Sitting of 10 February 1831

MINUTZS.
A Bill to prevent the spreading of Canine Mad-ness was read a first time. The Postmaster-general Bill was read a third time and passed.
Petitions presented. For the Repeal of the Coal Duties, by Mr. Alderman WOOD, from Bridge Ward:—By Sir R. VYVYAN, from Mevagissey:—By Mr. A. TREVOR, from New Romney, Kent For the Repeal of the Assessed Taxes, by Mr. Alderman WOOD, from Bassishaw Ward. Against the Tithe Laws, by Lord A. HILL, from a place in Ireland. For the Repeal of the Duty on Printed Calicoes, by Colonel LINDSAY, from Wigan:—By Sir R. WILSON, from Middlcton:—By Mr. EOSRTON, from Stockport: — By Mr. W. PATTEN, from several places in the Manufacturing Districts: — By Mr. SLASHY, from Bankbridge. By Sir R. WILSON, complaining of the expenses of the New Police, from St. Saviour's, Southwark. For Reform, by the same hon. Member, from the same place:—By Mr. KENNEDY, from Ayr, Irvine, Selkirk, and different places in Ayrshire, and from Leith and its suburbs:—By Sir W. HEATHCOTE, from Gosport:—By Mr. DUSDAS, from Easington and Bolton:—By Sir R. GRESSLEY, from Litchfield. By Mr. R. PALMER, from Proprietors of West-India property, residing in Berkshire, praying, should Slavery be abolished, for compensation. For the Abolition of Slavery, by Mr. C. DUNDAS, from Berkshire: —By Mr. HUGHES HUGHES, from the Isle of Wight. By Mr. SCHONSWAR, from the Seamen in the Merchants' service at Hull, complaining of the enforcement of a contribution of 6d. per month from all Sailors, for the support of Greenwich Hospital, and praying that the said custom might be henceforward abolished. By Sir J. BOURKE, from the Freeholders of Galway, on the subject of the Galway Franchise Bill. For a General Fast, by Mr. PERCEVAL, five from Chatham, Snodland, and other places:—By Mr. A. SMITH, from Walton and Stapleford, and from two Dissenting Congregations of London:—By Sir W. FOULKES, from Docking; and from Thetford, for an alteration in the Tithe Laws. By Mr. HODGES, from East Mailing, for a remission of the Malt Tax: from Brenchley, for an alteration in the Tithe Laws; and from Marden, for means to employ the Labouring Poor. By Mr. V. STUART, from Freemen and Freeholders of Carrickfergus, complaining of the Forgery of several Names to a Petition against the Return of Lord George Hill. By Mr. CALLAOHA.V, from the Hatters of Cork, for a Repeal of the Union with Ireland. By Mr. SLANEY, from certain persons in Shrewsbury, praying for an alteration in the law for Ballotting for the Militia.

LAW AS TO ELECTION PETITIONS.
Mr. Benettpresented a Petition from the persons who had petitioned against the return for the borough of Winchilsea, and entered into the necessary recognizances, praying, as they contemplate that the measure about to be proposed by Government would effect all that they desired with respect to that borough, that they might be allowed to withdraw their recognizances. The hon. Member then moved, that the recognizances in question be discharged.
The Speakerhaving expressed his doubts as to whether the House, according to the Act of Parliament, had power to allow the recognizances to be withdrawn, Mr. Benett withdrew the Motion.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
Mr. Benettpresented a Petition from Wiltshire, signed by 14,000 persons, in favour of Reform. The prayer of the petition was generally for Reform, without specifying any particular measure. The hon. Member expressed a hope, that whenever the Reform measure of Government should be brought forward, he should be able to support it, and that it would prove a plan of full and efficient Reform. He was sure that, in the present state of the country, they who opposed all Reform would attach to themselves a serious responsibility. The petition was signed by thirty Magistrates, and a great number of clergymen, yeomanry, and shopkeepers. The hon. Member hoped that county meetings for Reform would be held all over the country.
Mr. Huntpresented Petitions from Wigan, Oldham, Butterworth, a district in Manchester, and a parish in Ireland, praying for Annual Parliaments, Universal Suffrage, and the Vote by Ballot; also from some inhabitants of London, praying that the forest of Epping might be given to the poor, to be cultivated by them; likewise, four Petitions from owners and occupiers of land in Hampshire, stating, that the labourers had been driven by necessity to congregate together, and demand a rise of wages. They attributed this circumstance to the pressure of taxation, and prayed for Reform. The hon. Member read copious extracts from these petitions.
Mr. Beaumontsaid, as the hon. Member gave notice of his intention to move the adjournment of the House at twelve o'clock every night, he should not occupy so much time in presenting petitions.
Mr. Huntsaid, that if it were made a rule that no petition should be read or observed upon, but put at once into the Clerk's bag, it would save him a vast deal of trouble, as he had hundreds of petitions at home, and thousands more were coming to him from the country. If the Vote by Ballot should be conceded by the House, he believed that the House would be troubled with very few petitions more; but if it should not, every town and village in the kingdom would meet to petition for it. He thought that the people could not do better than meet on the day appointed for the general fast, for there could not be a more acceptable act, in the eyes of God and man, than an attempt to re-establish the just rights of the people.

ASSESSED TAXES.
Mr. Dundaspresented a Petition from the City of York, praying for the Repeal of the Assessed Taxes. The hon. Gentleman stated, that it had received a very large number of signatures, including that of the Lord Mayor, and that he concurred in the prayer of the petition.
Mr. Bayntunsupported the prayer of the petition in the following speech: — "Sir,—Concurring as I do in the prayer of the petition which has just been presented from the inhabitants of the city which I have the honour to represent, although it is not my intention to detain the House at any length, yet I cannot omit this opportunity of making one or two observations. I, Sir, feel most anxious for the repeal of those taxes which operate so heavily upon the middle classes of society, and indirectly on the lower, and which produce little advantage to the revenue, compared with the discomfiture and misery heaped upon these particular classes. Constructive taxation may be made the instrument of great tyranny and oppression; and I appeal to as many of this hon. House who are Magistrates, if the assessed taxes, particularly the house and window-tax, are not productive of more litigation and appeal to them, and of more personal restraint upon the liberty, happiness, and prosperity of the people, than all the other taxes of the realm. The legitimate object, Sir, of all taxation is revenue, and personal liberty is necessary to enable you more effectually to bear it, by leaving you in possession of everything necessary to furnish the means, in procuring of which nothing affects you like the assessed taxes. They are derived, Sir, from our incomes and our profits, the uncertainty of which makes them sometimes prospective and exceedingly vexatious, and are quite different in their operation to taxes levied upon merchandise, which are paid out of our capital, are reimbursed by the consumer of his own will and ability, and are frequently a source of profit and a stimulus to trade. I should not, Sir, have ventured to address the House, had I not. felt confident that by a repeal, say, even partial, of the window-tax,—that tax upon the air we breathe, and the blessings of health,—areat benefit would arise, and that it would tend to alleviate at any rate, if not partially to remove, much of that distress which hon. Members have lately, in this House, most
368
unfortunately borne testimony to. Sir, in advocating a repeal of these taxes, so galling and so vexatious, I would venture to recommend to his Majesty's Government, coinciding most fully in the observations which were just now offered to the House by the hon. member for Wiltshire (Mr. Benett), who stated, that in presenting a petition from that county, with which I, Sir, am also connected, which petition had received the signatures of nearly 14,000, many of whom were Magistrates, praying for a repeal of these imposts, if any other tax was requisite, it should be a graduating property-tax; whilst by the payment of taxes property is made safe and secure, it is but fair for that security that the owners should mostly contribute. Even, Sir, although a tax upon luxuries appears to be the most proper, yet great disadvantage arises very considerably on account of these imposts, by the non-employment of mechanics, who at this day are, to a great number, out of work. It is not my wish, Sir, to say any thing that would be calculated to embarrass his Majesty's present Ministers, who seem to be disposed to do every thing in their power, standing as they do so high in the hearts and expectations of the people, by mentioning, in the room of the house and window-tax (if necessary), a graduated property-tax. Sir, I have perceived this day, by some of the daily journals, that it is the intention of his Majesty's Government to take off the house and window-tax. I trust that it may be realized. I have only stated what I felt myself bound to do for the benefit of my constituents,—very imperfectly, I fear,—what would be, in my opinion, for the benefit of my countrymen; tending to alleviate their burthens and distresses, and to ameliorate the condition, and increase the happiness, of those in the more humble spheres of life—I mean the people."

FORFAR DISTRICT OF BURGHS.
Sir C. Forbessaid, he had to present a petition from the hon. W. Ogilvie, against the late return of the Lord Advocate (the hon. Francis Jeffrey), as Representative of the burghs of Forfar, Cupar, &c. The hon. Baronet explained the reason why this petition had not been presented within the regular time appointed by the Standing Orders of the House, which require that the presentation of election

369
petitions should take place either on the first day of the Session, or within fourteen days after the return. In this case it appeared that compliance with the usual regulations was impossible, as the return had been made on the 2nd of January, and the House, consequently, was not sitting at the expiration of the fourteen days so prescribed, or during any part of them. Under such circumstances, the natural course would have been, to present the petition on the 3rd of February. The petition was accordingly despatched from Edinburgh on the 1st for that purpose, but owing to a snow-storm in the neighbourhood of Berwick-upon-Tweed, both the mail and the messenger were prevented from arriving before the 5th inst. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving, that the petition might be permitted to be laid on the Table, in consideration of the peculiar nature of this particular case, notwithstanding the ordinary forms of the House, which would otherwise have rejected it.
The Motion was seconded by Mr. Schonswar.
Mr. C. W. Wynnsaid, he had no objection, under all circumstances, to receive the present petition; but the expediency of a strict general adherence to the Standing Orders of the House ought at the same time not to be forgotten. He thought it would be right for the hon. Member to establish his case by evidence at the bar. [Evidence was then given at the bar by two witnesses, of the names of Barnaby and Webster, as to the truth of the allegations of the petition. The former witness deposed, that he himself was on his way to London with the petition, but was unable to proceed even so far as Berwick, owing to the drifting of the snow, and had to forward it by the guard to the next post town.]
Mr. C. W. Wynn (the witnesses having withdrawn)contended, that it would be contrary to all precedent to receive the petition. There was a case in point, with respect to the impediment of a snow-fall being a sufficient pretext to justify the House's departing from its rule, which forbade the reception of a petition not forwarded within fourteen days from the date of the return. The case he alluded to occurred in 1781; it was the Seaford case, and the House decided against the petition being received. The House could not be too strict in enforcing its Standing
370
Orders rigidly, otherwise the door would be thrown open to most anomalous precedents. Let them, if they so thought it expedient, enlarge the period within which petitions might be received, but not depart hastily from their fixed regulations.
Lord Althorpsaid, that he agreed with his right hon. friend, that the House could not be too slow in admitting exceptions to their general rules; but still the present petition was one which it might, without inconvenience, he thought, receive, though the letter of the Standing Order of the House had not been strictly complied with. It appeared to him so highly improbable that their then receiving that petition could, under all the circumstances of the case, operate as an inconvenient precedent, that he would not enforce too strictly the Standing Order against it.
Sir G. Clerksaid, that there was a difference between this case and the one quoted by the right hon. member for Montgomeryshire, inasmuch as in that (the Seaford) case all due diligence was not used.
Petition laid on the Table; the ballot fixed for the 22nd of March.

PATENT TO PRINT BIBLES.
Mr. Humepresented a Petition from Messrs. Childs, Printers, at Bungay, in Suffolk, praying that the Patent which giants to certain bodies the privilege of Printing Statutes, Acts of Parliament, Bibles, Testaments, Books of Common Prayer, and all other Books authorized to be used in Churches, and which is now on the point of expiring, may not be created anew, and extended for a further period of time. The hon. Member then moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the nature and extent of the duties of the King's Printers, in England, Scotland, and Ireland; by what authority their Patents are held; how far they have been beneficial to the country; and how far the public interests are likely to be promoted by them, should it be thought expedient to continue them." He likewise moved, that the evidence taken before the Committee should be reported from time to time to the House.
Lord Nugentsaid, that he did not intend to offer any opposition to the Motion. He merely rose to state, that a Commission had already been appointed by the Treasury to inquire into the expense occasioned

371
by printing papers for both Houses of Parliament. His noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had intended to have referred this very subject to the consideration of that Commission. He was happy to state, that the subject of Stationery supplied to that House had also come under the consideration of the Treasury, and a plan had been suggested by which one-fifth of the present expense incurred on that head would, he believed, be spared. He assured his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, that he should be most happy to co-operate with him on this subject.
Sir R. Inglishoped, that measures for the abolition of the office of King's Printer would not be taken without due examination. It should be recollected, that he was responsible for the verbal accuracy of all Bills and Acts of Parliament.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, the patent of the King's printer was, in fact, the abridgement of a monopoly; for if it were abolished the sole right of printing Acts of Parliament and Bibles; would vest in the two Universities. He was sorry that the indisposition of the hon. Member [Mr. Hume was hoarse, and could not speak] had prevented him from going into the subject, as he, Mr. Goulburn, was prepared to defend the conduct of his Majesty's late Ministers.
Motion agreed to, and Committee appointed.

RIDEAU CANAL.
Lord Althorpwas understood to say, that two notices of his stood for discussion that evening. One of them related to a Motion for referring to a Select Committee the papers and accounts relating to Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace. As those papers were not yet ready to be laid on the Table, he should postpone his Motion regarding them till the 15th instant. His other Motion was connected with the papers and accounts relating to the water communications in Canada, along the Rideau and Granville canals. The noble Lord stated, that the original estimate for the latter was 116,000 l., and for the former 169,000 l., which were to include the whole expense. In 1828, it was found out that the Rideau canal could not be completed for less than 558,000 l., nor the Granville canal for less than 176,580 l., making the estimates for the two, in 1828, 734,000 l. That sum astonished the House of Com-
372
mons, and the vote was opposed; but since then a fresh estimate had been received from Canada, making the expense of the Rideau canal 693,000 l., and of the Granville canal 250,000 l., and making a total of 943,000 l. instead of 734,000 l., at which the etimate had been calculated in 1828. He believed that these water communications were valuable, not only for the internal trade, but also for the military defence of the country. We had already expended on these works 572,000 l. It was hard to give up so large an expense as we had already incurred; yet, when it was recollected that this was little more than one-half the expense which was to be incurred, and that there was still more than 400,000 l. to be provided for, and he could not pledge himself that even the present enormous estimate would not be exceeded, it was matter for consideration, whether we should not rather abandon these works than embark in fresh expense. He should, therefore, move to refer these papers to a Select Committee.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex and himself had objected to the votes for the Rideau canal when they were first submitted to Parliament, on the ground that they were works commenced without the sanction or authority of Parliament. He thought that Ministers had taken the only proper course that was open to them, by determining to refer the papers relative to this canal to a Select Committee. If there were any trade ever carried on along this canal, it would be a forced trade; and if so, it would be a loss to the mother-country. He did not mean to assert that the colony would not receive benefit from the formation of this canal; but the benefit which it would receive would be a loss to the parent State. He was quite certain, that if 250,000 l. were expended every year on the roads in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, a greater national benefit would be conferred on the country than any which could ever accrue from the formation of this expensive canal in Canada.
Sir John Newportsaid, that seven years ago the propriety of forming this canal had been considered in a Committee above-stairs, and at that time he had opposed the formation of it with all the arguments in his power. He thought at that time, that the estimates of the expense were fallacious, and he had since been confirmed in that opinion by the experience of facts.

373
When this matter came under the consideration of the Finance Committee, he expressed an opinion, which he repeated now, that it would be better to sacrifice all the money which had been already expended, than to proceed in involving the country in still greater expenses at a time of general distress like the present.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, that he had voted for the original grant to make these canals, and that he was not prepared to shrink from the responsibility attached to it. The principle on which that grant was made, was a wise and statesman-like principle. He was glad that these papers were to be submitted to the consideration of a Select Committee, for he was sure that nothing but good could proceed from such a course. It was quite consistent in the hon. member for Bridport to object to the grant, because he wished to get rid of colonies altogether; but that not being his wish, he had as consistently, he hoped, supported it. He agreed with his noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the colony should assist the mother-country in the completion of these works. The mother-country had, undoubtedly, a great claim upon Canada, and he believed that the colony would endeavour to take its share of the burthen. Indeed he, for one, should be greatly disappointed if such were not the case.
Mr. Spring Ricesupported the Motion, but felt called upon to condemn the practice of lavishing the public money on works without the consent and approbation of Parliament. He hoped that the hon. Member, who on a former night had so strenuously defended the privileges of that House, would on the present occasion come forward to assert the impropriety of any public works being erected without its previous consent. He believed that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had behaved with the most perfect candour when he laid his statement on this subject before the Finance Committee; and he was quite certain that at that time the right hon. Gentleman was not aware that 400,000 l. more than his estimate would be wanted for the completion of these works.
Mr. Gonlburnsaid, that the hon. Gentleman opposite had only done him justice in saying, that when he (Mr. Goulburn) had made his statement before the Finance Committee, he had no notion that so large a sum would be required. It would be unnecessary for him to enter into any de-
374
tails on this subject now, because the Committee would be better able to investigate the grounds of the enormous excess over the sum originally proposed. The motives which had induced the hon. member for Taunton to express a wish that the work would not be abandoned, were precisely the motives which had produced the original grant. He believed there would be no backwardness on the part of the Canadian legislature to assist the work, and certainly the colonists themselves had already displayed that disposition.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that as he had understood the noble Lord, the Committee were to report their opinion as to whether the advantage of the works, if completed, would compensate for the expense of completing them. He wished, however, to observe, that the opinions of military men must be constituent elements of a calculation respecting the advantages of the works; and, although the Committee would have to report facts as well as its opinion, yet that its opinion must obviously be formed principally upon grounds which it might be dangerous to publish.
Lord Althorpsaid, he was desirous to give the Committee every possible information.
Motion agreed to. On the nomination of the Members of the Committee,
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that he had been misunderstood, and had never expressed a wish to get rid of all our colonies. What he had objected to was, taxing the people of this country for the purpose of extending a territorial empire which could not be maintained.
Mr. Laboucherewas glad to find that he had mistaken the sense of the hon. Member's observations, in which light he had deprecated them. He thought, that the subject of the colonial policy of Canada ought to be made one of formal discussion.
Mr. H. Twissprotested against the practice of debating a subject of so much importance as the principle of our colonial policy on an occasion like the present. If any Gentleman thought that policy bad,— and much more, if any Gentleman thought that we ought to abandon our colonies,— let specific motions to that effect be brought forward. In his opinion, the abandonment of the Canadas was quite out of the question. They had ever been useful to the mother-country, and had amply repaid the protection and support

375
received, by diverting, in return, the approach of war from England, and serving as a field whereon to fight our battles.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, that be had always understood the hon. member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton), and the hon. member for Middlesex (Mr. Hume), to express a wish, that all our colonies which cost us any thing might be got rid of; and, like the hon. member for Taunton, he was glad to be undeceived by the explanation just given by the former hon. Member.
Mr. Baringhad always been of opinion, that some of our colonies ought to be got rid of. Such were the Ionian Islands, which he should be glad to see given to Greece. The colonies now in question were not of this character. He thought them very valuable, and though he cordially approved of the present Motion, yet he could not help recollecting that the money had not been altogether thrown away, since it had given employment to so many emigrant labourers from this country. It must not, however, be supposed that the Committee was appointed to save us the 400,000 l. or 500,000 l.; for that money he was afraid, and a considerable sum besides, had already been expended.
Sir G. Murraysaid that, concurring entirely as he did in the motion of the noble Lord, he would not detain the House with many observations now, though he thought it would not become him to preserve silence altogether upon the subject. He took it for granted that it was not intended to abandon the colonies, and that the object in appointing the Committee was principally an economical one. He agreed that a Committee would be the best place for investigating that subject. Allow him, however, to observe, that if it were not intended to abandon the colonies, the completion of the canal was highly important in a military point of view; for he was of opinion, that without it we could not, in time of war, keep up a communication between Lake Ontario and Montreal.
Mr. Maberlythought, that the noble Lord had now taken the only proper course that had been taken throughout the affair. The whole subject ought to have been brought before the House in the first instance; but they had been lured into the first vote, and then, on every subsequent vote, the answer to those who opposed the grants was—"You have begun
376
the works, and you must go on with them." The House, however, had been more to blame in this than the Government.
Mr. Guestsaid, that estimates on a subject like this were a farce, as must be evident from the extra money that had already been expended. The enormous sums that had been laid out on this and on similar works, would, he was sure, have been much more advantageously employed at home. He understood that no less than 1,000,000 l. had been expended on fortifications, and he trusted that the noble Lord would have this part of the subject thoroughly investigated.
Lord Althorpdid not know how much had been expended upon fortifications, but he had no hesitation in saying, that he thought it highly desirable the whole subject should be looked into by a Committee.
Mr. Huntsaid, that he had been, on a late occasion taunted with having said things out of doors which he had not repeated in that House. Now he had always, out of doors, expressed it to be his opinion, that no colony ought to be retained by this country which could not keep itself. Perhaps he had spoken upon this subject without that degree of information which was necessary to form a correct opinion upon it; and if the opinion was incorrect, he should be glad to be better instructed. However, while the people of this country were suffering so dreadfully, he must protest against their being taxed to support the colonies. The hon. member for Callington had talked about the number of emigrant labourers which had been supported by these works; but did not the hon. Member think it would have been more humane, and more advantageous to the country, to have employed those labourers at home in draining the Irish bogs? The only reason for keeping the Canadas, and a great many other colonies, was patronage —patronage—patronage. He was glad, however, to hear from the noble Lord, that he was of opinion that the system ought to be put an end to.
Committee appointed.

FISHERTON GAOL REGULATIONS.
Mr. Huntrose to move, pursuant to notice, for "a Return of a Copy of the Regulations in his Majesty's Gaol of Fisherton, in the County of Wilts, stating whether the practice has been for Criminal Prisoners to see

377
their Attornies in private or not, and whether a paper of the case of a person named Lush, drawn up by the Prisoner, was, or was not, in the hands of the Gaoler." It would be remembered, he said, that on a former evening, when he moved for an Address to the Crown, he mentioned, that it. was the practice in the county gaol of Wilts not to permit prisoners to communicate with their attornies, except in the presence of the gaoler or turnkey, and he particularly mentioned the case of a person named Lush, a prisoner in this gaol, who had drawn up a statement to submit to his attorney, which statement was taken from him by the gaoler's clerk, and placed in the hands of the gaoler, it having been stated that every written document, coming from a prisoner, should be read, in the first instance, by the gaoler. When he stated these facts on a former evening, he had assumed, as a possible case, that a prisoner might be entrapped into writing a statement of his defence, which should be afterwards submitted to the prosecutor for the Crown, and used for the conviction of the prisoner. The Under Secretary of State (Mr. G. Lamb) did not contradict the facts as stated by him (Mr. Hunt), but he seemed to throw a doubt on the statement; and the hon. and learned Attorney General came forward in that manly and conscientious way in which he always acted, and said, that as he knew nothing of the facts, he could not contradict the statement; but he could not suppose that any thing of the kind had occurred, for that if such a practice prevailed, he had no doubt any attorney who was interfered with in such a way would resist the interference, and make his complaint in the proper quarter. Now, as he (Mr. Hunt) would never come forward with any statement which he should not be able to prove, he would move for certain returns, not only to prove that the practice of which be had complained did really exist as he had stated, but also for the purpose of setting himself right with that House, and more particularly with the hon. and learned Attorney-General. Under the right hon. member for Tamworth's (Sir Robert Peel) Bill, prisons were subject to certain regulations, and visiting Magistrates were authorized to establish others, which were very often extremely numerous. The precise object of his motion was, not only to ascertain the rules which existed at the period referred to in the county
378
gaol of Wilts, but also the practice as it appeared in the individual case of the prisoner Lush. As was his duty, he waited on the under Secretary that morning, for the purpose of explaining the nature of the return he intended to move for; and was somewhat surprised to learn that, though there was no objection to producing the printed rules and regulations, there was some objection to the latter part of the motion. If no such practice as he complain-ed of existed, nothing could be easier than to make a return to that effect; and, if such a practice did prevail, his Majesty's Government ought to be anxious to rescue the administration of justice from such a reproach. There was no lawyer in that House who could stand up and say that this was consistent with any legal or equitable principle, that the conferences of a prisoner with his counsel should be known to others. If the motion was not granted, he should consider it his duty to obtain the evidence of the attornies practising in Salisbury, to prove that what had occurred in the case of Lush had always been the practice in that gaol. His statement was founded on the facts furnished to him by the attorney concerned in the particular case alluded to. If the return was granted, after what had taken place, he should not found any motion on it, as he was satisfied the practice would be put an end to, as his Majesty's Government must concur with him that it was illegal and unjust. He could not sit down without thanking the hon. and learned Attorney General for defending him the other night against the charge made against him of exhibiting a kind of spurious humanity. He must also briefly refer to what had taken place in the House in the early part of the evening. He was sorry to say, that it was the prevalent opinion out of doors, that the sufferings of the people were treated in that House with coolness and indifference. Now, only that he was bound to believe the contrary, he should have been inclined to come to the same conclusion, in consequence of what had passed that evening. When the hon. member for Middlesex told the House that he was in much pain and suffering from a cold, the statement was met by a laugh. If this had happened in any other assembly, he should have thought they were laughing at the sufferings of the people; but he supposed (because he was bound to do so) that in that House it

379
was a matter of course, and meant no such thing. As he was on this subject, he must say, that the way in which petitions were received was calculated to make a person believe that they were disregarded—[cries of "No, no".] He contended that such must be the impression of every one who saw the manner in which petitions were received. He had that day presented petitions, in which the parties petitioning eloquently described their sufferings; and those sufferings, he might be permitted to say, in any other assembly would have caused tears to flow. In that House, however, the recital of those sufferings appeared to be received with indifference, if not neglect. He wished the people of England to know how their affairs were managed in that House; and he wished their petitions could receive more attention; because, that they were not listened to was the only way in which he could account for the indifference with which they were treated. The hon. Member concluded by moving for the return.
Mr. Warburton Mr. Warburton, in seconding the Motion, said, he knew nothing of the case to which the Motion related, but he was anxious to make a few observations in reply to what had fallen from the hon. Member. Any person coming into that House, and not knowing the great quantity of business which the House had to transact; any such person who had perused with attention the composition of petitions which he might present, might imagine that they experienced a rather indecorous reception. But when the immense number of petitions which were necessarily laid before that House from day to day was considered, it must appear plain to any one, that if each hon. Member on presenting a petition should accompany it with a long speech, it would be absolutely impossible to get through the business of the House. He (Mr. Warburton) would recommend, that a Committee should be appointed to class the petitions, an arrangement which was adopted in the Congress of the United States: that the petitions belonging-to a certain class should be all brought up together, and then hon. Members who wished to speak upon the subject to which a particular class of petitions referred, would have ample opportunity to deliver their sentiments. He merely threw out this observation by way of suggestion. The number of petitions was increasing every day, and as it was necessary the people should have
380
an opportunity of stating their grievances, it would soon be found that some kind of classification was indispensable.
Mr. G. Lambsaid, that after he had stated the information which was in his possession, he was sure that the hon. member for Preston would see the propriety of not persevering in this Motion. In consequence of a petition which that hon. Member had presented to the Home Office, stating that a confession of the prisoner Lush had been inspected by the gaoler at Salisbury, and that there was a suspicion that it had been used against him on his trial, an investigation into the matter had been instituted on the part of the Magistrates, and he (Mr. Lamb) had now in his possession a most satisfactory letter as to the result of that investigation, from one of the Magistrates, a noble Lord, who was no enemy to liberty, or to the rights of the people,—he alluded to the Earl of Radnor. There was certainly a regulation in Fisherton gaol that no written document should go forth from any of the prisoners without being first inspected by the gaoler; there was no exception made for the confession of a prisoner, as it was supposed that if there were, the regulation could be easily evaded. It was true that an attorney came to the gaol to take instructions from the prisoner Lush, and that he was accompanied by one of the turnkeys, but the statement in question was not drawn up in the presence of the turnkey, for it had been previously drawn up by one of Lush's fellow-prisoners. It was delivered to an attorney, of the name of Seymour, he believed, in the presence of the turnkey, and the attorney, knowing the practice of the gaol, said it must be delivered in the first instance to the gaoler. The turnkey brought it to the gaoler, who, under such circumstances, merely cast his eye over it to satisfy himself that it was a bona fide confession, and then gave it to the turnkey, who returned it in a few minutes to the attorney. As to any use having been made of it, it was, in fact, never in any way used at the prosecution of this man. The gentleman who was employed by the Crown to get up the cases, stated, that he had never seen or heard of such a paper. There was no use, therefore, made of it, and he believed that the gaoler knew nothing whatever of its contents. There was no rule amongst the regulations of Fisherton gaol to prevent the prisoners from communicating with their professional

381
advisers, but he should certainly infer from the circumstances which had taken place in this instance, that the practice was, that one of the turnkeys should be present on such occasions; and he would undoubtedly admit that it was a wrong practice. In many well-regulated gaols—and he would instance that of Lincoln as one—the rule was, that the prisoners should be allowed to communicate with their confidential professional advisers, without having the turnkeys present. He hoped that it would now go forth as an acknowledged truth that the prisoners, in all the gaols throughout the country, had a right to such private access on the part of their counsel. Under these circumstances, he hoped the hon. Member would not think it necessary to press his Motion.
Mr. Northwas surprised to learn that such regulations could exist in any gaol in the kingdom. It was in violation of a great legal principle. If an attorney was summoned on a trial, he might refuse, and the Court would refuse to receive in evidence what the prisoner had communicated to him professionally. What protection, however, had the prisoner in this privilege of his attorney, if a third person, not so privileged, was present when he made his confidential communications? Such an abuse called loudly for reform; and every lawyer in that House was bound to stand up and protest against it.
Mr. Horace Twissentirely coincided with the last speaker. He had no doubt that the practice in this instance had arisen from accident; that it was not intended by the Magistrates, but was owing to a mistake of the rule of the gaol, and he hoped, after what had now taken place, that it would be corrected.
The Attorney Generalacknowledged that the adoption of such a practice was a great abuse. At the same time, after the unanimous expression of opinion which had taken place, he was sure the abuse would not be of long continuance, either in Wiltshire or elsewhere. As to the case of Lush, he was satisfied that no information obtained from him in the manner described had been used against him. Every Gentleman concerned for the Crown, on the late prosecutions, would have known the impropriety of such a proceeding. If a conviction had taken place under such circumstances, he did not hesitate to say, that it ought to be got rid of; but though he was not present at the trial, from his
382
knowledge of those concerned in conducting those cases, he was convinced that no advantage was taken of any confession made by the prisoner.
Mr. Alderman Woodbelieved, that the practice complained of prevailed nearly in every gaol in the country. In the great metropolitan prisons, a room was allotted for the prisoners to confer, in private, with their professional advisers, or with any persons who could aid them in their defence. The greatest facilities were afforded for this purpose in the great metropolitan gaols, but it was otherwise in the country wherever he had been.
Sir Thomas Baringcould not allow the metropolitan gaols to stand as a splendid exception. In a gaol with which he was particularly well acquainted, from being a visiting Magistrate, and in several other gaols throughout the country, the most unrestricted private communication was allowed between prisoners and their attorneys.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, he could name several county gaols which he had visited in the country, and where the practice spoken of existed.
Sir Charles Wetherellbegged to differ from the worthy Alderman. As far as his experience went, he could contradict the worthy Alderman's statement; and though the worthy Alderman had perambulated the country, and though he might be one—
"Qui mores hominum multorum vidit et urbes,"
still against such an authority, he (Sir C. Wetherell) would contend that the general practice in the gaols in England was to allow private and confidential access to the counsel employed by the prisoners. The worthy Alderman, therefore, must permit him (Sir C. Wetherell) to say, that he had not picked up very accurate information in the course of his travels when he asserted the contrary.
Lord Nugent Lord Nugent, as visiting Magistrate of one gaol, could bear his testimony to the inaccuracy of the general statement which had been made by the worthy Alderman. In the Warwick county gaol, also, he had reason to know that the freest access was permitted between prisoners and their attornies.
Mr. Wolryche Whitmorethought, that all written, as well as oral communications of prisoners with their counsel, should be private; and when such communications

383
passed between attornies and criminals, they ought to be held sacred.
Mr. G. Lambquite concurred in the opinion, that when an attorney was admitted to a prisoner, the papers or documents confided to him should be as sacred as any private communications could be. Perhaps, however, the rule as to written communications was considered as a necessary precaution, to prevent other writings from making their way out of the gaol.
Mr. Dickinsonsaid, that no such practice as that which had been so justly condemned by the House existed in Somersetshire.
Mr. Huntrose to reply. The hon. Member said, that no men knew less of what passed in gaols than visiting Magistrates, and for very obvious reasons. He did not mean to accuse the Magistrates in the present case of acting improperly, for Lord Radnor, for instance, was an amiable and excellent man, and would not sanction such a practice as that alluded to; but what he complained of was, that the rules and regulations of the gaol gave the gaolers a license to do such things as these. The late Secretary of State for the Home Department, when he (Mr. Hunt) was confined in a gaol, had brought in a bill, by which, no regulations could become the law of a gaol, unless they were approved of by a full Bench of Magistrates, and afterwards confirmed by the Judge of Assize. The member for Somerset knew nothing of the gaol, alluded to, for not a man rode into the town without a try being raised of, "Here comes a visiting Magistrate," and immediately the interior of the gaol was made to put on a different appearance. When he (Mr. Hunt) was in gaol, he was precluded from seeing his attorney upon professional business; he was prevented from seeing his family and children when he was ill, and from having his doctor to perform an operation upon his eye, in a case of ophthalmia, under which he was labouring. In consequence, however, of the bill brought in by the late Secretary of State, such things could not be done now, unless there was a great neglect of duty on the part of the local authorities. The hon. member for Wiltshire had said, that he was a vigilant Magistrate, and if such things had passed in a gaol within his district, surely they might pass in other gaols. The information which the Secretary of State got was the
384
very worst in the world. Lord Radnor knew nothing of the facts, and the paper alluded to had been three days in the hands of the gaoler before it was transmitted. The Secretary of State had been grossly imposed upon, and he hoped that visiting Magistrates would take a lesson from this. He had had the honour of being confined for two years in gaols, and he knew what Magistrates were very little aware of. Under the circumstances of the case, however, he should not press the matter further, and would withdraw his Motion.
Mr. G. Lambbegged to remind the hon. member for Preston, that he had never said that Lord Radnor was a visiting Magistrate; all he had said was, that upon this occasion his Lordship had undertaken to visit the gaol, and to investigate the case.
After a few words from Mr. Benett the hon. member for Preston withdrew his Motion.

THE RECORDERSHIP OF DUBLIN.
Mr. Shaw Mr. Shaw, in moving for the papers of which he had given notice, said, that it was most painful to him, on the first occasion that he had to address the House, to do so upon matter more personal to himself than of public and general interest; but he looked to the justice of the House for that hearing to which he thought the defence of himself and the other official persons connected with the Court over which he presided, was entitled. The document which gave occasion to his present motion was rather a mockery of the rights of petitioning, than anything like a serious design to effect any public or useful object. The petition purported to be a petition from the Prisoners confined in the Gaol of Newgate, in Dublin, when, substantially, the petitioners were no others than a single individual, named Joseph Andrew Macdonnell. Now, at the time referred to in the petition, there was no such person in the prison, nor for a month previously, as he was enabled to show from the certificate of the Governor. In that petition it was alleged, that several persons were confined in the gaol of Newgate, and, though ready for trial, were kept in prison, and could not be tried in consequence of his (the Recorder's) absence from Dublin. What was the fact? At the time when that assertion was made, there was not a prisoner remaining in the gaol except two, and they were not prepared. He was

385
not one hour absent from Dublin during the confinement of any one of the petitioners, or rather, of the persons who signed a petition that virtually came from Macdonnell, who, though he was a Catholic, and never professed any other religious forms of Church discipline, nevertheless made it a matter of complaint, that there had been some delay in the coming of a Protestant Clergyman, for whom he had sent. In strictness, Mr. Blacker was not bound to come, for he was not the Chaplain of the prison—he was merely the City Chaplain; yet, when he did come, Macdonnell laughed, and said he would petition. The next charge was made against the medical officers of the establishment. The petitioner stated, that the said officers refused to come to his assistance, though it had been represented to them as a case of life and death—that, in fact, there was some danger that he might die within the hour; though, in truth and in fact, he was, during the entire term of his imprisonment, in perfect health. He had also been informed, that the brother of this Macdonnell had offered bail to the Magistrate by whom he was committed, and the offence admitting of bail, the Magistrate agreed to accept the security offered, but Macdonnell refused, and expressed his desire to be sent to prison, saying, that he had his reasons for wishing to be sent, for that he wanted to bring-over the Recorder from London to try him, and that he would make the medical men and the Chaplain attend, or else have them dismissed, through the instrumentality of the hon. member for Clare. Macdonnell was, when first sent to prison, placed at the debtors' side, but was there so unmanageable, that it was not possible to permit him to remain. He knocked down every one who came in his way; barred out the turnkey; set fire to the furniture, and, in short, he so conducted himself, that it became absolutely necessary to remove him to the felons' side, which was the object he had in view, intending then to prevail upon the prisoners there to sign a petition praying for a Repeal of the Union. When he was brought into Court, he endeavoured to raise a mutiny in the dock, and exerted himself to prevail upon his fellow-prisoners to give three cheers for a Repeal of the Union. His appearance on that occasion was certainly most extraordinary, and possibly, that very extraordinary appearance might have excited the
386
sympathy of the honourable Member;— the prisoner wore a loose coat, a coloured shirt, no neckcloth, his face was distinguished by a superabundance of hair, and his poison otherwise decorated with the insignia of liberty. He must be permitted to observe, that hon. Members ought not to take representations of this nature without something like investigation. The petition was, on the face of it, destitute of probability. The hon. and learned Gentleman then went on to observe, that both the hon. Members (for Clare and for Middlesex) were misinformed with respect to the sittings of the Quarter Sessions in Dublin—they sat quarterly, and might adjourn for six weeks at a time, as they saw lit; the Recorder had no power to alter the times of sitting. Sir Jonas Greene had been in the habit of adjourning irregularly, and not sitting on consecutive days; but it had been his intention, if ever he succeeded in overcoming the arrear of business, to adjourn for fixed periods, and to sit on consecutive days; but that intention he, unfortunately, did not live to carry into effect. When he (Mr. Shaw) succeeded to the office, he applied himself almost unceasingly to remove that arrear, and it took him two years to get it under. When that object was once accomplished, he went upon the system which his predecessor had intended to adopt—namely, that of having regular adjournments and consecutive days of sitting. There were in Dublin eighteen gaol-deliveries in the year, being more than in any town in Ireland, or, he believed, in England; at the present moment there was no arrear of business, and that was more than could be said of the Court for the last thirty years. As this business was arranged, he had four-fifths of the year at his disposal. When pressed by his constituents to devote that time to the care of their interests in that House, he felt bound in candour to tell them, that the duties he might have to perform as their Representative must be at all times subordinate to his judicial duties and he challenged any man to show that he had ever neglected the duties of Recorder of Dublin. He fairly apprised his constituents of the terms upon which he accepted the trust they were about to repose in him, and frankly suggested to them, that they would be better served by a man who could devote to them the whole of his time. He was, however, chosen by the electors of

387
Dublin; and, upon the ground of his being able to attend in that House only for the times he had stated, he trusted the House would not think proper to interfere with the choice of as free, as enlightened, and as numerous a constituency as any that sent Members to that House. It had been charged against him, that when he was elected to the office of Recorder, he pledged himself to sit for three days in every week; to that he begged to give the most unequivocal contradiction— what he did say was in reference to the Act which, prohibited the Recorder from practising as a Barrister within his jurisdiction as a Judge, permitted him to practise on circuit and in his chambers. He said, that he would not avail himself of the permission which that Act afforded him; he thought it would better consist with the dignity of the judicial office, not to practise as a barrister either on circuit or in chambers—to say nothing of abstinence from private practice enabling him to devote more time to his official duties. The hon. member for Clare, and the hon. member for Middlesex had charged the late Government with something like an offence, in permitting him to sit in that House while he held the office of Recorder. He had no hesitation in admitting that the opinions of the late Government were against his becoming a Member of that House, but on reflection, he came himself to a different conclusion. It was, however, of little importance whether he was or was not a Member of that House, but it was of great importance that a judicial situation, however subordinate, should be wholly independent of the Crown. Connected with this topic, it was important for him to advert to what had been said on the subject of the late Government, which, it was alleged, he was brought in for the purpose of supporting. He denied that he ever came into the House for any such purpose. He meant, on the contrary, to support the present Government so long as it proved itself worthy of the confidence of independent Members; but no Government should have any support from him beyond the moment when that support could be given with independence and consistency. The whole of what had been said with respect to his salary he set at perfect defiance. He received and held his situation in complete independence of the Crown: it was a judicial office, and one
388
which he should be sorry to see degraded by its holder becoming a quarterly mendicant at the Castle for his salary, or applying for it annually in that House. If the Recorder of Dublin was to be excluded from that House, let the proceeding be adopted on principle, but let not him be made the object of a personal enactment. He concluded by moving for a return of all prisoners in custody and tried during the Recordership of Sir Jonas Greene and the present Recorder of Dublin, and those during the same period remaining for trial, with the number of adjournments and sittings respectively, with the number of traversers and prisoners held to bail at each general Quarter Sessions, showing those cases during that period which had been untried in consequence of the absence of the Recorder; also, copies of warrants issued for the augmentation of the salary of Recorder of Dublin, under the forty-eighth of George 3, c. 140, and the fifth of George 4, cap. 150.
O'Gorman Mahonseconded the Motion, and pronounced a warm eulogium upon the talent and good feeling manifested by the hon. and learned Recorder, observing, that he would, if removed from either, be a loss to the Bench or the House. He assured the hon. Member, that, in the observations which he made respecting the petition in which the hon. and learned Gentleman was complained of, he was not influenced by any feeling of hostility. He did not mean to throw any imputation upon the hon. Gentleman. But, under the circumstances, no other course was left him but to comply with the request of those who had called on him to present their petition. He was confident that the hon. the Recorder and the House would acquit him of all unkindly feeling. The petition was, as the hon. Gentleman had said, that of John Andrew Macdonnell; but it bore the signature of fifty other persons. Of Macdonnell himself he knew nothing. But he knew that person to belong to one of the first families in Ire-land. Having received from him a letter, stating that he was in a gaol in Dublin, suffering confinement for a crime of which he knew himself to be innocent, demanding a trial, and unable to obtain one—and stating, that others were similarly circumstanced—he felt himself bound to lay the case before the House. The Recorder, indeed, had now informed him of one fact, of which, until then, he had not heard,

389
that the petition had fourteen fictitious signatures. He was sure that it was unnecessary for him to inform the House that he was unaware of such a deception having been practised. He disclaimed an intention to cast imputations upon the Recorder, or to act towards him with any want of courtesy. On the contrary, when the petitioner complained that he could not obtain a trial in consequence of the hon. Member being absent from his duties in Dublin, to attend to his duties in that House, he had communicated to the Recorder his having that petition to present. On his way to the Mouse, however, he had met with a gentleman, one of the hon. member for Dublin's constituents, who told him, that he had requested the hon. Member to remain in London, as business was to come before the House in which he (the constituent) was interested. But the Recorder was called away from his duties in Parliament to his duties in Dublin, and could not remain here to attend to the parliamentary interests of those whom he represented. On hearing that circumstance, he had felt it his duty to present the petition. He was glad that he had so done his duty. If he had not done so, the House would not have been gratified with the display of talent which the hon. member for Dublin had that night exhibited. That hon. Gentleman had said, that if before presenting the petition he had looked into it, he would never have presented it; but he did not think that the phraseology of the petitions sent to the House was to influence Parliament in forming a judgment upon their merits. He was sure that if petitions wore to be rejected on account of the inelegance or inaccuracy of the language, they who stood in need of protection could never lay their complaints before the House—if their petitions were even written by some Members of Parliament themselves. But the same carefulness of style was not to be expected from men incarcerated in a gaol, as from a gentleman reclining at his case upon a sofa. The petition, however, came from a person not only in prison, but. innocently imprisoned—knowing that his release would be the result of his trial, and not only unable to put himself upon his trial, but even to ascertain when he was to be tried. The gaoler could give him no information. No one could tell him, because the Recorder was absent. Now, what was to be done with
390
unhappy prisoners, conscious of their innocence, and kept back from trial (maniacs though they might be) he did not know, though the hon. Member, the Recorder, might. What, he would ask, was the fate of this man, Macdonnell, whom the hon. and learned Gentleman called a maniac? How was he disposed of? Was he guilty or innocent? The hon. and learned Gentleman had given no information to the House upon those points. He, however, would tell the House, that the prisoner was arraigned; he was put upon his defence, and triumphantly acquitted; and yet the Recorder would ask him why he presented the petition of a maniac? If he was a maniac, he was, at all events, an innocent one. Was it because he was badly dressed, or because he was not dressed precisely according to the hon. Member's own notions of fashion, that the hon. Member called him a maniac—or was it because he had no waistcoat? If he had not, that was the greater reason why he should not be kept unjustly in prison. It might be true that he had neither waistcoat nor cravat; but it did not follow that he was a maniac. All he knew of him was, that he was descended from an illustrious family, and that it was the fashion to call every Irishman who had anything to complain of, a maniac. The hon. and learned Gentleman had talked of the imaginary sufferings of the petitioners; but he would ask, if it was an imaginary suffering to be in a cold prison without a waistcoat or cravat? The hon. and learned Gentleman might think him mad because he complained of this, and might have said to the jury, "Look at him, look at the madman; he is as mad as a March hare; he is charged with an assault. He had the impudence to send over a petition to the House of Commons about my not being here to try the prisoners, which is alone a proof that he is guilty."—The jury, however, said, "No. It is true he is not clad so well as you are, Mr. Recorder, nor has a three-tailed wig, nor 500 l a-year in one place and l,600 l a-year in another; but still we do think him not guilty;" and they accordingly acquitted him. He did not think the hon. Member was justified in using such language; nor did he think that the privilege of Parliament extended so far as to entitle a Member to abuse a person who was not in the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman had entered into a

391
vindication of the chaplain and the surgeon of the gaol, but it was not against them that he had complained, but against the Recorder. He did not know that Macdonnell was a Catholic, nor did he think that he ought to have inquired, for a man's religion should be left between himself and his God. He thought that Macdonnell was a Protestant, in which idea he was confirmed by the fact of his wishing to receive the sacrament. If he demanded such comfort, the rev. Clergyman should have attended to him; and if he were a Catholic, he should have attended the more readily, in order to rescue him from the delusion under which he laboured. He had heard, that the hon. and learned Gentleman, when he canvassed for the office of Recorder, had declared, that he would give three days in the week to the performance of the duties of the office; which attention was the more necessary, owing to the arrears of business which had been left by his predecessor, and which, he had himself stated, would take two years to clear off. According to the constitution of the country, he understood that every Member of that House was supposed to be always in his place. How, then, could the hon. Member attend to his duties there and in Dublin also? How many persons were there at that moment walking into the gaol of Newgate, and no one there to try them? The hon. and learned Gentleman ought to be there to try them as rapidly as possible, in order that men might not be punished when they were innocent. How many persons were there situated like. Macdonnell, and how were they to get out when the Recorder was in London? The Corporation, whom the Recorder represented, for he must deny that the hon. and learned Gentleman was the Representative of the people of Dublin—that Corporation paid the hon. Gentleman 400 l. a year for attending in that House to watch over their interests and the House yearly voted him 1,600 l. more for discharging duties in Dublin inconsistent with his duties in Parliament. He had heard much of Reform in England, and of Reform in Scotland, but instead of anything being done for Reform in Ireland, where one of the grossest abuses that existed in the Representation was complained of, the member for Dublin stood up, and called the grievances of Ireland imaginary, and described the aggrieved as
392
maniacs. The hon. member for Dublin said, that he supported the Government; if that was any merit, he would not deny the hon. Gentleman's claim to it. He was sure the hon. the Recorder would support every Administration as well as he supported the last and the present. No doubt, if there were twenty Governments in the next twenty months to come, as opposed in principle as the last and the present, the hon. the Recorder would keep his place on that side of the House. He (O' Gorman Mahon), however, trusted, that if the hon. Gentleman was so determined a friend to Governments, he would give up his office of Recorder, and not yield to Ministers a support which cost the guiltless prisoners so much of unmerited suffering. The Recorder's assertion of his independence was scarcely reconcileable with the fact, that he received 1,600 l. a year dependent upon the vote of the House. Of the inconvenience of the Recorder's being a Member of Parliament, he had himself experienced an instance. Having purchased a freehold in Dublin, he was unable to have it registered, because the Recorder was in London. He was, therefore, deprived of the power (to which his freehold entitled him) of voting for an efficient Representative, should the hon. Member be sent back to his constituents.
Mr. Shawsaid, that the simple fact was, that the confinement of which the prisoners complained, was occasioned, not by his absence from Dublin to attend his duties in Parliament, but by the usual adjournment of the Court in which he had the honour to preside. He regretted that the hon. member for Clare had not an opportunity of registering his freehold, but that was not his fault. Had he been then in Dublin, it would not have been in his power to prevent that inconvenience. He could not regulate the discharge of his duties by the wanderings of the hon. member for Clare. With respect to his independence, he had not said that he was independent of his salary, but the salary did not render him dependent on the House, or on the Corporation of Dublin.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that if the hon. member for Clare would bring in a bill to prevent persons holding judicial offices in Dublin from taking seats in that House, on the principle of the bill which excluded Irish Masters in Chancery from Parliament, he would support it.
Motion agreed to.

GAME LAWS.
Lord Althorpsaid, that before the Recess he had promised to give every assistance in his power to the amendment of the Game Laws; and he was now ready to redeem that pledge. A noble Marquis (Chandos) had already undertaken to effect some amelioration of those laws; but the views of that noble Lord differed so very much from his views on the subject, that he felt it necessary to propose bringing in a new bill himself. The noble Lord then gave notice, that he should, on Tuesday next, move for leave to bring in a bill for the Amendment of the Game Laws.

LAW OF SETTLEMENT BILL.
On the motion of Mr. Weyland, the Order of the Day for the further consideration of the Settlement of the Poor Bill was read. The hon. Member stated, that the Bill had no reference to the policy of the Poor-laws, but was merely a technical enactment, intended to amend some defects in the existing law, which gave rise to great litigation. By a decision of the Judges, who had strictly interpreted the words of the law, its spirit was violated, and it was consistently with their recommendation that he brought in the Bill to amend the Jaw.
Mr. Holme Simmerthought it better that there should be a declaratory law than a new enactment.
The Speakersuggested that, as the Bill was likely to give occasion to several questions being put, it would be better that it should be re-committed.
The House accordingly went into a Committee; several verbal amendments were made in the Bill, when the House resumed.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. For the Abolition of Slavery, by Lord DE DUNSTANVILLE, from Penryn: — By Lord SUFFIELD, from Gillingham and Cromer:—By the Marquis of LONDONDERRY, from Kilrea:—By Lord DACRE, from Clavering. In favour of Reform, and complaining of Distress, by the Earl of CARLISLE, from a place in Yorkshire:—By the Earl of RADNOR, from Sommervale, Lancashire; from Blairgowrie, Perth, and Bath:—By the Earl of WINCHILSEA, from Sutton Valence, Kent.
The noble Earl stated, he could not agree to that part of the Petition which asked for Ballot; and he hoped the time would never arrive when an Englishman could not fearlessly give his vote. The Ballot, he thought, would cause more corruption than existed even at present.
For the extension of the Elective Franchise in Galway, by the Duke of BUCKINGHAM, from the Foreman of the Grand Jury of Galway:—By the Earl of WINCHILSEA, from Rahoon, Galway. For the Repeal of the Duty on Sea-borne Coals, by Lord DACRE, from Selby, Yorkshire: —By the Earl of WINCHIILSEA, from New Romney.
The noble Earl stated, that he hoped a tax which added so much to the price of a necessary of life, that was already subject to a heavy expense for carriage, would be repealed.
For the Repeal of the Assessed Taxes, by the same noble Earl, from Slaithwaite-cum-Lingards, in the West Riding of Yorkshire:—By Lord STOURTON, from Wetherby, in Yorkshire, to the same effect.

ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.
The Duke of Buckinghampresented a Petition from the Merchants of Dublin, praying that their Lordships would pause and "deliberate well before, in these times of agitation, they passed any measures for the emancipation of the slaves. He agreed in the prayer of the petition. Neither he nor the petitioners advocated slavery; but he and they both thought, that too much care could not be taken in giving rights to uneducated men, such as their Lordships possessed themselves. In the pre-

349
sent uneducated state of the slave population of the West Indies, they w c unable to enjoy freedom.
Lord Calthorpecomplained of the conduct of the colonial legislators not having acted upon the recommendations of Parliament, and he thought they ought now to be enforced. It was seven years since the two Houses of Parliament unanimously resolved, that the slaves should receive those blessings of education that were to fit them for liberty; and why the execution of them had been withheld, it was for those persons to explain, who yet petitioned against emancipation. It was the duty of Parliament not to allow its just and humane plans to be frustrated by the colonial assemblies.
The Duke of Buckinghamdid not wish to enter into a discussion of the question; but he heartily wished that the Government would take up the subject, and not leave it in the hands of interested persons.
Lord Suffeldsaid, that as long as the people were kept in slavery, it was impossible they should obtain that education which would fit them for the enjoyment of freedom.

REPEAL OF THE UNION.
The Earl of Radnorpresented Petitions from the Tobacco Pipe makers of Dublin, and from a parish in Queen's County, praying for a Repeal of the Union. The noble Earl, in presenting these petitions, expressed his regret that the people should have such ideas. He could not conceive how any persons could suppose any advantages would result to either England or Ireland from the Repeal; but as these people had such opinions, and chose to make him the organ of presenting their petitions—though he did not know why—he could not do otherwise than present them. He repeated, however, that it appeared to him unaccountable how any persons could expect any good from such a measure as the Repeal of the Union. In his opinion, the Repeal would lead to the most serious calamities. He had done his duty in presenting the petitions, but he could not avoid regretting that petitions of that nature were presented.
The Marquis of Londonderrycongratulated the country and himself on hearing the sentiments of the noble Earl, which, he was sure, were common to the great body of intelligent people in Ireland. He relied on the good sense of the middle
350
classes, and of the large resident land-proprietors,—who were really looked up to, and who, alone, possessed good sense to form a sound judgment on this subject,— to bring back tranquility to Ireland. He heartily rejoiced at the vigorous measures of his Majesty's Government, and praised that act. of the late Ministers which enabled the Government to act as it had clone. He was sure that the people of Ireland could not approve of the monstrous and atrocious proceedings of some persons in Ireland.
The Duke of Buckingham The Duke of Buckingham, in order to illustrate how these petitions were got up, remarked, that all the signatures to the first of them were the same, except the two first.
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor, after examining the petition, expressed a different opinion from the noble Duke. The hand-writings were very various. The noble Earl also read a passage of the petition, which spoke of Ireland being the bulwark of the Constitution, the rendezvous of Great Britain, and the granary of the world, while Ireland was very miserable, to show that the petition was not the work of any very well-informed men, and most likely proceeded from those who signed it.

TITHES.
Lord King Lord King, on presenting some more Tithe Petitions, wished to suggest to the right rev. Prelates, that they would act prudently, under the excited state of public feeling, if they would inform the country, not his Lordship, what was the plan they intended to propose. That would tend to allay the irritation of the people, and the country would know what it had to look to. He submitted that to the consideration of the right rev. Prelates. When he first presented a petition to their Lordships on the subject of tithes, on Monday, he believed he stated, that he would argue the question solely as a simple political economist, and he had not made a single observation on many of the questions which had attracted attention. He had not said one word about pluralities, nor one word about non- residence—the whole of those subjects had been brought forward by the over-zeal of a right rev. Prelate in defending the Church. That right rev. Prelate had charged the lay patrons with being the cause of non-residence, and had provoked the whole discussion. The right rev. Prelate said, that they had

351
smothered a bill for preventing non-residence; but when his noble friend (the Earl of Radnor) asked the right rev. Prelate to specify the bill, he had not given a very satisfactory account. He believed that he could give a better account than was given by the right rev. Prelate. He was old enough to remember, that about twenty-five years ago, an attorney excited a great sensation by the number of qui tam actions he brought to recover the penalties of a great number of clergymen, for non-residence. It was necessary to check these actions; they were an attack on the Church in the tenderest part. Chancellors and lawyers, and civilians and clergymen, were all consulted how to prevent these qui tam actions. The informations were laid, no doubt, for the penalties, and the informer had laid them equally against persons who were altogether absent from their parishes, and against those who resided in their parishes, but did not live in the parsonage. This was an error. The learned lawyers, civilians, and Chancellors smote their foreheads to find out how they might relieve the Church from the terror of these proceedings, and they suggested the means. Sir William Scott, he believed, brought a bill into the other House, by which the qui tams were to be put an end to. The bill was sent down to Oxford, to receive the suggestions of that learned body for its improvement, and in order to render it more effectual. The bill purported to be a bill to make the clergy reside; the real object of it was, to allow them to be non-resident; and no bill, he believed, had ever more effectually answered its real purpose. The lay patrons were accused of causing the non-residence, but there was no reason to believe from the qui tam actions that only their incumbents failed to reside. He believed that it was found, that as many non-residents were among the dignitaries of the Church as among the incumbents who derived their situations from lay patrons. He remembered, that the bill he had alluded to was opposed very much by a Noble Earl, then in the other House, who was as much distinguished for his zeal against the Curates' bill, as he was since distinguished in that House for his zealous support of all measures of reforming corrupt boroughs. That noble Earl had then fought with him in the good cause, night after night, and hit hard at abuses—very hard—harder than he now hit the reform-
352
ers, though he had snapped at his (Lord King's) fingers the other night. He did not now hit so hard as formerly. The right rev. Prelate had charged the laymen with being the cause of non-residence, and he hoped, therefore, that the right rev. Prelate would agree to a return of all persons holding pluralities, distinguishing whether they were held under lay or ecclesiastical patronage, including ecclesiastical Corporations. Such a return would show whether more pluralities were held under lay or under ecclesiastical patronage, and their Lordships would see which class was most deserving of the accusation of causing non-residence. It was said, as a sort of excuse for pluralities, that they would greatly increase the number of Curates. The Curates resided, and not the incumbents. It was said, too, that the Curates did the duty as well as the incumbents. But what lesson did that teach the public? It was admitted, that the duty was as well done by the Curates for one quarter of the salary. The public would be apt to apply to ecclesiastical offices the principle that was now acted on in civil offices, where it was found that the deputy did all the duty; namely, to abolish the principal office, and retain only the deputy. It was a dangerous lesson to teach the public, that the Curates did the duties of the Church better than the incumbents, at one-fourth of the salary. With respect to residence, he must say, that he highly approved of the charge of the Bishop of Winchester, who spoke of a benefice without a resident incumbent, as an ecclesiastical solecism, and as an abuse which both clergy and laity were called upon to prevent. The charge of the right rev. Prelate did him great credit. He objected to tithes as a mode of paying the clergy. They were instituted in a barbarous age, when the state of society was different from its present state, and though tithes might be suitable then, they were unsuitable now. They might suit such a country as Poland, where the land was ploughed, and then left to the care of nature to restore to it what the agriculturist had taken from it. Tithes impeded agriculture—they prevented the application of capital to land; and there was no property more prejudicial than a tax on gross produce. No jury of twelve men would say, that any greater benefit could be conferred on the country than a commutation of tithes. He would read to

353
their Lordships an opinion of a gentleman —a very sensible man—as to property; he was a Republican, and therefore his opinion on some subjects would not be much valued by their Lordships; but Republicans liked property as well as other men. That author observed, "that if there be one natural right recognised by all, it is the right of each succeeding generation to the earth and all its produce, and it is only inherited by private persons under the laws for the good of society." That was Jefferson's opinion, who had placed property on a true foundation. For himself he objected to tithes, that they diminished produce, and diminished the beneficial effects of the right of property. The noble Lord concluded by presenting a petition from Tyd St. Giles, Ely, for an alteration in the Tithe-system.
The Duke of Buckinyhamrequired, that the petition should be read.
The Clerk read it "a Petition for the Repeal of the Assessed Taxes" [a laugh].
Lord Kingrequired, that the petition should be read further; and it appeared also to be a petition for a Commutation of Tithes.
The Earl of Winchilseawas disposed readily to extend to other noble Lords that indulgence for any difference of sentiment which he himself had frequently received at the hands of their Lordships; but, often as such indulgence had been granted to him, he felt that he had no other claim to it than the sincerity with which he had always delivered his sentiments. Viewing the conduct of the noble Baron, as it was shown by his attacks on tithes, night after night, and particularly his observations on the Established Church of the country, he was constrained to say, that he could not give him the credit of sincerity in the professions he continually made, of intending, by his observations, to promote the interest of the Church. In presenting the petition, the noble Lord had permitted himself to make some unwarrantable personal attacks on some of the most respectable Prelates of the Church. He had made repeated attacks on that Church, and had always spoken in the most contemptuous manner of the Church Establishment, since he had had a seat in the House. The noble Baron, too, had spoken contemptuously of everything connected with religion, which made it doubtful whether, as the noble Baron could see nothing good in the Established
354
Church, he meant to correct abuses. Whatever the noble Baron might say of the effects of religion, in his humble judgment the clergy of the Established Church were a most, respectable class of men; and he maintained, that religion was the only sure ground for private virtue and public honesty. It was a proper complaint of a right rev. Prelate, on the other evening, that the noble Baron brought, forward no measure of his own. He had spoken of all sorts of abuses; of tithes, of non-residence, of pluralities; and had gone into all sorts of questions connected with the Church. It was high time that the noble Lord's attacks, which might cause a pernicious effect if they remained unanswered, should be noticed; and he, for one, was determined not to allow attacks to be unanswered which he believed to be most injurious to the best interests of the Church and the country. He agreed cordially with the observations made by the noble Earl (Carnarvon) the night before last; and he hoped that the good advice of that noble Earl would have been received by the noble Baron as it deserved. He agreed with the noble Earl, that no individual could trace the conduct of the Established Church for the last twenty years, without being convinced that it had made very great improvements, owing to the exertions of the members of the Bench to enforce the residence of the inferior clergy. He was convinced that the clergymen of the Established Church stood as high in general estimation as the clergymen of any Church in the world. Would to God that the upper classes possessed an equal influence! He spoke not of the influence of wealth, but of that influence which was founded on character; and he heartily wished that the upper classes possessed as much influence of that kind as the clergy were proved to possess in the late disturbed districts, among the misguided peasantry. He would only add, that he would not stand up for abuses, and was prepared to say, that many alterations might take place to improve the Church; but he had no doubt, from the exertions already made by the members of the Bench, that the individuals of that body would correct abuses, and would place the Established Church on the very best footing. He would not sit in that House and hear attacks made on that Church without replying to them; and though he was an inefficient defender, practice

355
might enable him to meet the noble Baron. If the noble Baron brought forward any measure, he would pay as much attention to it as was proper; but he would not silently hear his attacks.
Lord Kingproceeded to say, that he rose to repel one of the most disorderly attacks ever made in that House, and which was founded entirely on a misrepresentation of what he had said. The noble Earl inferred from his presenting petitions, that he attacked the Church night after night. What did he really do? He stated on the first night of presenting these petitions, that he would confine his observations to a political economical statement. He began by saying that, and every other part of the subject, had been brought before their Lordships by the over-zeal of a right rev. Prelate to defend the Church, and accuse laymen of all its errors. He had looked into the papers which usually report the proceedings of that House very correctly, and he had not found one word about pluralities, or non-residence, or about anything but political economy The noble Earl assumed, then, that he had introduced these other subjects.
The Duke of Buckinghamrose to order. It was very disorderly to refer to notes or reports of a former evening, with a view to reply to another speech. That was most disorderly.
Lord King: If their Lordships decided that he was disorderly, he must admit that he was; but he thought that he might exculpate himself from an attack founded on misrepresentation. He had merely said, that the first time he had brought the subject before their Lordships, he had not adverted to non-residence, or pluralities; and he did not see how this was disorderly. The object he had in view, as he stated, was, to discuss no other subject than the mischief caused by tithes as a species of property. He wished to confine himself to that alone. He complained that the noble Earl should have misrepresented him, and accused him of showing disrespect to religion. He denied that he had shown any disrespect to religion, or that he had said one word against religion in that House. What had he said against religion? Was tithe religion? Were all the abuses referred to the religion of the noble Earl? He was charged with making a "personal attack on some right rev. Prelate." Did
356
the noble Earl mean to say that abuses were not to be attacked? He had stated, that there were pluralities amongst the Bishops; and that they had secured to themselves the benefit of the bill brought in to prevent pluralities, but he had stated this in reply to the accusation, that laymen had prevented its being effectual. Was that personal? He could bring forward some more instances—he was ready to do it—he had no objection to do it if it were wished. The noble Earl said, he had not brought forward any plan—he had brought forward three plans. Did those plans give the noble Earl offence? Let their Lordships consider the drift of his observations. He had recommended prudence, and recommended the Prelates to accept a reasonable proposition, and by that they might obtain security for their property. Was that a wish to overthrow the Church? He stated, that some measure, in the present state of the country, was necessary to satisfy the people; and he had stated, that the measure of the last year would not satisfy them. He had urged a commutation, and not a composition. He stated, that the clergy could not stand, in the present state of public opinion, unless they were reasonable. For that the noble Earl charged him with attacking religion. For such a charge there was no more ground than there was to authorise him (Lord King) to make a similar charge against the noble Earl.
The Earl of Winchilseadid not intentionally misrepresent any noble Lord. The noble Lord had certainly made a charge highly derogatory to the Church, if true; and if not true, it ought not to be made. The noble Baron stated, that the bill brought into Parliament for the purpose of enforcing residence, had been perverted from its object, by the right rev. Prelates and the member for the University of Oxford laying their heads together to introduce a clause to defeat the real object of the measure, and, as the noble Lord said, make non-residence easier than before. If that charge were not true, he ought not to have made it. The noble Baron had spoken contemptuously too of the Church; he had used such phrases as "lawn sleeves," and that was speaking contemptuously of the Church.
Lord Kingdenied that he used the phrase "lawn sleeves."
The Earl of Winchilseasaid, that he had heard the phrase three or four years

357
ago, and other expressions that the noble Lord had no right to use.
Lord Wynfordknew, that the right reverend Prelates had too much ability amongst themselves not to make it. appear almost impertinent in him to address their Lordships in defence of the Church; but he was afraid, if no lay Peers should speak in its behalf, that it would go abroad that their Lordships heard these attacks with pleasure, and were not disposed to defend the Established Church. Did the noble Baron think that this was a question to be decided on incidental observation It was a question of the first importance, not only with reference to the property of the Church, but with reference to the property belonging to their Lordships' own body. It was a subject which ought to be considered fairly and accurately, and not in a manner calculated to excite the passions of the multitude. If the noble Baron was bent on assailing the Prelates, and the Church Establishment, he ought to do so in a manner consistent with the rules of British justice. He ought to bring forward a specific charge, and give due notice of the time when it was to be preferred, that the accused person might be prepared to defend himself. But, instead of that, the noble Baron came forward night after night with these incidental accusations. It was one of the first principles of British justice that due notice should be given, so that the accused might be prepared to answer; but even on this very night the noble Baron had made a variety of observations respecting the Prelates of the Church and the Church Establishment, which were not warranted by the motions with which he concluded. The noble Baron had presented a petition relative to the commutation of tithes and the abolition of the assessed taxes; and what right had he to talk on subjects not connected with these matters? The noble Baron, however, had wandered into the subject of non-residence, and adverted to the bill for promoting residence, which was before Parliament in 1803; and then he attacked Lord Stowell, who was unable, through old age and the infirmities attached to it, to attend to defend himself, while his noble brother was also prevented by indisposition from attending, and none of his friends knew that he was to be attacked, or were able to prepare themselves to defend him. But, however, the noble and learned Lord in question had
358
so conducted himself through life as to render such attacks powerless, and they could not affect his character in the estimation of any of those whose estimation was worth having. It was perhaps fortunate for the noble Baron that the noble and learned Lord was not in his place, or he would have defended himself in such a manner as would afford no triumph to the noble Baron. But these attacks were irrelevant, particularly when reflecting on the character of the absent. He (Lord Wynford) begged leave to disclaim, in the most pointed manner, the notions respecting tithes, as the property of the Church, which the noble Baron appeared to entertain. The noble Baron spoke of them as a tax on productive industry; a mode of talking which could have no other effect than that of creating a most improper excitement among the peasantry of the country. Tithes were no more a tax on productive industry than the noble Baron's rents were; and the same spirit which would destroy this species of property in one week, would destroy all real property in the next. The noble Baron spoke of the President Jefferson, and his opinion of the nature of property. He himself knew nothing about the opinions of President Jefferson, as he never had much inclination to have anything to do with a Republican, in whose views he could not, in many respects, concur. But it appeared to him, that Jefferson's words, as quoted by the noble Baron, afforded a good answer to his own argument. The scope of the noble Baron's argument was, that the tenth of property might be taken on a principle which would also justify taking the other nine parts. But Jefferson said, that all property was the creature of law, supported by usage or prescription [Lord King: No]. He should be sorry to misrepresent, but so he understood the noble Baron's quotation. But if all property was the creature of law, supported by usage or prescription, which was the oldest property, the temporal or the spiritual? The property of the Church in the tithes was certainly the oldest property, and that which was supported by the longest usage. It was the prior right, and if that property was to be destroyed, on what principle could the other be maintained? The argument of the noble Baron was calculated to spread among the peasantry the notion that the abolition of tithes would afford them relief; a notion

359
than which none could be more fallacious. In this House, such arguments would be estimated as they deserved, and the subject would be considered with views founded on wisdom and justice. A bill was to be brought in on the subject, as they had been informed, by the very rev. Prelate opposite, and then would be the proper time to discuss this important question in its proper bearings. But, notwithstanding the arguments of the noble Baron, he believed that the tenants knew very well that they would not be better off by the abolition of the tithes. By public property, he understood property that had belonged to the public, and which the public might therefore deal with, and dispose of. But tithes did not belong to the public, for they never came from the public, and therefore could not belong to it. If the tithes were to be taken from the Church, they would not be given to the tenant, but to the landowner; for, although tithes were abolished, the tenant would not get one farthing more, but he would have to pay a higher rent. Suppose the noble Baron had two pieces of land, one on each side of a hedge; and the land on one side of the hedge was subject to tithe, and the other free from it. For the one piece of land the noble Baron might get 20 s. per acre, while 5s. went for tithe; and for the Other he might get 25 s. But the profit made by the tenant would be the same for both; and if the land for which the tenant paid 20 s. to the noble Baron were freed from tithe, the only difference to the tenant would be that he would have his 5s. per acre to pay to the noble Baron instead of to the Church. It could hare no good effect to endeavour to make, tenants expect relief in a way in which it could not be given without the destruction of all property. Property was the creature of law, supported by usage or prescription, and he would not give a quarter of a year's purchase for the noble Baron's property after the tithes were taken away. He did not wish to prolong this incidental discussion, but he was anxious to show to the Prelates and the clergy of the Church that there were lay Peers in the House who did not share in the feelings which some appeared to entertain towards them. He had the honour to sit on a certain Commission (the Commission to inquire into the Ecclesiastical Courts), along with six or seven Bishops, and he could undertake to say, that no men could be more anxious to
360
put an end to abuses than they were. And he alluded particularly to his very rev. and distinguished friend who was at the head of the Established Church, who, with the utmost liberality and candour, had been willing to give up much valuable patronage for the good of the Church and the public; and he wished that the lay Lords who were possessed of patronage would imitate so excellent an example. His venerable and distinguished friend would excuse him for thus alluding so far to a matter into which he could not at present enter more particularly; but he could not avoid adverting so far to the debt of gratitude which the public owed to his distinguished friend, and which he hoped would soon be made known to all.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, that he had no desire to prolong this desultory conversation, which, perhaps, might much better have been spared; and his only reason for at present offering himself to their Lordships notice was, to state the cause of having abstained from taking any part in, these incidental debates, and to explain to their Lordships why he thought that the course thus taken was an inconvenient one. Although he had refrained from taking any part in these premature discussions, he was very far from being indifferent to the topics which in the course of debate were brought under discussion. He had felt with respect to tithe property, that, like every other species of property, it was liable to be subjected to the review of the Legislature, in order to ascertain whether it might be susceptible of amelioration in the mode of its collection, in a manner that might be perfectly consistent with the safety of the Established Church, and yet more consonant to the interests of the State. But it was now known, that this subject had attracted the attention of the heads of the Church Establishment. What the measures in contemplation were, he did not pretend to know at present, nor did he pledge himself to support any particular measures. But he was anxious that the subject should be brought before the Legislature, that it might be ascertained whether an improved method of collection might not be adopted, so as to remove many of the objections, real or imaginary, to this species of property. And he was also anxious, that whatever measures might be proposed, should be brought forward by the right reverend Prelates at the head of the Church Establishment, because the

361
community in general would be disposed to pay more attention to any plan pro- posed by them, and because any expedient to which they gave their sanction, would be carried into effect with increased facility, and with the general approbation of the country. He did not mean at present to discuss the subject with reference to the principles of political economy; but when the expected bill came forward, then would be the proper time for the discussion, and he trusted that it would then be discussed with that gravity and seriousness which the consideration of so important a subject demanded. He did not mean to impute improper motives to any one; but it ought to be kept in mind, that all the different species of property might be viewed as cemented together, and, for that reason, he thought that it would be much better to discuss the subject when they had the whole of it before them, than to raise debates incidentally on the separate and particular parts of the question. Such being his opinion, he considered it most convenient to abstain from entering upon the discussion of the subject till the expected bill came before them. What it was, as he had already intimated, he did not know, but at least it would afford the Legislature an opportunity to consider the whole of the subject, with reference to every species of property, and with a view to keep the property of the Church safe and entire, but, at. the same time, to deal with ecclesiastical property so that it might be prevented from interfering with the best interests of agriculture, and the general improvement of the country. He should pay a poor compliment to the Prelates of the Church, if he were to say that it was not fitting that their conduct should be brought fairly and openly before the public; but, at the same time, he did think it right, that when their conduct was called in question, it should be in specific charges, after notice given to them, that they might be prepared for their defence. But he would not suppose that they had any wish that their conduct should be exempt from that species of investigation to which the conduct of all others was liable; or that they were unwilling to meet any specific charge, when fairly made after notice. He was, at the same time, of opinion that this was not the proper time for the discussion, and he had only said this much in order to dissuade their Lordships from engaging iii these incidental debates, and to recom-
362
mend to them to wait until the whole subject should be brought before them, when it might be discussed with a deep sense of the importance of the question, and with a view to the preservation of the property of the Church, and, at the same time, with a view to the interests of the State, and the general improvement of the country.
The Earl of Radnor roseto say a few words in answer to the attacks which had been made on the noble Baron (King) who had commenced the discussion, by the noble and learned Lord (Wynford) near him. But first a word on the speech of the noble Marquis who had just sat down. The noble Marquis said, that his noble friend ought not to have made any attack on the Prelates of the Church, without having brought forward some specific charge. Now, he was not aware that the noble Baron had made any charge at all. The noble Baron alluded the other night to the conduct of a certain Prelate, and he was confirmed in what he had said; but he had made no charge against that Prelate or against any other. Then as to the noble and learned Lord, he complained that the noble Baron had attacked the Bishops. But the noble Baron had certainly not begun the attacks, but had confined himself, as he had stated, to the political economy of the subject. Then one of the reverend Bench started the subject of non-residence, and contended, that the fault of non-residence did not rest on the Bishops, but on the lay-impropriators, who possessed so many advowsons. He was old enough to recollect when Lord Stowell, then Sir William Scott, brought the bill to promote the residence of the Clergy into the House of Commons, in 1803. He was then in the House of Commons, and remembered that the bill had been avowedly sent to Oxford for the revision of the heads of the University, and that when it came back again, Mr. Windham fought it out to the last, and said that it was a bill, not for enforcing residence, but for encouraging non-residence, and the bill was almost, for a whole Session before the House. Was it ever denied that that bill had been shown to and revised by the Bishops? No one ever doubted it. He did not wish to prolong the discussion, but he could not. but notice, that the subject of residence had been brought, by the heads of the Church under discussion, in Parliament, both in 1803, and afterwards in 1817, by the then Arch-

363
bishop of Canterbury, and yet that their measures had proved inefficient to promote residence. He thought the residence of the clergy a matter of great importance, and was willing that the Bishops should have more power to enforce it. But they must, in the first place, put an end to pluralities, as residence and pluralities could not exist together.
The Duke of Buckinghamconcurred with such of their Lordships as thought that it was not proper to carry on these incidental discussions on separate particulars, on which they could come to no decision. He did not mean to impute improper motives to any one, and he took it for granted, that the object of the noble Baron was, to put the Church property on the best footing for all parties, since he himself said so. But when the subject should come fairly and fully before them, he maintained that it ought to be viewed in the broadest light, not only with reference to the interests of agriculture, but also with reference to the maintenance of the Church Establishment, which was essential to the Constitution. With respect to religion, he left that to be settled between every man and his own conscience. His own object was, the amelioration of the Church Establishment; and whenever that subject was brought on, as it would be, he would look narrowly to the question, how much, and in what degree, they could maintain what belonged to the clergy of this country, or the Church Establishment. The Church ought not to apprehend danger on that head; for the clergy had as much light to their property as the noble Lord had to his estate; and if the Church property were taken away, he knew not by what mode the noble Lord would effect the preservation of his own.
The Lord Chancellorheld the same opinion as his noble friend with respect to the inutility of these incidental discussions. When the subject was regularly brought forward, he trusted that it would be discussed with all that seriousness and attention which the magnitude of the question deserved. He was sure that the rights of the Church, and the interests of the Church, would be studiously attended to He took this opportunity to state, that in consequence of the illness of a noble and learned Lord (Eldon) he should postpone his Reform in Chancery Bill till Tuesday week. Perhaps the noble and learned
364
Lord (Wynford) would have no objection to allow his Motion, which was fixed for tonight to stand over, in order to afford the Chief Justice of the King's Bench an opportunity of being present at the discussion.
Lord Wynfordwas willing to let his Motion stand over till Thursday next; and moved, that the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Frauds on Creditors Bill be discharged, and fixed for Thursday.—Agreed to.
Lord Kingcould inform the noble and learned Lord who had recommended him to bring forward motions after due notice, that if he came down to the House on Monday se'nnight, the noble Lord would find, that he (Lord King) had a motion to bring forward, on the subject of the conduct of the Archbishop of Dublin, and the noble Lord, if he pleased, might take up the most reverend Prelate's defence. Noble Lords had charged him with making unfounded accusations; but with respect to non-residence, what did the returns of 1813 show? That there were only 4,183 residents out of 10,558, the whole number of incumbents in England, so that the remainder must be taken as non-residents. This was not one of his "unfounded statements," but a fact apparent on the face of the official return. He regretted that similar returns to that which he quoted had not been made for the years subsequent to 1813. He hoped that there would be now no objection to furnishing such returns, and he would move for them [Several noble Lords required a notice lo he given]. Well, then, he gave notice, and he would move for them on Monday. It was his wish that the returns should distinguish between patrons, lay and ecclesiastical. He might here ob- serve, that he thought the noble and learned Lord had taken a narrow, con- fined, and professional, view of property, which he appeared to contemplate with respect, only as being the creature of the law. This was certainly much less philosophical than the sentiment of Jefferson, who viewed property as being for the benefit and support of the inhabitants of a country, and as being only possessed by private men for the good of society. He fully coincided in this, and thought that any mode of property which was not for the good of society ought to be, and he trusted would be, altered.