Sitting of 23 March 1832

MINUTES.
Bills brought in. By Mr. SPRING RICE, to Consolidate and Amend the Laws relating to Highways in England; and to authorize the Commissioners for Auditing Public Accounts, to Examine and Audit the Colonial Expenditure and Revenues.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Colonel EVANS, of the quantity of Hemp purchased by Government for the use of the Navy, in each year, from 1821 to 1831, respectively, with the Amount of Duty Paid and Chargeable, and the Amount of Drawback paid on the Exportation of Cordage during the said term:—On the Motion of Mr. POWELL BUXTON, Copies of all Communications received from Jamaica relating to the Trials of George Ancle, and Samuel Surney, Negro Slaves, for alleged Offences relating to Religious Worship; of all Communications of the Adoption or Rejection of a Law in the House of Assembly in Jamaica, for Abolishing the practice of punishing Females by the Whip in that Island:—On the Motion of Mr. WALLACE, of the Number of Persons
806
Licensed in the City and County of Dublin to sell Tea and Coffee, who also hold Licences to sell Spirituous Liquors; of all Reports made in the years 1825 and 1826, by the Solicitor and by the Commissioners of Excise in Ireland to the Lords of the Treasury relating to such Licences:—On the Motion of Mr. STUART WORTLEY, Copy of the Ukase of the 23rd of November, 1831, increasing the Import Duty upon Articles imported into the Russian Dominions, and a Comparative Statement of the New and Old Duties:—On the Motion of Mr. BALFOUR, of the Sums charged by the Excise under 4 and 6 George 4th, for Spirits produced being short of the Charge by Gravity of Worts by Attenuation or Charge from the Low Wines in England and Scotland, and of any, and what part of those Charges remain unpaid by the Distillers.
Petitions presented. By General O'NEILL, from the Presbyterian Congregation of Broughshane, Ballymena, and Conner, against the proposed Plan of Education for Ireland:—By Sir WILLIAM HORT, from the Inhabitants of the United Parishes of Kilcullen and Gormanstown, and of the United Parishes of Kilcumin and Robin, for the Total Abolition of Tithes in Ireland:—By O'CONNOR DON, from the Merchants and Inhabitants of Athlone, against the Clause in the Irish Reform Bill, which allows Persons to Vote for a Town if they reside within seven miles of it:—By Mr. HUME, from the Council of the National Political Union, for the Appointment of a Committee to Inquire into the Nature of Cholera; from the Students in Medicine, Glasgow; the Members of the Council of the Sheffield Political Union; the Committee of the London College of Medicine; and of the Inhabitants of Leeds, in favour of the Anatomy Bill; from Persons employed in Factories at Heaton, Norris, and other Places, and of Proprietors of Mills and Master Spinners in Renfrewshire, against the Factories Regulation Bill; from the Members of a Benefit Society at Newport Hants, for the Repeal of 10 Geo. 4th; from the Prisoners in Whitecross Street Prison, against the Law of Arrest for Debt, and Complaining of Regulations relating to the said Prison; and from 900 Members of the National Political Union, for the Repeal of all Taxes on Newspapers and Paper.

POST OFFICE (IRELAND).
Mr. Cooperpresented the Petition of John R. Johnstone, of the firm of Johnstone and Co. newspaper agents, of Dublin, complaining of the unfair advantage possessed by the Clerks of the Roads in Ireland, in serving newspapers; and praying, that this official monopoly, striking at the root of private industry and enterprise should be put an end to.
Mr. Henry Grattansaid, he must support the prayer of the petition, as he considered the privileges of the Clerks of the Roads a great hardship upon the private traders.
Lord Althorpsaid, that without giving any opinion as to the contents of the petition, he felt quite sure, that the noble Lord at the head of the Post Office Department would pay every attention to it.
Mr. Humesaid, that all public servants in England, as well as in Ireland, ought to be prevented from dealing in newspapers. If the Government did not feel the propriety of putting a stop to this traffic, it would be his duty, or the duty of some other hon. Member, to take the sense of the House on the subject.
The Petition to be printed.

BANK OF ENGLAND.
Mr. Gisborne: It appears by the papers, that, on a question being yesterday put at the Bank of England meeting, the Governor stated, that the only information he could give with respect to the renewal of the Charter was, that the Ministers had given him to understand, that it was their intention, this Session, if possible, to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the Bank of England, and that the renewal of its Charter must necessarily form part of that inquiry. If this paragraph is correct, I presume that the noble Lord can have no objection to confirm it; for I should be glad to know whether it is certain that the Committee will be appointed this Session, and whether it will form part of their duty to inquire into the renewal of the Bank Charter?
Lord Althorp: The statement contained in that paragraph is, for the most part, correct: it, however, conveys no information to the House; for I have already stated my intention of moving for a Committee during the present Session, and, therefore, the only point not quite correct in that statement is, the supposing it doubtful whether that motion will be brought forward this Session, because it is my positive intention to do so.

SUGAR DUTIES.
On the Motion of Lord Althorp, the Order of the Day for the House going into Committee on the Sugar Duties was read.
Lord Althorp: Before moving, Sir, that you leave the Chair, I think that it may be convenient to the House, if I preface my Motion with one or two observations. It is not my intention to detain the House long; but, having been pressed on the subject by Gentlemen connected with the West-India interests, it seems desirable for me to make a short statement on the subject. I have been told by those Gentlemen, that it is necessary that I should state specifically what is the nature of those measures of relief to which I alluded on the last evening that this question was debated. On that occasion I stated, that I did not think that it would be advisable for me to make that statement at the present period, or before I was able to propose the measure to the House for adoption. In consequence, however, of the Suggestions that have been thrown out, I have since given my best consideration to the
808
subject; and I am now bound to state, that the more I have considered it, the more clear does it appear to me, that it would not be consistent with my duty to state now what is the specific object of the mode of relief I mean to propose. I am, however, prepared to repeat what I before stated, that it will be a relief proffered to such of the West-India colonies as shall have shown themselves disposed to accede to the wishes of the Government; and, indeed, it must be evident to all, that, by moving for the renewal of the sugar duties for the short period only of six months, I am quite willing still to leave the door open to discussion. But, besides these measures, the House is, of course, perfectly aware, that, in different parts of the West-India colonies, severe recent calamities have taken place, which have given rise to great destruction of property; I allude, of course, to the hurricane in Barbadoes, and the insurrection in Jamaica, which calamities have necessarily greatly aggravated the local suffering in those colonies where they have occurred. Looking at this distress, we have felt that it would be perfectly consistent with that sympathy which the mother country ought to feel towards the colonies for us to call on this House to grant temporary relief to them, without encumbering that relief with any of those conditions which I have alluded to in speaking of the other more permanent plan of relief. I am aware of the difficulty attending this sort of proposition, but I trust that the extreme exigency of the case may well form an apology for our intention; and I have therefore to state to the House, that it is the purpose of the Government to afford assistance to the sufferers under these two calamities by way of loan. The House has already agreed to give aid to the poorer classes who suffered by the hurricane in Barbadoes; but there still remains a large number of those who suffered not belonging to that class, and who, from their superior station, can give security for any assistance afforded them; and, therefore, by taking care, that that security was given, and that the Government should have a prior claim over all other charges on the property, I trust that the Ministers may safely propose that this measure shall be carried into effect. I hope that, in adopting this course, we shall be able to prove to the colonists that we have a feeling of sympathy for their mis-

809
fortunes, and that the effect will be such as to induce them to indulge a kindly feeling towards the mother country, and give them an inclination towards yielding that which we have so much at heart. Having said thus much, I will not detain the House further, but move, Sir, that you now leave the Chair.
Mr. Burgethought that the noble Lord should state at once what was the nature of the relief which he intended to propose; because he could hardly expect that the colonists were to surrender all their rights, without even so much as knowing what they were to have in exchange. But Ministers seemed inclined to promulgate the doctrine that, notwithstanding all the difficulties under which the colonies laboured, all relief was to be withheld, unless they pledged themselves to comply with unknown conditions—a practice which every man of British feeling, and with British habits, would denounce as unjust. There was no principle in the Constitution which implied that those who were entitled to legislate for themselves should submit to act upon peremptory instructions directing them what they were to do. It must have been well known to the Government, that the colonists could never consent to accept relief on any such condition as that proposed. That was sufficiently manifest from the feeling that had been excited throughout the colonies when the sweeping plan of the Government was communicated to them, accompanied with the not very judicious commentary of the noble Lord who was particularly connected with that department of the State. That plan had excited throughout all the islands a degree of discontent which had never before been known there—so much as even to attract the notice of all those Powers who had possessions in the same quarter of the globe; and indeed, he might say, that so strong was the feeling which the colonists entertained with regard to that plan, that, however ardent their attachment for the mother country, they were convinced that the period was at length arrived when there existed in 'this country a Government that had forgotten that the colonies were the children of the state, from which they had a right to look for the most complete protection. He could not give a greater proof of the tremendous nature of the experiments which the Government was aware they were about to try in the West Indies than
810
by adducing one fact, namely, that almost immediately after the receipt in the colonies of the despatches, accompanied by the debates in that House, particularly the speech of the noble Lord, the Undersecretary for the Colonies, intimating the intentions of Government, there was also received, a proclamation for removing the delusions into which the colonists were likely to fall, when they found it was the intention of Government to carry all their opinions into execution—opinions which would effect all the mischief which the colonists had ever dreaded. That the Government should have sent such a proclamation was a complete proof that it anticipated, as the consequence of its own actions, discontent among the colonists. Another proof of the existence of this feeling on the part of the Government might be found in the circumstance, that, in the more distant Crown colonies, it was feared a similar impression might have been produced, and, accordingly, the Order in Council had never been forwarded to the Mauritius; and he believed, that, even at the present moment, it had not yet been sent. He would unscrupulously declare it to be his opinion, that if there was any circumstance which more strongly than another would mark the incompetency and the unfitness of the colonial part of the Administration to occupy their offices in Downing-street, it was to be found in the circular despatch sent by Lord Goderich to the respective Governors of the West-Indian colonies. There were passages in that letter, which, if the document did not bear the name of Lord Goderich, he never could have believed had been written by him. There had been a time when that noble Lord had received the thanks of the colonies for his prudence and caution; but, in that despatch, there were expressions so little consonant with the noble Lord's usual urbanity and high-minded feelings, that he felt himself utterly at a loss to account for the spirit in which it had been drawn up. It seemed to be an attempt studiously to depreciate the colonies, by representing the society there as possessing neither education nor information. It might have been naturally supposed, that every set of men, however adverse to the colonial interests when in opposition, would, on coming into office, have so far felt the responsibility of their situation as to have been extremely careful how they committed them-

811
selves hastily upon so vital a question. He begged to remind the House that, when the present Government came into office, they found the colonies, it was true, in a state of great financial distress; but they also found, with respect to Jamaica, at least, that the two subjects which had so long been matter of controversy between the legislature in that island, and the preceding Government at home, were at length happily adjusted—he meant the payment of the troops, and the depositing of the large sum annually voted by the Jamaica legislature in the hands of the commanding-officer; and also the passing a clause in the consolidated slave law, admitting the evidence of a slave against the white. He should have thought that the long dispute and settlement of these two questions would have suggested to the Government, that a little more time was necessary for looking at these great interests, before they ventured to propose any plan for the internal regulation of the colonies. Instead of that, however, on almost the very first occasion on which the Government avowed its policy—on the Motion of the hon. member for Weymouth—that took place which had excited so much feeling in the West Indies, and which, he was afraid, would lead to the most disastrous consequences. He should purposely abstain from adverting in any way to the slavery question, because he did not think that was a proper time for its discussion; and he should also abstain from expressing any opinion on the recent insurrection in Jamaica, lest it should be thought that he was casting imputations on any particular parties; but it was impossible for him to refrain from expressing his conviction, that those dreadful results to which he had adverted, were occasioned by the delusion arising out of the unfortunate propositions of the present Government. From the year 1760 to 1817, no insurrection took place in Jamaica. There was, indeed, the Maroon war in 1797, but so far from the negroes taking any part with the insurgents, they all along showed their willingness to support the white population. The insurrection in 1817 followed close on the discussion in that House—a discussion conducted without either prudence or temper. The next convulsion that shook Jamaica was in the latter end of 1823, which also happened shortly after another discussion in that House; and now there was another insurrection,
812
arising out of discussions which obtained fresh force and power of mischief on the accession of the present Government to office. On the effects of that insurrection he would not enlarge; but he must say, that the ill-matured plans of the Ministry had led to misconception on the part of the negroes. It was impossible to exonerate his Majesty's Ministers; for never before had any Government declared to the colonies—"Your own legislatures must cease their influence, and yield to the Legislature of Downing-street; for we will not allow you the privilege of even a verbal alteration." Was this wise, or was it prudent? Could the noble Viscount be so confident in himself, or in the Government to which he belonged, to say that he was sufficiently acquainted with the colonial interests as to impose on the colonies such onerous conditions? No Government before this ever thought of imposing such a penalty for not obeying the legislation of Downing-street; for two-thirds of the people who would suffer had no choice. What could be said of a Government which excluded two-thirds of the people from relief, because those over them would not adopt the regulations of his Majesty's Government? It was new in government and in finance, to punish men for what they could not control or avoid. If the legislation was most perfect—and that it was he denied—yet the mode of enforcing it would destroy all the merit of the scheme itself. Whatever might be the feelings of the House as to soundness of the principle, he was sure it would join him in opinion against the mode of enforcing the scheme, though they agreed in the scheme itself. It was the first act of the present Government. It had made no communication to the colonial legislature before it ordered this scheme to be executed. It was, however, said, that the preceding Government made various applications to the colonies, and failed; and this was the excuse made for the extraordinary course pursued by the present Government. He wished that the Ministers had been actuated by the principles of that great statesman, who had been, with regard to that subject, so repeatedly referred to. There was nothing in Mr. Canning's speeches inconsistent with his own proposition, namely, that every thing to be done with respect to the colonies, was to be done through their own legislative bodies. He also most

813
heartily wished that the Ministers had adopted the principles of the Duke of Wellington; for he distinctly refused to sanction that species of menace which was to be found in the language of the present Government. In his opinion, the statement of the noble Chancellor of the Exchequer should not have been made, unless he was prepared distinctly to state his plan, in order that it might be known, whether it would receive the consent of the parties interested. The time selected made it still more objectionable. Was the unfortunate colony of Jamaica in any condition to meet this new pressure? And what an impulse would be added to the lawless spirit that existed there, when it was known, that although the Government had received intelligence of the rebellion, and had sent out an additional force, yet it persevered in the measures which had led to the mischief. Ministers though they had given assistance to the island, still persevered in that plan which only to announce six months before had excited the greatest degree of alarm. Adhering to this plan under such circumstances, was sufficient to place that society in a situation which would destroy all confidence. The knowledge of the proceeding of that House would, by to-morrow's mail, be conveyed to that island. It would be then known that his Majesty's Government would give no relief but on these conditions. There, however, forty or fifty miles of land was already a perfect waste. The negro population were thrown adrift on the rest of society. How was that event to be met? It would be unsafe for men to live there, much less to advance their property; and without that, how was prosperity to be restored? The loan advanced by the Government would be of no use, unless a line of conduct were adopted which would restore confidence. To satisfy the claims of sympathy and the claims of justice, it was necessary for the Government to avoid that policy which would lead to the destruction of these colonies. Similar discontent had existed in other islands, and it was not yet known what would be the effect of the knowledge of the insurrection in Jamaica, on the negroes of those islands. It was known, indeed, that the negroes had in some places refused to obey their masters. Expenditure, to improve any of the colonies, could not be incurred while property in all the islands was exposed to
814
jeopardy. The hon. and learned Gentleman again referred to Jamaica, and said, that it was in such a state that the taxes could not be raised for the support of the public establishment. Instead of irritating these colonies, a prudent Government would endeavour to win their affections by a course of wise concession and conciliation. These colonies wished to continue united with Great Britain—their natural affections as well as their interests led them to desire British connexion. But were Government aware of the language in which the rulers of other countries were addressing these colonies? Had they seen, for instance, the language in which the government of the United States spoke to them through the North American Review? To conciliate them was, therefore, no less a matter of duty than of policy. They had contributed largely to the aid of England in her hour of danger, and their importance was seen in the eagerness of Government to raise these sugar duties upon their produce. If the Government continued to press upon them by harsh fiscal regulations, it might produce their ruin; but when their ruin was effected, the merchants and manufacturers of England would find themselves deprived of one of their principal markets, and one of their main sources of wealth. The colonies might pass away from us, and our manufacturing prosperity would pass away also, and then our empire would be limited to narrow bounds of local interests. The policy of his Majesty's Government was calculated to nourish petty interests but was unworthy of the mighty interests of a great empire like this. Under all the circumstances of the case, he could not consent to the Speaker leaving the Chair. If the noble Lord had abstained from his coercive proceedings for the present, and had granted a Committee to inquire into the whole state of these colonies as he had suggested, and measures founded on those inquiries had been brought forward, that would have restored confidence, and given value to property. He begged that nothing which had fallen from him respecting the general policy of the Government, could be supposed to detract from the deep sense of obligation he felt towards the noble Lord, for the vote of assistance he had proposed for Jamaica. He begged, also, that his anxiety for the welfare of the colonies might not cause it to be supposed that he did not desire to see the

815
gradual extinction of slavery. All he wished was, that that object should be accomplished without injury either to the planter or the slave. In conclusion, he had only to express a hope that Government would evince such a disposition on the present question, as would preclude the necessity of his opposing the Motion.
Lord Howickhad heard with great pain the inflammatory speech of the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down, for the speedy and satisfactory settlement of this question was of great importance, and if it were longer delayed it might lead to great disasters. It could only, however, be brought to a satisfactory conclusion by mutual concessions, and he regretted that a gentleman who stood so high in the confidence of the legislature of Jamaica, should have so misconceived the policy which the Government had for some years pursued. Aggravated as the charges were which the hon. Member had brought, not only against the policy of Government, but also against those who had acted upon it, he had no doubt that the House would mark their conduct with approbation when hon. Members fairly considered what was the nature of their policy and the grounds on which it was justified. He begged hon. Gentlemen to consider what was the position of this question when the present Government first came into office. Every one was aware that, by the Resolutions of 1823, the House was pledged to promote the immediate mitigation, and to aim at the ultimate extinction of slavery. Every one was also aware that successive Governments, acting upon the policy of Mr. Canning, had introduced into the colonies of the Crown, regulations which had produced a marked effect in improving the condition of the slaves, and in promoting the hopes of the extinction of slavery. He would not on that occasion discuss the nature of those regulations, neither would he stop to inquire whether they had gone as far as the advocates for the abolition of slavery expected. He would only say that, so far as they went, they were in his, opinion, calculated to benefit the slave without being at all injurious to the master. In the colonies which did not belong to the Crown, but which enjoyed legislative assemblies of their own, the examples which had been set in the Crown colonies had not been followed. He would not contrast the laws made by the different colonial assemblies, with the order of
816
council which was carried into execution in Trinidad in 1824, and which was recommended as a model of imitation for the other colonies. He would only say, that in none of them had that order been fully carried into effect; on the contrary, in most of them it had been perfectly and completely evaded. Under such circumstances, he would ask the House to say what conduct the Administration ought to have followed? Were they to leave slavery as they found it in Jamaica, and to let the planters triumph over the British Legislature? Since the Resolutions of that House were agreed to in 1823, a correspondence had been carried on by three successive Secretaries of State, for the colonies, who had earnestly endeavoured to impress upon their attention the propriety of adopting the views of Parliament. The language of admonition and remonstrance had been exhausted in vain, and nothing further could be done to give additional weight to remonstrances which had been already slighted. Was the Government then to allow the Assembly of Jamaica, and of the other legislative colonies, to persist in neglecting these recommendations? If their own sense of what was due to justice and humanity would have allowed Ministers to follow such a course, the universal feeling of the people of England would have rendered it impossible. They could not remain where they then were. Compliance with the wishes of Parliament was, therefore, urged upon the colonial legislatures. Some years ago it was stated by Mr. Canning that the first course which the Government ought to pursue to bring the colonial legislatures to reason, was to try the language of exhortation and remonstrance. But that language was now exhausted, it was impossible to add anything either to the weight or urgency of the expostulations which had been repeatedly made by preceding Governments. In the eight years which had elapsed since the Resolutions of 1823, a correspondence which was anything but satisfactory, had been carried on between the British Government and the legislature of Jamaica. In that correspondence successive Secretaries of State had endeavoured to impress upon the legislature of Jamaica the necessity of adopting the views of Parliament. Gentlemen must see that there must come a time when it was fitting that the language of exhortation should cease. That time had now arrived;

817
and in consequence of the speech of the hon. Member, it became necessary for him, though unprepared for the task that evening, to enter into a consideration of the conduct of the Government. On the 28th of May, 1823, shortly after the Resolutions, already referred to, had been adopted by the House, a circular was sent out by Lord Bathurst containing a copy of the Resolutions which Parliament had sanctioned. A second circular was sent out by the same nobleman on the 9th of July in the same year, in which the strongest exhortations to adopt those Resolutions were addressed to the legislature of Jamaica. The conclusion of that despatch was couched in the following terms: "In conclusion, I have most earnestly to impress upon you the necessity of proceeding to carry these improvements into effect, not only with all possible despatch, but in the spirit of perfect and cordial co-operation with the efforts of his Majesty's Government. More particularly you will be attentive to have the necessary laws framed with such precaution and foresight as, if possible, to provide an effectual security for the faithful observance of them. To this end you will consult with the legal advisers of the Crown on the frame of the necessary Bills, and you will, from time to time, communicate with me upon the progress you make in this work, or upon the difficulties which may obstruct its completion, and if (what I am unwilling to imagine) you should meet with serious opposition, you will lose no time in transmitting to me the necessary communication, in order that I may take the earliest opportunity of laying the matter before Parliament, and submitting for their consideration such measures as it may be tit to adopt in consequence." In reply to this document a Resolution was passed by the House of Assembly, stating that they had observed with surprise and regret that Parliament had sanctioned the principles of their enemies in the mother country; and declaring their determination not to entertain the notion of the ultimate extinction of slavery in their colony.
Mr. Burgewished the noble Lord to read the Report, because several measures favourable to the slaves were passed that Session.
Lord Howickhad not the whole Report with him. What he had read showed
818
that there was a spirit in the Assembly of Jamaica which would render remonstrance after nine years' of remonstrance, worse than childish. On the 30th of July, 1825, another despatch was written by Lord Bathurst, in which he complained that the only measure proposed in the House of Assembly for the admission of slave evidence had been rejected, only one person voting for it. On the 18th of March, 1826, Lord Bathurst sent a draught of two bills, which the House of Assembly refused even to consider; stating that such bills were a breach of their privileges. On the 22nd of September, 1827, another despatch was written by Mr. Huskisson, representing to the House of Assembly how unsatisfactory was the progress which they had made, and the spirit which they had manifested. In that despatch Mr. Huskisson disallowed the act passed by the Colonial Assembly in 1826, because it contained several clauses contrary to the principle of toleration asserted by Parliament. A long and voluminous despatch, in answer to that of Mr. Huskisson, was drawn up by a Committee of the House of Assembly; and upon that despatch Mr. Huskisson wrote a letter in March 18, 1828, in which he informed the House of Assembly, that a continued Resolution on their part not to act as Parliament had wished, would compel Parliament to act for them. Sir George Murray wrote two despatches to the House of Assembly, one dated the 3rd, and the other the 15th of September, 1828. He begged leave to call the attention of the House to the language of the last of these documents. Sir George Murray informed the House of Assembly that some amelioration of the laws regarding slaves was to them a matter of necessary policy, which was every day becoming more and more urgent. Such an amelioration, he said, would give the best security they could have for the continuance of their property. Unless they made such amelioration, he assured them that it would be impossible to stem the impatience of the people of England, for some legislative interference of the imperial Parliament on the subject. In another despatch, dated the 8th of April, 1830, Sir George Murray adopted all the sentiments which had been previously expressed by Mr. Huskisson. Such was the history of the negotiation with the colonial legislature of Jamaica; and after such a proof of its not leading to a satis-

819
factory result, would it have been to the honour either of Parliament or of the Crown, again to offer the House of Assembly the advice which had been so often contemptuously rejected before? There was a still stronger reason for not continuing these remonstrances, and that was, a regard to the welfare of the West-India interest. The correspondence to which he had just alluded was always laid regularly before Parliament and the country; and the remonstrances which had failed to produce the desired effect upon the House of assembly of Jamaica, had necessarily increased the general impatience of the public in this country, for the accomplishment of an object to which they attached so much importance. To have gone on, therefore, addressing exhortations and admonitions to the assembly, when there was no longer a hope that such language would be attended to, would have been merely to increase the excitement and irritability which existed at home. He was willing to make every allowance for the conduct of the Assembly of Jamaica, suffering as the people were under the severe pressure of distress, and irritated by constant attacks. However much he might regret the matter, it became absolutely necessary (if for no other reason, with a view to the interest of the planters themselves) to take measures for putting an end to the controversy which was going on between the executive government and the local Legislature. Nor, was this his opinion only, for he had heard his hon. friend, the member for Thetford, more than once declare, that it was the duty of the Government to take the matter into its own hands, to come forward with some specific plan, and propose some means for carrying it into execution. He thought his hon. friend had taken a correct view of the case, and it was greatly to be lamented that this course was not earlier adopted. It was only one among many instances of that miserable and temporizing policy, to which the present difficulties were to be attributed, which, never looking at dangers while at a distance—never seeking to deal with great questions while they could be easily and satisfactorily arranged, merely attempted to get through from day to day the ordinary routine of business, with no other object than that of not increasing the pressure to which the Government was exposed, without considering the ultimate consequence of such ill-advised
820
and impolitic delay. This temporizing policy, which had been too long persevered in, could no longer be maintained, and the present Government was compelled to choose between abandoning the object to which Parliament and the country stood pledged, submitting to the resistance of the assemblies, or taking measures by which that resistance might be overcome. It was necessary that some step should be taken; and, agreeing with Mr. Canning, that coercion ought to be had recourse to only in the last extremity, the Government was anxious to avoid making an appeal to the direct legislative authority of the Imperial Parliament, hoping that the obedience of the colonial legislatures would be secured by measures which would at once have the effect of manifesting the determination of this country not to recede from her just demands, and afford them an inducement to yield, holding out as the reward of compliance, the prospect of relief from that distress which the Government acknowledged and deplored. Acting upon these views, when the hon. member for Weymouth last year brought forward his Motion, and it became necessary to explain to the House and to the country, what was the policy intended to be pursued on this subject, his noble friend moved, as an amendment, resolutions, the effect of which would have been, to pledge the House to afford advantages, in the shape of a remission of duties to those colonies which should consent to adopt the recommendations of Government; at the same time that an intimation was given, that an order in Council would be drawn up, completing that which had been passed the year before, and which Sir George Murray had at the time expressly stated he had left imperfect, for want of further information; the adoption of the contemplated order in Council would, it was announced, be the condition of giving the indulgence proposed. This course had been the subject of loud and vehement attack. It was said, that the imposition of discriminating duties was only a mode of evading the privileges of the colonial legislatures. The hon. and learned Gentleman who had addressed the House, asked whether any Government had ever before thought of adopting such a course, and stated that, in not one of Mr. Canning's speeches, was it intimated that it was desirable to do anything, except through the colonial legislatures themselves. No doubt, Mr. Canning

821
thought it desirable, as every man must that the wished-for reformation should be the work of the colonial legislatures themselves; but, in case of necessity, he contemplated taking a different course. They had heard much of the effect produced in the colonies by the debates upon this subject, and he should have thought that the speech of Mr. Canning, in moving the resolutions of 1823, would have been eagerly read in Jamaica, but no accurate report of what passed on that occasion could have reached the colony, or the inhabitants could not have forgotten what Mr. Canning said, in the splendid and masterly speech with which he introduced his amendment to the Motion of the hon. member for Weymouth:—'We have a right,' said the right hon. Gentleman, 'to expect from the colonial legislatures, a full and fair co-operation. And, being as much averse by habit, as I am at this moment precluded by duty, from mooting imaginary points, and looking to the solution of extreme, though not impossible questions I must add, that any resistance which might be manifested to the express and declared wishes of Parliament—any resistance, I mean, which should partake, not of reason, but of contumacy, would create a case (a case, however, which, I sincerely trust, will never occur) upon which his Majesty's Government would not hesitate to come down to Parliament for counsel.'* He thought it was sufficiently clear from this that Mr. Canning contemplated other measures, in case of resistance on the part of the colonial legislatures. But, on the 16th of March, 1824, his language was still stronger: he said—'There are three possible modes in which Parliament might deal with the people of Jamaica—first, as I have said, it might crush them by the application of direct force—secondly, it might harass them by fiscal regulations and enactments, restraining their navigation; and, thirdly, it may pursue the slow and silent course of temperate, but authoritative admonition. Now, Mr. Speaker, If I am asked which course I would advise, I am for first trying that which I have last mentioned; I trust we shall never be driven to the second; and with respect to the first, I will only now say, that no feeling of wounded pride—no motive of question-
Hansard's Parl. Debates, (new series), vol. ix. p. 286.
822
able expediency—nothing short of real and demonstrable necessity, shall induce me to moot the awful question of the transcendental power of Parliament over every dependency of the British Crown.;* Such was the language of Mr. Canning in 1824; in 1826, he proposed that the resolution which had been agreed to three years previously by the House of Commons should be sent up to the Lords for their concurrence. He would, with the permission of the House, read a part of the speech he made on that occasion. The right hon. Gentleman said, 'He would not, however, deny, but that, from the spirit which the colonies had already displayed on this subject, it was more than probable that the time might arrive when it would be necessary for that House to interfere more directly, but as he saw that such an interference would be pregnant with evil, both to the country and to the colonies, he was loth to have recourse to it as long as there was any possibility that it might be avoided.'† He was desirous,' the right hon. Gentleman afterwards said, 'of giving to the colonial legislatures another chance of bringing about, by their own agency, all that the British Parliament wished, without the disturbance of the established system, or the agitation of the question, from which, though he should not hesitate to enter into it when the occasion demanded considerable difficulties which he wished to avoid, if possible, would of necessity ensue, when it was once mooted. He would give them space and respite for a further trial. He agreed with the hon. member for Weymouth, that, after the time of that space and respite had expired, the period might come, when it would be the duty of the Parliament, to take the matter out of the hands of the colonial legislatures, and when it would be the duty of the Government to come forward and ask Parliament for additional powers, which would be requisite to entrust to it for the accomplishment of objects which the colonial assemblies had refused to effect by their own exertions.'‡ Here, then, was a clear exposition of Mr. Canning's views, and the views of the Government of which he was the organ. He proposed to first try exhortation, then fiscal
† Hansard's Parl. Debates (new series), vol. x. p. 1106.
† Ibid. vol. xiv. p. 974.
‡ Ibid p. 978.

823
regulation, and, lastly, direct legislation; and, so long ago as the year 1826, he considered that the first had almost failed; his forbearance was then nearly exhausted, and he was desirous of giving to the colonies only "space and respite for one further trial." To warn the local legislatures how nearly the season of indulgence had expired—to convey to them the clearest intimation of the determination of Parliament, he then made a motion to send the resolutions of 1823 up to the House of Lords for their concurrence. Was it possible to deny, then, that the conduct of the present Government had been the most lenient, which, consistently with its duties, it could adopt? Exhortation having failed, the principle of the course recommended by his noble friend in the resolutions he moved last year was distinctly pointed out by Mr. Canning, in his advice to harass the colonies by fiscal regulations and enactments, restraining their navigation. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to imagine, that he was not correct in saying that there was an exact agreement between the course proposed by his noble friend, and that recommended by Mr. Canning. The hon. and learned Gentleman was right; there was a distinction between them, and it was this—Mr. Canning held out a threat to the disobedient; his noble friend, a promise of reward to the obedient. His noble friend did not threaten to stop up the ports of the contumacious colonies, to harass their trade, and compel them, by dire necessity, to give way; but he said, "We will not, in the first instance, at least, adopt any measure to punish and coerce those colonies which resist, but we will promise to those which yield to our just and reasonable demand such assistance and relief as it is in our power to bestow." The distinction in point of leniency, then, was not in favour of Mr. Canning's Administration, but in favour of the Government of 1831. The Resolutions moved by his noble friend last year were not formally assented to; but there could not be the slightest doubt that, upon a division, they would have been carried; and the only reason why they were not was, that the hon. member for Preston moved an adjournment of the House, and a few days afterwards Parliament was dissolved. They were not again brought forward, for this simple reason—that there could not be a rational doubt on the mind of any man of what were the senti-
824
ments of Parliament and of the country; and it was thought most desirable, from the danger of such discussions in the House, to avoid unnecessarily agitating the question. It was the anxiety of the Ministers to bring on such a debate, which induced them not to ask for the mere formal expression of an opinion, which could not be doubted, and to postpone coming to Parliament until acting upon that opinion, its concurrence in the measures to be adopted was actually to be required. It was not, however, in disguise or concealment that they took their course; for, after the debate in April last, not a day was lost in collecting the materials for the Order in Council, which had been so much criticized. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, the late Secretary of State for the Colonial Department, in the despatch which accompanied the former Order in Council, had stated to the Governors of the different colonies, that certain points were omitted in it, on which he was not then prepared to legislate, but to which it was intended to revert at a future opportunity. Now, all must agree that, if we were to make a specific offer to the Assemblies at all, it was most desirable that the whole plan, with which it was connected should be laid before them altogether. For this reason, a new Order in Council was drawn up to supply the omissions of the former. The draught was printed, and transmitted to the hon. and learned Gentleman the member for Eye, to the agents of the different colonies, and to all who were thought particularly interested in the subject; they were, at the same time, invited to make any objections or remarks, which they thought could be of service, and contribute to render the Order in Council as complete and perfect as possible. They accepted the invitation; remarks were sent in, which were carefully considered; and considerable alterations were, in consequence, made in the original draft. The Order in Council, so framed, was transmitted to the Crown colonies in the first instance, and afterwards to the Legislative colonies, in a circular despatch, in which, Lord Coderich explained the intentions of the Government, and stated his anxiety that the Colonial Legislatures should understand that the only object of the Government was to promote the true interest of all parties, and the noble Lord endeavoured to convince them that this course was not

825
adopted in a spirit of hostility towards the colonies; but, on the contrary, in a sincere belief that it was absolutely necessary for their own safety, that some decided step should at length be taken. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated it as the gravamen of the charge against the Government, that the Order in Council was required to be adopted without alteration or amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in making that charge, had not stated what other course it was possible to pursue. When certain advantages were to be granted, or withheld, according to the compliance of a party, with particular conditions, was it not indispensably necessary that those conditions should be precise and definite? They all knew, from daily experience in this country, that, by some unexpected construction of the expressions made use of, and by verbal inaccuracies, the intended objects of Acts of Parliament were not unfrequently, in a great measure, defeated. Could the Government, then, leave the framing of Acts, upon the wording of which, their whole efficiency must depend, to the Colonial Legislature, which were not anxious to accomplish the objects intended to be promoted, and which, only yielded a reluctant assent in the hope of participating in the advantages which were conditional upon doing so. If the task of framing the Acts had been committed to the Colonial Legislatures, how would it have been possible for the Government to say, that any one colony was or was not entitled to the advantages held out to those which consented to the adoption of the measures recommended to them? Was it so easy to pronounce, positively, how far any given law carried into effect its professed object? The agents of the West-Indian colonies circulated last year an abstract of the laws passed by the different local legislatures intended to show that those assemblies had, in many particulars, adopted the suggestions made to them; whilst, on the other hand, their opponents entered into a long argument to show that the supposed compliances with those suggestions had been perfectly nugatory. He did not say which was right or which was wrong, but he stated the fact to show how great a difference of opinion might exist as to the effect of a law, and to prove the utter impossibility of the Government undertaking to decide between the opposite constructions put by different parties upon
826
the Acts passed by so many separate Legislatures. He should not have troubled the House with any further vindication of the course taken by the Government subsequent to the debate of April last, or with any further reference to that debate, had not the hon. and learned Gentleman brought a charge against the Government, which it was absolutely necessary to answer. He said, that, what passed on that occasion was the direct and exciting cause of those calamities in Jamaica, which they had now to deplore, and, in proof of that assertion, he stated, that, soon after the despatches intimating the intention of the Government accompanied by the debates in that House, arrived in the West Indies, Government issued a proclamation, in order to undeceive the negroes as to what was intended to be done. The hon. and learned Member had particularly referred to the speech he had formerly made, as calculated to excite delusion in the minds of the slaves, and of apprehensions on the part of the planters; he, therefore, felt himself called upon totally to deny entertaining the slightest feeling of bitterness or animosity against the West Indies. It was most unjust to say, that in consequence of that speech, it became necessary to issue the proclamation in question. That proclamation was sent out at the instance of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, of the agent for St. Vincent, and others interested in the West-Indian Colonies, not in consequence of what passed in that House in April last, but in consequence of what passed in the same month in the island of Antigua. It was impossible that the debate on the intentions of the Government could have been surmised in the West Indies in April; but some slight disturbances having occurred in Antigua in that month, and reports having reached this country that an erroneous impression had been created in the minds of the slaves, the proclamation alluded to was drawn, up and sent out by Lord Goderich, with a circular despatch, dated the 3rd of June (more than two months after the delivery), in which the different governors were directed to issue the proclamation in case of its being found necessary to do so. Lord Belmore's answer to that despatch was dated the 20th of July, and was among the papers which were now printing, and which he was sorry were not in the hands of hon. Members. Lord Belmore, in this communication, informed Lord Goderich

827
that the appearance of tranquillity among the slave population was such that he had not thought it necessary to publish the proclamation; and his Lordship added the following observations:—
"Accounts in the public papers will inform your Lordships of various parochial meetings which have already assembled, and the resolutions they have adopted. The transactions certainly manifest considerable excitement and alarm 'but, in my apprehension, are more calculated to disturb the minds of the slaves, than any report they may casually have heard of something being intended for their benefit, which their owners endeavour to withhold from them. My own opinion of the slave population is, that, collectively, they are sound and well-disposed."
This was written full two months after the speech, which it was said, did so much mischief, had arrived in Jamaica. But, although Lord Belmore did not think it necessary to issue the proclamation, he thought it right, in consequence of Lord Goderich's communication, to put the magistrates of the different parishes upon their guard. He was sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware of the two circulars written by Mr. Bullock, under Lord Belmore's direction, to the custodes of the different parishes. In the first of these circulars he told them, that Lord Goderich "had disclaimed, in the most distinct manner, any intention on the part of his Majesty's Government to adopt any measure which might have the effect of interfering with the spirit of the resolutions of the House of Commons of 1823, relative to the ultimate extinction of slavery in his Majesty's colonies." Further on, a hope was expressed, "that this explicit declaration of his Majesty's Government would remove any alarm or apprehension which some of the parochial resolutions might have excited in the minds of the community at large;" and Mr. Bullock concluded, by requesting the custodes to give the greatest publicity to his communication. The hon. and learned Gentleman would find this letter in the correspondence published in the Gazette, and he would see that the concluding sentence was intended to warn the planters of the danger of the course which they were pursuing, and to point out to them that mischief was to be apprehended, not so much from the debate which had taken place in this House, as from the intemperate resolutions come to by the colonists themselves. The se-
828
cond circular to which he had referred, and which was also in the Gazette, was dated a few days after the former—on the 30th of July: it was marked confidential, and was addressed, like the former, to the custodes. In this letter, Mr. Bullock desired "the earliest information of any circumstance which might arise to require the adoption of further measures, in order to remove any erroneous impression which the slaves might have received of the designs of his Majesty's Government;" and observed, "that vigilance is more necessary, when discussions had taken place which were liable to misconstruction or misrepresentation." This was six months before the insurrection broke out. On the 4th of August, Lord Belmore wrote word, "that nothing had occurred to manifest the least uneasiness or excitement among the slaves." Afterwards, on the 6th of September, Lord Belmore transmitted home various resolutions of the parochial meetings, terming them "violent and intemperate," and observed that committees had been appointed in some parishes to correspond with other districts, and had nominated delegates. In a private letter, of the 21st of November, Lord Belmore gave a similar account; and he was sure the hon. and learned Gentlemen's attention must have been attracted to the despatch of Lord Belmore, dated the 6th of January, printed in the Gazette, in which he observed, 'The delegates had sent forth an ambiguous declaration deprecating, as they expressed themselves, the insidious attempts to undermine and render valueless what little remains of their property; but the brink of danger on which they stood, formed no part of their deliberations.' The notions in the minds of the slaves, which might be looked upon as the proximate causes of the insurrection were, first, that the Government had sent out their freedom, which their masters withheld; and next, that, if they attempted to gain it by force, the King's naval force and regular troops would not act against them. The overseer, who was in the power of the slaves, stated, in his deposition, that some of the ringleaders asserted, that the King's ships were landing gunpowder, or black dust as they called it, to help the slaves in their resistance. He would not trouble the House with reading the resolutions of the planters, as it was better that the violent language which had been used should be

829
forgotten, though it was, undoubtedly, calculated to bring about the catastrophe which ensued. Nor did he mean to quote what passed at the parish meetings in Jamaica during the last summer and autumn, to reproach the planters; they were, perhaps, not unnaturally excited by the distress they suffered and the attacks to which they were exposed; he only wished to show the danger occasioned by their giving way to their feelings, and by allowing an impression to be produced on the minds of the slaves that a serious difference existed between their masters and the Government. He thought these remarks had sufficiently proved that it was not the policy pursued by the Government that had caused the insurrection of the slaves in Jamaica; but he had a still stronger and almost satisfactory proof to adduce, that the tendency of that policy, when fully acted upon, was, to avert, not produce disturbance. During the last autumn notions similar to those which had led to such a melancholy catastrophe in Jamaica, obtained admittance into the minds of the slaves in British Guiana; but, instead of leading to a similar result, the Governor was apprised of the fact by the slave protectors—in whom the negroes knew they could confide—and he was consequently enabled to take measures to avert the threatened mischief. Sir Benjamin D'Urban not being kept in the same state of ignorance as he (Lord Howick) regretted to say, it would appear the noble Earl (the Earl of Belmore) at the head of the government of Jamaica unfortunately laboured, went a tour round the colony, met the most intelligent of the slave population, remonstrated with them, and represented to them the evils to arise from their opposition. What was the consequence? The governor (Sir Benjamin d'Urban) in his last despatches stated that he never saw the Christmas holidays pass off so happily. Thus, on the very Wednesday that Jamaica was in a blaze, in Demerara the slave population were happily enjoying their festivities. This, he would maintain, was a proof of the soundness of the policy of his Majesty's Government. The same course had been pursued by Sir Lewis Grant, the governor of Trinidad, with the same good effect; and in St. Lucia, notwithstanding that state of confusion which might naturally be supposed to arise from the death of the governor, and notwithstanding the violent
830
and intemperate resolutions adopted by the planters, nothing approaching to insurrection took place. These were proofs of the beneficial tendency of the policy pursued by the Government, and he, therefore, entertained a hope that the lesson which had been taught by the catastrophe in one colony, and the escape which the other three had had, would not be lost on the proprietors and planters of the island of Jamaica, and the other colonies. He trusted they would think that the Government were doing all in their power for their interests. The discussions on these subjects he felt to be full of danger; and that the colonies stood on a fearful precipice. The hon. and learned Gentleman must know that there was in this country a large and powerful party, sincerely anxious to overthrow the system of slavery in the West Indies, but who, at the same time, were not disposed to adopt at once the extreme opinions of the hon. member for Weymouth. Those opinions could not be acted upon if the interests of the proprietors in the colonies were for one moment to be endangered; nay, the discussion of those opinions, particularly with such warmth as had characterised the debate of this evening, could not be attended with other than the most dangerous consequences. For five-and-twenty years the slave-trade in the British colonies had been abolished. In the course of that time a coloured population had grown up, acquainted with our language, converted to our religious faith, and imbued with some of the principles of liberty. Thus they began to entertain a sense of the degradation of their situation, and to be impatient to shake off the bond of slavery in which they were retained. This could not be done at once, but this the Government was anxious gradually and progressively to effect. But, when the slave population were daily becoming more enlightened—when every means were resorted to to impress them, if possible, with a deeper sense of the degradation of slavery, was not the safety and the well-being of the colonies frightfully endangered by intemperate discussions in that House—discussions which could only add to the flame of discontent which already too much prevailed? Formerly, in the colonies at least, the discussions upon this subject were all on one side. No one there ever dreamt of breathing a word in favour of emancipation. But what was

831
the case now? A large and influential class of free persons had grown up in the colonies, whose religious opinions induced them, upon the subject of slavery, to adopt to the full the opinions of the hon. member for Weymouth. Among the conductors of the colonial Press, powerful advocates of these opinions were not wanting. There was now a newspaper published in the town of Kingston, in Jamaica, conducted, undoubtedly, with considerable talent and ability; but by no means with equal temper or moderation. He did not blame the editors for the spirit in which it was written; when he considered the example which was set by their opponents, it was not to be expected that they should abstain from violent language. He mentioned the circumstance as a fact too important to be lost sight of—that the controversy relative to the abolition of slavery was now raging with greater violence in Jamaica than at home. The Watchman on the one side, and the Jamaica Courant on the other, urged in the most violent language, the extreme doctrines of either party. That such a dispute, so maintained, must produce a powerful effect on the minds of the slaves, and that it must make the existing state of things full of danger, it was impossible to doubt. It had become, then, urgently and vitally important to determine by what course the fatal catastrophe which this state of things threatened, could be avoided. After the most mature deliberation on the subject, it appeared to Government that the only course left open was, steadily, temperately, but, at the same time, firmly, and determinedly, to enforce a full compliance with the Resolutions of 1823. This was the course which the present Government had pursued—and which, he trusted, Parliament would continue to support; and, however much they had hitherto been disappointed, he trusted that the Legislature of Jamaica would at length be prevailed upon to adopt the plan recommended. They had admitted the free people of colour to the enjoyment of civil rights, and he hoped that the same feeling which induced them to yield in that instance, would induce them also to abandon their opposition to the measures recommended by Parliament and Government. In putting an end to the distinctions of colour, they had evinced much liberality, which was the more to be praised, when it was considered how powerfully the minds of
832
men were affected by long-cherished prejudices. He trusted that an equal liberality would soon be exhibited by them, in the far more dangerous and difficult question of slavery. He hoped that the determination of Government in coming forward to afford assistance to the sufferers by the insurrection and by the hurricane, without coupling their assistance with any conditions, would be accepted by the colonists as a proof that no ill-will or animosity had been excited towards them by their long resistance to the measures which they had been urged to adopt; but that, on the contrary, the House and the Government sympathised in their distress, and pitied their misfortunes. He also hoped that by attaching the proposed conditions to the general measure of relief which was to be brought forward, Parliament would manifest that resolute adherence to its declared purpose of effecting a real improvement in the condition of the slaves, which was no less necessary than a conciliatory spirit for the satisfactory settlement of the question.
Mr. Robert Gordonthought, that not one word had fallen from his noble friend (Lord Althorp) to which any reasonable person could object. He only hoped that the noble Lord had not given expression solely to the good feeling of his own kind heart, but that the opinions to which he had given utterance were those of the united Government of which he was a member. Believing it to have been the intention of his noble friend so to have expressed himself, he (Mr. Gordon) confessed that he much regretted to hear the hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House take the opportunity of entering so much at large into this question, because it was impossible to do so without introducing topics which were necessarily calculated to produce an excitement in the minds of persons whose tranquillity and good conduct were so necessary to the safety and well-being of the colonists. The hon. Gentleman's speech had, in some way, obliged the noble Lord, the Under Secretary for the Colonies, to follow the same course, and the noble Lord had, consequently, in his opinion, entered too much into a history of the transactions of the past. In every discussion upon this subject, he (Mr. Gordon) would advise the Government and Parliament to look to the future, and, as far as possible, to forget what was past. He would recommend that there should be no reproach—no ex-

833
pression of disgust or dissatisfaction towards the colonies for what was past. He would entreat the House to consider that the colonies were now in a suffering state, and, instead of complaining of their past conduct, to adopt, with as little delay as possible, such measures as should convince them that they had some sympathy for their distress—some desire to alleviate their difficulties; and thus, by a line of good policy and good feeling on our own part, to incite them to better conduct on theirs. The noble Lord, in one part of his speech, expressed a hope that what he had stated on a former occasion would not be construed into anything offensive to the colonies. Unfortunately, whenever this question was discussed, an unusual degree of heat seemed to arise; and even that night his noble friend had not been so guarded in some of his expressions as he (Mr. Gordon) could have wished. The noble Lord, however, concluded by expressing a hope that the grant which it was intended to propose would be received as a pledge of the intentions of the Government for the future. Taking it in that sense, he (Mr. Gordon) could not but hope that his noble friends would reconsider the whole state of the colonies, with the view of adopting, with the least possible delay, the best means of ameliorating their condition. In one part of his speech his noble friend had alluded to an expression which had fallen from Mr. Canning, and seemed to make it a pretext for what had been done. He did not think that any such expression, even from that distinguished Statesman, could justify any particular conduct on the part of the Government now. He would not detain the House at any greater length on the present occasion. He thanked the Government for what they had done, and hoped that they would go further. He was convinced that it must be for the interest of the country to have grateful and confiding colonies, and not a number of dependencies, anxious as he was afraid the West-India colonies had lately been, to throw off the allegiance of the mother country.
Mr. Humeobserved, that the question was, whether we were to retain our colonies in such a way as might be beneficial to us, or in such a way as should continue them the blot which they now were upon our policy. On a subject of so much importance, he trusted the House would allow him to make a few observations. For
834
years past he had been complaining of the evils which had arisen from the negligence of this country, and its misgovernment of the colonies in all parts of the world. The principle of attempting to govern the colonies in Downing-street, had been productive of an ever-varying system, pregnant with the greatest evils. The frequent change of Administrations, and the consequent change of policy of the Colonial Department, by each in succession, had led to a succession of changes in the mode of governing our colonies, which had been attended with the worst consequences. How was it possible that the colonies could be satisfied or prosperous, under such circumstances? The natural consequence of such a system was, that whether at the Cape of Good Hope, Canada, or the West Indies, there was nothing but discontent. He did not impute to any of the successive Administrations of this country a disposition to do anything injurious to the colonies; but the result of the system to which he had alluded was, that orders had been sent out to the colonial governments, which orders were subsequently revoked, and then again enforced. In that view it was that he regretted that the Government of this country had not many years ago taken the whole colonial system into consideration, in order to ascertain whether the colonies were not fit to manage their own affairs, instead of being kept in leading-strings and subjected to the fluctuating management of Downing-street. He repeated that he did not attribute the evils which existed in the colonies to any intention on the part of the Government of this country, but to the mistaken system which had been pursued. He regretted, therefore, that his Majesty's present Ministers, on coming into office, had not made an attempt to frame some general system for the administration of the colonies of a more satisfactory nature. He also regretted that every Administration in this country for a long period of time had shown a great distrust of all our colonies; and this want of confidence had led them to adopt measures and regulations not consonant to the feelings of the colonists, and which, therefore, were not received with the cordiality and attention that might otherwise have been expected. This was more particularly the case with respect to the regulations respecting the slave-population. As he was of opinion, that it was never worth

835
our while to retain any colony that was expensive to the mother country, he had always been anxious to see some system adopted by which the colonies might be enabled to support themselves, and be no longer under the government of individuals with whom they had no immediate connection. He would proceed to make a few remarks on what had fallen from the noble Lord (Lord Howick). The noble Lord had, with great propriety, commenced his observations by a reference to the Resolutions of the 15th of May, 1823, and had stated, that he and his colleagues were anxious to carry those Resolutions into effect. No man who possessed the common feelings of humanity could refuse his assent to those Resolutions. But what were they? The noble Lord had made a great mistake. He supposed those Resolutions to contain what they did not contain; and, in consequence of similar errors on the part of others, the whole of the disputes and calamities in the colonies had resulted. In this, as in all other agreements, there were two parties concerned. In this, in fact, there were three. One party was the House of Commons, who were bound to discharge the duties prescribed to them by humanity; another party was the proprietors of slaves in the colonies, who were justified in defending their rights, to which rights the greatest attention ought to be paid; and the third party was the slaves, to whom they were bound to afford every protection compatible with the undeniable rights of the planters. This country seemed to have been led away by feelings of humanity (which no man was less disposed to blame than himself), and, by a wish to remove the blot off our present colonial system, to forget that that blot was not the creation of the present period, and that it was not created by the present proprietors in the West Indies. To do justice we should not visit on individuals acts which were not theirs, but the acts of their fathers, to whom they had succeeded. That seemed to be forgotten by many persons. The hon. member for Weymouth was one of those mistaken persons who seemed to have entirely forgotten that those acts were not the acts of the present proprietors, but the acts of their predecessors. What was the first of the Resolutions agreed to by the House of Commons on the 15th of May, 1823? "That it is expedient to adopt effectual
836
and decisive measures for the ameliorating the condition of the slave-population in his Majesty's colonies." Had the proprietors in the West Indies ever denied this expediency? He had never met with a single man who did so. On the contrary, they all concurred in assenting to it. What was the second Resolution? "That through a determined and persevering, but, at the same time, judicious and temperate enforcement of such measures, this House looks forward to a progressive improvement in the character of the slave-population, such as may prepare them for a participation in those civil rights and privileges which are enjoyed by other classes of his Majesty's subjects." Did any one differ from the opinion expressed in this Resolution? No one that he was aware of. The only difference of opinion respected the rate of proceeding. The hon. member for Weymouth would have immediate emancipation. He (Mr. Hume) would not. For what must be the consequence of immediate emancipation, unprepared as the slaves were for the sudden enjoyment of the blessings of freedom? Let the slave be first put in a condition to enjoy the blessings of freedom before freedom was conferred upon him. He admitted that successive Administrations had pressed on the colonies measures which, in the view of those Administrations, were calculated to effect the improvement of the character of the slave-population? But he did not think that the noble Lord was warranted in saying that nothing had been done by the colonies themselves having that tendency. Such an assertion was not consistent with the papers which had been laid on the Table, and which proved that in different colonies means had been taken to ameliorate the condition and improve the character of the slaves. The noble Lord might think as he (Mr. Hume) did, that more ought to be done; but it was not fair in the noble Lord to state, or at least to leave it to be understood, that no progress whatever had been made by the planters to effect that which the House of Commons in this Resolution intended to effect. Now what was the third Resolution?" That this House is anxious for the accomplishment of this purpose, at the earliest period that shall be compatible with the well-being of the slaves themselves, with the safety of the colonies, and with a fair and equitable consideration of
the interests of private property. He

837
asked the noble Lord whether the last condition mentioned in this Resolution had ever been attended to? Had any Administration, in proposing emancipation, proposed it in such a manner as would have respected the interests of private property? If not, was it surprising that the colonies should have opposed propositions which did not include that attention to the interests of private property which the Resolution of the House of Commons had declared ought to be inseparable from such propositions? It would be only manly were the House now at once to come forward and state in what precise relation the master and the slave were to consider themselves. At present, the colonies, believing that it was intended by the Government of this country, in the proposition which they had made, to refuse all that fair and equitable consideration of their right of property in their slaves which the Resolution of the House of Commons prescribed, rejected the principles laid down in that proposition. If his Majesty's Ministers were desirous of carrying into effect that complete emancipation which was undoubtedly so desirable, they must hold out the fulfilment of this Resolution; and while, on the one hand, they proposed emancipation—on the other hand, they must show how, in effecting that emancipation, the rights of property possessed by the planter would be respected. He would venture to say, that the moment his Majesty's Government held out to the West-India proprietors any hope, or showed them the means by which their property would be protected, so as to give them a fair consideration and compensation for the loss of the labour of their slaves, they would find them ready to meet their wishes. The noble Lord said we were on a frightful precipice. He was ready to admit it. Were his Majesty's Government prepared with measures to avert the impending calamity? Were they prepared with measures consistent with the conditions prescribed in the third Resolution passed by the House of Commons in 1823? Protests against the Order in Council of October last had been made by Trinidad, St. Lucia, Demerara, and almost every other West-India colony. It was not surprising that that Order, interpreted as the colonies naturally interpreted it, should lead to the rancour which had been manifested. He hoped,
838
therefore, that his Majesty's Government would distinctly state to what extent they intended to afford protection to property in the colonies; and he was quite sure the people in this country were not so unjust as to wish to destroy that property which the colonists had derived from their fathers, without granting them that compensation to which they were entitled. He thought the measure which had been adopted by his Majesty's Government in October last a rash one; and he regretted that they had not paused until a Committee of that House had examined the subject. He was further convinced, that if the system of dealing with the colonies by Orders in Council were changed, and the measures to be adopted were brought under discussion in that House, much evil would be avoided, and the rancour and ill-will which were produced by ill-timed Orders, such as that of October last, would no longer be generated.
Mr. Fowell Buxtonsaid, the hon. member for Middlesex had complained of the conduct of all parties except one. He accused him (Mr. Buxton) as being rash and hasty; he spoke of the Order in Council as dangerous to the colonies; but there was one set of men in whose conduct he could see nothing wrong, and that was the planters. The hon. Member said he had not met one of the planters that had objected to any of these Resolutions. But he would come to a plain matter of fact—he would come to their actions—and he would ask, had they ever shown themselves ready to carry into effect the feelings expressed by that House and by the country? They had been told of the convulsions in Jamaica. But, he demanded, what was the subject recently debated in the House of Assembly there? It was, whether women should or should not be flogged in public. He asserted that that subject was introduced twice in the colonial assembly, that obedient assembly, and the proposition for doing away with the custom of flogging women in public negatived. Yes, that point which Mr. Canning urged more than any other as necessary for the moral advancement of the slave, that the disgusting practice of the flogging of women in public should be abandoned, was, in 1831, rejected twice. First, by a majority of thirty-five to two; and next, by a majority of somewhat the same number. And yet his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, saw nothing

839
to condemn in the conduct of that assembly. Would his hon. friend tell the House what advances the colonists had made towards the extinction of slavery or the amelioration of the slaves? If he had seen any disposition on the part of the colonies to prepare the slaves, by religious instruction, for emancipation, it would have given him great joy; but the policy of the whole of the colonial assemblies was to reject religious instruction. That was the direct charge which he made. Let the House recall one name to their recollection when they reflected on this subject. Let them remember Mr. Smith of Demerara. When the colonial authorities had persecuted that martyr to death, what did they then do? They banished the missionaries from that colony, and passed a law to prevent their admission in future. At Trinidad, a public meeting was held, and superintended by a public functionary—and what was the resolution that meeting came to? Why, "that any attempt to instil religious instruction or education into the minds of slaves, is incompatible with the existence of slavery." Here the fact was plainly broached, that Christianity and slavery were incompatible, and these parties determined to reject the minor principle of Christianity, and to continue their beloved slavery. Need he remind the House of the disposition not to foster religion evinced by the inhabitants of Barbadoes in the scandalous proceedings of 1823, when the colonists assembled publicly demolished the chapel and hunted the missionary through the island with the avowed purpose of taking his life, and afterwards published a proclamation exulting in what they had done, they said the transaction was "as glorious to true Barbadians as Trafalgar was to Britain;" and they concluded with warning every missionary from the island on pain of death. Could hon. Members forget the memorable words once used, in a resolution of that House on a subject of the same nature, they were; "That this House deem it their duty to declare, that they view with the utmost indignation that daring and scandalous violation of the law." He now came to Jamaica; and in no colony had the spirit of persecution been more unequivocally manifested than in that island. He need hardly advert to the colonial newspapers, when they spoke of "the hanging woods of Trelawney" the clamour against the too indul-
840
gent governor who refused to hang the missionaries before trial, he would let them pass, and look to the acts of the legislature. Could the House forget what had been done by the assembly of Jamaica in 1826? They boasted of the Act they then passed as a miracle of liberality that was for ever to silence their enemies; but that Act was rejected by Mr. Huskisson, and the Government to which he belonged—by the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir George Murray) and the Government to which he belonged—and by the noble Lord and the Government to which he belonged. By Mr. Huskisson it had been rejected because it was a violation of that toleration which was due to all his Majesty's subjects. This Act, which, in Jamaica had been considered as one of superfluous liberality, had been rejected in this country as one of unbearable bigotry. Its object was to do that by legislative means which had been done by violence at Barbadoes, and by murder at Demerara. The House of Assembly at Jamaica put down the schools, shut up the meeting-houses, and abolished religious instruction altogether. But no general statement would so clearly illustrate the temper of the planters on the subject of the religious instruction of their slaves as one or two case he would quote. The first case he would mention was that of Henry Williams; and if the hon. member for Middlesex knew it, he would not shock the House with a statement of it. He ask the hon. Member, whether he was acquainted with the case?—["No," from Mr. Hume.] Then he would state it. In 1829 a most respectable negro—more than ordinarily respectable, and, in fact, so free of blame that his only fault was going to church—was punished because he attended prayers. His first master allowed him to go to church; but, on his being transferred to a new master—to a Mr. Betty—he was summoned before him, and informed that if he went again to church he would send him to Rodney-hole workhouse. The sister of this Williams, on hearing this, sighed; and for that offence she was stretched naked on the ground, and flogged. Williams, it appeared, went to church, was afterwards sent to Rodney-hole, and was flogged so severely that for a long time he had to lie on his stomach, his back being one mass of corruption. Yet such an act was perfectly legal, for, on the question being submitted to the Law

841
Officers of the Crown, it was the opinion of those authorities that there was no law to prevent a planter from flogging a female slave for sighing, or her brother for worshipping God. Mr. Betty took still higher grounds, and said, he was ready to submit his conduct to a Jury of twelve planters, because he was fully convinced that he had done nothing but what a West-India planter was by law entitled to do. He did not, however, complain so much of Mr. Betty as he complained of the state of the law which allowed such cruelty. That was not a solitary case, and let the House only recollect how such conduct must influence the slaves on certain occasions. Suppose that the riot which had lately occurred at Jamaica—it might have been more—it might have been an insurrection—although if so, he could show who were the insurgents, and that it was the planters by whom it had been caused—suppose that riot had occurred on the occasion which he had alluded to, who could have lamented it? If the miscreant who had committed the atrocity had been put to death, who could have lamented it? The next case he had to mention was that of George Atkins, who had been found guilty, in 1830, merely of attending at the House of his pastor, and of being seen in the act of prayer. There was no other charge against him except that of praying, yet that person was convicted, and sent to prison for six months.
Mr. Burgerose to order. He put it to the House whether such a train of invective ought to be permitted.
Mr. Buxtonsaid, he was strictly in order, and in spite of the hon. Gentleman, unless he was told to desist by the Speaker, he would proceed. He would go to another point: Mr. Nibbs, a Dissenting clergyman, being ill, had the people at his house on Easter monday, 1830. There was nothing illegal in this—all was closed before eight o'clock, and for this monstrous act of being at prayer, a slave ["Oh, oh!"] Gentleman might exclaim "Oh!" and be astonished at what he related, but he was so certain of the fact, that, if the Under Secretary of the colonies would deny the circumstance, he would at once sit down; or if the gallant Officer would deny it, he would sit down: but till it was contradicted he would say what he had to say. Well, that negro, whose name he had forgotten, and which the noble Lord would, perhaps, have the goodness to
842
recall to his memory—that negro Swiney, he now recollected the name, was tried for the offence. One man proved that he saw his lips move, and that he was in the attitude of prayer, and for that he was convicted, sent to hard labour and flogged. Another negro was convicted of a similar offence, and sentenced to six months confinement; while a white for the murder of a slave was sentenced by the same tribunal, to only five months' imprisonment. So different was the guilt of worshipping God and killing mankind! The truth was, nothing had been done for the religious instruction of these unhappy people. The slaves were in utter darkness. They had no knowledge of Divine truth, and the planters, for their own sakes, were the causes of it. He meant to say, that the planters were the cause of all this ignorance, and the insurrection and rebellion that ensued. He wished his words to be taken down. For the last six months what had they heard of in these Colonial Assemblies but seditious and inflammatory language? They talked only of throwing off the yoke, and joining Americ. They spoke of arming—of shaking off their allegiance—and going to war with the mother country. To be convinced of this, it was necessary only to refer to some of their public proceedings. He found the following Resolutions in the Port-Royal Gazette of the 13th August: 'At a very numerous and respectable meeting of the inhabitants of the parish of St. Ann, convened by his honour the Custos, this 6th day of August 1831, and held at the Court House, St. Ann's Bay, his honour the Custos having been called to the chair, the following Resolutions were unanimously agreed to: Resolved—That we, the inhabitants of the parish of St. Ann, have repeatedly expressed our warmest indignation at, and abhorence of, the oppressive measures pursued by the British Government towards the West-India colonies.
Resolved—That while there was a hope of conciliating our implacable foes we acquiesced cheerfully in the conduct of our Legislature; but it is now evident that the concessions yielded by that body have been successively obtained under pledges and promises on the part of Ministers, "to abstain from all future interference in our local concerns;" which pledges have been violated in every instance; giving us thereby convincing proof that perfidy and determined op-

843
pression, as far as regards the colonies, are the ruling principles of the British Cabinet.
Resolved—That hitherto, under the most marked infractions of our rights and privileges, we have been loyal; the attachment to the mother country has indeed long, very long, outlived her justice; and it would now be with grief that we should divest ourselves of a feeling "which has grown with our growth, and has strengthened with our strength;" but when we see ourselves scorned, betrayed, devoted to ruin and slaughter, delivered over to the enemies of our country, we consider that we are bound, by every principle, human and divine, to resist.'
The two last words were printed in capitals. Again he would call the attention of the House to an advertisement, which appeared in The Jamaica Courant of the 16th of July last.
'Shortly will be published, The Signal, Carpe Diem, a periodical work, written for the express purpose of rousing the latent energies of the inhabitants of Jamaica: to lay open the perils which await them; to point out the means of avoiding them; to stimulate all classes to a close and unanimous effort in defence and preservation of their just rights and privileges, their altars, their homes, their families, their properties, and their lives; to show the necessity of throwing off the yoke of a tyrannical Government; and, finally to lead to that independence of which local advantages promise the attainment.
'The Government which arbitrarily or capriciously invades the right of private property, releases the oppressed sufferer from obedience and allegiance.' 'To your tents O Israel!'
Such was the language used in their newspapers, as well as at the public meetings. He knew that nothing was to be feared from such language as it was rather ridiculous than dangerous, as far as England was concerned. He knew well, that they could not think seriously of throwing themselves into the arms of America. As for resistance, that would be quite out of the question. How could the whites of Jamaica think seriously of throwing off the yoke, when the whole male white inhabitants of that colony capable of bearing arms, between the age of sixteen and sixty, did not exceed 4,000. He did not dispute the valour of these
844
4,000 heroes, but they would have something upon their hands; they would have, first, to conquer his Majesty's troops—no doubt an easy task; secondly, they would have to overthrow the free people of colour; and, having accomplished these two exploits, they would have to subdue, and to keep in subjection, 330,000 slaves. He acquitted them, then, of seriously meaning to punish Great Britain; they only meant to frighten her; they supposed that timid persons would imagine that men so terrible in word, would be as terrible in deed. They talked of transferring their allegiance to America. Would the free people and the negroes consent to that? He held in his hand an Act of the legislature of Carolina, which he begged leave to quote, for the purpose of showing whether there was likely to be a junction between the colonies and America. It was called an Act for the better Government of the Free People of Colour. It stated, that, if any vessel arrived at any port in that state containing a crew of free blacks, they should be immediately taken to gaol, there to remain for a given time. The clause contains these words, to which he wished to direct the attention of the House—"and such free people, or persons of colour, shall be deemed and taken as absolute slaves, and sold, in conformity with the provisions of the Act passed for that purpose." Why, this was a positive decision upon the subject, a clear answer to the argument to which he had just referred. There was not a government on the face of the earth which had expressed such disaffection to, and contempt of, persons of colour, as the American government. Here was the olive branch. This was the temptation held out by America to seduce away the affections of the people of colour. England need fear no dangerous rival in that quarter. He had done; he had no intention of speaking to-night, and if he had spoken warmly, the learned member for Eye, and the hon. member for Middlesex imposed upon him the necessity of doing so.
Mr. Goulburndeprecated the introduction of subjects which could not benefit any individual whatever, and which were wholly foreign to the matter in hand, he therefore, trusted the hon. Member would not think he was treating him with any disrespect, if he took no further notice of the extraneous matter which had fallen from him, but at once addressed himself

845
to the subject before the House, which was, whether they should go into Committee for the purpose of considering the Bill for the regulation of the sugar duties. He had expected, on this occasion, to have heard from the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer, some justification for the course he had adopted—some statement of the grounds on which he had departed from the course usually pursued in respect of these duties, by legislating for the limited period of six months. The noble Lord must be sensible that great inconvenience would be sustained by every individual concerned in the sugar trade from the uncertainty in which he had left it. Under the circumstances in which that trade was now placed, it was hardly necessary to say, that very few sales would be effected, as both buyer and seller would be desirous of waiting as long as possible in the expectation that at the end of the six months, the duty would be taken off. The noble Lord, if it were only in charity to these suffering interests, might have made some statement which would tend to remove the difficulties in which they were involved. The noble Lord told the House that he was not prepared, on the present occasion, to enter into a financial discussion of this question. That certainly would be a perfectly fair and just argument, if they now called upon the noble Lord suddenly, or if the arrangement he proposed to make were one on which he had recently determined; but nearly a year had elapsed since the noble Lord contemplated the very arrangement to which he now proposed to give effect; and if he had consulted what is due to these suffering interests, and what is due to the public service as regarded the collection of the revenue, he would not have allowed so long a period to have elapsed without maturing the plan he intended to adopt so far as to be enabled, whenever the sugar duties were proposed, to accompany that proposition with a definitive statement of the course he intended to pursue. This would have been but fair, open, and just to those who were interested in the consumption, and to the planters, who were at least as fully interested in the matter. He did not at all enter into the question whether the noble Lord's ultimate arrangement was one which ought to be adopted, but he asserted that the House had a right to know, at the earliest possible period, what the measures of Government were,
846
in order to prevent speculations and fluctuations in the market, which an uncertainty regarding the duties must inevitably give rise to. In making these observations, he begged to say, that he was not in the slightest degree disposed to undervalue the consideration which the noble Lord had professed himself ready to give to the cases of those who had unfortunately been sufferers by the recent occurrences in the West Indies, though the relief that he was now about to afford would have been received with greater gratitude if it had been given at once, when it would have been considered as the spontaneous effusion of the liberality of his Majesty's Government on hearing of the enormous losses which had been sustained by the West-India proprietors; still the measure recommended by the noble Lord although rather tardy, was liberal on the part of Government, and deserved to meet with gratitude and approbation. On this part of the subject he spoke quite disinterestedly, because he thanked God, he himself had not been a sufferer by the recent insurrections; though he was interested in the welfare of the colonies, he did feel most strongly that if his Majesty's Government had not given assistance to those persons whose property had been destroyed, the necessary effect would have been that a large body of the slaves, in a state of excitement and irritation, would have been let loose upon the remaining property of the island, and a scene of universal destruction and devastation must have ensued. He wished that he could also have expressed his gratitude to the noble Lord for the introduction of some general measure, but he feared that, even when these six months had passed away for which the duties were now to be granted, he should not even then have an opportunity of expressing his opinions upon any such Bill. Although he thought the measure they were now going to advance a step would aggravate every difficulty in which they were involved, he should not, like some of his hon. friends, avail himself of this opportunity of entering into a discussion on the general question, but would content himself with saying that he deeply deplored the losses and sufferings of the colonies, and felt anxiety to afford them relief.
Lord Sandonsaid, he must join the right hon. Gentleman in deprecating the discussion of the slave question on such an occasion as the present. His chief

847
object in rising, however, was, to ask the noble Lord whether the terms of the Order in Council, which the colonies were bound to obey, were definitely fixed, or whether it was proposed to reconsider the question at some future period? He could not sit down without calling the attention of the House to the difficulty of the question of slaves, which had been introduced by two hon. Members. When the House saw two Members take such different views of the question, and display such extreme and opposite feelings, need they wonder at the strong feelings which had been displayed by some of the planters? He regretted that such strong expressions had been used by the hon. member for Weymouth, because those sentiments would go forth to the colonies, and would tend to sow discord among all classes in the islands. While hon. Members were so reckless of the consequences of strong language, could they be surprised that the planters were not more reasonable than themselves? He did not stand there to defend the colonists—he believed they were guilty of great indiscretion, of great violence and injustice; but he must at the same time say, that allowance ought to be made for their situation—that they believed their affairs had been neglected by the Government—that they had been reviled by certain parties in this country, and the worst construction put on their conduct; and, looking at these circumstances, could the House be surprised that they had not conducted themselves with all the coolness of disinterested speculators? He disapproved of the strong language used by the hon. member for Weymouth, and must say, that the interruption the hon. Member received was deserved.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the Order in Council, which had been sent out to the colonies, was the order upon the compliance with which the relief to the colonies was to depend. If Gentlemen could point out anything in the details, the operation of which would be unfitted to the management of the slaves, his Majesty's Government would be quite ready to attend to such suggestions; but to the principle of the Order in Council they were determined to adhere. When his noble friend laid the whole blame of the irregularity of the discussion upon his hon. friend, the member for Weymouth, he thought he scarcely did him justice; for the discussion into
848
which his hon. friend had been led, had been introduced by others; and it was impossible for a Gentleman—feeling as his hon. friend was known to feel—not to answer the observations which had been made. He concurred in regretting the introduction of such topics, and was always sorry when they were adverted to. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) said, that he was disappointed at his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) not having stated in detail the course of proceeding which his Majesty's Government proposed to follow, and said, that he ought to have done so, if only to justify his proposition of moving the sugar duties for six months, instead of the usual time. The grounds upon which he abstained from doing so were, first, that up to the present moment the Committee upon West-India affairs had not made a Report; and, secondly, as the measures of relief were to be conditional, he wished to give time to the colonial legislatures to consider the Orders in Council, before the measures of relief were brought forward. But then it would be asked why he had alluded to those measures of relief at all? He confessed that the ground upon which he had done so was, one which was personal to himself—it was lest it should be thought that he did not intend to redeem the pledge which he had given last Session. He could not imagine that his moving the sugar duties for six months was likely to create that degree of embarrassment, which the right hon. Gentleman supposed, because within the six months the question must come on to be finally settled, and he did not think that the course he had taken was likely to affect the sales. It could not have interfered with them up to the present time, for the prices of sugar had risen. He was aware that the rise of price was owing to the loss which had occurred in Jamaica, and the apprehension of a short supply; but still it could not be said, that his moving the duties for six months had produced embarrassment.
Mr. Keith Douglassaid, that the great difficulty in the way of the Order in Council had been, that it was not adapted to some colonies; but as Government was prepared to adapt the details of the measures to circumstances, that altered the whole question, and the explanation of the noble Lord might lead to an adjustment.
The House went into a Committee on the Bill.
Mr. Keith Douglasproposed a clause for the purpose of altering the mode of charging the duty on bonded sugars—namely, to charge it on the quantity taken out of the warehouse, thereby relieving the importer from paying duty on the wastage.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, that if this regulation was adopted in respect to sugar, it should be extended to other articles; and the proposition would be better deferred till the consideration of the Customs' Bill.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the only way in which this alteration could afford relief was in the amount of duty. Now the average loss of each hogshead of sugar was 20lb., which, if allowed, would be a trifle to the importer, but would produce a loss to the revenue of 90,000 l. a-year.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, he had intended to submit a proposition that the duty should be laid on sugars in proportion to their quality, but he should not bring it forward at present.
Clause negatived. The House resumed.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR ENGLAND—AMENDMENTS—FINAL STAGE.
On the Motion of Lord Althorp the House resumed proceedings on the Third Reading of the Reform Bill.
Lord Althorpsaid, there were several small amendments with respect to the Welsh boroughs, which he was desirous to introduce into the Bill. It had been found that the rule which applied to the English boroughs respecting districts within seven miles to allow an elector to vote, could not fairly be acted on in the case of the Welsh contributary boroughs, and, therefore, it had been thought necessary to make some alteration.
The Amendments read, and agreed to.
Colonel Sibthorprose to bring forward the Amendment of which he had given notice. He said that he should persevere in pressing it on the attention of the House, notwithstanding any apparent indisposition to listen to his arguments. He acted from a conscientious sense of duty, and would not be deterred from the performance of that duty. He contended that the Bill before the House would not protect the prerogatives of the Crown, nor preserve the rights of the people, but ultimately destroy both, and repeated his assertion of last night, that the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, the Magnus Apollo of the Treasury Bench, was put forward on
850
every occasion to stand the brunt of the battle. That Magnus Apollo had declared last night that Ministers were ready to bear the whole responsibility of the measure; if he (Colonel Sibthorp) were not mistaken, the burthen would be much too heavy for their weak shoulders. The Budget had proved their incapacity. He did not impute to them want of honesty, but want of mind—not baseness, but imbecility. The right hon. Secretary had last night quoted the authorities of those now no more individuals, Sir Richard Steele, and Sir Robert Walpole, but he (Colonel Sibthorp) contended, that many other such names could not justify or even excuse the course Ministers had taken. He preferred the authority of the right hon. members for Tamworth and Aldborough, and the hon. and learned member for Borough bridge, to all those brought forward by the right hon. Secretary, as better acquainted with the present state of the country, and the wants of the people. He then alluded to the expression brutum fulmen, which had been used during a former debate, and asked whether compunction of conscience was that brutum fulmen? If it were, Ministers would, perhaps, ere long, find it penetrate very deeply. He contended, that distress was general, and that it had been created by the Reform Bill; it especially pressed upon agriculture, and the depreciation in that branch was at least forty per cent. Ministers, indeed, had said, that the passing of the Bill would remedy all these evils; he hoped at his next rent-day that he should find it so, for he knew that at his last rent-day, he had been obliged to make deductions of from fifteen to thirty per cent. As he observed the House was very impatient, he would take leave of the measure, by expressing his detestation of the detestable Bill. He hoped that it would meet the fate which it deserved in the House of Lords; and, without feeling the slightest animosity to the hon. Gentlemen opposite, he prayed to God that before this day month they would cease to hold office. He concluded by moving "that all freeholders whose freeholds in the county of the city of Lincoln are situated on the northern side of the river Witham, shall vote in future for the Representatives in Parliament for the division of Lindsey, in the county of Lincoln; and all freeholders whose freeholds are situated on the southern side of the aforesaid river, in the same

851
city, including the four parishes annexed by charter to the said county of the city, shall vote for Representatives in Parliament for the divisions of Kesteven and Holland."
Mr. Kearsleysaid, he rose to second the Motion, and to condole with his gallant friend on the abbreviation of his speech. The noble Paymaster of the Forces had said, on a former evening, that the law-officers of the Crown had been at a discount for a long time; but the noble Lord must allow him to say, that if Ministers were to go to the Exchange, they would find that they stood at a much heavier discount. He perceived that the noble Lords opposite, and their disciples at their backs, were resolved not to listen to the voice of a charmer. They had now arrived at the last stage of this damnable Bill.
The Speakersaid, "The hon. Member will pardon me, for reminding him that he rose to second the Amendment, and ought not to speak so vaguely."
Mr. Kearsleysaid, that he had carefully examined the Bill, and found that its complexion varied in an extraordinary degree; the colours were dingy brown, black, and grey, but he looked in vain for the fair. It was a nauseous pill, composed of two ingredients in themselves most venomous. Would to God he had one in his right hand and one in his left, how he would crush them! One of these ingredients was the Russell brown. The other was produced on a tree having a dark stem and a black top-knot, and was called Durham mustard. Having done with the Bill, he now turned to the more pleasing duty of gracefully acknowledging the indulgence which he had experienced from the House. Come what might of the vile pickpocketing Bill, nobody could deny that their respected Speaker had filled the Chair with advantage to the country, and satisfaction to himself. To him he would say, on behalf of himself and his friends, "Farewell, God bless you!" and to Ministers he would say, "Farewell, may you meet your deserts!"
Mr. Wilkssaid, the Amendment which the hon. and gallant Member had proposed, would have the effect of making it necessary for voters in the city of Lincoln to go fifteen miles to the poll, instead of three miles, as was provided by the Bill, as it now stood. The alteration would, therefore, be injurious to the very persons
852
whom the hon. and gallant Member was desirous to benefit.
Mr. Goulburnthought, that his hon. and gallant friend was more likely to know what would be agreeable to his constituents, than the hon. and learned member for Boston. It had been said, that the Amendment would produce inconvenience, but the electors of Lincoln were the best judges of that in the present case, and he understood they approved of the Amendment proposed by his hon. and gallant friend.
Mr. Heneagebegged to acquaint the House, as the colleague of the hon. and gallant Colonel, that he was given to understand, from actual communication with the inhabitants of the district north and south of the river Witham, that they were quite satisfied with the arrangement made by the Bill as to their right of voting.
The House divided on Colonel Sibthorp's Motion: Ayes 27; Noes 169—Majority 142.
Mr. Mackinnonmoved, "That in all cities, towns, or boroughs, included in schedule C, together with the town of Liverpool, the right of voting should be exercised only by those persons occupying houses above the rental of 20 l. in value."
Negatived.
Mr. Freshfield, in rising to move an Amendment to clause 31, said, that he was actuated by the wish which was evidently entertained by the framer of the Bill, with regard to the preservation of the right of persons entitled as burgesses or freemen by servitude or birth. As the clause now stood, it might be a question 100 or 200 years hence, whether a person should be admitted into the list who could not make out his pedigree. The simple course would be, never to put a voter to the necessity of proving more than that the person through whom he derived his claim, had been regularly registered. He would, therefore, propose, as an Amendment to the clause, that the word "originally," in page 12, should be struck out, for the purpose of inserting the word "immediate."
Lord Althorpsaid, that the tendency of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member was, to restrict the right of voting, and he could not give his assent to it.
The Attorney Generalwas of opinion, it would be safer and better to leave the clause as it stood.
Lord John Russellthen rose and said, that it now became his duty to move that this Bill do pass. It was not his intention to enter into any argument on the merits of the Bill, which had been so long, so frequently, and so elaborately discussed, with great talent, ingenuity, and ability; but he trusted that he should not be thought to presume too much on the indulgence of the House, if he said a few words on this, the last occasion, expressive of his deep sense of the support which the promoters and proposers of this Bill had received from the majority of the House—a majority composed, he felt bound to say, in consequence of what had been stated to the contrary, of a greater number of independent men than had ever supported a great measure brought forward by Government. The supporters of this measure had frequently been accused and taunted with supporting the details with a kind of blind adherence to the propositions of Government; but it was not to be denied that those who were really, heartily, and cordially attached to the cause must think it necessary to support every part of the measure by which that cause was forwarded, without distracting the attention of Ministers by pressing any particular views of their own, and thus endangering the success of the great cause itself. By such assistance and forbearance on the part of the supporters of the Bill, the Government had been enabled to carry it through the Committee little changed and not at all impaired; and they were now about to take it up to the other House of Parliament, as complete in its integrity, and as full in its efficiency as when it was first introduced to the notice of the House. He thought it necessary to say thus much, because he knew that the support thus given, so constantly and so independently to Ministers, had been given, not to themselves, but to the measure with which they were connected, and which they had submitted to the consideration of Parliament. Of the measure itself he would only say this—that, after the repeated discussions which it had undergone, it seemed to him still, as it seemed at the commencement, a Bill founded on the original principles of the Constitution, and conformable to the ancient and inherent rights of the people of England, which granted, or rather confirmed those rights to the people who, being entitled to them, were also worthy to exercise them; and, lastly, tended to
854
satisfy the wishes and desires of the nation, which it would be impossible for any authority of King, Lords, and Commons together much longer to withstand, and, at the same time, preserve the peace, tranquillity, and confidence of the country. The Bill, then, effecting these objects, and by being based on the principles of the Constitution, adapted to the circumstances of the present day, and tending to satisfy the general desire of the country, was, in his opinion, a measure which it became the House of Commons to pass, and which all who desired the safety and future good government of the country ought to wish to see established the law of the land. The discussions which had taken place in that House with respect to the future effects of this measure all turned upon this single point—that the opponents of Bill and of Reform in Parliament, in general conceived the Representation produced by the present construction of the House was better than a Representation of the people, and that the advocates of Reform on the other hand, conceived the Representation of the people better than the present Constitution of the House—in short, that the one party thought the present system better than the people, and the other believed the people to be better than the present system. In the latter opinion he felt more and more confirmed, and when he looked, on the one hand, at the abuses and corruptions which had crept into the present system; and, on the other, to the intelligence and love of liberty which characterized the people of this great community, he felt quite persuaded that the bringing of them into more direct connexion with that House by Representation would tend to the better Government of the country, to the purity of our political system, and likewise to a great moral change, which, so long as the present corruption in our system of elections existed, we could never hope to see established. These anticipations might be sanguine and unfounded, but they were anticipations which, he was convinced, he did not feel alone. They were felt, not in that House only, but throughout the country, and he was persuaded that there was in this the consideration, that the country, whose desire it was to see pure and good Government established, did, by that wish alone, show itself, in a great degree, worthy to exercise the power which it was proposed to give it. He trusted that

855
he had not said anything calculated to excite debate, and still less to irritate feeling. For his own part, he believed that the greater number of those who had opposed the Bill, had done so from the conviction that the present system of Government, whatever might be its faults in details, was yet, on account of the blessings which it had bestowed on the country, entitled to permanence in its present state. They thought that those blessings were endangered by any change in the House of Commons; and though he differed from them on that point, he felt bound to give them full credit for the sincerity of their convictions, and he felt now, as he always had done, that however impressed himself with the usefulness and necessity of this Reform, there was in political measures so much to be considered, both with respect to the abstract questions of expediency and right, and with respect to the practical question of the immediate circumstances before them, that he would not venture to pronounce who, at this moment, was in error. With respect to the expectations of the Government, he would say, that in proposing this measure they had not acted lightly, but after much consideration, which induced them to think, a year ago, that a measure of this kind was necessary, if they meant to stand between the abuses which they wished to correct, and the convulsions which they desired to avoid. He was convinced that if Parliament should refuse to entertain a measure of this nature, they would place in collision that party which, on the one hand, opposed all Reform in the Commons House of Parliament, and that which, on the other, desired a Reform extending to universal suffrage. The consequence of this would be, that much blood would be shed in the struggle between the contending parties, and he was perfectly persuaded that the British Constitution would perish in the conflict. I move, Sir, that this Bill do pass.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, after the observations of the noble Lord, he rose to avail himself of this last opportunity of doing that, with respect to those Gentlemen who had opposed the measure, which the noble Lord had done with respect to the supporters of it. He should do great injustice to his own feelings, if he forbore to avail himself of that occasion of expressing the sense which he felt of the assiduity, independence, and talent displayed by those
856
hon. Gentlemen who had opposed the measure which the noble Lord was about to carry to the Upper House. He should feel he acted with double injustice, if, after hearing the supporters of the Bill eulogized in the way they had been by the noble Lord—he forbore to put in a claim for those who had opposed that measure—if not with equal effect, yet with not less indefatigable zeal and talents. Those hon. Members who had opposed this Bill, had an up-hill path of duty to perform; they had not been deterred by repeated discomfitures; but had maintained their posts amidst storms and angry debates—amidst the jeers and scorns of a large portion of the House; and if he were called on to give his conscientious opinion, as to which side the victory in debate belonged, he should say that it fairly remained with that party which had felt it to be its duty to strenuously oppose the measure. Nor could he allow that there had been shown, on the side of their opponents, a superior share of independence in the discharge of their duties. On the side from which he had the honour to speak, there had been, at least, as much independence, and as much pure disinterestedness as could be found on the other. It was not his purpose—any more than it could be the wish of the House—that he should enter into the details or the principles of this measure; he was contented to leave that part of the subject where it had been left by his friends in the course of this debate. He would rest it on the able speeches of those who had taken part in the debate—which had comprised all that could be advanced on the subject, and most forcibly urged on the side of those who opposed this Bill.—The noble Lord said, the difference between the supporters of the Bill and its opponents was, that the former were the Representatives of the people, and that the latter were the Representatives of themselves; but he must tell the noble Lord that in saying so, he made a statement which, in point of fact, was incorrect: the difference between them had not been between the Representation of this House, put in contradistinction to the Representation of the people: the question between them was, who were the people? The opponents of the Bill considered the term "people" to include every class in the country, as much the wealth of the country, as all other classes; that each class should possess its proper Representa-

857
tive, that the British House of Commons should be composed of Representatives from the different interests, possessing a stake in the country, and that a preponderance should not be given to one particular class which, in its result, might bear down and overpower the other interests of the State. This was the distinction that existed between the noble Lord and himself, as to the principles they had maintained. He felt it his duty to say a few words in answer to that part of the statement of the noble Lord, as it carried with it an imputation, from which he felt anxious to stand discharged. The noble Lord further said, that he supported this Bill, because it was calculated to put an end to the corruption of this House, and to the bribery and perjury of the present electioneering system. In that respect, also, he could not subscribe to the opinion of the noble Lord, for he did not believe that the system of Representation which the Bill was intended to destroy, led either to the corruption of the elected, or to the bribery and perjury of the electors. If he could bring himself to entertain that belief, he should have much less objection to this Bill than he had at present, but the more he contemplated it, the more was he convinced it would act against the general interests of the country. When he saw so great a change about to take place in the House of Commons—when those principles were about to be destroyed, which had formed the character of the present House, and a greater dependence was to be placed on the multitude than on the other interests of the country, he was not convinced that the change was likely to be conducive to the interest of the State, or to the promotion of general economy. He had thought it right to address these few words to the House in answer to what had fallen from the noble Lord. He hoped he had said nothing that would lead to a debate. He knew his feelings were strong, and if he were to give way to them, he might be led into a long discussion; therefore he had spoken under considerable restraint, feeling, as he did, that the Bill was pregnant with danger to almost every interest in the State. Indeed, the only chance of salvation which the country now had was, that this Bill though sent from the House of Commons might never be passed into a law by the assembly to which it was now going.
The Bill was then passed.
The next question, "That this be the title of the Bill—A Bill to amend the Representation of the people of England and Wales," was carried by acclamation.
Lord John Russell and Lord Althorp were ordered to carry the Bill to the Lords, and to request the concurrence of their Lordships to the same.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of MALMSBURY, from the Licensed Victuallers of the Isle of Wight, for a Revision of the Law imposing Liabilities for the Loss of Property by Persons in their Houses:—By Lord TENTERDEN, from the Rev. Bouchier Wray, for the introduction of a Clause into the Plurality of Benefices Bill, to enable him to hold two Livings:—By the Earl of RODEN, from the Inhabitants of Wethersfield, Essex, Wickambrook, Stradeshall, Hawkdon, Deuston, Wimborne, Pentione, and Tynemouth, against the proposed Plan of Education for Ireland:—By Lord KING, from the Inhabitants of Dewsbury, in favour of the Plan; and from the Inhabitants of Ahina, Taghmon, Carlingford, Maghera, and Killelagh, for the Abolition of Tithes in Ireland.

CHURCH ESTABLISHMENT.
Lord Kingsaid, he had several Petitions to present, praying for a Reform in the Church Establishment, as well as for a Reform of Parliament; they were from the inhabitants of Bentley, Arksey, and Pencyd, with regard to a Reform in the Church Establishment, to which subject he should confine the few observations he wished to make. He had no doubt from the feeling that was abroad, that their Lordships' Table would be covered with petitions, praying for such a reform, and he thought it was high time that a revision of that Establishment, particularly of the laws relating to tithes, took place. Although the amount taken was within the legal demand, and that it was collected with great lenity, particularly in Ireland, yet many serious grievances were caused by the vexatious law proceedings, to which, those were exposed who were unable to pay the tithes. The complaints against tithes came he was ready to allow, chiefly from Ireland, yet there were several petitions on the subject from England, and the right reverend Bench might be assured that the attention of the public to this matter was only delayed until the Reform question was disposed of. There were already papers published detailing individual cases of hardship in England; one of which, he held in his hand, and which was authenticated by the signatures of the Churchwardens and Overseers of a parish in Dorsetshire. From this paper, it appeared, that a farmer of the name of Roberts had been charged 62 l. as tithe upon 112 acres of land; on his refusal to pay that sum, requiring the tithe to be taken in kind, litigation was resorted to, and an immense expense incurred, which brought odium on the whole system. He did, therefore, presume to exhort the right reverend Bench, if they and their clergy were anxious not to be placed in the same situation as their brethren in Ireland, to take warning and not push their rights to extremity, otherwise the consequence, he was afraid, would be, that the opinion that all Church property was public property would obtain such head, founded as it was, upon correct and true premises, that the rights of the clergy must wholly sink under it. He advised the right reverend Bench, therefore, to take care, that the grievances attached to the collection of tithes should be remedied.
Lord Wynforddid not rise to object to

787
the petitions being placed upon the Table, but to complain of the sentiments which the noble Baron had uttered on presenting them, and of his attacking a man in his absence. The rector of the parish from whence the complaint which the noble Baron had detailed proceeded, would have good reason to complain, that he was injured by an ex parte statement. If he had exceeded his lawful claims, the Courts of Law were open to his opponents, and there was no doubt they would obtain justice; and it would have been much more manly and honourable for the Churchwardens and Overseers to have taken a legal course than to endeavour to excite the passions of the people by the publication of hand bills.
Lord Kingsaid, he had avoided attacking individuals, by not naming the parish where the occurrence happened. As to the noble Lord's remark respecting the Courts of Law, he ought to know that a man might be ruined by attempting to defend his own. Such Courts were admirable places for the rich and powerful, but they were no shield to the poor man. He had another case which he wished to remark upon, it was one where the vicar only came once a-year to receive a tenth of the produce of the land, where the church-service was performed only at such times as suited the convenience of the clergyman, and where the Bishop of the diocese was a non-resident.
The Marquis of Salisburybegged to ask the noble Baron, before he proceeded further in his case, if he had a petition from the parish or the individuals who felt themselves grieved?
Lord Kinghad no petition, he merely stated the fact incidentally on presenting other petitions.
The Marquis of Salisburyunderstood, from that answer of the noble Baron, that he had thought fit to bring an accusation against an individual, who, had no opportunity to defend himself, and, at the same time, without having a petition from the parties concerned.
Petitions to lie on the Table.

PLURALITIES BILL.
On the Motion of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Order of the Day was read for the House to go into Committee on this Bill.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid, that he felt himself called upon to offer a few observations on the objects and prin-
788
ciple of the Plurality of Benefices Bill, on moving that their Lordships should then resolve themselves into a Committee to consider that measure. As those objects and that principle had been fully discussed in the last Session of Parliament, he did not consider it necessary, on the second reading of the Bill, to enter into any explanation of its details; but, as a noble Lord, on a former night, had brought forward amendments, which, in point of fact, went to effect an entire alteration of the measure; and as that noble Lord at the same time, accused him of practising a delusion on their Lordships, in vindication of himself, and of the motives by which he was actuated, he begged to be permitted to say a few words upon the present occasion. So far back as the reign of Henry 8th, previous to which the regulation of the Church, as regarded pluralities, was under the canon law, which was opposed to pluralities of all kinds, the first Act was passed on this subject. By that Act—the 1st Henry 8th—all persons holding benefices valued at 8l. a-year in the King's books, were prevented from holding any other benefice, except by dispensation. A great number of persons, however, who were in possession of certain qualifications, were allowed to hold two beneces; members of the Council were able to hold three, and King's chaplains could hold any number to which it was the pleasure of the Crown to appoint them, without regard to their value. With these exceptions, no person could hold more than one benefice with cure of souls of 8l. a-year. There were other livings under the value of 8l. a-year, which were left in the same state as before, under the canon law, which, though it prohibited pluralities altogether, was so inefficient, that persons could hold any number of livings under 8l. a-year at any distance, under such qualifications as would enable them to hold an ordinary living. Another clause of that Bill permitted deans of cathedrals, and collegiate bodies, to make their own regulations in respect of their own estates, or left them to the operation of the canon law. With these exceptions, and the exception of members of the council, and King's chaplains, who might hold any number of livings, all persons were prohibited from holding two benefices, with cure of souls of the value of 8l. a-year. The Bill which was on the Table provided, that a space of not more than thirty

789
miles should intervene between two livings held in plurality, this regulation would have the effect of reducing the present pluralities nearly two-thirds. There was also another important alteration, which, he thought would be considered an improvement, namely, that the office of King's chaplain would not give a title to hold in connexion with it any Church preferment: that office would in future give no advantages beyond those enjoyed without it. It had been found, after the most mature reflection, necessary to make provision for enabling incumbents of the poorer livings to pay their curates. In making that provision, it was necessary to bear in mind that the valuation of livings in the King's books was no sufficient guide in the present day, and the fact he conceived, would afford a sufficient answer to most of the objections that had been urged on that subject; but the conclusive answer which this Bill gave to the chief objection to pluralities was to be found in the enactment that no ecclesiastical person should hold more than two livings, and those only within a distance of thirty miles. It was, he apprehended, no valid objection to this measure, that it did not accomplish that which it did not profess. As to the dignities held in the cathedral churches, he had only to observe that they were of various values, and they could not impose any further restriction upon them than the Bill contained. He was aware that there were anomalies and imperfections in the existing system, and he was far from saying that this Bill would remedy them, or that any Bill could advantageously remove them all, but here they had one most important step taken, and that he hoped, might enable them hereafter to go further in the same path. The noble Lord who had moved the amendments to which he had already adverted, had spoken of this Bill as a delusion, and had declared that it left monstrous abuses remaining which it ought to have remedied. He stated that the bishopric of Winchester, the deanery of Durham, and a variety of other preferments, might be held by one and the same person. He (the Archbishop of Canterbury) admitted that in the present state of the law, these were possibilities which this Bill did not guard against. He confessed that abuses of authority might occur, which, as no rational man had ever committed, so no rational man would ever
790
think of guarding against. They did not, in preparing this Bill, calculate all possible contingencies—they did not aim at combating shadows, or fighting with windmills. Again, the House heard a very good speech from the noble Lord against the practice of Bishops holding livings in commendam, but that had nothing to do with the present question; for this Bill professed to deal with pluralities of another class, and with them it did successfully deal. The speech of the noble Lord did not really, for the purposes of the Bill then before them, require much reply, for it was beside the question; but with respect to his Amendments, he would with the permission of their Lordships, go through some of them. The noble Lord, in the first place, proposed to enact that, from and after the passing of the Bill, 'It shall not be lawful for any Archbishop or Bishop actually exercising episcopal jurisdiction, or enjoying the revenues of any diocese, to accept or retain any benefice with the cure of souls, either in commendam or otherwise, or to hold any other dignity or ecclesiastical preferment.' He presumed the word Archbishop was here introduced as a word of course, for it never could for a moment be supposed, that the Archbishop of York or the Archbishop of Canterbury, would hold a benefice in commendam. In fact this was a clause guarding against the abuse of the Royal Prerogative in a case where there was not the least imaginable probability that it would be abused. There was next an amendment to clause 3, which said, 'Provided always, and be it further enacted, that it shall and may be lawful for any Archbishop or Bishop, the revenues of whose diocese do not exceed 3,500 l., to hold in commendam any dignity or ecclesiastical preferment without cure of souls, provided the gross annual value thereof, together with the revenues of his diocese, shall not amount to more than 4,000 l. annually, and that he shall pay over the surplus, if any, to the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, to be by them appropriated, with the sanction of the Archbishop of Canterbury, to the augmentation of bishoprics under the annual value of 3,500 l.' He must be allowed to say, and he trusted most of their Lordships would concur with him, if they would only consider the unavoidable expenses which a Bishop must incur—the expenses he was put to in maintaining more than one re-

791
sidence—in visiting the several portions of his diocese from time to time—in subscribing to every charity within his diocese—in relievin the poorer clergy—in educating and establishing his sons, besides making some provision for his family after his death—that was fixing the revenue of a Bishop too low. He was aware that it had been said, that the income which the noble Lord fixed for a Bishop was as much as a Judge generally had, but it should be recollected that a Judge stood in a very different situation from that of a Bishop. When one of the parochial clergy became a Bishop, he found himself transferred from a situation in which his income scarcely equalled his necessary and proper expenditure; but what was the fact with respect to a Judge? He was transferred to a situation of less labour perhaps—of more dignity certainly; his former position being one not entailing much expense, and giving facilities for the accumulation of a fortune: whereas the situation of a Bishop was widely different; he was from the outset surrounded with circumstances calculated to create pecuniary embarrassment. The expenses of his entrance upon his sacred duties were in themselves of no small amount, and even though he should exercise all the economy that was consistent with the feelings of a liberal mind, he would still find it extremely difficult to maintain those appearances which his situation required. From his own experience, and the evidence of facts, he could affirm, that, if the incomes of the Bishops were to be regulated according to the rules laid down by the noble Lord, much of the usefulness and dignity of their station in the Church would be at an end. With respect to livings in commendam, he begged to mention one consideration, while he was upon the subject, which was not altogether unworthy of attention—it was, that those livings might in some sort, be said to possess the advantages of two rectors, for Bishops always paid their curates larger salaries than other holders of benefices. He considered that the whole of this enactment directed against livings in commendam, was unnecessary, and it might prove mischievous. There was no case in which a living happened to be held in commendam in which, if it were necessary to separate it, the separation might not be effected without the aid of this enactment; and further, he did not see that
792
any of the amendments would have the effect of preventing unnecessary translations. The third Amendment proposed by the noble Lord was as follows:—'And be it further enacted that if any spiritual person having a deanery, prebend, or canonry, or any precentorship, treasurership, subdeanery, chancellorship, or any wardenship, or fellowship in any cathedral or collegiate church; or any dignity, benefice, or ecclesiastical preferment, either with or without, any cure of souls, shall after the passing of this Act, accept, or be admitted to any other deanery, prebend, or canonry, precentorship, treasurership, subdeanery, wardenship, or fellowship, in any cathedral or collegiate church, or any other dignity, benefice, or ecclesiastical preferment, either with, or without cure of souls; then, and immediately after such acceptance or admission, the first deanery, prebend, or canonry, precentorship, treasurership, sub-deanery, chancellorship, wardenship, or fellowship in any cathedral or collegiate church, or other dignity, benefice, or ecclesiastical preferment, either with, or without cure of souls, shall be ipso facto void.' On this Amendment it was needless to say much: it spoke for itself; and it was one, the adoption of which, he thought, but few of their Lordships would be disposed to agree to. One of the most extraordinary propositions ever made to that House, was contained in the proposed Amendment to clause 9, the object of which was, to give power to the Archbishop of Canterbury, in certain cases, to grant license or dispensation for holding two benefices, whose joint value did not exceed the amounts therein specified; and then this proposed amendment said, that such person who shall have obtained the degree of Doctor of Divinity with a certificate from the Archbishop of Canterbury, and solemn declaration inserted in the testimonial thereof, that the same was not conferred from partiality or affection, entreaty or interest, but purely and solely from a conviction of the graduate's pious zeal, theological knowledge, and pastoral aptness to accept and hold such benefice, provided the population of one of such benefices shall not exceed 500 souls, and the joint annual value of such two benefices, &c. No noble Lord could imagine that the Archbishop of Canterbury had the means of granting those certificates upon his own knowledge. In all such cases he must

793
rely upon the testimonies supplied to him by others. He trusted he had never shown a disposition to shrink from any burthen, duty, or reasonable responsibility, belonging to his situation; and he did persuade himself that, in objecting to this it would not be thought that he was departing from that which had ever been his practice; but it was a duty which he owed not merely to himself, but to his successors, to protest against such a clause. Under this Amendment the Archbishop of Canterbury would be required not only to judge of the knowledge, but of the intellectual, moral, and even physical, qualifications, of the persons presenting themselves as candidates. This was almost impossible; and, if possible, it would not be useful. Their Lordships must also see, that the provision which the noble Lord would make for the parochial clergy, or rather the minimum to which he would reduce them, was quite inconsistent with the maintenance of a family, or with their comfortable and respectable living. With any observations on this topic it was not necessary to trouble the House, as the plan proposed conduced neither to the real object of the Bill, nor to the diminution of pluralities. The proposed Amendment to Clause 11, was this—'And he it further enacted, that, from and after the passing of this Act, every Archbishop and Bishop shall, on or before the 1st day of July in every year, make to the Archbishop of Canterbury, to be by him transmitted, together with the like return from himself to his Majesty in Council, on or before the 25th day of March, a return of the gross annual revenues or emoluments of his diocese, from whatever source derived, during the succeeding year; and also specifying the name and value of any dignitary, benefice, or ecclesiastical preferment, held therewith; and that every other spiritual person shall make a like return of the name, and true and full value of any dignity, benefice, or ecclesiastical preferment, held by him to the Bishop of the diocese in which it is situated, to be by him transmitted to the King in Council, on or before the aforesaid 25th day of March.' He would appeal to the noble Lord, whether such a clause as this ought to be introduced into the Bill—supposing such a measure to be advantageous (and he, for one, should not object to ascertain the value of all emoluments possessed by dignitaries of the
794
Church) it ought rather to form the subject of a separate substantive Bill, than to be thus introduced into a measure which had another object in view. He repeated that he was most anxious to have the amount of Church property ascertained, for there had been gross and scandalous exaggerations on the subject; and he had no doubt that the proposal contained in the noble Lord's Amendment would soon be acted on; but this mode of doing it appeared in the highest degree exceptionable, for it could not fail to lead to frauds in a variety of ways. A discretionary power was given to the Archbishop of Canterbury, as to granting or withholding dispensations; and of course he would take, in every case, the value of the benefice, as well as all other circumstances, into consideration; but it would be quite impossible for the Legislature to adopt any principle, if the living were under the value of 8l., of making value the criterion, without having some documents before it. He was most desirous that such an inquiry should be instituted, in order to show the gross misstatements that were disseminated, through the medium, chiefly of cheap pamphlets, but they were reiterated at public meetings, by persons who did, and ought to know better. This mode of proceeding, he verily believed, was adopted in order to place the Church in an invidious point of view. It was asserted in some of these pamphlets, and had been repeated at certain meetings, that the revenues of the Church were 9,000,000 l. per annum; but whenever a return of the ecclesiastical revenues should be made, they who had put forth, and those who had believed such exaggerations, would look at that return with no small degree of surprise, and would find how egregiously they had been deceived. The Church had nothing to fear from inquiry; and he had every reason to hope that means would be taken to ascertain what its revenues actually were. The mode which the noble Lord had suggested of annual returns, was not the best that could be desired for that purpose, because such returns would be attended with great inconvenience, and they would be extremely difficult to make out correctly, even by those who wished to act most honestly. He would spare their Lordships from going into the other parts of the Bill, and would only refer to the clause which took away from their Lordships the privilege of appointing chaplains.

795
He trusted their Lordships would believe that he was the last man to wish to interfere unnecessarily with their privileges; or to bear hard upon any members of the clergy. As the value, however, of such appointments was merely imaginary, he had no doubt their Lordships would willingly resign such privileges for the good of the Church. As for himself, so far as the Bill was concerned, he had encountered so much opposition that he was almost disheartened. In attempting to please everybody as far as possible, he had stirred up opponents on all sides, without forwarding his object. This was the third Session the Bill had been before Parliament. He would, however, conclude, by moving that their Lordships go into Committee, where they might deal with the Bill as they thought best.
Lord Suffieldbegged it to be understood that he was far from courting the task of Church Reformer, and that he exceedingly regretted that the duty, the conscientious duty, of exposing the—he would not say premeditated frauds, but the—gross delusion which the present Bill was calcucated to create in the public mind, had not devolved upon some noble Lord more competent than he was, to discharge it with efficiency. He called the Bill a delusion, not that he was anxious to use harsh epithets in speaking of any measure to which the most reverend Prelate was a party, but because no other word occurred to him so expressive of its true character. It was a gross delusion upon the public, because, under the pretext of checking the system so baneful to the interests of true religion and the Protestant Church—that of benefice pluralities—it, in point of fact, perpetuated the worst features of that system, while it tended to aggravate the hard condition of the working and poorer clergy. Thus, under the semblance of a general good, much public evil and private injury would be perpetrated; and this, forsooth, was a proof of the earnest desire of the Church dignitaries to ameliorate the defects of the existing system. For instance, the Bill enacted that no person should hold a second living, if his first was worth 400 l. a-year, except—and he begged their Lordships to mark the exception, which ought to have been called the rule—the incumbent be a "Master of Arts." Now, all the higher clergy and dignitaries were Masters of Arts, while many of the poorer working clergy had taken out no degree in
796
arts higher than that of Bachelor, and some no degree at all; so that, in point of fact, the clause would oppress the poorer clergy, while it aggrandised the more wealthy. He would propose that a theological qualification, to be determined by the most reverend Prelate himself, should be substituted for the master's degree as the ground of exception. Then the Bill went to continue the privilege of Bishops being permitted to hold livings in commendam, without taking into account the proximity of those livings to their sees, or whether it was physically possible they could honestly discharge their sacred duties as Bishops and as rectors. And here again there was a striking proof of the tendency of the Bill to perpetuate the monopoly which the higher dignitaries possessed of the loaves and fishes of the Church, while it pressed upon the poorer working clergy with additional severity. He confessed he was anxious for the Reform of so unjust a system, and, being of opinion that Church property was held in trust for the public good, he would zealously co-operate in promoting any measure which would improve the condition of the working clergy, by bestowing upon them a portion of the superfluities possessed by the higher dignitaries to the disadvantage—nay, disgrace—of true religion. His object, be it understood, was not to subvert, far less to commit a spoliation of Church property, but to effect a more just and efficient distribution. The interests of the Church itself, and of the religion for the advancement of which the Church was established, demanded that there should be such an improved distribution of its revenue; and such a distribution would, he thought, be better effected by the measures which he recommended, than by the Bill as it stood at present. In that House, and in other places, his Majesty's Ministers had been reproached—and, he admitted, without justgrounds—as being regardless of the interest of religion. For his own part he took shame to himself that he had been, as he thought their Lordships had all been, too long regardless of the abuses to which he had just referred. He should be glad, therefore, to see the Ministers disprove the justice of the reproaches cast upon them, by taking the matter into their own hands, and bringing forward a measure for the more equal distribution of the revenues of the Church. The Church had been left too long to re-

797
gulate itself, and the Prelates had not shown that they were the best qualified to legislate for themselves. But the state of the House at that moment showed that there was still a disposition to leave, in a great measure, those matters to their judgment, and there certainly was an abundance of the Bishops then present. But on the preceding evening the attendance of lay Lords was much more numerous. Now, as far as the Bill affected the Bishops, he could not approve of the omission of all restraint upon the holding of benefices in commendam. To remove that defect was the object of the first amendment which he intended to propose in the Committee. He would allow the Bishops and dignitaries a decent, nay, a splendid income (he would not stickle for the exact sum of 3,500 l., but would leave it to the Bishops themselves to fix a sum which they would consider a fair remuneration for the labours and dignity of a See); but he had yet to learn that providing large incomes in addition for their sons and daughters, constituted the chief object for which Parliament originally invested the Church with its enormous revenues. The right reverend Bench might depend upon it, that their united zeal, sustained, as it was, by such strong feelings of self-interest, could not long maintain the present overgrown anomalies, and superfluities, and bloated incomes of the Church dignitaries, in opposition to public opinion, urged on by common sense and common justice. It might be very well for the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) near him to say, that he felt himself entitled by usage to hold one or two livings in commendam, in addition to his former See; but enlightened public opinion would not be satisfied unless he could show that he could be in Bishopsgate in London, and Chesterton in Cambridgeshire, and the city of Chester at the same time; and that the labours of each were comparatively trifling, and that it was wise and equitable that he should be receiving the incomes of these three extensive and very distant incumbencies, while most probably the three working clergymen, who did the actual duty did not receive a decent competency. He also should have to propose an amendment to the clause which made thirty miles the definition of "contiguous parishes." It appeared to him that the distance might as well have been fixed at 300 miles, so far as the possibility of one
798
man's being able to efficiently discharge the duties of his livings not actually and conveniently adjoining to each other was concerned. Where the livings were small, and so closely connected as to permit the duties to be regularly performed, such unions might often be effected without inconvenience, and they would afford the means of providing for those clergy whose poverty was a disgrace to the Church. The third amendment which he should propose would be, a diminution of the value of the livings which might be held together. He did not deny that there were poor Bishops. But that was one of the evils which he was desirous of seeing removed; and he was not convinced by anything which he had heard that the great revenues of the richer Prelates were absolutely necessary to the adequate support of the dignity of their respective Sees. He did not doubt that they were hospitable. But their hospitality was very different from the hospitality of the Bishops of former times. He had no doubt that the Bishops were still very hospitable in the entertainment of their private friends and connections, and that their mansions in town and in the country were liberally provided for the accommodation of their guests. But the tables of the earlier Prelates were spread for the stranger and the poor, and the pilgrim and friendless traveller found shelter under their truly hospitable roofs. With respect to the poorer clergy of the present times, he sincerely sympathised with the reverend Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) in his compassion for those gentlemen; and he would confess, that he wondered not a little why it was, that those who could compassionate so deeply, and describe with so much force and feeling the unhappy circumstances of those gentlemen, did not propose some effective measure for their relief. He had not risen to oppose the Motion for the Committee, but only to explain the nature of the amendments which he was desirous to see adopted; and having done so, he would trespass no further on the time of the House.
The Bishop of Durhamobjected to the value of benefices being taken as the standard to determine whether they should be held by one individual. He considered that a dangerous principle to be adopted. It amounted to something like spoliation. If it was expedient to limit the incomes of spiritual persons, this was not the way it

799
ought to be done, for if the principle was once admitted there could be no bounds set to its application. The evil of pluralities was not so much in the amount of the income of the person holding them, as in their occasioning non-residence. That was an evil which it was very difficult to correct, and it seemed to him that the only way in which it could be corrected was by a measure such as the Bill of the Rev. Prelate, which their Lordships were then called upon to consider. That Bill made no distinction as to the value of livings; but it would prevent the holding of two benefices which were so distant from each other as to prevent the incumbent from properly discharging his duties; and it allowed the union of livings which were within a reasonable distance, without regard to their value. He preferred that arrangement to the proposition of the noble Baron (Lord Suffield).
Lord Wynfordconcurred with his right rev. friend (the Bishop of Durham), in thinking that the whole question was one of distance, and not of the value of benefices. He saw no difference whether two livings held by one individual were distant thirty miles or a hundred miles. In either case he could not efficiently discharge his duties in both. As there was an inquiry pending into the state of the property of the Church, he would strongly recommend the most Rev. Prelate to withdraw the Bill until the House was in possession of full information on that subject, when they would be better able to judge as to what benefices it was expedient to unite.
The Archbishop of Canterburycould not act on the suggestion of his noble and learned friend. After the Bill had gone so far, and so much expectation had been raised respecting it, he should be sorry that any act of his should set it aside.
Lord Wynfordcontinued. As the most Rev. Prelate was determined to proceed, he would, therefore, state his objections to the Bill at present. There were but three points in the Bill in which it differed from the law as it stood already. They were, therefore, going to make a new law for that which was already the law. The first alteration which the Bill made in the existing law was the removal of the privileges of chaplains and of the sons of Peers. To that he would not object, for he thought that if the son of a Peer had not the ability or the industry to obtain his
800
degree, he ought not to be endowed with a plurality of benefices. The second novelty in the Bill was that which related to the distance of benefices; and the third was the giving the Archbishop of Canterbury a discretion as to requiring residence for a part of the year, and to this also he agreed. The subject of distance was only known to the Canon-law, but the Common-law did not recognize it, and the limitation of forty-five miles was only known to the Canon-law. To the present alteration he altogether objected, for the difference of distance he did not apprehend could weigh much in a religious point of view, and this was an unnecessary interference with the rights of property. If a gentleman was desirous of bringing up his son to the Church, and if, therefore, having in his own gift a living of small value, he had, before the introduction of the present Bill, or say ten years ago, purchased the advowson of another living with the intention of giving to his son a competent income from the two; by the operation of that Bill his intentions would be frustrated; if it should so happen that the purchased living was at a greater distance than the thirty miles contemplated. Thus the property purchased with this view would be done away, violating vested rights, and injuring the cause of religion. The Church itself would lose the advantage of having amongst the clergy men whose family connections, as well as their superior education, enabled them to promote greatly the honour of the Church and the interests of religion. Gentlemen of fortune had the best opportunities of giving their sons the education which should qualify them to be ornaments to the Church and efficient ministers of religion. Thus this alteration might deprive the Church of some of its most valuable members. And what would be the effect in such a case as he had mentioned? Why, this—that the presentation would be sold to the highest bidder, and let in perhaps a class of persons who would only be anxious to obtain an adequate return for the money they had paid, instead of gentlemen who would be likely to be more liberal, from not having paid anything for their benefices. The Bill would do injury to the Church of England, which he declared had produced more able men than any other profession in the world. He knew that many entered into this profession with higher motives than mere ambition or desire of gain; but

801
still men of abilities would not enter into it, if they were to be excluded from the hope of adequate reward. The bill would not maintain the hierarchy in that degree of splendor in which they ought to be supported, and he lamented its introduction upon that account.
The Bishop of Londonwished to say a few words in reply to some of the observations which had fallen from his noble and learned friend, who had last addressed the House as he knew him to be a sincere friend to the Church. It was with surprise, he had almost said with pain, that he heard his noble and learned friend remark, that he was opposed to the Bill because it would operate as an infringement upon the rights of property. If that objection were well-founded, it would have with him (the Bishop of London) very great weight. If he could believe that the Bill invaded the rights of property to the extent which his noble and learned friend seemed to suppose, he should hesitate much before he gave it his support. But if it did in any degree interfere with the rights of property, the interference was only for the present. In the case which the noble Lord supposed of a person having the gift of a living, and purchasing another for the purpose of conferring the two benefices on his son, but being prevented from doing so by the Bill, on account of the distance between the two benefices, no infringement of the rights of property would occur. The noble and learned Lord must be aware that the value of an advowson was increased in proportion to the age of the incumbent; and, therefore, if the benefices in the case supposed could not be bestowed according to the original intention of the purchaser, he could obtain his money back with interest by a resale. He agreed with the noble and learned Lord that it was of great advantage to the Church that the sons of the nobility and gentry should choose it as a profession. He had not the honour to be connected with any one of those families in the most distant degree, and, therefore, he might with propriety be allowed to bear his testimony not only to the splendor which the Church derived from having in the ministry persons of high rank, but to the services which were rendered to religion by their learning, piety, and zeal. He was aware of the advantages, and he did not apprehend that they would be diminished, or that a less number of the sons of noble families would go into the
802
Church in consequence of any effects of the Bill. Looking to the profession of which his noble friend (Lord Wynford), was himself a distinguished ornament, he saw that young men of the higher ranks of society went into it without an expectation of obtaining its richest rewards; but he trusted that young men went into the Church with higher motives than the noble Lord supposed, even though they might have their eye upon its richest rewards at the same time. He agreed that it would be difficult for a clergyman to attend to the duties of two parishes thirty miles apart, and he should be happy to support any proposition by which a better arrangement could be effected.
Lord Tenterdensaid, it was hardly fair to call the Bill a delusion, for he believed it would effect the object intended. At the same time he must declare, that it would be impossible for any Archbishop of Canterbury to ascertain the value of livings either to his own satisfaction or that of any body else in the present state of the law. At that hour it was impossible to have the bearings of the Bill and the Amendments adequately discussed. He, therefore, begged leave to suggest the propriety of postponing the Committee.
Lord Kingthought it was somewhat extraordinary to hear the very Rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury), in the present state of public opinion respecting the revenues of the Church, say, that an income of 4,000 l. a-year was inadequate to the support of a Bishop. He thought that was an extraordinary argument to adduce in defence of the fifteen benefices held in commendam by the Bench of Bishops. The most Rev. Prelate also considered 1,000 l. as rather little for the comfortable support of one of the parochial clergy having a large family to provide for. As that was the most Rev. Prelate's opinion, he would recommend him to take into consideration what had been said last year by a noble Lord on the opposite benches, that the average income of the parochial clergy was no more than 185 l. a-year each. What truth there might be in that statemen, he could not say. He would leave it to the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Wynford) and the most Rev. Prelate to settle between them. He thought it would be a very proper mode of raising those lower livings and lifting the poor clergy from their poverty, to take something from the large revenues

803
of the Bishops. In that way the incomes of the parochial clergy might very well be raised to the standard fixed upon by the most Rev. Archbishop. He should like to see the Bishops come forward generously of themselves, and make that spontaneous sacrifice of their superfluities. It would be a great relief to their consciences, and it might be all the better for their souls hereafter, that they should have given up that which they ought never to have received. The most Rev. Prelate complained that the Bill had been called a delusion. It was nothing else. It professed to take away, the privileges which the Act of Henry 8th gave to the Chaplains, and to the sons of the nobility. That was one of its first provisions. Well, and what did it provide next? Why, it gave to every Master of Arts that same privilege of holding two benefices; thus with one hand closing a door, and with the other opening it much wider than before, for the Masters of Arts were a more numerous class than the Chaplains and sons of Peers. Besides the Bill might operate to give those same persons whose privilege it professed to take away, the same rights in another manner, for it gave the privilege of holding two livings to every person whom the Bishop of his diocese might recommend to the Archbishop of Canterbury. That most Rev. Prelate said, 'For God's sake don't throw upon me the responsibility of creating pluralists; let somebody else have the responsibility, though I have power of conferring the appointments?' But the most Rev. Prelate did not object in the same way to have the responsibility which was attached to the power of uniting large benefices. Now, that was a responsibility from which he would be very happy to see the most Rev. Prelate relieved. The Canon-law forbad pluralities. But abuses had grown up from time to time, not only in the Church of the Pope, but in the Established Church of England. The Pope encouraged abuses; and the Church of England encouraged abuses; and what reason was there why the Church should not be brought back to the good old Canon-law, which would extinguish the abuses? If the pluralities were to be maintained, he did not see any necessity for burthening the Archbishop with the responsibility of creating them. If there was any uncertainty as to the value of the livings, let there be a valuation, which would remove the uncertainty. But the
804
most Rev. Prelate was afraid that if there were a valuation, the clergy would make false Returns. Perhaps they might do so. Indeed, he thought they would do so; and to prevent it he brought in a Bill last year to compel them to make a correct Return, by giving their respective parishes the power to tender the amount of the valuation in commutation for tithes and dues, and binding them to accept it without any remedy. That would have settled the matter; but the present Bill was a net so contrived as to take in all the rich benefices, and leave the poor ones out. The higher classes of the clergy talked a good deal about their compassion for their poorer brethren, and they proved their sincerity, not by allowing them to hold two small livings, but by leaving them to starve upon one. The most Rev. Prelate seemed to be in some doubt whether it would not be better to lay the Bill aside for a while, and think better of it: and, indeed, if he had any respect for his own child, he ought to do so. If it escaped a severe handling in that House, it would be terribly mauled in another place.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid, that he had not made the statements attributed to him by the noble Baron, who appeared to have made his remarks solely for the purpose of adding to the prejudices and excitement that prevailed on the subject of the Church.
The Lord Chancelloragreed with his noble and learned friend (Lord Wynford), that great regard was due from the Legislature to the rights of property. He would not then go into the abstract question of the right of the Legislature to interfere with the property of the Church, as there was nothing in the Bill before the House that called on him to do so. He did not think that the Bill was liable to the objections that it interfered unnecessarily with private property in connection with Church property. The peculiar circumstances which distinguished Church property from every other kind of property was this, that the Legislature could interfere with it so far as to enforce the performance of the duties, for the performance of which that property was enjoyed.
The Bishop of Chesterwished to ask the noble Baron (Lord King), to point out the fifteen livings which he said were held by the Bishops in commendam.
The Bishop of Bangorbegged to explain the point, to show the inaccuracy of

805
the noble Baron's remarks. There were certain livings connected with particular Sees, which were permanently attached to them, and formed a part of their revenues. They were always served by curates, and the Bishop had no cure of souls in those parishes, nor any other power but to appoint the curates, or remove them without the intervention of the Ecclesiastical Courts. These were the livings, he presumed, which the noble Baron said, were held in commendam.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, he should give his support to this Bill, and he wished to state in a few words his reason for doing so. He did not admire the Bill on account of its taking away small pluralities where alone the system of pluralities ought to be tolerated, nor on account of its allowing the Bishops the discretion of granting pluralities without restriction as to value when the different livings were within thirty miles of each other. In both these respects he should like to see the Bill amended; and if any noble Lord would in Committee, propose the alteration of the clause giving this discretionary power to the Bishops, the alteration should have his support. He approved, however, of the Bill, as he considered it a step towards a Reform in the abuses of the Church Establishment, and he only regretted that the most Rev. Prelate had not carried that Reform further.
Their Lordships divided on the Motion to go into Committee. Contents 31; Not Contents 7—Majority 24.
House in Committee: Verbal Amendments were agreed to; after which the House resumed. Committee to sit again.