Sitting of 26 February 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of MR. RUTHVEN, an Account of the state of the Currach of Kildare; and the same of the Phœnix Park, Dublin.—On the Motion of Mr. HUME, a detailed Account of all Expenses incurred in his Majesty's Dock-yards, in each of the years from 1820 to 1832; of the Number of Commissioned
1144
Officers in the Royal Navy on the 1st of January, 1828; and the same on the 1st of January, 1833; and the aggregate Amount of their Half and Full Pay at that Date.—On the Motion of Mr. SPRING RICE, a Copy of the 25th Report of the Charity Commissioner's.—On the Motion of Colonel LEITH HAY, the Number of the Excise Officers in Scotland, and their Salaries for the year ending 5th January, 1833.—On the Motion of Mr. GUEST, an Account of the Exports and Imports of Iron, from the year 1830 to the present time: also an Account of the Copper Sheets and Bolts used in his Majesty's Dock-yards of Woolwich and Portsmouth, and of the Expense incurred in manufacturing the said Copper Articles, during the years 1830, 1831, and 1832; and the same Account of Iron used in his Majesty's Dock-yards of Woolwich and Portsmouth.—On the Motion of Mr. GEORGE EVANS, an Account of the Number of Convicts, and the Expense incurred by the Convict Department in Ireland.
New Writ issued. For Dover, in the room of Mr. POULETT THOMSON, who made his Election to sit for Manchester.
Petitions presented. By Mr. SPRING RICE, from the Town of Cambridge, against the House and Window Taxes. By Mr. PHILPOTTS, from Gloucester; by Mr. J. JOHNSTONE, from the Presbytery of St. Andrew's, Dunse, and Fordyce; by Mr. THICKNESSE, from Wigan and Standish; by Mr. JAMES YOUNG, from Cootehill; by Mr. EWING, from two Congregations in Glasgow; by Mr. OSWALD, from Ayr; by Admiral FLEMING, from Ardrossan and Dennie; by Mr. BAILLIE, from Nairn; and by Mr. STEWART MACKENZIE, from Urquhart,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Mr. M. PHILLIPS, from Diseworth; by Sir R. B. PHILLIPS, from seven Places in Wales; by Mr. C. S. FORSTER, from Walsall, for the Abolition of Slavery.—By Mr. ROBERT N. SHAWE, from Eye, against the Duty on Malt and Hops, and against the Assessed Taxes.—By Colonel LEITH HAY, from Inverary, for the Repeal of the Malt Duty.—By Mr. J. JOHNSTONE, from Leslie and Anstruther-Easter, against the present System of Lay Patronage in the Church of Scotland.—By Mr. THOMAS ATTWOOD, from the Midland Political Union of the Working Classes, condemning the total disregard of the Misery of the Working Classes in England and Ireland in his Majesty's Speech, and the Address of the House of Commons; and for the Abolition of the Taxes on Bread, Sugar, Tea, Malt, Hops, Tobacco and Soap.—By Mr. BLACKSTONE, from Fanrick and Kilburnie; by Mr. OSWALD, from the University of Glasgow; and from the students of the Andersonian Institution, and Portland Medical School of that City; by Admiral FLEMING, from Danby; by Mr. CAVLEY, from Perth; by Mr. OLIPHANT, from Elton; by Mr. A. ROPER, from Diseworth; by Sir JOHN MAXWELL, from Tralston; and by Mr. MAXWELL, from Pollockshaws,—against Slavery.—By Mr. R. A. OSWALD, from Newmibus Ayr,—against the Coercive Measure (Ireland); for the Abolition of all Sinecures, for the Vote by Ballot, and the Repeal of the Septennial Act.—By Mr. BELLEW, from Kirmockbridge, against the Arbitrary and Unconstitutional Measure proposed for Ireland.—By Admiral FLEMING, from Denny,—for the Better Regulation of Church Patronage.—By Mr. MURRAY, from the Incorporation of Merchants of Leith, in favour of Borough Reform in Scotland.—By Mr. HAWES, from St. Mary, Newington, for a Reduction of the Standing Army, and Abolition of all Sinecures, Pensions, and useless Offices—By Sir JOHN MAXWELL, from Paisley, against Nocturnal Legislation.—By Mr. HODGES, from Ashhurst, Kent, against Tithes,—By Mr. PRYME from certain Christians in Dublin, that Persons who object to taking Oaths from Religious Motives may be relieved from the necessity of doing so on any occasion.

HIGHWAYS.
Mr. Portmanrose to move, pursuant to the notice which he had given, for leave to bring; in a Bill to consolidate and amend the laws relating to Highways. The subject was one of very great importance, and he should, therefore, with as much brevity as possible,

1145
State to the House the nature and extent of the proposition which he meant to bring forward. The manner in which road surveyors were chosen at present was objectionable, and, therefore, instead of their being selected by the inhabitants of a district, and afterwards approved of by two Magistrates, he purposed to empower the vestry of each parish to nominate their own surveyor, without any reference to any superior authority. This he thought would be a desirable improvement; but he, at the same time, intended that the several parishes comprised in a district should be allowed the option of electing the same individual if they should think fit to do so. Should the arrangement be found to work advantageously, other improvements might afterwards take place. Another point respecting which alteration was proposed in this Bill, was the mode in which funds were raised for the purpose of keeping the highways in proper repair. This was done at present by the imposition of various and distinct rates, which occasioned great uncertainty in the amount; but for those rates he proposed to substitute a highway-rate, founded upon the Poor-rates. There was another important change which he contemplated effecting, a change which had not only the sanction of the hon. member for Wigan, but also that of the Committee that had sat upon the subject in the last year. That change related to the altering, diverting, or stopping up of highways, and he meant to include footways as well as carriage-roads. Where a public highway or thoroughfare became useless, or was not worth the expense of being kept up, he intended that, on the decision of a majority of a vestry meeting being obtained, the surveyor would be at liberty to stop it up, reserving, however, to any party who might be aggrieved by the circumstance the right of appeal to the Sessions. He believed that the plan would prove satisfactory, not only to the Members of that House, but to the country generally. So far from meaning to limit this power to the majority of a vestry meeting, it was his intention to extend it to individuals, on their consenting to take upon themselves the whole responsibility of the expense; and, in cases of appeal, it was proposed, in order to prevent vexatious opposition, to subject the appellant, in the event of his failing to bring the matter to a decision, to any costs that might be incurred in consequence. By
1146
the law as it stood there was no appeal, and therefore this would be a great improvement. He further proposed, that the accounts of the surveyors should all be sworn to, and that they should subsequently undergo inspection by the auditors or way wardens. His next proposal might perhaps give rise to some difference of opinion, but he still considered it to be a most desirable amendment of the law. He proposed that the roads for the distance of 100 yards on either side of county bridges should be kept in repair by the respective trusts ratione de jure, but he did not mean to oblige these trusts to contribute anything towards keeping in order the carriage way across the bridges themselves. If the House should concur in deeming this Bill a desirable measure, he intended that it should take effect from next October, and that the appointment of the surveyors should take place at the same time as the election of overseers. He also intended that the labour and materials necessary for keeping up all public highways should be obtained by contract in the ordinary way. The hon. Gentleman then moved for leave to bring in the Bill.
Mr. Wilksseconded the Motion, and said that the measure would remove many of the abuses and difficulties now experienced, and that assimilating the highway rate to the Poor-rates would tend to simplify the matter exceedingly. The hon. Gentleman deserved great credit for the pains he had bestowed upon the measure.
Leave given.

OFFENCES IN IRELAND.
Colonel Percevalsaid, that he had given notice of a Motion with reference to the return ordered on the 14th instant, respecting the number of persons committed for trial for offences in Ireland, to add the words "distinguishing Roman Catholics from Protestants;" but the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Rice) had told him that his Motion was incorrect. This, however, was not the case, for had not similar returns been made some time since with respect to the counties of Kilkenny, Mayo, and the Queen's County, in which the identical distinction was made for which he now sought? The Protestant were distinguished from the Roman Catholic delinquents in those returns, and he therefore could not see what difficulty there could be in supplying the informa-

1147
tion that he required. The right hon. Gentleman had stated to him that prisoners were not classified according to their religion, but, as there were clergymen of both persuasions in attendance at the different gaols, all that he desired could be obtained from them. In bringing forward this Motion, his object was, and he had no hesitation in avowing it, to show that the imputations which had been cast upon the Irish Protestants were unfounded, and that they had not been mainly, or at all instrumental to the disgrace which now attached to their country. If the distinction for which he sought was made it would be seen that neither the crime, anarchy, nor confusion existing in Ireland was attributable to the Protestants. He had been informed by a noble Lord who was likely to know the fact that such a return had been made out for Longford; and if a little trouble were taken, he had no doubt that the information to which his Motion was directed could be obtained. He would avail himself of that opportunity to notice a statement which he had read in a newspaper of yesterday, in which a noble friend of his was most unjustly and unwarrantably attacked. His noble friend was accused of having forgotten an atrocious murder which had been committed by a Protestant at Dundalk. But not only was there no truth in the statement to which he alluded, but it was a gross and discreditable libel, calculated to prejudice the individual who was about to stand his trial upon the charge. That individual, it was perfectly true, was a Protestant, He was a native of Scotland, and a glazier by trade, and, so far from committing murder, he merely stabbed a man with his "putty-knife," after he had himself been knocked down and ill-treated. He was an inoffensive respectable man, of the name of M'Creath, and was on his return home after finishing his day's work, when he was beset by a party and knocked down, and it was in self defence that he used his putty-knife, an implement of his trade which he usually carried about him. The hon. and gallant Officer deprecated such statements as calculated to prejudice a man on his trial for life, and declared that the whole statement was a tissue of misrepresentation. The hon and gallant Officer concluded by moving that the words "distinguishing Roman Catholics from Protestants" be added to the return ordered on the 14th instant.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that having been personally alluded to be felt it necessary to offer a few observations. Notwithstanding what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member, he still entertained the opinion, that such a return as that for which the hon. and gallant Member had moved could not be obtained, for they all knew that parties were not required by law to state the religion to which they belonged. No return that was not certain could be useful, and it was very obvious that certain information was not to be obtained in the present instance. But there was another, and not a technical, ground on which he must resist the present Motion, and that was, that it would be manifestly invidious and unjust in its tendency. It could promote no real good, and would, in all probability, have the effect pf raising an unfair and unjust impression against that class of persons who formed the great majority in the chronicles of crime in Ireland. Crime for the most part was committed by the poor, they being most open to temptation, in consequence of their poverty: and as it was well known that the poor of Ireland belonged chiefly to one religion there could be no great occasion for the return now asked for, and therefore he hoped the hon. and gallant Member would not persist in his Motion.
Mr. Peasedeclared that he should also resist the Motion. Party spirit had long been the bane of Ireland, and party spirit it was that had reduced that unhappy country to its present awful condition. He therefore hoped and entreated that the House would not countenance party measures, or agree to a Motion that would have the effect of easting a stigma on the religion of any portion of their fellow subjects.
Motion withdrawn.

POOR LAWS FOR IRELAND.
Sir John Tyrellwished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and in doing so, he should take the opportunity of making one observation. The question he wished to put was, whether his Majesty's Government had it in contemplation to introduce any measure into that House, to afford a legal provision for the poor of Ireland? The observation with which he wished to accompany this question was, that it could not but appear strange to all men who observed the course of parties in that House, that whilst

1149
much of their time had been employed in high-flown discussions about Ireland, and benefits withheld, and benefits to be bestowed, there had not been, from any one of the zealous speakers on the question of Ireland, a proposition for the introduction of the Poor-laws into that country. Indeed, he believed that the hon. and learned member for Dublin was opposed to their introduction.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that the question was one which he should feel little difficulty in answering. Before any one resolved that Poor-laws ought to be introduced into Ireland, he must resolve what description of Poor-laws was necessary, what should be their extent, and on what principle they should be founded. As to the observation which the hon. Member had made, he surely must know, that there was no question on which all parties were more divided among themselves than that of the Poor-laws, and that was especially the case with the Members from Ireland among whom the difference of opinion existed, without reference to political or to religious sentiments. The difference of opinion, in fact, was that which all honest and consistent men might conscientiously entertain, when trying to form a satisfactory judgment on so important a subject. Under these circumstances, he did not think it matter of blame to the Ministers, that, among the multitude of affairs to which they had to direct their attention, they had not been able to bring before the House the subject of affording a legal provision for the poor of Ireland. He thought, indeed, that if there was one subject of blame more to be feared by the Government than another, it was that of bringing in measures for the relief of the poor, crudely prepared, and brought in for the sake of catching at popularity, rather than from any well-grounded confidence of their excellence, or any firm and settled conviction that they were right, both in principle and details, and were calculated to produce benefit to the people at large. After having thus expressed his opinion, he should only add, that his Majesty's Government were not, at this moment, prepared to bring in a measure for giving Poor-laws to Ireland.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the question relative to the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland was a most important one. The hon. member for Essex had done him injustice when he stated that he (Mr. O'Connell) was opposed to the introduce-
1150
tion of any system of Poor-laws into that country. He was opposed only to such a system as would give food to a man in perfect health, and capable of working, and would interfere with the carefulness which ought to enter into the management of every person's affairs, and with the natural affection that subsisted between children and their parents. he, however, had no objection to a system which would make provision for the blind, the lame, the insane, and those incapable of work—to a system, in short, which would relieve and not increase the poor of Ireland. Dr. Doyle was a decided advocate of the Poor-laws, and the majority of the Catholic clergy took the same view of the question. They beheld the misery and wretchedness of the poor in Ireland, and, anxious to afford them present relief, they consulted their feelings rather than their judgment, and did not take an enlarged view of the subject. He should be happy to introduce one sort of Poor-laws, and would make the attempt at once, if the hon. member for Essex would pledge himself to give his assistance. Dr. Doyle had suggested the application of the ecclesiastical revenues for such a purpose. Would the hon. member for Essex assist him in carrying that suggestion into effect. They were now about to reduce ten Bishoprics in Ireland. He was willing to consent that the amount of the revenues of these ten Bishoprics should be applied for the benefit of the poor. Or they might take the other part of the suggestion of Dr. Doyle. Dr. Doyle proposed, that those revenues should be devoted to the promotion of public works, whereby employment might be afforded to the poor. The scheme was worth trying by way of an experiment, and it would afford a great relief to those parts of the country which were at present heavily assessed to furnish the means of carrying on public works. Half of the whole rent-roll of the county of Kerry was mortgaged for Countycess. The right hon. Secretary was right in saying, that no political or religious feeling was mixed up with the question of the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland, as a proof of which he might mention, that his opinions upon this subject coincided with those of the hon. member for Sligo (Colonel Perceval), with whom he seldom agreed on questions connected with politics or religion, for he had the misfortune to differ on one of those subjects, and was

1151
bound to differ on the other. In conclusion, he must declare, that it would be wrong to lend the authority of Government to a proposal for introducing a system which would change all the relations of society in Ireland.
Subject dropped.

ARMY RETURNS.
Mr. Humesaid, that he wished to obtain certain Returns relating to Colonels of regiments, in order to show that many of them derived very considerable advantages from their appointments, advantages which, in his opinion, exceeded the limit of propriety. Many of the offices they held were almost sinecures, and perhaps if the duty of clothing their regiments was excepted, were perfect sinecures. He could not think, that such a system was advantageous, or that it ought to be persevered in. He would move for a Return of the name and rank of every Colonel now commanding a regiment, stating the date of each commission in the army, the date of his first appointment to the command of that or any other regiment, the rank held at the time of such first appointment to a regiment, the number of years on foreign service with his regiment, or on the staff at the time of such first appointment to a regiment, distinguishing each period of service; also, whether he holds any other and what civil or military office or appointment, the date of each such appointment, and stating the pay of his rank, the salary, pay, and emoluments derived from each office or appointment, and from the regiment he commands, so as to exhibit the annual sum derived from the public. When these Returns were laid on the Table, the House would be able to see what were the pensions and sinecures enjoyed by some of these Gentlemen, and would have an opportunity of comparing those advantages with their services, and of ascertaining whether these revenues and pensions had always been conferred as the reward of merit. The House had been, for several years past, voting large sums of the public money under false pretences. He did not wish to criminate individuals, or allude to particular cases; but, as it was clear that the Executive Government either would not or could not controul these improper appointments, it therefore was the business of the House to interfere, and stop the remunerations, if it could not prevent the promotions. He was
1152
sure, that when the Returns were laid upon the Table, the House would be convinced, that high honours and considerable emoluments were bestowed, but not as rewards for meritorious services.
Sir John Hobhousehad no objection to the Return, part of which, indeed, the hon. Member might find if he looked into the Army List. There were some parts of the Return now asked for, which it might be difficult to obtain, but which he would endeavour to procure, though to do so he must make a personal, rather than an official application to the individuals themselves.
Mr. Humesaid, that with regard to the Army List, though he might procure there some of the information he wanted, he did not know that he was entitled to speak upon the authority of any information except on that officially communicated.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, that he should wish Returns of Naval Appointments to be granted, for he should then be able to show that some of these appointments which the right hon. Secretary opposite had stated would amount to but 4,500 l., did, in fact, reach the amount of 6,700 l. a-year.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that the advantages enjoyed by the officers of the Navy, to whom the hon. Member alluded, did not equal those possessed by officers of the same rank in the army, and it was in some degree, to equalize them, that these appointments had been granted.
Returns ordered.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
Mr. Humepresented a Petition from the Inhabitants of the Metropolis, praying for a change of the Laws with regard to the infliction of Capital Punishment. The petition was signed by 5,330 persons. The petitioners stated, that in their opinion, the severity of punishment ought to be diminished, and its certainty increased. At present the infliction of punishment was but a lottery, and the chances of escape were between 300 or 400 to 100 in favour of the prisoner. The law, therefore, instead of being a terror to evil doers, had become a matter of little importance. In consequence of the severity of the law, there was a general conspiracy to prevent the infliction of the punishment it awarded. If the severity of the punishment was relaxed, prosecutions would increase a hundred fold. He thought that capital punishments ought to

1153
be abolished except in the case of murder or arson. He wished to know whether the House thought they ought indirectly to encourage murder by giving to it the same punishment as the violation of property in some instances received. The law against burglary, in particular, he thought far too severe. In fact, it encouraged murder, because a person committing a burglary would be tempted to take away the life of a fellow-creature, when that was probably the only chance he had of escaping capital punishment. That was the result of such indiscriminate severity. Uncertainty of punishment tended to the same object. Where five or six hundred persons were sentenced, and only fifty were executed, the uncertainty afforded a strong inducement to criminals to try the lottery of escape or punishment. The petitioners had considered this subject attentively, and wished now to bring it under the consideration of the House. Most of them were men of experience, who spoke from their own knowledge of the inefficacy of the present law. He had no hesitation in terming that a sanguinary law which consigned several classes of offenders to extreme punishment. In America there were only one or two crimes—murder, he believed, and arson—which were punishable with death; yet it was well known that laws there were more efficient for all the useful purposes of society than in this country. He gave his most cordial support to the petition, which was read as follows:—
"Humbly Showeth—That your Petitioners are deeply impressed with the opinion, that the efficacy of criminal laws depends less upon the severity of punishment than the certainty of infliction; and that laws, which cannot be carried into execution without shocking the feelings of society, and exciting sympathy for the offender, are contrary to reason, inconsistent with morality, and opposed to the interests of justice.
"That the criminal laws of England are of a character so vindictive and barbarous as to be utterly incapable of uniform execution; and that, consequently, under the present system, the lives of men depend less upon the precise and express provisions of the law, than upon the temper, feeling, or caprice of a Judge, or Secretary of State; whence it arises that all the Assizes and Circuits throughout England afford examples of
1154
inequality of punishment and practical proofs of the arbitrary discretion exercised in the selection of victims for the altars of sanguinary justice.
"That the excessive severity of the law operates to the total impunity of a great proportion of offenders, by deterring humane persons from prosecuting, and by holding out a temptation to Jurors to violate their oath, rather than be accessary to judicial murder—while almost all the capital punishments now on the Statute-book are innovations upon the temperate and wholesome principles of the ancient Common Law of the land, which had ever been admired for its humanity and wisdom by the greatest legal authorities, and is coeval with the noblest and best principles of the English Constitution.
"That your Petitioners, therefore, humbly pray your Honourable House to take the Criminal Laws into your consideration, and, in accordance with what the true interests of justice, as well as of humanity, require—to introduce such a thorough and efficient Reform of the Criminal Law as will render it more auxiliary to public morals than to private vengeance, and, by a judicious system of prison discipline, afford that protection to property of which all persons may avail themselves, without purchasing it by the sacrifice of human life."
Mr. Peasecordially supported the prayer of the petition. In his opinion, it imported much to the character of a Christian Legislature and a Christian nation to wipe off the stain of severity of punishment. The system, as at present existing, was at variance with the principles of the Christian religion. Why should a man convicted of murder, for instance, be executed within forty-eight hours after the sentence? Why should be, in so short a space, be called into the presence of Omnipotence, when the points of law on which his fate depended were often so doubtful as to require hours of discussion before the Judges could decide? He was sure that if more time were given, and the public mind allowed to dwell on the nature of the offence and the state of the criminal, that all feelings of revenge would give way to those of humanity and justice. The great object of punishment was terror and reform. The uncertainty of punishment removed the terror; and capital punishment, when it was inflicted, precluded the possibility of reform.
The Solicitor Generalconcurred with the views of the hon. Members opposite, but thought they had forgotten how much had already been done. Even in the last Session of Parliament, the punishment of death was abolished in cases of cattle-stealing, and horse-stealing, in some cases of forgery, and in coining, which till then was considered as high treason. He admitted that the law, in respect of capital punishments, was capable of still further improvement, notwithstanding the many amendments recently introduced. He had attended to the subject, and he was of opinion that capital punishment should not be inflicted unless in cases of violence. The hon. Member, he thought, went too far in the principles which he laid down; and he would put it to him whether, if attacked by a robber, he should not, in defence of his life and property, take the assailant's life? If, then, a private citizen had the right in such a case to take away life, why should not the State, for the general good, have the same? He wished, however, not to be understood as opposed to all mitigation in the law as it then stood; but he wished such improvements to be effected by cautious and gradual means alone. The petition, however, seemed to have been drawn up by a person who had been asleep for the last ten years, and, therefore, knew nothing of the late changes.
Mr. Lennardcould assure the House, that the petitioners had not forgotten the conduct of the Government, but had, on the contrary, at their meeting, dwelt with great satisfaction on those of their measures which mitigated the criminal code. The present petition was one out of the thousand proofs which would be given to Parliament of the growing dislike and disapprobation of the people to the severity of our criminal code. He was ready to go to the length of saying, that no crime against property, unaccompanied by violence to the person, ought to be subject to the punishment of death. Robbery was still, however, a capital offence. ["No" "no" from the Solicitor General.] He still thought he was right; but, however that might be, he was quite sure that sufficient attention had not been paid to the efficacy of secondary punishments. It was that which carried terror to the evil-doer, as was proved by the examples in America, from which that House
1156
might take a lesson. And he hoped the present Session would not be allowed to pass without a more general application of secondary punishment. He hoped that steps would be immediately taken to render the criminal code more in accordance with the feelings of the country.
Mr. Robinsonwas of opinion that the certainty of the infliction of a minor punishment would be much more effectual for the repression of crime than the uncertainty, in many cases, at present attending the execution of the sanguinary penalty of death. He hoped to see the severity of the criminal code still further relaxed.
Mr. Lambwas happy to inform his hon. friend that the subject of prison discipline and secondary punishments was under the consideration of Government. A gentleman had been sent out to America to investigate the system of secondary punishments, and the state of prison discipline established in that country, and to report thereupon to the Government. When the report was made, he considered that the Penitentiary would afford an ample opportunity for making experiments on the American plan, if it should be thought advisable so to do, without building a new prison. He was ready to express his concurrence in the general prayer of the petition; but he thought it would be better, instead of abolishing the punishment of death by a general law, to treat every crime separately, and to see what effect was produced in each particular instance by the relaxation of the extreme penalty of the law. It was by gradual and cautious legislation that they could best mitigate the code without endangering the security of life and property. He did not mean to undervalue the alterations which had been made: on the contrary, he felt on the whole that they had been improvements. At the same time he must say, that he had, in his official capacity, received several remonstrances against some of those alterations. He believed, that they had had a good effect, but he mentioned the circumstance for the purpose of impressing on the House the propriety of dealing with this subject with moderation. At the same time he was ready to declare, that they ought not to stop in their course of improving the criminal code until they could fairly say, that the penalty of death was attached to no crime which did not

1157
deserve that punishment. With respect to the sentence of transportation for life, which was now in many cases passed instead of the sentence of death, he was of opinion that it was one which should always take effect, unless in the event of some decidedly mitigatory circumstances appearing'. It was almost impossible to define the exact degree of violence which deserved death: but, at the same time, he wished to remind the House that the Secretary of State had the right of investigating each case, and of mitigating the punishment when the crime was attended with comparatively little violence. He was not prepared to say, that he would abolish capital punishments in case of burglary; committed, as it was, at night, it almost necessarily led to the chance of murder, and required to be punished accordingly. There were, however, distinctions in burglary, and he did not desire to see the capital punishment extended, for that reason, to all offences of that nature.
Mr. C W. Wynn, agreed with the hon. under Secretary of State, that the crime of burglary deserved the severest punishment which the law inflicted. It was a crime of the most serious nature; and being perpetrated for the most part at the dead of night, it was not only calculated to excite the greatest terror, but also to lead to murder; and more especially in cases where resistance was offered. He was not, however, opposed to mitigation of the criminal code; on the contrary, he thought that there were many cases in which a milder punishment might be safely substituted for that of death. There were even cases which now came under the class of burglaries which ought not to be visited with extreme severity; for instance, a person merely lifting the latch of a door, and entering an outbuilding, and stealing above a certain amount, was guilty of burglary. But it was most desirable that there should be a classification of crimes, and that those of very different magnitude should not be placed together. He agreed also with the hon. under Secretary, that nothing but strong mitigatory circumstances should ever induce the Home Office to commute, for a milder punishment, the sentence of transportation for life, now attached to offences formerly punishable by death. It was well known that there were sheep-walks in Wales
1158
extending several miles, and the sheep were not very carefully guarded. As a Magistrate he had had cases of this nature repeatedly brought before him. A peasant, from distress, stole a sheep from the flock, with a view of providing food for his family. Surely, there were mitigatory circumstances in his case, in comparison with that of a man who stole the whole flock of sheep for the purpose of selling them. There should be a classification of offences, then, as regards cattle and horse-stealing, though all alterations of this sort should be made with the greatest caution.
Mr. Buckinghamsaid, that he could not admit the analogy between a man shooting a robber in his own defence, and the State taking away the life of the offender. The law, as a tribunal, could not be influenced by fear. Its object in punishing a criminal was to prevent a recurrence of the crime, and, as far as possible, restitution to the individual or the State. For his own part he would go so far as to say, that no crime should be punished with death, because, by death, they took away all means of reform or restitution.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonthought, that there were certain crimes to which society, in justice to itself, was bound to affix the penalty of death. It was a most dangerous doctrine to maintain that the Legislature had not the power of inflicting death. Society had a perfect right to act for its own protection; and the security of life and property often depended upon the terrors of capital punishment. At the same time he admitted, that it would be right to define, more accurately than was at present done, the crime of burglary. The penalty of death ought not to be attached to crimes which were not attended by violence or terror. He was of opinion that a general inquiry should be instituted into the nature and extent of our system of punishments; he was for a further mitigation of the criminal code, which was the most sanguinary in Europe; and, on that ground, he supported the petition.
The Attorney Generalrose lest his silence might be misunderstood. He would yield to no man in his desire to mitigate the severity of the criminal code; but he hoped that all further relaxations would be attempted upon practical and not theoretic grounds. He was ready to

1159
admit, that there were many cases with respect to which a milder punishment than was now applied ought to be inflicted; but he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, the under Secretary for the Home Department, that the most judicious course would be to deal with each case separately.
Mr. Rotchcomplained of the state of some of the prisons, particularly Newgate, which was a disgrace to the country. He himself, as one of the bench of Magistrates, had made several unsuccessful attempts to classify the prisoners, but the confined state of the prison rendered such a classification impossible. He, however, expected very little to be done towards the prevention of crime until the resolutions of different Committees of that House respecting prison discipline were carried into effect. Those resolutions, he was sorry to say, were generally neglected throughout the country. There were 1,200 prisoners for example within that small space, and the city of London, which had lately had an opportunity of increasing it, neglected to do so.
Mr. Ewartapproved of the conduct of Government in sending out a gentleman to America to examine into the state of prison discipline in that country, and took the present opportunity of expressing his abhorrence of the barbarity of the existing game code.
Petition laid on the Table.

TITHES (ENGLAND).
Mr. Walterpresented a Petition on the subject of tithes from the Inhabitants of Wokingham and its Vicinities. It might recommend the object of the petitioners to the favourable consideration of the House, when he assured it that they did not wish to infringe in any manner the just rights of the clergy, nor to divert to foreign or unbecoming purposes the funds to be raised out of an equitable commutation of tithe; of which system, however, as it now existed, they earnestly prayed the House to undertake the immediate extinction. He could further state, that in no communication which he had ever had, whether with members of the Church of England itself, or with Dissenters, had any disposition appeared to despoil the Church of a fair equivalent for its present revenues. The most difficult topic connected with this question was, the possession of tithe by laymen and by lay Corporations; and, upon this head
1160
the petitioners complained, that in many places, where the tithes extended over some thousands of acres, and were in possession of private individuals or Corporations, all that the incumbent of the living received was an antiquated stipend of 30 l., or 40 l., or 50 l., a-year. The petitioners submitted, that it would be no more than just to enforce that old law which might still exist in statute, though not in practice, of enforcing an adequate maintenance for the vicars and resident ministers out of those impropriations, which were so mal-appropriated. The rest of the petition was so temperate and rational, as to entitle it to the utmost attention of the House.
The Petition was laid on the Table.

FACTORY REGULATIONS—CORN LAWS.
Colonel Torrenspresented a Petition from Bolton, in favour of the Ten-hours Limitation Factory Bill, and also praying that no children under the age of nine years be employed in factories. He observed that many persons were apprehensive that limiting the hours of labour could not but have the effect of increasing the expenses of production; but he would offer to such persons, as the best consolation, the assurance, that the repeal of the taxes on bread would more than compensate them for any increased expenses of production.
Colonel Williamssaid, that though he was not connected with the town of Bolton, he had been requested to support the prayer of this petition. He considered this practice of overworking children to be attributable to the avarice of the masters, and he hoped that some means would speedily be devised for putting an end to the grievance.
Mr. Fryerdenied, that the avarice of the manufacturers had anything whatever to do with the question. The excessive labour of the children in factories was occasioned by the Corn-laws, and other such impositions on the labour of the people. When those taxes were repealed, he would cordially support any measure for diminishing the hours of labour from sixteen to ten, but, until that was done, any alteration would increase instead of amending the miseries of the labouring classes. The people of England had long called for a repeal of the Corn-laws; and he could tell the House that if they were not shortly repealed within the walls of Parliament, they would be so from without.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussondeprecated the tone in which the hon. Member spoke. When the hon. Member talked of what the people would do out of doors, he ought to have recollected, that the question of the Corn-laws was one which could never be disposed of in such a manner without endangering a very serious change in the constitution of the country. It was a question at least fully equal to the comprehension of the hon. Member, and one which, unless he was much mistaken, would require the consideration of talent fully as great as the hon. Member could boast of. For his own part he did not think the poorer classes would be at all benefited by any change; but that was a point which he would not then discuss. As to the subject which formed the matter of the petitions before the House, he could only say, that he had always given his support to Mr. Sadler's Bill for reducing the number of labour hours to ten, and would continue to support any hon. Member who might take upon himself to introduce a similar measure in the present Parliament. Formerly it was stated, that the children in factories were only obliged to work twelve hours out of the twenty-four, and even that was deemed an excess; but it now appeared, on the confession of the hon. member for Wolverhampton, that sixteen was the number of labour hours—a confession which he thought ought to gain over many supporters to the contemplated measure.
Mr. Humeconsidered the question before the House as one of principle, and he wished hon. Members would treat it as such. The taunt that had been thrown out against the hon. member for Wolverhampton was not deserved, for the fell sure that the hon. Gentleman dealt fairly with the subject before the House. For himself, he repeatedly heard the masters of factories accused of wanton cruelty. They were called brutes, as if they took pleasure in inflicting punishment. He heard this accusation of cruelty with regret, and did not think they deserved it. They were also charged with avarice, and that was by some assigned as a cause for their severity. Now, he would ask one question—were the ordinary profits of capital increased by the exercise of severity? If not, avarice could not be the cause of severity. He did not think that home competition obliged master manufacturers to have recourse to harsh treatment; in
1162
his opinion, the chief cause lay with the landholders, and with that House, which legislated for them. To prove this, he would just state that a cotton-spinner in France paid only 33 s. per quarter for his wheat, whilst the cotton spinner in England paid 55 s. The consequence was, that the English cotton-spinner, to make up for the difference of 22 s. was obliged to exact twelve or fourteen hours labour from children, instead of ten hours or less which would be only required if the price of corn was lower. This was the plain cause of the distress of master-manufacturers, as it was of their exacting so much labour from those they employed. Let this corn monopoly be reduced, and not only the distress of the manufacturers would be alleviated, but also the hard treatment which factory children undergo would be put an end to. The consequence of doing away with the corn monopoly would not be to reduce the price of corn in this country, but rather to raise its price in other countries, and thus put the English manufacturer on a footing with the foreigner, and enable the former to compete with the latter on equal terms. If hon. Members had not their judgments clouded by a fear of seeing the price of corn lowered, they would have seen to what cause the harsh usage of factory children ought to be attributed. He entirely agreed with the hon. members for Bolton and Wolverhampton, that if food was allowed to be cheap, the distress of manufacturers would be decreased, and the complaints against the severity they exercised over the children they employed, would be no longer made.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonbegged to state in explanation, that in the remarks he made he had not the slightest intention to throw any odium on the masters of factories.
An Hon. Membersaid, that he agreed with the hon. member for Middlesex, that the outcry against master-manufacturers was unjust; and he besides considered that it tended to prejudice the public mind against them. While he made this avowal, he begged also to say, that he did not agree with the hon. member for Middlesex in attributing the distress of manufacturers to any foreign competition. The masters of cotton factories had little or no competition with France. The competition lay at home, between the towns of Lancashire and Glasgow, and other neighbouring Scotch towns. Let this competition be

1163
checked by an Act of Parliament limiting the hours of labour in factories. This was the only way to put a stop to the severity of masters towards children.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodcould assure the House that no one had a greater objection than he had to the Corn-laws. They were founded, he believed, on false principles, and had been and were the source of infinite mischief. He must be allowed however, to remind his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, that it was easier to discover the mote in another's eye than the beam in a man's own. His hon. friend charged an hon. Member (Mr. Cutlar Fergusson) with having a bias in favour of land. Now, perhaps, the hon. member for Middlesex had a similar bias in favour of money. Certain it was, that as the value of money had increased in this country, the relative value of land had fallen. The remarks of Members on all those subjects should be treated with candour and generosity. As to the question before the House, he did not deny that those poor children who were employed in factories were cruelly overworked, but let not that be charged on the masters. It was necessity—a grievous necessity—which obliged the masters to grind down those they employed. It was a stern necessity, like that which, in the language of the poet, had once existed in a town besieged.
"Love, strong as death, retains its might no more, And the pale mother quaffs her children's gore."
That it was which induced the parents of those poor children to sell them to this worst description of slavery—to that toil which produced not comfort, but misery. If the hours of labour were restricted, it might be that the children now employed in factories would not derive sufficient for their subsistence from their labour, and in that case they would have to go to the parish for relief. Nevertheless he (Mr. Attwood) was friendly to a Bill limiting the hours of labour, for he considered such a Bill was founded on principles of real political economy.
An Hon. Memberobserved that very strong imputations were brought against the master-manufacturers, which he believed were stated for the mere purpose of making an impression. Several attempts were made during the course of the last summer to prejudice and stimulate the public to make cause against the manufacturers; and, amongst others, he might instance the public entry into Manchester,
1164
of Mr. Sadler, Mr. Oastler, and other gentlemen, preceded by flags and banners, from one of which ropes were dangling, for the purpose, as was expressed, of hanging the masters. Now, this was a most improper method of proceeding, and to add to the effect of these processional placards, a speech was made at the same meeting, wherein it was stated, at the last day the masters would hear these awful words—" Depart from me, ye cursed." Now, he must say, this was very improper, and he seriously objected to the excitement of such prejudgments as he had witnessed, with respect to the question of infant labour.
Mr. Mark Philipssaid, that he was apprehensive lest the same strain of invective should be used in that House, in debating the question, that was used out of doors. He hoped the matter would be discussed dispassionately by hon. Members; and he begged to state, that he was personally acquainted with many great manufacturers, who desired nothing more than that the question should be brought before the House. He lamented that any portion of the wealth of the Aristocracy should arise from, or that any part of the National Debt should be laid on, the bodies of unfortunate children.
Mr. Sheppardsaid, that he had made it his duty to inquire among the great manufacturers of the West of England, and he had found that no such exaggerated abuses existed as those so repeatedly mentioned of late. It would surprise those manufacturers very much to find themselves brought before that House as if they were criminals. He trusted that when the question was discussed, those clauses of the Bill would be modified that tended to interfere with the fair profits of the manufacturer. He admitted, that factory children were subjected to much hardship, but it was greatly exaggerated.
Mr. Charles Langdalewas surprised to find, that the cause of working children so hard was by some solely attributed to the Aristocracy. He deprecated the attempts at casting odium on that body, for such attempts were most unjust and unfounded. He contended that if the Corn-laws were repealed, many persons would be thrown out of employment, and the manufacturers would lose their very best customers.
Mr. O'Dwyeragreed with the hon. Members that spoke on each side of the question, for they all confessed, that there

1165
was in the matter ample room for Legislation. He did not think that the masters of factories tortured the infants they employed wantonly and gratuitously. They did so, because by so doing they were enabled to put ten or fifteen per cent more into their pockets. The value of such an argument he left to the House.
Petition to lie on the Table.

JUDGES CHAMBERS.
Mr. W. Tookepresented a Petition from the Incorporated Society of Attorneys, Solicitors, Proctors, and others, practitioners of the law, not Barristers, praying the House would provide better accommodation for attorneys and others, whose vocations compelled their attendance at Judges' Chambers. The hon. Member observed, that at a period when improvements were taking place in every branch of the institutions of the country, the accommodations for the highest legal officers were totally overlooked; and it would scarcely be believed that the Chief Justice of England was compelled to transact all the important business which came under the denomination of chamber business in a room only eight feet high, twenty feet long, and twelve feet wide. The late member for Penryn, whom he regretted not to see in the present Parliament, presented a petition last Session on the subject. It was agreed on all sides that some better accommodation for the Judges was absolutely necessary; but the matter was put a stop to on the plea of economy—certainly, in this instance, unadvised economy. Though the subject might at first sight appear trivial to hon. Members who were not acquainted with the important affairs which came before the Judge in his chambers, he would beg to observe, that the public would derive considerable advantage if the prayer of the petition were granted, as the attorneys and solicitors would be enabled to accelerate the progress and settlement of the suits intrusted to them, by being able to bring them, in many cases, before the Judge, and by being allowed to settle them on motion before that functionary, which, from the confined and inconvenient nature of the place where they were obliged to attend, it was, at present, impossible for them to do.
Mr. Humesaid, that the accommodation which the hon. member for Truro wished for, was perfectly requisite as he had stated, and he would suggest a way
1166
of providing it without costing the public a shilling. There was paid out of the Suitors' Fund of the Court of Chancery, every year, a sum of 45,000 l. to the Masters in Chancery. Now, if the 4,000/. and 5,000 l. which were annually paid to those officers for doing little or nothing, were reduced to 1,300 l. or 1,400 l. there would be sufficient gained in one year to provide for the convenience which the hon. Member's petition prayed for. Let any man go to the ill-contrived and confused chambers allotted to the Judges, for the performance of their important private duties, and then compare them with what ought to be, when it was reflected that 7,000,000 l. of the public money had been spent on public buildings alone, within the last few years. He would at once declare that they were unfit for the transaction of business, and equally unfit to administer justice in.
Petition to lie on the Table.

MILITARY AT ELECTIONS.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodrose to present a Petition from members of the Political Union of Birmingham, complaining of the interference of the Military Force during the late elections, and praying the House to declare all elections null and void which took place under the control of the military force. He would only say, that he had seen gross cases of interference on the part of the military. He had seen bodies of Infantry clear the streets, and troops of Cavalry ride up to the hustings, while the polling was going on, and where no breach of the peace had been committed, or any act which could warrant such conduct. He had seen good and peaceable persons attacked by the ferocious soldiery, and honest electors cut down by the cavalry, and die of the wounds which they received. He hoped that the House would do its duty, and protect the rights of the people of England from such uncalled-for and unconstitutional interference; but if that House refused to interfere, he hoped that the people of England would protect their own rights. He trusted, that the people of England would remember, that if their Representatives in that House refused to protect their rights, they could bear arms in their own defence. He hoped that if the House did not do its duty now, the electors would, on the next occasion when they were called on to exercise their rights come up to the hustings with loaded

1167
pistols to protect themselves. He repeated it, he hoped that if that House refused to do their duty to the people, the people would not forget theirs, but come to the hustings with loaded pistols and loaded rifles, prepared to protect their rights.
Mr. Spring Riceconcurred with the hon. member for Birmingham in one observation which he had made. He hoped, as well as the hon. Member, that the people of England would never forget their rights. But he protested against the observations made by the hon. Member, which seemed to mean—if, indeed, they could be said to mean anything—that that House neglected the protection of the rights of the people of England. He objected, likewise, to his observations, because they assumed, that in case of improper military interference, either by order of the Magistrates or any other persons in authority, the people had no remedy. Now, it was known to all, that the proper quarter was always open to such complaints, and that, when made, they were never neglected. There was therefore, a constitutional remedy for such offences, and he thought it would be better and more becoming in the hon. Member to suggest to the people that constitutional remedy, than to suggest to them that that House neglected its duty to the people, and on that account that they should go to the hustings with loaded pistols and loaded rifles in defiance of the law of the land. Such doctrines, and such advice, were calculated to do much mischief out of doors. He thought it necessary to make these few remarks, as none of his Majesty's Ministers were present; and he could not permit the remarks of the hon. Member to pass unanswered.
Mr. Wolryche Whitmorewas not aware in what part of the country the elections to which the hon. member for Birmingham had alluded, and the circumstances he had stated had occurred, but he must say, that it would have been impossible, without the protection of the military, for the electors of Wolverhampton to have conscientiously recorded their votes in the late contest. The usual protection afforded on such occasions was through the instrumentality of the police, but if that was found insufficient, he must declare, that it was absolutely necessary that the electors should have the protection of the military. He trusted that the people of this country would never be induced by hints thrown out in that House, or by instigation elsewhere,
1168
to resort to those means which had been shadowed forth on the present occasion. He must also beg to add, with reference to the election to which he had alluded (Wolverhampton), that if the military had not been called out it was his full and firm conviction that not only would the peace of the town have been endangered, but that the scenes which had been already enacted at Bristol would have been again performed in Wolverhampton. He must also state that no praise could be too great to give to the Magistrates for their conduct on the occasion to which he had referred.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodsaid, that in making the observations he had addressed to the House he had not alluded to the late election at Wolverhampton. [Name, name.]
An Hon. Member: As the hon. Member had said that such transactions had taken place, he ought in justice to mention the name, otherwise it would be impossible for Members to have an opportunity of contradicting his assertions.
Mr. Thomas Attwood: The place to which I alluded, in which the infantry charged the people, and the cavalry rode up to the hustings, at a time when no breach of the peace had been committed, was the newly enfranchised borough of Walsall, in Staffordshire.
Mr. Forstersaid, that as member for the borough of Walsall, he craved the indulgence of the House while he offered one or two observations upon the present occasion. He had heard with surprise the remarks which had been made by the hon. member for Birmingham, and he was the more astonished to hear those remarks applied to the contest for the borough he (Mr. Forster) represented, as the whole facts and circumstances of that election must be well known by the hon. Gentleman, who had himself been present and of whom it might be said "quorum pars magna fuit." He (Mr. Forster) could state, that it had been announced by two persons deputed to attend at Walsall by the other candidate for the representation of that borough (who was no other than the son of the hon. member for Birmingham himself), that 100,000 men were to come from Birmingham to attend the election at Walsall. He could also state, that nearly 20,000 men did come headed and preceded by men in military uniforms, though belonging to no corps; that those men made an attack on the inn in which the electors in his (Mr.

1169
Forster's) interest were congregated for the night; that upwards of thirty persons were apprehended for the riot, and that great numbers of the electors in the popular interest had been seriously injured. It was true, that on the following day the military had been sent for, but not until the election had virtually closed. The mililitary had not, however been called in in sufficient time to preserve those who had voted conscientiously from injury, though happily they did arrive time enough to save the town of Walsall from the fate of Bristol. The Magistracy and authorities of Walsall and its neigh bourhood had on that occasion acted with great moderation, strict impartiality, and not only with a painful vigilance to preserve the town, but also the uninterrupted exercise of the elective franchise. He (Mr. Forster) was ready to try the merits of the question before any tribunal that the hon. member for Birmingham might choose.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodwas prepared to come to the bar of the House to show that the whole of the disturbances which had occurred had originated in the interference of the special constables, who had themselves broken the windows, and had also attacked children, and thereby excited the irritation of the parents.
Mr. Humestated, that he had himself received a petition from Walsall to the same effect as that which had been presented by the hon. member for Birmingham and which he (Mr. Hume) had delayed in bringing forward until he was aware that the hon. member for Walsall was in his place. The petition staled that the military were in the town before the polling, so that the statements now made were somewhat at variance. He should now abstain from saying more than to state that he should present the petition with which he had been intrusted to-morrow.
Mr. Buckinghamsupported the prayer of the petition, namely, that all elections where military interference had been used should be declared null and void. Every Member knew, and each constituency must know, that the law provided for the removal of military to a certain distance from the place of election, in order that no such interference might take place; but the question now was, whether in many instances, such interference had been necessary; and he thought no person could deny that in Sheffield, on the late election, the interference was improper. In the case
1170
of Sheffield, before anything had transpired to warrant the introduction of a military force, the military were sent for, and were met ten miles from the town by the Magistrates, who ordered them to load; they did so, arrived in Sheffield, and were not ten minutes in the town when, without any interference with them by the people, they issued from the inn yard in which they were congregated and fired upon the people; a poor watchman on duty in the preservation of the peace was killed, several children who were passing by were wounded and innocent blood had been shed. It had been said, that constitutional means were provided for the redress of such grievances, but he begged to remind hon. Members that an inquiry at the bar of the House could not be instituted or carried on at an expense short of 2,000 l., and therefore, how, he would ask, could poor persons who were the majority of the sufferers on such occasions, proceed? He considered that prevention was at all times better than cure, and he hoped that when the subject of Vote by Ballot was brought under the consideration of the House, some provisions would be made for taking the poll at elections in such a way as to make the interference of the military unnecessary and unknown.
An Hon. Memberhad heard from persons who had been present the circumstances attending the military interference at Sheffield, and from what he knew he could say that if any such interference was justifiable it was at Sheffield, for by it the town had been saved.
An Hon. Memberbegged to be allowed as one of the Representatives for Ireland, to observe that the injurious effects of military interference at elections had been there felt, and that in the county with which he was connected, not only had the military been marched into the town, but brought before the Committee Rooms of some of the candidates.
The Petition to lie upon the Table.

MINUTES.
Bill committed. Change of Venue (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By the Duke of RICHMOND, from Horsham, for Regulating the Hours for Employing Children in Factories.—By the same from Dorrington and from two Places in Derbyshire; by the Earl of CAWDOR, from Nairn; by Lord DACRE, from Wigan, Standish, and other Places; by the Marquess of Stafford, from Kirkwall; and by the Bishop of LINCOLN, from Burntisland,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Lord DICRE, from Newport; and by the Marquess of Stafford, from eight Dissenting Congregations; by the Earl of CAWDOR, from Eleven Protestant Dissenting Congregations; by Lord AUCKLAND, from Cliff Regis, Doorfield, and Barrington; by the Bishop of LINCOLN, from Brigstock; and by Lord SUFFIELD, from the Resident Missionaries of Jamaica, against Slavery.—By Lord TEYNHAM, from Dublin, against Tithes and Church Cess; from Castlebar and Aughagoure, for a Repeal of the Legislative Union, the Abolition of Church Cess, Tithes, and Grand Jury Laws; and from the Latter, for Vote by Ballot.

REMOVAL OF MR. STANLEY.
Lord Teynhampresented a Petition from the Parish of St. Michael and St. George, in Dublin, praying for the Abolition of Tithes, and for the removal of Mr. Stanley from the Chief Secretaryship of Ireland.
Earl Greyconsidered a petition to that

1133
House, which prayed for the removal of a person appointed to an office by the Crown, could not be admitted. It was evident that the power of removing him did not rest in that House; and, there-fore, it would be preposterous to admit a petition for an object which it was not in the power of the House to carry into effect.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he was not one who felt disposed in any way to close the doors of that House against the petitions of any class of his Majesty's subjects. On the contrary, he was disposed, if possible, to overlook any irregularity which might accidentally occur in the wording of petitions, if there were no objections on the very face of the petition to its being received. He should have been inclined to extend this rule to the present petition, without paying any regard to the merits of its prayer; but that House had not the power, any more than the petitioners themselves, of accomplishing the object which the petitioners had in view; and, therefore, it could answer no good purpose to receive the petition; it would be a mere mockery of the right of petition, than which the people had no right more valuable, if their Lordships were to entertain a petition, praying them to do something which it was as impossible that they should do as if they had been asked to do something physically impossible. The appointment of any Minister depended entirely upon the Crown. If the petition had been, that their Lordships should move an humble Address to the Crown, praying the removal of any Minister appointed by the Crown, that would have been perfectly regular. The objection, therefore, was merely one arising from the inconsistency in petitioning the House to do that which they had not the power of doing; and did not extend to a petition to the same effect if tendered in a proper form; but worded in the way in which it now was worded, it was impossible, in his opinion, for that House to entertain it.
Lord Teynham withdrew the petition.

TITHES.—(ENGLAND.)
Lord Kingsaid, that he had to present a Petition to their Lordships connected with the subject of tithes in this country; and although he had been frequently rebuked by certain members of the right reverend Beach, for dilating upon this
1134
topic, he could not refrain in this instance, from calling their Lordships' attention to the peculiar hardships of which the petitioners complained. The petition came from a small parish in a remote district of the country, the inhabitants of which amounted to 800, and who subsisted entirely by agriculture and fishing. It appeared, from the petition, that there was not a more quiet or peaceable parish in the kingdom, until, in an evil hour, his noble and learned friend upon the Woolsack presented the present rector to it. The petitioners stated, that in the course of the last spring, the rector laid claim to a tithe upon herrings caught in the sea, which claim they alleged that there was no custom existing in the place to sanction; and it would be impossible to describe to their Lordships the disturbance which the raising of such a claim excited in this hitherto tranquil district. It, in truth, produced a complete tempest there, and he could only convey to their Lordships something like an idea of the subsequent state of the parish, by quoting to them an expression, employed in a letter addressed to him on the subject—namely, "that the rector had made a little Ireland of the parish." A "little Ireland" he (Lord King) believed it would be made, unless something was done to put an end to the agitation which the claim set up by the rector had excited. One of the first effects of his putting forward such a claim was, that the tithe-proctor was burnt in effigy, and that the rector was obliged to fly. He had already stated, that the petitioners alleged that no claim for tithes on fish had ever before been set up in that part of the country. He was aware that tithe upon fish had been claimed in some places in Sussex, and the claim proceeded upon the principle that upon every thing that had an annual increase, the clergy had a right to tithe. Upon the same principle the persons who claimed tithe upon fish, also demanded it upon bricks. In another part of their petition, the petitioners stated that they had had no resident rector for a great number of years. He could confirm that statement, for he had lived forty years in the parish, and had never known the rector to reside there. It would appear, indeed, as if the best qualification for a rector of this place consisted in being the near relative of the Mayor, or of some of the Aldermen of the borough of Tiverton, The living to which he was alluding was

1135
in the gift of the Great Seal, as he had already intimated. Now, through the means of the Reform Bill, the Great Seal had of late been emancipated; but, like slaves when suddenly restored to freedom, it did not seem to know how to use its liberty properly. His noble and learned friend on the Woolsack wished to stand well with the Church, and with the high Church too, and his noble friend had been remarked for his coquetting with the right reverend Peers upon that side of the House; but though his noble friend gave them the livings at his disposal, still he would find that he would not be able to get their votes. Soothe them as he would, his noble friend might be assured, that he would never succeed in inducing the right reverend Prelates to lend their support to the Government to which he belonged. It was a well-known fact in our history, that the Prelates of the Established Church had always shown themselves ready tools in the hands of a Tory Government; but now that the Tories were expelled from power, and that a liberal Government had been established, no such subserviency would be any longer exhibited on the part of the right reverend Prelates. He would beg to remind his noble and learned friend of what the Marquess of Wharton said to William 3rd, who was observing to him that the Tories were an exceedingly accommodating people, and that he liked them extremely. "I agree with your Majesty," replied the Marquess, "that no people can be more accommodating than the Tories, but your Majesty must remember that you are not the King of the Tories." So he (Lord King) would tell his noble friend, that he must remember that the Government to which he belonged was not a Tory, but a liberal and popular Government, and that it would be a vain effort to seek to enroll amongst its supporters, high Church and high Tory partisans. He was sorry to say, that in the present instance, his noble friend had not provided a good shepherd for the flock. The noble Lord concluded by presenting the petition, which was from the parish of Porlock in Somersetshire, complaining of the clergyman; and it prayed not only for the removal of the particular grievance of which the petitioners complained, but also for a general amelioration of the tithe system throughout the country.
The Puke of Cumberlandinquired
1136
whether the tithe in question had been exacted?
Lord Kingsaid, it had not; but that in consequence of the claim having been raised, the proctor had been burnt in effigy, and the rector had fled from the parish.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he had been a little alarmed by his noble friend's statement in the first instance, from which it would appear as if the reverend person alluded to had actually levied this tithe, and had done so in defiance of long-existing custom. It would seem, however, that the petitioners only complained of the reverend gentleman's laying claim to this tithe, to which they maintained he had no right, for it did not appear from their statement that he had taken any steps to enforce the claim. But if, as they alleged, there existed no custom there for the taking of such tithes, the course which they had to pursue, should the rector endeavour to exact them, was plain and obvious; they had only to resort to due course of law for their protection, instead of appealing to the Legislature on the subject—they had merely to go into the Courts and show that there existed no custom to authorize such a claim, and they would be perfectly safe from the rector's demands.
Lord Ellenboroughreminded the noble and learned Lord, that the petition also prayed for a general revision of the tithe system.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he could well understand that portion of the prayer of the petition; and this he would say, that no person, not even his noble friend who had presented the petition, could feel more strongly than he did, that that part of the petition was well founded, and no person could be more ready to admit than he was, that that part of its prayer should be granted, and that the Legislature should set at once about improving the tithe system—should set about placing that system upon a proper footing both as regarded the persons to whom tithes were due, and the persons from whom tithes were due—upon a footing equally beneficial to the lay as well as the clerical portion of the community. With respect to the reverend gentleman to whom this petition alluded, he must observe, that he had never in the course of his life been accessary to an appointment with which he was more

1137
satisfied. He had never known that reverend gentleman—indeed up to the present hour he had never seen him—but he understood from those who did know him that he was an exceedingly fit person to receive such an appointment, and that, under the circumstances in which he was placed, it would be an important object for him to obtain it. He had previously done duty at one of the new Churches in a great and populous town, and by the burning of that Church he was reduced, with his wife and family, literally to a state of destitution. Such was the statement made to him (the Lord Chancellor) at the time. Even if a sum of money could have been raised for the rebuilding of the Church in question, it could not be rebuilt in less than two or three years, and all that time this reverend gentleman would have remained without the slightest means of subsistence for himself or his family, the more especially as the whole of his emoluments, when the Church was standing, was derived from the pew rents. Such, he repeated, was the statement made to him with regard to this reverend gentleman, by individuals upon whose authority he depended, and who recommended the reverend gentleman to him as a fit individual for the appointment. Though the reverend Gentleman was not known to him, he was acquainted with some members of his family, and he could assure the House that it was no species of political intercourse, nor anything of a community of political feeling that had prompted him to confer this appointment upon the individual alluded to. He thought, on the other hand, that differences on such points afforded no reason why he should not give him this appointment, the more especially as he had heard a most unexceptionable account of him. For him to enter into inquiries on occasions of this kind, and to try the capacity or incapacity of every clergyman that might be recommended for one of the livings in the gift of the Great Seal,—for the Lord Chancellor to do that, the House would see, and he was sure that his noble friend in his candour would admit, was absolutely and altogether impossible. It was necessary, therefore, for him to refer to certain persons in whom he placed confidence, as to the selection of those clergymen to whom such livings should be given; and nothing that he had heard from his noble friend had induced him to alter his
1138
opinion that he had made a fit and proper selection in the present instance. That opinion would undoubtedly have been shaken if his noble friend had brought forward some proofs to show that this rev. gentleman had been acting in the manner he described; and if it had been shown that he had been exacting tithes to which he had no right, he could only say, that the reverend gentleman must be an extremely altered individual from the person whom he had sent to fill this living in the county of Somerset. When he sent the rev. gentleman there, he was utterly incapable of exacting tithes that were not his due, he would say, not only to the amount of a herring, but even to the amount of a sprat. If the rev. gentleman had since changed, as the noble Lord had described, he could not possibly account for the metamorphosis, except by supposing that the rector had fallen into an imitation of the conduct of other persons in that part of the country. His noble friend was quite mistaken in supposing that this appointment was made in consequence of the emancipation of the Great Seal, effected by the Reform Bill. The fact was, that the appointment was made before the Reform Bill was passed; it was one of the first he had made under the Great Seal. His noble friend was still more mistaken in the statement which he made respecting the assistance which he (the Lord Chancellor) had felt it his duty to solicit from the right reverend Prelates of those dioceses where the livings attached to the Great Seal were situated, as his noble friend described it, with regard to the selection of the reverend individuals to fill them. He utterly denied that, in doing so, he had in any manner been influenced by any motives of the kind attributed to him by his noble friend, and he had the best possible grounds, and the best possible evidence, to prove that such was not the case. He utterly denied that he had ever done so with a view to conciliate the political feelings of those right reverend Prelates, or to win them over to support those political opinions with regard to which he and his noble friend in a great degree concurred, though in some respects they materially differed. He would most unequivocally deny, that any such idea had ever entered into his head; and, indeed, if it had, he should have afforded just grounds for his noble friend's laughter on the present occasion,

1139
and he should, no doubt, be fated to experience that disappointment which his noble friend, assuming that he had such objects in view, had foretold would await him. He had stated, soon after his accession to office, that the number of exceedingly small livings which were at the disposal of the Great Seal, rendered it absolutely impossible for the Lord Chancellor, without trusting to the recommendations of others, to discharge well and faithfully that branch of the duties imposed on him; for though, with regard to livings of 200 l., and 300 l., and 400 l. a-year, it was easy for the Chancellor to find fit and proper persons to fill them, and to satisfy himself as to the qualifications and merits of the candidates, it was not so as regarded livings of a different description—of 30 l., 40 l., and 60 l. a-year, of which kind were many of those belonging to the Great Seal. Instead of such livings being sought for, it would be necessary for him, unless he had the means of applying to and relying upon the recommendations of others, to go about the country to seek for proper persons to put into them. It would, he need scarcely add, be impossible for any Lord Chancellor, with the many other duties he had to perform, to do that. Therefore, when he communicated upon this subject with a most reverend Prelate, he stated that it might appear as if it were a shrinking from a duty, the responsibility of which still attached to him, should he enter into such an arrangement, though, in fact, he proposed it, in order to enable him to discharge that duty in a faithful and efficient manner. It was solely upon such grounds that he had made the arrangement in question, and not with any political views, or with any motive of conferring an obligation on those right rev. Prelates, who rather obliged him by giving him the required assistance, than he conferred any obligation on them. His noble friend had somewhat irregularly introduced this subject, but he could not regret that, since it had given him an opportunity of explaining the real nature of an arrangement which had been hitherto very generally, and, he must add, very greatly misunderstood. The noble and learned Lord concluded by repeating his opinion as to the fitness of the reverend individual for the appointment to the parish from which the present petition emanated.
Lord Kingwas ready to give his noble and learned friend credit for great dis-
1140
cernment,—for great discernment in human nature, but not for great discernment in clerical nature. He would do his noble friend the justice to say, that the persons he had appointed to the livings in his gift had not been so promoted by him on account of a community of political feeling, for he believed, that in almost every instance, they were opposed to his noble friend in politics. His noble friend had, he was sure not in a bad spirit, alluded to the exactions of others in the West of England; that allusion fell harmless on him, for he could say, that he had never exacted that to which he was not fairly entitled. He complained of clerical, not lay exactions, for which value had generally been given, and to which, therefore, the owners were fairly entitled.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that if due investigation were made, it would be found that, so far from the clergy exacting more than their due, there was no description of property whatever upon which the claims of the holders were so mildly enforced. He knew the part of the country from which the petition came as well as the noble Lord who had presented it, and he could tell him that the landowners there were beginning to find out that a change of hands in the owners or collectors of tithes would be of no benefit to them. This persuasion was gaining ground throughout the country. He objected to the practice of the noble Lord in thus bringing discussions upon the characters of individuals who were not present to answer for themselves, and whose characters were valuable not only to themselves, but to the country. Never were the characters of the clergymen of the Established Church more valuable to their country than at the present moment, when there was a disposition abroad to make a run at the Church as undeserved as it was mischievous. He did not mean to say, that the noble Lord meant to do injury to the Church, but he certainly was adding to the spirit which was abroad by the frequent discussions he was in the habit of provoking in that House upon the characters of clergymen. He had intruded these few observations upon the House, because he found it impossible to sit still and hear unnoticed these attacks upon the characters of gentlemen who were not present to answer for themselves.
Petition laid on the Table.
Lord Kingwas glad to hear the noble and learned Lord pass an eulogium upon the character of the clergy of the Established Church. He only wished that their characters were as well appreciated by their parishioners, as by noble Lords in that House. He had to present another petition against tithes from the parish of Greystoke, Cumberland, and he would say, that greater injustice had never been committed by clergy or laity than had been committed by the incumbent of that parish in pursuing his demands for tithes upon the parishioners. The petitioners stated, that, for thirty years, they had been in a state of litigation with their pastor about tithes; that they had been dragged through all the Courts at Westminster, and had the same question tried in the Ecclesiastical Court at York, and also at Carlisle; that, in the year 1815, the Vice-Chancellor decided in favour of the modus set up by the petitioners, notwithstanding which there had been three trials since of the same question; that they had had the decisions of Sir John Leach, Lord Eldon, and Lord Lyndhurst in their favour, and yet another suit was now in progress. With regard to the observations made by the noble and learned Lord as to the present run against the Church, he would only take the liberty of remarking, that it was circumstances like these which occasioned that run.
Lord Ellenboroughthought that, before the noble Lord presented petitions which might involve the character of particular clergymen, he should give some notice to the parties concerned, in order that they might give a denial or explanation through the medium of some noble Lord.
The Bishop of Carlislebore testimony to the excellent character of the clergyman alluded to. That a new trial was allowed was an act not of the clergyman but of that Court.
Lord Kingsaid, there had already been three decisions in favour of the modus. He knew nothing personally of the clergyman in question, but it was to have been wished that the opinion expressed of him by the right rev. Bishop had been shared by the petitioners. The noble Lord also presented a petition against the Tithe system from Ashurst in Kent. He wished to observe, that it was never his intention to smuggle any petitions through the House. He had presented many petitions to the same effect
1142
last year, and then, as now, took occasion to do so when there was a full Bench to answer him. The object of the present petition was, that whatever measure of improvement with respect to tithes should be meted out to Ireland might also be extended to this country, when the conduct of the people under similar vexations, had been hitherto so peaceable and praiseworthy. In Kent, the taking of tithes in kind became a most oppressive burthen, and prevented the outlay of much capital, and the culture in hops of a great portion of land, since the tithe of hops would exceed the rent.
Lord Teynhamsupported the petition. He could fully and confidently confirm the statements in the petition, for the tithe on hops was most injurious in Kent, and greatly impeded the cultivation of the land. Taking tithes in kind too was a most grievous thing, for no man liked another to come upon his land.
Marquess Camdenwas well acquainted with the county of Kent, and could assure their Lordships that the conduct of the clergy in that county was most exemplary. He was quite sure that tithe was not more oppressive in Kent than elsewhere.
Petition laid on the Table.

THE SLAVE TRADE.
Lord Ellen-boroughwished to inquire of the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government whether any instructions had yet been given to his Majesty's cruizers off Western Africa, to adopt those measures for the suppression of the Slave-trade which were mutually agreed upon in the treaty between this country and France, entered upon last year?
Earl Greysaid, that instructions had not yet been given, in consequence of the negotiation of a supplementary treaty, which he expected would shortly be ratified and laid on the Table of the House. On the arrival of the ratification, instructions would be given.
Lord Ellenboroughexpressed his surprise at the delay, as the treaty had been ratified full a year ago.
Earl Greyremarked, that the subsequent negotiations necessarily occasioned the delay.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, he was not quite sure whether he yet understood the noble Earl. After this supplemental treaty was ratified, were the instructions still to be matter of negotiation?
Earl Greyintimated that such would be the case, but said, he anticipated no difficulty in the way of an agreement on the instructions to be given.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that their Lordships had been told the same thing more than a year ago, and yet the instructions were still negociating.
Earl Greyrepeated, that the delay must be ascribed to the necessity which was found to exist, of entering into a supplementary treaty.

STATE OF THE WEST INDIES.
Lord Colvillesaid, it was with much reluctance he rose to defer the Motion of which he had given notice for that evening. But he had that morning been informed by a committee of a most respectable body of Gentlemen, who took a strong interest in that matter, that the noble Viscount at the head of Colonial Affairs had requested an interview with them, for the purpose of laying before them a plan which he intended to propose on the part of Government for the settlement of this great question. As they, therefore, as well as himself, had no wish to embarrass his Majesty's Ministers, he was ready to consent to the postponement of his Motion, He had no object in view but to assist them in obtaining their end, which he believed was simply to elicit truth, and gain justice; and therefore, though he was fully prepared to go into his Motion, he readily assented to its postponement. There was no man among their Lordships who was less connected with West-India property, or more disinterested than himself. He did not doubt that he should have been able to have convinced their Lordships of the justice of his Motion; but the plan proposed by his Majesty's Ministers was entitled to the fullest consideration. The same reasons which induced him to postpone his Motion, prevented his fixing any day for its discussion, but he hoped the cause would not suffer by the delay.
Order discharged.