Sitting of 16 July 1838

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Church Appointments Suspension.—Read a second time:—Land Tax Reduction; Sea-coast Fisheries (Ireland).—Read a third time:—Port of London; Coal Trade; Highways.

ROYAL EXCHANGE BILL.
Sir M. Woodmoved the third reading of the Royal Exchange Bill.
Mr. Prymeobjected to the bill, that it proposed a tax upon coals; and he had always thought, that improvements in buildings—whether Ramsgate Pier or Royal Exchange—ought not to be carried into effect by a tax levied on one of the necessaries of life. He therefore moved, that this bill be read a third time that day six months.
Mr. Wolverly Attwoodseconded the amendment. It appeared to him, that in passing this bill, the House would, so far as the coal duty which the bill imposed was concerned, be acting in a manner entirely inconsistent with the provisions of another measure which was before the House—the Coal Trade Bill. The Coal Trade Bill was founded on the recommendation of a committee expressly appointed to consider the subject; and that bill, which was a public measure, provided that the duties on coals should be renewed for seven years, and should then be subject to the revision of the House. By the present bill, it was proposed to continue the coal duties for twenty years. Upon principle, too, he objected entirely to the providing by a coal duty for the improvement of the streets in the city of London; for that was the object, and not the re-building of the Royal Exchange, to which the sums to be raised by the tax on coals was to be applied. It was the most objectionable and oppressive tax which could be levied. It had been said, that the amount was so trifling, that the pressure upon the poor was not felt; but even the direct amount paid by the poor man yearly would be equivalent to the cost of his supply of fuel for a week or a fortnight; and indirectly, the cost of every article he consumed, his beer, his bread, his clothes, was augmented. The principle recognised was, that in the case of a city, distant as London was from the coal district, everything should be done to reduce the price of fuel, instead of increasing the cost, by taxes of this nature. The breweries, the distilleries, all the trades
224
which were necessarily carried on in the vicinity of a large town, were obliged to compete at a great disadvantage, with the productions of establishments at a distance. It was to be observed, that this duty was levied, not only on the inhabitants of the city of London, but on all residing within a circle of about twenty miles; and he maintained, that there was no just ground for subjecting them to the burthen of this tax, and all the accompanying disadvantages, for the purpose of improving the city of London.
Mr. Laboucherefelt it his duty to say a few words, because he thought the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, had rather mis-stated the case. The hon. Gentleman had stated, that the bill which he (Mr. Labouchere) had introduced, imposed a duty upon coals for seven years; and that then it contemplated the cessation of those duties after those seven years; whereas the bill before the House, proposed to continue those duties for a much longer period. He had the pleasure of meeting the hon. Gentleman in the committee, upon whose recommendation the bill was introduced; and the hon. Gentleman must be aware, that the Coal Trade Bill, so far from imposing duties for any fixed period, only commuted the duties which already existed, and which must exist for a much longer period. The bill provided, that for the next seven years, a much more simple machinery should be applied to the collection of these duties, and one more conducive to the public advantage. That was the sole and simple object of the bill; and it was optional with Parliament, at the end of those seven years, to consider that commutation, and renew it if it were found to work well. He thought it necessary to say so much, lest the House should be led away by the statements of the hon. Gentleman. He would now address himself to the bill before the house; and he so far agreed with the hon. Member, that he thought it extremely desirable those duties should cease altogether. He should be very glad to see the time when the 8d. duty would cease, and he had strong hopes that that would speedily be effected. The House should recollect the circumstances under which this tax was levied. It was originally contemplated, that this duty of 8d. per ton should be continued for certain purposes until the year 1858, including the payment of certain money borrowed on those duties. In conse-

225
quence, however, of the great increase of trade in the port of London, it was found that the duty might be dispensed with before that period; and that it would be but just, to provide for its ceasing. The House would admit, that it was of great general importance and interest, that the Royal Exchange, which had been destroyed by a late unfortunate accident, should be built upon a scale of splendor worthy of the importance of this great commercial metropolis; and the only question was, how the funds could be most conveniently provided for this purpose. Upon the whole, he was inclined to believe, that the recommendation of the Committee was the best course to adopt, namely, to allow the duty to continue for the full time; and it was upon that ground he should go with the proposition of the hon. Member opposite, if it was thought necessary to divide the House.
Mr. Humethought it was quite competent for the House to pass the bill for the purpose of making the improvement alluded to in the city of London, without any additional tax being made upon coals. He objected to the poor man being taxed for any such purpose. And, as a proof of the validity of that objection, he had only to refer to what took place in 1830, when a security was given upon the tax on coals, in order to enable the parties to proceed with the erection of London Bridge. By the bill to enable the erection of that great undertaking, a tax of 8d. was to be levied on coals till the whole amount was paid. Such a tax, he considered, sufficient on the poor man, without increasing it further, as proposed by the present bill. Out of 137,000 l., which was the produce of the tax, 84,000 l. was applied to the repayment of the borrowed money; if that liquidation went on, it would all be paid up in 1851 or 1852; and then, if the House did not think fit to renew the grant, then, of course, the City would revert to the 4d. per ton granted them by charter. The question for the House to consider was, whether they would continue a tax upon that which was a necessary of life to all the people of England, and the two neighbouring countries. If they passed the bill, they made that tax responsible for another 150,000 l., which, at all events, would continue the tax for three years. He protested against a tax being continued for any such purpose upon an absolute necessary of life. Let the rich merchants of
226
London follow the example of their brethren of Liverpool, and raise the money among themselves. He would ask the hon. Member to withdraw his opposition to the third reading of the bill, and to allow the sense of the House to be taken on the amendment, which would take away the power of continuing the 8d. tax on coals. When the bill was read a third time, he would propose that alteration, which would relieve them from the difficulty they were then under.
Mr. Warburtonagreed with his hon. Friend as to the propriety of the merchants of London raising a fund for the building. Those who used it ought to pay for it.
The Speakersaid, the object of the hon. Member for Kilkenny appeared to be to take a burthen from one fund and to lay it upon another; he (the Speaker) doubted if such an object could be effected upon the third reading of the bill.
Sir R. Inglissaid, it had been contended that the object of the bill was the imposition of a tax for the erection of a Royal Exchange. Such was not the case. The Royal Exchange was not to be erected with the funds arising from the coal duty continued by this bill. The object of the bill was, to make approaches to the Royal Exchange. It had been said, that the merchants of the city of London ought to be as willing to contribute to the formation of a building for their accommodation as the merchants of Bristol or of Liverpool. He did not think the London merchants would dissent from that; but he did not suppose they would pay for making new streets. He did not wish to depreciate the importance of lowering the price of coals; but he thought it would be much better to effect that desirable object by doing away with the monopoly which added forty per cent. to the price of the articles, than to stop this useful project.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he had supported the bill in Committee, and was still prepared to support it. He did so because the bill did not impose the coal duty for the erection of an Exchange, but to make the approaches thereto. If the former had been the case there might have been some ground for the opposition. To the building of the Exchange, the city itself was to contribute. What were the purposes for which this coal tax was appropriated? Were they purposes in which the general trade and convenience of the community

227
were to be consulted? It was in evidence, and was notorious to every one who passed through the city, that there was no greater thoroughfare and no greater embarrassment than between the Bank and the old Exchange. On these general grounds it was but just to assent to the present bill, but he did think, that the existing generation owed a species of debt to those who had been before them which they ought to pay for the benefit of posterity. It was the duty of the public at large to make the calamity which had occurred the source of convenience of the community. Had the great fire of London been turned to account in former days, and the schemes then proposed been carried into effect, conveniences would have been in existence which the public had been deprived of. If the House refused to assent to the present bill it would deprive itself of an opportunity which would never occur again, of seeing the Exchange re-built, not by the burthen of the coal tax nor by burthens on the people at large, but by the efforts of the Mercers' Company. On these grounds he gave his hearty assent to the bill. At the same time he meant to propose some verbal amendments to one of the clauses, to which he thought the introducers of the bill would not object.
Mr. Barnard, seeing that the city of London had behaved so generously, thought that the sum provided for by the present bill ought to be granted.
Sir E. Codrington, as one of the committee, would give his support to the bill. At the same time he must say, that if any other tax could be found he should prefer it. Money for similar purposes had been raised in former years by lotteries.
Sir B. Hall* hoped, that he should never see lotteries instituted in the country again. He could never give his consent to the bill, as he thought that a tax on coals was most objectionable. He thought that the promoters of the bill, who had been so loud for the reduction of taxation, were acting in rather an inconsistent manner.
Mr. A. Whitedenied, that there was any monopoly in the coal trade: he thought the making a duty on coals for such a purpose unjust in principle, and that it would be far more creditable to the merchants of London it they would follow the example of the merchants of Liverpool, and erect the Royal Exchange and its approaches at their own expense.
* Created a Baronet at the Coronation.
Sir M. Wooddid not think it necessary to detain the House for a moment in reply to the unjust attacks which had been made upon the authors of the bill. The attack of the hon. Member for Greenwich was at least ungracious, as the city, in the bill then on the table of the House, had given up 5,000 l. which would go into the pockets of the owners of steam-boats. The city were called upon to lay out a vast sum of money to improve the approaches to the Bank of England, which would be a benefit to persons in all parts of London.
The House divided on the original motion. Ayes 102; Noes 38. Majority 64.

List of the AYES.

Alsager, Capt.

Hutton, R.

Archbold, R.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Baillie, Col.

James, W.

Baines, E.

James, Sir W. C.

Barnard, E.G.

Kelly, F.

Blair, J.

Knight, H. G.

Bradshaw, J.

Labouchere, H.

Bramston, T. W.

Langdale, hon. C.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Buller, Sir John Y.

Lefroy, rt. hon. T.

Callaghan, D.

Lockhart, A. M.

Campbell, Sir H.

Lucas, E.

Chapman, A.

Mackenzie, T.

Chute, W. L. W.

M'Taggart, J.

Clay, W.

Miles, P.

Clive, E. B.

Morpeth, Viscount

Codrington, Sir E.

Murray, J. A.

Copeland, Alderman

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Crawford, W.

Paget, Lord A.

Darby, George

Pakington, J. S.

De Horsey, S.

Palmer, G.

Dick, Q.

Parker, J.

Divett, E.

Parker, R. T.

Douglass, Sir C.

Patten, J.

Eastnor, Lord

Pattison, J.

Ebrington, Lord

Peel, Sir R.

Estcourt, T.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Phillpots, J.

Ferguson, R.

Praed, W. T.

Freshfield, J. W.

Protheroe, E.

Gordon, R.

Redington, T. N.

Goulburn, H.

Rice, T. S.

Graham, Sir J.

Richards, R.

Grant, F. W.

Rushbrooke, R.

Grimsditch, T.

Russell, Lord J.

Hastie, A.

Sanford, E. A.

Hawkes, T.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Hawkins, J. H.

Stanley, Lord

Hayter, W. G.

Stansfield, C.

Heathcote, G. J.

Steuart, R.

Hillsborough, Earl

Stewart, J.

Hobhouse, Sir J.

Sturt, H. C.

Hodges, T. L.

Sugden, Sir E.

Hodgson, F.

Teignmouth, Lord

Holmes, W.

Thornley, T.

Hope, hon. C.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Howard, P. H.

Vivian, J. H.

Hurst, R. H.

Westenra, H. R.

Hutt, W.

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

229

Wood, C.

TELLERS.

Yates, J. A.

Wood, Sir M.

Young, J.

Grote, G.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

O'Brien, W. S.

Attwood, W.

O'Connell, D.

Attwood, M.

Ord, W.

Bridgeman, H.

Packs, C. W.

Bryan, G.

Pechell, Captain

Chandos, Marquess of

Phillips, M.

Clements, Viscount

Praed, W. M.

Collins, W.

Pryme, G.

Denison, W. J.

Salwey, Colonel

Evans, Sir De L.

Somerset, Lord G.

Finch, F.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Style, Sir C.

Gibson, T.

Warburton, H.

Harvey, D. W.

Ward, H. G.

Hawes, B.

White, A.

Hodgson, R.

Williams, W.

Howick, Lord Visc.

Wood, T.

Loch, J.

Morris, D.

TELLERS.

Muskett, G. A.

Hall, B.

Nicholl, J.

Hunie, J.

Bill read a third time and passed.

TITHES (IRELAND)—THE MILLION ACT.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that the House would doubtless expect, that he should make some communication with respect to the deliberations of the Government in consequence of the debate that took place in the House the last time the tithe bill for Ireland was debated. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin having made a proposition to the House with respect to the arrears of tithe, and his noble Friend the Member for North Lancashire having supported a proposition, not the same, but of a similar kind, he then stated to the House, that there were in his opinion three objections to the course proposed to be pursued; that was to say, that there were three objections to a course which required a sacrifice of public money in order to satisfy the owners of tithes in Ireland as to part of the bill which they proposed to pass this year upon the subject of the future arrangement of tithe composition in Ireland. He stated, first, that no sums had been stated as the amount which was ascertained to be due, or was likely to satisfy the claims due. He stated, in the second place, that on the hon. and learned Member for Dublin's own showing, it was not likely, that this would be considered by the great body of the Roman Catholics of Ireland as a final and satisfactory settlement of the question relating to the
230
Church and tithes, and that, therefore, it would be inexpedient to make a large sacrifice of public money on that account, He stated, in the third place, that he thought, as to the future working of the measure, that it would be a bad precedent to begin with a grant to the tithe-owners which must likewise be a remission to all those who had resisted the law, and who had refused to pay tithes in compliance with the provisions of the law, while those who had complied with the law, and who had paid their tithes, were to be losers by so doing. He had stated, also, that one consequence he thought would be, that in any future collection of rent-charge, the landlord would be likely to look to Parliament in case of a deficiency, or in case of obstacles being thrown in the way of the collection, Parliament having once before in such a case interfered, and by a grant from the public treasury, satisfied the debt. But, those statements of his, although he thought them well founded, did not meet with the general acceptance of the House. With regard to one of them, the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, made a proposition, by which he proposed to limit the amount to be devoted to this purpose. The first objection which he had stated, was not applicable to that proposal. The right hon. Baronet also entered into a detail as to the manner in which the object was to be accomplished. Now, the motive which induced him and his colleagues to modify the course which he before took upon this subject was, that it did appear to them to be a very general opinion in the House that some sacrifice on the part of the public, of the nature proposed, would tend to the general settlement of this question, and would promote the cause of peace and harmony between the different parties in Ireland. He thought, whatever their opinions were, or whatever his own individual opinion might be, that if there was a feeling in that House on the part of those persons who entertained very different political sentiments, and different sentiments with regard to the Church of Ireland, that a proposition of this kind, of a limited amount, would afford a better chance for the future peace and tranquillity of Ireland, it did not become the Government to stand in the way of such a proposal, but they should endeavour to conform to what they took to be the opinion of the House, and attempt to adjust the sub-

231
ject of the arrears of tithes, and if possible, to set the matter at rest. In the proposition which he would make on this subject, he had thought it in the first place necessary, that he should deviate so far from the right hon. Baronet's proposition as that it should not be optional with the tithe-owners to accept the sum proposed to be granted or not. If they made it optional, and a certain number accepted the offer, and another portion enforced their claims, the main object which he had in view would be defeated, and they would be making a sacrifice to very little purpose. He thought, with regard to another point, namely, the issuing of a commission for the purpose of settling the claims, that the object might, perhaps, be effected by some persons holding official situations. He should now proceed to state the proposition which he intended to make to the House, and upon which he should propose that the House go into Committee, with the view of agreeing to a resolution. The first part of the subject would be the amount of 640,000 l. which had been already advanced under the authority of a former act to the tithe-owners of Ireland. Combining, as he should do, this proposition with another which would affect the arrears of tithe, since the passing of that act, it did not seem expedient to him to make a proposition similar to the clause of the former act, namely, the doing away with the repayment of this sum by instalments, but that the sum should be entirely remitted and forgiven to the occupying tenant, while the landlords and the persons liable for rent-charge under the present bill should be obliged to pay by instalments, and that the Treasury should be empowered to collect the payments. But when he said, that with regard to the landlords, the sums were to be collected by the Treasury, he did not mean to propose, that the Treasury should collect these sums for the benefit of the State, or that the repayments should finally remain with the Exchequer; what he proposed, was, that these sums should go in part to the satisfaction of those persons who had claims for arrears of tithes, which had accrued since, and which were to be paid by the occupier. The next part of his proposition related to the remainder of the million as connected with the arrears of the tithe composition. The amount was rather different from that which was stated the other day in the course of the
232
debate. As he had already stated, the sum of 640,000 l. had been actually advanced to the owners of tithes. A further sum had been applied by a subsequent act of Parliament; and in consequence of a loan made by the Treasury out of a sum granted for public works, for the use of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of Ireland, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners not being enabled to meet the demands made upon them, were allowed to receive 100,000 l. from the Treasury and by a subsequent act proposed by his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that sum of 100,000 l. was not to be repaid by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but was to be appropriated to public works out of the remainder of the million voted by Parliament; and, therefore, the sum altogether was, not 640,000 l., but 740,000 l. which had been already voted by Parliament. The remaining sum, therefore, was 260,000 l. What he proposed was, that this 260,000 l., together with that part of the 640,000 l. which might be recovered from the landlords, should be applied to the liquidation of the arrears of the tithe composition for the years 1836 and 1837. He believed he had already stated, and he wished now to state more explicitly, that with regard to the sum of 260,000 l. and the other sums to be repaid, he proposed, that they should only go to the liquidation of those arrears of tithe composition which were due from the occupying tenant. With regard to the landlords who had undertaken to pay tithe composition, and with regard to those landlords from whom, by the operation of his noble friend's (Lord Stanley's) act, tithe compositions were due—with respect to those persons there should be no remission of arrears. The amount, therefore, of his proposition was this, that to cover the payment of the arrears of tithe composition for the years 1836 and 1837 due by the occupying tenant, there should be applied the sum of 260,000 l., the remainder of the million, and that portion of the 640,000 l. which was due by the landlord, and likewise, he should say, what was due from lay impropriators who held property in their own hands. It was impossible for him to say certainly what these sums would amount to, but he thought he was making a low estimate when he said, that, adding the 260,000 l., the whole together would amount to

233
300,000 l. He proposed that in consideration of this sum, the whole of the arrears of tithe which now existed, should be at once abolished by this act, and that there should be no claim for arrears of tithes except such as were reserved by this act, It certainly appeared to him, with regard to any arrears that accrued due before the year 1836, that although attempts had been made to levy them, those attempts not having been successful for the last two years, it was not probable that such attempts would be made now; and, in the second place, they could hardly be made after the passing of an act of this kind without exciting resistance and disturbance. He had now, therefore, stated the proposition which he proposed to make on this subject, namely, that the state should grant the sum which he had mentioned for the extinction of the arrears of tithe; and that in consideration of the grant of this sum they should extinguish by law all claims to arrears of tithes which persons might have. In making this proposition he had only to repeat again, that he did not think that he should be justified in withholding a proposition from the House in favour of which there seemed to be so general an opinion that it would tend still further to mitigate the evils attending the collection of tithe composition in Ireland. He would not withhold his opinion that he did not think this proposition one which was so favourable to the Church in Ireland. The objections stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Shaw), upon a motion which arose under the Million Act—objections which at that time did not appear to him (Lord J. Russell) to have been well founded—had certainly since appeared to him to have much weight, namely, that the abolition by law of claims in favour of persons who had resisted the law did tend to a certain degree to weaken the power of those persons who held that particular species of property. He thought, certainly, that it would not be right in him to withhold this opinion, an opinion which evidently was not entertained by those who always in that House professed to be the preservers of all the rights of the Church. There was one thing more. With respect to the future harmony and peace of Ireland he could not but advert to a question which had been put by the hon. Member for Kilkenny concerning what had taken
234
place only a few days ago; it had certainly been represented to him, in a letter which he had received from the Lord-lieutenant that morning, that he had received information that not only were orange flags exhibited upon many steeples, but upon some of these steeples there was the firing of guns or muskets. He could not believe, that it was not in the power of the clergy, if they had taken pains, to have prevented such demonstrations, and he must say, that if under this act, or any other act, they were to look to the future peace and tranquillity of Ireland—if they hoped to allay the hostile feelings that existed between the Protestant clergy and the Roman Catholic people—the Protestant clergy must refrain from demonstrations which, by the great majority of the people, were felt to be an insult. There would really be no chance for the future of restoring peace and harmony in Ireland unless some disposition were shown by persons of both sides to forbearance from all party demonstrations. Unaided by conduct of this sort, the expenditure of ten times 30,000 l. would not effect the pacification of that country. The noble Lord concluded by moving, that the House resolve itself into Committee upon the 3rd and 4th, William 4th, (the Million Act), and the act for appropriating 100,000 l. to the ecclesiastical commissioners for Ireland.
Mr. Humeput it to the noble Lord and the House, whether the House of Commons had ever entered upon a vote of a million of public money without previous notice given?
Lord J. Russellsaid, that if the hon. Member persisted in objecting to the motion upon that ground, he might, perhaps, be strictly justified; but he thought, that the notice which he (Lord J. Russell) had given of the intention of Government on this subject had, for all useful purposes, been sufficient.
Mr. Humesaid, it ought not to be him, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who should stand forward to protect the public purse; but when he saw that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of interfering, actually connived at the contemplated act of robbery, he was bound to stand forward. He was ready to make any sacrifice which might fairly be expected to lead to permanent peace in Ireland; but he was so convinced that the peace which would be purchased by this grant would

235
only be a truce of a very few months, that he could not for a moment think of consenting to it. It was not upon a mere matter of form that his objection was founded on the present occasion. It was manifestly against all the principles and practice of Parliamentary dealing, to be hurried into grants of this large description without due previous notice. From the statements of the noble Lord, it appeared that the whole of his proposition was in reality that of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, and not of her Majesty's Ministers. His noble Friend had now thought proper to come into the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet; but he totally differed from the noble Lord, as to the sufficiency of the grounds upon which he had done so. All he could say was, that if the two great bodies of Whigs and Tories now joined in thus attempting this act of robbery, they ought at least to give them sufficient notice of it. Under these circumstances, he threw himself upon the House, and begged the protection of its universal rule and practice on the present occasion.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that at this late period of the Session he was not disposed to throw any impediment in the way of this measure on a point of form. At the same time, whilst he should consent to the motion of the noble Lord for going into Committee, he begged it to be understood, that he did not pledge himself to the contemplated arrangement upon the first statement of the noble Lord. The hon. Member for Kilkenny had done an injustice both to the noble Lord and to himself, when the hon. Member said, that the Government had adopted his (Sir R. Peel's) proposition. Whether the noble Lord's proposition was better or worse than his, he would not pretend to say, but it was certainly not his proposition. His (Sir R. Peel's) proposition as he stated it the other day, was to the following effect, namely:—there was about 307,000 l. remaining out of the million grant, which they had yet to deal with. This sum, or rather a larger sum, 500,000 l., he proposed to place in the hands of a commission, who would then proceed to take a review of the arrears due from occupying tenants for the last two years, and, having ascertained their amount, draw a proportion between that amount and the 500,000 l. in their hands; and, according to that proportion, ascertain what rateable por-
236
tion per cent, could be offered to the tithe-owners on account of their arrears. Supposing, that the commissioners found they would be able to offer 60 l. in the 100 l., the tithe-owners would be offered this amount, to whom it would be quite optional either to accept the composition, or to resort to the law to recover their whole claim. Having thus explained the proposition which he was inclined to submit, he would not sit down without observing, that he had heard the latter part of the noble Lord's speech with some regret. He thought it would have been a great deal better if the noble Lord had abstained from mentioning the fact, that the Orange flag had floated from the steeples in some parts of Ireland. The noble Lord had frequently declined answering questions relating to Irish affairs, on the ground, that he was not at the moment fully informed on the subject; and he must say, that if the noble Lord had, in the present instance, stated, that he was not as yet informed whether the clergy had consented to these demonstrations, it would have been a sound exercise of discretion. He had no hesitation in frankly avowing, as he always had declared, that whether clergy or landowner, he thought both were alike bound to do all in their power to discourage such party demonstrations. But until it was ascertained, that the clergy had in the present instance acted otherwise, he felt bound to defend them from the general impeachment which the noble Lord had made of them.
Mr. Irvinehad received a letter from a most respectable gentleman residing in the county of Antrim, assuring him, that no such manifestation as that to which the noble Lord had adverted had taken place in that county, and he thought it right to mention the fact, in order to show the House, that the proceedings of which the noble Lord had complained were not so universal or general as he seemed to believe.
Mr. O'Connellwished to know from whence the letter to which the hon. Member alluded was dated? [Mr. Irvine: from Lisburne.] It was not a little singular, as Lisburne was near Belfast, where the troops had been actually called out to quell the rioters after they had broken the windows of the house of the Roman Catholic bishop, and committed other outrages.
Mr. Dunbarsaid, that the occurrence which took place in Belfast, so far from being deserving of the name of a riot,

237
was nothing more than a momentary disturbance which sprang up among a parcel of boys while at play.
Captain Jonessaid, that the noble Lord was not the only Member of that House who entertained the belief, that such displays had taken place, but it was no more than was due to the clergy of Ireland to state, that so far from encouraging the exhibition of hoisting flags on the day in question, they did all in their power to prevent it.
Mr. Ward, as they seemed to be diverging from the real question before them, felt it his duty to recal their attention to the object which his hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny, had in view. For his own part he did not believe, that the proposition of the noble Lord would lead to an adjustment of this question, and he must add, that he concurred with his hon. Friend in thinking, that it would prove nothing better than a delusion on the people of that country. It was true, that the Government plan was less objectionable than the plan of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, but still, when there was a million of money to be dealt with, he did not think they would be justified in departing from the rules of the House. They were not voting upon an abstract principle, but the application of the public money for church purposes; and as the Government had inverted the principle with which they set out, it was only right, that proper time should be given for the consideration of this new proposition. He hoped his hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny would persist in his motion, and if he did he should have his support.
Mr. Lucas, on the part of his side of the House, must disclaim the imputation which the noble Lord had thrown out against them. He denied, that they were desirous of encouraging resistance to the payment of tithes, and, for his own part, he would not concur in any plan the object of which was not to do justice to all parties. With respect to the noble Lord's plan, he was not to be considered as pledged in any way to it, and should he have objections to it, he should claim his right of urging them hereafter.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that although the Government had considered the plan of his right hon. Friend, the Member for Tamworth, they had not
238
adopted it. The question now, however, was, how could the Government most conveniently put the House and the public in possession of their resolution, with a view to its being fully understood. The whole difficulty arose out of the want of notice, for if his noble Friend had, during the morning sitting, when this subject was last before the House, stated his intention of going into Committee on the resolution that night, the present objection could not exist. But what was the object which the Government had in view? Why, to give the House information, and this could only be done by enabling them to bring forward the clauses, with a view to their being printed and circulated, by which they meant to carry their intention into effect. For this purpose it was indispensable, that they should go into Committee on the resolution, and, then, when the clauses to be founded on it were brought in and printed, hon. Gentlemen would be able to see the whole scheme by which the Government intended to carry their proposition out. At the earliest, no discussion on the subject could take place before Thursday; and as that was the case, and as without knowing what the plan was, they could not decide upon it, he hoped his hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny would not persist in his opposition.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that what his hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny, wished was, that the resolution should be proposed without pronouncing any opinion upon it at present. This could be done if the Chairman were, as soon as it had been proposed, to report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-morrow. So far from there being unanimity of feeling on the part of the House with respect to this proposition, he believed, there were many hon. Members on both sides who strongly objected to it. Even the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, gave it only a qualified assent, for, though he concurred in the principle involved in it, he kept himself wholly unfettered as regarded the details. Such being the state of the case, he must express it as his opinion, that the course pursued by his hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny, was a proper one.
Sir E. B. Sugdensaid, that the original resolution, with respect to compensation, was brought forward for the relief of the clergy of Ireland exclusively, and as he had some difficulty as the extending

239
this principle to the other tithe-owners, he should like to see the point properly considered.
Mr. Harveysaid, that his hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny, did not seem to understand what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as it was clear, from what the right hon. Gentleman had said, he had no wish, that any opinion should be pronounced at the present time on the Government proposition. It was, indeed, impossible, that the right hon. Gentleman could expect such a thing, and, therefore, what he said was, that when the resolution was brought in, the Government would allow that House and the country sufficient time to reflect upon it. Without having before them the resolution and the machinery by which it was to be carried into effect, it was impossible, that they could take the matter into consideration; but as regarded the proposition itself, all he could say was, that this country would be as much astonished at it as the Government themselves were, when they first heard of it on Friday night. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, had dexterously led the Government into this plan, but now he as dexterously avoided pledging himself to it. He liked his own plan, but not that of the Government, and he predicted, that the only advantage which the Government would derive from the course which they had taken, would be an increase of unpopularity.
Lord J. Russellwould not object to the course suggested of going into Committee, proposing the resolution, and taking the subject into consideration at a future period.
Lord Stanleysaid, that there was a point on which he was desirous of information. If he understood the noble Lord rightly, he proposed to remit the 640,000 l. which had been advanced to the clergy where the clergy had abstained from levying from the landlord or occupying tenant any part of the arrears due to them. Did the noble Lord mean, that the Government might levy that amount only which was due to the clergy from the landlord, and not from the occupying tenant? By the Million Act under which the advance was made, the party liable was defined; but when that act did not come into operation until 1834, and in 1833 the liability for the tithe rested, not with the landlord, but with the occupying tenant. He might
240
be labouring under some mistake, but it was, at all events, right that the House should know the amount of remission on which they could reckon.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that there was another subject of misapplication on which the noble Lord ought to obtain information. He would not ask any question at present relative to it, but merely say to the noble Lord, that he ought to obtain some information as to the 100,000 l. which had been granted to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
Mr. Humewished to know if it were intended to excuse those landlords who were occupiers from the repayment of the advances which had been made to them?
Lord J. Russellsaid, that they were not to be exempted. With respect to what had fallen from the noble Lord opposite, all he could say was, that in many cases, the landlord would be liable to the repayment of the instalments, and that in many others, the advances, for instance, to lay impropriators were not made recoverable. He should be very glad to find, that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were in a condition to refund the 100,000 l. alluded to by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth.
House in Committee.
Lord J. Russell, having proposed the resolution, which was agreed to, and the House having resumed, moved, that the House should go into Committee on the Tithes (Ireland) Bill, for the purpose of considering the remaining clauses of the Bill. House in Committee.
On Clause 9,
Mr. Lefroyrose to propose the omission of clauses from 9 to 19, and to substitute for them one clause which he had prepared. These clauses proposed to open all compositions. He thought that any attempt to open these compositions would lead to great inconvenience and injustice. If they opened the compositions under Goulburn's Act they must go back to a period so remote as 1814. That act was passed in 1821, and the compositions were founded upon the average of the preceding seven years. Now if they re-opened these compositions they would be obliged to take the average over again, beginning at 1814. Now the Goulburn Act gave the right of appeal under proper restrictions, and wherever there had been ground of objection appeals had been made. Under the Stanley

241
Act a right of appeal was given in all cases of voluntary composition, and several appeals had taken place. This Bill, however, proposed to open all compositions, whether they had taken place under voluntary composition or by means of commissioners. Now it should be recollected that since those compositions had been originally made, several of the incumbents had died and had been succeeded by others. There was no record existing, in many instances, of the principle on which these compositions had taken place. There was no calculation by which to be guided, and it was easy to conceive the difficulty to which opening compositions that had so long ago taken place would now lead. But this Bill also proposed to open the compositions that had taken place under the Stanley Act. Now under the powers given by this act no less than 39 appeals had taken place, and of this number three only had been allowed. When such ample opportunity of appeal had been given, there was no ground to suppose, that these compositions had taken place on any extravagant valuation. He (Mr. Lefroy) proposed to exclude from the operation of the present Bill all the compositions which had been made under the Goulburn Act. He had no objection, in a limited manner, and under certain restrictions, to allow the more recent compositions under the Stanley Act to be renewed. He would conclude by moving the omission of the clauses from nine to nineteen, and he would move, to substitute instead, one clause providing for the review of the compositions in the limited way that he had stated.
Viscount Morpethwould not deny, that there was some force in the arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman with respect to the inconvenience of opening compositions made at a period far back. These arguments had been submitted to the Committee in former sessions and notwithstanding the Committee felt, that it would be desirable to continue the power to re-open these compositions, he admitted, that there would be considerable inconvenience and anomaly in opening cases decided so long ago, and in which a power of appeal had been given. But then the anomaly did not affect any side of the question in particular. However, there were, he believed, several cases of great hardship, and with a view of making a permanent and enduring settlement of
242
the tithe question, he thought it would be for the advantage of all parties, that a power of appeal should be given. Now this view was not confined to one side of the House, but appeared to be felt by the Gentlemen opposite. In his amendment the right hon. Gentleman proposed to leave the power of appeal in a certain class of cases under the Act that went by the name of Lord Stanley's Act. An objection had been made to allow appeals in cases where there had been voluntary composition, but he thought voluntary an erroneous term to apply to compositions where parties merely gave their consent that a composition should be made without any agreement as to the amount of the composition. These compositions had not been made with reference to any amount of payment that had been previously made, but with reference to sums agreed or adjudged to be paid, and besides this the commissioners were given a power at their own discretion to add one-fifth of the whole amount. Now, in many cases, they could not do substantial justice unless they allowed the compositions to be re-opened. The difficulty of going back to 1814 would not be so great as was imagined, as the averages would all be found published in the Dublin Gazette. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that he was willing to give an appeal in any case of fraud or concealment, but he said also, that he wished that the appeal should be limited to the Lord-lieutenant and Privy Council. Now he (Lord Morpeth) thought, that it would be a great advantage and convenience that the parties should go before a barrister, who would inquire upon the spot, with a facility of hearing evidence at both sides, and a great saving both of time and of expense to the parties. The Government had been anxious so to guard the bill, as that there would be no chance of any appeal which was not bona fide, and made upon the strongest grounds. The Government were more liable to the charge of having almost frittered away the power of appeal than of having unnecessarily enlarged it.
Mr. Goulburnurged upon the Committee the inconvenience and danger of disturbing engagements which existed under an act of the Legislature, and so far shaking the public confidence in the faith of an Act of Parliament, Nothing could be more dangerous than to introduce such a principle. With respect to

243
the compositions made under the Act that went by his name, both parties chose a commissioner, and the composition was the result of their mutual voluntary agreement. Now, in many instances since these compositions had been made in 1821, the original incumbents had died, and had since had, in some instances, two or more successors, who came into the receipt of their income upon the faith of an existing agreement. Were they now to be called on to have that agreement re-opened without having the means of bringing forward evidence with respect to transactions that occurred in the time of their predecessors? It was easy to see the inconvenience to which this would lead in Ireland, considering the spirit of resistance to the payment of tithes, which at present prevailed there. He had continued to reside in Ireland from the passing of that act until 1827, and so far from any complaints against the working of that Act, there was, on the contrary, throughout the country, a general feeling of obligation towards the Government, for the advantages which had resulted from it. He repeated, that it would not merely be doing injustice to individual parties, but it would be introducing a most dangerous principle at this distance of time to re-open agreements that had been entered into with the voluntary consent of both parties, and upon the faith of an Act of Parliament.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought that the apprehensions of the right hon. Gentleman were exaggerated. If the alteration proposed interfered with agreements made under the right hon. Gentleman's Act, he should support them with very great reluctance; but as they only contemplated revision in cases where compositions had been unfairly effected, he could not see that their adoption would impose any hardship on the clergyman. The right hon. Gentleman should recollect that the application for revision was not to come from the majority of numbers in the parish, but from the owners of the greater value; and this being the case, he did not think there need be any apprehension that the application would be made on unjust or trivial grounds.
Mr. E. B. Rochedid not object to the clauses as going too far, but of not going far enough. That abuses had taken place under Mr. Goulburn's Act he needed no further proof than the petition he had had
244
the honour of presenting a few nights since. That was a petition from the parishioners of Castle Island, stating, that their Rector, the very rev. Archdeacon Ryder, had, by fraud and collusion, procured an unfair composition under Goulburn's Act. It appeared by that petition that the Archdeacon claimed 1,856 l. as composition, and that his own Bishop, on being referred to as arbitrator, awarded him only 1,450 l. This showed the necessity for revision.
Mr. Lucasthought, that this case, if established went wholly to support the view of his right hon. Friend, (Mr. Lefroy). As even in a case where the parishioners had a right of appeal to the law they waived that right and preferred arbitration.
Mr. Sheilsaid, that the facts contained in the petition mentioned by his hon. friend (Mr. Roche,) were, that the Bishop of Cloyne on having the matter referred to him awarded the Archdeacon 1,450 l. instead of 1,865 l. his claim. From this the right hon. Gentleman opposite might conclude, that the Archdeacon since that time had received only 1,450 l., abiding by the arbitration; but what were the facts? He took the 1,450 l. until 1832, but when the million was granted, he claimed, and obtained, the proportion of his own claim, 1,856 l., and afterwards made his success in that matter a ground for enforcing the same amount from his parishioners. Surely such a case as this afforded some grounds for revision. He could not vouch for the statements in this petition as facts. Revision was absolutely necessary, if it were only from the fact of the time allowed by the right hon. Gentleman's Act being so short as to have caused great injustice and hardship. With respect to the hardship of interfering with settled agreements, he did not think it would be very great, as the clergyman could always rest on his composition, and the applicants would be obliged to produce facts before they could shake it. The fact was, that they were now putting the burden on the landlord, and they should give him every opportunity and facility for revision when revision was necessary. In 1823 Ireland was completely infested with tithe-proctors, and he must do the right hon. Gentleman opposite the justice to say, that his act went a great way to extinguish them; but at the time the composition was settled those

245
proctors were the acting parties for the clergymen, and they arranged the compensation, not according to the standard of the net sum which the clergyman had hitherto received, but according to what they had been able by every device to extort from the peasantry.
Mr. Humewas very much surprised at the opposition given to the proposal of the noble Lord, because as the right hon. Gentleman opposite must recollect, on the introduction of Mr. Goulburn's Bill the grounds advanced for its adoption were—that there must be a revision every fifteen years.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that the hon. Gentleman had just awoke from a dream of fifteen years, and forgot entirely what had occurred in the interval. Mr. Goulburn's Act certainly provided for a revision at the end of twenty-one years, but the answer to that was, that since the time of its passing another act had been passed by the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, and by that the compositions were made permanent. It appeared to him that the case of Archdeacon Ryder should Le put entirely out of consideration; from reading the petition he did not clearly understand the case, and certainly before any inference unfavourable to that clergyman was drawn, the allegation should be substantiated by proof. He did not understand how Archdeacon Ryder contrived to get 1,840 l. out of the million, still less how he continued to enforce that claim from the tithe-payer. Why had not the parishioners appealed to the Privy Council, as they were empowered to do by Lord Stanley's Act. [Mr. Hume:—The case occurred in 1832.] The parishioners complained that there was a discrepancy between the statement of the Bishop's award and the Archdeacon's, the Archdeacon's stated that award to be 1,4501., provided all the rates were regularly paid, while the parishioners insisted that it was absolute. This was a very material difference, and sufficient to make them put the case entirely out of view until the real facts were ascertained. He objected to the proposal altogether, because he thought that the reopening of an agreement made under the sanction of an Act of Parliament would have a tendency to shake all agreements similarly circumstanced. He would venture to say, that, if the proposal were made in England or in any other country than Ireland, or in any other case than that of the Irish Church,
246
it would be scouted out of that House, The hon. and learned Gentleman alluded to the opposing interests of tillers and graziers; but those opposing interests in reality formed an effectual check to the claims of the clergy. The case was never left with either clergyman or parishioner, whether tiller or grazier, but referred to some respectable men as arbitrators. Under these circumstances, although in the case of a single parish, which could prove an improper arrangement, he would be willing to grant a revision; yet, to extend it beyond—to an extent, in fact, almost unlimited—appeared to him a measure fraught with danger to the title of every property that depended on the sanction of an Act of Parliament. On these grounds he should refuse to open the composition.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, they were all agreed as to the desirableness of correcting frauds, and the only question was, the extent to which they should go in endeavouring to do so. It would undoubtedly be a fraud if the tithe-owner were allowed to receive one-fifth more than he had a right to, and it was not too much to ask for the power of appeal in cases of existing imposition, when the tithe-owner was receiving 20 per cent. more than he ought properly to receive. Surely this was fair, and when a proposition was made for what hon. Members contemplated as a final and perpetual settlement of the question, they should not leave in the bill that which would be the cause of future collision and contests. When the tithes were sprinkled with blood as had been the case at Rathcormac and elsewhere, it was not to be wondered at if re-action should take place. Hon. Members should learn experience from the past, and endeavour as much as possible to remove all cause of complaint. If by any of the existing compositions the tithe-owner received upwards of 20 per cent. more than he ought to receive, the composition must have been a fraudulent one.
Lord Stanleycontended that the clauses if agreed to would allow the compositions to be opened if it were alleged that they exceeded even by the amount of a single halfpenny. It would be too hard thus to open compositions which had been entered into nearly twenty years ago. Legal inquiries would be instituted, barristers sent down, and the clergyman would be saddled with all the expenses of an inquiry

247
into a composition made by his predecessor upon views and statements which could not be now adduced. It had been asserted that there was no valid appeal under the existing law, and this in the teeth of several instances where appeal had been made, and made successfully. In his opinion it would be most unwise to re-open compositions which had been made at a time when no agitation existed, and made too, after cool deliberation on the part of those who entered into the contract. Such a proposition was calculated to shake the very foundation of property, and he, for his part, could not agree to the extent of the provisions made upon this point by Government.
Sir E. Sugden, as allusion had been made to the affair of Rathcormac, would take the liberty of saying a few words on the subject. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin had published it to the world as his opinion, that the homicides which had taken place at Rathcormac were murders. Now, he would as a lawyer, state his opinion on the subject. He would state to the House that the opinion published by the hon. and learned Gentleman was not founded in law, and the publication of that opinion had been productive of great mischief in Ireland.
Mr. O'Connelladmitted, that he was not so fortunate a lawyer as the right hon. Gentleman. With respect to the opinion which he gave in the transaction at Rathcormac, it was given after he had been consulted upon the subject professionally, and if those who consulted him thought fit to publish the opinion which he gave, he could not prevent them. By that opinion, however, he would still stand. From the statement made to him when he was consulted upon the point, it appeared that a more foul and horrible murder had never been committed. It was a murder most base and horrible. From the statement made to him it appeared that the field was enclosed. [Sir E. Sugden—No, No.] He was glad to hear that denial. The right hon. Gentleman was too good a lawyer not to know the value of the fact. Eleven witnesses proved to the enclosure. There certainly was trespass, and a murder had been perpetrated, which was still unavenged. For his part he was glad that the question of enclosure had been agitated by so eminent a lawyer as the right hon. Gentleman. In charging the case as a murder he did not mean to im-
248
pute anything to the soldiery who were employed on the occasion. They only acted in obedience to orders. When the army were employed in Ireland they never exceeded their orders. The observations of the right hon. Gentleman, so far from overthrowing, vindicated his opinion. Murder had been done in the case at Rathcormac, and many others had been committed in Ireland, without retribution. In Rathcormac seven human lives had been lost for a sum of three shillings and fourpence. Such a thing could not occur in any other country in Europe.
Sir E. Sugdenwas sorry this question had arisen, but by whom was it raised? By the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, who could not regret more than he (Sir E. Sugden) what had taken place at Rathcormac. The hon. and learned Gentleman might turn round and cry "Oh," but he did not care for the hon. and learned Gentleman's acting. It would have no effect but to lessen the respect which he might otherwise feel for him. The hon. and learned Gentleman had given his opinion, and it was published, with his name attached to it. On what ground did the grand jury ignore the bill? It was an easy matter for an hon. Member in his place in that House to detract from the purity of a judge, and the integrity of a jury; but such a proceeding would reflect little credit on him who did so. The hon. and learned Gentleman said there was an enclosure. This he denied. There was no enclosure; but, on the contrary, there was fair access. There was an open way which was blocked up from the inside by carts and other obstructions, which it was quite lawful to remove. Again, he would insist that, in point of law, there had been no murder.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman could not have read the charge of Justice Foster, who did not use the argument of there being no enclosure. The speech of Judge Foster, which was a long and rambling one, made no allusion to an enclosure. He had done that learned personage injustice, forsooth. A man who had been twenty-five years a barrister without a brief, and was then by a hop, step, and jump, transferred to the bench. With respect to the question of enclosure, there was a Gentleman in the House who had seen the spot, and could testify to the enclosure. He was glad that the question had been raised, as it

249
elicited an opinion from the highest Chancery lawyer England ever produced, that if the place was enclosed a murder had been committed.
Mr. E. B. Rocheknew the haggard, and could state distinctly, that it was as well inclosed as any other haggard in Ireland. He saw it before and after the transaction, but was not there at the time when the murder took place. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Dublin in characterizing it as a most foul murder.
On the Question that the clause, as amended, stand part of the bill, the Committee divided. Ayes 103; Noes 88 Majority 15.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

James, W.

Archbold, R.

Jervis, S.

Baines, E.

Langdale, C.

Bannerman, A.

Lefevre, C. S.

Barnard, E. G.

Lynch, A. H.

Blake, M. J.

Macnamara, W.

Blake, W. J.

Maher, J.

Bowes, J.

Melgund, Lord

Brabazon, Lord

Mildmay, P.

Bridgman, H.

Morpeth, Lord

Briscoe, J. I.

Morris, D.

Brotherton, J.

Muskett, G. A.

Bryan, G.

O'Brien, W. S.

Campbell, Sir J.

O'Connell, J.

Chalmers, P.

O'Connell, D.

Childers, J. W.

O'Connell, M. J.

Clements, Lord

O'Connell, M.

Collins, W.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Crawford; W.

Ord, W.

Crawley, S.

Parker, J.

Curry, W.

Parnell, Sir H.

Dalmeny, Lord

Pechell, Capt.

Duckworth, S.

Pendarves, E. W.

Easthope, J.

Philips, G. R.

Ebrington, Lord

Power, J.

Evans, G.

Pryme, G.

Finch, F.

Reddington, T. N.

Fitzgibbon, Col.

Rich, H.

Fleetwood, Sir P.

Roche, E. B.

Gordon, R.

Roche, Sir D.

Grattan, J.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Grey, Sir C.

Russell, Lord J.

Hall, Sir B.

Salwey, Col.

Handley, H.

Seymour, Lord

Hawes, B.

Smith, R. V.

Hawkins, J. H.

Somerville; Sir W. M.

Hayter, W. G.

Stanley, E. J.

Hector, C. J.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Stewart, J.

Hodges, T. L.

Strangways, J.

Hoskins, K.

Thompson, C. P.

Howard, P. H.

Thornely, T.

Howick, Lord

Townley, R. G.

Hume, J.

Troubridge, Sir E.

Hutt, W.

Vigors, N. A.

Hutton R.

Wallace, R.

250

Warburton, H.

Wood, Sir M.

Westenra, J. C.

Wood, G. W.

White, A.

Wyse, T.

Williams, W.

Yates, J. A.

Williams, W. A.

TELLERS.

Wilshere, W.

Steuart, R.

Wood, C.

Sheil, R. L.

List of the NOES.

A'Court, Capt.

Hope, hon. C.

Bagge, W.

Hope, G. W.

Ballie, Col.

Hotham, Lord

Baker, E.

Hurt, F.

Baring, hon. F.

Ingham, R.

Bateson, Sir R.

Jermyn, Earl

Blackburne, I.

Jones, T.

Blennerhasset, A.

Kelly, F.

Bramston, T. W.

Knightley, Sir C.

Broadley, H.

Lockhart, A. M.

Brownrigg, S.

Lucas, E.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Mackenzie, T.

Chandos, Marq.

Mahon, Lord

Chute W. L. W.

Meynell, Captain

Codrington, C. W.

Nicholl, J.

Compton, H. C.

Norreys, Lord

Coote, Sir C. H.

Packe, C. W.

Corry, hon. H,

Pakington, J. S.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Palmer, G.

Darby, G.

Parker, R. T.

De Horsey, S. H.

Parker, T. A. W.

Dunbar, G.

Peel, Sir R.

Eastnor, Lord Visc.

Peel, J.

Eaton, R. J.

Perceval, G. J.

Egerton, W. T.

Polhill, F.

Estcourt, T.

Powell, Colonel

Fellowes, E.

Praed, W. T.

Filmer, Sir E.

Pusey, P.

Freemantle, Sir T.

Rose, Sir G.

Gladstone, W. E.

Rushbrook, R.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Somerset, Lord G.

Goulburn, H.

Stanley, Lord

Graham, Sir J.

Sugden, Sir E.

Grant, F. W.

Teignmouth, Lord

Greene, T.

Trench, Sir F.

Grimsditch, T.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Grimston, hon. E.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Grimstone, Visct.

Villiers, Lord

Hale, R. B.

Vivian, J. E.

Hawkes, T.

Wodehouse, E.

Hayes, Sir E.

Wood, T.

Herbert, hon. S.

Young, J.

Hinde, J. H.

Hodgson, R.

TELLERS.

Hogg, J. W.

Perceval, Col.

Holmes, W.

Lefroy, rt. hon. T.

Clause added to the Bill.
Remaining Clauses agreed to, and Report to be brought up.
House resumed.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second times:—Church Discipline; Qualification of Electors; Sheriffs Courts.—Read a first time:—Royal Exchange; Prisons (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By the Duke of RICHMOND, from Legal Practitioners in the county of Elgin, in favour of the Sheriffs Courts (Scotland) Bill.—By Lord SONDES, from the Operative Conservative Association of Warrington, for the expulsion of Roman Catholics from Parliament.—By the Earl of CARLISLE, from the Church Missionary Society of Carlisle, against Idolatry in India; and from the town of Carlisle, in favour of the Irish Municipal Corporations Bill.—By the Duke of WELLINGTON, from Individuals connected with the Corporation of Cork, not to pass the Irish Municipal Corporations Bill without compensating those affected by it.—By the Earl of WINCHILSEA, from the neighbourhood of Liverpool, and from Alverstoke, against any further Grant of Money to the College of Maynooth.

APPOINTMENT OF MR. TURTON.
The Earl of Winchilseawas sorry, that he was not present the other evening, when a noble Friend of his (Lord Wharncliffe) asked a question of the noble Viscount, which appeared to him to be of great importance. So far as it went, the answer given to that question, which related to a recent appointment in Canada, was satisfactory. But, had he been in his place when the noble Viscount expressed his regret at the appointment, he should not have been entirely satisfied, without inquiring what course the Government meant to adopt on the subject. When he had formerly sought information as to this appointment, he entertained no doubt that the individual alluded to had gone out with a view to his becoming a member of one of the highest and most important missions that had ever been sent from this country; and he objected to any such appointment, because he viewed it as being closely connected with the character of the Sovereign. In his opinion, no one should have been employed on such a mission, except his character was free from taint or blemish. He now begged leave to ask the noble Viscount a question, namely, whether the individual to whom he alluded had been recalled? That was the only question that he meant to ask. He had heard it reported, but he trusted the rumour was without foundation, that the appointment had not

203
been interfered with. It had also been reported, that another individual, who had been imprisoned for three years, on account of a very grave offence, had left this country, with a view to an appointment on the same commission. He was ready to make all just allowances for the failings of individuals, for the weakness of human nature. He did not mean to say, that in consequence of the unpleasant situation in which individuals might place themselves by improper conduct, they ought never to be allowed to hold any appointment under the Government. But this was, in his mind, a most peculiar case; and he must say, that the situation which was filled by the person to whom he alluded, ought not to have been conferred on him, connected, as he repeated that it was, with the character of the Sovereign of this country. If the second report to which he had drawn the attention of the noble Viscount were a fact, then, he must say, that two persons had been selected for important situations which they were unfit to fill, and from which they ought to be removed. He hoped, that the rumour was not true, and to elicit the truth, he had put this question to the noble Viscount.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that Ministers had very recently received an account of the appointment complained of, and had not yet had time to communicate with the Government abroad. Under these circumstances, it would not at present be convenient to state the course which Government intended to pursue.
The matter ended.

SLAVERY IN THE CROWN COLONIES.
Lord Broughamhaving presented a large number of petitions, praying for the immediate abolition of Negro Slavery, said, he rose for the purpose, and, as he hoped, and most confidently expected, for the last time, of addressing this Parliament, or any assembled inhabitants of this country, on the great question which had called them that day together. If he had long laboured strenuously, but feebly—honestly, though humbly, in this great cause—if he had, through good report and through evil report, abided by that cause—if he had, through various fortunes, even when his mind was most depressed by the prospects before him, and the circumstances which surrounded him, never for one instant felt despondency as to its ultimate success, it was, because he had at all
204
times to support him the public mind of this kingdom. At all times this question had been gloriously distinguished from all others, in that it laid asleep, for the moment and for the occasion, every difference of political opinion; all discrepancies of religious feeling, faction, and sectarianism, went to sleep when humanity and justice, and sound policy, and the character of the country, were all involved in the issue. That it was, that bore up his spirit, even when aware he was outnumbered by the representatives of the people, to the extent of three, four, or five to one—even when after the representatives of the people had come round to the opinion of their constituents, and had given their voices, with that of the country, in favour of the measure, even when the very day after they, by another vote, reversed that decision. When, too, their Lordships were pleased to interpose one of those obstacles which had been deemed necessary to prevent rash and precipitate Legislation, but which, on that question, if on no other, produced effects all but fatal to the hopes of the abolitionists—even in those most gloomy times, and when they had gone so far as to carry the measure of 1833, and he found that experiment successful in no one part—even then, when their Lordships would not listen to his warnings, nor lend a favourable ear to his entreaties, and he was aware that the Members who would support him were so small that he dared not ask for a division, even then his spirits were undaunted—he felt his cause to be just and right, and he knew the people to be with him. He now stood before them under different circumstances, he came now to rejoice in all but the accomplishment of all his hopes. He came now to remind their Lordships that the day had at length, and on this very day, arrived, when they could not refuse their consent—all that was wanting—to complete this measure of justice, and that all must be given in England, because in the colonies there was not the power to give it. But he must first remind their Lordships, and a few words would suffice, of what had been done in the West Indies with regard to this question. Glory and gratitude ever lasting to the people of Antigua, for their bright example had been followed elsewhere, and it seemed as if the lustre of their achievement had enabled others to see the error of their ways. Antigua,

205
however, took the lead. Antigua, two years before any other, adopted a similar course, came forward and dared to be wise, dared to be prudent. She knew and felt, that the most prudent and the safest policy was also the most virtuous, the most just, and therefore the most prompt and the most bold. Her example was followed by Montserrat, and by the smaller isles, and then by the greater colony, which arrogated to itself the title of "Little England"—he meant the great colony of Barbadoes. There remained Jamaica, and he was informed this day, as if by the special interposition of Providence—having postponed his motion from time to time owing to one accident and another—having put it off on the last occasion in consequence of the illness of a noble Lord—having thus waited till this day to bring forward this motion, whereof he had given notice, on this very morning there had arrived, to greet him on the dawn of the day that should witness the last discussion in Parliament, as he fervently hoped, of this great question, the glorious intelligence that, at length, Jamaica too had given way, and that, in Jamaica, with unexampled dispatch, in the space of three or four days, the measure had been carried through the assembly, and the negroes of Jamaica were free on the 1st of August. These were the slave colonies which followed the example of Antigua. The numbers emancipated were, in Jamaica 235,000, in Barbadoes 54,000, and in all, including Antigua, there were not less than 255,000, besides those whom the measure of 1833, as non-predials and young children, emancipated. But in the unchartered colonies, as they were called, which had not the option, even if they pleased it, of emancipating their slaves, the whole amount of slaves whose fate hung upon the decision of their Lordships was no less than 130,000 souls. With regard to those colonies which had legislatures of their own, their Lordships might with a show of justice have pleaded their reluctance to interfere with those legislatures, but could this be urged with regard to the unchartered colonies, which had no legislatures at all? The Crown was to them what the House of Assembly and the Legislative Council were to Jamaica and Barbadoes. Having no legislature, they could not, even if they would, follow the example which had been set them by some of the other colonies. Let their
206
Lordships only look to the state of Guiana, Trinidad, St. Lucia, and Mauritius. He said nothing of the Cape of Good Hope, where since the 1st of September the slaves had been emancipated by law. Were the slaves of Guiana and the other colonies which he had named less fitted for the reception of freedom than those of Jamaica, Barbadoes, and Antigua? Was the lot of the slave under the tropical sun of the Mauritius, or in those other islands which were not blessed with the healthiest climates, one whit lighter than in Jamaica, or in Antigua, where they enjoyed all manner of comforts? Quite the reverse. It was in the savannahs of Trinidad, and upon the alluvial soil of Guiana, that human life was most prodigally wasted, in ministering to European avarice, and it was there that it behoved the mother country to interpose to put a stop to the inhuman deaths, to the diseases which were felt to be more cruel than death, to the fatal contamination which the necessity of labouring on those fatally unwholesome plains inflicted on those wretched victims of avarice. But the voice from Mauritius, which pierced their ear, and rended the silence of that eastern sea, was aggravated in its tones of pity, and fell still harsher upon their ears, from this hard addition to the lot of the slave, that three out of four of those who cultivated the plains of Mauritius, all suffering worse torments than even those which were inflicted upon the negroes of Guiana and of Trinidad, had never in their lives been legally slaves at all. They had been transported thither, not only against the law of nature, but after the law of this land had made transportation of the slave a capital crime; and 30,000 capital felonies had been committed in conveying over 30,000 of these victims of their weakness, and planting them under the unwholesome climate and upon the unwholesome soil of that Mauritius. If ever there had been a single neglect of duty upon the part of a Legislature, it was theirs, in not having at once broken through the fetters of a mere legal informality, and passed a new law to prevent the recurrence of these monstrous outrages; but in paying, on the contrary, the frightful sum of 2,000,000 l. sterling as compensation to those capital felons, instead of giving them their deserts upon the gallows. The House was perhaps not aware that there was not more than 7,000 out of the 38,000 negro slaves in Mauri-

207
tins who could be considered as legally deprived of their liberty, or as having ever been made slaves. The report of the commissioners stated, that upwards of half of the whole number of slaves in that island were brought over by capital felony, and it had been admitted by the hon. Secretary in the other House of Parliament, that twenty-five out of thirty-eight of the Mauritius negroes were not registered as slaves. Now, let him suppose a case; if six men were upon some charge committed to prison, suppose that it turned out afterwards by the clearest possible evidence, by universal admission and general consent that three out of the six had been guiltless from the beginning and ought never to have been tried, he believed, that no one would be audacious enough to say that, if either all must be punished or all pardoned, the three guiltless persons ought to suffer. That was his case with regard to the Mauritius, except that it was aggravated by the proportion being five out of the six. Now, he wished to remind their Lordships very briefly of the manner in which he had formerly put this subject, and which was now even more unanswerable than it had been then. Let their Lordships suppose that that which experience had since proved had been revealed to them previously to the passing of the Emancipation Act. Suppose it had been revealed to them, that that measure had been founded in a fallacy, and that there was nothing in the circumstances of these islands to require the preparatory state which that bill provided. Compensation was given to the planters, but that preparatory state was not intended as a compensation to the master, but it was for the negroes' sake; it was introduced for his benefit and his welfare; and his interest, it was argued, required that transitive state. But suppose they had been told with the same certainty which experience had given, that the negro could work for wages as well as the white man, that the negro was a peaceable creature, and patient of misery and injustice to a degree far exceeding that of the white man; supposing such to have been the case, he should like to see the man even now who would have been the advocate of an apprenticeship, or who woule have attempted to vindicate the propriety or lawfulness of the transitive state. But now they knew all that was certainly as if they had been informed of it by revelation—experience had taught them the fallacy of all their appre-
208
hensions and conjectures; and other reasons, independently of all considerations of public policy and expedience, had been brought into the scale against the system of apprenticeship. Applications of various kinds had been made to their Lordships' House against that system, and upon various grounds. Even the score of interest—the interest of the planters themselves—the abolition of the apprenticeship had been recommended. In Antigua, they had heard of an estate, the expense of cultivating which by hired labour was 550 l., but nearly double that amount by the labour of slaves. As to the measure being safe, and attended with no risk or peril, they had a large body of evidence; and last of all, they had heard the entreaties of a Gentleman, whose petition he had presented, and who was the resident proprietor of an estate in Jamaica, producing 8 or 9,000 l. a year—whose whole interest was involved in the prosperity of the colony, and in its peace and tranquillity—and who had written a letter in which he implored Parliament to lose not a moment, because the two years of pretended preparation would only give rise to bad blood between the slaves and the planters; and because he held, that that which was safe in August, 1838, would be pregnant with danger in August, 1840. These were the circumstances which rendered it not only safe—but if safe, necessary—a duty incumbent on their Lordships to consent to the motion, which he intended to propose. He saw nothing but peril in delay; he spoke not his own opinions—because he must be ignorant of the facts from practical experience—but he spoke the opinions of the persons resident in Jamaica, and amongst others of the Governor, as expressed in his address to the Assembly of Jamaica, in which, after doing justice to the excitement on this subject which had prevailed in this country—to its intensity—to its universality, and he thanked God, he might add, to its success—he recommended the speedy emancipation of all the apprentices, and concluded with these remarkable words:—"As Governor under these circumstances, and I never shrink from any responsibility, I pronounce it physically impossible to maintain the apprenticeship with any hope of successful agriculture." Then for whom did he now appear as counsellor? He appeared for the planters themselves as well as the slaves, and he had the authority

209
of the Governor of Jamaica addressed to them, who, if he were dealing in terms of mere romance would have turned away from him in disgust, or whose experience, if he were wishing to deceive, must have frustrated the attempt—he had his authority to say, that the cultivation of the islands by slaves would be physically impossible. The hoe would fall from the negro's hand; he would not work as a slave; but he had already shown, that he would work as a free man for hire. His resistance in the former case might be merely passive, for he had shown himself of all creatures, God knew! the most patient and enduring. But he would not answer for the slaves of Jamaica or Trinidad, and still less for the slaves of the Mauritius, rankling in their souls, as the feeling must be, that though others were then under the colour of our unjust law, still there was some legal colour of a right de facto for it—whilst they were then solely by crime and capital felony. He would not answer for the tranquillity of any one island in the eastern or Caribbean seas, if this right—for right he called it—was withheld. But he might now turn to Jamaica, if not in language of admiration for the exploits of which that day's arrival had brought them intelligence, still in terms of hearty congratulation. Jamaica had saved herself from all those fatal scenes which, if justice were not done, there was two much reason to apprehend. "Rempublicam, vitamque omnium, bona, fortunes, conjuges, liberosque atque hoc domicilium clarissimi imperii, fortunatissimam pulcherrimamque urbem, hodierno die, deorum immortalium summo amore, ex Hammâ atque ferro, ac pene ex faucibus fati, ereptam, et conservatam ac restitutam, videtis." He heartily congratulated that great colony, which by the favour of heaven had taken that noble step; at length it had deemed it wise and fitting so to act, while it was called to-day, and it now no longer had to dread the awful and tempestuous night of negro insubordination. Now, that brought him to the consideration of the unchartered Crown colonies. They had no Legislators of their own. They could not do what Jamaica had done—they could not conserve, and restore, and place in safety their lives and fortunes—their wives, and children from the fire and the sword, and the violence of the negro; they had no legislatures; but to them it was, and to the Crown by their advice, as
210
its hereditary counsellors, that the Crown colonies had a right to look for assistance; but he should perhaps be told of some court of policy—or counsellors, or other local authority—a mongrel legislature—a doubtful spurious authority—half recommendatory, half law-giving, with respect to the acts of which they could hardly tell whether they were suggestions or enactments; but let that authority, or legislature, be what they pleased, until they gave its acts force, force of law they had none. On other subjects the Crown had not left those colonies to legislate for themselves; orders in council and instructions had been issued. But there was another consideration—time was everything in this case; despatch was all-in-all; a week's delay might be attended with great inconvenience; a month's delay was highly dangerous; half a year's might be fatal. A despatch from England would not reach the Mauritius in less than two months and a-half, and it would take the same time to bring back the answer. Here were five months gone, and another two months and a must pass before the proceedings of the colonial Government could have the force of law. Eight months, therefore, must elapse, even if the colonists were disposed to do that which he disbelieved in their disposition to do. He said he disbelieved in their disposition to do so, because a less subordinate and less well-disposed set of men than the residents in the Mauritius it was difficult to find. They had all the prejudices of planters against the negroes, all the prejudices of colonists against the mother country, and, added t these, the accidental prejudices of Frenchmen against Englishmen; and, above all, that strange, but most mistaken, prejudice, from which even the most liberal of our neighbours on the other side of the Channel were not entirely free—that at the bottom of this question of slavery there was an English interest working against a French interest, and that by following our example they would be falling into some trap prepared for them. As the whole of the islands, having legislatures, had effected emancipation for themselves, why should not the Crown come forward and rescue and conserve, and restore to the slaves in the Crown colonies their freedom, and that of their wives, and their children? By all these considerations—by the character we had for fortitude in war and courtesy in peace—by the patience which we had

211
shown under burdens and sufferings, but which was nothing to the patience with which the negro had endured the monstrous outrages which had been inflicted upon him—by our character for justice, mercy, and religion, and especially the Christian religion, which, whenever it painted a sentence or adorned a period, was so loudly and even pharisaically professed—and he would never cease to call it pharisaical, if, with the word of the Gospel on our lips, we refused to act in its spirit—by the groans of these bondsmen, in the islands, and by 24,000,000 of voices echoing those groans, and calling on their Lordships for justice—by all these appeals to their feelings, their principles, and their religion, he claimed at their Lordships' hands an assent to his motion. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving, that an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty would be graciously pleased to issue an order in Council forthwith, to put a period under proper provisions and regulations to negro apprenticeship in the unchartered colonies of the Crown.
Lord Glenelgobserved, that the noble and learned Lord, in the commencement of his speech, had expressed his congratulations at the news received that day from the West-Indies. He (Lord Glenelg) joined most cordially in the feeling of general satisfaction which that news must have inspired in the mind of all who took an interest in this great question. The noble and learned Lord must not suppose, that those who resisted the earlier close of apprenticeship felt less for the interests of the negro population and for the interests of the colonies than the noble and learned Lord himself did when he moved for the intervention of the imperial authority on the subject. He and those who acted with him had always maintained, that the objection was, to the intervention of that imperial authority in cases where it was not required, where it was opposed by a great principle, and where the result might much more effectively, more satisfactorily, and more permanently be obtained by acts of the local Legislatures themselves. They had always felt and avowed, that an earlier termination than in 1840 of the apprenticeship was desirable, if that object could be obtained by Acts of the local Legislatures themselves. This was the sentiment which he had repeatedly ex-
212
pressed in the course of last year in despatches to the various Governors of the Windward and Leeward Islands. Indeed, he might say, that the movement in Barbadoes was originated by a despatch from himself in which this sentiment was stated. The objection to the proposition of the noble and learned Lord had been this, that there existed a compact binding the two parties which England could not consistently infringe upon. The local Legislatures, however, had themselves now solved the question, by taking the course which the Government here had often pointed out to them as advisable, but which Government had entirely left it within the decision of the local Legislatures to adopt. It had always been considered by the Government here, that any such measures would be far more successfully and more safely carried into effect by the local authorities. It would have been highly prejudicial to the object, it would, indeed, have been very dangerous, to have sought to effect this object without the previous sanction and hearty co-operation of the local authorities. To have done otherwise would have only been to sow the seeds of such exasperation and such suspicion among those authorities as in a material degree would have tainted the value and endangered the success of the experiment. With regard to the question of policy there had been a difference between himself and his noble and learned Friend. What had resulted from the proceedings which they had taken? His noble Friend had said, that he could not expect any success from the course taken, but the Government said, that they did expect a successful result. He said, trust the local legislators in this matter, and hey would be induced to yield to the wishes of this country; but his noble Friend said, trust not the local legislatures, as they would do nothing to advance this question. Did not the result show, that it was better not to exact too much from them when aid was so desirable for the successful working out of the object in view, and that it was better to show that you had confidence in them, than to take those steps which would only have the result of driving them to despair, and who might then pursue a course which would impede in a great degree the success of this measure? He had said throughout the discussions on this subject that it would be better to let the local legislatures per-

213
form their duty: and this result had proved to be correct, notwithstanding the repeated precautions of the noble Lord to the contrary. His noble Friend now said that the Crown colonies had neither the power nor the inclination to perform their duty, and follow the example set them by the chartered colonies. If his noble Friend was not strictly accurate as to what he said with regard to the proceedings of the legislatures of the chartered colonies, he would also state that he would not be more accurate as to the proceedings of the legislatures of the Crown colonies. Exactly the same ground applied to the Crown colonies as to the chartered colonies. Similar instructions to those sent out to the chartered colonies had been forwarded to the Crown colonies, and he had no doubt they would be acted upon by the local authorities and legislatures in the same spirit in the latter case as in the former. His noble Friend said, that the Legislatures of the Crown colonies were of somewhat an anomalous character, and that they could not deal with the subject as the legislatures of the chartered colonies. The fact, however, was, that although the legislative bodies in the Crown colonies did not possess powers to the same extent as those in the chartered colonies, still they were independent legislatures. His noble Friend said, that in the Crown colonies, the, Governor in council corresponded to the executive or legislative council in the other colonies. It was true that the legislature was carried on by the governor and council, or the Court of Policy as it was called in Guiana and other places, but this body possessed all the power of legislation for the internal affairs of the colony, for the levying local taxes and other purposes, as much as the legislative bodies in the chartered colonies. He repeated, this body in the Crown colonies exercised the functions he had stated, and carried on all the legislation, and controlled the taxation, and superintended the law-making for the colony. This legislature, however, was restricted in one respect; it was subject to the approbation of the Queen in Council, in the same degree, and in a similar manner as the acts of the Legislative Assemblies of the chartered colonies required that sanction to become laws. The legislatures of the Crown colonies, however, were as competent to legislate on this subject as the legislatures
214
of the chartered colonies, as they had nearly the same powers of internal legislation. He appealed, then, to any noble Lord whether it were expedient under these circumstances to interfere by means of an order of the Queen in Council, and whether it would not be more wise and prudent that the same forbearance and moderation that was pursued towards the chartered colonies, should also be followed with regard to the legislatures of the Crown colonies. He believed, that noble Lords would agree with him, that that right and power which the Queen possessed over the acts and proceedings of the legislatures of the colonies, should only be adopted and acted on in cases of necessity, and in such cases where Parliament would interfere with its authority. He thought, that this argument must have its due weight; that the acts of the Legislatures of the Crown colonies were only subject to the approbation of the Queen in Council, as was the case with the laws of the chartered colonies; and they did not come within any act of authority of any other body. He was happy in being able to state, that in fact the Legislatures of the Crown colonies had followed the example set them by the Legislatures of the chartered colonies. In addition to the information which had been alluded to by the noble Lord, as having been received from Jamaica, he could also state, that similar satisfactory accounts had lately been received from Grenada, and also from the Bahamas, which had arrived within the last few days; and he had good reason to believe, that within a short time from the dates of his communications, measures would be originated in these colonies similar to those that had been carried in other chartered colonies. In addition, however, to this, he was happy in being able to state, that in some of the Crown colonies the Governors intended to submit to the legislative bodies similar acts to those which had been carried in other places, and no doubt was entertained of their success. This had arisen in consequence of the instructions sent out to the Governors of the colonies. He was happy to find, that in the Crown colonies the Legislatures did not find themselves more fettered than in the chartered colonies. Special letters had been sent out to the Governors of the various colonies, stating that the home Government was anxious to

215
press on the attention of the Governors and the Legislatures of the Crown colonies the question of the termination of the system of negro apprenticeship. He would now shortly proceed to state what had occurred in some of the Crown colonies. In Trinidad the legislative body had been convened for the purpose of taking the subject into consideration, and on the day the mail came away, a message was sent from the Governor to the legislative body, and it was ordered to be taken into consideration the day after the mail came away. From St. Lucia information had been received, that the Governor intended to propose a measure to the Council, and no doubt was felt as to its receiving the sanction of that body. Again, in Guiana a similar proceeding had taken place; although no official account had been received of this, still within the last fortnight letters had been received from some most respectable owners of property in that colony, in which it was stated, that the Governor had submitted the subject to the consideration of the Court of Policy, and no doubt whatever was entertained as to the body sanctioning a plan for the termination of the system of negro apprenticeship. The probability was, that before the present period, all the Legislatures of the Crown colonies would have accomplished the anxious desires of the people of this country, and followed the example set them by the chartered colonies. From Mauritius there had not been time to obtain any certain information, in consequence of its distance; but the same legislative authority existed in that colony, as in the Crown colonies in the West Indies, and he had no reason to doubt, that the advice of the Government of this country, embodied in a recommendation from the Governor, would be received in the same manner as in other places. Indeed, he could not help saying, that the subject had attracted so much attention in this country, that it must command the serious consideration of the colonies. He should have observed, that there was this peculiarity in the Mauritius from the other colonies, that the termination of the apprenticeship system of the non-predials was six months later than in other places; that was, that it commenced on the 1st of February, instead of the 1st of August. He entertained no doubt in his own mind, that in this island the result would be that
216
which they anxiously desired; but in the three great Crown colonies in the West Indies, he had not the slightest doubt that two out of the three would at once accomplish the work, and most probably the example would be followed by the third. By this means, the question would be settled in a most satisfactory manner, and it would render unnecessary the painful alternative. He did not know, that he had anything more to state, as all that he presumed that his noble Friend required, was a simple statement of the affairs of the colonies at present. He would then only add, that he had little doubt that before the next Session his noble Friend would see a complete termination of the apprenticeship system in all the colonies.
Lord Broughamhad seen the despatch addressed to the Mauritius, and he begged to ask his noble Friend, whether he did not know, that unless some special instructions were given to the Crown colonies, that all the Court of Policy could do, was to pass an act, which, on coming to this country, should receive the Royal assent and approval, and that without which assent and approval, it would not be binding on the colony. Was not this also the state of things as to St. Lucia?
Lord Glenelgsaid, that his noble and learned Friend inquired whether any specific directions had been sent out to the Crown colonies? He (Lord Glenelg) referred his noble and learned Friend to the despatches before the House. He could not but think, that the best proof as to the result of those instructions was, that they were likely to be carried into effect at the earliest opportunity.
Lord Ashburtonremarked, that supposing the Governor of the Mauritius followed up the instructions sent out to him, had the Governor power to give effect to the acts in accordance with those instructions, without their first being sent home for approval?
Lord Broughamwas surprised and gratified at the communication that had been made by his noble Friend. He entertained some doubts, however, whether the Governor and Council of the Mauritius and other Crown colonies, without the direct interposition of the Crown could pass such a law as would be requisite. The situation of these Crown colonies was very different from that of the chartered colonies. He would, therefore, recommend that special despatches should be sent out

217
to each of these colonies, authorizing th Governor in taking the necessary steps.
Lord Glenelgthought, that it would turn out that the doubt could easily he resolved, but there could be no possible objection to send out such despatches as had been suggested by his noble Friend.
Lord Broughamsaid, it was most satisfactory to him to hear the determination of his noble Friend, and he would suggest, that the despatch ought to be accompanied by an order in council, which the Governor should be enabled to use if the spurious Legislatures of the Crown colonies should refuse to act. No harm could result from such an order, and it would save five months of the continuance of the existing evil, and he trusted his noble Friend would receive the suggestion in the spirit in which it was made. He had only one observation to make on the matter, seeing the satisfactory conclusion which had been arrived at. His noble Friend had spoken to-night in a better spirit than when this question was previously under discussion, because his noble Friend had now the advantage of the news which had been received to-day. Before to-night his noble Friend had said "You are wrong, and we are sanguine." His noble Friend had flattered himself that all these results had been effected by the course of the Government, but he maintained, that but for the interference of this country by the friends of emancipation and of liberty, there would not to-day have been received such a despatch as had arrived from the governor of Jamaica—a despatch which had been the subject of so much triumph and congratulation on the part of his noble Friend. But it should be remembered, that his noble Friend's despatch was dated the 16th of April, while all the agitation and discussion out of doors and in that House had occurred in the previous months of February and March. These facts were pointed at, both by the Governor of Jamaica and the Governor of Barbadoes in their respective addresses to their Houses of Assembly. The latter admitted, that he was glad to find that the labour of good and wise men who had taken a part in the agitation of the question in this country had not been thrown away. He gave honour to those men who had been the objects of calumny which they regarded not, of suspicion which they de-
218
spised, of vituperation which they allowed to pass by them as they would any other storm of empty air that they needed not; he gave to such men as Joseph Sturge, James Scoble, Josiah Conder, William Allen, and George Thompson, with whom he had been united as a most humble but most zealous coadjutor, the glory of that day, being as thoroughly persuaded as he was of his own existence, that but for their efforts, that day would not have dawned upon them. He hoped that every event would answer the expectation of his noble Friend, and he hoped particular care would be taken, that those expectations of emancipation in the Mauritius should not be frustrated. He knew that something more remained; a jealous, a constantly vigilant eye must be kept over those very selfsame assemblies, whether of full or partial legislative authority, which existed in our various colonies. For if they found them under the name of police regulations, a vagrant act, a poor law bill, or of any other of the devices which he knew their ingenuity and pertinacity full well enough to be apprehensive, they would soon attempt to pass it, as he had already seen, attempts were made by means of a vagrant act to perpetuate slavery under another name, by the help of the magistrate and the master, whose power had died a natural death; and if, under associations of men armed with power and influence, their Lordships saw any attempt to revive under another name and under false pretences that slavery which the law would not suffer to exist under as odious and disgusting appellation any longer—if any such things were attempted, he should not be wanting in the discharge of his duty to expose the violators by evasion, and therefore the worst, because the fraudulent violators of the law. Had not their Lordships seen the circular of the Messrs. Huson, who had held themselves forth to the public as accomplished man-merchants, and who had bragged that in two years they could furnish to the Mauritius 5,000 Hill Coolies at 10 l. a-head, including passage-money, provision, water, and all other stores, and an advance of six months' wages and clothing, those wages being five rupees, or about 10 s. a-month, while the wages of a day-labourer in that country was, instead of 3d. or 4d. a-day, from 3s. to 4s. a-day? Those poor and ignorant creatures the Hill Coolies were smuggled away under

219
the idea that the Mauritius to which they were going, was a village belonging to the East-India Company, and this was done at the very time, be it marked, that the apprenticeship system was abolished, or about to be abolished. He hoped, that before this session of Parliament closed an entire prohibition of the traffic in Hill Coolies would be passed. He had seen an account of a vessel having carried over 150 Hill Coolies, and, as a brag, it was said that only 10 died in the vessel during the voyage of four months—that was to say, a mortality of 1 in l5, which was a' most hideous and frightful mortality, and an additional reason, if any were wanting, why that abominable traffic should be stopped.
Lord Glenelgdenied, that he had said anything to detract in any way from the merits of the persons engaged in advocating the cause alluded to by his noble Friend. He did not intend to arrogate to the Government more credit than he really thought that it deserved for the course they had taken on this subject; he would not, however, dwell on it, He believed, that all would agree in the policy that in all the colonies all the non-predials should be under one system, and that as nearly as possible the apprenticeship system should terminate at the same period. With respect to the letters which he had sent out to the West Indies on the subject of terminating the period of the apprenticeship of the negroes in the colonies, he begged to inform his noble Friend, that he would find in the printed papers on the table one dated so far back as September last. He repeated, that he did not intend to deteriorate from the claims of the gentlemen alluded to by the noble Lord, and he was certainly far from denying, that the strong opinion of the people of this country on this subject had bad a powerful effect on the conduct of the West-Indian Legislatures.
Lord Broughamsaid, that he had one observation to make to their Lordships in reference to the slave trade being carried on by Russian ships. He had recently received a letter from a person in Havannah, who stated, that on the 13th of March a Russian vessel had landed 354 slaves in that colony, and that four other vessels of a similar character were daily expected to arrive. He merely mentioned this to show the extent to which this
220
dreadful traffic was carried on under the flag of Russia.
Motion withdrawn.

PLURALITIES.
The House went into committee on the Benefices Pluralities Bill.
On Clause 4,
Lord Wharncliffesaid, he could not but think, that this bill, like some of the reforms proposed in the institutions of this country, went far beyond the necessity of the case. Another objection he had to the bill was, that it began at the wrong end, for before they came to deal with the matters affected by this bill, they ought to endeavour to make the income of every clergyman, sufficient to enable him to live in a respectable manner. In many parts of the north, and particularly in the manufacturing districts, many of the livings were so starved, that it would be impossible to get clergymen to undertake the duties of such parishes, without increasing their incomes from some other source. The clause proposed, that a radius of ten miles should be the limitation for the holding of two benefices; he conceived that to be a much worse arrangement than a clergyman being allowed to hold two livings in a radius of forty miles, because in the latter case he would employ a curate to attend to one of them, which perhaps he would not do in the former case. He proposed an amendment confining the operation of the clause, to livings above the yearly value of 100 l.
The Archbishop of Canterburycould not concur in the amendment. He did not think, that it would be wise to interfere with the principle upon which the bill was founded, and he trusted, that a remedy would be found for the grievance to which the noble Lord had directed their Lordships attention, without adopting the amendment proposed. The subject had been fully considered by the commissioners, and when their recommendations were carried into effect, the evil would, he trusted, be effectually removed. He hoped that the number of cases to which the amendment would apply was not great, and he was unwilling that the principle of the measure should be broken through. He did full justice to the motives of the noble Lord who had proposed the amendment, and from his respects for those motives he regretted he was obliged to oppose it.
Amendment negatived without a division.
Lord Portmanthen moved, that the words "situate within the distance of ten statute miles from" be omitted, and the words "contiguous to" inserted in their place. By that amendment they would arrive at the nearest possible point to a final declaration, that no pluralities should exist at all, and render the principle of the bill clear and intelligible. It was perhaps impossible to effect the entire abolition of pluralities at present, but if the amendment he had proposed were adopted, they would arrive at the nearest point to an entire abolition, and prevent the holding of benefices in plurality in all cases except those where the incumbent would be able to give to both parishes his personal superintendence. He considered the point to which he had called their attention of so much importance, that he should take the sense of the House upon it.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid, that the clause on which the amendment had been moved, had been agreed to after mature deliberation—first by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and then by the assembled Bishops, and there was no difference of opinion on the subject. It was agreed, that in framing the clause, they had adopted the just medium between the two extremes, and taken a fair position between those who contended for the abolition of plurality and those who entertained a directly opposite opinion. He considered that the amendment would operate injuriously, and that it would have the effect of reducing the number of curates so much, that young men would be admitted at once to the care of large parishes which required an experienced pastor. He admitted, that pluralities did require restriction; but he believed the majority of those who were best qualified to give a sound opinion on the subject, were of opinion that the restriction proposed by the bill went too far. He could not consent to the amendment of the noble Lord.
Lord Wynfordconsidered, that there should be no alteration in the law on this subject, unless to put an end entirely to pluralities. The most rev. prelate had admitted, that the bill would not put an end to pluralities, and the measure, therefore, was framed on no definite or intelligible principle, for no person could possibly understand why there should be any
222
alteration in the law, unless that alteration proceeded upon the principle contained in the amendment which had been moved by the noble Lord. He would submit to their Lordships, that the only intelligible principle on which to found a measure for restraining the holding of benefices in plurality was, to prevent the holding of two livings by any one individual, unless when the parishes were contiguous.
The Earl of Harrowbywas understood to say, that he agreed with those who thought, that the bill was founded on no intelligible or definite principle. He considered the abolition of pluralities desirable, but that could only be effected by a new distribution of Church property, or by the State furnishing a sum sufficient to make the small livings adequate to support a resident clergyman. He advised their Lordships to adopt the bill, which had been twice before the Legislature, and had now come up from the other House as an experimental measure.
The Bishop of Lincolnsaid, that the effect of the clause as it stood would be to diminish the number of pluralities by one-half. He concurred in the suggestion as to the propriety of taking the bill as an experimental measure.
The Bishop of Salisburyobjected to the amendment, under which, he said, two livings might be held together, where, though the livings were contiguous, the distance between church and church would be greater than it could be, if the clause as it stood were adopted.
The Bishop of Glocestersupported the original clause. If it passed, all but thirty of the present pluralities in the see of Glocester would be illegalised, and to those thirty no material objection could be made.
Lord Hathertonthought the bill objectionable on account of the extent to which it appeared to sanction the principle of pluralities, and supported the amendment, because it would tend to establish a wholesome system of superintendence on the part of the incumbent over his flock.
The Committee divided on the amendment—Contents 9; Not Contents 50; Majority 41.
Clause agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
And the House resumed.