Sitting of 22 July 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Colonel EVANS, the Number of Houses unoccupied in the different Parishes of Westminster.—On the Motion of Sir EDWARD CODRINGTON, a Copy of the various Returns made to the Admiralty relative to the Battle of Navarino. On the Motion of Mr. CHETWYND, the Number of 10 l. Houses in the Borough of Stafford, within the present Boundary, and the same in the Parishes of Castlechurch, and St. Mary's, Stafford, which are not included in the present Boundary of the Borough.—On the Motion of Sir JAMES GRAHAM, an Account from all Parishes in England and Wales, of the Amount of Poor and County Rates levied in the year ending May 25th, 1833, and how, and by whom Expended: also the Accounts of the Surveyors of Highways in each Parish.
Bills. Read a third time:—Dean Forest Boundaries.—Read a second time:—Hyde Small Debts.
Petitions presented. By Mr. WILKS, from Stepney College, and from a Protestant Congregation at Liverpool, for Relief to the Dissenters from the Grievances with respect to Marriages, Registration, and Church Rates By Mr. INGHAM, from the Churchwardens of Westoe, in favour of the Rating of Tenements Bill; from the Merchant Sea-men of South Shields, to be relieved from the Contributions of Sixpence per Month, per Man, to Greenwich Hospital.—By Mr. COLQUHOUN, from several Places, for the adoption of Uniform Weights and Measures By Mr. LYALL, from Merchants and Shipowners in the City of London, against the Restriction of the Importation of Foreign Sugars for the purpose of Refining.—By Mr. NEWTON FELLOWES, from two Places in Devonshire, against, and from one Place, in favour of, the Tithes Com mutation Bill.—By Mr. MARK PHILLIPS, from Donnington, against the Slavery Abolition Bill, and for the Recall of the Troops from the West-Indies.—By Mr. CHARLES KKMYSS TYNTE, Colonel GORE LANGTON, and Mr. J. LEE LEE, from several Places, for the Repeal or Amendment of the Sale of Beer Act; and from Chard, for per mitting the Circulation of Small Notes By Sir GEORGE GREY, from Devonport and Stonehouse, for Establishing Local Courts.—By Lord ROBERT MANNERS, from the Frame-work-Knitters of Loughborough, for Relief.—By Mr. GEORGE EVANS, from certain Individuals concerned, for Inquiry into the State and Regulations of Smithfield Market, Dublin.—By Mr. GILLON, from the Linen Weavers of Forfar, for Regulations respecting their Payment.—By Mr. Sergeant PERRIN, from Aughnamullin, for an Inquiry into the Collection of Tithes in that Parish.—By Mr. BARRON, from Carrick-on-Suir, that when the House shall have acquired the right of Conferring or Transferring Representation, it will take the Claims of that Place into Consideration.—By Mr. TOOKE, from the Solicitors of Birmingham, in favour of the Notaries Public Bill.—By Mr. EWAERT, from the Anti-Slavery Society of Liverpool, against the Slavery Abolition Bill.

CASE OF MR. PERROTT.
Mr. Clay
1055
presented a Petition from an individual named Henry Dundas Perrott, formerly a Lieutenant in the Navy. The petitioner complained of having been struck off the list of Lieutenant of the Navy. The circumstances were these:—In March, 1812, Lieutenant Perrott was convicted at the Assises at Maidstone, of a misdemeanor in obtaining 20 l., for having given protection to one Bullen, a master mariner. He was convicted, as he affirmed, in consequence of not being permitted to take a copy of the indictment, so that he could not be prepared with witnesses to rebut the charge. After some months' imprisonment, the party on whose evidence the conviction was obtained, died, and consequently a bill of indictment could not be preferred against him, and on Lieutenant Perrott's applying to the Court of King's Bench, the Judges reversed the sentence and judgment which had been given against him. Upon the strength of that judgment the petitioner applied to the Admiralty to be restored to the Navy, but was told that the reversal of the sentence having proceeded upon technical grounds, his restoration could not take place. In July, 1825, he procured a restoration of a pension of 2s. 6d. a-day, which he would have been entitled to under the regulations of the service, had he been only a Midshipman. Affidavits were in existence, swearing that other persons, now dead, were guilty of the forgery attributed to the petitioner. He trusted that the House would consider he had made out a sufficient case for its consideration.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodthought the case of the petitioner one of signal hardship, and could not help stating his firm belief to be, that the petitioner was the victim of personal malice on the part of some of the late members of the Board of Admiralty or their subalterns.
Sir Edward Codringtonsupported the prayer of the petition. If the House looked at the number of pensions that were given for doing nothing, they would consider it a great disgrace to take from this poor man his paltry pittance.
Sir James Grahamwas sorry the case had been brought before the House, inasmuch as it would render it imperative upon him to make statements that would not be very pleasant to the feelings of some parties. Up to 1812, he admitted, the petitioner had conducted himself in the most becom-
1056
ing manner, and had done a great many gallant actions, but in that year he had been tried at the Maidstone Assises, for obtaining money under false pretences from the wife of a sea-faring man named Bullin, he having represented to her that he was able, through the instrumentality of some relations at the Admiralty, to protect her husband from impressment. He was convicted of this, but some objection being taken to the indictment, that point was reserved for the consideration of the twelve Judges, who decided against the validity of the indictment, and the prisoner obtained a reversal of his sentence of two years' imprisonment. In consequence of his conduct, his name had been removed from the Navy List. In 1823, the petitioner presented a petition to the Admiralty Board to be restored, which was referred to Counsel, who advised the Board not to accede to the request of the petitioner. The petitioner now stated that he had fresh grounds; but he (Sir James Graham), after having given the subject his best consideration, felt compelled to come to the conclusion that the petitioner had been guilty of the charge imputed to him; and he, therefore, could not, consistently with his duty to the public, advise the House to accede to the prayer of the petition.
Petition to lie on the Table.

MINISTERIAL PLAN FOR THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.
Mr. Secretary Stanley moved the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Abolition of Colonial Slavery Bill.
Mr. Fowell Buxtonwished to have the Order in Council, which was to be made the model of legislation in several colonies, laid upon the Table. It was most important this should be done for the purpose of enabling the House to form some idea of the new system of society which it was proposed to establish in the West Indies. He professed himself unable to understand the system of apprenticeship. It would appear to be a state partly of slavery and partly of freedom; he wished, if possible, to ascertain the proportions. He also urged as another reason for the necessity of producing this order that the provisions of the new Bill were more oppressive upon the negroes than the old Orders in Council. The Bill permitted them to labour ten hours a-day, while the old Orders in Council restricted the time to nine hours

1057
a-day, and provided, moreover, that the slaves should have forty days holydays. Thus, by the new measure, the slaves lost one hour per day, and forty days per annum freedom.
Mr. Secretary Stanleystated, that it was impossible for him to produce an Order in Council, the draft of which could not be yet drawn, inasmuch as the order must necessarily be founded on the Bill, the provisions of which were not yet determined. The Bill was not intended to supersede the existing Orders in Council: it was only intended to provide a maximum beyond which, in dealing with the labour of the slaves, the Colonial Legislatures could not go. It would not interfere with the further arrangements with respect to the government of slaves in those colonies in which they were established. As to the hon. Gentleman's observations with respect to apprenticeship, he had only to remark that apprenticeship, in any state or any part of the world, must necessarily be a state partly of freedom and partly of slavery.
Lord Howickstill hoped, that his right hon. friend would be induced to accede to the request of the hon. Gentleman. The great anxiety of those who, like himself, believed the system of apprenticeship to be impossible, was to know by what means his right hon. friend proposed to carry that system into effect.
Mr. Secretary Stanleyhad hoped, that his noble friend knew enough of the difficulty of drawing up Orders in Council, to prevent him from thinking that such order could be drawn up before the provisions of the Bill, upon which it must be necessarily founded, were determined upon. He declared that no Order in Council was intended to be sent forth as a model of legislation for all the colonies.
The Order of the Day read.
Mr. Secretary Stanleysaid, that as the Bill was founded upon Resolutions which had received the approbation of both Houses of Parliament, he did not feel it necessary for him to trouble the House with any observations upon it, but should simply move that the Slavery Abolition Bill be now read a second time.
Mr. Fowell Buxtonsaid, that he was not prepared to oppose the second reading. But he felt it necessary to repeat the objections which he had already stated against certain parts of it. The system of apprenticeships was incomprehensible, and he did not
1058
understand how, if compulsion were abandoned, recourse could be had to any other system than that of wages. He should oppose the system of apprenticeships, and also the proposition of giving money to the planters, until it should be seen that slavery was really extinguished; because the money might be paid, and the Colonial Legislatures might never consent to make the laws necessary for carrying the object into effect. The planters would resort to the old system of compulsion, and there would be as much whipping as ever if the work was to be done. If that old system were resorted to, he was convinced that convulsion and insurrection would ensue in the colonies. He had had communications from various quarters in the West India Islands, which assured him that the negroes were in that state that they were determined to have wages for their work. If they were not paid insurrection would be the consequence, and that would be the termination of British authority in those islands. As there was an understanding that the principles of the Bill should not be discussed at this stage, he should content himself with giving notice that it was his intention to move two instructions to the Committee—the first, to limit apprenticeships to the shortest period which could be sufficient for introducing the necessary regulations; and the other that no money should be paid to the planters until slavery should have been extinguished.
Mr. Humeobjected to granting twenty millions without having adequate grounds upon which to form an estimate of the proper amount of remuneration. He was anxious to know what were the intentions of his Majesty's Government with respect to continuing the monopoly of sugar to the West-India Islands, or throwing the trade open. He distrusted the produce of free labour, and feared that the amount would be so much reduced as to raise the price of the article in this country as high again as it was at present. If the price of sugar were to rise 20 s. the cwt., this would impose a tax of 4,000,000 l. a-year on the consumer in this country, in addition to 1,000,000 l. a-year, the interest of the 20,000,000 l. proposed to be given as compensation.
Mr. Pelhambegged to say a few words upon a subject in which he was personally interested. He observed his name amongst those of other hon. Members of that House, as having attended at a meeting of

1059
the Anti-Slavery Society, on Saturday, at which it appeared a Resolution was passed, of which he as a Member of that House could not approve. He certainly had been present at that Meeting, but had left before that Resolution was proposed. If he had been present when it was put, he should certainly have opposed it, as he considered it an unconstitutional one, and such as no Member of that House would be justified in adopting. The Resolution to which he alluded was to the effect, that delegates should be summoned from all parts of Great Britain and Ireland, to watch the conduct of the Representatives of the people, on this question. He should be ashamed to show himself again in that House, if he could have suffered such a Resolution to pass without, protesting against it, and he wished to take this opportunity to guard himself against the imputation of having sanctioned it.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, that he had also been present during the earlier part of the meeting alluded to, and could assure his hon. friend and the House, that it was not the intention of those who generally take the lead in matters of this nature, that such a resolution should be adopted. He should certainly have felt great difficulty in acceding to such a proposition. The resolution was carried in his absence, but undoubtedly the meeting had a right to express its desire, that those Gentlemen who had been deputed from very respectable bodies in various cities and towns, at a period of great excitement, should attend, if such was their opinion. It was not his intention to enter into the discussion of the question before the House, as there seemed to be a determination that the second reading of the Bill should pass without a very narrow examination of the principle which was founded upon the Resolutions approved of by the House. He should, however, at the proper time move an instruction to the Committee, that all persons who had been slaves in the West-India islands, and who had once landed in Great Britain or Ireland, should if they returned to the West-Indies, be ipso facto free. He hoped and trusted the House would agree to this proposition, when it saw the iniquities which were the consequence of the present system. It sometimes happened that slaves came to this country and contracted marriage here, and left free children here; but if they returned to the West-Indies to see their
1060
aged parents, they were replaced in slavery, and condemned to pine in wretchedness. He should also move another instruction that no part of the 20,000,000 l. should be given to any slave-owner in the colony of the Mauritius, unless he made out a good title by proving the legal importation of the slave. He was justified in making this proposition, because the Secretary for the Colonies had admitted that 25,000 felonies had been committed in this way since 1810. He agreed entirely with the hon. member for Weymouth in reprobating the system of apprenticeships, and should use his utmost endeavour, to eradicate it from the Bill. He should consent to a restriction for a short period, until wages should have time to find their level. He had also another objection to the measure. He could never intrust the. Colonial Legislatures to legislate upon the freedom of the slave.
Lord Sandonconsidered that the principle of apprenticeships and that of compensation were settled by the Resolutions, and the House ought not to revoke its decision.
Mr. Rigby Wasonconsidered the system of apprenticeships a valuable one, with adequate wages; but he did not approve of the provisions of the Bill in that respect.
Lord Howicksaid, it had been expressly declared upon the discussion of the Resolutions, that the House was only pledged to the principle of a preparatory state between slavery and freedom, and not to the precise system contained in the Bill, and still less to the time for which it was to last. He agreed with the hon. and learned member for the Tower Hamlets, that the confidence which his right hon. friend, the Colonial Secretary now placed in the Colonial Legislatures was quite contrary to the sentiments he had avowed when first submitting this scheme to the House. Considering the words which his right hon. friend had quoted from Mr. Canning, he could not trust the masters of slaves to legislate for them. He had requested his right hon. friend to submit the draft of the Order in Council, by which he proposed to carry his plan into effect; but his right hon. friend excused himself upon the ground of the difficulty of framing Orders in Council for such purposes. If his right hon. friend could not show how his principle was to be carried into effect, he was sure that would convince the House that the

1061
principle was wrong. Agreeing to the second reading of the Bill, he must at the same time enter his decided protest against sacrificing the welfare of the slave to the pecuniary interests of the master. If the Bill went through the Committee in its present state, it would be impossible for him, on the third reading, to do otherwise than give it his opposition.
Mr. Denisoncontended, that the House was pledged by their Resolution to the principle of the Bill; and he strongly protested against their being called upon to retrace their steps. If that were attempted, it would have been infinitely better for all parties, had the measure never been broached at all.
Mr. William Evansdenied that he was pledged by the Resolutions. Surely those who voted for the grant of 20,000,000 l. could not be considered as bound to vote for the Bill, let it assume what shape it might. He did hope that the right hon. Gentleman would have been induced greatly to shorten the terms of the apprenticeships.
Mr. Baringwished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had formally communicated the Resolutions of the House to the Governors of the Colonies, and to the Colonial Legislatures? Much depended upon that. To have passed Resolutions in a Committee, by no means precluded a subsequent discussion of those Resolutions. But there were Resolutions involving a bargain, such as a loan, &c. the adoption of which by a Committee rendered a subsequent discussion of the question a matter of considerable difficulty. He wished, therefore, to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Resolutions had been formally sent out to the Governors of the Colonies, and to the Colonial Assemblies, with an invitation to the latter to act on them as the Resolutions of Parliament; and the answer to that question would very much influence him as to the question of honour in the future discussion of the subject.
Mr. Secretary Stanleystated, in answer to the hon. Gentleman, that as the Colonial Assemblies did not meet until November, there was at present no opportunity of laying the Resolutions before them; but he had thought it right formally to communicate them to the Governors of the Colonies, with instructions to submit them to the Legislatures, at the earliest possible period. It had been notified,
1062
also, not only that the Resolutions had passed both Houses of Parliament, but that the House of Commons was employed in considering the details of a Bill, the object of which was to carry those Resolutions into effect.
Mr. Baringproceeded. He collected from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, that the Resolutions were not absolutely binding on Parliament, as no correspondent measure had hitherto been formally required from the Colonial Legislatures. If, on the contrary, those Legislatures had been convened, and the Resolutions had been formally communicated to them, that circumstance ought, in his mind, to have had considerable weight with the House. On the whole, he was certainly disposed to vote against a Bill which did not seem to give satisfaction to any of the parties interested in it. Not being satisfactory, he really could not consent to so enormous a sacrifice of public money as the Bill involved. If the Bill should go into a Committee, and he were able to attend that Committee, he would state the particular objections which he entertained to the provision by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was empowered to raise the 20,000,000 l. at any time he pleased; as such a step was calculated to bring down the credit of the country, in a manner unheard of, unnecessary, and most destructive.
Mr. O'Connellagreed in a great deal of what had fallen from the hon. member for Essex, as to the unsatisfactory character of the measure. He especially objected to the large compensation. It had been asserted, that the West-India proprietors had been harshly treated. Harshly treated! Instead of a loan of 15,000,000 l., to obtain a gift of twenty! It was the people of England who ought to complain of being harshly treated. He denied that the House was bound by the Resolutions. No bargain had been made. He objected strongly to the apprenticeships. They were slavery under another name, and he trusted the clause respecting them would be completely changed in the Committee, and he should vote in every stage against the Bill while it comprehended the compensation to the planters of 20,000,000 l.; a sum which would be actually thrown away, as slavery would still continue to exist. If any hon. Member called for a division on this second reading, he should have his support.
Mr. Bernalsaid, as there was a general understanding that no discussion should take place on the second reading of the Bill, he would not trouble the House with any reply to the observations which had been made. He might tell the hon. and learned member, however, that the mandate of emancipation had gone forth, the Resolutions of both Houses had been sent out to the West-Indies, and the work of negro emancipation in the colonies was already effected. It only therefore remained for the Houses of Parliament, and those possessing property in those islands, to devise the best means of carrying these Resolutions into effect. He trusted that no personal feeling, or political feeling, would be allowed to stand in the way of so salutary a measure. He had always been of opinion, that the prosperity of Great Britain was bound up with the prosperrity of the colonies, and he thought it was the duty of Parliament and of the people of this country to see that no steps should be taken which would tend to diminish their prosperity. When the time came he should be ready to express his opinion on some of the clauses which had excited some opposition, and in the mean time would call on hon. Members not to show any unnecessary opposition to a Bill which must necessarily pass. With regard to the sum of 20,000,000 l. he would only say, that it was proposed rather for the purpose of conciliating the colonists, in order to induce them to act cordially with Government, than as a compensation for the loss that might be sustained.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that the position in which the House stood that day, as to the question of slavery, was very different from that in which it stood, when it first entered upon the consideration of it some few days ago. When they then went into Committee to consider the Resolutions of the right hon. Secretary, there had been no pledge respecting the immediate abolition of slavery. The question was then res integra, and it was open for any member to deliver his opinions upon it as he deemed fitting. But in the interim both Houses of Parliament had affirmed those Resolutions, and had declared that measures must be forthwith taken for the entire and immediate abolition of slavery. He thought those Resolutions unwise, and had in consequence tried to modify them. He had proposed to substitute the word "ultimate" for "immediate;" because
1064
knowing, as he did, that the Imperial Legislature had power to terminate that state of slavery whenever it thought fit, he still deemed it wise, as the House had resolved to give a certain amount of compensation to the West-India proprietors, to take time to deliberate upon the regulations under which the extinction of slavery was to take place. His opinion, however, had been overruled, and that House, and the House of Lords, had determined to pass immediate measures for the abolition of slavery. It was necessary, therefore, to consider what construction the slaves would put upon those Resolutions. He, who differed from the propriety of these Resolutions, saw the difficulty which they created; and yet he was not prepared to defeat the hopes which had been excited by Parliament. He could not assent to the proposition of the noble Lord (Lord Howick). He thought, that to declare emancipation should be immediate, and that to trust in the present state of the West-Indies, that the inducement of wages would be of itself sufficient to insure from the slave industrious occupation, was an experiment too hazardous to be made. He had stated that opinion on a former occasion to the House, and he had referred to the relaxing nature of the climate, to the facility of raising the necessary articles of life, and to the circumstance that in those tropical regions the chief luxury was repose and the absence of labour, as proofs that the abolition of the present system, under the notion that wages would induce labour, would be a most dangerous experiment. He also thought that the experiment about to be tried was equally hazardous. He could not believe, that the power of the Magistrate would be sufficient to enforce the performance of labour. He was afraid that there was some hazard lest the punishment inflicted by the Magistrate, if it were sufficient to insure labour, would be much severer than that which was inflicted even by the most arbitrary and despotic masters. He thought it possible that, by adopting the principle of the Spanish law—namely, by holding out to the slave as a stimulus to labour, the prospect of emancipating himself gradually by the produce of it, and by having that produce, when it reached a certain amount, aided by a grant out of the public Treasury, they might promote a measure which would be most for the advantage of the, mother country, of the

1065
colonies, of the slaves in those colonies, and also of those millions of slaves now in bondage in other colonies over which we had no control. He had thought that, if we had laid down the principle of aiding the slaves by a grant a long way short of 20,000,000 l. to purchase their freedom by their own labour, it would have been more for the interest of the slave than the Resolutions were, which they were now pursuing. If this experiment were not successful, we should injure instead of benefiting the slaves. The Resolutions, however, having been carried, he felt it to be his duty to insure, as far as he could, the success of them; and if the House were determined to emancipate the slave, there would never be a heavier imputation upon its good faith than by determining, after making the determination to emancipate the slave known to him, to get rid of the pecuniary compensation to the master. He felt confident that the first Resolution was entire and immediate emancipation, or, in other words, the depriving the planters of a certain portion of their property; and should the House turn round upon them with a view to defeating their claim to compensation, it might, indeed, be empowered to do so, but we should incur an imputation upon our good faith, such as had never been previously equalled. Parliament was, in his opinion, bound to make the planters full compensation; but even that compensation would not render the experiment less hazardous. He thought that it was impossible, with the law of apprenticeship as it then stood, the magistrate residing at a distance from the place where the offence was committed could enforce the performance of labour; and what was to be done in that case was a question, on which he entertained an opinion so strong that he would not at that moment venture to express it.
Mr. Godsonsaid, that in the essence of this Bill a most important principle was involved, which was, whether the Imperial Legislature had a right to take away at one fell swoop, all the Local Legislatures of the Colonies. Not one legal officer of the Crown had ventured to avow that the Imperial Legislature had any such right; and if it were avowed, it was not likely that the Colonial Legislatures would submit to it. This Bill limited the labour of a free man of full age and in full health to ten hours per diem, even though his extra labour were paid for, The
1066
20,000,000 l. that was to be given was not, a sufficient compensation to the West-India proprietors for this, especially as it was proposed to distribute it, on the mode of doing which, the planters had formed very different opinions. He was sorry that the discussion on this Bill was not taken now; but as there had been an arrangement to postpone the discussion till the Committee, he would reserve his objections to it till it arrived at that stage. This, however, he would say, that in his opinion it would save much discussion upon several of the clauses in the Committee, to take the discussion of the principle of the Bill now. So little did he think the Bill calculated to carry into effect the object, of any party, that if a motion were made to reject it now, he would certainly support it. One objection to it was, that the Commissioners who had to superintend the distribution of the compensation would not be able to perform their duty in the different colonies in less than ten years. He proposed to get rid of this plan, and to substitute in its stead another, by which 20,000,000 l. should be advanced as a gift, and 10,000,000 l. as a loan to the colonists, to be divided per capita. This would guarantee the planters from much loss, and would leave the slaves a happy and contented population. The present plan would not produce this effect; it would not effect the object of the anti-slavery societies, and it would place in jeopardy all the property in the West-Indies. He could assure the House that hon. Members would have more to do in the Committee than at this moment they expected.
Mr. Buckinghamsaid, that though he regretted exceedingly to see a Bill of this nature pass through a second reading without a discussion of its principle, he would at least be no assenting party to such a step; and lest his silence should be misconstrued into an acquiescence with the principle, and an objection only to the details, he felt it his duty to protest against the whole principle of the Bill, as at variance with all those interests which it professed to promote. The only grounds on which such a measure could be undertaken, or defended, appeared to him to be these. It must be either, first, to satisfy the claims of abstract, right and justice, without referring to any other consideration; or, secondly, to meet the almost universal wishes of the people of England;

1067
or, thirdly, to effect the freedom and improvement of the slave population; or, fourthly, to benefit the West-India proprietors. He could not conceive any other motives than these for making any alteration in the existing state of things. He was prepared then to contend, that it would entirely fail of effecting any one of these objects; and that on these grounds the Bill should be rejected entirely, and a new one, founded on very different principles, be substituted in its stead. First—As to the right and justice of the case:—No one ever pretended to deny that slavery was an oppression and a wrong, unjust in its origin, and cruel in its prolongation. It must be clear, then, that to satisfy the claims of right and justice, the Bill should have declared the entire abolition of slavery, at the earliest practicable moment, with no further delay than might be required for merely organizing a competent magistracy and police. A Bill to prolong slavery for twelve years to come, under the specious title of apprenticeships, where nothing was to be learnt, and no wages to be paid, was a mockery and an insult to those who demanded its abolition on the grounds of justice or religion; and in this point of view, the Bill deserved condemnation at its earliest stage. Secondly,—As to its compliance with the almost universal wishes of the English people; scarcely anything could be more remote from it than this Bill. The people of England demanded immediate emancipation for the slave, as his undoubted right, to be given to him without delay and without price; yet, by this Bill, the delay was to be twelve years, and, in many instances, much more: and the price was to be 20,000,000 l. sterling, as a grant from the nation; 14,000,000 l. of interest for being paid twelve years in advance; 21,000,000 l. as the appraised value to the owners of the labour of 800,000 slaves for the master's benefit for twelve years, at seven-and-a-half hours per day. As a still further cost to the nation, the protecting duties, bounties, and other privileges of the West-India planters, were to be continued during these twelve years, making, at least, 24,000,000 l. more;—forming altogether the enormous sum of 75,000,000 l. sterling, for the purchase of that freedom which ought to be given at once to the slave, without a single shilling of purchase-money, or a single hour of unnecessary delay. He had no objection
1068
to the principle of compensation; but the very term implied a previous loss; and the only reasonable footing on which the question of compensation could be put, was, not as a purchase-money for a property in the persons of the slaves to be liberated (the legality of which property he wholly denied), but as a remuneration for loss sustained by the adoption of one mode of culture for another. When loss should be proved to result from such a change, it would be time enough to compensate it; but compensation without data, and without loss proved, he held to be in violation of every principle of justice; and to that, this Bill pledged the House and the country, and should, therefore, be rejected. Thirdly,—As to its granting freedom and improvement to the slaves,—it did neither; but, on the contrary, it placed them under a system, which, though called freedom, they would soon discover not to be so; and becoming irritated by the mockery of all their hopes, and the breaking of all the promises held out to them, they would be even more dissatisfied than before. That dissatisfaction would be resented by the master,—punished by the magistracy,—denounced by the Colonial governments,—and, as sure as cause ever produced effect, would bring about a servile insurrection; which, though it might secure their freedom, would throw back their improvement, by the devastations of life and property which such insurrections would occasion, and by keeping the whole population in a state of irritating warfare, instead of calmly pursuing the arts of instruction and peace. Fourthly,—As to the benefit of the West-India proprietors;—nothing could so effectually do this as a Bill which should guarantee to them, on the faith of the nation, the full enjoyment of the actual annual profits now derived from their estates; and the putting by a fund, say 20,000,000 l. or more, from which any actual loss proved to arise from the cultivation of their estates by free labour instead of by slave labour, should be repaid; for then, freedom being granted to the slave, all parties would be satisfied, and the experiment might be cordially and safely made; but by the present Bill no such freedom was to be given, no such experiment was to take place; and as the disappointment of the slave population, if this Bill should pass into a law, would of necessity beget an insurrection, they would

1069
obtain their freedom by their own hands,—the purchase-money to be paid by the nation would be refused—the whole system of protecting duties and bounties would be overturned—the very colonies themselves might be lost both to the nation and to individuals, as America was severed from England, and Hayti from France; and the ruin of all the proprietors would be complete. He contended, therefore, that the Bill being defective in principle, ought to be opposed in its present stage; and he only regretted that those who considered themselves the leaders on this great question, should not have so opposed it. He had, however, discharged his duty in thus entering his solemn protest against the whole measure; and if he had succeeded in convincing the House that it would fail to effect any one of the objects it proposed to accomplish, he trusted that it would be so purged of its defects in its passage through the Committee, as to come out of their hands in as different a shape as possible from that which it now bore,—where evil so preponderated, as to make the good (if, indeed, it contained any whatever) wholly inoperative and impracticable.
Mr. Andrew Johnstonsaid, that as emancipation formed the great feature of the Bill, he had no doubt that it would meet with the concurrence of the House. He was opposed to the long period of the apprenticeships, and had hoped, when the right hon. Gentleman changed the loan of fifteen millions to the proprietors, into a gift of twenty millions, that he would have taken the opportunity of curtailing the terms of the apprenticeship. He hoped, that this part of the Bill would be re-considered. As to the money, he was the last man in the world who would quarrel with a liberal expenditure for such a purpose; but he hoped that the liberality of the House would be met by a correspondent liberality on the part of the proprietors. It ought to be remembered, that if the proprietors had vested rights, the slaves had vested wrongs.
Bill read a second time.

EAST INDIA COMPANY'S CHARTER.
Mr. Bernal brought, up the Report of the Committee on the East-India Charter Bill.
On the Motion that the Amendments be agreed to,
Mr. Wilbrahammoved a clause, prohibiting the exclusive manufacture and
1070
sale of salt by the Government of India. At present the manufacture and sale of salt, was a close Government monopoly in India. It was manufactured there at a considerable expense, and in an unhealthy situation. The evil of it was enhanced three or four fold by the monopoly. It was subject also to all kinds of adulteration. The salt of Cheshire, which was the best in the world, might be sent to Calcutta and sold for a much less sum than the salt made in India. The abolition of the monopoly, therefore, would be a great advantage to the inhabitants of India, and it would also be a great advantage to the opulent and extensive community which he represented. Ships required heavy goods to carry to India, and salt would answer the purpose of ballast. It would therefore be equally for the advantage both of the inhabitants of India and of Britain to put an end to this monopoly.
Mr. Ewartseconded the Motion. There was already a large export of salt from Liverpool to New South Wales, to the United States, and to the Mediterranean; and there could be no doubt that it might be advantageously sent to India. He conceived it would, therefore be very bad policy to cripple the trade between England for the sake of raising a small revenue in India by an odious monopoly.
Mr. Buckinghambegged to tender his support to the proposition of the hon. member for Cheshire (Mr. Wilbraham), and to offer a few remarks in confirmation of the evils to which this monopoly of salt by the India Company gave rise. It was one of the ancient abuses of the country; and, in the time of Warren Hastings and Lord Clive, the salt monopoly was a private perquisite of the servants of the East-India Company, who, in lieu of direct salaries corresponding to their rank or station, had certain shares assigned them in this monopoly, by which they enhanced the cost of salt on some occasions as high as 1,000 per cent above its natural price. This was an evil to be examined in two distinct points of view—the one as it affected the people of India, the other as it affected the people of England; for the monopoly was deeply injurious to both. To the people of India, salt was much more a necessary of life than to us, from the circumstance of their religion prohibiting the use of any but vegetable food. The want of this article, occasioned by its

1071
high price, was frequently the cause of disease; and he had himself, in a voyage from the Red Sea to Bombay, witnessed the death of sixteen seamen in a few days, from a disease of which all on board were ignorant, but which, on being described to the medical officers of Bombay, was recognized by them as a disease occasioned by the absence of salt and those other stimulants which can alone render exclusively vegetable diet either nutritious or wholesome. Besides the deficiency of quantity to which the high monopoly price gave rise, there was an evil just as great, occasioned by the system, which was the admixture of saline earths, and other deleterious ingredients, which were almost as unwholesome as the entire absence of the salt for which they were offered as a substitute: and, from this double evil, the privations and sufferings of the poor Hindoos were extreme. But the sufferings occasioned by the process of manufacture were greater still. The salt of Bengal was chiefly made in a district called the Sunderbunds, where the branches of the Ganges run through a flat country, intersected by innumerable channels, liable to constant floods and inundations, and infested in every part with tigers. The people were compelled, under severe restrictions, to work in the salt pans under the scorching heat of a meridian sun, and kept to their labour by sepoys and police guards; and, from all he had heard of the cruelty of their treatment, he must confess, that if he were unfortunately driven to choose between the condition of the African employed in the cultivation of sugar in the West Indies, or the Hindoo employed in the manufacture of salt in the East Indies, he should prefer the former. as being the least miserable of the two, The liability to destruction from floods and tigers, was merely the result of that barbarous system by which India had been hitherto ruled, as a farm held at lease, of which the most was to be racked out of it, at the least present cost, in utter disregard of its future condition. There were, accordingly, neither dykes nor canals, nor embankments, nor any of those securities by which civilized governments protected their lands and their subjects; so that, at some periods of the year, thousands were swept away by inundations, which covered miles of surface, and from the devastations of which
1072
only a few escaped by taking shelter in the tallest trees, and lingering out a painfully protracted existence in the branches and the boughs: and, at the drier seasons of the year, the jungles being filled with tigers, they were carried off by these also in considerable numbers. Besides the evils thus inflicted on the makers and the consumers of salt in India, smuggling, upon a most extensive scale, was induced by the high duties on the commodity; and this was attended with all the evils of smuggling in every country—but here presented in an aggravated form. He had himself taken a cargo of 1,200 tons of salt from the coast of Coromandel, at Covelong, near Madras, to the Company's dépôt at Calcutta; and he had reason to know, that on that occasion, the temptation of large profits had induced many of the natives to load smaller vessels and boats with salt, which was smuggled into Bengal; that several of these smugglers had affrays with the police; that many lives were lost on both sides; and that, in addition to the loss of revenue from this cause, the survivors from these combats were often induced to become robbers; from robbers they passed on to become murderers—and then joined the regular banditti or dacoits of Bengal, to carry on a system of plunder and devastation, which generally ended in their apprehension and condemnation to death. But, in addition to this long catalogue of evils inflicted on India by this odious monopoly in an indispensable necessary of life, the injury to the merchants and ship-owners of England was considerable. It must be well known to gentlemen at all conversant with foreign commerce, that a large portion of the cargoes of manufactured goods sent out from this country to India consisted of light articles, occupying considerable space, but not sufficiently weighty to form the entire cargo of any ship; while those articles of metallic manufacture were yet insufficient to fill the necessary bulk required for the ballast requisite to preserve the safe and steady equilibrium of the ship. Now, the salt of Cheshire was an article peculiarly well adapted to this purpose; and it could be laid in at Liverpool, of so good a quality and so low a price, as to be certain of realizing a handsome profit on being taken to India, were it not for the monopoly of that article continued in the hands of the East-India. Company,

1073
What was the consequence? That the ships from Liverpool being unable to take this salt, frequently took in common stones as ballast, which not only paid neither freight nor profit, but were attended with a considerable expense to get rid of, after the ship's arrival in India, as they could not be thrown overboard, for that would injure the anchorage and the navigation of the harbours or rivers in which they might lie; and therefore they were obliged to convey them to a distance before they could be deposited on the land or sunk in the sea. At the same time, the ships returning from India, and being equally in need of some heavy and bulky material for the lower portions of their cargoes, were practically as much prohibited from taking on board the sugar of Bengal for the homeward passage, as they were the salt, from Cheshire for the outward voyage, because of the monopoly granted to the West Indies by the extra duty imposed on sugar coming from the East. We were thus crippling our merchants and ship-owners on all sides; and, instead of legislating for their benefit, were absolutely making laws to perpetuate their injuries. Of this he felt assured, that if the Americans had passed a law which prohibited us from exporting salt from Cheshire to India, or importing sugar from Bengal to England, we should have deemed it abundantly sufficient cause for war; and the whole English nation would join us, most cordially, in declaring hostilities against America, and demanding redress. Was it, then, the less an evil because this state of things was the result of laws made by ourselves? He thought not. On the contrary, he considered that a blow aimed at our prosperity by the hand of a professed friend, was more painful and mortifying than a blow struck by an open enemy; and if, as was contended, the Government of England was a paternal Government—if the King were really, as it was professed, the father of his people, and these were as much his children as they were the subjects of his realm—it was high time that we, who, as the legislators of the country, were presumed to be the King's advisers, by our counsel, should carry up our remonstrances to the throne against these intolerable evils, and ask the Royal sanction to legislative acts that should sweep them for ever away.
Mr. Humethought the monopoly of opium, as well as that of salt, should be
1074
put an end to at once. He had no doubt, that a great many of the diseases with which the poorer classes in Bengal were afflicted were caused by the want of salt. As the Government, he understood, fully admitted the inexpediency of the monopoly, the question was now only one of time, and he should not, therefore, enter into a lengthened discussion on it.
Mr. Charles Grantadmitted, that this subject was well deserving the attention of the House. The hon. Member who had spoken last, truly stated, however, that the question was only one of time. His Majesty's Government did not defend the continuance of the tax. One great object of the present Bill was to separate the government and the commerce of India. Into such a question as the present, however, there were many considerations of caution and prudence entered; no one could deny the expediency of removing the taxes on salt and opium; but it was not to be forgotten, that those taxes produced a revenue of 2,500,000 l. of which 1,600,000 l. was from salt alone. It was the opinion of the Authorities in India, however, as well as of the Government, that the tax on salt should be got rid of as soon as possible. Under these circumstances, he hoped, that the House would be satisfied, and that the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment.
Lord Sandonsaid, that when he was connected with this branch of the public economy, he had felt satisfied of the necessity for endeavouring to levy the revenue of India in some other way than by imposing a monopoly duty of salt upon the natives; he was now more than ever convinced of that necessity, and he should support any feasible proposition for some change in these respects. However, after the declaration of his right hon. friend, he hoped his hon. friend would feel satisfied, and withdraw his Amendment.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, that the prejudices of the Indians were so powerful as to offer a complete bar to the substitution of any other tax in lieu of that on salt, to which they had been so long accustomed. He thought, therefore, that the matter had much better be left to the discretionary power of the local government of India.
Mr. Hume, in explanation, said, that he by no means wished to get rid of the revenue arising from the duty upon salt,

1075
but merely by lowering the tax one-half to increase the consumption of that article, and to supply the deficiency which would arise from the native manufacture by pouring in a sufficient quantity from without.
The Amendment of the hon. member for Cheshire withdrawn, and the Amendments of the Committee agreed to.

EMANCIPATION OF THE JEWS.
Mr. Robert Granthaving moved the third reading of the Jews' Disabilities Bill,
Mr. Finchrose to oppose the further progress of the Bill. To the Jewish people he was friendly, as far as they were entitled to a participation in constitutional privileges. Christianity, however, formed a part and parcel of that Constitution, to participate in the whole of which they now aspired; and he concurred with many that it would be a solecism to permit men denying the truth of Christianity to expound our laws, and administer justice to professors of Christianity. He was sure, that this measure would lead to the most disastrous results. All who wished well to the Church Establishment ought to set their faces against the admission of the Jews to Parliament. The proposition that all men, be they Jews, Hindoos, or Mahometans, were fit to legislate for this country, would lead to the principle that a Church Establishment was altogether unnecessary. He felt bound to oppose the measure. He gave the supporters of it credit for the most pure and praiseworthy motives, but as he felt that the measure was one of the most destructive that had ever been proposed to Parliament, he could not do otherwise than vote against it.
Mr. Cumming Brucesaid, his opposition to this measure did not rest upon any apprehension as to its practical results, but was based upon much higher grounds. The question was not whether three or four, or half a dozen Jews, should be admitted to Parliament, but whether the Legislature should continue to be an exclusively Christian Legislature? It was now proposed, that they should admit the avowed and inveterate enemies of Christianity. It was the duty of the House to legislate for the interest of religion and the maintenance of Christianity. With what consistency could they admit the enemies of that belief to assist in legislating for it? He knew, it
1076
was argued, that in these liberal days all civil rights and privileges, and even power, should be opened to all classes of his Majesty's subjects. He was not going to dispute that proposition at present, but he asked whether Jews were his Majesty's subjects? He had never heard that an Austrian, or a Swiss, or a Russian, or a Calmuck, let him have lived never so long in this country, would he entitled to any thing beyond protection. He did not see, that the Jew had a right to any higher privileges. As an alien and a stranger he was entitled to protection, but not to a share in our legislation. He knew, that many Gentlemen considered, that religion, being a matter between man and his God, a national recognition of our allegiance to the Divine Founder of our creed was unnecessary. But he did not see why that which was fit for an individual or a family was not also good for a State. The Scriptures enjoined national recognition of religion, and the frequent calls to nations, and the rulers of nations, amply proved this. He could not consent to a measure which was calculated to draw down national chastisement upon us for our abandonment of that recognition which we owed to the Divine Being. Men might "rush in where angels fear to tread;" but for his part he shrunk from the responsibility which such a measure as this would entail. He might not hope, that the Bill would be rejected in that House, but he thanked God there was another tribunal where its merits would be weighed. He was sure there was no feeling in favour of the measure out of doors, but that its rejection would be hailed with gratitude and enthusiasm by the serious and reflecting, and would be received with indifference only by those who were indifferent to everything. The only pledge that had been required of him by his constituents was, that he should vote against the Bill. That pledge, however, he refused to give, as he would have refused any other pledge. But he did not feel it the less his duty to oppose it from conscientious feelings, and that duty he should discharge.
Sir Edward Codringtonsaid, he had presented a petition from the port which he represented, very numerously signed, in favour of the measure, and he should support it.
Mr. Sheilsaid, that having once been himself disqualified on account of his

1077
religious opinions, he felt a strong sympathy for those who were not in the full enjoyment of civil rights. He thought the arguments on the score of expediency were much stronger against the Catholics than against the Jews, for there were millions of the former, but the number of Jews who could avail themselves of the privileges proposed to be conferred upon them would be very small indeed. Where-ever the Jews had been admitted to the possession of civil rights they had shown themselves capable of the sentiments and the duties of citizenship.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, that as a question of principle he should vote for the third reading. Those who had supported the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts and the Catholic Relief Bill, would act inconsistently if they did not support this measure.
Sir Charles Burrellsaid, that he should oppose the Bill on the same ground upon which the hon. member for Kircudbright supported it—namely, on principle. He believed the Jews to be industrious and well conducted, but he did not think that they had any right to sit in a Christian Parliament. The prophecies of the Bible, according to the interpretation of a celebrated author, had been completely fulfilled. He must refer to the work itself in proof of this fact.
Mr. Buckinghamsaid, that having already had an opportunity of declaring his sentiments on the principle of the Bill, at its second reading, he was not now going into the general question; but there was one argument of the opponents of this Bill on which so much stress had been laid, that he felt it his duty to show to the House, as briefly as he could, that it was founded entirely in error. It had been asserted, that the Jews were a people who had no attachment to the land of their nativity or habitation; their affections being wholly absorbed by Jerusalem and Palestine, to which they looked with such anxious longings, that they had no feelings of patriotism for any other country, but directed their regards, and concentrated their affections entirely on the Holy Land. Now, having been himself for some time at Jerusalem, having made Palestine the subject of his peculiar and careful observation, and having examined into the state and condition of the Jews there and elsewhere, he was bound to say, that he had never heard of a single English Jew
1078
having visited Palestine, even as a matter of curiosity or recreation. If their affection for the Holy Land had been so unconquerable as had been supposed—there were many Jews in England, who had leisure and means in abundance, to enable them to make a visit to that country; but they never thought of going so far: and as to those who inhabited Jerusalem, or any part of Palestine, of which there were many of Asiatic and some of European birth, the oppressions under which they suffered, and the degradations to which they were subject, were such as to make their abode a continued scene of suffering: and, accordingly, as soon as they could possess themselves of the means of competency, or even of removal, they generally hastened with all possible speed, to get away from the country and its persecutions, and repair to some other happier land. The error lay in this—that we assumed the Jews to feel all that their sacred book represented them as feeling; and to act as their Scriptures prescribed. In this sense it was, no doubt, their duty to remember Jerusalem, and they recited prayers and hymns in praise of the Holy Land. But it did not follow, that they felt what they said, or acted up to what they professed, any more than many Christians, who recited in their worship, that into which their feelings never entered; and who, while they professed temperance, chastity, justice, and mercy, were frequently violating every one of these virtues by the daily acts of their life. As a purely theological question—the Jews, no doubt, looked to the restoration of their nation, and the establishment of a temporal kingdom at Jerusalem. But no one pretended to fix the exact period of that change. When it should be announced by such signs as could not be mistaken, they would, no doubt, avail themselves of the event. But the question before the House was—whether, during their residence among us, and their performance of all the duties of good citizens, paying taxes to the State, obeying the laws, and living in peaceful communion with their fellow-men, we should continue to exclude them from all those civil privileges which they were fully competent to enjoy usefully to themselves, and not injuriously to us, from the fear of some anticipated change, which might never arrive in our day, and if it did, could produce no evil by any extent of elevation which we might

1079
give to the Jews in the period previous to its accomplishment. He had yet heard nothing to lessen his confidence in the justice and policy of the measure for their emancipation; and he should, therefore, continue to give the Bill his cordial support.
Lord Sandonsaid, that in supporting the Motion, it was not his intention to enter into the details of the question, because in considering these details in his own mind (and he had fully so considered them), he felt that no danger could occur either to the Church or State by the adoption of this measure.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, the explanation of the hon. and gallant Member was not so satisfactory as might have been expected. The subject was of paramount importance, and after having given his most anxious consideration to it, he was prepared to give his determined opposition to this Bill. The measure went either too far or not far enough. Either they were legislating on principle, or with reference to living interests. If on principle, not the Jews alone, but all other sects, of whatever belief or of no belief at all, should be admitted into the government of Church and State. He had always contended, that by the very terms of the writ issued by the Crown, they were called together to legislate for the whole interests of England—for Church as well as for State. Thus, persons who were by profession and by personal belief hostile to them in one half of their subjects of legislation, could not be fit to be trusted with any share in it. He was always ready to do an act of justice to individuals as well as to numbers; but denying it to be an act of justice, and looking upon this measure as one of expediency only, how small was the advantage it would confer on any one. So small it was, indeed, that the title of the Bill ought to be, "a Bill to enable an hon. Gentleman to come from the Lobby into the Body of the House." Supposing one was an understatement, four Jews were certainly the utmost that would ever be admitted into that House. No great temporal mischief would arise, but the principle involved was great; and that principle would be sacrificed on the altar of expediency. The hon. member for Stamford had very properly referred the House to what had been done in other matters by foreign states, whose example they were requested to follow in the present case. He had shown,
1080
that in the matter of slavery, the most liberal of republics was completely at variance with England. The example of any foreign state could be no rule for their conduct; but if their example were quoted at all, it ought to be done correctly; and as Prussia had been referred to he would state, that the liberality of the government of that country went so far as to allow the Jews to marry at the age of twenty-four, and to hold a certain set of inferior offices. In fact, their situation could not now be compared to that of the Jews in this country, not one of whom, he was sure, would give up the rights which he enjoyed here for the enjoyment of those of his brother in Prussia. The hon. and learned member for Kircudbright had stated, that the common law was not against the Jews; yet how could that assertion be reconciled with the great law maxim, that Christianity is part and parcel of the law of the land, which had been promulgated by one of our greatest and wisest Judges, and adhered to for the last 200 years? The hon. and learned Member had also asserted, that there was no statute law against them. The very oath required to be taken on entering that House was incorporated in a statute; and there was a yet unrepealed statute of the Irish Parliament passed in the 23rd and 24th George 3rd, in which it was declared, that whatever indulgence might be granted to other sects should not be granted to the Jews. The opinions of a man formed an important part of him, and it was therefore of great consequence to consider the opinions of those whose fitness for being admitted to that House was under discussion, particularly their religious opinions. He had not yet heard from any of the hon. Members who had spoken in favour of this Bill any thing which tended to show, that the opinions which the Jews entertained made them proper persons to be admitted to that House. He should, therefore, move, that this Bill be read a third time this day six months.
Mr. Andrew Johnstonecongratulated the hon. member for Oxford on having shown himself so true an advocate of Christianity, and giving proof, that it was part and parcel of the law of the land. With respect to the oaths talked of by the hon. Member, the House must bear in mind how oaths were found binding on Roman Catholics, according to the evidence given by Roman Catholic priests

1081
and other authorities. He would return back to the question more immediately before the House, and call upon the House to consider upon the solemn form of prayer which was daily performed in that House, and then ask themselves how they could expect Jews to join in that prayer? He would ask the hon. Member how he could defend this part of the case? It was not his intention to trouble the House much further on this subject; but he would say, that the British Constitution, which had been maintained for centuries on principles of Christianity, ought to be continued upon those pure and Christian principles upon which it was founded.
Mr. John Maxwellhaving all his life supported liberal measures, wished to state, that he could not support this Bill, because it gave a character of complete indifference to all religion. To the Legislature, Christianity was interwoven with the law of the land, and he would not consent to admit the Jews into Parliament.
Mr. Robert Grantwas not guided by prophecies, but by precepts. He held, that every civil disability imposed on a particular sect, for which no reason was shown (for on those who opposed the Motion the burthen of proof lay) was not only oppression, but persecution. The advocates of the present measure might be compared to the good Samaritan, who did not refrain from relieving the man at the way side because he was an alien, and professed another creed. The arguments used to exclude the Jews from the ordinary rights of citizenship, were precisely those arguments used on the present occasion. He must express a hope, that this great question might be settled on the basis of charity, and in accordance with those great principles on which the Christian religion was founded, namely, of glory to God, and good will to men.
The House divided on the question, that the Bill be read a third time Ayes 189; Noes 52: Majority 137.
The Bill read a third time and passed.

List of the NOES.

Agnew, Sir A.

Callander,

Bruce, Lord E.

Calley, T.

Bruce, Cumming

Corry, Hon. H.

Buller, Edward

Daly, J.

Bainbridge, E.

Eastnor, Lord

Burrell, Sir C.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Chaplain, Colone

Finch, G.

1082

Forster, C.

Maxwell, Mr. J.

Gladstone, W. E.

Moseley, Sir O.

Grey, Hon. Colonel

Palmer, Robert

Greene, T. G.

Parker, Sir H.

Gronow, Capt. R. H.

Peel, Sir R.

Halcomb, J.

Perceval, Colonel

Halford, H.

Penruddock

Hardy John

Ridley, Sir M. W.

Henniker, Lord

Ross, Horatio

Hughes, H.

Sinclair, G.

Hurst, R. H.

Stormont, Lord

Inglis, Sir R.

Stuart, C.

Johnston, A.

Trevor, Rice

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Tyrell, C.

Lefroy, A.

Verner, Colonel

Lefroy, T.

Villiers, Lord

Lennox, Lord A.

Vyvyan, Sir R.

Lowther, Colonel

Watkins, L. V.

Manners, Lord R.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Martin, J.

Whitmore, E. C.

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a second time:—Dwelling House Robbery.
Petitions presented. By Lord CARBERY, from the Clergy of St. Macartin, Clogher, against part of the Irish Church Bill.—By the Karl of ROSEBERY, from Edinburgh and Stirling, against the Royal Burgh (Scotland) Bill By the Duke of CLEVELAND, from the Overseers and Select Vestry of South Shields, in favour of the Sea-Apprentices Bill.

BREAKING INTO DWELLING-HOUSES.
Lord Suffieldrose to move the second reading of the Bill for abolishing the
1040
punishment of death for house-breaking. In doing so, his Lordship stated, that he had several alterations to make in the Bill, which would make it more efficient without departing from the views of the authors of the Bill. They would only extend the principle. He had understood, that there would be no opposition to the Bill in this stage, and he, therefore, would not, at present, trouble their Lordships with any observations. He would only observe, in order to set the principle of the Bill in a clear light, that it was intended to abolish the punishment of death for house-breaking, the law ordaining which, might almost be said to have fallen into desuetude. In 1826 and 1827 there was only one execution for house-breaking, and of those tried for that crime, fifteen per cent were acquitted. To show the effect of the punishment, he would remark, that in the years 1828, 1829, and 1830, there was a change in the policy. It was thought fit to carry the law into more rigorous execution, and in those years twenty-seven persons were executed, but what was the consequence? Why, in the three years following, more than thirty per cent were acquitted. In 1831, the policy again changed. Of 517 persons convicted of the offence, only one was executed. In 1832, 583 persons were convicted, and nine were executed. He would further observe, in a recommendation of the Bill, that it had been amply discussed in the other House; but there had been no division upon it, and, therefore, it might be said, to have been sent up to their Lordships' House by the unanimous concurrence of the other House.
Lord Wynfordhad certainly given the noble Lord to understand, that he would not oppose the second reading; but he did not expect, that the noble Lord would take that opportunity to prejudice the House by making a long statement. He certainly should not oppose the second reading of the Bill, but he must set the noble Lord right as to this punishment. The Reformers of the law had purposely left the punishment of death attached to the offences of burglary and stealing in a dwelling house, and the reason was this:—as soon as there was light enough to sec a man's face, the breaking ceased to be burglary; but between day-light and people rising to their business, there elapsed, at one period of the year, a great

1041
many hours; and it was to give honest and industrious men a full and effective security during these hours that the punishment of death was left attached to stealing in dwelling-houses. It was never intended that it should be at all times carried into execution, but it was intended that it should be a full security to all against the offence.
The Bill read a second time.

BLOCKADE OF LISBON.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, he rose with considerable embarrass, to submit to their Lordships the Motion of which he had given notice on a former occasion, after what had fallen from the noble Earl. It did, however, appear to him, in consequence of what had occurred on previous evenings, that the noble Earl laboured under a perfect want of information with respect to the notification which had been sent to Lloyd's from the Foreign Office. When he first mentioned the subject of the capture of the Portuguese fleet, he was merely referred to the public journals, as containing all the information which Government possessed on the subject. That was on the 15th of July; but when he saw the notification from the Foreign Office, dated on the very same day, and which appeared in the papers of the 16th, he came down on the following evening, to procure, if possible, some explanation on that point, to learn on what information that notice was founded. The first answer he received across the Table was, that the papers should be given; but the noble Duke (Duke of Wellington) behind him having stated his impression of the effect which this extraordinary proceeding would produce, the noble Earl was put on the qui vive, and then he asked for a little time to consider of the matter; and now, when he was prepared to state the reasons which induced him to call for these documents, he was told, that the papers which he had demanded should be accorded to him. He would not, as that was the case, state what he meant to do hereafter, until he saw those papers. There might be grounds to justify the Foreign Office in taking such a step, and he wished to be made acquainted with them; but he thought, that the whole was a fabrication got up in this country; and he believed, that up to the present moment no official documents had been received from Oporto on the subject; that no indication, in an
1042
official shape, of any intention of Don Pedro to order the blockade of the Portuguese ports had been received here. He believed, that no notice of such an intention had been received from abroad by the agent at Lloyd's. No intimation of any such intention was to be met with in the Oporto Chronica. The question which he wished to put to the noble Earl, and which he did not think the noble Earl would be able to answer, was, whether any notification had been received from the Consul at Oporto as to this intended blockade? He had caused application to be made at Lloyd's within a few days as to whether any official communication had been received by the Committee from Oporto on this subject?—whether any statements derived from a known and official source had reached them?—and whether there was any well-founded statement on the subject in the Oporto Chronica? The answer he received from Lloyd's was, simply, "That the notice from the Foreign Office was considered to be most effective." Now, that notice he believed to have been concocted at the Foreign Office between that office itself and M. Lima. He had deemed it to be his duty to call their Lordships' attention to these points, reserving himself, when the documents which the noble Earl had promised were laid before their Lordships, to take such a course as the information contained in them would warrant. As to a blockade of the Portuguese ports, he knew not how it could be effected by Don Pedro, when it was recollected, that from Cape St. Vincent to Viana there were twelve ports, and an extent of coast of 400 or 500 miles. The noble Earl had pronounced several panegyrics on the conduct of the House of Commons, but he questioned, whether, in the end, the noble Earl would be thanked for what he had done, or for the course which he had pursued. Notwithstanding all the noble Earl's eloquence, and all his powers of oratory, yet much of what he addressed to the House might be described in the manner in which he had described the speech of the noble Duke (Duke of Buckingham) near him, as something of "sound and fury," or as the noble Secretary of State had observed of a speech of a noble friend of his, as something "perfectly childish;" perhaps that might not be considered sufficiently classical, and he would use the word "puerile." The noble Marquess concluded

1043
by moving for "copies of all papers received at the Foreign Office before the 15th inst which come from a competent authority, and which have induced his Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to issue a letter to the Committee of Floyd's, announcing the blockade of the Portuguese ports."
Earl Greywould not enter into any discussion on the different points introduced by the noble Karl. He was most anxious that the papers should be laid before their Lordships; and he should be ready hereafter to answer any objections that might be urged against the course which his Majesty's Government had taken.
Motion agreed to.

THELLUSSON'S ESTATE.
The Lord Chancellor moved the third reading of the Thellusson's Estate Bill.
The Earl of Harrowbyopposed the Bill. The testator's will had been objected to, on the ground, that it carried the principle of entail to a greater extent than was ever before known. The will was, however, maintained; but on public grounds the Legislature passed an Act, declaring, that such a disposition of property should never be allowed again. That Act had, he thought put an end to all further interference in this case; but they were now called upon to interfere with it again in defiance of a decision in equity, and in defiance of an Act by which the disposition of the testator's property was recognized. It was alleged, that the trustees had mismanaged the funds; but, if that were so, they might be checked by the intervention of the Court of Chancery. Unless their Lordships were prepared to say, that they would interfere in all cases of hardship, in respect to the disposition of property by will, they could not interfere in this instance. It was said, that this proceeding could not be drawn into a precedent. That was a complete fallacy. There were many cases of equal hardship to which this precedent might be made to apply; for example, to a case where a single generation was shut out from the enjoyment of property. As long as individuals were allowed by law to dispose of their estates as they pleased, it was pregnant with very great danger to the whole property of the country that such a precedent should be established as would be the result of passing this Bill. It was
1044
brought in, too, by an infraction of those standing orders which were intended for the protection of private property. Under all these circumstances, he felt it to be his duty to give his negative to the Bill.
The Earl of Eldonsaid, it was impossible to assert that the testator had no right to make this will. When the case was before Chancery, he believed, there was not a man in the Court who did not wish, if possible, to set the will aside; but it was felt imperatively necessary to support the established doctrines respecting the disposition of property according to law. The course which was then taken was the right course. To suppose, that no case of this nature existed except that which referred to the Thellusson family, was a mistake. Wills of a similar nature, and which were now in operation, had been drawn up before the passing of Lord Loughborough's Act. He begged to ask, how were their Lordships to proceed, if, after passing the present Bill, the wills of those testators to whom he was now alluding should be brought before them in the next Session of Parliament? Could they do otherwise than disturb those wills, which were, perhaps, equally hard, but which were made in accordance with the law of the country, after they had passed the present Bill. The security of property devised by testament, the wills of testators, having been held inviolable for ages, formed one of the most important parts of the legal system of this country. The present measure would invade that security and that inviolability, and, therefore, he thought the attempt ought to be repelled.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, there was, in his opinion, great irregularity in suspending the standing orders, and pressing forward a Bill of this nature, against which there were so many and such serious objections. The expense of the management of the whole trust was very great, but there was no evidence before the Committee upon which a charge could be founded against the trustees for having abused their powers in the management of the estate. No greater expense had been incurred than was authorized by the Court of Chancery. He defied the noble Lord on the Woolsack, or any other noble Lord, to say, that the trustees had done any thing with regard to the management of the estate without the consent of the Court of Chancery having been previously obtained. In his opinion, the Bill, instead

1045
of diminishing, would have the effect of increasing and perpetuating the expenses of managing the estate. It was under these circumstances he refused to give the Bill his consent. It was establishing a precedent which, he believed, their Lord-ships and the country would have cause to rue. It would hold forth the incitement for application after application on similar grounds, and he saw no probable result but detriment or ruin to private property. He would divide against the third reading, if any other noble Lord would divide with him.
The Lord Chancellordenied that the Bill had been introduced, as had been said, altogether from motives of compassion. The motive of compassion would not be sufficient to direct the course of legislation on private affairs from the ordinary channel. But the present was a question of justice, and intended to allow the provisions of the testator's will to take the effect he contemplated, and not to benefit parties he never meant to benefit. He (the Lord Chancellor) had not the slightest interest in the question other than forwarding this object. He was acquainted with no member of the Thellusson family personally, and his only motive in supporting the measure was, the conviction he had come to of the justice of the case, in the course of the fulfilment of his official duties in the Court of Chancery. His noble friend who had preceded him on the woolsack, had arrived at a similar conclusion. He did not admit the validity of the objection on the score of the measure being drawn into a precedent. It stood on its own peculiar grounds, and was not likely to be drawn into a precedent; but whenever any case could be shown to have, as it were, an identity with the present, then the extension of the law to it might reasonably be called for. Such cases, however, were not of likely occurrence. The jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery extended to intakings as well as outlays; and in recommending the present Bill, he believed he was furthering the object of the testator, which was accumulation.
Their Lordships divided: Contents 87; Not-contents 20—Majority 67.
Bill read a third time and passed.

CHURCH TEMPORALITIES'(IRELAND).
Their Lordships resolved themselves into a Committee on the Church Temporalities' (Ireland) Bill.
On the second Clause, relative to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to be appointed being read,
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that he believed that the duty which it was proposed should be performed by the Commissioners had been well performed by the Board of First Fruits, and he should have been glad if it had been left with them. But as the business to be performed would be much increased, and no part of the measure could, in the first instance, be carried on without the interference of Government, he did not mean to move that it should be left in their hands. He would propose, however, that one of the Civil Commissioners should be named by the heads of the Church, namely, by the Lord Primate and the Archbishop of Dublin. This clause, he thought, had evidently been drawn with a view to the passing of the 147th clause, and although that clause was struck out, much remained in the Bill which had been intended to apply to that clause. He thought it but fair that those, whose property was to be sold, in order that the purposes of the measure should be carried into execution, should know something of what was going on. He, therefore, moved, that an addition be made to this clause, by which two of the Commissioners should be appointed by the King in Council, and the other by the Lord Primate and the Archbishop of Dublin, or under their hands and seals.
Earl Greydid not see any necessity for the Amendment; but if the House considered that it would be any additional security for the better performance of the duty of the Commissioners, he would not oppose it.
The Bishop of Londonagreed in the opinion of the noble Earl (Grey) in feeling no objection to the noble Duke's proposition, but at the same time he would have been better pleased had the number been two, instead of three, "proper and discreet persons." Two would be sufficient for the business, and the expense on the fund would be less.
The Lord Chancellorthought, on the contrary, that three persons were preferable to two, on account of the work which was to be done in carrying into effect, in the first instance, some of the provisions of the Bill; if, however, in the course of three years, any vacancy should occur, it might be left open.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that his sole object in making the suggestion was to diminish the expense. He spoke from experience, having been for nine years on the commission for building churches; and though the attendance had been but very limited, yet he believed the business Had been done as well as it could be, notwithstanding all that had been said on the subject.
Amendment agreed to.
On the question, that the Clause stand part of the Bill,
The Earl of Wicklowthought, that the noble Earl who had introduced the Bill, would give considerable satisfaction to the public, if the four Bishops, who by the clause were to constitute a component part of the Board, were either elected, or should come in ex officio in rotation. He would beg leave to move an amendment to that effect.
Lord Wynfordthought, that the proposition of his noble friend would tend to remove the principal objections raised to the Bill. He was of opinion, that the appointment of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should be in the bench of Bishops, and by this means the Board would be more independent, and would be less objectionable. He was not prepared at the present stage to move an Amendment he had contemplated, the object of which was to get rid of the proposed Commission, and to substitute another, which would place the affairs of the Church in the hands of the Church. If the Bill passed with the clause as it stood, every individual in the Church of Ireland, from the Archbishop of Armagh down to the very sexton of a parish, and even the tenants upon Church lands, would be under the influence of the Crown. This was an objection he should be very happy to see remedied. If four Bishops and one lay Commissioner were appointed by the Church, such an influence would be created in the Board as would protect the interests of the Church apart from the Crown.
Earl Greyexpressed his readiness and wish to attend to any suggestion calculated to remove any objections, and to make the Bill satisfactory to all parties; but at the same time he could not but object to the Amendment of the noble Earl. Neither could he acquiesce in what had fallen from the noble and learned Lord opposite, namely, that the proposed Board would bring the Church under the influence and
1048
control of the Crown. He hoped, the Amendment would not be persevered in, and particularly as he was prepared to move an Amendment on the next clause, by which the only removable Commissioners would be the Chancellor, and the three lay Commissioners, at the will of the Crown.
The Earl of Harrowbywas of opinion, that two of the Bishops appointed to the Board of Commissioners should be elected by the bench of Bishops, and two should be appointed by the Crown.
The Archbishop of Canterburyhad not the least doubt that the Commissioners would be elected with impartiality, yet he considered that it would be desirable that all the Bishops left to Ireland under this Bill should form a portion of the Board. Such was the case with the Board of First Fruits in this country; and he had never heard of the business being badly conducted. The result would be that all the Bishops who were not prevented from ill-health or other causes would attend, and there would necessarily be always an attendance fully qualified to take charge of the business. If it should not be judged expedient that all the Bishops should be members of the Board, yet the Church ought to be more fully represented than was proposed, and he was, consequently, of opinion that it was not too much to ask that the Board should be selected by the Bishops of Ireland. With every desire to meet the conciliatory disposition manifested by the noble Earl (Earl Grey) that evening, he could not but think the proposition of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Harrowby) was very fair, and one to which no objection could be made.
The Lord Chancellordid not see so much objection to the proposition of the most reverend Prelate, as he did to that of the noble Earl. He could not conceive any worse arrangement than that two of the Board should be chosen in one way, and two others should be selected by the bench of Bishops, for it would imply unlimited confidence in the Crown as to one party, and excite distrust and jealousy in the other; and it might occur that the party rejected by the one authority might be elected by the other. Another great objection he had was the calling the Bishops together more than necessary for the purposes of elections.
The Duke of Cumberlandhad understood the most reverend Prelate to suggest

1049
that all the Bishops of Ireland should be on the Board. If so, he was of opinion that the country would be satisfied.
The Bishop of Londonmust remind their Lordships, that the Crown had already the appointment of all the Bishops who might ultimately sit on the Board.
Earl Greysaid, that he considered that four Bishops would be quite sufficient to answer the preponderance desired, but apprehended that it was now too late to move any of the Amendments suggested, for the portion of the clause to which the Amendment applied was anterior to that upon which the noble Duke (Wellington) had moved his Amendment which was adopted. Therefore the noble Earl (Wicklow) could not move his Amendment, according to the rules, until the bringing up of the Report.
The Earl of Wicklowregretted, that the courtesy usual in the House should not have been extended to himself—a courtesy which he had never before been refused. He had, on a former occasion, stated his approbation of the principle of the Bill, and his determination to support it, and therefore he might fairly say he was not actuated by a factious opposition to the measure, when he had submitted his Amendment; which, if refused to be considered now, he should certainly move on the bringing up of the Report. He hoped the noble Earl opposite would withdraw his opposition, raised as to a point of form.
Earl Greyrepeated, that it was most in-convenient, after a clause had been gone through, to go back and enter upon new amendments. With respect to the Amendment, he must say he should object to any alteration in the manner in which the Board of Commissioners was to be appointed; but if the noble Earl wished to persevere in his Motion, he should not object in point of form.
The Earl of Wicklowmoved his Amendment on the clause, to the effect that the appointment and election of the four Bishops to the Board of Commissioners should be in the Bench of Irish Bishops generally.
The Marquess of Clanricardeobjected to the Amendment, because it would place the appointment of the Commissioners in irresponsible hands. The Government were responsible to Parliament; but if the Bishops should make improper appointments, there would be no remedy.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that whether the Amendment was good or bad, he would not undertake to say, but he was sure the Bishops were quite as responsible as the Ministers.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the noble Marquess (Marquess Clanricarde) had taken a very sound view of the question. He fully concurred with him, that the power of appointing Commissioners should be exercised by the Crown, subject to the control of Parliament. He also objected to the Amendment, because it would confer an elective power on the Bishops, which they had never before possessed, either in England or in Ireland. The principle of election was avoided in the manner in which the right reverend Prelates entered that House, where they came in by rotation. He certainly should not have agreed to the former Amendment proposed by the noble Duke, if he had known that the present Amendment was afterwards to be proposed; and he might mention this as a proof of the inconvenience and danger which resulted from departing from the rules of the House. Out of the eleven Commissioners, seven would not be removable by the Crown; and he therefore thought, that the Commissioners were sufficiently independent of the Government.
The Marquess of Butewould support the Amendment, because it would tend to reconcile the Church to the Bill.
The Marquess of Lansdownsaid, that the Amendment implied an opinion that the Bishops would consider one set of persons the fittest to act as Commissioners, and the Crown another. If the Amendment should be agreed to, the Bishops would have the power of appointing four of their body to act as Commissioners, and by the next clause, the Crown would have the power of removing them, and thus practically putting a veto on their election. He trusted that their Lordships would maintain the unity of principle so essential to the Bill, by leaving the selection of the Commissioners to the Crown.
Lord Wynforddenied, that the Amendment implied any suspicion that the Crown would appoint improper persons to act as Commissioners. The ground on which he would vote for the Amendment was, that the business to be done was the business of the Church, and there was no ground for the intervention of the Crown in the matter.
Earl Greysaid, he could not understand on what principle the Amendment was proposed, if it were not to avert some danger which was apprehended from the appointment of improper persons. He was surprised to hear it said, that the Bishops were as responsible as the Ministers for the persons they might appoint. They certainly would have to answer to God and their consciences, but they were not responsible in a legal and political sense, as Ministers were. If the principle laid down by the noble and learned Lord (Wynford) were pushed to the full extent, it would give the Bishops the right of appointing one another to their bishoprics. He would meet the Amendment with a decided negative if it were pressed to a division. He certainly wished to give satisfaction to the Church, but he did not think that the Church had any ground for dissatisfaction as to the manner it was at present proposed to constitute the Board.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that though nominally, the power of appointing the Commissioners would be vested in the Crown, the clergy of Ireland could not forget who were Ministers. He did not mean to say so invidiously, but it was certain that the Ministers were not popular with the clergy of Ireland. For his own part he had no doubt that Ministers would exercise the powers given them by the Bill properly, and he proposed the Amendment merely to satisfy the Irish Church.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that the speech which the noble Earl had just delivered, had determined him to vote for the clause as it stood.
The Lord Chancellor: I am nothing surprised at the right reverend Prelate's declaration. The noble Earl, for which I return him my hearty thanks, has put the question on what he doubtless thinks right grounds, and we shall now come to a vote upon the Amendment as a vote of distrust in the Ministers.
The Earl of Wicklowtotally disclaimed the noble and learned Lord's assertions; he denied it in the strongest language he could use consistently with the forms of the House. Nothing which he had said could fairly bear the interpretation which the noble and learned Lord put upon it. From the first moment he had addressed their Lordships on the subject, he had expressed the same opinion, and in nearly the same words. He had stated, that he
1052
did not believe the power proposed to be intrusted to Government would be misused, but he was anxious to remove an impression of a contrary nature from the minds of the clergy. If the right reverend Prelate had attended to what he had said, he would not have had occasion to make a speech at one time in favour of his Amendment, and at another time against it. The right reverend Prelate's reasons for the part he had acted were best known to himself, but it did appear strange, that, after having approved of the Amendment, he should, when he found Ministers united in opposing it, declare against it.
The Bishop of Londonhad never expressed a favourable opinion of the Amendment, although he allowed that he was inclined to approve of it. He had, however, made up his mind from the beginning, not to vote for any Amendment that did not involve a great principle, if the carrying of it were likely to create difficulty. He considered the Bill as a great constitutional measure, without reference to this Ministry or that Ministry, and he would not consent to vote for the Amendment merely on the ground that the clergy of Ireland did not repose confidence in the Ministers.
The Earl of Suffolksaid, there could be no doubt that the House was now called upon to come to a vote of distrust in Ministers after the declaration of the noble Earl.
Amendment negatived, and Clause agreed to.
On the fifteenth Clause being put,
Viscount Gagerose to propose an Amendment, which should subject all Church property in the hands of lay impropriators to the same taxes as Church property in the hands of churchmen. He put it to their Lordships' candour, whether it was proper to place a tax on those who worked, and exempt those who did not work? He was himself a holder of almost every species of Church property, and he made this proposition, looking to the application of the same principle to Church property in England. He thought all tithes in the hands of lay impropriators should be subject to the proposed tax.
The Lord Chancellorregretted the necessity of being obliged to oppose the Amendment moved by the noble Lord. He was sure that nothing could be more fair than the feeling which prompted the

1053
noble Lord's observations, but lie (the Lord Chancellor) must object to the terms he had made use of. It was but just to suppose that many lay impropriators had given a full and valuable consideration for the tithes which they held. Unless, therefore, they wished to commit the grossest injustice towards those who had fairly come by this property, it would be necessary to appoint a Commission to inquire into the manner in which the ancestors of all lay tithe impropriators had become possessed of the property of this description which they held. He need not explain to their Lordships, that such a proceeding would be productive of the greatest hardship and inconvenience, and he might, perhaps, add, injustice; and on this account he felt bound to oppose the Amendment. He must also object to the terms applied by the noble Lord to persons holding property of this description—namely, that they were fattening on the property which of right belonged to the Church. Unless it were shown, that those lay impropriators had become unfairly possessed of this property, they had as much right to it as any noble Lord there had to that freehold property which he or his ancestors had obtained by fair purchase.
The Bishop of Exeterregretted, that the Bill had not originated in this House, as their Lordships would not then be prevented from fully discussing those parts of it which more particularly partook of the nature of taxation—at least they might have discussed them more at liberty. He rejoiced, that his noble friend had brought forward this Amendment, and he thought it would be injustice if their Lordships did not agree to it. It was most unfair to make such a partial distinction as was made by this clause between lay and ecclesiastical impropriators, especially when their Lordships considered the very great distress under which a great portion of the Irish clergy were at present labouring. He knew several instances, especially in Ireland, where a lay impropriator possessed the tithes of a whole parish, out of which he did not contribute a penny to the support of that religion, to support which those tithes had been originally appropriated. It was most unjust to secure the payment of the whole of those tithes to the lay impropriator, while so great a deduction was made from the property of those which were really appro-
1054
priated to the service of the Church. He felt grateful to the noble Lord for bringing forward this Amendment; he hoped their Lordships would not lose sight of the principle it contained, as if they did, they would be losing sight of justice.
Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to.
The Clauses to the nineteenth were agreed to, when the House resumed. The Committee to sit again.