just
668
made. He was not opposed to the principle of the Bill; on the contrary, he approved of it: indeed, it was impossible for him to do otherwise, for the noble Lord had stated the very same principles for which he had always contended when the Regency had been made a subject of public difference and discussion. To the principle of the Bill, he repeated, he had no objection; the details were, as his noble friend had said, the proper subject for consideration in the committee.