Sitting of 2 August 1842

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.ߞ1° Insolvent Debtors; Consolidated Fund.
2° Coventry Boundary.
Committed.—Court of Chancery Offices; Slave Trade Suppression; Canada Loan; Slavery (East Indies); Lunatic Asylums (Ireland).
Reported.—East India Bishops; Slavery (East Indies). 3°- and passed:—Bribery at Elections (No. 2); Militia Pay.
Private.—Reported.—Lord Dinorben's Estate; Duke of Buckingham's Estate; Hele's Charity (Lowe's) Estate.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Bakers of Armagh, for abolishing the System of Night-work.—From Messrs. Parker, and Mr. Cox, for Compensation under the County Courts Bill, for the loss of Offices as Clerks of the Courts of Requests, Blackheath, and Exeter.

CHURCR-RATES.
Sir John Easthopesaid, in moving for certain returns, he begged leave to ask the right hon. Baronet, (Sir Robert Peel) whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to give to the subject of Church-
964
rates, during the Parliamentary recess, that consideration which would be needful to enable them to bring forward some measure for the settlement of the question in the course of the ensuing Session; or whether he was to understand that the right hon. Baronet was satisfied with the present state of the law? The hon. Baronet concluded by moving for returns of the gross amount of Church-rates during the years 184I and 1842, setting forth the sums applied for the maintenance of the fabric of churches; the places in which Church-rates were not raised; and also the places wherein attempts had been unsuccessfully made to carry Church-rates.
Sir R. Peelcould not undertake to give any assurance, that in the course of the next Session he would bring forward a measure on the subject. With respect to the second question, namely, whether he was satisfied with the present state of the law, he must say, that he should be sorry to give such an assurance respecting any law.
Sir J. Easthope: My question practically was, whether we are to expect the Government to give their consideration to the subject, with a view to settling it?
Sir R. Peel: And my answer is, that I cannot sanction any expectation that her Majesty's Government are prepared to bring forward a bill on the subject of Church-rates.
Motion agreed to.

MEXICO AND TEXAS.
Mr. Cobdenbegged to repeat a question which he had before put to the right hon. Baronet, with respect to the vessels fitting out to take part in the Mexican war.
Sir Robert Peelbelieved the facts were these: Two vessels were fitting out, one at Black wall and the other at Liverpool. It was said, that those vessels were being fitted up for the Mexican government, but they were not to be the property of Mexico until they had arrived at Vera Cruz. Application had been made to the British Government to permit them to be manned with British seamen, and that permission had been refused. The hon. Member was under the impression, that one vessel was to be commanded by an officer who held a commission in her Majesty's navy. He could state that, in consequence of an application from the Texian minister on the subject, that minister had been informed that no officer in

965
her Majesty's navy would be allowed to serve the Mexican government against Texas. The Texian government had been informed, that if hostilities should take place, it was the intention of the English Government to maintain a perfect neutrality.

COPYRIGHT OF DESIGNS.
The report on the Designs Copyright Bill, was brought up. On the question, that the amendments made by the committee to the bill be read a second time,
Mr. Williamsobjected, that the measure had not been sufficiently discussed, and he should therefore move, that it be recommitted.
Mr. Heathcoatthought the bill deserved greater consideration than it had yet received, and therefore supported the motion of his hon. Friend. The bill was not intended originally to apply to the lace trade, but by the amendments introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, it had been extended to that trade. The effect of the bill would be to promote litigation, to unsettle and embarrass trade, and to discourage sonic of our chief manufactures. The provisions relative to the registry of designs would be productive of the utmost confusion. People would go on registering their designs, unknown to each other; and when the spring season commenced, it would be found that in hundreds of cases there would be ground, or at least it would he considered that there was ground, for complaint of piracy. The main question, after all, would be left undecidedߞnamely, what constituted a "new design." The bill authorised any two magistrates to decide the dispute. Why, a question so practical and difficult it would be utterly impossible for the magistracy to understand. To make ladies the judges would be infinitely better. He felt the strongest conviction that the bill ought not to pass into a law—at all events, that it ought not in the present year to be allowed to go through that House. If, however, the right hon. Baronet should be so ill-advised as to prevail on the House to adopt such a measure, one thing was certain—that he would have to amend it or propose its repeal in the course of the ensuing year.
Mr. Ellicehoped that the Government would pause before they urged upon the House the adoption of such a measure. He knew how much the attention of the
966
right hon. Baronet was occupied; but he was sure that if he could spare time to apply himself to the subject, he would withdraw his support from a hill in all respects so objectionableߞso full of an inquisitorial spirit. It he only gave to it a little reflection, there could be no doubt that he would refuse to tide the hobby of the lion. Member for Belfast, It was too had that the interest of a whole trade should thus be affected, as it were, by a side wind It was intolerable that the lace trade should now hear of a bill for the first time which was so materially to affect their interests, and of which, therefore, they ought to have the fullest and most distinct notice, in order that they might have their ease fairly heard by that House. He begged hon. Members to look at the manner in which such a bill was likely to expose the manufacturer, tie trader, and die inventor to all the machinations of attorneys and informers, who 'might, by application to two magistrates, produce the greatest injustice, Two magistrates were not competent. to decide any such matter; and the hill was one which on no account ought to be allowed to pass at that period of the Session, or at any period, without. undergoing very material alteration.
Dr. Bowringsaid, if they were to have any protection for the copyright of designs there ought to be sufficient machinery for the purpose of effecting that object. A tribunal composed of two magistrates was not only objectionable, but wholly inadequate to accomplish the object in view. He hoped, that the right hon. Baronet would reconsider the question and bring forward a more matured measure in the course of next Session.
Mr. Humesaid, it would be impossible her parties liable to be affected by this act to know whether they were offending against it or not. He objected to it also on the ground, that it would further extend and strengthen the restrictions upon trade. In the present state of the country every possible facility ought to be given to trade and manufactures; but the proposed bill was an evident impediment to the progress of trade.
Mr. Henleywould support the recommittal of the bill. Two magistrates were incompetent to decide what was new ands what was Gold in patterns, and if the hill were not recommitted he should certainly on the third reading move additional clauses.
Mr. Phillipsagreed in the opinions expressed by the hon. Member for Oxford- shire and the hon. Member for Tiverton. He also concurred in a wish which had been expressed by several hon. Members, that this bill should be postponed for the present Session. The select committee which had considered the subject never recommended this piece of legislation; they had not even suggested its provisions. He would take this opportunity of correcting a statement made by him during the last debate upon this bill,—namely, that 2,000 l. had been subscribed by Mr. Henry to defray the return of Mr. Emerson Tennent at the last Belfast election. He had since received a letter from Mr. Henry, which he would read to the House. The writer commenced by observing, that he had been informed that he (Mr. Philips) had stated in the course of a debate upon the Copyright of Designs Bill, that he had paid the sum of 2,000 l. towards the expenses of the election of Mr. E. Tennent, and had insinuated, that it had been given as a bribe, to secure that Gentleman's services in reference to the said measure.
" Not a single farthing of that sum (said Mr. Henry) was paid by any calico manufacturer but myself, nor by any person in the print trade; nor had it any reference to the success of the copyright of designs. It was subscribed by myself and some friends as a testimony of our esteem for the high character of Mr. E. Tennent, and as a proof of our desire to secure a fit and proper person to represent the town of Belfast in Parliament."
He had spoken according to what he understood to be the facts of the case; but he now found that he had been mistaken. Still it appeared to him somewhat extraordinary that any individual should go to the extent of subscribing 2,000 l. for the election of a Member of Parliament, a sum which it had been proved before the Election Compromise Committee formed a large portion of the expenses of that election. He begged to be understood as not making the slightest personal insinuation against Mr. E. Tennent. But, to return to the bill, he was of opinion, that if it were passed in its present shape it would be productive of nothing but trouble and dispute, and mischief to trade. Whatever might become of the bill, or however he might be censured for the course he took against it, he felt that he was doing his duty. He feared that the effect of the
968
bill would be to furnish our continental rivals with good designs at our expense. He had brought with him a pattern of an article which had been bought in Paris for the inspection of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. [The hon. Member handed a piece of printed cotton across the table.] There could not be a more ugly pattern; with a little water, a little mud, and a little blood, he could produce many a better pattern. It so happened that two or three houses had purchased this pattern; and, upon one of the party being about to publish it, he was stopped by the other, who claimed an equal title to the original possession of the pattern Now, would they have the law put on a footing which would give the wealthier man the power of saying to a humbler dealer, "You shall not sell until I have sold all my stock and glutted the market, and then you may sell if you can?" That would be a source of great injustice. He could nor divest himself of the apprehension that this measure would enable our continental rivals successfully to compete with us in the printing as well as in the fabric of the article. They had already passed a measure for grinding foreign corn in bond. Could anything prevent Belgium from printing English calicoes in bond? If so, was not this bill likely to injure our calico trade to a serious extent? He called upon them to have regard to the future as well as to the present.
Mr. Gladstonewould be sorry to press upon the House the carrying into a law any measure which had not been fairly considered, and to consider which sufficient time and opportunity had not been allowed, so as to bring its provisions to maturity. He wished the House to judge whether the demand for the postponement of this measure was an equitable demand or not. What was the history of the bill? It was not introduced by the Government, but by Mr. E. Tennent, the late Member for Belfast, on his own responsibility; and upon his losing his seat the bill was taken up by the Government. It had been urged, "Do not pass this bill before you hear what the representatives of the trades which it will affect have to say upon it." There never was any measure in respect to which such an objection was less appropriate. There had been ample time for the statement of objections on the part of those interested, but none had been made. The different trades were

969
not objecting parties to the bill; the parties objecting were a minority. But that was a question he would not now discuss; it had been fully discussed on a former occasion. If the House did not proceed with the bill in the present Session it would be a great disappointment to the majority of the great mass of the trades affected by the bill. But it was said, that the lace trade had not had time to deal with it. That was not a question to be discussed now. They were now discussing, nominally, whether the bill should be recommitted. To that course he should object. It was perfectly fair for the hon. Member for Oxfordshire to wish for it, because lie wanted to introduce some clauses into the bill. But the real question was, "Is the bill to be proceeded with?" What were the authorities in behalf of an answer in the affirmative? In the first place, a committee sat in 1836, to consider the state of the arts of design in this country, and that committee was composed chiefly of gentlemen who held the most liberal views upon the question of trade. They reported, that the arts of design were in a very low and languishing state in this country, and that one of the main causes of that condition was the want of protection of property in design; and they recommended that the duration of copyright in design should be extended, and proposed sundry plans for asserting copyright and vindicating it against piracy. In 1840, a bill was introduced which was referred to a committee up stairs, which passed it with provisions corresponding to those of the present bill. Great objections had been made to the machinery of the bill, and perhaps they were not devoid of force; for he did not mean to say, that the machinery of working the bill by magistrates was at all comparable to some others; but it was conceded to the opponents of the measure, who wished that a cheap remedy should be provided. In 1841, the bill was again introduced and discussed. Some new opponents had now taken advantage of the favourable juncture of this period of the Session, and urged that it was too late to pass the measure. But the general principle of it had been discussed in times when there was a fuller attendance of Members, and when gentlemen of all parties and opinions were in town, and it had been discussed over and over again, and received the approval of the House.
970
The subject had even been referred to a select committee, and the hon. Member for Manchester, was a Member of that committee. What ground, then, was there for opposing the bill on account of the immaturity of its provisions? The bill would, no doubt, have been passed in 1841, had it not been for the sudden adjournment of the House, occasioned by the political crisis which then stopped the progress of public business. It had received the sanction of the Board of Trade in connection with the late Government. With reference to the bill, not one petition had been laid on the. Table against it. Every person interested in the bill had looked forward to its being passed this Session. Much had been said on the effect which it was supposed the measure would have on the lace trade. The lace trade had made no protest on the subject.; It had been said, that the lace trade had been taken by surprise—such was not the fact. Six weeks had elapsed since the amendment with relation to the lace trade had been inserted, and yet that trade had not protested against the measure. Upon what grounds could the House be asked to disappoint the reasonable expectations of those who had been looking forward to the passing of this bill? If the object of the motion was merely to consider whether the patent should be granted for a period of six or nine months, there could not be any reasonable objection to the re- committal of the bill; but it was clear that the object of the hon. Member opposite, and those who supported his motion, was to delay the progress of the measure, and if possible ultimately to reject it altogether. The principle of the bill had met with the support of the hon. Member for Inverness, and the right hon. Gentleman the late President of the Board of Trade. That right hon. Gentleman had certainly expressed an opinion in favour of a six months', instead of a nine months,' term of copyright, but he gave his sanction to the principle of the bill. Under these circumstances he thought it was unreasonable to ask the House to consent to the motion of the hon. Member. He should, therefore, oppose the motion.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, it had been urged by those who spoke against, the motion that the measure had already received sufficiently the consideration of the House. He did not think that the House had sufficient time to discuss the machinery of

971
the measure. He understood that the object of the bill introduced by the late Member for Belfast was to apply the provisions of the present law to other articles of manufacture. He thought that his hon. Friend had made out a case in favour of the lace trade. The portion of the measure which had relation to that trade ought to be restored to the bill; in fact, it ought to stand as it did on its second reading in that House. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, who grounded his arguments in favour of the bill on the support which different trades had extended to it, would consider the objections which had been urged by the lion. Member on that side of the House on the part of those engaged in the lace trade, who considered that the measure would lead to embarrassment, inconvenience, and injury, without being productive of any benefit.
Sir T. Fremantleprotested against the noble Lord and the hon. Member considering that they had a right to monopolize the lace trade. It should be recollected that there were two different kinds of lace trade, the one the pillow lace, and the other by power and machinery. Those engaged in the lace trade in the borough which he had the honour of representing desired protection.
Sir R. Peelhad been on the committee formed for the purpose of considering the question, and he was prepared to admit that the subject was surrounded by many difficulties. He thought that the weight of authority was in favour of the extension of the term of copyright. The original term proposed was twelve months, but as it was considered that that term would give rise to a great interference with trade, be had proposed a limitation of the time from twelve months to nine, He and many others were very anxious to encourage schools of design; in order to carry out that view many men who were engaged in the trade paid large sums for good patterns, and it was too hard upon them, that others who had not expended one shilling upon them should be allowed to lie in wait until they saw a pattern which had succeeded, and, instantly copied it and inundated every market with it. Suppose a man were to procure 100 patterns as an expense of from 10 l. to 20 l. each, and only five out of all were to succeed, and just as he had produced them, and hoped that his profits on those five would repay him for the expense he had
972
gone to for the others, just at that moment he found another person profiting by his outlay—by the encouragement he wished to give to design; had he not a right to say, that such a state of the law was unfair, and that the act was piracy? The right hon. Member for Coventry would not deny, that amongst his constituents they could not get up a design even for a riband; that trade depended on the arrivals of the French patterns. Well, that was admitted, and what did it prove? Merely this, that the taste of the French was cultivated because of the encouragement given to art by a copyright which existed for a twelvemonth. He was exceedingly sorry that so many of the chief supporters of the bill had left town, and that so many of those who opposed it amongst the manufacturing interest remained. He was in no way interested in the question, except as one anxious to promote the welfare of trade and the lately established School of Design. The bill had been under the consideration of the House for three years, and lie trusted the Legislature would not now separate without affirming its principle, and so relieve trade from that anxiety and embarrassment which, with other causes, had operated in producing the present, he hoped he might say, the late stagnation.
Mr. Brothertonadmitted, that the question was a very difficult one, existing, as there did, such a diversity of opinion amongst those engaged in the trade. Unless he were of opinion, that the bill would deeply injure the printing trade, lie would not offer it any opposition. But the fact was, we were now exporting more printed cottons than we printed altogether in 1830, and the bill, if carried into law, would deeply injure that trade. Besides, the bill would lead to endless litigation, inasmuch as who could say what was an original pattern or not? and it still allowed the importers of French patterns to register them as their own, a system out of which infinite confusion had already risen. There was no question it would benefit individuals, but not to such a degree as to recompense for the injury it would do the public, because to them it must raise the price of the goods. The right hon. Baronet had been much misinformed with respect to the prices charged for the patterns; the average was certainly not above 7s., many of them were purchased for 5s., and it must be a very good

973
one indeed that would fetch 10 s. 6d. The bill would only benefit the rich manufacturers, and would prove in their hands a source of much oppression against the young and able tradesman whom they might fear as a rival.
The House divided on the original question:—Ayes 73; Noes 14; Majority 59.

List of the AYES.

A'Court, Capt.

Greene,T.

Aldam,

Grogan, E.

Allix, J. P.

Hamilton, W..J.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Hardy, J.

Arkwright, G.

Herbert, hon. S.

Baird, W.

Hope, hon. C.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Howard, P. H.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Humphery, Ald.

Boldero, H. G.

Jermyn, Earl

Botfield, B.

Jones, Capt.

Broadley, H.

knatchbull, rt. hn.Sir E.

Brocklehurst, J.

Lefroy, A.

Browne, hon. W.

Lincoln, Earl of

Bruce, Lord E,

Lockhart, W.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Mundy, E. M

Collett, W. R.

Nicholl, rt, hon. J.

Colvile, C. R.

O'Brien, J.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

O'Connell, D.

Cripps, W.

Pakington, J. S,

Currie, R.

Peel, right hon, Sir R.

Damer, hon. Col.

Peel, J,

Darby, G.

Polhill, F.

Dawnay, hon. W. H.

Pollock, Sir E.

Douglas, Sir H.

Praed, W. T

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Smith, B.

Duncan, G.

Stanley, Lord

Eaton, R. J.

Stewart,

Eliot, Lord

Stuart, H.

Escott, B.

Sutton, hon. H. M,

Flower, Sir J.

Taylor, T. E,

Ffolliott, J.

Trench, Sir F. W

Forbes, W,

Trotter, J.

Fuller, A. E,

Verner, Col,

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Vivian, J. E

Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.

Young, J.

Gore, W. R. O.

TELLERS.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir. J.

Pringle, A,

List of the NOES.

Blackstone, W. S.

Napier, Sir C.

Bowring, Dr.

Palmerston, Visct,

Brotherton, J.

Philips, M.

Callaghan, D.

Scholefield, J

Divett, E.

Tufnell, H,

Duke, Sir J.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

TELLERS

Henley, J. W.

Williams, W,

Hume, J.

Heathcoat, J,

Amendment read a second time.
Mr. Williamsrose to move an amendment. He said he thought it was evident that the right hon. Baronet opposite did not fully understand this question. The
974
right hon. Baronet was a Member of the committee appointed in 1839 to consider this subject; but he only attended for some three quarters of an hour or so, and asked two or three questions. He could state, with respect to the manufacturers of Coventry, that whatever might be the skill and taste they displayed, they were compelled to sell their stocks at a great sacrifice. One of the manufacturers of that town produced a pattern, some tune since, for which he could not obtain a sale; but the same pattern was, during die last spring, adopted by a French manufacturer, and the goods were sold most extensively in this country. It had been represented that he had a personal interest in this question, but he wished to state that for the last six years he had; not been concerned in any trade or business; and he had never possessed any interest in toe particular trade affected by this bill. It appeared that thirty-four of the principal calico-printers of this country, who in the year 1839 produced 6,034,000 pieces of 24 yds. each, had petitioned the House against any alteration in the existing law, and believed that all the persons engaged most extensively in the trade, whether as merchants or manufacturers, wire opposed to any change, The right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the board of Trade had stated that the committee appointed in 1836 recommended the adoption of a bill similar to that now before the House. That committee had given no sanction to such bill as this. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) moved for that committee, and that same hon. Member, being a member of the committee of 1840, voted against any extension of the copyright. It had been also stated that the Board of Trade had recommended this measure, or something like it. No such thing; there was no such recommendation. The reference to two magistrates, instead of being in force, for many years had never been applied to the principal branch of this trade and the calico trade. No such bill as this had been debated or considered, for the bills debated in the last Session and this year, on the second reading, were very different from this measure, and the last stage was taken on a Saturday. The changes which had been made in the progress of the bill were the causes of the errors in legislation so frequent in their measures; no

975
two of the judges could be brought to agree on all the clauses of any act the House thus passed; this was the necessary consequence of bills being thus smuggled through the House. He conceived that the bill would afford a fruitful source of litigation, and would be most advantageous to the lawyers, for whose benefit he thought it had been concocted. It had been shown by the evidence given before a committee of that House, that in one case a copyright had been claimed for a pattern which had been in existence for fifty years; and one gentleman, who was a very extensive manufacturer, stated in evidence, that it was most difficult to decide what was an original design. Another gentleman engaged extensively in the manufacture stated that though he had been in the trade for thirty years, he had only seen one design which he could consider original, and that was obtained by means of the kaleidoscope. During the last five years, the time that the present act had been in operation, upwards of 30,000,000 of what were called new designs had been produced; every object in nature, or which the imagination of man could conceive, had been produced, and it was utterly impossible to make an original design, in the opinion of those who best understood the subject. The second clause proposed to leave the decision as to the originality of designs to three tribunals;—namely, to two magistrates, to a court of law, and to the Court of Chancery; he should propose that two magistrates should have the decision of these questions, and leave out any resort to the Courts of law and Chancery. The third clause brought a vast variety of branches of trade within the ban of this law which had never before been subjected to any copyright whatsoever. The effect of these changes would be to render these articles dear to the public, and especially to the poorer classes. It was proposed, that the copyright should be extended to three years on paper-hangings, carpets, stained glass, wood cuts, earthenware, &c., and he thought these changes unwarranted, as they were not required by the trade. He should propose an amendment or addition to every clause in the bill. He should first propose as an amendment to the second clause, to leave out all the words after "copyright" in the third line.
Mr. Humethought designs in France
976
were superior to those in England, that was not owing to protection, but to the schools for the rearing and teaching of the young men. He wished to know who was pressing the bill through the House? He thought it ought to be postponed to some future period, to give time for further consideration. The effect of it would be to establish monopolies against the consumer. It was risking a great deal of mischief without much prospect of good. On all these grounds he hoped the right hon. Baronet, at the head of the Government, would re-consider the subject, and not press this bill further at this period of the Session.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that after the bill had been now three years under consideration, and after the House by a majority of seventy-two to thirteen had just now come to a decision in its favour, he hoped hon. Gentlemen opposite would not lend themselves to a course which would not only be fatal to the character of the House, but would prevent the bill passing. He would not enter now into a discussion of the bill—the House, he repeated, had manifested by seventy-two to thirteen a decision in favour of the measure, and he trusted the hon. Member for Coventry would not interpose to stop the measure by pursuing a course which would be quite inconsistent with that fair mode of opposition he had always hitherto pursued.
Mr. Morrisonhad always entertained the opinion he had expressed on a former occasion —that the manufacturers ought to have some protection in their copyright of designs. He was anxious to see an English style established, for at present, this country in this respect, was a mere copyist of France. He, however, thought some difficulty would arise under this bill in the case of two manufacturers purchasing the same design in Paris, as to which should have the copyright in this country.
Amendment withdrawn. Other amendments were proposed, some were negatived, and some agreed to.
On Mr. Williams's proposition to omit in clause 3 the words "nine calendar months," in order to insert the words "three calendar months."
The House divided on the question, that the-words proposed to be left out, stand part of the bill:—Ayes 78; Noes 13:— Majority 65.

List of the NOES.

Brotherton, J.

Plumridge, Capt.

Curteis, H. B.

Scholefield, J.

Duke, Sir J.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Forster, M.

Thornely,

Heathcoat, J.

Wood, B.

Hume, J.

TELLERS.

Morris, D.

Williams, W

Palmerston, Visct.

Philips, M.

Bill to he read a third time,

MONUMENTS TO NAVAL HEROES.
Sir R. Peelsaid, he believed it would be more regular if his motion, "That an ad dress be presented to the Queen to erect monuments to Lord Exmouth, Lord Dc Saumarez, and Sir Sydney Smith," were made in a committee of the whole House. He should, therefore, now move that the House do resolve itself into a committee on Friday next, for the purpose of considering this address.
Mr. H. B. Curteissaid, that as ho could not be in the House on Friday, he should take that opportunity of expressing his opinion that, at a time when it was necessary to burden the country with a new load of taxation, they ought not to think of creating new expenditure by voting money for the erection of monuments. He hoped, when the motion was brought forward, some hon. Member would move, as an amendment, that no such monuments should be erected until the prevailing distress was alleviated.
Sir C. Napierwas much surprised at the speech of the hon. Gentleman, and did not think he should be doing his duty if he did not express his cordial support of the proposed address. No men of the age better deserved monuments to their illustrious memories than the gallant officers to whom it was proposed to erect these trophies. He only hoped that their monuments would be worthy of their fame, and, if he might be allowed to make a suggestion, it would be, that one great monument should be raised in honour of all, instead of making a division of the public money, and erecting small tablets to each.
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter to one o'clock.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.ߞ1a Bribery at Elections (No.2).
2° St. Asaph and Bangor Preferments; Slave Trade Suppression Act Suspension.
Committed.—Colonial Passengers; Limitation of Actions (Ireland); Parish Constables.
Reported.—Stamp Duties Assimilation; Court of Exchequer (England); Bonded Corn; Double Costs; Ordnance Services; Western Australia; Fisheries (Ireland).
3a and passed:—Joint Stock Banking Companies; Insolvent Debtors; Assessed Taxes; Primrose Hill.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From, Inhabitants of Holborn end places adjacent, in favour of the proposed Improve-

935
ments of the Metropolis.ߞFrom the Clergy of the Dioceses of Cork, Cloyne and Ross, and Dromore, for the Encouragement of Schools in connection with the Church Education Society (Ireland)From the Clergy of Clonfert and Kilmacduagh, for the Restoration of the quarta pars Ecclasiœ.ߞFrom Parochial Schoolmasters (Scotland) for better Remuneration.ߞBy Lord Kenyon, from Cherle and Harold's Cross, near Dublin, against any further Grant to Maynooth; and from Oldham, for Inquiry into the Instruction of Maynooth.—By the Marquess of Londonderry, from the Rev. Mr. Siely, praying for Inquiry into his Dismissal as Resident Chaplain at Lisbon.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS BILL.
Lord Brougham,in moving the third reading said, he would, with permission of their Lordships, take that opportunity of tendering to her Majesty's Ministers and their Lordships generally, the sincere and their Lordships generally, the sincere and heartfelt thanks of a large but unfortunate class of their fellow-subjects for the passing of this bill, which amounted virtually to the abolition of imprisonment for debt, and which would secure to the creditor a fair distribution of the property of the debtor. The relief given was only to such debtors as were guilty of no fraud or crime, and who gave up their whole property to the creditors, to whom, in reality, it belonged. Imprisonment would henceforth only be inflicted as a punishment, or in order to compel a surrender. He had, fourteen years ago, given his support to this principle, and he hoped that it would meet with the same favour in the other House which it had received from their Lordship. It was a measure of the very first importance in every view.
Bill read a third time and passed.

TREATIES WITH PORTUGAL.
The Earl of Aberdeenmoved the second reading of a bill for suspending the operation of an act of Parliament passed in the third year of her present Majesty, for the suppression of the slave-trade, so far as regarded Portuguese vessels. He proposed this bill in consequence of two treaties which had been entered into with the government of Portugal, one a treaty of commerce, and the other a treaty for the suppression of the slave-trade. Those treaties had been long in negotiation between the two countries, but for the last three years, in consequence of the unfortunate state of our communications with Portugal, all negotiations were suspended. As soon as he occupied the office which he had now the honour to hold he lost no time in overlooking and renewing those negotiations, and he was happy to say that both
936
treaties were now brought to a satisfactory conclusion. By the treaty relative to the slave-trade, Portugal undertook to punish her own delinquent vessels, and her Majesty's Government, in consequence, intended to propose to Parliament a repeal of that act which rendered Portuguese vessels liable to capture by British cruisers, and to condemnation in the British Vice-Admiralty Courts. The ratifications of these treaties were to be exchanged at Lisbon, whither her Majesty's ratification had already been sent, and no doubt in a few days it would be exchanged for that of her Portuguese Majesty. But as it was possible that the ratifications might be exchanged after the conclusion of the present Session of Parliament, he proposed to give to her Majesty the power of suspending the Act referred to, by an Order in Council, so far as related to Portuguese vessels, that act still continuing in force so far as regarded vessels not possessing a national character. He did not anticipate any objection, as he thought there was no one who, on a treaty being concluded, would not vote for the repeal of the act itself, inasmuch as it was an act very little consistent with the friendly relations that subsisted between England and Portugal; indeed, it was rather an act of hostility, and one which might have led to an interminable war, had it been directed against any power of greater weight, and better able to cope with us.
Bill read a second time.

SLAVE TRADE.
Lord Brougham:Half a century has now elapsed since the Parliament of England, acting as a grand inquest, not For this country alone but for the world, presented to the indignation of mankind that execrable traffic which had for 300 years been the scourge of Africa and the disgrace of Christian Europe. To this righteous act, in which our counsels were guided by all the genius of the age, sustained by its virtue, and animated by its pious zeal, a long and criminal delay succeeded, for which Parliament was alone to blame. The enormity though denounced was protected; universally condemned, it continued to flourish, even to increase; till at length that sentence was recorded by the Legislature, which the public voice had pronounced, and the traffic was prohibited, though by laws of no stringent force. But, now that it was forbidden and declared

937
illegal, the execution of more complete justice became comparatively easy: and 1 had the good fortune to obtain the unanimous assent of all the branches of the Legislature, as well as of the country at large, to the act which no longer treating it as a trade, visited it as a crime, and subjected those who perpetrated it to the punishment suffered by felons far less guilty than they. How then comes it to pass, that full thirty years after this great consummation, I still am standing here to complain of slave-trading, to point against it the indignation of Parliament, and to ask for its suppression, new laws, or laws declaring and enforcing the old? That now, instead of only complaining against foreign nations over whom we have no control, or of our authority not being employed with those over whom our influence extends, since they have only existed under our protection and at our pleasure, I am here to denounce those over whom our power is complete, subjects of the British Crown and the British law—yet engaged in a flagrant violation of their duty to both? I proceed at once to demonstrate the existence of this painful case, and, by plain facts, to show your Lordships that I am not occupied in preferring vague, unsubstantial charges, and bring no railing accusation; nor do I think it will be necessary to detain you long, while I show, that by the stimulus of British speculation, with the accession of British agents, through the employment of British capital, the foreign slave-traffic is in great part perpetrated and protected. I will go at once to those facts which lead, irremutably lead to the presumption whence the capital is drawn that the traffic requires. Your Lordships know—I say you know, because the papers presented by the Crown to Parliament and the correspondence of the Government with our foreign agents, which these papers contain, prove it—you may know that in Cuba (I confine myself to Cuba and Brasil, the great slave-trading countries), there has of late years been an extraordinary increase in the cultivation. Between 1829 and 1836, the produce more than doubled; the amount of sugar exported from the island having risen from 164 to 370 millions of pounds. From the same official sources, it appears, that between 1827 and 1831, the number of slaves had increased 32,000, which, added to the 91,000 required for supplying the annual loss of 81½ per cent., the
938
excess of deaths over births, gives 123,000 imported in these four years, or above 30,000 yearly. Into the Havana, 142 vessels imported 52,000 slaves in the years 1837 and 1838; and the price having risen from 60 l. to 85 l., two millions and a quarter sterling were thus required for that importation alone. But taking the lowest estimate that has ever been made of the whole Cuba importation, it cannot be calculated at less than 50,000 yearly, requiring the annual expenditure of 4,000,000 l.; while the whole exports of the island did not amount to three during the same period; a clear proof that the capital which upheld this enormous expenditure on one of the charges of cultivation, could not come from the resources of the island itself. If from Cuba, we turn our eye towards the Brazils, we are met with the same state of things. There came to the neighbourhood of Rio in three years ending 1839, 244 vessels laden with 109,000 slaves; and taking the same low estimate for the whole importation, as I took for that of Cuba, the amount cannot be less than 70,000, which, at the cost of 80 l. given in the very useful work of a meritorious and efficient public servant in my noble Friend's department (Lord Aberdeen). I mean Mr. Bandinel, makes the yearly expenditure upon the purchase of slaves five-and-a-half millions, or about seventeen millions in no longer a period than three years. It is needless to ask if Brazil and Cuba could furnish themselves those millions of money? The thing is inconceivable. The aid of foreign treasures must have been obtained; and in looking around to the quarters from whence the supplies must have come, we must needs adopt the painful conclusion, that in great part at least such an ample amount of capital as was required, must have belonged to the rich men of this country. But though warranted in adopting the general presumption to which these facts lead, I mean not to rest it upon that foundation. Particular facts and circumstances, equally show that there is no escaping from the general inference at which we have arrived by another route. But giving me credit for afterwards showing that British subjects are in fact mixed up with speculations in Brazil, for conducting which the purchase of slaves from time to time is required; let me ask your Lordships to consider for a moment, whether those who are interested in such con-

939
cerns can possibly be ignorant of the means by which the negroes they buy are brought to the markets they frequent? In the first place they have the recorded declaration of an honourable man in the senate of Brazil, that the law abolishing the slave-trade, was notoriously a dead letter, having fallen entirely into disuse. They have in the next place a petition or memorial from the provincial assembly of Bahia to the senate, urging a repeal of the law, not that they gave themselves any trouble about the prohibition—with that they could easily deal, by wholly disregarding it; but the provision that all slaves imported after 1831, the date of the law, should be free—embarrassed the operations of the purchaser, and made it very inconvenient to hold recently imported negroes. Therefore the provincial assembly desires a repeal of this inconvenient enactment; and upon grounds of which it is not easy to find any parallel.
" Brazil," say they, "accustomed for nearly three centuries to employ slaves, and to be supplied with them, as an annual provision from Africa, paid little attention to the encouragement of their progressive increase by reproduction, in the view that from this increase such annual supply might be dispensed with, and by such means, whilst the free-trade in slaves continued, the country should never want hands to keep up and feed the husbandry of the soil."
They then admit the existence of the contraband slave-trade, in defiance of the law, and of the treaty with England, and they urge its abrogation on the ground
"That a transgression so immoral and deceitful, may be obviated, an evil which Providence alone, whom we supplicate, can in some measure lessen."
They urge the repeal with great earnestness, as the prosperity of the province depends on the culture of the sugar cane, which mainly constitutes its richness and opulence, and from which the State draws great revenues. (Class B. 1840, p. 294.) In other words, the crime must not be punished by law, but permitted, for fear the criminal should add to his guilt, the offence of violating the prohibition of the law, to prevent his iniquities, recourse must be had, not to penal enactments, but to prayers for his conversion. I find another provincial assembly, that of Minas Geraes, urging the same suit on the like grounds. After dwelling upon the dangers resulting to the country from
940
the want of new negroes, the memorial adds:ߞ
"Above all as the worst of all these perils, the immorality which is the result of our citizens being accustomed to violate the laws under the very eyes of the administrators thereof."—Dispatch, 22nd of February, 1840, papers A. 294.
I verily believe, that the whole history of human effrontery presents no passage to match this—no second example of equal audacity. We have here a provincial Legislature coming forward on behalf of pirates—for ever since March, 1831, slave-trading is piracy by the law of Brazil—on behalf of pirates and their accomplices, the planters who profit by the piracy, purchasing its fruits; on behalf of these great criminals urging a repeal of the law which they openly avow is continually broken by them, and which they declare they will continue to set at nought, as long as it continues unrepealed; but demanding its repeal upon the ground, that while it remains, they being resolved to break it, are thus under the necessity of committing the additional immorality of breaking it under the eye of the judges sworn to enforce it. Such are the notorious facts, notorious to all who lived in Brazil; and proving to those engaged in promoting and profiting by the agriculture of that country, be they resident there or here at home, that their capital must be used to promote slave-trading in a country where the African trade continues to flourish in defiance of a merely nominal prohibition. But your Lordships must not suppose, that my charge against British capitalists of employing in the 'promotion of this guilty commerce the wealth bestowed by Providence as a blessing on their honest industry, rests upon mere general probability or natural inference. I have certain specific facts to which I can refer and which unfortunately leave no doubt upon the subject. On the 14th of July, 1838, (I am obliged to give the date that there may be no doubt of my authority,) the English commissioners at Rio wrote to Lord Palmerstonߞ
" The various undertakings going on in this country and every day multiplying, are for the most part the result of British enterprize."
But neither is it on so general a statement as this that the case rests, although coming from a quarter every way entitled to respectful attention; for though we can

941
but seldom trace the course which such speculations take; though we ran with difficulty follow and unravel the shifts, the subtle contrivances by which the law is evaded; there come to light now and then matters which leave no doubt as to the transactions that are going on, and show in what way the investment of capital takes place, and what are the practices resorted to for driving and for screening the traffic. A year or two ago, a vessel bearing Russian colours was seized. She was released on the ground of an objection taken to the jurisdiction, an unsound one as I conceive. Being released, however, she was sold here and her name was changed. She was purchased. Where? In the city. By whom? By a merchant, established for twenty years in the city, naturalised I believe in this country, and to all intents and purposes a British trader. She was purchased for whom? A Spaniard, a notorious 3lave trader. With what capital? I care not whether the purchase was made with the merchant's own capital, with the capital of the Spaniard for whom he might have acted as agent or with that of the English master who was on board the vessel. As soon as she was purchased, her name being changed from Russian to English, she was sent forth on her voyage of depredation. She first touched at Cadiz; and, from that circumstance, the voyage might be represented as a perfectly innocent one from the Thames to the Mediterranean. She was thence dispatched to the African coast, and the pretence no doubt is, that the former voyage from London was an entirely separate and unconnected transactionߞthat she suddenly changed her character on arriving in Spain, and became all at once a slaver, from having been an innocent ship. Such of your Lordships as can bring your minds to believe this tale, must be endowed with strength of faithߞwith powers of belief ߞfar exceeding the measure of my credulity. From Cadiz, then, she fared forth to Africa, and was seized on the slave coast, close to a notorious slave mart, having such a cargo, and such correspondence on board with slave-traders, and consigned to persons so notorious as slave-traders, that she was without difficulty condemned under the Consolidated Slave-trade Act for aiding and abetting in the traffic. The master on board, an English subject, was the pretended owner; there was, however, every reason to
942
believe, that she belonged to a notorious slave-trader of Cuba, and had been purchased for him by his London agent. This happened early last year. Another instance occurred not much longer ago; a vessel, American built, but British owned, sailed from Liverpool, and the names of her owners, which I need not mention, are given in the papers on your Table. The articles signed by the seamen, were for a voyage to the Brazils, and back again to some port in the United Kingdom. But no sooner did she reach her port of destination, Bahia, than she was fitted out for the slave coast; the crew refused to go, as this was contrary to their articles, and seven left her, whose places were supplied by others embarked in Brazil. This is certified by the English vice-consul, under the consular seal. The charterer was a noted slave-trader; the consignees were slave-traders; the destination was Lagos, a notorious slaving port; and she was condemned for aiding in the slave-trade. But a little while before this seizure, Captain Smith of H. M. S. Grecian, captured a vessel under Brazilian colours, off the coast of Brazil, having seventy or eighty slaves on board, and bound with them to the plantation of a British subject, settled in Brazil. That they came from the African coast, I am not prepared to affirm; but I am ready to declare my opinion, which 1 have before staled in this place, that such a traffic is punishable as felony in a British subject, under the provision of the Consolidated Act, whether the slaves purchased be brought from the coast of Africa or from any other placeߞthe exceptions in that act do not protect itߞthey only protect purchasing and carrying coastwise in the dominions of the Crown. Not to multiply instances, a case lately came before the Privy Council upon the claim of a Brazilian vessel, condemned for slave-trading. My noble Friend, the Lord President, may recollect it; he sat with us upon the appeal. The ship had been sent out upon a slaving voyage; and the consignee of the cargo, was a very well known slave-trader; but among other evidence which he produced, to avert the condemnation, was the certificate of twenty or thirty mercantile houses established in Brazil, all testifying to his high character for respectability and honour. Of these houses about one-half were British firms. These men scrupled not to join in bearing

943
this testimony to the character of a person whose slave-trading must be as well known upon the 'Change of Rio, as the name he is called by, slave-trading having been by the law of Brazil, treated as piracy for the last ten years and upwards. Of the British houses, that so certified, I will say nothing, however, except that three of them are represented to me by persons upon whose information I think reliance may be placed, as having lost together 12,000,. by some late condemnations of vessels for slave-trading; and I know that the despatch of the commissioners to the Secretary of State, dated 14th July, 1838, to which I have already referred, distinctly states,ߞ
" British capital to have suffered severely in this city (Rio) from recent captures."
But if our merchants settled in Brazil thus vouch for the character of Brazilian slave-traders, see how mutual the voucher is; how freely the Brazilian slave-trader bears his testimony reciprocally to the character of the British merchant! In a journal believed to be under the patronage, and known to speak the sentiments of a celebrated Brazilian minister, connected with the slave-trading party, I find this panegyric upon our countrymen:—
" We declare, that we have a great respect for the English merchants of Rio, not only for their conduct in our internal concerns, but principally for the way in which they contribute to the ransom of captive blacks in Africa, whether by ordering goods fit to be employed in this work of humanity—whether by lending their money to the adventurer, or whether, as is said, by insuring vessels destined for the coast."
" We greatly respect the English merchants for their conduct in our internal concerns!" Whether the part of their conduct thus so greatly respected is their bearing judicial testimony to the honour of pirates, or only their importing from seventy to eighty negro slaves, in breach of the laws of England, I am not prepared to say. But the principal ground of respect is their conduct towards Africa, "the way in which they there contribute to ransom the captive blacks by ordering goods fit for being employed in this work of humanity." Whether the goods so humanely used are the coast guns, as they used to be called, which being bought for twelve or fifteen pence, burst in the hands of the negroes, the second or third time
944
they are fired, or whether the allusion may be to the shackles, the manacles, the iron weights that form part of the cargo in this voyage of humanity, or whether the whips and goads invested are more darkly shadowed out under the tender phrases, I will not take upon me to decide. But on the next topic of praise there can be little doubt;" the lending their money to the adventurer," the humane adventurer, and "insuring as is said, (I make no doubt most truly said), the vessels destined for the slave coast." No doubt the insuring such vessels is naturally a matter of eulogy to the affectionate lovers of the unhappy African race, eagerly celebrating the praise of those engaged in their ransom. Such vessels for instance, as were lately seized by Captain Denman, who, shedding a new lustre on the great name he bears, and equalling the exertions of the most gallant and zealous of his brethren in arms on that station, if, indeed, he does not surpass them all, has been waging a constant, an implacable, an interminable, and, I rejoice to add, a successful warfare with the miscreant felons who ravage the coast, pollute the sea, and disgrace the name of sailor and of trader. The praise is bestowed on the humane British insurer of such vessels as he lately took—in one of which, horrid to relate, of forty-seven tons burden, 370 wretched Africans were found concealed. Think of that! If you can bring yourselves to the dreadful contemplation, think of that! Eight persons to a ton, being five times as many as were permitted by our slave-carrying acts at a time when, if we did not encourage, we at least protected the traffic Exaggeration is always to be condemned; both as unfair, and therefore wrong, it is to be condemned; and as utterly inexpedient, it is to be rejected. I have often complained of it on both grounds before your Lordships, and have reminded those who foolishly, as well as blameably, had recourse to such a practice, that it counteracts their own intentions, like some optic glass, which in unskilful hands diminishes objects instead of magnifying them. But here it would be as impossible, as it is unjust and as it is foolish to exaggerate; for I defy any man's fancy to go beyond the fact, or anything to be conceived more horrible than the bare statement of 370 wretched beings thrust into a vessel no larger than a Thames barge—there to endure what would be unbearable

945
torment in a passage up or down the river, that washes these walls—to endure it on the voyage across the Atlantic ocean. Nor let us exaggerate the blame of those who by their speculations give the impulse to such cruel deeds. I do not mean to hold them answerable for things of which they may be ignorant, as they have never themselves witnessed those scenes of horror. But they are most clearly accessories before the fact, in so far as their capital drives the trade, or their demand for its produce causes it to be driven; and they are sharers in the guilty profits of the transaction so far as they carry on their concerns of planting or of mining by purchasing those victims of the slave-trader's avarice, whom he tears from Africa that he may sell to them. Many persons of otherwise excellent character, nay, even of dispositions generally humane, are, some without reflection, others in ignorance of the details, embarked on such speculations. With these I would only remonstrate; I would beseech them in all kindness of spirit, to reflect more fully, to examine more closely the consequences of thus employing their capital in foreign slave colonies. If their eyes are opened to the inevitable consequences; if they are aroused to a distinct view of the facts; surely they will awaken to a sense of what their duty demands of them, unless they would, after notice, make themselves wilful partakers of the crime. Let us take the case of mining companies,—the affairs of these are chiefly in the hands of British shareholders; the seat of some companies is in the city of London itself. At a late meeting of one company a call upon the shares being proposed, the ground of the demand was openly declared to be the expenses incurred by the recent purchases of slaves required to keep up the stock for working the mine. 5,000 l. was stated to be the sum thus expended in one year, and seventy-three negro, were alleged to have been bought. Many holders of those shares are without doubt, honourable and excellent persons, who have never considered the subject as it deserves. It is with them I make my friendly and respectful remonstrance, hoping—I had well nigh said expectingߞthat they will upon inquiry, feel the necessity of abandoning such speculations, and acting at once upon that feeling, invest otherwise, the wealth with which Providence has blessed them for far worth-
946
ier ends. Of their agents in Brazil, I cannot speak in any such measured terms —they must know that they are directly abetting the traffic. If they say that the slaves they purchase for their employers are creoles and not imported; if they contend that it is lawful to buy slaves in a foreign country where slavery is still suffered by the law; passing over the objections to this position which I have ever urged upon the most plain construction of lour abolition acts, which make such dealing felony, every where except in a British settlement, I say that, granting the law to be as they erroneously read it, their statement of fact cannot avail to screen them. It is quite inconceivable that they should be ignorant of the slaves whom they purchase, having been lately, nay, but the day before, landed from the hold of the slave-ship. No person in Brazil—no person who has been there a month, can pretend ignorance of a negro being newly imported, the instant he sees him. But if the mere sight should not prove decisive, could any man affect to doubt, after hearing the unhappy creature speak? Nay, suppose even that test to fail, does not the price paid, at once convict the purchaser? When 65 l. or 70 l. only is demanded for the new negro, and 120 l. or 130 l. is the price of a Creole, of a seasoned slave, do you require more evidence to prove the guilty knowledge of the buyer, than his paying only half-price? Let me see the man who has bought a jewel at half its value, and I shall have my doubts of his honesty, even if the seller was not a suspicious character. But show me the man who has paid half-price to a suspected person, and I shall have no doubt at all, that the one is a receiver, and the other a thief. This is not more clear than that the man who pays for a slave half the sum which a seasoned negro costs, knows that he is buying a slave newly brought from Africa. In fact the market cannot be supplied regularly with Creoles—with healthy and serviceable Creoles hardly at all. Those brought to sale are either maimed, or afflicted with some bodily illness, or some mental incapacity, or of habits dissolute and rebellious. Whoever would buy a large number cannot either take slaves of that description, or trust to the chances of some unforeseen disaster, occasioning a sale, and the purchaser not keeping the slave, though it is difficult to see how any one can carry on

947
the plantation without the slaves. Those who conduct the mines must, therefore, know, that it is the African market from whence they are supplied with new hands. Some of those agents, and bearing, I grieve to say, her Majesty's commission, half-pay officers in the army and the navy, have been heard to avow openly, that they purchased newly imported slaves in preference, doubtless because they cost less. But it required no such avowal to convince any one who reflected on the nature of the commerce, that such must be the case. The course of the traffic is well known. A vessel arrives from Africa, and not venturing to land her cargo in Rio, from fear of the British commissioners rather than apprehension that the Brazil authorities will do their duty, she hovers off the bar, below the town, and conveys the negroes to some convenient landing place, from whence they are conducted to a barracoon, or slave-barrack, in the woods, and at only a few miles distance from the city. I asked of my informants how it happened that as many as 700 or 800, the number frequently landed from one slaver, could be conveyed through the country, without danger of their escaping or rising to resist their keepers. Alas, I little knew the condition in which these hapless creatures reached the new world! I was told that if I had ever witnessed the state in which they were carried on shore, emaciated, exhausted, and crippled, barely capable of crawling along, I should have seen that the least movement towards flight, or the raising a hand in resistance, was an absolute, a physical impossibility. Thus passively taken to the barracoon, they are there seen and purchased by the mine agent, or the planters' agent. Can he muster up assurance enough to deny that he knows he is dealing for negroes newly landed? Nay, if he only repairs to the city, and is there waited upon by a slave captain, or his super-cargo, can he pretend to deny that he is aware of the article he is buying—yea, just as certainly as if he had seen the poor negro landed, whom he is about to drive up the country to delve in the mine, or hoe in the cane-piece! Such men are not to be, in any respect whatever, distinguished from slave-traders. In the African slave-trade they are directly concerned—slave *raiders in the ordinary acceptation of the term. A broad distinction is to be taken between their guilt and that of the capitalist
948
who employs and hires them; he does not actually see the criminal traffic; he does not go down to the slave-ship, with her freight of misery and of crime—her lading of wretches, and her felon crew. Nevertheless, it is imposssible to hold him blameless when his hired agent is covered with guilt; the agent whom he sets on as the accomplice of piracy, by whose acts he profits, the result of whose wrong doing all goes to enrich him. If he be not an accessary to the felony, his money procures it—his wealth is increased by it—without his aid it could not be perpetrated. Whoever they be that instigate such iniquities, by their speculation, and support them with their money, let them be, well assured that their capital is the very spring which sets in motion the whole machinery of crime, as certainly as the main spring of that clock moves the hand which tells me how long, how much longer than was necessary, I have been detaining you to dwell over these painful scenes. But men, especially when engaged in evil courses, are prone to discover minute differences; and self-love, the great source of all blindness, is itself very quick-sighted to descry nice distinctions, that may screen us from the stern judge whom Providence has appointed within the breast. The capitalists to whom I have alluded, are apt to say, possibly to think, they are little to blame, because they see nothing of all the suffering they occasion, and all the vice by which they profit; and many who would shrink from doing the deed with their own hands, or even shudder to view it with their own eyes, have but little qualm that others should do it for them, and out of sight. I remember an eastern tale in which some tyrant is represented as minded to put two of his family to death; but even his relentless nature flew back from witnessing the murder he ordered to be committed, according to the accustomed solecism of arbitrary power, as Lord Bacon calls it, desiring the end but disliking the means. The officer whom he commissioned to do the deed, shared in the same scruples; and thinking he could divide the guilt by dividing the instrumentality, employed one ignorant of the criminal purpose. This unsuspected agent was taken to a cave where a rope that entered the ground was made fast to an iron ring; and he was bid to sever it with a hatchet; the rope disappeared with great force on the blow being struck; and being carried to

949
the adjoining palace be saw two persons crushed to death by the descent of a marble canopy under which they had been sleeping. His base conductor and his royal employer, would have recoiled from the sight of the slaughter which they had no scruple thus to perpetrate; and of which each was as guilty as if he had dared to plunge his dagger into the victims and been sprinkled with their blood. But it is not more certain that the blow of the hatchet which severed the rope, dealt destruction to those who reposed under the block which it had suspended, than it is certain that the capital of British speculators invested in the mines of Brazil, and the plantations of Cuba, kindles the wars, and stimulates the murders, and instigates the tortures, and sheds the desolation with which the slave-traffic has for ages ravaged the regions of Africa, to glut the cruel avarice of nations, the most ostentatious devotees to the religion of charity and peace. I hear it indeed whispered that these are not times for interfering with the employment of capital; that in the present embarrassment under which our commerce is labouring, we should be slow to stop up any channel in which capital may find employment. I can listen to no such argument; I protest utterly against its application to this question; and your Lordships, above all men, can give it no quarter! What course have you been holding, and only yesterday holding? Regardless of the plea that trade was labouring, you have increased its burden, where the plain interests of decorum and of morals demanded an addition to the load. But having overruled that plea when indecency was counterpleaded, you must not show yourselves more patient of crime. Sworn enemies to practices of an immoral tendency, will you be the protectors of actual guilt? Unscrupulous in dealing with private rights, when they warred with purity of conduct, can you harbour a preposterous delicacy towards piracy and murder, to screen from justice the gains of the felon or his accomplice? The more gloomy our prospects may be under a temporary visitation, the closer we should cling to our principles, that holding fast our integrity we may earn the blessing of brighter fortunes. Let us wash out the most vile pollution that defiles our honest trade, and tarnishes their name who drive it. Cease to protect the slave-
950
monger, by whatever name he may call himself, or his accomplice, under what mask so ever he may lurk. Zealous in extirpating vice, and immorality, and intemperance at home, do not patronise and propagate them abroad—any where abroad. Neither in the east, neither in the west, neither towards the rising sun nor towards his going down, wage execrable wars with human happiness and virtue, for the lucre of gain,—wars against millions, feeble as they are unoffending,—wars such as those of the must sordid prince who ever filled that throne, and which his immortal historian, likened to some base metal, glittering like steel, but really of brass,—monstrous wars, redeemed by no one virtue, nor graced by any triumph, save the triumph over public principle and national honour, in which victory shorn of its glories leads on peace stripped of its wonted blessings, nay, clothed in a double curse—in them that give it, whom it stains with the disgrace of guilty profits—in them that receive it, whom it corrupts with intemperance and cripples with disease! But a curse yet more heavy lies on the gains of African slavery and war,—whether they swell the stores of the trader or replenish the coffers of the State—Surely, surely this country never can forget the maxim of her greatest poets, and none the least of her patriots, that it is her high prerogative to teach the nations how to live. And not her policy alone, but her industry must be kept pure, and above forming a partnership with violence and slavery. It is with peace, and with freedom that the commerce of England naturally maintains her holy alliance. She is the offspring of that liberty—but the support of her parent by a charity above all Greek or Roman charities; the nurse of her parent—and you, my Lords, calling down upon her and yourselves the blessings of heaven by pursuing the course which I, in all humility, but with all earnestness urge you to take, will add to your own fame an honour of which you stand little in need—but afford me, who want it much, the only consolation I can ever now enjoy, by helping me to discharge a sacred public duty.
" I move you to resolve that this House will, with all practicable expedition take such measures as may be most effectual for preventing the employment of British capital in promoting or maintaining the slave-trade."
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that after the

951
attention which he was sure their Lordships had paid to the admirable speech of his noble and learned Friend, he was convinced they must all be anxious to have some means brought under their consideration which should be effectual in putting an end to those evils which his noble and learned Friend had so eloquently represented as existing, and of giving effect to the resolution which he had just submitted to the House. He certainly felt that, if the House adopted this motion, it would be absolutely necessary for the Government to bring in a measure founded upon it, in order, if possible, to prevent the continuance of the evils of the slave-trade. His noble and learned Friend had mentioned that some persons bearing her Majesty's commission were involved in the transactions of which he had spoken—that was a part of the evil for which he could have no difficulty in finding a remedy, but after having attended most patiently and anxiously to the speech which they had just heard, he could not discover in it any thing like a road to measures which would have the effect of putting an end to the evils which it described. What he would propose would be this—that his noble and learned Friend should himself bring forward a measure which would have the effect of putting an end to the perpetration of these crimes, and which would relieve the country from the dread of its continuance. He now submitted to his noble and learned Friend, and to their Lordships, an engagement on the part of her Majesty's Government, that they would take his measure into their consideration at an early period of the next Session of Parliament, with the view of giving it their support and assistance, in order to render it a perfect measure of legislation, and suited to attain the end sought to be accomplished.
Lord Broughamsaid, that if he were asked what would probably be the measure most calculated to effect the end he had in view, he should answer for the present—an act declaratory of the true intent of the act of George 4th. Doubts had been raised in different countries respecting the construction to be put upon the terms of that act. There was no doubt as to the real intentions of the framers of the measure, which was drawn up by his most distinguished and excellent Friend Dr. Lushington, who had taken so deep an interest in the suppression of the slave-
952
trade. He, therefore, considered, that the most effectual course would be to adopt a declaratory act, solving all those doubts, and declaring the true intent of the enactment in question. In case of the adoption of such an act, it would be for the wisdom of Parliament to consider how long a time should be granted to persons implicated, to remove themselves from the position in which the law would then place them. But if such a measure should be carried, he trusted that what had passed in the House that night would be taken more as a warning than as an accusation, and he trusted that after that night no new transactions in connexion with the slave-trade no new speculations would receive any countenance or protection from the British public. He should consent to withdraw his motion on the understanding that the Government were pledged to a measure upon the subject.
Lord Wharncliffe: Let us understand to what we are said to be pledged.
Lord Broughamsaid, that he understood Government to be pledged to take the subject of capital embarked in the slave-trade into immediate consideration, with a view to its prevention.
Lord Wharncliffeunderstood the pledge to be an engagement to support a measure for the purpose to be brought forward by the noble Lord.
The Duke of Wellingtonexplained that he meant that Government should take into consideration, with a view to giving it their cordial support, both in this and the other House, a measure which the noble and learned Lord should introduce.
The Earl of Riponwished the noble and learned Lord to undertake the framing of the measure in question, as his great knowledge of the subject, and the part he had taken in the introduction of similar bills, eminently qualified him for the task. The difficulty was to frame an act which should reach the parties; and as the transactions took place in another country, from which they could not easily command evidence, it would require great experience in the tortuosities of the subject to frame an efficient measure, and he trusted that his noble and learned Friend would apply his mind speedily to the subject.
Motion withdrawn.

LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS (IRELAND).
The Lord Chancellor,in moving, that the Limitation of Actions' (Ireland) Bill be

953
committed, took that opportunity of stating, that he had prepared a clause guarding the rights of persons who were not in a position at present to enforce them. He thought it, however, better to postpone introducing the clause until the third reading of the bill.
The Earl of Glengallwished to know the nature of the clause, and also when the bill was to come into operation.
The Lord Chancellor: The nature of the clause was, that those who at present had not conformed to the Protestant religion, should have their rights reserved to them. He proposed, that the bill should come into operation in July, 1844.
The Archbishop of Armaghobjected to so long a period being allowed to elapse between the passing of the bill and the time of its coming into operation. When the English act passed, it came into operation on the 31st December following, and he saw no reason why any difference should be made in the present bill. It was his (the Archbishop's) intention, if the noble and learned Lord adhered to the period specified by him, to move, that the bill come into operation at the close of December, 1842.
Lord Monteaglesaid, that in ordinary cases, six months would be ample time to give parties an opportunity of commencing actions. But, in the present instance, he thought that period by no means sufficient. The case that might arise was this. Suppose a living now filled, no steps could be taken by the party claiming the right to presentation until the death of the present incumbent. It would, in his opinion, be very unjust, that the party should be debarred from asserting his rights whenever an opportunity for his doing so arose. Let the shortest possible period be given after the appointment really occurred; but he (Lord Monteagle) considered it very hard indeed, that the party claiming the right should be debarred by any interval of time, if in that interval no opportunity had arisen for contesting his claims.
The Bishop of London: What the noble Baron has urged is as applicable to one, two, or three years, as to any other period. In fact, his suggestion, if acted upon, would vitiate the principle of the bill altogether. A period of sixty years and three presentations he thought sufficient protection to those claiming the right of presentation.
The Lord Chancellor: The bill was in
954
that respect, precisely the same as the English bill. Now, with respect to the memorial signed by the twenty-six Peers, there was not one of them who had not been for sixty years in a position to enforce his rights.
Lord Campbellsaid, that the bill, as it stood, afforded ample protection. No man could reasonably complain, when sixty years' adverse possession, and three incumbencies, were necessary to bar an action.
Earl Glengallsaid, the noble and learned Lord appeared ready and anxious to strangle those who claimed the rights of presentation with the utmost rapidity. He regretted that a bill of this nature should be forced on at so late a period of the Session. In fact, all the opponents of the measure, except in his solitary instance, had left town. It was generally believed that this bill had been postponed sine die, and so, in fact, it was on their Lordships' papers. The Irish Society had also left, and he was there as their single representative and he much feared they had left their case in very incompetent hands. He must insist upon it, that there was considerable difference between the English case and that of Ireland. The Irish Roman Catholic families had been deprived of their right to the presentation of livings, first in the time of King Charles, and again in the time of Queen Anne. The Crown and the Church received the livings in trust, until the Roman Catholics should conform to the Protestant religion, and on behalf of those who had conformed he stood there to support their just rights. It had been insinuated that those conformed Roman Catholics had not done their duty; but he maintained that it was the Crown and the Church that had not done their duty. Those confiscations took place after the great rebellion of 1641, and again after the battle of the Boyne. The treaty of Limerick, however, protected the rights of the Roman Catholics. The second article of that treaty states that all the Roman Catholics who adhered to King Jamesߞ
"That they and every of them shall hold, possess, and enjoy all and every their estates of freehold and inheritance, and all the rights, titles, and interests, privileges and immunities which they and every or any of them held, enjoyed, or were rightfully and lawfully entitled to. And all and every the said persons shall have, hold, or enjoy all their goods and chattels, real or personal, to them or any of

955
them belonging and remaining, either in their own hands or the hands of any persons whatsoever in trust for, or for the use of, them or any of them."
Now that was exactly the state in which the heirs of those parties were at present, and are they all to be deprived of their rights? Have you not (said the noble Earl)—have you not taken enough from us already? Will not three-fourths of our estates satisfy you? Are the adventurers of Cromwell and King William the 3rd not yet satiated with the plunder of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, but that you must now, in 1842, perpetuate a portion of the penal laws? The noble and learned Lord opposite said we, who signed the memorial, had all of us for sixty years been in a position to try our rights. I, for one, have not had that period, and I know others whose families have not been sixty years conformed to the Protestant religion. He appealed, therefore, to the justice of the House not to debar the heirs of those who, by conforming, had regained rights forfeited at the periods to which he had alluded. It was to the trusteeship part of the business he, however, principally objected. The Crown and the Church had not fulfilled their trust. They had seized upon the livings of the Roman Catholic gentry, and by this bill they seek to maintain a legal right to them. Whenever the Crown and the Church present by lapse, they admit that there is a rightful owner, and that owner was to be found in the Roman Catholic families who had conformed. They had forgotten that they were but trustees, and had presented to their advowsons jure suo. The effect of this bill, if passed, would be to force parties to present to the livings forthwith; but if their Lordships knew the number of the livings claimed, they would see how utterly impossible it would be to do so. He was almost afraid to name the number, but be thought he should be under the mark when he stated the number to be 500; and it was no easy matter to get 500 clergymen to name to those livings. This was a case which should not be taken up hastily in this manner, and at the end of the Session. It was one which required the greatest consideration, and the calmest attention of Parliament. When the question was last brought before the House, and at a time when the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) was on the Woolsack, ample time was given to the
956
parties interested. In the course of the recent discussion the case of the Irish Society had been strangely mixed up with that of the Roman Catholic families, but they had nothing whatever to do with each other. But then it was said that because a bill, like the present, had been passed for England, its provisions must, of course, be extended to Ireland. He must loudly protest against such a principle being acted upon. It was too bad, because wrong had been done in England that that wrong was also to be inflicted on Ireland. He (Lord Glengall) was a sincere friend of the Church, and was the last man who would be inclined to say anything against it. If he were its enemy he could support his arguments in a very different manner. But he repeated he was the staunch friend of the establishment, and would do nothing to disparage either the Church or the Crown. It was well known that he always stood up for the Church, and abused his old friends the Roman Catholics as lustily as any one. There was no sacrifice in reason he was not ready and willing to make in support of the establishment, but the present bill he thought was going too far. The noble Earl concluded by expressing a hope that the rights of persons situated as he was would be guarded as well as those who had not yet conformed to the Protestant religion.
The Earl of Wicklowtrusted that the Government would press the bill without any further delay. The bill at present on their Lordships' Table was the same as that introduced nine years ago. The amendment which had been made in the bill at that time was made with a view to give the parties interested time to take steps for the recovery of their rights. lf, therefore his noble Friend had allowed the nine years to pass without instituting proceedings, the fault was his, not their Lordships. The evils of the system were accumulating, and he firmly relied that the House would not consent to perpetuate them. He had before stated, he regretted that the provisions of the bill for England had not been extended to Ireland. It was now, however, necessary, that this tardy act of justice should be done to the Church. He trusted his noble and learned Friend would not adhere to his statement relative to the period at which this bill was to come into operation. In England a delay of only six months was given, and he thought the same period with respect to Ire-

957
land would be amply sufficient. His noble Friend (Earl Glengall) said that persons must be blind who did not see the difference between England and Ireland in respect of this bill. He was one of those blind persons, for he confessed he could not see the difference. The two classes who required protection under the bill were those who had not as yet conformed, and those who had already done so, but not a sufficient length of time to enable them to contest their claims. Those two ought to be protected, and when that was done, he hoped the bill would pass without delay.
The Archbishop of Armagh: When this bill was read a second time, a noble Marquess who sat at the opposite side, stated, as the ground on which he opposed this measure, that during the incapacity of the Roman Catholic patrons of advowsons in Ireland the Crown had neglected the trust reposed in it, and had either usurped those advowsons for itself, or allowed the bishops to usurp them, and that the bill now before the committee would prevent their true patrons from recovering them. He conceived that this broad assertion made by the noble Marquess respecting the usurpation of advowsons, was not borne out by the facts of the case; and I wrote to a professional gentleman in Dublin—one of the most eminent civilians of the day—who has been engaged in almost every suit that has been instituted respecting advowsons for several years past, and I have received from him a letter, part of which I would take the liberty of reading to the House. The writer of it is Joseph Radcliffe, Esq,, L.L.D.:—
" As to Lord Clanricarde's assertion of general encroachments of bishops, they are not warranted by the facts of any case brought to trial within my recollection, But if his Lordship will specify the particular cases to which he has referred, I can make inquiries to ascertain the correctness of the charge in such instances. I presume his Lordship knows nothing of such matters himself, and only derives his information from others. So far as my experience goes, I think the interests of the Crown in regard to its ecclesiastical patronage have been for years and are particularly well attended to. If encroachments have been made, I think such have been more on than by bishops. And though I do not wish to state particular instances from memory, I am certain 1 could bring forward one case at least in which the Crown has converted at best a very doubtful title, into what may be called a good one by possession, in cones-
958
quench of the unwillingness of the bishop to embark in expensive litigation.
" The rule of law, that on its appearing to the court in a trial of guare impedit between A. and B., that the title is in the Crown, judgment should be given for the Crown, though no party to the action, throws much difficulty in the way of encroachments.
" Your Grace is probably aware, that in former times, and particularly after the restoration of King Charles the 2nd, patents were often obtained from the Crown granting advowsons, and other properties to which the Crown had no manner of title Length of time has terminated all disputes respecting other species of property, but there being no statute of limitation as to advowsons, difficulties still arise from such grants.
" Bishops cannot in general prove original title save by collations, the records whereof are in many dioceses imperfect; and in some cases lay patrons, owing to the destruction of public records, and their own muniments of title, are obliged to rely on presentations in support of their title.
" The bill in question will, in my judgment, benefit all parties, particularly lay patrons, who, if desirous to sell their advowsons, can seldom make out a good title without incurring great expense. Besides, if a purchaser were tolerably certain of a good title, the rate of purchase of advowsons (at present low) should increase."
I conceive, my Lords, that this letter supplies a satisfactory answer to the assertion of the noble Marquess respecting the usurpation by bishops of the advowsons which Roman Catholic patrons were deprived of by the acts of Charles the 2nd and Queen Anne; for it appears that in the many quare impedit actions which have been brought within the memory of this distinguished civilian, none of them have been grounded on any such plea, relative to usurpation of advowsons on the part of the Crown. My Lords, there is a remedy within the reach of those noblemen who have memoriated the Lord Chancellor against this bill, and who ask for some cheap and expeditious means, should be afforded them of recovering their rights. In the "Ecclesiastical Law Cases," will be found an account of the manner in which Lord Dunsany, whose ancestors were Roman Catholics, recovered the advowsons which belonged to them. The case is briefly this:ߞ
" The petition of right of Randal, Lord Baron of Dunsany, 6th February,1816:ߞ
" Upon the day and year above-mentioned, the Ring committed in charge to Thomas Lord Manners, Lord Chancellor of Ireland, a

959
certain petition of right, signed with the King's hand, and by him thus inscribed. Let right be done our parties," to be executed in form of law, the tenor of which is as follows -.—That Randal Lord Dunsany, who had been an Irish Papist, died on the 16th of July, 1736, leaving Edward Plunket, his eldest son, and heir-at-law—that by virtue of the statute of the 17th of Charles the Second, and of the conformity of the said Edward Lord Dunsany, the advowsons of the churches of Kentstown, Oldcastle, and Kill-bride, did of right re-vest in the said Edward Lord Dunsany; but that King George 2nd, upon the next vacancies, continued to present to the said churches, by colour of the statute aforesaid—that Edward Lord Dunsany died on the 26th of June, 1781, seized of the advowsons aforesaid, leaving petitioner his eldest son and heir-at-law, who has always during his life been bred up and educated in the Protestant religion, by means whereof petitioner became seized of, and was, and is entitled to, the advowsons of the aforesaid churches—and that nevertheless King George 3rd did continue to present to them upon the next vacancies, and the incumbents so presented are still in the enjoyment of the respective churches; wherefore petitioner prayed his Majesty might take his case into consideration, and cause right to be done him in the premises.
" Upon the petition being read, the Lord Chancellor appointed certain persons to make diligent inquiry of the truth of the contents of said petition, and their inquest to return into the Court of Chancery under their hands and seals without delay. The commissioners accordingly reported that the several allegations contained in such petition were true; whereupon the aforesaid Randall, Lord Dunsany, now suppliant, came into court on the 1st of February, 1816, and prayed judgment, that he to the possession of the advowsons of these churches might be admitted and restored; whereupon the King's attorney-general saith, that inasmuch as all the matters contained in said petition are true, he does not but acknowledge and confess that the right of advowson of the churches aforesaid belongs to the said suppliant Randall, Lord Dunsany and ought, ac- cording to his petition in this behalf, to him be restored; and accordingly it was adjudged by the said Lord Chancellor of Ireland, that the hands of the said Lord the King should from the possession of the aforesaid advowsons be removed, and the petitioner to the same restored, saving, nevertheless, the right of all persons."
With reference to those noble Lords who signed a memorial to the Lord Chancellor against the passing of this bill, I must beg leave to state, that there is not one of them who was not born a Protestant, as were also their fathers, and their grandfathers—[Lord Glen gall: "No."]—with the exception of the noble Earl's
960
father; and he was a contemporary of mine at the University of Oxford, and of course was then a Protestant, and that is fifty years ago; and the noble Earl himself has been in possession of his property for the last eighteen years. So that ample time has been allowed to all those noblemen to discover the claims, if any, of their Roman Catholic ancestors, and to recover them by means of the proper tribunals. It is easy for noble Lords who have never themselves suffered from the evils which this bill is intended to remedy, to speak of those evils as if they were not of any great consequence. But those who, like myself, have been sufferers from the want of a limitation to actions respecting property, know to our cost how grievous the state of things has been in Ireland in this respect. My Lords, it has been my misfortune to have had to defend my property against a claim to it, which was set up by the Crown. A verdict was given in my favour at the county assizes where the case was tried. It was brought before the Court of Exchequer, and a decision given in my favour there. It was re-heard, and a third decision given in my favour. It was brought before the twelve judges, and they unanimously decided for me. I have never complained of this treatment, or paraded it as a grievance before the public. But I must say, that if I had not possessed an official income in addition to my paternal property—(it was my paternal estate which was assailed in this case)—the expense of successfully defending it would have been ruinous to me. And if the office of the Woods and Forests were to disclose what has been the outlay on the part of the Crown in these suits against me, I should think the expenditure on their side would be found to have been nearer 10,000 l. than half that sum. My Lords, I have also lately had an escape, and a hair-breadth escape, of another contest with the Crown respecting the right of an advowson. I refer to the living of Armagh, to which my predecessors have presented for more than a hundred years past. On occasion of a vacancy of that parish, some years ago, I applied to the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) who was then Prime Minister, requesting him to give the deanery of Armagh to the person whom I was about to appoint to the rectory, as it was desirable that the two offices should not be separated (for the deanery in itself is but of little value),

961
and as I was then about to commence extensive improvements in the cathedral, which made it desirable that the dean should be of one mind with myself in carrying on such an undertaking; I submitted at the same time the proofs which I possessed of my right to this advowsons. The noble Duke complied with Cy request, and the same person was nominated to the rectory and the deanery. In them month of August last, the situations again became vacant, and I wrote, as soon as I heard of it, to acquaint Lord Fortescue with the event, and to request that he would, as had been done before, present the deanery to the person whom I was about to nominate to the rectory. If it was wished, there was a living of about equal value with the deanery which could have been placed at the disposal of Government in lieu of it. I got a very civil letter from Lord Fortescue, saying that he had already given away the deanery. The Ministry, it so happened, were just then leaving office, and there was no time to spare scarcely sufficient time, indeed, to make good the presentation of the deanery to their friend. Lord Fortescue, however, said in his letter, that he had only nominated his friend to the deanery, although there seemed to be some doubt as to whether the rectory was not also in the gift of the Crown. The person whom I appointed to the living was the Regius Professor of Divinity in the university, Dr. Elrington, the ablest and fittest person I could find for the situation, which is one of considerable importance, as the parish of Armagh is very populous, and contains many public institutions. To my surprise, Dr. Elrington informed me that the Government were going to dispute my right to the advowson. I thought that this was impossible; however, I soon learned that the intelligence was derived from the Attorney-general himself, and was too true. I wrote to Lord De Grey, to mention the facts which I have already stated to your Lordships, and I received from his Excellency a very civil letter, in which, nevertheless, he stated that his first duty was to defend the rights of the Crown, as to which he must be guided by the law officers of the Crown. I then proposed to submit my case to the law officers of the Crown, if they would allow me to see their case; for if any facts with which I was unacquainted had come to their knowledge, and gave a different complexion to
962
he business, I was ready to submit; I but I felt assured that my case was irresistible. After five or six weeks I went to Dublin, to pay my respects to Lord De Grey on his arrival, and I met at the levee the Attorney-general, when he politely offered to acquiesce in my proposal, that we should mutually see each other's cases before we proceeded to action. This was done and I never saw a mote defective ease than that which had been drawn up and submitted for the opinion of the law officers of the Crown. It omitted some most important words in transcribing a document which it quoted, and it omitted all mention of the fact that the patronage of this advowson had been already recognised by the House of Lords, as belonging to the archbishops, an appeal having been decided on by that House in the year 1730. When the Attorney-general and other law officers found, from my case, that the House of Lords had already admitted my right to this advowson, they at once abandoned the suit. The Attorney-general, with my permission, showed my case to Dean Hudson's counsel, leaving it open for him, if he pleased, to proceed with the suit, although the Government would not attempt so hopeless an enterprise. Mr. Blackburne, however, has been attacked in some of the newspapers which are friendly to the late administration, for having given up this action; and hints have been thrown out, that if there were a change of Ministry, and that Mr. Hudson's friends returned to power, I might expect to have my right to this advowson called in question by the Crown, and a suit commenced against me. On another occasion I was involved in a contest with Trinity College, respecting an advowson to which my predecessors had presented for 150 years, and which was of such small value, that neither the college nor myself would have contested it, but that we felt compelled to do so as guardians of a property, the right of which we were bound to maintain for the advantage of our successors. My Lords, having thus had experience myself of the hardships that ensue from leaving the patronage of the Church exposed to incessant litigation, I would urge you to pass this bill for limiting the time within which actions may be brought respecting advowsons.
House went into a committee.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, after what had occurred, he should move words to

963
the effect that the bill should come into operation on the 1st of January, 1843.
Earl of Glengall: That is only six months from this date. It will be quite impossible to find incumbents in the time.
The Lord Chancellor: As far as my experience goes they are plenty enough.
The Earl of Glengallobjected most strongly to the short time for commencing actions. It was impossible to try a quare impedit action for less than 1,500 l., and, therefore, it would be very inconvenient for most people to try more than one at a time. The most rev. Prelate appeared to think, that the noble Marquess knew nothing of what he was speaking about on a former night. But the noble Marquess succeeded in his case, and, therefore, he did know what he was about; no man knew better what he was about than his noble Friend. As to the other part of Mr. Ratcliffe's letter, he perfectly coincided in opinion with the writer, and he would not desire a better case to go into court with. In the time of the reign of Charles 2nd, inquisitions were held on every man's estate in Ireland, and the Crown clearly ascertained what each man was possessed of. These inquisitions are now in existence, and are the best titles the proprietors had, and the most valuable documents they possessed.
Bill passed through committee with amendment.
House resumed; bill to be reported.
Adjourned.