• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 April 1830
 May 1830
 June 1830
 Subjects of debate
 Members who have spoken in...














Title: Hansard's parliamentary debates
ALL VOLUMES CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00072012/00009
 Material Information
Title: Hansard's parliamentary debates
Physical Description: 361 v. : ; 23-25 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Great Britain -- Parliament
Hansard, T. C ( Thomas Curson ), 1776-1833
Publisher: s.n.
Place of Publication: S.l
Manufacturer: T.C. Hansard
Publication Date: 1829-1891
 Subjects
Subject: Politics and government -- Periodicals -- Great Britain -- 19th century   ( lcsh )
 Notes
Dates or Sequential Designation: New ser., v. 21 (Mar./June 1829)-v. 25 (June/July 1830); 3rd ser., v. 1 (Oct./Dec. 1830)-v. 356 (July/Aug. 1891).
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00072012
Volume ID: VID00009
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 07655885
lccn - sn 85062630
 Related Items
Preceded by: Parliamentary debates (1820-1829)
Succeeded by: Parliamentary debates (1892-1908)

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents 1
        Table of Contents 2
        Table of Contents 3
        Table of Contents 4
        Table of Contents 5
        Table of Contents 6
        Table of Contents 7
    April 1830
        House of Lords - Thursday, April 8
            Page 1
        House of Commons - Thursday, April 8
            Page 1
            Page 3-4
            Page 5-6
            Page 7-8
            Page 9-10
            Page 11-12
            Page 13-14
            Page 15-16
            Page 17-18
            Page 19-20
            Page 21-22
            Page 23-24
            Page 25-26
            Page 27-28
            Page 29-30
        House of Lords - Monday, April 26
            Page 31-32
            Page 29-30
        House of Commons - Monday, April 26
            Page 31-32
            Page 33-34
            Page 35-36
            Page 37-38
            Page 39-40
            Page 41-42
            Page 43-44
            Page 45-46
            Page 47-48
            Page 49-50
            Page 51-52
            Page 53-54
            Page 55-56
            Page 57-58
            Page 59-60
            Page 61-62
            Page 63-64
            Page 65-66
            Page 67-68
        House of Lords - Tuesday, April 27
            Page 69-70
            Page 67-68
        House of Commons - Tuesday, April 27
            Page 69-70
            Page 71-72
            Page 73-74
            Page 75-76
            Page 77-78
            Page 79-80
            Page 81-82
            Page 83-84
            Page 85-86
            Page 87-88
            Page 89-90
            Page 91-92
            Page 93-94
            Page 95-96
            Page 97-98
            Page 99-100
            Page 101-102
            Page 103-104
            Page 105-106
            Page 107-108
            Page 109-110
            Page 111-112
            Page 113-114
            Page 115-116
            Page 117-118
            Page 119-120
            Page 121-122
        House of Lords - Wednesday, April 28
            Page 123-124
            Page 121-122
        House of Commons - Wednesday, April 28
            Page 123-124
            Page 125-126
            Page 127-128
            Page 129-130
            Page 131-132
            Page 133-134
            Page 135-136
            Page 137-138
            Page 139-140
            Page 141-142
            Page 143-144
            Page 145-146
            Page 147-148
            Page 149-150
            Page 151-152
            Page 153-154
            Page 155-156
            Page 157-158
            Page 159-160
            Page 161-162
            Page 163-164
            Page 165-166
            Page 167-168
            Page 169-170
            Page 171-172
            Page 173-174
            Page 175-176
            Page 177-178
            Page 179-180
            Page 181-182
            Page 183-184
            Page 185-186
            Page 187-188
            Page 189-190
            Page 191-192
            Page 193-194
            Page 195-196
            Page 197-198
            Page 199-200
            Page 201-202
            Page 203-204
            Page 205-206
            Page 207-208
            Page 209-210
            Page 211-212
            Page 213-214
        House of Lords - Thursday, April 29
            Page 215-216
            Page 217-218
            Page 219-220
            Page 221-222
            Page 223-224
            Page 225-226
            Page 213-214
        House of Commons - Thursday, April 29
            Page 227-228
            Page 229-230
            Page 231-232
            Page 233-234
            Page 235-236
            Page 225-226
            Page 237-238
            Page 239-240
            Page 241-242
            Page 243-244
            Page 245-246
            Page 247-248
            Page 249-250
            Page 251-252
            Page 253-254
            Page 255-256
            Page 257-258
            Page 259-260
            Page 261-262
            Page 263-264
            Page 265-266
            Page 267-268
            Page 269-270
            Page 271-272
            Page 273-274
            Page 275-276
            Page 277-278
            Page 279-280
            Page 281-282
            Page 283-284
            Page 285-286
            Page 287-288
            Page 289-290
            Page 291-292
        House of Lords - Friday, April 30
            Page 293-294
            Page 291-292
        House of Commons - Friday, April 30
            Page 293-294
            Page 295-296
            Page 297-298
            Page 299-300
            Page 301-302
            Page 303-304
            Page 305-306
            Page 307-308
            Page 309-310
            Page 311-312
            Page 313-314
            Page 315-316
            Page 317-318
            Page 319-320
            Page 321-322
    May 1830
        House of Lords - Monday, May 3
            Page 321-322
        House of Commons - Monday, May 3
            Page 323-324
            Page 325-326
            Page 327-328
            Page 329-330
            Page 331-332
            Page 333-334
            Page 335-336
            Page 337-338
            Page 339-340
            Page 341-342
            Page 343-344
            Page 345-346
            Page 347-348
            Page 321-322
            Page 349-350
            Page 351-352
            Page 353-354
        House of Lords - Tuesday, May 4
            Page 355-356
            Page 357-358
            Page 359-360
            Page 361-362
            Page 363-364
            Page 365-366
            Page 367-368
            Page 369-370
            Page 371-372
            Page 353-354
        House of Commons - Tuesday, May 4
            Page 373-374
            Page 375-376
            Page 377-378
            Page 379-380
            Page 381-382
            Page 383-384
            Page 385-386
            Page 387-388
            Page 371-372
            Page 389-390
            Page 391-392
            Page 393-394
            Page 395-396
            Page 397-398
            Page 399-400
            Page 401-402
            Page 403-404
            Page 405-406
            Page 407-408
            Page 409-410
            Page 411-412
            Page 413-414
            Page 415-416
            Page 417-418
            Page 419-420
            Page 421-422
        House of Lords - Wednesday, May 5
            Page 423-424
            Page 425-426
            Page 427-428
            Page 421-422
        House of Lords - Thursday, May 6
            Page 429-430
            Page 431-432
            Page 427-428
            Page 433-434
            Page 435-436
            Page 437-438
            Page 439-440
            Page 441-442
            Page 443-444
            Page 445-446
        House of Commons - Thursday, May 6
            Page 447-448
            Page 449-450
            Page 451-452
            Page 453-454
            Page 455-456
            Page 457-458
            Page 459-460
            Page 461-462
            Page 445-446
            Page 463-464
            Page 465-466
            Page 467-468
            Page 469-470
            Page 471-472
            Page 473-474
            Page 475-476
            Page 477-478
            Page 479-480
            Page 481-482
            Page 483-484
            Page 485-486
            Page 487-488
            Page 489-490
            Page 491-492
            Page 493-494
            Page 495-496
            Page 497-498
        House of Lords - Monday, May 10
            Page 499-500
            Page 501-502
            Page 497-498
        House of Commons - Monday, May 10
            Page 503-504
            Page 501-502
            Page 505-506
            Page 507-508
            Page 509-510
            Page 511-512
            Page 513-514
            Page 515-516
            Page 517-518
            Page 519-520
            Page 521-522
            Page 523-524
            Page 525-526
            Page 527-528
            Page 529-530
            Page 531-532
        House of Lords - Tuesday, May 11
            Page 533-534
            Page 535-536
            Page 537-538
            Page 539-540
            Page 541-542
            Page 543-544
            Page 531-532
        House of Commons - Tuesday, May 11
            Page 545-546
            Page 547-548
            Page 549-550
            Page 551-552
            Page 553-554
            Page 543-544
            Page 555-556
            Page 557-558
            Page 559-560
            Page 561-562
            Page 563-564
            Page 565-566
            Page 567-568
            Page 569-570
            Page 571-572
            Page 573-574
            Page 575-576
            Page 577-578
            Page 579-580
            Page 581-582
            Page 583-584
            Page 585-586
            Page 587-588
            Page 589-590
            Page 591-592
            Page 593-594
        House of Lords - Wednesday, May 12
            Page 595-596
            Page 593-594
        House of Commons - Wednesday, May 12
            Page 595-596
            Page 597-598
            Page 599-600
            Page 601-602
            Page 603-604
            Page 605-606
            Page 607-608
            Page 609-610
            Page 611-612
            Page 613-614
            Page 615-616
            Page 617-618
            Page 619-620
            Page 621-622
            Page 623-624
            Page 625-626
            Page 627-628
            Page 629-630
            Page 631-632
            Page 633-634
            Page 635-636
            Page 637-638
            Page 639-640
            Page 641-642
            Page 643-644
            Page 645-646
            Page 647-648
            Page 649-650
            Page 651-652
            Page 653-654
            Page 655-656
            Page 657-658
            Page 659-660
        House of Lords - Thursday, May 13
            Page 661-662
            Page 663-664
            Page 665-666
            Page 667-668
            Page 669-670
            Page 671-672
            Page 659-660
        House of Commons - Thursday, May 13
            Page 673-674
            Page 675-676
            Page 677-678
            Page 679-680
            Page 681-682
            Page 671-672
            Page 683-684
            Page 685-686
            Page 687-688
            Page 689-690
            Page 691-692
            Page 693-694
            Page 695-696
            Page 697-698
            Page 699-700
            Page 701-702
            Page 703-704
            Page 705-706
        House of Lords - Friday, May 14
            Page 705-706
        House of Commons - Friday, May 14
            Page 707-708
            Page 709-710
            Page 711-712
            Page 713-714
            Page 715-716
            Page 717-718
            Page 719-720
            Page 721-722
            Page 723-724
            Page 725-726
            Page 727-728
            Page 729-730
            Page 731-732
            Page 733-734
            Page 735-736
            Page 737-738
            Page 705-706
            Page 739-740
            Page 741-742
            Page 743-744
            Page 745-746
            Page 747-748
            Page 749-750
            Page 751-752
            Page 753-754
            Page 755-756
            Page 757-758
        House of Lords - Monday, May 17
            Page 759-760
            Page 757-758
        House of Commons - Monday, May 17
            Page 759-760
            Page 761-762
            Page 763-764
            Page 765-766
            Page 767-768
            Page 769-770
            Page 771-772
            Page 773-774
            Page 775-776
            Page 777-778
            Page 779-780
            Page 781-782
            Page 783-784
            Page 785-786
            Page 787-788
            Page 789-790
            Page 791-792
            Page 793-794
            Page 795-796
            Page 797-798
            Page 799-800
            Page 801-802
            Page 803-804
            Page 805-806
            Page 807-808
            Page 809-810
            Page 811-812
            Page 813-814
        House of Lords - Tuesday, May 18
            Page 815-816
            Page 817-818
            Page 813-814
        House of Commons - Tuesday, May 18
            Page 819-820
            Page 817-818
            Page 821-822
            Page 823-824
            Page 825-826
            Page 827-828
            Page 829-830
            Page 831-832
            Page 833-834
            Page 835-836
            Page 837-838
            Page 839-840
            Page 841-842
            Page 843-844
            Page 845-846
            Page 847-848
            Page 849-850
            Page 851-852
            Page 853-854
            Page 855-856
            Page 857-858
            Page 859-860
            Page 861-862
            Page 863-864
            Page 865-866
        House of Lords - Wednesday, May 19
            Page 865-866
        House of Commons - Wednesday, May 19
            Page 867-868
            Page 865-866
        House of Commons - Thursday, May 20
            Page 867-868
            Page 869-870
            Page 871-872
            Page 873-874
            Page 875-876
            Page 877-878
            Page 879-880
            Page 881-882
            Page 883-884
            Page 885-886
            Page 887-888
            Page 889-890
            Page 891-892
            Page 893-894
            Page 895-896
            Page 897-898
            Page 899-900
            Page 901-902
            Page 903-904
            Page 905-906
            Page 907-908
            Page 909-910
            Page 911-912
            Page 913-914
            Page 915-916
            Page 917-918
        House of Lords - Friday, May 21
            Page 919-920
            Page 921-922
            Page 917-918
        House of Commons - Friday, May 21
            Page 923-924
            Page 921-922
            Page 925-926
            Page 927-928
            Page 929-930
            Page 931-932
            Page 933-934
            Page 935-936
            Page 937-938
            Page 939-940
            Page 941-942
            Page 943-944
            Page 945-946
            Page 947-948
            Page 949-950
            Page 951-952
            Page 953-954
            Page 955-956
            Page 957-958
            Page 959-960
            Page 961-962
            Page 963-964
            Page 965-966
        House of Commons - Saturday, May 22
            Page 967-968
            Page 969-970
            Page 971-972
            Page 973-974
            Page 975-976
            Page 977-978
            Page 979-980
            Page 981-982
            Page 983-984
            Page 985-986
            Page 965-966
        House of Lords - Monday, May 24
            Page 987-988
            Page 989-990
            Page 991-992
            Page 993-994
            Page 995-996
            Page 997-998
            Page 985-986
        House of Commons - Monday, May 24
            Page 999-1000
            Page 1001-1002
            Page 1003-1004
            Page 1005-1006
            Page 1007-1008
            Page 997-998
            Page 1009-1010
            Page 1011-1012
            Page 1013-1014
            Page 1015-1016
            Page 1017-1018
            Page 1019-1020
            Page 1021-1022
            Page 1023-1024
            Page 1025-1026
            Page 1027-1028
            Page 1029-1030
            Page 1031-1032
            Page 1033-1034
            Page 1035-1036
            Page 1037-1038
            Page 1039-1040
            Page 1041-1042
            Page 1043-1044
            Page 1045-1046
            Page 1047-1048
            Page 1049-1050
            Page 1051-1052
            Page 1053-1054
            Page 1055-1056
            Page 1057-1058
            Page 1059-1060
            Page 1061-1062
        House of Lords - Tuesday, May 25
            Page 1063-1064
            Page 1065-1066
            Page 1067-1068
            Page 1069-1070
            Page 1071-1072
            Page 1073-1074
            Page 1061-1062
        House of Commons - Tuesday, May 25
            Page 1075-1076
            Page 1077-1078
            Page 1079-1080
            Page 1081-1082
            Page 1083-1084
            Page 1073-1074
            Page 1085-1086
            Page 1087-1088
            Page 1089-1090
            Page 1091-1092
            Page 1093-1094
            Page 1095-1096
            Page 1097-1098
            Page 1099-1100
            Page 1101-1102
            Page 1103-1104
            Page 1105-1106
            Page 1107-1108
            Page 1109-1110
            Page 1111-1112
            Page 1113-1114
            Page 1115-1116
        House of Lords - Wednesday, May 26
            Page 1117-1118
            Page 1119-1120
            Page 1121-1122
            Page 1123-1124
            Page 1125-1126
            Page 1127-1128
            Page 1115-1116
        House of Commons - Wednesday, May 26
            Page 1129-1130
            Page 1131-1132
            Page 1127-1128
        House of Lords - Thursday, May 27
            Page 1133-1134
            Page 1131-1132
            Page 1135-1136
            Page 1137-1138
            Page 1139-1140
        House of Commons - Thursday, May 27
            Page 1141-1142
            Page 1143-1144
            Page 1145-1146
            Page 1139-1140
            Page 1147-1148
            Page 1149-1150
            Page 1151-1152
            Page 1153-1154
            Page 1155-1156
            Page 1157-1158
            Page 1159-1160
            Page 1161-1162
            Page 1163-1164
            Page 1165-1166
            Page 1167-1168
            Page 1169-1170
            Page 1171-1172
            Page 1173-1174
            Page 1175-1176
            Page 1177-1178
            Page 1179-1180
            Page 1181-1182
            Page 1183-1184
            Page 1185-1186
            Page 1187-1188
        House of Lords - Friday, May 28
            Page 1189-1190
            Page 1191-1192
        House of Commons - Friday, May 28
            Page 1191-1192
            Page 1193-1194
            Page 1195-1196
            Page 1197-1198
            Page 1199-1200
            Page 1201-1202
            Page 1203-1204
            Page 1205-1206
            Page 1207-1208
            Page 1209-1210
            Page 1211-1212
            Page 1213-1214
            Page 1215-1216
            Page 1217-1218
            Page 1219-1220
            Page 1221-1222
            Page 1223-1224
            Page 1225-1226
            Page 1227-1228
            Page 1229-1230
            Page 1231-1232
            Page 1233-1234
            Page 1235-1236
            Page 1237-1238
            Page 1239-1240
            Page 1241-1242
            Page 1243-1244
            Page 1245-1246
            Page 1247-1248
            Page 1249-1250
            Page 1251-1252
            Page 1253-1254
            Page 1255-1256
        House of Lords - Friday, May 29
            Page 1255-1256
    June 1830
        House of Lords - Thursday, June 3
            Page 1257-1258
            Page 1255-1256
        House of Commons - Thursday, June 3
            Page 1257-1258
            Page 1259-1260
            Page 1261-1262
            Page 1263-1264
            Page 1265-1266
            Page 1267-1268
            Page 1269-1270
            Page 1271-1272
            Page 1273-1274
            Page 1275-1276
            Page 1277-1278
            Page 1279-1280
            Page 1281-1282
            Page 1283-1284
            Page 1285-1286
            Page 1287-1288
            Page 1289-1290
            Page 1291-1292
            Page 1293-1294
            Page 1295-1296
            Page 1297-1298
            Page 1299-1300
            Page 1301-1302
            Page 1303-1304
            Page 1305-1306
            Page 1307-1308
            Page 1309-1310
            Page 1311-1312
            Page 1313-1314
            Page 1315-1316
            Page 1317-1318
            Page 1319-1320
            Page 1321-1322
            Page 1323-1324
            Page 1325-1326
            Page 1327-1328
            Page 1329-1330
            Page 1331-1332
            Page 1333-1334
            Page 1335-1336
            Page 1337-1338
            Page 1339-1340
            Page 1341-1342
            Page 1343-1344
            Page 1345-1346
        House of Lords - Friday, June 4
            Page 1347-1348
            Page 1345-1346
        House of Commons - Friday, June 4
            Page 1347-1348
            Page 1349-1350
            Page 1351-1352
            Page 1353-1354
            Page 1355-1356
            Page 1357-1358
            Page 1359-1360
            Page 1361-1362
            Page 1363-1364
            Page 1365-1366
            Page 1367-1368
            Page 1369-1370
            Page 1371-1372
            Page 1373-1374
            Page 1375-1376
            Page 1377-1378
            Page 1379-1380
            Page 1381-1382
            Page 1383-1384
            Page 1385-1386
            Page 1387-1388
            Page 1389-1390
            Page 1391-1392
            Page 1393-1394
            Page 1395-1396
            Page 1397-1398
            Page 1399-1400
    Subjects of debate
        Index
    Members who have spoken in debate
        Index 1
        Index 2
        Index 3
        Index 4
Full Text




HANSARD'S



PARLIAMENTARY


DEBATES:


FORMING A CONTINUATION OF THE WORK ENTITLED

THE PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY OF ENGLAND,

FROM THE EARLIEST PERIOD TO THE YEAR 1803."




COMMENCING WITH TIE ACCESSION OF GEORGE IV,


VO L. XXIV.

COMPRISING THE PERIOD FROM

THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL,
TO

THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE, 1830.
[Xirtfr unalune of tfiTe gesion.]




LONDON:
Printed by T. C. HANSARD Pater-noster-Row,
FOR BALDWIN AND CRADOCK; J. BOOKER; LONGMAN, REES, ORME, AND CO.;
J. M. RICHARDSON; PARBURY, ALLEN, AND CO.; J. HATCHARD AND SON;
J. RIDGWAY; E. JEFFERY AND SON; J. RODWELL; CALKIN AND BUDD;
R. H. EVANS; J. BOOTH; AND T. C. HANSARD.
1830.















TABLE OF CONTENTS

TO

VOLUME XXIV.

NEW SERIES.



I. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF I1I. PETITIONS.
LORDS. IV. ADDRESSES.
II. DEBATES IN THE HousE or V. PETITIONS.
COMMONS. VI. LISTS.



I. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
1830. Page
Apr. 26. Increased Duty on Spirits ............................. 29
Pensions to Converted Priests............................ 30
East Retford Disfranchisement Bill ...................... 31
27. East Retford Disfranchisement Bill ...................... 68
28. Revenue of the See of London ........................ 122
29. State of the Country ................................ 214
Duty on Corn Spirits ................................. 217
East Retford Disfranchisement Bill ...................... 225
30. Greece ............................... ...... ...... 293
Terceira ............................................ 294
East Retford Disfranchisement Bill ...................... 294
May 3. East Retford Election Bill .............................. 322
.4. Hickson's Abduction and Marriage Dissolution Bill .......... 354
Church Reform .................................... 358
5. TaxonLeather...................................... 422
Sir T. Wilson's Estates Bill.............................. 423
Parish Registers-Scotland........................... 424
6. National Debt and Revenue............................. 428
10. Duty on British Spirits ............................... 498
Breach of Privilege .................................... 499
Tithe Composition Bill ................................ 499
11. Stamps onNewspapers-Ireland......................... 532







TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Page
May 11. Poor Laws for Ireland .................................. 533
Poor Lawsin England................................... 535
Hickson's Divorce Bill. ................................ 542
East Retford Disfranchisement Bill ...................... 543
12. British Spirits ........................................ 594
13. National Distress ..................................... 659
18. Greece .............................................. 815
21. Conscientious Scruples of the Military .................... 918
Suits in Equity Bill .................................... 919
24. King's Illness-Message from the Throne .................. 986
Greece .............................................. 989
Four-and-a-half per Cent Duties ........................ 998
East Retford Disfranchisement Bill ...................... 998
25. TheKing's Indisposition-Sign Manual ................... 1062
Conference with the Commons ......................... 1070
Four-and-a-half per Cent Duties.......................... 1070
26. Sovereignty of Greece ................................. 1116
Suits in Equity Bill.................................... 1123
27. Birmingham Grammar School ........................... 1131
His Majesty's Sign Manual Bill ......................... 1132
28. Russian Tariff ...................................... 1189
Papers relating to Greece .............................. 1189
Sign-M annual Bill .................................... 1191
June 3. Greece ............................................ 1256
4. Sir Jonah Barrington.................................. 1346
State of Business ................................. 1346



II. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Apr. 8. Publicans' Licenses ................................... 3
Navigation of the Rhine ............................... 4
Blockade of Prevesa .................................. 8
Land Tax............................ ........ .. ... 8
Distress ....... ..... ................................. 10
Stamp Duties ...................................... 10
Forgery ........................................ 11
Timber.............. ....... ...................... 14
Sale of Beer........................... ............. 15
Tobacco Duties ..................................... 26
26. Tobacco .................... ..................... 34
Death for Forgery ................................... 35
Madras Registrar's Bill .......................... .**** 37
Watching and Lighting Parishes Bill ..................... 38
Poor Laws Amendment Bill ............................. 38
Galway Franchise Bill Committee ........................ 54
Deserted Children (Ireland) Bill..................... .... 56
Usury Law Bill ................. ................... 56








TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Page
Apr. 26. Superannuated Allowances .............................. 64
27. Irish Protestant Church ................................ 70
Vestries in Ireland .................................... 83
Administration of Justice............................... 104
28. Law of Divorce ...................................... 124
Schedule of Taxation .................................. 125
Terceira ............................................ 126
29. London Bridge Approaches Bill .......................... 227
Insolvent Debtors...................................... 227
The Jews ........................................... 236
Stamp Duties on Newspapers .......................... 237
Corporation Fraud .................................... 238
Solicitor General of Ireland ............................ 240
Law Reforms ........................................ 243
30. Scotch Judicature .................................... 294
Conscientious Scruples of the Military .................... 298
M achinery .......................................... 303
Beer Trade .......................................... 304
Privy Council ........................ ............... 304
Committee of Supply-Ordnance Estimates ................ 305
May 3. Beer Bill ......................................... 323
Truck System ....................................... 325
Tax on Steam Carriages................................ 328
Forgery ............................................ 328
Committee of Supply .................................. 329
St. James's Park ...................................... 340
W indsor Castle ...................................... 347
Navy Pay Office ............................. ... ... 352
Continuance of Offices on the Demise of the Crown ........ 354
4. Emancipation of the Jews ............................. 375
Petition of Indo Britons ................................ 377
Beer Trade .......................................... 287
Law Relating to Forgery ............................... 389
Irish Constabulary Force.......................... ... 390
Catholic Charitable Bequests ............................ 394
Catholic Marriages .................................... 396
Beer Trade .......................................... 401
6. Sale of Beer Bill ...................................... 446
Stamps on Irish Newspapers ............................ 448
Road from Waterloo Bridge to the north side of the Metropolis. 450
Petition of the Ship-owners of London ................ 453
Conduct of Sir Jonah Barrington ........................ 484
Usury Laws................................ ......... 493
10. W aterloo Bridge ...................................... 502
Irish Stamp Duties ................................... 503
Business of Parliament ................................ 504
Greek Loan .......................................... 504
Supply ....... .... ......... ..... ................ 506








TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Page
May 10. Deserted Children (Ireland) Bill............................. 527
Demise of the Crown .................................. 530
11. Police Trials-Ireland................................ 545
Mr. Willis's Case.................... ................ 551
Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland ........................... 555
State of Newfoundland ............................... 580
Improvement in Chancery ............................. 593
Grand Canal-Ireland ................................. 593
12. Doneraile Conspiracy Conduct of the Solicitor General
Ireland................. ..... ................. 596
13. Mauritius Sugar and Slavery ............................ 672
Punishment of Death for Forgery ...................... 674
Interments in the Metropolis ........................... 680
Fluctuation of Employment among Manufacturers ............ 682
Tax on Coals ....................................... 696
HackneyCoaches.................................... 703
Apprentices ......... .. ........ ............. .......... 704
14. Stamp Duties-Ireland .............................. 707
Forgery ............................................ 708
Business of Parliament ................ ............... 709
Supply ......................................... 710
Emoluments of the Privy Council ........................... 731
17. Stamps-Ireland .................................... 760
Transmission of Bullion ................................ 762
National Distress ..................................... 764
Poor Laws-Ireland ................................. 766
Petitions in favour of the Jews ............ .......... 767
Petition in favour of the Jews ................... ..... 769
The Mauritius ..................... .................. 774
Parliamentary Reform-Birmingham Petition .............. 774
Bill for the Removal of Jewish Disabilities.................. 784
18. Tithes ............ .............................. 818
Imprisonment for Debt-Libel Law ........................ 826
West Indies ......................................... 829
Distress ......................................... 830
Case of James Kelly ..............................R,.... 830
Borris-o'-kane Trials ............................... 831
Business of the Session ...... ...... ....... ........... 831
British West India Colonies......................, ...... 834
First Fruits-Ireland ............................... 838
Court of Chancery ................................. 859
Frauds in Canal Subscriptions ....................**...*** 859
Forestof Dean........................................ 863
King's Message-Administration of Justice ................ 864
19. Irish Constabulary Force.............................. 866
Judges of Wales.................................... 868
20. Irish Constabulary Force .............................. 869
Algiers.. ....,, ,,, ..,, ,,. ,, .... ,,, ,,,, ,, ......... 871







TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Page
May 20. Mexico.... ........ .............................. .... 875
Frauds in Soliciting Private Bills ....................... 907
21. Committee of Supply-Four-and-a-half per cent Duties ...... 922
Miscellaneous Estimates-Milbank Penitentiary ............ 938
Sale of Beer Bill .................... ...... ............ 951
22. Sir Jonah Barrington ................................ 965
Breach of Privilege ................................. 979
Irish and Scotch Paupers............ ........... ....... 1000
The King's Illness-Message from the Throne .............. 1001
Greece ....................... .................. 1002
The Cape of Good Hope ................................. 1005
24. Forgery ............................... ..... ...... 1014
Four-and-a-half per Cent Duties.................. ....... 1015
Mexico..................................... ........ 1017
Supply ............................................. 1029
Forgeries' Punishment Bill.................. .......... 1031
25. Profanation of the Sabbath... ..... .................... 1037
Sir Jonah Barrington ................................ 1075
Duty on Lead ........................................... 1083
Dramatic Censorship .................................. 1085
Canada ..................... .... .... ........ ..... 1093
Tobacco Manufacturers .............................. 1111
Galway Franchise Bill................................ 1115
26. Liabilities of Stage-Coach Proprietors ................... 1128
Paupers (Scotch) and Irish Removal Bill .................. 1129
27. Office of Registrar of Deeds-Ireland...................... 1141
Interference of the Military at Rye........................ 1142
Scotch Judicature ................................... 1145
Duties on Soap and Candles-Ireland .................... 1146
The Royal Sign-Manual Bill ........;.................. 1148
Island of Ceylon .................................... 1155
Court of Chancery .................................. 1171
Administration of Justice Bill........................... 1172
28. Perth Navigation.................................... 1191
Clyde Navigation Bill ................................ 1192
Greece .............. ...... ..... ........... ........ 1193
The Royal Sign-Manual Bill ........................... 1193
Court of Session Bill ................................. 1195
Stamp Duties-Ireland ............................... 1196
New Police ......................... .................. 1199
Fisheries ............................................ 1201
Small Debts Courts.................................... 1202
AssessedTaxes ..................... ............ 1202
Freedom of the City.................................... 1204
Parliamentary Reform by Universal Suffrage ............ ,.. 1204
Northern Roads Bill ................................... 1256
June 3, Imprisonment for Debt........................ ...... 1258
Irish Vestry Act ,,,, ........ ....,,,,,,,. .. 1259







TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Page
June 3. Law of Divorce ....................................... 1260
Poor Laws for Ireland ................................ 1294
Sale of Beer Bill .................................... 1333
Northern Roads Bill.................................. 1335
4. New Street from Waterloo Bridge ...................... 1348
Scotch and Irish Vagrants ............................ 1351
Abolition of Suttees ................................... 1355
Ways and Means ..................................... 1356
Four-and-a-half per Cent Duties........................ 1356
Committee of Supply-Mint Coinage ..................... 1361
Law Expensesof the Crown ............................. 1368
Sale of Beer ........................................ 1398


III. KING'S MESSAGES.

May 24. MESSAGE from the Throne informing the House of his Majesty's
Illness-House of Lords ............................ 986
Message from the Throne, informing the House of his Majesty's
Illness-House of Commons......................... 1001


IV. ADDRESSES.

May 24. ADDRESS to the King on the Message from the Throne
respecting his Majesty's Illness, from the House of Lords.... 987
Address to the King on the Message from the Throne respecting
his Majesty's Illness, from the House of Commons ........ 1001



V. PETITIONS.

May 24. PETITION from the Bankers of many towns against the Punish-
ment of Death for Forgery .......................... 999


VI. LISTS.

Apr. 27. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Vestries
in Ireland Bill .................................. 104
28. of the Minority in the House of Commons, on the Affair at
Terceira ...................................... 213
30. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Ord-
nance Estimates ............................... 313
May 3. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Commit-
tee of Supply-St. James's Park.................... 345
4, -- of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Beer
Trade., ,, ,,,,, ,o* t ,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,, .... 422







TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Page
10. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Com-
mittee of Supply .............................. 526
11. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Debate
on the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland................. 579
of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the State of
Newfoundland ................................ 593
12. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Debate
on the Doneraile Conspiracy, and the conduct of the
Solicitor General for Ireland ..................... 659
13. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Debate
on the Tax on Coals ............................ 702
14. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Debate
respecting the Emoluments of the Privy Council ...... 757
18. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, respecting the
First Fruits-Ireland ............................ 858
21. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Com-
mittee of Supply, and four-and-a-half per Cent Duties.. 937
24. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the For-
geries Punishment Bill......................... 1060
25. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Civil
Government of Canada: .......................... 1111
of the Minority, in the House of Commons on the Galway
Franchise Bill ................................ 1116
27. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Admi-
nistration of the Island of Ceylon ................. 1171
28. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Parliamen-
tary Reform, by Universal Suffrage ................ 1254
-- of the Minority in the House of Commons, on Lord J.
Russell's Motion on the same subject ................ 1255
June 3. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Law of
Divorce ........ ............. ..................... 1293














HANSARD'S




Parliamentary Debates



During the FOURTH SESSION of the EIGHTH PARLIAMENT

of the United Kingdom of GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND,

appointed to meet at Westminster the 4th of February,

1830, in the Eleventh Year of the Reign of His Majesty


GEORGE THE FOURTH.

[bitti Volume of tfie tssimon.


HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, April 8, 1830.
MrturaEs. The Royal Assent was given by Commission to
the Officers' Indemnity Bill, the Smugglers' Families Bill,
the County Palatine of Durham Bill, and several pri-
vate Bills. The Tanjore Commissioners' Bill was read a
third time and passed. The Earl of SHAFrESBURY laid
on the Table Reports of the Irish Ecclesiastical Courts'
Commissioners, and of the Irish Charities' Commissioners.
Sir A. GRANT and others from the Commons brought up
the Four-per-Cents Bill, the East Retford Witnesses'
Indemnity Bill, the Haymarket Removal Bill, and some
Private Bills.
Returns presented. An Annual Account of Superannuation
Allowances:-An Account of Foreign and Colonial Wheat
remaining under Bond on January 5, 1828, the Quantity
entered for Home-consumption, the Quantityre-exported,
and the Quantity remaining under Bond on January 5,
1850:-An Account of Wheat imported into Liverpool
from Ireland or Coastwise, from July 5, 1828, to Jan. 5,
1830:-An Account of all Sums expended on Surveys for
the Roads between London and Edinburgh, and London
and Portpatrick:-An Account of Pensions and Salaries
granted by the Company during the period therein men-
tioned.
Lord STRATHALLAN laid on the Table a Second Report of
Evidence taken before the East India Committee- Order-
ed to be Printed.
Petitions presented. By Lord CALTHORPE, from the Females
of Blackburn, and two Congregations of Protestant Dis-
Ssenters of Blackburn, against Suttees. By Lord HoL-
LAND, from the Inhabitants of Wobun, praying for the
Revision of the Criminal Code.


HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Thursday, April 8.
MINUTEs.] On the Motion of the CHANCELLOR OF THE
ExCHEQUEn it was ordered that the House at its rising
should Adjourn to Monday, April 26th.
Returns ordered. The Amount of Profit or Loss arising
from the Manufacture of Small Arms, Gunpowder, &e. for
the use of his Majesty's Service:-Of the Amount of
VOL. XXIV. {w.s.}


Revenue transmitted from Scotland, and the Per-centage
charged:-The whole Amount paid as Salaries of Civil
Officers, above 601. a year, at New South Wales :-Copies
of the Correspondence relative to granting Compensation
in J 824 to the Collectors of Customs at Liverpool, Belfast,
Cork, and Dublin, for the loss they sustained by the
change in the method of remitting Public Money:-The
number of Resident Jesuits and Members of Religious
Orders registered in Ireland:-The Amount of Lay-tithes
in Ireland:-Account ofMachinery exportedduring the last
Six Years:-Of all the Tobacco imported from Ireland
since 1828:-Of the number of Yards of Calico Dyed
during the last Three Years:-Of the number of Gallons
of Rum imported into Great Britain and Ireland since
1826, the Quantity exported, and the Quantity remaining
in Bond :-Copy of the Memorial presented to the Lords
of the Treasury from the Distillers of Scotland, England,
and Ireland, with any Report made thereon by the Com-
missioners of Excise:-The number of Bankrupt Cases
decided by the Lord Chancellor and Master of the Rolls
during the last Six Years:-On the Motion of Mr. FOWELL
BuxroN, of the number of Persons executed for Forgery
during the last Ten Years:-On the Motion of Mr.
KEITH DOUGLAS, the Duties levied on the produce of our
Colonies, with the Quantities imported and exported,
distinguishing the Colonies:-And on the Motion of Mr.
HuME, of the number of Acres of Land under Cultivation
in Ireland.
An Address was ordered to be presented to his Majesty to ob-
tain Copies of certain Letters written in March, 1827, re-
lative to the Expenditure of the island of Ceylon, the
Mauritius, and the Cape of Good Hope.
Returns presented. The number of Justices of the Peace
in each County of Scotland:--The number of Bankrupts
in every Month from January, 1825, to February, 1850:-
Copy of Letter from the Secretary of State addressed to the
Public Offices, recommending the use of Machinery in
Sweeping Chimnies.
Petitions presented. By Mr. CHARLEs CALCRAFT, from
Mary Anne Lloyd, complaining that she had been de-
frauded by what were called Poyais Bonds, and praying
the House to institute an inquiry into that scheme of
fraud. By Mr. WILMor HonTON, from the Manufac-
turers and others of Newcastle-under-Lyne, against the
renewal of the East India Company's Charter:-By Mr.
Hums, with the same prayer, from tile Incorporated
B














HANSARD'S




Parliamentary Debates



During the FOURTH SESSION of the EIGHTH PARLIAMENT

of the United Kingdom of GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND,

appointed to meet at Westminster the 4th of February,

1830, in the Eleventh Year of the Reign of His Majesty


GEORGE THE FOURTH.

[bitti Volume of tfie tssimon.


HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, April 8, 1830.
MrturaEs. The Royal Assent was given by Commission to
the Officers' Indemnity Bill, the Smugglers' Families Bill,
the County Palatine of Durham Bill, and several pri-
vate Bills. The Tanjore Commissioners' Bill was read a
third time and passed. The Earl of SHAFrESBURY laid
on the Table Reports of the Irish Ecclesiastical Courts'
Commissioners, and of the Irish Charities' Commissioners.
Sir A. GRANT and others from the Commons brought up
the Four-per-Cents Bill, the East Retford Witnesses'
Indemnity Bill, the Haymarket Removal Bill, and some
Private Bills.
Returns presented. An Annual Account of Superannuation
Allowances:-An Account of Foreign and Colonial Wheat
remaining under Bond on January 5, 1828, the Quantity
entered for Home-consumption, the Quantityre-exported,
and the Quantity remaining under Bond on January 5,
1850:-An Account of Wheat imported into Liverpool
from Ireland or Coastwise, from July 5, 1828, to Jan. 5,
1830:-An Account of all Sums expended on Surveys for
the Roads between London and Edinburgh, and London
and Portpatrick:-An Account of Pensions and Salaries
granted by the Company during the period therein men-
tioned.
Lord STRATHALLAN laid on the Table a Second Report of
Evidence taken before the East India Committee- Order-
ed to be Printed.
Petitions presented. By Lord CALTHORPE, from the Females
of Blackburn, and two Congregations of Protestant Dis-
Ssenters of Blackburn, against Suttees. By Lord HoL-
LAND, from the Inhabitants of Wobun, praying for the
Revision of the Criminal Code.


HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Thursday, April 8.
MINUTEs.] On the Motion of the CHANCELLOR OF THE
ExCHEQUEn it was ordered that the House at its rising
should Adjourn to Monday, April 26th.
Returns ordered. The Amount of Profit or Loss arising
from the Manufacture of Small Arms, Gunpowder, &e. for
the use of his Majesty's Service:-Of the Amount of
VOL. XXIV. {w.s.}


Revenue transmitted from Scotland, and the Per-centage
charged:-The whole Amount paid as Salaries of Civil
Officers, above 601. a year, at New South Wales :-Copies
of the Correspondence relative to granting Compensation
in J 824 to the Collectors of Customs at Liverpool, Belfast,
Cork, and Dublin, for the loss they sustained by the
change in the method of remitting Public Money:-The
number of Resident Jesuits and Members of Religious
Orders registered in Ireland:-The Amount of Lay-tithes
in Ireland:-Account ofMachinery exportedduring the last
Six Years:-Of all the Tobacco imported from Ireland
since 1828:-Of the number of Yards of Calico Dyed
during the last Three Years:-Of the number of Gallons
of Rum imported into Great Britain and Ireland since
1826, the Quantity exported, and the Quantity remaining
in Bond :-Copy of the Memorial presented to the Lords
of the Treasury from the Distillers of Scotland, England,
and Ireland, with any Report made thereon by the Com-
missioners of Excise:-The number of Bankrupt Cases
decided by the Lord Chancellor and Master of the Rolls
during the last Six Years:-On the Motion of Mr. FOWELL
BuxroN, of the number of Persons executed for Forgery
during the last Ten Years:-On the Motion of Mr.
KEITH DOUGLAS, the Duties levied on the produce of our
Colonies, with the Quantities imported and exported,
distinguishing the Colonies:-And on the Motion of Mr.
HuME, of the number of Acres of Land under Cultivation
in Ireland.
An Address was ordered to be presented to his Majesty to ob-
tain Copies of certain Letters written in March, 1827, re-
lative to the Expenditure of the island of Ceylon, the
Mauritius, and the Cape of Good Hope.
Returns presented. The number of Justices of the Peace
in each County of Scotland:--The number of Bankrupts
in every Month from January, 1825, to February, 1850:-
Copy of Letter from the Secretary of State addressed to the
Public Offices, recommending the use of Machinery in
Sweeping Chimnies.
Petitions presented. By Mr. CHARLEs CALCRAFT, from
Mary Anne Lloyd, complaining that she had been de-
frauded by what were called Poyais Bonds, and praying
the House to institute an inquiry into that scheme of
fraud. By Mr. WILMor HonTON, from the Manufac-
turers and others of Newcastle-under-Lyne, against the
renewal of the East India Company's Charter:-By Mr.
Hums, with the same prayer, from tile Incorporated
B








{COMMONS} Navigation of the Rhine. 4


Trades of Arbroath:-By Mr. KEITH DOUGLAS, from
the Burgesses of Pollockshaws, with the same prayer.
By Sir JAMEs GRAHAM, from the Inhabitants of White-
haven and Cockermouth, against the employment of
Climbing Boys. By Lord CLIVE, from the High Sheriff
and Grand Jury of the County of Montgomery, against
any alteration in the Welsh Judicature. By Mr. DIcKEN-
SOn, from the Licenced Victuallers of Frome Selwood,
against throwing open the Trade in Beer. For the aboli-
tion of the Punishment of Death in cases of Forgery, by
Mr. FOWELL BUXTON, from the Inhabitants oftheLiberty
of the Tower:-By Mr. F. BARINO, from the Inhabitants
of Portsmouth. By Mr. MARSHALL, from the Inhabi-
tants of Craven (Yorkshire), praying for a Duty on the
importation of Foreign Lead. By Mr. SPRING RICs,
from the Grand Jury of the County of Galway, for ex-
tending the Corporate Franchise of Galway to the Catholic
Inhabitants. And by Mr. RAMSDEN, from the Clergy,
Gentry, and other Inhabitants of Wakefield, for the As-
sizes to be held in that Town.

PUBLICANS LICENSES.] Mr. Sadler,
in presenting a Petition from the Licensed
Victuallers of Sutton in Ashfield cum
Stuckwall under Huthwait, and other
places against the proposed alteration of
the Licensing System observed, that the
subject was of great importance, both as
affecting a large body of respectable
tradesmen, who, shaping their operations
by the existing law had invested consider-
able capitals in their business, and the
public at large. He was opposed to the
co ntemplated alteration because he thought,
whatever evils might result from the pre-
sent system, they were susceptible of
being remedied without inflicting an inju-
ry on a large class of industrious men.
The alteration proposed would, if carried
into effect, instantly deteriorate the pro-
perty of all Licensed Victuallers, many of
whom had paid large sums for their busi-
ness, while many of them had made that
business by many years of uninterrupted
labour, and unintermitted care. The pe-
titioners also say, which in his opinion
was well worthy of the attention of the
House, that under the present mode of
granting licenses, the magistrates exer-
cise a salutary control over this class of
tradesmen, and over the management
of their houses and business, which is in
the highest degree useful to the public.
Its moral advantages were great, and they
would be entirely thrown away if every
man, on the payment of a trifling sum of
money, be entitled to a license as a matter
of course. He felt grateful, and was anx-
ious to express his gratitude to the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer for the remission
of taxation already granted, but he beg-
ged leave to suggest to him that it would
be far better to repeal the Malt than the
Beer duties, which encourage domestic


consumption, and the home-brewing of
the cottager. He earnestly called the at-
tention of the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer to this subject, and hoped that right
hon. Gentleman would not think it too
late to revise his contemplated alterations
respecting the Licensing System and the
Duty on Beer.
Petition to be printed.

NAVIGATION OF THE RHINE.] Mr.
Charles Grant said, he wished to take
that opportunity to ask his right hon.
friend, the Secretary for the Home De-
partment, a question or two, which con-
cerned not only the faith of treaties, but
the commercial interests of this country.
It was well known that the Treaty of
Vienna, concluded in 1815, contained
certain stipulations concerning the navi-
gation of rivers. Amongst the Acts which
formed part of the Treaty, the Sixteenth re-
lated expressly to this subject, and contain-
ed several stipulations with regard to the
Navigation of the Rhine. He would take
the liberty of reading the beginning of the
first Article, which was quite explicit:-
The Navigation of the Rhine, from its
source to the sea, shall be entirely free
for all, on the payment merely of the dues
which shall be necessary for preserving the
police of the river." By these words all
the Powers of Europe were entitled to the
free navigation of that river. No vessels
whatever were to be excluded, nor any du-
tieslevied, except such aswere necessary for
keeping up the police. The King of the
Netherlands, however, had resisted that
construction of the treaty, and had ex-
cluded all vessels from the navigation of
the Rhine, by prohibitory duties, except
vessels belonging to the Netherlands. In
consequence of his conduct, a great deal of
discussion had ensued, which was ex-
tremely interesting; but notwithstanding
that, and notwithstanding the treaty of
1815, the navigation of the Rhine was
still closed, except to the subjects of the
Netherlands. The Treaty of Vienna had
not, therefore, been carried into effect,
which was a serious subject, calling for the
attention of his Majesty's Ministers. The
event had recently received a considerable
accession of interest. About a year ago some
of the Continental Powers resolved to
make a common appeal to all Europe, and
in this it was expected that England
would take a prominent part. When he
quitted office in 1828, he was persuaded


3 Publicans L~icenses,








5 Navigation of


that such a united appeal would be made,
and he expected, that it would be success-
ful. It appeared, however, that in 1829
a treaty had been concluded by the Powers
more immediately connected with the
Rhine, excluding all but themselves, mak-
ing no mention of England, and taking ex-
clusively to themselves all the benefits of
the Treaty of Vienna. The treaty these
Powers had lately concluded secured the
free and open navigation of the Rhine to
vessels belonging to the States bordering
on that river, though it was not yet, he
believed, carried into effect, because
France being somewhat jealous on the
subject had not yet ratified it. It was
understood on the Continent, however,
and publicly announced, that France had
only deferred the ratification, and that the
treaty would speedily be carried into ex-
ecution. In its effects it would give to
those Powers the right stipulated for in
the Treaty of Vienna, and England would
be left out. Under these circumstances,
he thought himself entitled to put some
questions to his right hon. friend. He
would first beg leave to ask if any official
communication had been made to our
Government of the conclusion of this
treaty by the Powers bordering on the
river? His second question was, when
this treaty was communicated to his Ma-
jesty's Government, would there be any ob-
jection to lay it on the Table of the House,
as it was a matter of such importance
that the House ought to be made ac-
quainted with it? Thirdly, he wished to
ask if there were any measures now in
progress for securing to this country the
rights which were stipulated for by the
Treaty of Vienna ? He believed, accord-
ing to the information he had received,
there were now negotiations pending, to
obtain the opening of the Navigation of
the Rhine.
Mr. Secretary Peel stated, that he was
willing to follow the example of his right
hon. friend, and give a short explanation
as well as an answer. In 1815, a treaty
was made at Vienna, which he thought,
and in this he concurred with his right
hon. friend, and all his predecessors in
office, intended that the navigation of the
Rhine should be open to all nations. A
doubt, however, had arisen as to the
meaning of the treaty, which was drawn
up originally, he believed, in German, and
not in French, and the King of the Ne-
therlands contended that the words of the


original treaty did not bear the significa-
tion other parties had assigned to them.
What might be the meaning of the original
treaty in German he would not decide,
but looking at it as it was expressed in
French, he had no doubt that it was
meant to open the navigation of the Rhine
to all nations. The words were, that the
navigation shall be free-jusqu' d la mer.
The government of the Netherlands inter-
preted this to mean as far as the sea, and
not into the sea; which was not, he
thought, a very good argument. Another
difficulty had been raised concerning the
channel of the Rhine, connecting it with
the sea-whether it were the Waale, or
the Leek exclusively; and the King of
the Netherlands was disposed to deter-
mine that it was the Leek exclusively.
If that were the case, as the Leek was not
navigable for sea-going vessels, nor acces-
sible at all times, it would so limit the na-
vigation of the river, as to render it almost
useless. England, he admitted, above all
other nations, was interested in having the
navigation of the Rhine free, or subject
only to such very moderate duties as were
sufficient to maintain the police of the
river, keeping the towing-path in order,
&c. His right hon. friend, after having
stated the case, had asked if the naviga-
tion were not closed to all but those hav-
ing a concurrent interest in the river ? He
had asked whether there had not been
a treaty lately signed by the Conti-
nental Powers bordering on the Rhine?
and he had also asked whether or not this
treaty would be communicated to Parlia-
ment when it was ratified ? As he under-
stood the subject, it was somewhat differ-
ent from the case as stated by his right
hon. friend. There were assembled at
Mayence,commissioners from all the States
bordering on the Rhine, constituting what
was called the Central Commission, which
represented all these States, and no treaty
had been entered into between them and
the King of the Netherlands. There was,
indeed, a project of a convention between
Prussia and the Netherlands, which had
been communicated to the Central Com-
mission, which had not stated that it
would accept this project. When the
treaty was concluded and ratified, there
was no doubt it would be communicated
formally to his Majesty's Government,
and when communicated, he had no doubt
it would be laid before the House. He
Could not pledge himself, as the treaty
B2


{APRIT 8s}


the Rhine. 6








7 The Rhine.


was not ratified, as to what would be
the course pursued by his Majesty's Go-
vernment. France, he believed, had
some objection to the treaty; but he
could have no doubt that when it appear-
ed, England would claim her full share of
the advantages. England was not pre-
pared to acquiesce in any system for
granting exclusive commercial privileges ;
she had signified to those Powers that
they were not to prejudice her interests
by their treaties, and that she should urge
her rights according to the treaty of 1815.
In the present state of the case, England
claimed a free traffic, and declared, that
till the treaty was ratified she would not
consider her claims in any wayprejudiced.
In whatever view it might be ratified,
England would not consent to any such
exclusive scheme. He agreed with his
right hon. friend that the interests of the
commercial world ought not to be over-
looked; and he was sure that his Majes-
ty's Government was deeply alive to every
measure which affected the commercial
interests of this country.
Mr. C. Grant said, that the convention
between Prussia and the Netherlands,
mentioned by his right hon. friend, was
different from what he described it to be.
The project, which he had seen in a Ger-
man Paper, for December, was entered
into by Prussia, Bavaria, France, Hesse,
Nassau, and the Netherlands. It was not
merely a convention between Prussia and
the Netherlands, but an agreement enter-
ed into between all the parties. That was
the general impression concerning it.
When the treaty was carried into opera-
tion, England would be unable to claim
any privileges under it, as it related solely
to the Powers who were parties to it.
The treaty, as he understood it, was so
exclusive, that vessels from Baltic-Prussia
were not to enter the Rhine, the naviga-
tion of which was to be confined to the
vessels of the Powers seated on its banks.
Undef the treaty, England would have no
privileges whatever.
Mr. Secretary Peel replied, that he had
stated what was, he believed, correct.
He believed the project was only for a con-
vention between Prussia and the Nether-
lands. Prussia was the party most in-
terested. The Central Commission con-
sisted of a delegate from each State situa-
ted on the borders of the Rhine ; and that
commission had never consented to the
convention entered into between Prussia


and the Netherlands. The Powers con-
cerned had the convention under con-
sideration; but what opinion they would
form, it was impossible to say. He be-
lieved that the project was formed on the
principles of the treaty of 1815, which
certainly his Majesty's Government would
not lose sight of. England would not
relinquish her claims, and when the
treaty was ratified would not forget
to urge them. He supposed that the
case would be amicably arranged; but
whatever might be the result, England
would claim all the benefit which she
had a right to. It might perhaps be
satisfactory to his right hon. friend to
know that an English vessel had proceed-
ed up the Rhine with a cargo, which had
been delivered at Cologne.
Mr. C. Grant knew that an English
vessel had proceeded up the Rhine, but
be also knew that there was no disposition
to repeat the voyage. The duties levied
on her were so enormous, that they de-
stroyed all profit, and no other vessel
would make the same experiment.
Mr. Secretary Peel said, the Govern-
ment would protest as strongly against
prohibitory duties as against actual prohi-
bition.

BLOCKADE OF PREVESA.] Dr. Philli-
more took the opportunity to express a
hope that the papers respecting the state
of the negotiations on the subject of
Greece, which were shortly to be laid on
the Table of the House, would contain a
satisfactory explanation of the cause of
the Blockade of Prevesa, and those other
events which were now so much a matter
of conjecture. The imputation that Great
Britain had been guilty of a violation of
that law acknowledged throughout Europe,
and which she had expended so much
blood and treasure to uphold, ought to be
removed.
Mr. Secretary Peel said, that the papers
would contain a full statement of the pro-
gress of the negotiations, but it should be
understood there were circumstances
such as the existence of an armistice be-
tween the parties, which would take the
case alluded to by the learned Gentleman
somewhat out of the ordinary law of na-
tions.

LAND TAX.] Mr. Hobhouse, in present-
ing a Petition from the Parish of St. Paul,
Covent-Garden, against the unjust and


f COMMONS


Land Tax.







Stamp Duties. 10


unequal method of imposing the Land-tax,
took occasion to observe, that the parish of
St.Paul actually paid a Land-tax of 2s. 4d.
in the pound, while the rich and populous
parish ofMary-la-bonne paid only three
farthings in the pound, and the extensive
parish of St. Pancras not more than 2d. in
the pound. In order to show how unequally
the Land-tax was imposed in particular
districts, he would take leave to read a
short account of the sums levied in differ-
ent places, lying, in some cases, in
the immediate neighbourhood of each
other. In the whole of the City of West-
minster the sum collected yearly on ac-
count of Land-tax was 63,0001. In the
county of Sussex, with the exception of
one or two of the Cinque Ports, but in-
cluding Brighton, Lewes, and Chichester,
the sum was 57,5601. In Lancashire, in-
cluding Liverpool and Lancaster, the sum
was only 20,9891. In the city of London
the amount collected was, however,
123,0001. In the Town of Rye the sum
was 4731., while in the Town of Hastings,
which was treble the size, the sum was
only 3781. In the city of Bath the sum was
4331. 6s., while in Winchelsea, where
there were not more than sixty or seventy
inhabited Houses, the sum was 4051.
After observing that the parish of St.
Andrew, Holborn, was rated at the sum
of Is. 2d, in the pound, and commenting
on the hardship inflicted on that parish,
and on St. Paul's, Covent-garden, the
hon. Member proceeded to say, that the
whole sum redeemed under the plan of
Mr. Pitt was only 713,0001. while the
amount remaining was only 1,263,0001.
a-year. He thought it would be very
easy to deal with this sum if the Govern-
ment were disposed to do so, and that
a tax of 2s. in the pound would produce
3,000,0001. to the State, while 4s. produced
little more than 1,000,0001. He trusted
that, if the present Session had too much
business before it to allow the Government
an opportunity of dealing with the sub-
ject now, that it would be brought forward
at an early period of the next Session,
and some relief afforded to the petitioners.
The Petition to be printed.
Mr. Hume was of opinion that the
Parliament ought not to interfere in this
case. In many places the Land-tax had
been redeemed, and the House had no
right, after one person had redeemed his
share of the Tax, to call on him to pay a part
of his neighbour's sharewho may not have


had the prudence or the power to relieve
himself.
Mr. Hobhouse alluded only to the unre-
deemed Land-tax ; in his opinion, Parlia-
ment ought to consider whether or not some
more equitable mode of raising the unre-
deemed Land-tax could be adopted.

DISTRESS.] Lord Stanley presented a
Petition from the inhabitants of Hasting-
den, in the county of Lincoln, the pur-
port of which he was sorry to say was to
represent to the House the great and
general Distress which prevailed in that
part of the country. Many persons the
petitioners represented, had been reduced,
by no fault of their own, from compara-
tive wealth and happiness to poverty and
destitution. They prayed for a reduction
of taxation; but they stated that there was
no way of relieving the Distress except
the wages of labour were raised, or the
price of the necessaries of life much re-
duced. The petitioners did not look for
any rise in wages, owing to the continued
increase of machinery; and therefore they
thoughtthat theGovernmentwasimperious-
ly called on to make a large reduction of tax-
ation so as to reducethepriceof the necessa-
ries of life. The clergyman whohad forward-
ed the Petition to him had assured him
that the distress of the petitioners was not
exaggerated, and that although they had al-
ways borne their misfortunes with patience,
they had been in a better humour with Go-
vernment than before, since it had shewn a
disposition to diminish taxation. When
his Majesty's Government was thus in-
formed that reduction of taxation, both
relieved distress and strengthened loyalty,
he trusted thatit would go on in the same
wise course, and follow up the reductions
of this year by still greater reductions
hereafter.
Petition to lie on the Table.

STAMP DUTIES.] Mr. Hume, in pre-
senting a Petition from the Provost and
Magistracy of Brechin, complaining of
the Stamp Duties on Inventories, said, that
this was the ninth or tenth Petition he had
presented during the last three years on
the same subject. Nothing could be
more vexatious than the manner in which
these duties were levied in Scotland, for
'they took an inventory of every article of a
deceased person, even to a night-cap and
that, too, before the body was rer ,ved
from the house, if the property am(' ited


9 Land Tax.


{ApnRIL 8}







Forgery. 12


to more than 201. He thought the sum
should be fixed at 1001., and he pressed
the subject on the attention of Govern-
ment. Thepetitionersalsocomplainedof the
unequal manner in which the Stamp Du-
ties operated in respect to mortgages, the
Stamp being 35s., whether the mortgage
were for 501. or 50,0001. He concurred also
in this part of the petitioners prayer, and
hoped that in the new arrangement of the
Stamp Duties, the subject would be taken
into consideration.
Mr. Stewart saw no reason whatever,
for continuing the vexatious Inventory tax,
which to the people of Scotland was irk-
some beyond description, and of which
they particularly complained, because they
only were subject to it. They had long
desired to be placed in this respect on the
same footing as the inhabitants of Eng-
land. He had been particularly requested
by the people of the north to enforce this
view on the attention of the Government,
and took that opportunity therefore of
doing so.

FORGERY.] Mr. Lennard presented a
Petition from the Bankers, Merchants, and
other inhabitants of Woodbridge, in the
County of Suffolk, praying for the aboli-
tion of the punishment of death for the
crime of Forgery. The hon. Member ob-
served, that the Petition was most respect-
ably signed ; that the circumstance of its
being signed by the bankers of the place
was one deserving of the attention of the
right hon. Secretary of State, and of the
House. He knew that the feeling on this
subject entertained by the bankers of
Woodbridge was very general among
bankers throughout the country, and he
hoped that the same feeling would be
evinced by the London bankers. He
trusted that the time was approaching
when the punishment of death for any de-
scription of Forgery would be expunged
from our penal code.
Mr. Trant said, that he knew a respect-
able banker, who having several years ago
been obliged to prosecute an individual for
Forgery, and having failed, after a convic-
tion had taken place, in his efforts to save
the life of the prisoner, he declared that
henceforward nothing should induce him
to institute a similar prosecution, and that
he would rather lose his entire fortune than
be the means of taking away the life of
any man for such an offence. This banker
also told him that such were the sentiments


of several other bankers, and that it was
the general opinion of that class of per-
sons, who were most interested in the
question, that the punishment of death
ought to be removed from the Statute-book
in all cases of Forgery. His own opinion
was, that the measure introduced by the
right hon. Gentleman opposite would not
give general satisfaction unless it went
that length.
Mr. F. Buxton said, that he had re-
ceived two letters on the subject-extracts
from which he would take the liberty of
reading to the House. The first was from
a highly respectable clergyman at Glasgow,
where a petition had been prepared, signed
by all the bankers and respectable mer-
chants in that city, praying for the aboli-
tion of the punishment of death for
Forgery. The words of his correspondent
were:-" The bankers, to a man, have
been favourable; I am given to understand
that there is scarcely a banker in town (if,
indeed, there be even one), who has not
been in circumstances in which he has
forborne to prosecute rather than expose
the offender to the certainty, or even the
risk of death; and this forbearance has
been exercised sometimes in.circumstances
of an aggravated nature." The other
letter to which he alluded was from a
banker at Newcastle. The writer said,
" I now wish to offer you my testimony on
the subject of Forgery, in confirmation of
your sentiments expressed in the House.
My mind has long been distressed with
the present law. I gladly embraced the
first opportunity to do what I could for its
alteration, and lately took some pains in
forwarding a petition from here, praying
that in all cases the penalty should be
short of the forfeiture of life. The lead-
ing partners of the banks in this town
signed it, under the practical conviction
that the severity of the law was not a pro-
tection to us, but tended to increase the
crime. I also called on our principal
merchants, who concurred in the same
sentiments, and signed it. This opinion
maybe said to be universal in this district."
He (Mr. F. Buxton) objected to the punish-
ment of death for Forgery, on the grounds
stated in his correspondent's letter, and he
also objected to it on higher grounds. He
thought the legislature had no right to
take away the life of any man for an
offence against property. He was sure
that a strong wish existed among the
bankers, and other respectable classes of


{COMMONS}


Forgery.







13 Forgery.


the community, throughout the country,
to see the law altered in that respect.
Mr. Warburton expressed his conviction,
that a general impression existed through-
out the country that the punishment of
death for Forgery ought to be abolished.
With respect to protection against the
crime, the late alteration in the law, by
which a person on whom Forgery was
committed was permitted to be a witness
in the case, afforded an incalculably greater
protection against the crime than any
severity of punishment. He was sure
that public opinion would go with the
right hon. Gentleman if he were to abolish
the punishment of death altogether.
The Petition to be printed.
Mr. Western rose to present a Petition
from the Bankers and Inhabitants of the
Town of Witham, in Essex, praying that
the punishment of death in cases of Forgery
might be abolished. He was able to say,
having presented several petitions on this
subject, that a great body of his consti-
tuents were averse to the punishment of
death for this crime, and wished to see it
abolished. He concurred with them in
thinking that it ought to be abolished for
the crime of Forgery ; but he went further,
and thought that there were many other
cases in which it was now improperly in-
flicted. He was very much inclined to
doubt if any legislators or rulers had a
right to take away life from an individual
in any case of crime in which the life of
the suffering or offended party had not
been put in danger. Many writers of
great and deserved celebrity had main-
tained this opinion. He trusted that the
whole of the penal code would undergo a
further consideration. He was convinced
that secondary punishments might, in point
of preventing crime, be made more effica-
cious as an example than death. Solitary
confinement might be applied in a manner
most effective to its object, whilst it might
be deprived of those objections that had
been urged against it. He could not con-
ceive that any danger could arise from
vesting a discretionary power in the visit-
ing magistrates, or the governors of gaols,
as to solitary confinement. There was no
danger in giving a discretionary power to
mitigate punishment; though there might
be, and the Legislature could not be too
cautious in granting it, in a power to inflict
punishment. He stated this, because he
had paid great attention to the subject,
and he believed that the aversion to inflict-


ing the punishment of death so frequently
was strongly felt throughout the country.
Excessive punishment defeated its own
object, and in this case forgers were fre-
quently allowed to escape, from the un-
willingness of persons to prosecute the
offence.
Petition to be printed.

TIMBER.] Mr. Douglas moved, that
there be laid before the House a return of
the Rates and amount of the Duties im-
posed by Acts of Parliament on British
West-India produce imported into the
British Colonies in North America, during
the last year; distinguishing the various
kinds of produce, &c.
Mr. Warburton expressed a wish to ask
the right hon. Gentleman opposite, whe-
ther he was aware that in consequence of a
defect in one of the clauses in the bill on the
subject, Timber might be brought to this
country from Memel, without paying the
duty on foreign Timber, by being first
carried to Halifax? He knew that that
had been done last year. One or more
cargoes of Baltic Timber had, to his know-
ledge, been imported in that manner into
Ireland. By the 10th of George 4th, the
Timber, the growth of other countries,
might be imported from our Colonies on
paying only the small duty imposed on
Timber the growth of the Colonies.
People had profited by this, and had
actually sent cargoes of Timber from the
Baltic to Nova Scotia, and had then im-
ported it into this country at an advantage.
The evil of this practice, as it affected the
regular trader, was very great. The prime
cost of Timber in the Baltic was 20s. a
ton, the direct freight to this country 18s.,
the duty 55s., and other charges 15s.,
making altogether 98s. The double freight
to Halifax in the first instance, and to this
country in the second, 50s.; other charges
amounted to 15s.; making, with the price
of the Timber, only 85s.; so that Baltic
Timber might be sent to Halifax, and then
imported into this country, for 13s. a ton
less than the rate at which it could be im-
ported direct from the Baltic. He knew
for certain that many vessels were at pre-
sent preparing to sail for the Baltic, and
thence with Timber to Halifax, for the
purpose of bringing it to this country, and
taking advantage of the defect in the bill.
He begged to know whether in the bill
which the right hon. Gentleman had given
notice he would bring in, it was intended


{APRIL 8}


Timrber. 14






15 Sale of Beer.


to remedy this defect. If not, the parties
to whom he alluded would have a perfect
right to take advantage of it. The right
hon. Gentleman, however, ought now to
state the course which he meant to pursue;
otherwise, in the course of the next fort-
night, most of the vessels which were pre-
paring for the voyage would have left
London, and their owners would certainly
have a good claim to avail themselves of
the law as it now stood.
Mr. Herries was glad that the hon.
Gentleman had .put the question to him,
as it afforded hi .an opportunity of stating
what were the intentions of Government
on the subject. The hon. Member had
described very correctly the defect in the
clause of thu existing bill, which enabled
persons to import Baltic Timber circuitously
through Halifax, at a less rate than, owing
to the duty which had been imposed for
the proptec.li of Timber, the produce of
our North A ,ierican colonies, it could be
imported directly from the Baltic. He
should be disposed to say, however, that
if the existing law were carried into com-
plete execution, he very much doubted if
the parties in question could make their
venture so successful a one as they had
made it, and as, according to the hon.
Gentleman's statement, they contemplated
making it. He had been asked a question
by some of them with respect to one point
on which the expectation of making a
successful voyage hinged. That question
was, whether it would be necessary that a
ship should be unloaded at Halifax, and
then of course reloaded before her de-
parture for England? If the officers at
Halifax did their duty in this respect, he
had reason to believe that the expense
attending on that operation would very
much diminish the chance of any profit
arising from the speculation. He now,
however, gave notice, that in order to pre-
vent the evasion of what was undoubtedly
the intention of the Legislature, he would,
immediately after the recess, introduce a
bill to remedy the defect in the existing
Act, and to prevent any advantage from
being taken of it.

SALE OF BEER.] Mr. Calcraft said,
that being Chairman of the Committee
appointed to inquire into the state of the
laws respecting the Retail Sale of Beer, it
was his duty, by the direction of the Com-
mittee, to move for leave to bring in a Bill
to extend the privilege of selling that ar-


ticle. As the committee had not made
any Report, and as the evidence that had
been taken was not before the House, it
would be unfair if he entered into any
matters of controversy upon the subject in
its present stage; and therefore, with the
desire of avoiding any immediate dis-
cussion he should, in as few words as
possible, explain the nature of the mea-
sure which he had to propose. The prin-
ciples of a free trade in Beer had been
debated in that House, and it could not
be denied, he thought, that the general
sense of Parliament, and the almost una-
nimous wish of the country were in favour
of throwing open the trade. With a view
also to give a more complete effect to the
recent repeal of the Beer duty, he felt that
it would be necessary to carry the freedom
of the trade to its utmost extent. What
he had now to propose to the House, at
the command of the committee of which
he was the chairman, would be found
clear, plain, intelligible, and effective to
the establishing a free trade. The prin-
ciple of the measure was, that any person
in London who wished to have a license
for the Sale of Beer should apply to the
proper officer of Excise, and he would be
entitled to a license on payment of the
sum of two guineas. In the country the
application should be made to the Super-
visor, and the applicant would be entitled
to his license upon his paying the same
sum. Thus the House would see that the
measure he had proposed would be the
means of immediately carrying the free-
dom of the trade in Beer to the fullest ex-
tent. It was to be followed up by many
regulations for the government of those
who might be placed under this Act.
Having steered clear of those houses
which came under the provisions of the
late Act brought into the House by Mr.
Estcourt, the Committee had been careful
to provide a number of regulations, to en-
sure a certain and effectual punishment,
if regularity and decency were not pre-
served in the houses of those who took out
licenses to sell Beer under this Act.
He thought it better, under the circum-
stance of the evidence which had been
taken before the committee not being yet
printed, to avoid entering into any further
detail. Perhaps it was necessary for him
to state, that his only motive for bringing
forward the Motion before the evidence
was printed, and in the possession of hon.
Members, was, that this was the last day


f COMMONS I


Sale of Beer. 16







17 Sale of Beer.


before the Easter Recess; and the Mem-
bers of that committee, as well as himself,
were anxious that the Bill should be cir-
culated through the country during that
recess. All parties concerned in it ought
to see it, and have full time to consider its
principles and provisions before the se-
cond reading came on. By this means he
should be able to ascertain what were the
opinions of the country upon the subject,
and to see what support the Members of
that House would be inclined to give to
the measure. He was fully impressed
with the fact that the new principle intro-
duced by the Bill was very important, with
reference to the immensely large capital
employed in the trade, and which was
diffused so extensively throughout the
country. He also felt that the Bill was
scarcely less important with respect to its
holding out to the poor and working
classes of the community a chance of ob-
taining a better, a cheaper, and a more
wholesome beverage than they had been
as yet accustomed to drink. Under these
circumstances, he trusted that the hon.
Members present would not think of
entering into any discussion of the Bill,
for no good could arise from that in
its present stage, and it would be prema-
ture, useless, and not altogether fair to the
committee. The measure, he should ob-
serve, was not to extend to Ireland or
Scotland; it was, in the first instance, to
be limited in its operation to England and
Wales. He should conclude by moving
for leave to bring in a Bill to promote
the general Sale of Beer by Retail.
Mr. Charles Barclay only wished to
call the attention of the right hon. Gentle-
man to certain operations of the Bill,
which he thought would render it in-
cumbent upon him to modify it. The
right hon. Gentleman would certainly
have the opportunity of better considering
the evidence during the recess; and if he
went into it, and saw the very great and
important interests alluded to in it, he
hoped that he would be induced to modify
the Bill very considerably. If any person
without any limitations whatsoever, might
be allowed to sell Beer by retail, anywhere
and any how, without any restriction
whatever-for the proposed licensing sys-
tem would be no restriction-mischief and
inconvenience would ensue, of which the
right hon. Gentleman seemed to be little
aware. He begged to be particularly un-
derstood as not speaking on the part of


the London brewers, for he was ready to
acknowledge, what indeed had already
been acknowledged distinctly, that the
benefits derived to the trade by the reduc-
tion of the duty upon Beer would amply
compensate them for any loss they might
sustain in their property in public-houses
or otherwise. But waiving the consider-
ation of the brewers, he must beg leave to
point out to the right hon. Gentleman, and
to the House and country, that there were
two classes that would be most seriously
injured by the proposed alteration of the
long-established principles of the trade in
Beer. He scarcely need say that he allud-
ed, not to the great brewers in town, but to
the country brewers all over England ; and
to that extremely numerous class of
publicans, or licensed victuallers, who at
present kept public-houses of their own.
There were 50,000 persons of this de-
scription, of which 23,000 were in London.
The greater part of these owned public-
houses, and if this measure were to go
through the House without alteration, it
would destroy the greater part of the
property belonging to these individuals.
Many of these individuals were known to
have mortgaged their property to others;
and if this Bill were to pass without altera-
tion, their property would be hardly worth
more than what, in most instances, it was
mortgaged for. This he thought would
be a case of grievous hardship; for al-
though it might be impossible to introduce
alterations or reforms, without the sacrifice
of some individual interests, such sacrifices
ought never to be so extensive, general,
and severe, as they would be in the pre-
sent instance. He had attentively con-
sidered the subject, and had prepared a
measure of relief which would prevent the
evil he had pointed out, without interfer-
ing with the Bill introduced by the right
hon. Gentleman. He had attempted to
introduce his measure into the committee,
but he was sorry to say without success;
and if no other Member more capable
than himself should propose it to the
House, he should take the liberty of
moving, that instruction should be given
to the Committee on the Bill, that some
relief be afforded to the classes in whose
behalf he now felt it his duty to address the
House. The relief which he contemplated
would not in any respect interfere with
the principle and the practical effects of the
right hon. Gentleman's Bill, whilst the
mischief it would do to numerous indi-


{APRIL 8}


Sale of Beer.







19 Sale of Beer.


viduals would be alleviated or removed.
He would repeat his conviction, that upon
the whole the London brewers would be
benefitted by this new measure; but he
could not say so much for the brewers in
the country, or for the very numerous
owners of public-houses. He hoped that,
after what he had said, the right hon.
Gentleman, during the recess, would
meet the case of these individuals, for the
number of them, the property involved,
and the extensive injury likely to be in-
flicted, rendered them well worthy of the
most careful consideration.
Mr. Charles Calvert should defer his
observations upon the Bill until the evi-
dence taken before the Committee was
duly before the House, but in the mean
time he could not refrain from saying, that
he could not agree with all that had fallen
from his hon. friend who had just sat
down. He felt that the brewers were so
identified with the licensed victuallers of
the metropolis, that any law which affected
the one would, as a matter of inevitable
necessity, affect the other. His hon.
friend very well knew, and, indeed, it was
notorious to everybody, that a very great
capital was embarked by the great brewers
of London withthe licensed victuallers, and
he wished he could say that the Bill would
be beneficial to the former, for if so, they
could act with consideration towards
others. He believed, unfortunately, that
the Bill now introduced by the right
hon. Gentleman opposite would prove more
destructive to property on a large scale,
and more diffusive of ruin to persons not
very wealthy, than any measure which the
House had ever adopted. The Bill, he
was convinced, would cause the absolute
ruin of the great body of victuallers, whilst
it would destroy the property of the manu-
facturers of Beer. Did the right hon.
Gentleman mean to say that his Bill
would admit of no modifications; that his
principles could not be carried into opera-
tion without effecting the ruin of such
great and important interests, and of such
very numerous classes? He had hoped
that Ministers would have been content
with trying one experiment at a time, and
would have waited until they had seen the
effects of taking off the duty upon Beer
before they proceeded to such extensive
innovations. He believed that taking off
the Beer duty would prove highly beneficial
to the public; but he was convinced that
all the benefit from the Chancellor of the


Exchequer's removing that tax, might
have flowed to the public through the old
channels without having recourse to the
new. Why should legislation upon this
subject be an anomaly to the general rule
of Ministers, not to innovate with a ra-
pidity that destroyed extensively the pro-
perty of any class of the community ? He
wished that the right hon. Gentleman
would attend to the evidence that had been
given by Mr. Carr to the committee of 1818,
That gentleman stated, that all the de-
leterious Beer consumed in London was
brewed by the inferior brewers; and he
had no doubt, that as soon as this Bill
passed, the town would be inundated by a
deluge of trash, which would barely be
drinkable, and which would also be most
destructive of the health of those who
swallowed it.
Mr. H. Drummond, in the present
stage of the proceedings, would only avail
himself of the opportunity of saying, that
whatever opinions might be entertained of
the Bill, he was extremely glad that it was
not the intention of his Majesty's Ministers
to extend it to Scotland. He did not
think that it was requisite to interfere with
the system at present prevalent in Scot-
land, nor that it would be deemed expe-
dient, upon any pretence, to introduce
such a bill as the present ; for, in point
of fact, the evil so much complained of in
England-the monopoly of the Beer trade
-had never existed in that part of the
kingdom. Since he had risen he might be
excused if he availed himself of the oppor-
tunity of briefly referring to a gross misre-
presentation that had gone abroad respect-
ing his conduct. It had been said, that he
was the author of a bill which introduced
into Scotland for the first time the evil of
the English system of a monopoly of the
Beer-trade. He denied that he was the
author of any such measure. The Act he
alluded to, the 9th of his present Majesty,
gave magistrates a great power over
brewers' certificates, the clause having
been copied from the Act of 44 Geo. 3rd.
The only alteration he had proposed was,
to restrain the power of the magistrates,
which, in the general opinion of the coun-
try, in which he fully agreed, had for-
merly been too unlimited. In making
this declaration he was aware that he was
speaking in the presence of many hon.
Members who must have a recollection of
all that had taken place, and would con-
tradict him if he spoke erroneously.


f COMMONS I


Sale of Beer. 20







21 Sale of Beer.


Mr. Cutlar Fergusson said, he could not
hear what had fallen from the hon. Mem-
ber that, had just addressed the House
without rising to say, that he was aware of
the facts to which the hon. Member had
thought fit to allude, and he could have
no hesitation in corroborating the state-
ment which the hon. Member had made.
He believed that the hon. Gentleman had
proposed to restrain, not enlarge, the
powers of the magistracy with respect to
certificates.
Mr. Stewart intimated, that the Motion
of the right hon. Gentleman was of such
importance, that it ought not to be intro-
duced in so thin a House, and he should
avail himself of there not being forty
Members present.
Sir John Sebright thought that the
course proposed by the hon. Member who
had spoken last was altogether unneces-
sary and objectionable, for the only effect
of it would be, to compel the right hon.
Gentleman to bring in the Bill on another
evening. It was then introduced for the
convenience of Members, that they might
acquaint themselves with its provisions
during the recess. For his part, he could
say of himself conscientiously, and with-
out fear of contradiction, that there was
not an honourable Member in that House
who could regret more forcibly than he
did, that reforms and improvements should
be effected at the expense of numerous
individuals. It was, however, in this case
unavoidable. He could not help saying,
although he had not intended to take any
part in the discussion, that the laws under
which the great brewers alleged that they
had invested their immense capitals were
not laws made for the protection of their
trade, or of any trade whatever. They
were laws having trade neither for their
principle nor object, but made solely for
purposes of police. The great brewers of
the metropolis had availed themselves of
those laws to promote their own interests,
finding that, although they were meant
for the good government of the poor, and
for the decency of society, they might be
converted into instruments of profit. He
did not mean to say that the brewers had
not acted fairly-that they had been guilty
of anything improper; but he did mean
to assert, that having availed themselves
of the state of the laws, they had no right
to come down to the House and demand
that the laws should be made perpetual.
If these laws were bad, if they no longer


suited the state of the country, if the feel-
ings of the people were strongly and
unanimously against them, they could not
be perpetuated upon the plea that rescind-
ing them would injure partial and tempo-
rary interests. He would not pretend to
speak of the consequences of the present
system in town; but would confine him-
self to its consequences in ,the country,
which had fallen more particularly under
his own observation. A house was built
on speculation, of which the intrinsic
value was not worth more than 101. a
year. A license was procured first, and
its value rose immediately to 201., 301.,
401. or even 501. a year. Now this rent
was paid for by the consumers of the Beer.
Any measure, therefore, which enabled the
consumers to get rid of this extra payment
for their Beer, must be to them an im-
provement. He would maintain that the
existing system of licensing was an in-
tolerable tax upon the community, and
that the monopoly of the Beer-trade had
been more oppressive to the lower orders
in this country than any other that had
ever been imposed upon them by the
legislature. He highly approved of the
objects of the Bill which the right hon.
Gentleman had introduced. He congra-
tulated the House and the country on the
liberality with which the present Ministry
went forward with the spirit of improve-
ment that was now abroad; and which
distinguished this Administration beyond
every other which had preceded it. He
owed it gratitude for its conduct, and
hoped that its future measures would be
conceived and executed in the same spirit
as the past.
Mr. Fowell Buxton could not suffer

what had fallen in the course of the dis-
cussion to pass unnoticed, particularly as
allusions appeared to have been made to
the sentiments he had uttered, and to the
line of conduct which, upon this occasion,
he had thought it his duty to pursue. In
the first place, he must repel the insinua-
tion, that in any stage of the proceeding,
or upon any occasion, he had ever said
anything, or pursued any course, that
could induce anybody to conceive that he
had adopted the monstrous notion that
the law was intended for the benefit of
the brewers. There could not be any
doubt that the law was passed for the ad-
vantage of the public, as a means of pre-
serving order and decency among the
lower classes of the community, The


{APRIL 8s


Sale of 1eer. 222







23 Sale of Beer.


brewers, in adapting their trade to the
state of the law, had done nothing that
was unfair, and nothing more than every
tradesman did, and had a right to do.
Having stated thus much, he could not
be mistaken in asserting, that the great
body of the brewers had met this important
measure very fairly. They had candidly
said, that according to their calculations,
and according to the views they took of
the subject, they thought that eventually
they should be great gainers by the alter-
ations of the law which Government was
determined to carry into effect. Having
acknowledged that they would ultimately
be gainers to a certain extent, they had
likewise asserted, of the truth of which
they were convinced, that in the first ope-
ration and effect of this change of system,
they would be not only losers, but very
great losers. He could take upon him-
self to say, that some of the great
brewers' in the first instance, might
lose even 100,0001. although eventually
they might be great gainers. In the
course, therefore, that the brewers had
pursued, he did not see that any blame
could attach to them; but on the con-
trary, as far as he could judge for himself,
or as far as he could ascertain from others,
the conviction on his mind was, that un-
der the circumstances in which they were
placed, they had acted with candour and
great fairness. If, however, the brewers
were likely to get eventually an ample
compensation for their immediate losses,
he must be allowed to call to the recol-
lection of the House that there was an-
other class of persons-a very numerous
and important class that would be very
great sufferers, both immediately and
eventually; for they had no prospect, in
the common course of trade, of getting
any compensation whatever : he thought
that the case of the publicans did, in
every point of view, deserve the most
serious consideration of every Member in
that House. The great principle was, to
make the value of property and of capital
invested in trades as stable as possible,
and all legislative measures that effected
a sudden fluctuation in the value of pro-
perty were to be avoided as much as pos-
sible. If such measures were necessary
for the public good, they ought to be
effected with the least degree of individual
sacrifice. Now he conceived, that with-
out infringing upon the Bill which the
Committee had thought proper to author-


ise the right hon. Gentleman opposite to
introduce-without impugning its princi-
ple, or interfering with its details or oper-
ation, a remedy might very easily be pro-
vided for at least a part of the heavy and
ruinous losses which would otherwise be
sustained by the parties in whose behalf he
was then speaking. Without infringing
upon the principles and practice of free
trade, in whatever sense the terms were
taken-for they were construed in almost
every sense-without in the least trespass-
ing upon the theory of free trade, it would
be easy, he thought, to adopt an amend-
ment to the Bill introduced by the right
hon. Member, under the direction of the
committee, by which the interests of the
publicans would, to a great degree, be pro-
tected. The amendment to which he al-
luded had been adverted to by several
hon. Members by no means hostile to the
intentions of the committee, but who
wished to see the views of that committee
carried into effect with as little of indivi-
dual sacrifice as was compatible with the
full operation of the intended new system.
The amendment which he should propose
was, not interfering in the slightest degree
with the brewing or sale of Beer-that it
should not be legal to permit the Beer to
be consumed by the purchasers upon any
part of the premises upon which it was
sold. Might not a temporary enactment
of that kind avoid the ruin of numerous
individuals-prevent the evils of a rapid
and sudden transition in the value of pro-
perty, in the channels of trade, and in the
course of established habits, among classes
of people among whom habits were not
easily changed with advantage to them-
selves or security to the public? He would
beg leave to remind the House, that upon
all occasions he had been a supporter of
the doctrines of free trade; and he saw no
inconsistency between that support and
his wish to pass from the old system to the
new at the smallest inconvenience to indi-
viduals, and at the smallest sacrifice of
capital already directed into particular
channels by long existing laws. If he had
always voted for free trade when the capi-
tal and interests of othersfere deeply in-
volved, he would not deset those princi-
ples, or be lukewarm in thdir support, when
his own were concerned. But notwith-
standing this, he would still say, that there
was a very large body of people whose
rights and interests had been overlooked
in the present measure. The publicans


f COMMONS


Sale of Beer. 24







25 Sale of Beer.


throughout the United Kingdom had up-
wards of four millions sterling embarked
in their trade. It was absurd to deny that
theywould be greatsufferersby the alteration
of the law, and that their sufferings would
involve those of very many other classes.
Such a part of the community ought not
to be disregarded, because the capital he
had mentioned was greatly diffused, or be-
cause specifically the publicans were not
represented in that House. After much
application to the subject, it was his opin-
ion that all the good proposed by the pre-
sent Bill would be effected, and all the
evils with respect to the publicans would
be alleviated, if the open sale of Beer were
allowed to its fullest extent, but the con-
sumption of it prohibited upon the premises
where it was sold.
Mr. Hume said, that he did not intend
to enter at any length into the merits of
the Bill, or into the mode of introducing
it, for future opportunities would present
themselves for all such considerations. He
merely intended to confine himself to a
few observations which had fallen from
the hon. Member on the Ministerial
Bench (Mr. Home Drummond). That
hon. Member had not, in the slightest de-
gree, impugned the principles of the Bill,
or found the slightest fault with any of its
provisions. He evidently intended to sup-
port it without objection or amendment;
and yet he had risen in his place to ex-
press his hope that it should not extend to
Scotland. This was incomprehensible to
him; and he was not a little surprised
that hon. Members should venture to utter
so much of what seemed to him incompre-
hensible. If this measure were good for
England, he was not aware why it should
not extend to Scotland; at least it was for
the hon. Member to show some substantial
reason why a measure, which he acknow-
ledged to be good for one part of the king-
dom, should not be applied to the other.
He agreed with the hon. Member, that the
evils felt in England under the existing
law were not so severely felt in Scotland,
although this arose from causes extraneous
to the law, but still there was a great case
of hardship in that country. The hon.
Gentleman was perfectly right in his efforts
to put the Magistrates of Scotland under
some control, for they needed it; but it
was more easy to convince him of this,
than persuade him that any reason existed
why a Bill, founded upon such sound ge-
neral principles, and expected to be bene-


ficial to England, should not extend over
the whole United Kingdom. He acknow-
ledged, almost to the full extent, all the
evils that had been urged as consequent
upon the present Bill; but he must remind
the House, without losing sight of those
who would sustain loss by the measure,
that in all reforms from a bad to a good
system, it seemed unavoidable that some
individuals and classes of individuals
should suffer. He must beg leave to say,
that he had devoted as much of his time,
and of his earnest attention, to the subject,
as any Member; and after the most mature
consideration of all its bearings, he was con-
vinced that the course adopted by the right
hon. Gentleman, at the direction of the
committee, was the right course; and he
hoped that nothing would interfere to stop
the great work of improvement in which
Ministers were engaged with such advan-
tage to the public.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said,
that it was not the intention of Ministers
to extend the Bill now proposed to Scot-
land. He regretted to say, that from the
period of the Session, only one day had
been given to draw up the Bill for Eng-
land, and that consequently, a sufficient
time had not been allowed to prepare the
Bill for Scotland. The measure must,
therefore, be tried in one part of the king-
dom in the first instance; and if it were
found beneficial, and to answer its intended
objects, it might then be extended to the
other.
Motion agreed to, Bill brought in and
read a first time.

ToBAcco DUTIEs.] The Chancellor of
the Exchequer moved, that the Resolutions
of the Committee on the Tobacco Duties
Acts be agreed to.
Mr. Warburton wished to take that op-
portunity of stating, that he was decidedly
opposed to the principle of the Bill. Its
object was, to encourage the cultivation of
an article which could not be cultivated
without bounty, or such a reduction of duty
compared with the duty on the imported
article, as was tantamount to a bounty.
The right hon. Gentleman had stated that
his efforts had been directed to place the
Tobacco grown at home on the same foot-
ing as that which was imported. That
appeared to him most absurd. The ques-
tion was, could the English grower compete
with the Virginian planter? The attempt
was as absurd as the system adopted in


{APRIL 8}


Tobacco Duties.







27 Tobacco Duties.


France, of forcing a production of sugar
from beet-root by high bounties, when the
nature of trade would, in spite of every
opposition, revert to its natural channel.
The argument that some parties had al-
ready invested capital in the cultivation
of Tobacco, was of no weight; for they
had done it at their own risk, and could
not reasonably expect that an absurd law
should be passed for their protection. If
it were right to grant protection to the
capital already embarked, how much
stronger would be the claim to protection
for capital embarked after the law was
passed? He anticipated from the new
regulations nothing but ruin to one large
branch of Revenue and a consequent neces-
sity for new taxes.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said,
the facts were somewhat different from
the hon. Member's statement. He ac-
cused the measure of being a bounty on
the growth of Tobacco, by the difference
between the duty of Is. 8d. on every pound
of Tobacco grown in Ireland and the duty
on Tobacco grown in America. But the
fact was, that a considerable quantity of
Tobacco was already grown in Ireland,
which paid no duty whatever ; and the
measure then under discussion proposed
to levy a duty of Is. 8d. on that Tobacco
as well as on all Tobacco grown at home.
How such a proposition could be called a
bounty or a bonus on growing Tobacco at
home, was to him inconceivable. If the
difference between the two rates of duty
was a bonus, that must be much greater as
long as no duty at all was imposed on To-
bacco grown in Ireland. If there were
any absurdity then in his proposition, it
was only in as far as it approximated to the
arguments of the hon. Member. The hon.
Member thought the bonus was an evil-
he meant to reduce it by the sum of Is. 8d.
per pound, and the hon. Member declared
that the plan was absurd. He would not,
however, then discuss the plan. The fact
was, that in Ireland there was grown
750,0001. worth of Tobacco annually
which paid no duty; and came into compe-
tition with that which paid a high duty: the
object of the resolutions was, to make that
Tobacco pay duty, and thus contribute to
the Revenue in a due proportion to that
Tobacco imported from abroad.
Mr. Hume was of opinion, that this
measure gave a bounty to Tobacco grown
in this country. He had no wish to im-
pede its cultivation here, but it ought to


pay a duty equal to the Tobacco imported
from abroad. If one person imported To-
bacco and paid 3s. per lb., and another
grew it and paid only Is. 8d., there was a
bounty given to ,the grower equal to the
difference. He would recommend that
the present growers of Tobacco should be
allowed to carry on their operations for a
year or two untaxed, with an understand-
ing that, at the end of that time, they
should pay a duty equal to that imposed
on Tobacco imported. He was of opinion,
that the Resolutions, if carried into effect,
would lead to the cultivation of Tobacco
to such an extent as to be injurious to the
Revenue, and then the right hon.Gentleman
would be obliged to prohibit it altogether
-causing very great evil. If the Resolu-
tions became a law, those who cultivated
Tobacco under it would, however, be far
better entitled to protection than the pre.
sent cultivators of Tobacco in Ireland.
Mr. Bright was surprised to hear of the
extent to which Tobacco was cultivated in
Ireland, and under the circumstances of
that country, when capital had been drove
from its natural channels, it might perhaps
be proper to give it the advantage which this
measure would not confer but secure. At
the same time, if Ireland were entitled to
this indulgence-the colonies to the soil
and climate of which the cultivation of
Tobacco was congenial, had stronger
claims to a similar boon. To the people
of those colonies it would be a great ad-
vantage-and in their behalf he appealed
to the House. He had before called its
attention to the subject, but he thought it
of such great importance, that he could not
do otherwise than again press it on the
consideration of the Government.
In answer to a question of Mr. Hume,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated,
that there were 500 acres of land under
Tobacco cultivation in Ireland.
Mr. Hume then said, that he would ra-
ther agree at once to vote a sum of money
to pay them than consent to this measure.
He did not know what answer could be
made to fishermen and manufacturers
who claimed bounty and protection duties
if this measure were passed. He consi-
dered that it involved a departure from
those sound principles which had lately
been professed by the Government; and
he therefore hoped that the right hon.
Gentleman would postpone the measure
till after the holidays, when it might be
fully and fairly discussed.


COMMONSI


Tobacco Duties. 28








{APRIL 26} Pensions to Priests.


The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the
then state of the House, had no option-he
was not his own master, and though he
could not see what the hon. Member could
gain by the postponement, he could not
do otherwise than comply with his request.
Mr. Hume intimated, that he did not
mean to avail himself of a thin House to
enforce his own views, and he should have
proposed the postponement though the
right hon. Gentleman had been supported
by his usual majorities.
Resolutions postponed till April 26th.
Adjourned till April 26th.

HOUSE OF LORDS,
Monday, April 26.
MIjUTEns. The Royal Assent was given by Commission to
the East Retford Witnesses' Indemnity Bill, and several
private Bills ; the Lords Commissioners Were, the Lord
Chancellor, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Earl
of Shaftesbury. The Four-per-Cents and the Haymarket
Removal Bills were read a second time. Various Accounts
were presented relative to the Trade of the Country, ac-
cording to orders; as well as an Account of the Charges
incurred by the East India Company at Canton.
Petitions Presented. For Opening the China Trade, by
the Earl of DERBY, from Preston :-By the Earl of CAs-
selLS, from Ayr:-By Lord NAPIER, from Dumfries:
By the Earl of HAREwOOn, from Kingston-upon-Hull:-
By Lord DURHAM, from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Sunder-
land, and Darlington:-
[The feelingof the petitioners,his Lordship
said, pervaded all the manufacturing dis-
tricts, but he apprehended Ministers meant
to renew the Charter for the East-India
Company.
Lord Ellenborough said, that nothing
which had fallen from him, or any of his
colleagues, could warrant such an infer-
ence.
Lord Durham was glad to hear the
noble Lord say so.]
By the Earl of ELDON, from Haverfordwest, Mont-
gomeryshire, and other places in Wales, against any
alteration in the system of Welsh Judicature. By the
Earl of EsSEx, from the Irish Mining Company and from
the Inhabitants of Marrick, praying for a Bounty on the
Export of Lead. By the Earl of HAREWOOD, from
Woolley, Wakefield, and other parts of Yorkshire, to have
the Assizes removed to Wakefield:-By the Duke of
NORFOLK, witl a similar prayer from several places in
Yorkshire. By the same noble Peer, from Sheffield,
against the employment of Climbing Boys. By the Duke
of BEAUIORT, from certain Magistrates of Gloucester,
against the Truck System:-By Lord MELVILLE, from
the Freeholders of the County of Edinburgh, against the
imposition of the additional Duty of Is. a Gallon on
Home-made Spirits. And by the Earl of RoSSLYN, from
the Medical Society of Edinburgh, for facilitating the
Study of Anatomy.

INCREASED DUTY ON SPIRITS.] The
Earl of Malmesbury moved for Returns of
the quantity of Home-made Spirits, as well
as Rum, on which duty had been paid for
the four years previous and subsequent to


the 5th of April, 1826. His object was
to show what had been the effect of the
measure of 1825, and the impolicy of the
proposed augmentation of duty ; and that
if it were necessary to give a bonus to the
West-Indian interests (whose depression
he much regretted), it ought to be given
upon some other article than rum. Why
not help their sugar-market in preference?
He had every desire to restrict Spirit-
drinking, and increase the sale of beer;
but he thought the duty should be either
laid on rum at the same time with corn-
made Spirits, or not exclusively imposed
upon the latter. The agriculturists would
be seriously affected if the new duty were
persevered in, and the distillers would be
ruined.
Lord Holland said, that the West-Indian
interests were severely depressed; but the
noble Lord was in error when he supposed
that the West-Indian proprietors hadcalled
for this new duty on corn Spirits, or ,in-
deed would benefit much from it.
The Earl of Malmesbury was glad to
have this statement from the noble Lord,
because, as these new duties were not
called for by the owners of ram, they ought
not to be imposed upon corn Spirits. In
his opinion, the measure would not aug-
ment the Revenue.
The Returns ordered.

PENSIONS TO CONVERTED PRIESTS.]
The Earl of Mountcashel presented a Peti-
tion from the Rev. James Patrick Kenney,
who had once been a Roman Catholic
Priest, but had since become a Protestant.
The petitioner stated,that he knew a num-
ber of priests of his former communion,
who would abjure the errors of their
church, provided they were allowed some
means of subsistence. A Catholic priest
became, upon conversion, ipso facto, a
clergyman of the Church of England, and
ought, as indeed the old law authorized,
to have some provision assigned to him.
The Earl of Limerick reprobated in the
strongest terms any pecuniary encourage-
ment for converts, or the buying men over
from one religion to another : sure he was,
that the class of converts hitherto obtained
in this manner were a good riddance for
the one church, and a disgrace to the
other.
The Earl of Mountcashel said, that the
allowance, by the Act of Anne, was only
301. a year-a sum too insignificant to be
a bribe for such a purpose.


29 Duty on Spirits.







Disfranchisement. 32


Lord Holland apprehended this petition
could not be received-it prayed for a
grant of money. Noble Lords might, if
they pleased, give advowsons to converts
of this kind, where they had such patron-
age, but he would not consent to give
them public money.
The Earl of Rosslyn said, that the peti-
tion was quite irregular. It was an appli-
cation for public money, and made in an
informal manner.
The Earl of Mountcashel withdrew the
petition. He gave notice, that on Tuesday
week he would present the Cork Petition
for a Reform of the Established Church,
and on the same day submit a motion
corresponding with the views of the peti-
tioners.
The Marquis of Londonderry wished to
know from the noble Earl whether he
meant to confine his motion to the Church
of Ireland?
The Earl of Mountcashel replied, that
he did not: he meant it to include Eng-
land as well as Ireland.

EaST RETFORD DISFRANCHISEaIEN'T.]
The Marquis of Salisbury moved the order
of the day for the second reading of the
East Retford Disfranchisement Bill; and
also that counsel and witnesses be called
in.
Lord Durham said, that the debate
ought to precede the examination of wit-
nesses.
The Marquis of Salisbury said, the usual
course was to hear the witnesses before the
second reading.
The Earl of Rosslyn concurred in this
opinion, and counsel and witnesses were
called in.
[Mr. Law, Mr. Adam, Mr. Alderson,
and Mr. Stevenson, appeared as counsel
at the Bar, and Richard Hannam was ex-
amined respecting his knowledge of the
malpractices of the electors for the bo-
rough.]
Lord Durham objected to the course of
proceeding. No impropriety, as far as he
could see by the examination which the
case had already undergone in another
place, could be charged against the pre-
sent electors, but that they had suffered
themselves to be treated; but that was the
fault of the candidates. There were, he
believed, but few Members of the House
of Commons who had stood a contested
election against whom the charge of treat-
ing might not be brought. He had been


obliged, when he contested the county of
Durham at an expense of 25,0001. to treat
the freeholders. As this was the heaviest
charge against the present electors, heshould
move, that counsel for the Bill be instruct-
ed to confine themselves to the cases of
imputed bribery and corruption at the last
general election. It appeared that the
electors had then conducted themselves
honourably and honestly; it would be
wrong, therefore, to punish them for the
crime of their ancestors.
The Marquis of Salisbury maintained
that it should be left to the discretion of
counsel themselves,to decide on the course
of proceeding which they might consider
it most judicious to adopt with regard to
the examination of witnesses.
The Earl of Malmesbury said, that the
merits of the case consisted in what took
place at the last election, and therefore
the corruption on that occasion ought to
be proved first.
Lord Holland thought, that they ought
not to interfere with counsel. The most
natural mode, he conceived, would be to
commence with the rise of corruption in
the borough, before they examined into
any occurrences which had happened at
subsequent elections, but that was a point
for counsel to consider, who had the cause
to manage, and not for their Lordships to
control.
The House then divided: Content 12;
Not content 23-Majority 11 against Lord
Durham's Motion.
[The examination of Richard Hannam
was about to be proceeded with, when the
House, on the Motion of the Marquis of
Salisbury, adjourned.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Monday, April 26.
MINUTES.] Henry Charles Sturt, Esq. Member for Dor-
chester, Henry Hope, Esq. for East Looe, Lord George
Beresford for the County of Waterford, George Bankes,
Esq. for Corfe Castle, and Daniel Callaghan, Esq. for the
City of Cork, took the Oaths and their Seats. The Navy
Pay Regulation and Consolidation Bill, theLeather Duties
Repeal Bill, the Marriages Validity Bill, and the Malt
Duties Bill, were read a second time. A Bill was brought
in to Repeal the 55 Geo. III. c. 49, for procuring the Re-
turn of Persons Committed, Tried, and Convicted of
Criminal Offences-the object of the Repeal Bill being
to simplify the mode of making these Returns.
Returns laid on the Table. Average Price of Timber at each
of the Royal Forests not supplied to the Dock Yards, and
of Bark. The Number of original Causes, Pleas, and
Demurrers, exceptions and further directions set down for
hearing before the Lord Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor,
and the Master of the Rolls. Exchequer Bills held by the
Bank of England; Copy of its Contract with the City of
London for a Loan to complete London Bridge; and dis.


31 East Retford


fCOMMONSI








{APRIL 26} Pensions to Priests.


The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the
then state of the House, had no option-he
was not his own master, and though he
could not see what the hon. Member could
gain by the postponement, he could not
do otherwise than comply with his request.
Mr. Hume intimated, that he did not
mean to avail himself of a thin House to
enforce his own views, and he should have
proposed the postponement though the
right hon. Gentleman had been supported
by his usual majorities.
Resolutions postponed till April 26th.
Adjourned till April 26th.

HOUSE OF LORDS,
Monday, April 26.
MIjUTEns. The Royal Assent was given by Commission to
the East Retford Witnesses' Indemnity Bill, and several
private Bills ; the Lords Commissioners Were, the Lord
Chancellor, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Earl
of Shaftesbury. The Four-per-Cents and the Haymarket
Removal Bills were read a second time. Various Accounts
were presented relative to the Trade of the Country, ac-
cording to orders; as well as an Account of the Charges
incurred by the East India Company at Canton.
Petitions Presented. For Opening the China Trade, by
the Earl of DERBY, from Preston :-By the Earl of CAs-
selLS, from Ayr:-By Lord NAPIER, from Dumfries:
By the Earl of HAREwOOn, from Kingston-upon-Hull:-
By Lord DURHAM, from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Sunder-
land, and Darlington:-
[The feelingof the petitioners,his Lordship
said, pervaded all the manufacturing dis-
tricts, but he apprehended Ministers meant
to renew the Charter for the East-India
Company.
Lord Ellenborough said, that nothing
which had fallen from him, or any of his
colleagues, could warrant such an infer-
ence.
Lord Durham was glad to hear the
noble Lord say so.]
By the Earl of ELDON, from Haverfordwest, Mont-
gomeryshire, and other places in Wales, against any
alteration in the system of Welsh Judicature. By the
Earl of EsSEx, from the Irish Mining Company and from
the Inhabitants of Marrick, praying for a Bounty on the
Export of Lead. By the Earl of HAREWOOD, from
Woolley, Wakefield, and other parts of Yorkshire, to have
the Assizes removed to Wakefield:-By the Duke of
NORFOLK, witl a similar prayer from several places in
Yorkshire. By the same noble Peer, from Sheffield,
against the employment of Climbing Boys. By the Duke
of BEAUIORT, from certain Magistrates of Gloucester,
against the Truck System:-By Lord MELVILLE, from
the Freeholders of the County of Edinburgh, against the
imposition of the additional Duty of Is. a Gallon on
Home-made Spirits. And by the Earl of RoSSLYN, from
the Medical Society of Edinburgh, for facilitating the
Study of Anatomy.

INCREASED DUTY ON SPIRITS.] The
Earl of Malmesbury moved for Returns of
the quantity of Home-made Spirits, as well
as Rum, on which duty had been paid for
the four years previous and subsequent to


the 5th of April, 1826. His object was
to show what had been the effect of the
measure of 1825, and the impolicy of the
proposed augmentation of duty ; and that
if it were necessary to give a bonus to the
West-Indian interests (whose depression
he much regretted), it ought to be given
upon some other article than rum. Why
not help their sugar-market in preference?
He had every desire to restrict Spirit-
drinking, and increase the sale of beer;
but he thought the duty should be either
laid on rum at the same time with corn-
made Spirits, or not exclusively imposed
upon the latter. The agriculturists would
be seriously affected if the new duty were
persevered in, and the distillers would be
ruined.
Lord Holland said, that the West-Indian
interests were severely depressed; but the
noble Lord was in error when he supposed
that the West-Indian proprietors hadcalled
for this new duty on corn Spirits, or ,in-
deed would benefit much from it.
The Earl of Malmesbury was glad to
have this statement from the noble Lord,
because, as these new duties were not
called for by the owners of ram, they ought
not to be imposed upon corn Spirits. In
his opinion, the measure would not aug-
ment the Revenue.
The Returns ordered.

PENSIONS TO CONVERTED PRIESTS.]
The Earl of Mountcashel presented a Peti-
tion from the Rev. James Patrick Kenney,
who had once been a Roman Catholic
Priest, but had since become a Protestant.
The petitioner stated,that he knew a num-
ber of priests of his former communion,
who would abjure the errors of their
church, provided they were allowed some
means of subsistence. A Catholic priest
became, upon conversion, ipso facto, a
clergyman of the Church of England, and
ought, as indeed the old law authorized,
to have some provision assigned to him.
The Earl of Limerick reprobated in the
strongest terms any pecuniary encourage-
ment for converts, or the buying men over
from one religion to another : sure he was,
that the class of converts hitherto obtained
in this manner were a good riddance for
the one church, and a disgrace to the
other.
The Earl of Mountcashel said, that the
allowance, by the Act of Anne, was only
301. a year-a sum too insignificant to be
a bribe for such a purpose.


29 Duty on Spirits.







Disfranchisement. 32


Lord Holland apprehended this petition
could not be received-it prayed for a
grant of money. Noble Lords might, if
they pleased, give advowsons to converts
of this kind, where they had such patron-
age, but he would not consent to give
them public money.
The Earl of Rosslyn said, that the peti-
tion was quite irregular. It was an appli-
cation for public money, and made in an
informal manner.
The Earl of Mountcashel withdrew the
petition. He gave notice, that on Tuesday
week he would present the Cork Petition
for a Reform of the Established Church,
and on the same day submit a motion
corresponding with the views of the peti-
tioners.
The Marquis of Londonderry wished to
know from the noble Earl whether he
meant to confine his motion to the Church
of Ireland?
The Earl of Mountcashel replied, that
he did not: he meant it to include Eng-
land as well as Ireland.

EaST RETFORD DISFRANCHISEaIEN'T.]
The Marquis of Salisbury moved the order
of the day for the second reading of the
East Retford Disfranchisement Bill; and
also that counsel and witnesses be called
in.
Lord Durham said, that the debate
ought to precede the examination of wit-
nesses.
The Marquis of Salisbury said, the usual
course was to hear the witnesses before the
second reading.
The Earl of Rosslyn concurred in this
opinion, and counsel and witnesses were
called in.
[Mr. Law, Mr. Adam, Mr. Alderson,
and Mr. Stevenson, appeared as counsel
at the Bar, and Richard Hannam was ex-
amined respecting his knowledge of the
malpractices of the electors for the bo-
rough.]
Lord Durham objected to the course of
proceeding. No impropriety, as far as he
could see by the examination which the
case had already undergone in another
place, could be charged against the pre-
sent electors, but that they had suffered
themselves to be treated; but that was the
fault of the candidates. There were, he
believed, but few Members of the House
of Commons who had stood a contested
election against whom the charge of treat-
ing might not be brought. He had been


obliged, when he contested the county of
Durham at an expense of 25,0001. to treat
the freeholders. As this was the heaviest
charge against the present electors, heshould
move, that counsel for the Bill be instruct-
ed to confine themselves to the cases of
imputed bribery and corruption at the last
general election. It appeared that the
electors had then conducted themselves
honourably and honestly; it would be
wrong, therefore, to punish them for the
crime of their ancestors.
The Marquis of Salisbury maintained
that it should be left to the discretion of
counsel themselves,to decide on the course
of proceeding which they might consider
it most judicious to adopt with regard to
the examination of witnesses.
The Earl of Malmesbury said, that the
merits of the case consisted in what took
place at the last election, and therefore
the corruption on that occasion ought to
be proved first.
Lord Holland thought, that they ought
not to interfere with counsel. The most
natural mode, he conceived, would be to
commence with the rise of corruption in
the borough, before they examined into
any occurrences which had happened at
subsequent elections, but that was a point
for counsel to consider, who had the cause
to manage, and not for their Lordships to
control.
The House then divided: Content 12;
Not content 23-Majority 11 against Lord
Durham's Motion.
[The examination of Richard Hannam
was about to be proceeded with, when the
House, on the Motion of the Marquis of
Salisbury, adjourned.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Monday, April 26.
MINUTES.] Henry Charles Sturt, Esq. Member for Dor-
chester, Henry Hope, Esq. for East Looe, Lord George
Beresford for the County of Waterford, George Bankes,
Esq. for Corfe Castle, and Daniel Callaghan, Esq. for the
City of Cork, took the Oaths and their Seats. The Navy
Pay Regulation and Consolidation Bill, theLeather Duties
Repeal Bill, the Marriages Validity Bill, and the Malt
Duties Bill, were read a second time. A Bill was brought
in to Repeal the 55 Geo. III. c. 49, for procuring the Re-
turn of Persons Committed, Tried, and Convicted of
Criminal Offences-the object of the Repeal Bill being
to simplify the mode of making these Returns.
Returns laid on the Table. Average Price of Timber at each
of the Royal Forests not supplied to the Dock Yards, and
of Bark. The Number of original Causes, Pleas, and
Demurrers, exceptions and further directions set down for
hearing before the Lord Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor,
and the Master of the Rolls. Exchequer Bills held by the
Bank of England; Copy of its Contract with the City of
London for a Loan to complete London Bridge; and dis.


31 East Retford


fCOMMONSI









Minutes.


{APRIL 26}


tributions amongst the Proprietors of it, in addition to the
ordinary Dividend. Dates of the Entry into the Navy of
Robert Crosbie, James Hope, and Hugh Goold; of their
Promotion to be Lieutenants; and the length of their
Services. Various Accounts relative to Trade, to the
Crown Lands, and Exchequer Informations:-By Mr.
Secretary PEEL, Account of the Diplomatic and Consular
Expenses.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. BROUGHAMr, of the
Number of Causes in tile Court of Chancery standing for
hearing when the Great Seal was in Commission, from
June, 1791, to February, 1792, and the Number of Causes
decided by the Commissioners:-On the Motion of Mr.
War. O'BRIEN, of the Number of Persons who have
Emigrated from the United Kingdom to any of the Co-
lonies of Great Britain in each Year since 1820, distin-
guishing the Colonies, and the Sexes and Ages of the
Emigrants:-On the Motion of Lord F. L. GowER, the
Nineteenth Report of the Commissioners to inquire into
the Temporal and Ecclesiastical Courts (Ireland).
Petitions Presented, By Mr. MUNDY, from the Inhabitants
of Derby, against Protestants in the Service of the Crown
being compelled to attend the idolatrous Services of the
Roman Catholic and Greek Church. Praying for the
Abolition of the Punishment of Death in Cases of Forgery,
by Mr. CRIPPs, from the Inhabitants of Cirencester :-By
Mr. HART DAVIS, from the Inhabitants of Axbridge:-
By Lord ALTHORP, from Kettering, Northamptonshire:-
By Mr. WARD, from the Ward of Bishopsgate:-By Lord
JoHN RUSSELL, from the Inhabitants of Bluntisham-eum-
Earith, Huntingdonshire:-By Mr. HEATHCOTE, from
Boston, Lincolnshire:-
[The petitioners, the hon. Member stated,
were not visionaries, but practical men.
It was signed by the bankers of the place.]
By Mr. RUMBOLD, from the Inhabitants of Great Yar-
mouth:-By Colonel DAVIES, from Worcester:-
[It was signed by almost all the bankers,
and he cordially concurred with its prayer.]
Fromthe Magistrates, Merchants, Bankers, and Inhabitants
of Plymouth,by SirT. B. MARTIN:-From those of Exeter,
by Mr. BucKE:-From Uxbridge, St. Mary, Newington,
and the Congregation of China-terrace Chapel, Lambeth,
by Mr. Alderman Woon:-From the Minister and Con-
gregation of Beresford-street Chapel, Walwortl, by Mr.
Alderman Woon:-By Lord STANLEY, from Bolton,
Lancashire. Against the practice of paying Wages in
Goods, by Lord GEORGE SOMrERSEr, from the Working
Colliers of Monmouth; from the Inhabitants of Tre-
vethen; and from Joseph Davis, in the County of Mon-
mouth. Against the alterations in the Duties on Tobacco,
by Mr. WARD, from Tobacco Manufacturers of London.
By Mr. O'CONNELL, from Aghado, Ballimakenny, and
Munster Boy, against the Irish Vestry Act:-By Mr.
SLANEY, from 130 Inhabitants of the Skinners' Estate, in
the Parish of St. Pancras, against a clause in the general
Lighting and Watching of Parishes Bill:-By Mr. ROBIN-
soN, from certain Commissioners of the Skinners' Estate,
with the same prayer. By Mr. DENISON, from the Jour-
neymen Paper-makers of the County of Surrey, complain-
ing of Distress and the general employment of Machinery.
By Lord F. L. GowER, from the Fish-curers of Wick,
Scotland, praying for a continuance of the Bounties now
paid upon the curing of Salt-fish. Against the Saleof Beer
Bill, by Mr. MUNDY, from Licensed Victuallers in Ilkeston
(Derbyshire):-By Sir T. B. MAnTIN, from the Licensed
Victuallers of Plymouth and its neighbourhood. For the
Opening of the China-trade, by Sir GEORnd MURRAY,
from the Incorporated Trades of Perth, and from the
Inhabitants of the Cape of Good Hope:-By Mr. KEN-
NEDY, from the Merchant Company of Ayr and the In-
corporated Trades of Ayr:-By Mr. LITTLETON, from
the Inhabitants of Stoke and Fenton (Staffordshire):--
By Lord G. SOMERSET, from Ponty-pool:-By Mr.
DENISON, from Sunderland:-By Lord MORPETH, from
Eccleshall, Bolton, and Pudsey, in the County of York.
By Mr. HuSKIrsSON, from the Merchants and West India
Planters of Liverpool, complaining of Distress, and pray-
VOL. XXIV.


Tobacco,


ing for a reduction of the Duties on Sugar and Rum.
By Mr. SLANEY, from the Ministers and Churchwardens
of the Parish of Walthamstow, and from those of Whit-
church, in favour of the Poor-law Amendment Bill:-
By Mr. DOWDESWELL, from Tewkesbury:-And by Mr.
TRANT, from Dover, with the same prayer.
TOBACCO.] Mr. Hart Davies presented
a Petition from the Merchants, manufac-
turers, and Dealers in Tobacco in Bristol,
against the measure for imposing so small
a duty as Is. 8d. per pound upon home-
grown Tobacco. The petitioners stated
that the expense of cultivation had been
over-rated, and was not such as to enti-
tle home-grown Tobacco to the protection
this low rate of duty would afford it, and
they prayed that it should be made liable
to the same duty as Foreign Tobacco.
Mr. H. Grattan observed, thatthe state-
ment of the petitioners, as to the small
expense of cultivating Tobacco at home,
could be only attributed to their ignorance
on the subject. The expense of cultiva-
tion was very great, and he knew himself
all instance where the expense of culti-
vating one acre of Tobacco, in the county
of Wicklow, amounted to 701. If the
proposed measure of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer should pass into a law, it
would be fraught with greater injury to
Ireland than any measure that had been
enacted these fifty years. That cultiva-
tion, at present, afforded considerable em-
ployment to the peasantry of Ireland, and
to talk of exporting the Irish peasantry
because they wanted employment, while
employment was to be taken from them by
taxation, was a legislative absurdity. The
greatest excitement prevailed on the sub-
ject in Ireland, and he hoped the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer would not think
of carrying into execution a measure
fraught with ruin to that country.
Petition laid on the Table.
Mr. G. Moore, in presenting a Petition
from the cultivators of Tobacco, residing
in the town of Enniscorthy (county of
Wexford), praying that no duty might be
levied on Tobacco grown in Ireland, and
signed by nearly 100 gentlemen of respect-
ability observed, that he had felt it his
duty to make inquiries into the subject of
growing Tobacco in Ireland, and he had
not met with a single person who was not
convinced that the amount of duty was
such as would amount to a total prohibi-
tion of the cultivation. The petitioners
stated, that they were ready to bring for-
ward evidence to prove this point, and
they observed, that to prohibit that culti-
C









ovation would be very injurious to Ireland, viction that the continuance of the punish-
for it employed a great number of persons, ment of death for forgery was injurious
particularly young persons, for whom, instead of beneficial to their interests:
otherwise, no employment could be found, he should have to present petitions signed
Another fact, of considerable importance, by the most respectable bankers and
was, that since the cultivation of Tobacco traders, in which they call upon the House
in Ireland, smuggling Tobacco, which for- to pause before it passed a bill, allowing the
merely existed in the county of Wexford punishment of death to remain for certain
to a great extent, had entirely ceased, and cases of forgery; and they assign as a
it was to be apprehended that a duty reason, that the severity of the law, in-
would revive that demoralizing practice, stead of preventing forgery and pro-
He was also prepared to contend, that such testing paper securities, tends to promote
a duty as would amount to the prohibition the crime, by preventing punishment, and
of the cultivation of Tobacco would be thereby affording indemnity to the offend-
contrary to the Act of Union, which pro- ers. They did not go upon any abstract
hibited the levying any duties on the pro- principle of religion, or upon any view of
duce of Ireland, but such as were just and humanity; they came forward as prac-
reasonable. The petitioners prayed that tical men, to object to the continuance of
the House would not legislate on the sub- a punishment which they found to be in-
ject without examining witnesses, whose jurious to their trade and interests. He
experience concerning the growth of To- wished to know whether the right hon.
bacco would enable them to give the Gentleman opposite would have any objec-
House satisfactory information, tion to a postponement of the discussion
Mr. O'Connellsupported the prayer of upon the principle of his bill for some
the Petition, and declared that the duty time longer, so as to afford an opportunity
would annihilate the cultivation of To- for the presentation of the various peti-
bacco in Ireland. tions which were in progress to that House
Petition to be Printed. upon the subject. The bill might be read
a second time without discussion, upon the
DEATH FOR FORGERY.] Mr. N. Cal- understanding that the discussion should
vert presented a Petition from the Bank- be had in another stage of the bill, and
ers, Traders, and other inhabitants of in that way no unnecessary delay would
Royston, praying for the abolition of the occur.
punishment of death in cases of Forgery. Mr. Secretary Peel had no objection
Mr. Brougham would take the oppor- to the proposition of the hon. and learned
tunity to express his satisfaction at seeing Member. The discussion, as he proposed,
the number of petitions coming in from might be taken in the committee; he
such quarters for the mitigation of the se- wished, however, then to remark, that in
verity of the forgery laws. It was most proposing to reduce the number of cases
gratifying to observe, that those persons to which the punishment of death should
who had formerly thought it their interest be applied, his bill did not go to create
to oppose any such measure, and more any new capital punishment. The prin-
particularly the traders and dealers in a ciple of his billwas a consolidation of the
paper currency, were now becoming gene- criminal law with regard to forgery. For
rally favourable to it. The bankers the convenience of hon. Members, he
throughout the country were reviewing should not object to a postponement of
their former opinions, and getting gra- the discussion upon the bill for a fort-
dually rid of the prejudice which had night, but certainly not to a more distant
hitherto induced them to suppose that the period. The bill might now be read a
punishment of death, in cases of forgery, second time, and the discussion would
afforded security and support to the credit take place in committee upon the clause
of a paper currency. He had, within the for retaining the punishment of death in
last week, occasion to look through a very certain cases of forgery.
extensive correspondence upon the sub- Sir James Macintosh had no objection
ject, from various parts of the country, to that arrangement, on the understanding
and from persons situated as he had de- that no Member was pledged to the prin-
scribed, and he should soon have to pre- ciple of the bill by not opposing the se-
sent several.petitions from bankers and cond reading of it.
traders, in which they express their con- Mr. C. N. Pallmer presented a Petition


35 Deathlfor


ICOMMONSI


Forg~ery. 36








37 Madras Registrar's Bill. {APRIL 26}


from Kingston-upon-Thames; he said it
prayed a revision of that part of the cri-
minal law which inflicted capital punish-
ment with respect to property. He stated
that the petition was signed, not only by
the magistracy, but a long list of the more
respectable bankers and persons engaged
in trade in the place. He rejoiced to have
it in his power cordially to support the
prayer of this petition, against laws which
were ineffectual for their object, while they
were hurtful to the feelings, and disgrace-
ful to the character of the country. He
was most happy to see an intelligent and
weighty class of the community come for-
ward, when those laws which had long
been the objects of the silent horror of all
Christian and enlightened minds were
about to be submitted to Parliament for
re-adoption as part of the code of the
country.

MADRAS REGISTRAR'S BILL.] Mr.
Astell presented a Petition from the East-
India Company against the Madras Re-
gistrar's Bill. The petitioners complained
that the principle of the Bill was most
unjust, and they prayed to be heard by
counsel against it. The hon. Member
moved that the petitioners be heard by
counsel at the Bar against the second read-
ing of the Bill.
Sir J. Macintosh would not oppose the
Motion for the petitioners being heard
against the Bill, but he merely rose to say,
that this was a case of great hardship, in
which a gentleman of advanced age and
reduced fortune had been for thirteen years
a suitor in the Court of the Directors, and
in that House, for redress, on account of
losses which he had suffered in conse-
quence of the malversation of one of their
public officers in India. At the ,ame
time, he could not recall to mind without
great pain, the share which he had in
creating that delay, and he should not wil-
lingly consent to postpone the Bill any
further, so as to cut away the probability
of it being passed during this year. In
every thing short of that delay, he should
be most happy to consult the convenience
of the hon. Member who had just spoken.
He candidly confessed that he wished to
have this Bill sent up to the Lords before
that period when a general massacre of
all bills was committed by their Lordships
on account of the old age of the Session.
He had first thought of postponing the
discussion of the Bill till Wednesday


next, but he had discovered, by diligent
research, that there were another set of
gentlemen, besides his Majesty's Minis-
ters, who dined together every Wednesday,
and who had quite as much objection to
having their festivities interrupted by the
calls of business. He did not intend to
quarrel with their weekly festivities, as he
understood that they had a tendency to
harmonize minds sometimes brought into
collision by the preceding occurrences of
the week, and to lead them to a more
serious performance of duties, too im-
portant to be neglected, by dissipating
the tedium which occasionally arose dur-
ing its continuance. He repeated that he
had first thought of postponing the Bill till
Wednesday next, but in consequence of
what had fallen from the hon. Member,
he would fix Wednesday se'nnight for its
discussion, subject to this understanding-
that if it were possible to obtain on ano-
ther day time for its discussion, which he
did not conceive would last two or three
hours, he would take it then.
Mr. Astell wondered how the right
hon. and learned Gentleman could recon-
cile it to himself to fix his bill for Wed-
nesday se'nnight, after the strong and un-
answerable reasons which he had given
for not bringing it on at all on a Wednes-
day.
Motion agreed to, and the second read-
ing of the Bill appointed for Wednesday,
May 5th.

WATCHIING, &C. PARISHES BILL.]
Mr. Portman, on moving that this Bill
be read a second time, said, that he wished
to have it sent to a committee up stairs, in
order to have the machinery of it properly
regulated. He wished, also, to exempt
from its operation the metropolis, the
different parishes adjoining the metropolis,
and all those parishes, in different parts of
the country, which had the benefit of local
acts for the same object.
The Bill read a second time, and com-
mitted to a Select Committee.

PooR-LAws AMENDVIENT BILL.] On
the Motion of Mr. Slaney, the House re-
solved itself into a Committee on the
Poor-Laws Amendment Bill. Mr. R.
Colborne in the Chair. On putting a
clause enacting that children whose parents
are unable to support them may be pro-
vided for by parishes in places to be ap-
pointed,
C2


Poor-Laivs. 38









Sir Thomas Baring objected to this! riages, and make the people utterly re-
clause,stating, that it involved a question of gardless of their children. At present
the utmost importance, and which required they did take some little care of them, and
the most serious consideration. He never how they might provide for them was a
remembered any similar clause in any consideration with many before they mar-
former enactment, and he was afraid the ried ; but if the clause were carried, they
Members were not aware of its import. I would be deprived of every motive, both
Such a proposition had indeed been for abstaining from marriage, andfor taking
agitated in former committees, but never care of their offspring. It was impossible
sanctioned, he believed, by a recommenda- that such a clause as that could be al-
tion from them. It was one to which he lowed to remain in the Bill.
never did and never would consent. It Lord Althorp only wished to explain to
authorised the parish overseers to take the Committee how the clause was intro-
away their children from the poor, and duced into the Bill. The committee which
provide for them, and educate them. Good sat up stairs to make inquiries into the
God! was it not enough that these people state of the poor, had been informed by
were poor ? must the legislature also de- several persons who were examined-which
prive them of their children ? The great was indeed a well-known matter of fact-
mass of the labouring classes were already that a great many of the poor were so very
too much degraded; and to take away badly off, that they could not provide for
their offspring from them would cut their own children; they were brought
asunder all the ties which yet bound up therefore at the expense of the parish,
them to good behaviour, and connected either at their own homes, or in the parish
them with the rest of the world. The workhouse. Being neglected, therefore,
clause was, in his opinion, so objectionable, receiving little or no education, these
so likely to be destructive of all good feel- children when they grew up came, in their
ings in the poor, that he was bound to turn, to be the parents of beings as desti-
oppose it. tute as themselves. They, therefore, per-
Mr. Robert Gordon said, that he took petuated the evil of pauperism, and it was
shame to himself that he had not before supposed by the committee, that one means,
made himself acquainted with the Bill. and which appeared to the committee a
He had only read it after he had entered feasible, a proper, and, he would add, a
the House, and he must say, that he never humane means of checking that evil would
remembered so improper an instance of be, to take the children of such parents as
legislative interference. The hon. Member were quite unable to provide for them, and
who brought in the bill assumed that the by educating them, raise them above the
poor married because they knew that their miserable condition of their parents. This
children would be provided for. He did was the view of the committee; in this,
not believe that assumption to be well he must say, he saw nothing cruel, nothing
founded; but if it were, he took the j deserving the censure of hon. Members.
readiest method to encourage them to do It should be always remembered that the
so, for he expressly declared by this clause, clause applied only to those children whose
that their children should be educated and I parents were quite unable to provide for
provided for, though separated from them- them.
selves. The clause was not only objection- Mr. Wilmot Horton expressed his satis-
able on the score of cruelty, it was also faction that a clause of the kind under
impolitic, and would not answer the only consideration had been introduced into
end for which it was proposed. He should the Bill, because it involved that great
most certainly object to that clause, and principle of population which the House
unless it were omitted, he should oppose must sooner or later be called on to take
the Bill altogether. into consideration. He was very much
Mr. Cripps said, no person who was at obliged to his hon. friend for having in-
all acquainted with the country, and with produced the clause. The question the
the habits and manners of the people, House would have to consider would be,
could support such a clause. The Gentle- the relation between the capital of the
man who had introduced it could not, he country and its population; between the
was persuaded, know anything of the means of employment, and the number of
people he attempted to legislate for. He labourers, with a view of making them
believed that it would promote early mar- equal, and keeping one from outgrowing


COMMONS I


Amendment Bill. 40


Poor-Laws







Amendment Bill. 42


the other. At present it was admitted,
that the demand for labour was not equal
to the supply-that the supply was in fact
excessive-that population was super-
abundant; and it was also admitted, that
as long as that superabundance continued,
all the means which could be invented for
improving the condition of the poor would
be only palliatives, which would probably
in the end render the disease more viru-
lent. He did not know that the particular
clause was otherwise worthy the attention
of the House, except as it involved this
great principle, but involving that, and
leading the House, compelling it, in fact,
to look at the source of the evil, he would
give it his support. He hoped the Bill
would pass.
Mr. Frankland Lewis said, he thought
Gentlemen who objected to this clause on
the score of inhumanity, and who stated
that itwas unexampled inlegislature-who.
like the hon. member for Cricklade, had
taken the Bill into his hands for the first
time that evening, must be quite un-
acquainted with the fact, that the House
had actually passed a bill with this clause
in it, or one precisely similar in principle,
in 1816. That bill was lost in another
place. He did not mean, however, to
state that the House, having before given
its consent to such a measure, was then
bound to support this clause. In fact, he
could not vote for it, and he would state
why: he knew that by the 43rd of Eliza-
beth, the overseers had the powerof setting
an able-bodied pauper to work, but they
could not set his infant children to work ;
and as they were bound to give the means
of supporting the children, they gave it to
the father, being unable to give it to the
children, so that for the maintenance of
his children, though not on his own
account, he did in fact obtain the money.
To obviate this, it was proposed to establish
institutions where pauper children were to
be fed, and clothed, and educated ; but he
thought such a system could never be
effected, because it broke through all
those ties that nature imposed. It had
been said, indeed, that the children of the
rich were thus separated from their parents;
but every one must perceive the difference
between the master of an institution where
the children were on principle taught to
look to others than their natural protectors,
and those nurses and schoolmasters whom
the rich employed to bring up their chil-
dren, and whose interest was most closely


connected with the welfare and good con-
dition of the children intrusted to their
management. He utterly despaired of
the success of any such establishment,
though no one entertained a more decided
conviction than he did, that the present
system of Poor-laws was fraught with
destruction to property. The system of
retarding the increase of population was
recommended, and he thought with some
reason, as he especially believed, that it
could not be better put into opera-
tion than when the labouring classes were
not overwhelmed with active and pressing
distress. The other system-that of en-
couraging the increase of the population
-had been the favourite scheme in Mr.
Pitt's time, and it was only in late years
that the people had been informed that
the procreation of children, without the
means of supporting them, was a great
evil and a great offence. He thought the
best thing to adopt in the administration
of the Poor-laws, would be to diminish
the power of magistrates in granting relief.
The reason why the Poor-laws were not so
mischievously overwhelming in Scotland
as in England was, that their administra-
tion was in the hands of those who pro-
vided the rates. It was from the opposite
system that the payment of wages out of
the rates had arisen. The interference of
magistrates with the relief of the poor
was only a recent practice, and at first in-
tended to act as a check upon the ex-
penditure of the rates ; but it turned out
that they were the worst instruments that
could have been employed, for they con-
firmed and extended the evils. In his
opinion, the owners of small cottages, who
built them on speculation, and not the
occupier, ought to be charged with the
rates; they obtained the rent of these
cottages from the rates. The fact was
proved by a case mentioned before the
Emigration Committee, from which it ap-
peared, that the owners of these cottages
were persons, who, having the manage-
ment of the rates, let out the cottages to
paupers, and took the amount of the rent
from the sums allotted for the support of
their pauper tenants. The witness who
stated this fact was asked, what would
happen if funds were provided to clear the
parish of paupers, and he answered, that
the owners would pull down the cottages,
as they would not suffer the paupers of
other parishes to inhabit them. Large
manufacturers, who had the management


(APRIL 26}


41 Poor-Laws








of the rates, and who possessed cottages for it, arising from circumstances to which
of this description, filled their manufacto- he would not further allude. But as to
ries with apprentices, and they furnished the payment of money to a labourer whose
the means of filling the cottages with wages were insufficient to maintain him,
paupers. He said, that the remedy for he believed that custom had so established
this was to charge the landlord with rates that mode of relief, that we could not now
for these cottages. He recommended the depart from it. It would be useless, as
hon. Member to consider these various some imagined, to employ such paupers in
matters, and to revise his Bill, some of the unproductive labour to the amount of the
parts of which he was willing to support, money given them; and itwould be better
Mr. Wodehouse thought that the clause for all, that the labourers should be em-
for separating the children from their played in productive labour, especially as
parents, never could be carried into effect; the agriculturists were the class who contri-
and if it could, it would be productive of buted most to the Poor-rates. He did not
more harm than good. approve of the plan of sending men abroad,
Mr. Benett, having acted as a magis- for hebelieved that would only produceare-
trate in a large district for thirty years, action on the population. He did not think
begged to deny some of the statements the present Bill practicable at this moment;
that had just been made. With respect but he believed that great good might be
to the plan of bringing back the Poor-laws attained by giving a stimulus to agricul-
to the state in which they were in the ture, and by taking off those obstacles
reign of Elizabeth, he should approve of that now existed to the cultivation of
it if it were practicable; but he feared it waste lands. He did not agree to the plan
was not, for the state of the country was of rating the owners instead of the occu-
much changed since that time. We were piers of small tenements. He knew seve-
then an agricultural people, having no ral men of property-and could name
surplus labourers; now we were a manu- them if he pleased-who had received
facturing people, working by machinery, money from the Poor-rates under a bad
and having a large surplus population; system of administration; and in such
and we were thus reduced to straits, from men there would be no check if poorer
which we knew not how to escape, but by men had no interest .in keeping down the
a better administration of the present amount of the rates. He therefore thought
system. An hon. Member had called that the occupiers of tenements, whom he
some of the payments now made an had generally found punctual in their at-
assignment of wages out of the Poor- tendance at vestries, ought to pay the
rates: he denied it. The value of labour rates, and then they would have an interest
was regulated by the proportion of the in keeping them down. Besides, he saw
supply to the demand, and no law of this no reason why small proprietors should be
description could alter it. A pauper with liable to pay rates for their cottages, when
several children could not support himself the occupiers and not the owners of large
upon 8s. per week, and if he received only houses and extensive properties paid the
that sum in wages, he required 8s. more rates. On the whole, though he approved
from the parish, to support him and his of the principle of the measure, he was
family. The hon. Member charged the obliged to dissent from many of its details.
giving of such a sum to a working labourer Mr. Courtenay was willing to assent to
as a grievous fault committed by the ma- the Bill, provided it were accompanied
gistrates of the South and West of Eng- with the clause recommended by the right
land, and said that the parish allowance hon. member for Ashburton (Mr. Sturges
was given in aid of wages. No magis- Bourne). That clause, a few years ago,
trates could compel the farmer to give a had been brought forward in the shape of
higher rate of wages to his labourer than a separate measure, and the object of it
was required by the state of the market was, to provide, instead of giving paupers
for labour. If that were not sufficient to increased wages when their families
support the labourer, the parish was obliged amounted to a certain number, that some
to give something for the maintenance of of their children, if not wholly taken from
his children, which it must support in some them, should at least be supported and
way or other. He did not think that there educated by the parish. The clause sug-
was, properly speaking, so much a super- gested did not necessarily require the se-
abundance of labour as a want of demand paration of the parents from their children;


43 Poor-Laws


COMMONS I


A amendment .Bill. 44








and he thought, that not merely paupers, ing them for the purposes of board and
but persons above that rank, would con- education.
sider it a boon to have their families thus Mr. Slaney said, that if he thought the
taught, fed, and clothed. Supposing, effect of his Bill would be to depress in-
however, that they were separated, the stead of elevating the character of the
hardship, for such an object, would not be poor of this country, he would abandon it
great; and many parents in this metro- at once and instantly. He had read every
polis, who had sons at Christ's Hospital report of every committee, and every work
were content to make the sacrifice of their of reputation on the subject, and founding
children's society in order that they might himself upon them, he had brought for-
be well educated. The intention of the ward this Bill, in the hope of remedying
separate measure to which he had alluded acknowledged and existing abuses. After
was, to return as nearly as possible to the investigating all parts of the question, the
letter of the 43rd of Elizabeth, which pro- committee, of which he had the honour to
vided for setting to work children whose be Chairman, had come to the almost
parents were not able to support them; unanimous determination, that it was ne-
and be conceived, without the clause under cessary to face the evil and to point out a
discussion,whichwasprecisely similartothe remedy. That remedy was the Bill before
principal enactment of the measure he had the House, and he had proceeded cauti-
alluded to, the remedial part of the present ously, butsteadily and firmly, in endeavour-
Billwould be useless. It was his opinion, into bring it into operation. The abuses
that the measure never could come effect- of the Poor-laws were not, as some sup-
ually into operation without the clause, but posed, general; they were confined very
with it, he was willing that the experi- much to the south of England, for in the
ment of raising the wages of the poor North they were very beneficial in their
should be tried. At the same time he operation. In the last Session an objec-
was convinced, that the hon. Mover would tion had been taken by the right hon.
be disappointed in his hopes on this part member for Ashburton (Mr. S. Bourne),
of the subject. Although he supported and in order to obviate that objection,
the Bill, he heartily joined with the hon. certain clauses were introduced, not re-
Baronet in determination not to abandon commended by the committee; but on the
the industrious poor and their families, authority of the right hon. Chairman of
Mr. W. Horton was anxious to preserve the Committee of 1817, who had pub-
a moral check upon the poor man, in order lished one of the most valuable reports
to prevent his marrying until he was in a ever laid upon the Table of Parliament.
situation to maintain a family. At pre- The object of the present Bill was, to
sent, if a labourer married, he knew that restore some parts of the south of Eng-
his children must be supported by the land to the present condition of the North,
parish, if he could not support them him- as related to the maintenance of the poor.
self. The principle of separating parents The magistrates of the south, in the teeth
and children had been adopted in a clause of the law, and acting upon a mistaken
already approved by the Committee, so notion of humanity and benevolence, had
that, if it were now objected to success- apportioned the relief of the poor by the
fully, the Bill must be re-committed, in price of bread, and this principle had been
order to remedy the discrepancy. The introduced into about sixteen or seventeen
Bill did not at all deprive the pauper of counties. The effect had been in all those
relief; it only declared that the relief situations to degrade the poor, and to
should be given entirely as the parish render them indifferent and dependent,
thought fit, and not partly in a weekly while in the north of England, where no
allowance in money, and partly in educat- such practice prevailed, they were still in-
ing and feeding his children. He was dependent, honest, and industrious. All
anxious that the Bill should be made pro- that he asked was, that by this Bill a
spective, and if it were rendered so he wholesome uniformity might, in this re-
should give it his decided support, spect, be established. The lion. member
Mr. Benett observed, that as the law for Radnor (Mr. F. Lewis) had contended,
now stood, it allowed the separation of indeed, that the admitted evil was so ex-
paupers and their children, for the purpose tensive, that no remedy could be applied
of being apprenticed by the parish; but to it; but he (Mr. Slaney) hoped that this
that was quite a different thing to separat- measure, if adopted, would accomplish


45 Poor-Laws


{APRIL 26}


Amzendmlent Bill. 46







Amendment Bill. 48


the change without injury or violence. By
its provisions nothing was taken from the
pauper. He had still his right to relief,
but the form of that relief was changed.
Instead of money, he was provided with
work to earn it; and his children, instead
of being neglected, were to be fed, clothed,
and educated. He trusted that the House
would at least permit the Bill to go through
the present stage. The existing law took
away all reason for forethought, as re-
spected the marriages of the labouring
classes, who argued thus-" If we cannot
maintain our families, the rates must."
Of course this feeling led to improvident
marriages, to an enormous increase of the
population, and to a depression of wages,
with a correspondent augmentation of the
poor-rates. He was happy to add, that
he had received letters from various parts
of the country, where attempts had been
made to retrace steps hastily taken,
stating, that the system had been revised,
and that a beneficial change was already
apparent. The hon. member for Wilts
(Mr. Benett) had said, that the present was
the worst time that could have been
chosen for bringing in such a bill; but
surely that hon. Gentleman's experience
must have taught him that no course could
be worse calculated to do permanent good
than to resort to measures only when they
were rendered necessary by the urgency of
temporary pressure. The Bill had already
been two years under consideration; and
if adopted, it would gradually but effec-
tually draw a broad line of distinction
between labourers who married because
they knew their children must be support-
ed by the parish, and those who married
with a fair prospect of being able to pro-
vide for their increasing families. He had
not heard a single argument to weaken
his confidence in the Bill; and he trusted
that the House would not hastily and in-
considerately reject what had been founded
upon the mature deliberations of no less
than five different committees.
Mr. Cripps gave the hon. Member
credit for the ability and perseverance he
had shown upon this subject, although he
was convinced that it would be impossible
to carry the Bill into effect, even if it
were passed. He maintained that in
Gloucestershire the magistrates had no
choice but to regulate the degree of relief
by the price of bread. No comparison
could fairly be instituted between the
South and the North of England, inas-


much as the population in the one was
much less dense than in the other. He
resided in a very populous county, and
had means of considerable information
with reference to the object of the Bill.
He had given the question much attention,
and the result of that was, that no enact-
ment would be required if the 43rd of
Elizabeth were acted up to. Here was a
case in which they had a large body of
manufacturers to provide for, who were
thrown out of employment; and what
could be done for them, except to afford
them a parish allowance ? Though making
these observations, he begged not to be
understood as objecting to the whole of the
Bill; he wished to see the Bill divided into
parts, and he should have no objection to
support the latter part of it. He thought
that if they went no further than to fix
the rent at 101., and made the owners of all
houses let at a less sum than that, and
not the occupiers, pay the rates, all would
be effected that could be wished. He
should be sorry to see the whole of the Bill
negatived, or at least he should regret to
see the latter part entirely abandoned.
Mr. Secretary Peel said, he was sorry
that there had not been a preliminary dis-
cussion-that they had not discussed the
principle of the Bill before they went into
committee upon it. At present, instead of
paying all that attention to the clauseswhich
it was the practice of the House to pay in
committees, they had occupied themselves
chiefly with discussing the principle of the
Bill; thus reversing the usual course of
business, by leaving to the third reading
the arrangement of the clauses, and occu-
pying the time of the Committee with that
which ought to be done at the third read-
ing. He wished, therefore, that the hon.
Moverwould endeavour, in the Committee,
to render the Bill as perfect as possible
according to his own conception, and then
let it take its fate on the third reading.
The hon. Gentleman had expressed his
readiness to do all in his power to meet
the views of Members, and so to frame or
alter the Bill as to obtain general support:
in doing so, he more indulged his own
good nature than did what was calculated
to promote the success of the Bill. He
really thought that the object of the hon.
Member would be best effected by making
the Bill as perfect as possible, according
to his own conception, and not by endea-
vouring to accommodate it to the fancies
of every hon, Member. Though he saw


47 Poor-Laws


{COMMONS}








much matter for serious consideration in the age of seven to fourteen, and fixed
the Bill before the Committee, yet he it entitely under the management of the
should be far from throwing any obstacles parish officers. Whenever relief was asked
in the way of its passing through that for any child from the parish, he was per-
stage; and he should be extremely sorry fectly ready to admit that from that mo-
to say anything that could prejudice it on ment the parish officers were entitled to
the third reading; but he must be allowed interfere with its daily education, namely,
to say, that he doubted whether the hon. with the education which they might re-
Member could accomplish what he had in ceive at a day school; but beyond that, he
view-namely, making the condition of much questioned the expediency of inter-
the South resemble that of the North, by ference. He had had some experience on
the introduction for a time, of an interme- this subject in Ireland, in respect of an
diate system not now in use in either, establishment which undertook not alone to
No one could doubt, that the hon. Mem- provide for the education, but for the cloth-
ber's object was a very laudable one; and ing and employment of the children corn-
wishing, as he did, every success to the mitted to its care; and he must confess,
hon. Member, still he entertained doubts that the result of that experience was by
with respect to the propriety of some of no means favourable to the practice. One
the details of the measure before them. of the difficulties which it presented was
He thought, in fact, that by this measure this, that when the children attained the
the hon. Member would introduce into the age of fourteen, the managers knew not
South a plan which did not exist in the what to do with them. They might have
North. The manner in which the recep- twenty, thirty, forty children at the age of
tion, care, and education of children were fourteen, who had received a better educa-
provided for in this Bill was unknown in tion, perhaps, than might have qualified
theNorth. He had his doubts with respect them for situations merely servile; and
to the propriety of the power given by this from that, and other causes, the conductors
Bill, of separating the children from their of Charter-schools-the establishments to
parents. In cases where the parents were which he particularly alluded-had great
persons of profligate character, the sepa- difficulties to contend against. Those
ration might be advantageous; but where conductors stood in the place of parents,
the parish had provided houses for the and the parents and friends of the children
reception of children, he was afraid this had a right to say, you are responsible,
power of separating children from their and not we, and to you we look for putting
parents would be exercised indiscrimi- forward in the world those young persons,
nately, and that the overseer would make now at the age of fourteen or fifteen, of
no difference between the careless and pro- whom you have assumed the care. Then,
fligate, and the industrious andaffectionate again, another objection to the Bill was,
parent. Overbearing necessity might that it conferred upon Churchwardens and
justify this power of separation; but at Overseers powers which they would be
the first blush of the question, and as a very likely to exceed. To establish such
general measure, he was decidedly opposed a school as was contemplated by the Bill,
to it. In some cases it would doubtless invested the Churchwardens and Overseers
be consulting the morality and the interests with the power of appointing masters and
of the children to separate them from their mistresses, and attendants, and so conferred
parents; but there were many cases in upon them a certain amount of patronage;
which he should be extremely sorry to see for the persons employed must, of neces-
such a power exercised. He doubted, sity, get some stipends, more or less. To
also, if it would not prove an expensive such an enactment, he confessed, he could

system, and he therefore entreated the not help feeling considerable objection.
Committee well to consider that point ThisBillwouldconferuponChurchwardens
before they proceeded further with the and Overseers the power of taking leases,
Bill. He understood it as conferring cer- making purchases, building or fitting up
tain powers upon the parish officers, until houses-surely such powers, were open to
the practice of the South should be assi- abuse. For these reasons, then, he thought
milated to that of the North-it gave them that the Committee ought to pause before
a power of founding a school, in which they agreed to all the clauses of the Bill.
they could place all children on whose He begged not to be understood as urging
behalf parochial relief was demanded, from these observations as objections to the


49 Poor-Laws


{APRIL 26}


Amnendmenlt Bill. 50







Amendment Bill. 52


Bill; he only aimed at suggesting topics
which he thought were deserving of serious
consideration.
Mr. Wilmot Horton thought that many
of the objections to the Bill would be
obviated, if it were distinctly understood
that its regulations were to be prospective.
It was proposed to fill up the blank in the
clause then under discussion with the
words "four years," thus giving to the
Overseers and Churchwardens the power
objected to only over the offspring of the
parties who might marry four years after
the Bill was passed.
Sir T. Baring said, that the hon. Menm-
ber proposed to effect two objects by this
Bill,-the one was, to raise the character
of the pauper, the other to diminish the
poor-rates. He thought the Bill calcu-
lated to effect neither of these objects.
Was it raising the character of the pauper
to insist that every man, himself and his
family, should be maintained wholly by
the parish if he came for relief at all?
And could it be supposed that the very
expensive machinery of this Bill would
diminish the parish rates? He thought
the Bill would degrade the pauper still
farther, and increase the poor-rates.
Mr. C. Wood said, that the Bill had been
very much mistaken; and that, far from
inflicting any hardship, it conferred a
boon upon the poor. He looked upon it
in a very different light from the hon.
Baronet. By the law as it stood, the over-
seer might take the child of a pauper
when it was nine years old and put it out
as an apprentice; and all which this Bill
did was to allow the overseers to take the
child at an earlier period, making it, by
education,more fit for the purpose of being
bound to some trade.
Sir T. Fremantle said, that the Bill did
no more than make that practice legal
which was at present carried on every day
without law. The practice, it was said,
also, would be inconvenient; but in fact it
was now done without any inconvenience.
In many parts of the country, as he knew
the paupers were employed in gravel-pits,
or at any suitable work for the joint benefit
of those who were obliged to support them,
and they received sufficient wages. He
did not see any difference between such
cases and what the hon. Member proposed
to accomplish by his Bill. On the whole,
he thought that the measure would be
beneficial to the paupers, and though there
might be some difficulties in carrying it


into execution, they were not insurmount-
able.
Mr. Estcourt gave -the lion. Member
who brought in the Bill every credit for
his meritorious exertions, but he thought
the hon. Member was legislating on effects,
not on causes. The practice prevailing in
the north might be a very good practice
there, but it might be a very bad one for
the south, unless the conditions of the two
were the same. The hon. Member ap-
peared to him to have lost sight of one
thing: there was a manufacture at one
time in the south, which was removed
afterwards into the north. At that time
the population of the north was small, that
of the south was large. The population
of the north, it was true, had increased,
but so also had the manufacture; while
in the south,the manufacture was lost, and
the large population remained to be pro-
vided for. Under such circumstances,
what could be done but to get the farmers
to employ as many as they could, and
make those who contributed to the rates
provide for the rest. He agreed that this
system had a tendency to lower the rate
of wages, but what else could be done ?
Many other circumstances too, such as
the intervention of a person between the
labourer and his employer, and the law of
settlement, had been overlooked by the
hon. Member. He did not think the plan
would answer the object proposed, and he
was afraid it would entail a great increase
of expense on parishes. He therefore
must oppose it.
Mr. Slaney said, that the hon. Member
who spoke last had made out a strong case
in favour of the Bill, by admitting that the
law was deviated from in the south, and by
admitting also the injurious effects of such
deviation. Wherever the practice pre-
vailed against which the Bill was directed
the poor were ill off, and where it was not
found they were well off. As to the ma-
nufacture which the hon. Member said
had been transferred from the south to the
north; what manufacture, he would ask,
had Sussex ever had ? And yet Sussex
was lowest in the scale. What manufac-
ture had Kent ever had? Wiltshire, it
was true, had once a manufacture, but the
fact was, that the mischiefs were the
greatest in districts which were, and ever
had been, merely agricultural districts.
Thus in the county of Sussex, exclusively
an agricultural county, young men of
eighteen or twenty made no scruple of


51 Poor-Laws


fCOMMONSJ







{APRIL 26} Galway Franchise Bill. 54


marrying, and were applying for relief for
their first children; and his Bill would
give effectual relief by checking improvi-
dent marriages. He thanked the right
hon. Secretary of State for the candid
manner in which he had spoken of this
Bill; and he was glad that the objections
of the right hon. Gentleman were con-
fined to one particular clause, and did not
go to the principle of the measure. That
clause had not been originally intended to
form part of the bill, but had been adopted
from another Bill, rather in the expecta-
tion of receiving the support of some hon.
Members than from any very strong pre-
dilection for the clause. He would re-
mind the right hon. Gentleman, however,
that this clause was only of a temporary
nature, for the persons it applied to would
be gradually passing away. The right
hon. Gentleman objected to the taking
away children from their parents ; but in
fact, the measure made very little altera-
tion in the present law in that respect. By
the law at present the overseers may take
the children of paupers, when nine years
old, and put them to work, and afterwards
put them out as apprentices. The present
clause only accelerated the time at which
they might be taken, fixing the period at
seven years of age, with this additional
difference,-that instead of being sent to
work they were to be sent to school. In
other respects he was glad the right hon.
Gentleman admitted the principle of the
Bill. His object was now to make it as
perfect as he could, and he was sanguine
in his expectation of being able to carry
it through the House this Session. He
did not hope to see it carried into a law at
present, but he was anxious that it should
go up for discussion to the other House ;
for his determination was, to persevere and
bring it before Parliament from time to
time, until his object should be effected.
Mr. Secretary Peel said, the hon.Mem-
ber was too hasty in supposing that he
agreed with him in all the clauses of the
Bill, because he did not object to them at
present. He was anxious, however, to re-
serve any expression of opinion until he
saw how the hon. Member proposed to
carry his plan into effect, and he there-
fore hoped the Bill would go to a third
reading.
Mr. Benett said, one reason for the in-
crease of the poor-rates in the south and
west of England was, that manufactures
of flannel and woollen had been all re-


moved to the north. He thought, how-
ever, that the poor-rates were not an evil,
and that the return of prosperity would
replace them in the same condition as
before.
Some verbal amendments being made
on the clause empowering overseers to take
the children of paupers, and Sir T. Baring
having expressed his determination to op-
pose it altogether, the Committee divided,
when there appeared: For the clause 9;
Against it 91-Majority 82. The other
clauses were agreed to; the Report was
brought up, and ordered to be taken into
further consideration on Monday.

GALWAY FRANCHISE BILL COMMIT-
TEE.] Mr. S. Rice moved the order of
the day for the House to resolve itself into
a Committee of the whole House on the
above Bill.
Mr. Daly opposed the Motion, upon the
grounds that the House had agreed to hear
counsel against the Bill, and he had that
evening, at eight o'clock, received a letter
from Mr. Adam, the counsel, stating that
he was unable to attend.
Mr. S. Rice pressed the Motion. He
thought, in the first place, whatever incon-
venience it might be to a counsel to attend
at the Bar, that should not be held as a
sufficient reason for stopping the progress
of a public bill; and secondly,he thought
the case was not one in which counsel
should be heard at all, because there was
only one petition opposed to the prayers
of a great number. He farther contended,
that when the whole Bar of England was
open to a man's choice, he had only him-
self to blame if he were left in any diffi-
culty by the absence of a single person.
He, for one, would move, that the
Speaker leave the Chair."
Mr. Daly produced the letter, and de-
clared he was not to blame. He saw Mr.
Adam after receiving that intimation, and
he had repeated the contents of that com-
munication to him.
Mr. S. Rice observed, that Mr. Adam
had been in the House of Lords that even-
ing.
Sir G. Hill observed, it had been de-
cided by the House, that counsel should
be heard. The question then to be con-
sidered was, if the absence of Mr. Adam
was sufficient to authorize a postpone-
ment.
Mr. S. Rice remarked, that counsel
might equally well be heard on the report,


Poor Laws.







55 Galway Franchise Bill. {COMMONS}


or on the third reading. He thought that Mr. Daly having expressed his satisfac-
since this postponement would give the tion in the arrangement, the Bill was
hon. Member a chance of checking the passed through a Committee, and the Re-
progress of the Bill for the entire Session, port ordered to be received on Wednes-
the House ought not to assent to it : for day; counsel to be heard against it.
one he would not consent to the delay.
He had certainly introduced the Bill, but, DESERTED CHILDREN (IRELAND)
unlike the lion. Member, he was not per- BILL.] LordF.L. Gower rose to move the
sonally interested in it. second reading of this Bill. He explain-
Mr. Daly asked if the hon. member for ed that it was his intention to remodel
Limerick would say that Mr. Adam did the Bill, so as to confine it to the first
speak in the House of Lords that night ? of the two objects it proposed to em-
Mr. W. Wynn thought they should not brace, namely-a provision for Deserted
postpone the consideration of a public Children, and an abolition of the Found-
measure upon the simple assertion that it ling Hospital. The other point, which
would be inconvenient for a counsel to was a favourite one with himself, he pro-
attend. The principle would be highly posed for the present to abandon; and
injurious, as there was no public bill which this he did the more readily, because there
might not be stopped if such excuses were was a committee then sitting above stairs,
suffered to prevail, which would, in all probability, take the
Mr. Secretary Peel said,he apprehended subject into consideration, and make some
that the petition was not opposed to the suggestion respecting it. He trusted,
principle, but to certain clauses of the therefore, that as he had divided this Bill
Bill; and he thought his hon. friend was under separate heads, he might have it
not liable to the slightest blame. He had, now read a second time without opposi-
at a late hour that very evening, received tion. He acknowledged that there would
a letter from the counsel, stating that his be great difficulties in the way of this
state of health was such that he could not second division of the Bill, which referred
attend. And what was he then to do? to illegitimate children, and therefore he
He could not get another at that time, had proposed it for further consideration.
although he might certainly have pre- Mr.O'Connell observed, great difficulties
vionsly chosen from the whole Bar of would arise in the details. Children might
England. He considered that the hon. be transferred from one part of the country
member for Limerick had a right to call to another, and a species of parochial
upon the House to proceed with the Bill questions would arise as to whether they
after such a manner as would prevent the had been properly abandoned or no. He
possibility of any obstacles being thrown thought it might, perhaps, be better if the
in its way that might have the effect of entire subject was to lie dyer for farther
checking its progress for the Session, and consideration. He would not, however,
he accordingly believed it would be well oppose the second reading.
if his hon. friend acquiesced in permitting Bill read a second time.
the Bill to go through this stage, upon the
understanding that counsel should he UsuRY LAws BILL.] Mr. Poulett
heard upon the report; so that if a suffi- Thomson wished to postpone the discus-
ciently strong case against any of the sion on the second reading of this Bill;
clauses were made out, his hon. friend but the sense of the House was evidently
might have the opportunity of moving the against it. The hon. Member then pro-
recommittal of the Bill, and thus be placed ceeded to say, that in the present Bill he
in the same situation in which he now had endeavoured to meet the objections
stood. He would therefore submit, that which had been made to the measure he
the Bill should now be suffered to go on, had introduced last Session. These ob-
upon the understanding that counsel sections were directed to two points;
should be heard on Wednesday next, namely, that in borrowing upon the secu-
when the Report might be brought up. rity of real property, great inconvenience
Mr. S. Rice observed, that the petition arose from persons tying themselves down
was against the principle; he did not, to the payment of a rate of interest from
accordingly, see how the Bill could be re- which they were never afterwards able to
committed. He, however, was willing to relieve themselves; and secondly, that
agree to the arrangement. young men of good expectations were in


Usury Laws Bill.








57 Usury Laws Bill.


the danger of casting themselves into
difficulties for their whole lives, to meet
the exigencies of a moment. Now, in his
Bill, he proposed to meet both these evils;
for, in the first place, he proposed to give
as much facility as possible for the dis-
counting of bills, and obtaining loans of
money, while, in the next place, he wished
that nothing except legal interest should
be recoverable in a court of law. But as
he did not anticipate any objection to the
principle of the measure, he would not
trouble the House at greater length on that
occasion, but would merely move the se-
cond reading of the Bill.
Mr. Heathcote declared, that nothing
should induce him to relax in his exer-
tions to prevent the Bill from passing into
a law. Even the reservations in the Bill
were more injurious than would be the
abolition of the Usury Laws altogether.
His hon. friend proposed to exempt mort-
gages from the operation of the Bill. If
money were lent on mortgage for more
than five per cent, the borrower might
bring the case into a court of law, and the
lender could not recover more than five
per cent. But of what advantage would
that be to the borrower ? For although
the lender could not recover more than five
per cent, he might recall the mortgage.
Was the present a proper moment at which
to bring forward such a proposition? If
any interest in the country were at the
present moment in a prosperous state, it
was the monied interest. The low price
of every article, the change that had taken
place in the currency, had all been favour-
able to the capitalist, yet at such a time
his hon. friend proposed to allow the capi-
talist to take what might be considered
as unlimited interest. If it were true that
the time for such a change was inexpe-
dient as respected the state of the monied
interest, it was still more true, that it was
inexpedient as respected the state of the
agricultural interest; oppressed as that in-
terest was with want of confidence, and
with other difficulties, which his hon.
friend's Bill must tend to enhance. All
bills of this description had hitherto had
an unfortunate termination; and he would
venture to prophesy that this measure
would share the fate of its predecessors.
As he was persuaded that the sooner it
was got rid of the better, he should cer-
tainly divide the House upon the present
Motion.
Mr. Gordon regretted that his hon.


friend the member for Wareham, under
whose banner he had so frequently fought,
in opposition to bills of a similar nature
which had formerly been proposed by an
hon. and learned Serjeant, and who had
invariably shown himself one of the most
able and persevering opponents of those
bills, had not spoken on the present oc-
casion. Besides the old objections which
applied to the Bill under the consideration
of the House, there was the additional one,
that it sanctioned a little treachery-a
little fraud. A borrower might deceive a
lender by offering ten or fifteen per cent,
while there was no legal obligation upon
him to pay more than five. This was an
inducement to fraud. He hoped his hon.
friend, the member for Wareham, would
state his sentiments on the Bill; and trust-
ed that it would eventually be thrown out.
Mr. Calcraft did not intend to trouble
the House on the present occasion, but,
as his hon. friend had called upon him, he
had no hesitation in saying, that he main-
tained the same opinions upon the subject
as he had formerly held. He had been
induced to believe that the Bill of the
hon. member for Dover was somewhat
different in its provisions from the bill of
the learned Serjeant. The hon. Member
said, that the Bill would not affect mort-
gages, but in this he did not concur. He
could not agree with him, that it would
leave them in the same state in which it
found them ; since it legalized the loan of
money at a higher rate of interest than five
per cent. But he objected on general
grounds to so great a change in the money
system of this country. There already ex-
isted, he thought, sufficient anxiety and
want of confidence in all money transac-
tions; and the effect of suddenly changing
the law concerning them would be to add
considerably to the difficulties of every
class in the country except that class which
laboured under no difficulty at all. If his
hon. friend had not called upon him he
should not have troubled the House upon
the question, as he had not read the Bill,
and had not conceived that it tended to
make so great an alteration in the money
system of the country as he now found.
He should therefore oppose the second
reading, and continue to pursue the same
course as formerly, which, though it might
be called the result of ignorance, he should
persevere in, until some new light should
be thrown on the question, and induce him
to change his opinion.


{APRIL 26}


Usury Laws Bill. 58









Mr. Robinson maintained that the pre- the contract into a court of law for the
sent system operated most injuriously purpose of having it repudiated and disal-
on large classes of commercial and trading lowed. The Bill contained another
men. At the time when the existing laws clause, which was scarcely less absurd;
were passed, there were reasons why namely, that whenever more than five per
money should not bear a higher interest cent had been voluntarily paid, it could
than five per cent. Capital was at that never be got back. What was voluntary
period less abundant than it was at pre- payment ? Suppose money had been ob-
sent; for it was a great mistake to sup- trained by action or arrest, was that volun-
pose that capital was not at present abun- tary payment ? How very rarely had any
dant, not only in this country, but over evil resulted from the present laws ? If
the whole world. Under such circum- an adequate substitute could be found for
stances, was it not a great hardship that them he would not object to it; but he
both lenders and borrowers should be had not yet met with any such substitute.
limited in their transactions? It was The repeated discussions which had taken
a great mistake to suppose that means place on the subject had, in his mind,
were not at present resorted to, such as established the utter impossibility of
annuities and others, by which money was looking at money as at other articles
borrowed and lent at a rate greater than of trade, and of letting its possessor
thatwhichthelawallowed. Hishon.friend's do what he chose with it. That was a
Bill would do away with all the evils into principle disclaimed both by the ancient
which borrowers were driven by the absurd and by the modern world. It was a prin-
existing regulations. Having said so ciple which no writer of character had
much in favour of the principle of the ever maintained. He was convinced that
Bill, he must add, that he was decidedly if the hon. Gentleman's Bill were agreed
adverse to that clause in it which, having to, it would render the landed interest an
allowed parties to borrow and lend at a easy prey to the capitalists.
greater rate than five per cent, held out a Mr. O'Connell rose, in answer to the
temptation to the borrower to go into assertion of the hon. and learned Gentle-
a court of law for the purpose of violat- man that no lawyer would be found to sup-
ing his contract. port the Bill. His only objection to it
Lord Althorp was of opinion, that if the was, that it did not go far enough; he
Usury Laws were to be changed, there wished to see the Usury Laws abolished
could be no more convenient time for the entirely. All attempts to put a maximum
alteration than the present. As to the price upon any commodity-and money
fraud which it was said the Bill would was a commodity-were absurd. Laws
sanction, it should be remembered that of that description could not be executed;
the same means of fraud existed at pre- they had never been executed. He had
sent, nay greater; for if a party borrow- known instances in Ireland in which an-
ing money at usurious interest brought nuities of fourteen, fifteen, or eighteen per
the party lending into a court of law, he cent had been granted for money, when,
could refuse not only to pay the interest, if there had been no violation of the law,
but the principal also. He did not be- eight or nine per cent would have been
lieve that the repeal of the Usury Laws the utmost that would have been given for
would be disadvantageous to the landed it. The hon. and learned Gentleman had
interest; as it would not subject them to stated that the cases of persons suffering
pay more for money than they did at pre- from the law as it at present stood was ex-
sent. He should support the Bill, as tremely rare. He, however, could not
he had done all others of a similar descrip- agree to that, for he had known many
tion. cases of persons in Ireland who, by taking
Sir C. Wetherell was not surprised that more than the legal rate of interest, had
the Bill should be supported by the laity; lost the principal, and in one particular
but should have been exceedingly sur- instance he knew of a family having been
prised if any lawyer had supported a ruined by such a circumstance. The law,
measure which contained so gross an in- as proposed by the hon. member for
consistency as a repeal of the Usury Laws, Dover, at least secured the principal.
while it preserved a clause, which allowed The only possible loss would be the ad-
a contract to be made for unlimited inter- ditional bonus. But this was said to
est, but permitted the borrower to bring prove the absurdity of the proposition.


COMMONS 1


Usury Laws Bill. 60


59 Usury Laws Bill.









He could see no absurdity in it. Its It was not, however, necessary to repeal
principle was to do away with the penalty the Usury Laws, in order to get over this
of the Usury Laws, while it left the legal inconvenience. He was decidedly op-
sanction to paying five per cent at least, posed to a total repeal of the Usury Laws,
Another mischief that arose from the pre- but he would rather that a total repeal of
sent state of the Usury Laws was, that these laws should take place than that
they tempted juries to strain their con- the principle of the present Bill should be
science, and, in a manner, gave an incite- adopted. It appeared to him to be quite
ment to perjury. The Bill now proposed an anomaly. It was a Bill to enable a
would amend this, and it would, at the party to do something which he could not
same time, be the means of affording a afterwards enforce by law. If they did
higher value to the characters of indivi- any thing, they should at least bring it
duals, as the facility of borrowing money within legal reason, and therefore they
would greatly depend upon that.-The ought to make up their minds whether they
only fault that he had to find with the would repeal wholly, or only in part. Ano-
measure was, that it did not go far enough. their disadvantage of the present Bill was,
The Solicitor General said, he had that it held out an inducement to persons
never been an advocate for the total repeal to be careless as to what interest they
of the Usury Laws; but now, on further promised, as they would think that it
consideration, he doubted whether they would always be in their power to resist
ought not to be altogether repealed. At all the payment of any higher rate than that
events, however, they needed alteration; of five per cent. If there were to be a rate
and then the question was,whatthataltera- of interest fixed, they ought to meet that
tion ought to be. He agreed with the noble question firmly at once, for then parties
Lord, that if ever there was a happy mo- would know what they were about. It
ment for the alteration, the present was could not be concealed that this Bill was,
that moment, the interest on money being in point of fact, an indirect repeal of the
not above two per cent. To allow men to Usury Laws; for as it was to enable the
ask twenty when they would be obliged lender to take what rate of interest he
to lend at two, did not certainly appear pleased, the operation of that would be,
to be a very great evil. With regard to that the borrower would pay whatever
mortgages, parties generally undertook to rate the lender required till he was ready
pay legal interest, and generally were en- to pay off the money advanced-the ef-
abled to borrow money at that rate, the feet of which would be, that the loan
evasions which occurred being only excep- would stop as soon as the excessive inter-
tions to the general rule. If, therefore, est stopped. The moment the borrower
they should have a law, making the legal said, he would give no higher rate of inter-
interest recoverable in a court of justice est than the law would enforce the pay-
upon such contracts five per cent, the ment of, the lender would demand his
great majority of mortgages in this country money. On the whole, he was ready to
would still be effected at that interest, admit that an alteration was required in
If the House were not prepared to do that, the Usury Laws; but he disapproved of
and the matter were left open, the interest the present Bill.
would be generally taken at the market The Attorney General said, that he
price. The great evil of the Usury Laws thought this Bill should fix a certain rate
was felt in times of pressure: and he of interest for some transactions, by which
must admit, that it fell heaviest upon a jury could be guided in their verdicts
those whom they were intended to favour, when such cases came before them; the
With these sentiments he should not di- Bill should, for instance, fix a rate of in-
vide against the Bill, though he did not terest, say four, or five, or six per cent,
think that it was one which would ever where no specific contract had been made,
pass into a law. The learned member for as in the case of a bill of exchange, which,
Clare had adverted to that which had been it is always supposed will be paid, up to
long felt as an injurious consequence of the last day, when, if not paid, interest
the present Usury Laws-the cutting commences upon it. That rate of interest
down of contracts which, perhaps,had been should be specified by the law. He, from
drawn up under the direction of the best the first time he had considered the sub-
lawyers, and where it was afterwards dis- ject, had always been an advocate for
covered that the interest taken was illegal. the repeal of the Usury Laws, and he


{APRIL 26}


Usury Laws Bill. 62


61 Usury Laws Bill.







{COMMONS} Superannuation Allowances. 64


never could see any reason why the legis- second reading 50; Against it 21:-
lature should affix a rate upon the loan Majority 29.
of money more than upon that of lands
or houses. The letting of a farm was SUPERANNUATION ALLOWANCES.] The
but the loan of it, and why should the Le- Chancellor of the Exchequer, in rising
gislature affix a certain rate upon the loan to move for a Select Committee on this
of 1001., and not upon the loan of 100 subject, said, that this mode appeared to
acres? If the law were such that a man him to be the best and most unobjection-
could not let his house for more than able one of providing for the old servants
501., though it might be worthlmore,would of the public. Till this system was adopted,
not that be considered a great hardship? they were either obliged to employ incom-
And why should such a principle be ap- petent persons, or to keep back a portion
plied to the loan of money, which was of the salaries of persons as they came
but a commodity, that was felt to be so into office: but these modes he thought
manifestly unjust when applied to other very objectionable. At all events, the ap-
commodities ? The consequence of such pointment of a committee on the subject
an interference was, that the difference was very desirable, as in that case the cir-
was always made up in the shape of pre- cumstances would be looked into by those
mium; besides which, the system of bor- who were best able to judge of the matter,
rowing money on annuity effectually coun- and who would propose to the House such
teracted the law as it now stood. The alterations as were best calculated to prove
Legislature could no more prevent persons beneficial. After the failure of the bill of
from paying the market rate of interest, the Session before last, which he had sub-
whatever it might be, than it could pre- mitted to the House, the Government
vent a fluctuation in the value of land or could do no more, till it found a spirit of
houses. If the legal rate were fixed higher economy reviving among hon. Members,
than the market rate, the law would be a and a disposition to allow the Government
nullity; if it were fixed lower, it would be to carry into effect the recommendations
continually evaded, and the borrower of the Finance Committee. The Govern-
being the necessitous person, would have ment had done all that was in its power.
to pay the price, or the insurance against It had made a deduction from the salaries
the risk of the evasion. Thus the law of all persons appointed since that recom-
would add to the hardships of borrowers, mendation, in order to form a superannua-
who were to be benefitted and protected tion fund. His object, therefore, in going
by it. If the law went a step further, and into the committee would be, to inquire
enacted that no man should borrow on into what ought to be done in regard to
annuities levied on land, beyond the legal those offices and salaries already in exist-
rate of interest, whenever that was lower ence, and which were held before the re-
than the market rate, owners of landed commendation. With a view to regulate
property would be unable to borrow at all. those offices which might be hereafter cre-
That might, by some persons, be thought ated, or those appointments which might
advantageous; but he believed the gen- be hereafter made, he had a bill prepared,
tlemen of England would not like to put which he did not mean however to bring
such a restriction on their own power. in till after the Committee had examined
Bankers, by discounting bills, might lend the subject. The Committee would then
money at any rate of interest, and if the have the opportunity of examining the
landed gentlemen could not borrow on whole subject, and, according to its report,
mortgage, and on annuity, at the market some permanent system of legislation might
rate of interest, they would frequently be be established. It was not becoming the
obliged to have recourse to the practice of Legislature, to go on year after year, mak-
giving, and renewing bills, which would be ing new regulations on such a subject. It
found more ruinous than any other method was due both to the public and individuals,
of obtaining a supply of money. Such a that the whole matter should be regulated
state of the law would be injurious to the on some general principle. It was not
landed interest, and, as he conceived that right to enact a law one Session and re-
it was expedient to alter the present law, peal it the next; and it would be equally
he should vote for the second reading of beneficial to the public and just to the in-
the Bill. dividuals, to settle the principles on which
The House then divided. For the every man entering the service hereafter


63 Usury Laws Bill.







65 Superannuation


should receive his salary and his superan-
nuation. He ought not merely to know its
amount, but also the principles on which
his remuneration was to be determined.
He would not enter further into the sub-
ject, but submit his Motion to the House.
The right hon. Gentleman concluded by
moving that a Select Committee be ap-
pointed to inquire into the regulations
under which Superannuations in the Civil
Service, and Half-pay and retired Allow-
ances are granted, and to consider what
alterations might be made consistently
with a due regard to the just claims of in-
dividuals, and the benefit of the Public
Service."
Mr. Robert Gordon said, he never was
more surprised in his life than he was at
hearing the Motion of the right hon. Gen-
tleman. The House would probably do
him the justice to recollect that he had, a
short time before,brought forward a Motion
on this subject, founded on the admitted
fact, that a half-pay officer, on accepting
a civil situation, was obliged to give up
his half-pay; while an officer on full pay,
on accepting such a situation, was allowed
to retain all his emoluments. He had
then mentioned several instances of the
latter, and he had proposed, as an equit-
able rule, that officers on full pay should
be subject to the same restrictions as offi-
cers on half-pay. He had withdrawn that
motion in consequence of the right hon.
member for Liverpool suggesting, that the
whole subject ought to undergo inquiry
and revision, and that if nobody else un-
dertook the matter, that right hon. Gentle-
man stated that he would himself bring it
before the House. He wanted to know,
then, why the question of officers on full
pay accepting civil situations was not in-
cluded in the Motion of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer: and he was unfeignedly
surprised that it was not included. Now
finding, contrary to his just expectations,
that it was not noticed at all, contrary too
he thought, to the promise given by the
right hon. member for Liverpool, he wished
to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he
would allow him to move an instruction to
the committee, to extend its inquiries into
the conditions on which officers on full
pay, accepting civil situations, should re-
ceive their emoluments. He hoped the
Chancellor of the Exchequer would permit
him to move that the committee be in-
structed to inquire into the expediency of
persons in the Military and Naval service,
VOL. XXIV.


When appointed to civil situations, contin-
uing to receive their full pay. No fairer
opportunity could offer of entering into
such an inquiry. The right hon. Gentle-
man and his colleagues would never con-
vince the public that they meant to prac-
tise economy unless they began with
themselves. The public, indeed, would
look with much suspicion on a plan for
reducing the allowance to poor clerks
and half-pay lieutenants, while the whole
salaries of General officers were untouched,
and while some of those General officers,
being in the full enjoyment of those salaries,
having governorships, and other sinecure
appointments, also united in their own per-
sons the possession of a civil office, with a
salary of 4,0001. or 5,0001. a year. It
would be said, perhaps, that his pro-
position had nothing to do with the right
hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but he would
ask if the question of retiring allowances
would not fall immediately under the con-
sideration of the committee? If it would
not have to consider what part of their
emoluments military officers should retain,
who were appointed to situations in the
Military College, and other public estab-
lishments, and if the committee could
consider that subject without embracing
the question of officers being in the receipt
of full pay, and accepting civil situations,
such a course must inevitably be adopted
by the committee, and it could not well
avoid, unless prohibited, entering into the
inquiry. In conclusion, he repeated his
expressions of surprise at the Chancellor
of the Exchequer's omitting this subject,
after the pledge given to the House, de-
claring that the public would look with
great suspicion on a measure that went to
mulct a few poor clerks, while it left General
officers in the receipt both of full pay and
civil salaries.
[The hon. Member was about to pro-
pose his Motion for an instruction to the
committee, but desisted on being in-
formed that the committee ought first to
be appointed. The committee being ap-
pointed, the hon. Member moved, that it be
an instruction to the Committee to con-
sider of the expediency of placing full and
half pay officers under similar regulations,
when appointed to Civil offices.]
Mr. Trant seconded the Motion. The
hon. Member observed, that no credit
would be given to the Government out of
doors, unless it began its economical re-
ductions with its highest officers. He was
D


{APRIL 26}


Allowances.








67 Superannuation Allowances. {LORDS} Retford Disfranchisement. 68


d
h
s

j

i

1
d

c


decidedly of opinion, that both full and Public Money in the hands of the Bank:-Advanee
alfay fics sould be pl o a madeby the Bank toGovernment:--And Bankof England
alfpay officers should be placed on a Notes in Circulation each year, from 1819 to 1830.
similar footing.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer ob- EAST RETFORD DISFRANCIIISEMENT
ected to the Motion. He had no wish to BILL.] Witnesses were examined at great
leny that it related to a subject of great length on this Bill. The cross-examina-
mportance, and well worthy of the consi- tion of one witness by Mr. Stevenson,who
aeration of the House. He objected to it, was (with Mr. Adam and Mr. Alderson)
however, because it was not necessarily counsel for the petitioners against the Bill,
connected with the object he had in view. occasioned
He had given no pledge to the hon. Mem- The Lord Chancellor to object to a
ber. The only pledge which had been third counsel being employed, it being
given was, that the whole subject of super- contrary to the general practice and rules
annuations and pensions should be in- of the House to allow more than two
quired into,-and to redeem that pledge, counsel to be engaged on a side on any
his present Motion had been brought for- private bill.
ward. The hon. Member might submit On this question a conversation of some
a motion on the subject of his instruction length ensued.
to the House, and it was well worthy of The Marquis of Salisbury supported
separate consideration; but he could not the same view as the Lord Chancellor.
consent to the present committee entering Lord Durham supported the propriety
into the inquiry proposed. of allowing the third counsel to be heard.
Mr. R. Gordon said, lie was more sur- This was a Bill of Pains and Penalties; it
prised, even at the opposition of the right had assumed a great degree of political
hon. Gentleman, than he was at his omis- importance, in consequence of having oc-
sion. He had withdrawn his own Motion, casioned a division of the Cabinet; it was
on a distinct understanding that the Go- supported by several of the Cabinet Mi-
vernment would propose an inquiry-and nisters, and therefore he thought it was
now he found, not only, that it would not the duty of their Lordships to relax the
propose such an inquiry, but that it would rule, even if it were a rule which they ge-
not allow him, on a very fit and proper nerally followed. He did not know that
opportunity, to enter into it. the rule bad never been deviated from;
Motion negatived without a division, and in a case like that, it would be proper
__ in their Lordships to give the petitioners
a more than usual latitude. If he were to
HOUSE OF LORDS. consent to Mr. Adam's pursuing that cross-
Tuesday, April 27. examination, which Mr. Stevenson was
conducting so ably as to call the attention
MIrNUTES.] The Haymarket Removal Bill and the Four- of their Lordships to him, he should re-
per-Cents Bill were committed.
Petitions presented. By Earl FITzwrLLTAM, two from the cognise the principle, that only two counsel
Inhabitants of Placesin the West Riding of Yorkshire, could be employed. He would therefore
praying that the Assizes might be held for that part of the move that their Lordships should then
County at Wakefield. By the Duke of SOMERSET, from
Totness, in favour of the Emancipation of the Jews. adjourn the further consideration of the
Praying for the Abolition of the Punishment of Death for question, in order to give time to examine
Forgery, by Lord VERNON, from Derby:-By the ARCH- t nral rule of
BISHOP of CANTERBURY, from Margate:- And by Lord whether or not it were a general rule of
DunHAM, from Stockton-upon-Tees, and from Darling- the House that only two counsel should be
ton. By Lord HOLLAND, from the Magistrates of the heard.
County of Lancaster, praying that the Imperfections of
the Welch Judicature might be improved, but that its The Earl of Carnarvon said, that he
framemight not be destroyed. By EarlSTANHOPE, from had no objection to the greatest latitude
Hastings, against theRlenewaloftheEast India Company's being given; all that he was afraid ofwas,
Charter; and from the Agriculturists of Cirencester, com-
plainingof Distress, and praying for Relief. And by the the longitude of the case.
Dukeof BUCCLEUGH, from the Dalkeith Farmers'Society, The Lord Chancellor said, that in the
against the additional Duty on British Spirits. Gramp d, and Barn-
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Earl STANHOPE, AC- cases of Penryn, Grampound, and Barn-
count of the Exports of British Manufactures, from 1798 staple, two counsel only had appeared at
to 1814, andfrom 1814 to 1830:-Also of Foreign and the Bar of that House. He would move
Colonial Produce:-Also similar Returnsfrom Ireland:-n behalf of the
And also Accounts of allthe species of Imports during the tt only two counsi on behalf of the
same period:-Particular Accounts of the Imports and petitioners against the Bill should be
Exports of Cotton during the same period:-Account of heard.
the Money paid and payable to the Bank of England for m ,a m mnt
the management of the Public Debt in 1829 :-Balance of Lord Durham moved, as an amendment,








69 Retford Disfranchisement. {AP ITr 27} Irish Protestant Church. 70


that the further consideration of the ques-
tion should be adjourned.
The House divided-For the Lord Chan-
cellor's Motion 10; Against it 3-Majority
7.


HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, April 27.
MINUTES.] Returns presented, Number of Commissioners
belonging to the London Bankrupt List:-Fees of Con-
veyancing and general Law Business (Scotland):-The
Nineteenth Report of the Commissioners of Judicial In-
quiry (Ireland):-The Expenditure of the Consular and
Diplomatic Establishments in the New States of America:
-An Abstract of the Reports concerning Pauper Lunatics
from the different Counties of England and Wales.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Sir JOHN NEWPORT, of
any Money advanced by the Commissioners of First Fruits
for the Purchase of the Rent reserved on the Glebe Land
of Balymaglassan (County of Meath) in 1818:-Also, of
Money advanced by the said Commissioners for the Erec-
tion of a Glebe House at the same place, specifying the
time, &e.
Petitions presented. For the Abolition of the Punishment
of Death in cases of Forgery-By Mr.WALROND, from the
Clergy and others of Sudbury:-By Mr. Alderman
THonpson, from the Congregation of York-street, Wal-
worth:-By Sir ROWLAND HILL, from the Clergy,
Gentry, and other Inhabitants of Madely, Salop:-By
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, from Newton, ill the County of
Bedford:-By Mr. R. PALMER, from the Mayor, Alder-
men, and Burgesses of Maidenhead:-By Mr. DICKENSON,
from the Inhabitants of Bath. Against any Alteration in the
Welsh Judicature, by Sir JOHN OWU'N, from the Inhabi-
tants of Castle Martin; and from the Grand Jury of Car-
digan:-By Sir W. W. WYNN, from the Grand Jurors of
the County of Pembroke; and from the Freeholders of
the County of Denbigh:-By Mr. PRYSE, from the
Burgesses of Cardigan:-By Mr. HUGH OWEN, from the
Burgesses of Pembroke:-And by Mr. RIcE TREVon,
from the Inhabitants of Carmarthen. Against the Parish
Watching and Lighting Bill, by Mr. BRIGHT, from the
Commissioners of Paving (Bristol):-And by Mr. H.
BATLEY, from the Commissioners for Improving and
Paving St. Pancras (Middlesex). Against the additional
Duty on Corn Spirits, by Colonel LYGON, from the People
frequenting Worcester Market. Complaining of the Ex-
pense of Passing Vagrants, by Colonel LYGON, from S.
Smith,Esq.Chairman ofaMeeting of Justices in the County
of Worcester. By Mr. W. SMITH, from the Inhabitants
of Wick, praying for a continuance of the Bounties on
curing Fish. Against a Free Trade in Beer, by Mr. MAR-
SHALL, from the Licensed Victuallers of Sheffield :-By
Mr. BERNAL, from Leamington :-By Mr. TYNTE, from
the Licensed Victuallers of Bridgewater :-By Lord
GEORGE LENNOX, from Chichester:- By Mr. MILDMIAY,
from the Licensed Victuallers of Winchester.
[The petitioners declared that it was im-
possible to get rid of the stock of Beer
brewed for winter consumption, as well as
the Beer brewed for summer consumption,
within the time allowed by the Chancellor
of the Exchequer.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in
reply to a question from SirM.W.Ridley,
said, his attention had been drawn to the
propriety of allowing a drawback on the
Beer remaining on hand; but he was
satisfied, after mature consideration, that
the Government would be liable to impo-
sition by that method.]


IRISI PROTESTANT CHURCH.] Mr.
Robert King rose, to present a Petition
from the Inhabitants of the County and
City of Cork, respecting the Established
Church of Ireland, of his intention to
present which he had last night given no-
tice. The individuals by whom it was
signed, in all 3,000, were all members of
the Established Church. When the im-
portance of the subject, and the number
and respectability of the parties from
whom the Petition had emanated, and who
had intrusted it to him, were considered,lle
was persuaded that the House would deem
it entitled to most serious attention. The
objects which the petitioners had in view
were, to effect a more equal distribution of
the Church Revenues in Ireland,and to cor-
rect the abuses which existed in the admi-
nistration of that Church. The petitioners
declared, that they were convinced of the
purity of the doctrines of the Protestant
Church-that they were convinced of the
purity of the Episcopal Establishments--
that they were desirous of supporting the
privileges of that Establishment--that
they distinctly acknowledged the right of
the Established Church of Ireland, as a
body, to the Church Property and Reve-
nues-that they were far from considering
that property and those revenues as super-
abundant, if they were more equitably
distributed ; and that they earnestly de-
precated the application of any portion of
the Church property to secular purposes,
as tending to violate the principles of the
Constttitution, to endanger the connexion
which ought to subsist between the Church
and State, and to lead to national con-
fusion and ruin. But while they were ex-
tremely desirous that the Church revenues
should not be invaded for any temporal
purposes, they contended that those re-
venues ought to be more equally distri-
buted among the different classes of the
members of the establishment. At present
some of the dignitaries of the Established
Church in Ireland enjoyed much beyond
what the most liberal estimate would con-
sider them entitled to, while on the other
hand, those members of the Church on
whom the most arduous and important
duties devolved, received pittances insuffi-
cient for the supply of their most moderate
wants, and entirely inadequate as a pro-
vision for those who performed services of
so valuable a character. While, therefore,
the petitioners admitted that a diversity
of orders required a diversity of incomes,
D2








67 Superannuation Allowances. {LORDS} Retford Disfranchisement. 68


d
h
s

j

i

1
d

c


decidedly of opinion, that both full and Public Money in the hands of the Bank:-Advanee
alfay fics sould be pl o a madeby the Bank toGovernment:--And Bankof England
alfpay officers should be placed on a Notes in Circulation each year, from 1819 to 1830.
similar footing.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer ob- EAST RETFORD DISFRANCIIISEMENT
ected to the Motion. He had no wish to BILL.] Witnesses were examined at great
leny that it related to a subject of great length on this Bill. The cross-examina-
mportance, and well worthy of the consi- tion of one witness by Mr. Stevenson,who
aeration of the House. He objected to it, was (with Mr. Adam and Mr. Alderson)
however, because it was not necessarily counsel for the petitioners against the Bill,
connected with the object he had in view. occasioned
He had given no pledge to the hon. Mem- The Lord Chancellor to object to a
ber. The only pledge which had been third counsel being employed, it being
given was, that the whole subject of super- contrary to the general practice and rules
annuations and pensions should be in- of the House to allow more than two
quired into,-and to redeem that pledge, counsel to be engaged on a side on any
his present Motion had been brought for- private bill.
ward. The hon. Member might submit On this question a conversation of some
a motion on the subject of his instruction length ensued.
to the House, and it was well worthy of The Marquis of Salisbury supported
separate consideration; but he could not the same view as the Lord Chancellor.
consent to the present committee entering Lord Durham supported the propriety
into the inquiry proposed. of allowing the third counsel to be heard.
Mr. R. Gordon said, lie was more sur- This was a Bill of Pains and Penalties; it
prised, even at the opposition of the right had assumed a great degree of political
hon. Gentleman, than he was at his omis- importance, in consequence of having oc-
sion. He had withdrawn his own Motion, casioned a division of the Cabinet; it was
on a distinct understanding that the Go- supported by several of the Cabinet Mi-
vernment would propose an inquiry-and nisters, and therefore he thought it was
now he found, not only, that it would not the duty of their Lordships to relax the
propose such an inquiry, but that it would rule, even if it were a rule which they ge-
not allow him, on a very fit and proper nerally followed. He did not know that
opportunity, to enter into it. the rule bad never been deviated from;
Motion negatived without a division, and in a case like that, it would be proper
__ in their Lordships to give the petitioners
a more than usual latitude. If he were to
HOUSE OF LORDS. consent to Mr. Adam's pursuing that cross-
Tuesday, April 27. examination, which Mr. Stevenson was
conducting so ably as to call the attention
MIrNUTES.] The Haymarket Removal Bill and the Four- of their Lordships to him, he should re-
per-Cents Bill were committed.
Petitions presented. By Earl FITzwrLLTAM, two from the cognise the principle, that only two counsel
Inhabitants of Placesin the West Riding of Yorkshire, could be employed. He would therefore
praying that the Assizes might be held for that part of the move that their Lordships should then
County at Wakefield. By the Duke of SOMERSET, from
Totness, in favour of the Emancipation of the Jews. adjourn the further consideration of the
Praying for the Abolition of the Punishment of Death for question, in order to give time to examine
Forgery, by Lord VERNON, from Derby:-By the ARCH- t nral rule of
BISHOP of CANTERBURY, from Margate:- And by Lord whether or not it were a general rule of
DunHAM, from Stockton-upon-Tees, and from Darling- the House that only two counsel should be
ton. By Lord HOLLAND, from the Magistrates of the heard.
County of Lancaster, praying that the Imperfections of
the Welch Judicature might be improved, but that its The Earl of Carnarvon said, that he
framemight not be destroyed. By EarlSTANHOPE, from had no objection to the greatest latitude
Hastings, against theRlenewaloftheEast India Company's being given; all that he was afraid ofwas,
Charter; and from the Agriculturists of Cirencester, com-
plainingof Distress, and praying for Relief. And by the the longitude of the case.
Dukeof BUCCLEUGH, from the Dalkeith Farmers'Society, The Lord Chancellor said, that in the
against the additional Duty on British Spirits. Gramp d, and Barn-
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Earl STANHOPE, AC- cases of Penryn, Grampound, and Barn-
count of the Exports of British Manufactures, from 1798 staple, two counsel only had appeared at
to 1814, andfrom 1814 to 1830:-Also of Foreign and the Bar of that House. He would move
Colonial Produce:-Also similar Returnsfrom Ireland:-n behalf of the
And also Accounts of allthe species of Imports during the tt only two counsi on behalf of the
same period:-Particular Accounts of the Imports and petitioners against the Bill should be
Exports of Cotton during the same period:-Account of heard.
the Money paid and payable to the Bank of England for m ,a m mnt
the management of the Public Debt in 1829 :-Balance of Lord Durham moved, as an amendment,








69 Retford Disfranchisement. {AP ITr 27} Irish Protestant Church. 70


that the further consideration of the ques-
tion should be adjourned.
The House divided-For the Lord Chan-
cellor's Motion 10; Against it 3-Majority
7.


HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, April 27.
MINUTES.] Returns presented, Number of Commissioners
belonging to the London Bankrupt List:-Fees of Con-
veyancing and general Law Business (Scotland):-The
Nineteenth Report of the Commissioners of Judicial In-
quiry (Ireland):-The Expenditure of the Consular and
Diplomatic Establishments in the New States of America:
-An Abstract of the Reports concerning Pauper Lunatics
from the different Counties of England and Wales.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Sir JOHN NEWPORT, of
any Money advanced by the Commissioners of First Fruits
for the Purchase of the Rent reserved on the Glebe Land
of Balymaglassan (County of Meath) in 1818:-Also, of
Money advanced by the said Commissioners for the Erec-
tion of a Glebe House at the same place, specifying the
time, &e.
Petitions presented. For the Abolition of the Punishment
of Death in cases of Forgery-By Mr.WALROND, from the
Clergy and others of Sudbury:-By Mr. Alderman
THonpson, from the Congregation of York-street, Wal-
worth:-By Sir ROWLAND HILL, from the Clergy,
Gentry, and other Inhabitants of Madely, Salop:-By
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, from Newton, ill the County of
Bedford:-By Mr. R. PALMER, from the Mayor, Alder-
men, and Burgesses of Maidenhead:-By Mr. DICKENSON,
from the Inhabitants of Bath. Against any Alteration in the
Welsh Judicature, by Sir JOHN OWU'N, from the Inhabi-
tants of Castle Martin; and from the Grand Jury of Car-
digan:-By Sir W. W. WYNN, from the Grand Jurors of
the County of Pembroke; and from the Freeholders of
the County of Denbigh:-By Mr. PRYSE, from the
Burgesses of Cardigan:-By Mr. HUGH OWEN, from the
Burgesses of Pembroke:-And by Mr. RIcE TREVon,
from the Inhabitants of Carmarthen. Against the Parish
Watching and Lighting Bill, by Mr. BRIGHT, from the
Commissioners of Paving (Bristol):-And by Mr. H.
BATLEY, from the Commissioners for Improving and
Paving St. Pancras (Middlesex). Against the additional
Duty on Corn Spirits, by Colonel LYGON, from the People
frequenting Worcester Market. Complaining of the Ex-
pense of Passing Vagrants, by Colonel LYGON, from S.
Smith,Esq.Chairman ofaMeeting of Justices in the County
of Worcester. By Mr. W. SMITH, from the Inhabitants
of Wick, praying for a continuance of the Bounties on
curing Fish. Against a Free Trade in Beer, by Mr. MAR-
SHALL, from the Licensed Victuallers of Sheffield :-By
Mr. BERNAL, from Leamington :-By Mr. TYNTE, from
the Licensed Victuallers of Bridgewater :-By Lord
GEORGE LENNOX, from Chichester:- By Mr. MILDMIAY,
from the Licensed Victuallers of Winchester.
[The petitioners declared that it was im-
possible to get rid of the stock of Beer
brewed for winter consumption, as well as
the Beer brewed for summer consumption,
within the time allowed by the Chancellor
of the Exchequer.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in
reply to a question from SirM.W.Ridley,
said, his attention had been drawn to the
propriety of allowing a drawback on the
Beer remaining on hand; but he was
satisfied, after mature consideration, that
the Government would be liable to impo-
sition by that method.]


IRISI PROTESTANT CHURCH.] Mr.
Robert King rose, to present a Petition
from the Inhabitants of the County and
City of Cork, respecting the Established
Church of Ireland, of his intention to
present which he had last night given no-
tice. The individuals by whom it was
signed, in all 3,000, were all members of
the Established Church. When the im-
portance of the subject, and the number
and respectability of the parties from
whom the Petition had emanated, and who
had intrusted it to him, were considered,lle
was persuaded that the House would deem
it entitled to most serious attention. The
objects which the petitioners had in view
were, to effect a more equal distribution of
the Church Revenues in Ireland,and to cor-
rect the abuses which existed in the admi-
nistration of that Church. The petitioners
declared, that they were convinced of the
purity of the doctrines of the Protestant
Church-that they were convinced of the
purity of the Episcopal Establishments--
that they were desirous of supporting the
privileges of that Establishment--that
they distinctly acknowledged the right of
the Established Church of Ireland, as a
body, to the Church Property and Reve-
nues-that they were far from considering
that property and those revenues as super-
abundant, if they were more equitably
distributed ; and that they earnestly de-
precated the application of any portion of
the Church property to secular purposes,
as tending to violate the principles of the
Constttitution, to endanger the connexion
which ought to subsist between the Church
and State, and to lead to national con-
fusion and ruin. But while they were ex-
tremely desirous that the Church revenues
should not be invaded for any temporal
purposes, they contended that those re-
venues ought to be more equally distri-
buted among the different classes of the
members of the establishment. At present
some of the dignitaries of the Established
Church in Ireland enjoyed much beyond
what the most liberal estimate would con-
sider them entitled to, while on the other
hand, those members of the Church on
whom the most arduous and important
duties devolved, received pittances insuffi-
cient for the supply of their most moderate
wants, and entirely inadequate as a pro-
vision for those who performed services of
so valuable a character. While, therefore,
the petitioners admitted that a diversity
of orders required a diversity of incomes,
D2







71 Irish Protestant Church. {COMMONS} Irish Protestant Church. 72
they were desirous that that diversity or eight peers resident, or connected with
should not be so excessive, but that from that county, only one individual amongst
the superabundant wealth of the one class them had affixed his name to the Petition:
the means should be derived of providing and that out of 300 magistrates, only fifty-
more adequately for the other. The peti- eight had put their signatures to it. He
tioners also observed, that various abuses did not at all mean to question the re-
had crept into the administration of the spectability of those who had signed it, but
secular affairs of the Established Church he understood that since the public expo-
of Ireland; and they especially complain- sition of his sentiments which had been
ed of the plurality of benefices enjoyed by made by the noble Lord who presided at
some incumbents. This plurality neces- the meeting where this Petition originated,
sarily involved all the evils of non-resi- several gentlemen who had signed it had
dence, and was evidently a misappropria- expressed a wish to withdraw their names
tion of that property to one individual, from it.
which, if distributed, would afford com- Mr. Hume observed, that many of the
petence to several. The petitioners like- opinions expressed in this Petition, re-
wise remarked, that the evils of non-resi- specting the Established Church of Ire-
dence were not confined to those members land, were similar to those which he had
of the Established Church in Ireland who himself expressed in that House many
held a plurality of benefices; but that, years before. He had at that time repro-
owing either to a defect in the laws which bated the pluralities and the other abuses
were intended to enforce the residence of in the Church of Ireland, to which the
the clergy,or to a laxity in the discipline of Petition adverted. He regretted that he
the Church, many beneficed clergymen was not at the present moment in pos-
were absent from their parishes; by which session of the admirable remarks on the
usage, those bonds which ought always subject, which had been subsequently
to exist between a pastor and his flock made by the noble Lord who presided at
were entirely dissolved. The petitioners the meeting from which the Petition
also observed, that there did not seem to emanated. The hon. Gentleman who had
be sufficient authority on the part of the just sat down,had denied that the Petition
dignitaries of the Church, to control the proceeded from the majority of the Pro-
moral conduct of the other classes; and testant inhabitants of the County and
that, as they considered it to be essential City of Cork. But could he say that the
to the well-being of the Church itself, that averments of the petitioners were false ?
the rulers of it should have an effectual Could he deny the force of their state-
control over those who, however corrupt ments? And was not a Petition, proceed-
and profligate, still participated in the re- ing from 3,000 persons, fifty-eight of
venues of that establishment which their whom were Magistrates, and one a Peer,
conduct tended to injure and degrade, deserving the most serious attention of the
they were anxious that the episcopal an- House? As to its having been signed by
thority of the Established Church of lie- only one Peer, it was not very extra-
land should be maintained and strength- ordinary that few Peers should be found
ened by the interposition of the Legisla- disposed to sign such a Petition, since it
ture. Such was the substance of the was their interest to keep the revenues of
Petition which he would now beg leave to the Church at the disposal of the Minis-
present. ters, who, as the noble Lord to whom he
On the Motion for bringing up the Peti- had already alluded stated, employed them
tion, for the purpose of bribing both Peers
Colonel Beresford said, he did not in- and Commoners. He knew the sincerity
tend to offer any opposition to the recep- of the hon. Gentleman who had presented
tion of the Petition, but he wished to state the Petition ; and he claimed equal credit
one or two facts. His hon. friend, in pre- for sincerity when he declared that he en-
senting the Petition, had spoken of it as tirely differed from the hon. Gentleman
being most respectably signed, as if it and the petitioners in their opinion, that
represented the sentiments of the entire the existing Established Church of Ireland
Protestant population of Cork. But the was suitable to the present time, or fit for
fact was, that out of a population of the country in which it existed. He had
30,000 Protestants, only 3,000 had signed on a former occasion stated that a reform
this Petition; that though there were seven of that Establishment was loudly called







{APtIL 27} Irish Protestant Church.


for, and that the salaries of many of the
Bishops and other Clergy were greatly dis-
proportionate and extravagant. He per-
fectly agreed with the opinions of the
petitioners respecting the number of plu-
ralities and non-resident Clergy, and the
various evils thence resulting; but he did
not agree with the petitioners or with the
hon. member for the County of Cork, that
the whole of the revenue of the Establish-
ed Church in Ireland ought to be main-
tained. The hon. Member was for what
he called an equitable distribution of the
Church income, but that income was in
itself greatly too large. It was evident,
from history, that the property of the
Established Church was public property,
at the disposal of that House, which had
the right to take it from one set of men
and give it to another. Suppose the
House should declare that the Established
Religion of the country should hencefor-
ward be Quakerism. In that case there
would not be anything to be paid to the
Ministers. What then would become of
the property of the Church ? Would it be
allowed to remain in the hands of its
present possessors? Certainly not. Par-
liament would take it, and apply it as in
its wisdom it might think fit. The pro-
perty of the Church was not upon the same
footing as private property. Private
property the Legislature had no right to
touch, but it had an undoubted right to
alter the disposal as well as the distribution
of Church property. He did not think,
therefore, with the petitioners, that the
application of the Church property to se-
cular purposes would be attended with
revolutionary or other evil consequences.
He was firmly convinced that, after pro-
viding what was sufficient for the main-
tenance of the Protestant Clergy in Ire-
land, it was the duty of the House other-
wise to employ what was superfluous;
and for the purpose of ascertaining what
was superfluous, it 'ought to institute the
inquiry which the petitioners wished for.
He cordially supported, therefore, the
prayer of the Petition, and he hoped it
would not be long before it was acceded
to, and before his Majesty's Ministers
would consent, eitherby a commission or
by a committee of that House, to inquire
from one end of the Empire to the other
into the state of the Church property,
with a view to its more proper distribution
and application.
Mr, King explained,-The statements


which lie had made he had made from the
Petition. The Petition had attached to
it the signatures of two or three Members
of that House, and of the Mayor, Sheriffs,
and other respectable inhabitants of Cork.
The petitioners were members of the
Church of England, and unconnected with
any party.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer did
not rise to enter into a discussion upon
the subjects adverted to in this Petition,
because he was of opinion that discussions
upon the presentation of petitions were
peculiarly inconvenient. He rose for the
purpose of entering his protest against
the supposition that his unwillingness to
enter into those details now, argued an
acquiescence, on his part, in the principles
avowed by the hon. member for Aberdeen.
That hon. Gentleman appeared to allude
to some former contests with him upon this
subject, and he seemed to intimate, that
in those contests, he (the Chancellor of
the Exchequer) had uniformly attempted
to defend, or to deny altogether, the
abuses which were stated to exist in the
Established Church in Ireland. Now, he
was sure that those hon. Members who
had done him the favour to attend to what
had fallen from him with regard to those
different subjects when under discussion,
would recollect that he had uniformly ex-
pressed his opinion, in accordance with
the sentiments of several of the most re-
spectable Clergymen connected with the
Church of Ireland, that several evils con-
nected with the state of the Established
Church in Ireland required correction.
There had accordingly been much, he
might say, done within the last few years,
to place the Church of Ireland on the
footing on which it ought to stand. There
had grown up lately a desire in all ranks of
people, and especially in the Church itself,
to remedy those abuses which were ad-
mitted to exist, and which owed their
existence not to any neglect or fault of
the heads of the Church, but to the parti-
cular circumstances in which the Church
itself was placed. He hoped that this
subject would be discussed upon the
principle of removing abuses where abuses
were proved to exist, but not upon the
principle of condemning the whole body of
the Clergy because there had been some
members of it who had misconducted them-
selves; still less upon the principle of
appropriating the revenues of the Church,
as was proposed by the hon. Member op-


73 IrishL Protestantt Church.n







75 Irish Protestant Church. {COMMONS} Irish Protestant Church. 76


posite, to such purposes of their own as
might best square with the wants or the
conveniences of the public Exchequer.
Lord F. L. Gower rose for the purpose of
saying a few words in consequence of the
self-complacency with which the hon.
member for Aberdeen referred to this Pe-
tition, signed by fifty-eight Magistrates of
the county of Cork, as a confirmation of
the peculiar views which he had himself
previously taken of the state of the pro-
perty of the Church in Ireland. However
valuable the hon. Member might conceive
this Petition to be as a confirmation of
his own arguments, he would venture to
affirm, that there was very little concur-
rence in the main between these petitioners
and the hon. Member. The Petition set
out with a description of the advantages
which the petitioners considered their
country to have derived from the Estab-
lished Church,-a point on which their
opinion was much at variance with the
opinions usually advanced by the hon.
Member. Then, as to having the Church
dealt with as the other establishments of
the country were, by annual estimates, he
must say, that he did not rely much on the
prophecies which the hon. member for
Aberdeen had made upon that head. On
referring to that old almanack of which
they had occasionally heard so much in
that House, he found that there was no
instance in which the property of the
Church had been dealt with in the liberal
fashion recommended by the hon. Member,
where the property of individuals had been
held sacred. If he should ever live to see
the Church property thus dealt with, he
should then deem his own property no
longer safe. He would, therefore, oppose
such projects to the utmost of his power.
His conduct in so doing might not appear
very meritorious, as it would be founded
on a motive of self-interest, but he
saw no reason why men should not con-
sider their own interests, when the con-
sideration of them tended also to the
public benefit.
Lord Oxmantown said, he differed en-
tirely from the hon. member for Aberdeen,
but he did not think the presentation of a
petition the proper opportunity for enter-
ing into any extended discussion of the
subject. He certainly was disposed to
find fault with the system by which the
Curates of the Church of Ireland were
left entirely at the mercy of the incum-
bents of livings of which the Curates dis-


Charged the actual duties. This arose
chiefly, he believed, from the practice of
appointing young clergymen to curacies
before they were licensed, and he should
propose, as an improvement of that system,
that every curate should receive his license
as soon as he received his curacy. By
such a system he would be placed under
the protection of the Bishop of the diocese,
instead of being left, as he was at present,
in a state of dependence upon his rector,
differing very little from that of a servant
upon his master.
Sir John Newport did not rise to pro-
long the discussion, but merely to remind
the House, that it was not many days
since it had presented an Address to the
Crown, praying that it would appoint a
commission to inquire into the abuses of
the Ecclesiastical Establishments in Ire-
land. That commission had since been
appointed, and he therefore was of opinion
that, until the report of that commission
was presented, any discussion like the pre-
sent was both ill-timed and injudicious.
When that report was laid upon the Table,
they would see what abuses were clearly
proved to exist, and what remedies were
most easily applicable to them. For this
reason, he should not trouble the House
with any further observations on the pre-
sent occasion.
Mr. Moore would not have said a word
upon the present occasion, had it not been
for the extraordinary misapprehension
under which the hon. member for Aber-
deen appeared to labour. He would beg
leave to remind that hon. Member that
this Petition had been in preparation for
some months before the meeting of Parlia-
ment. Those who had proposed it had
challenged all the Protestants of Ireland
to come forward in support of it. That
challenge had not been answered,--a cir-
cumstance which, by itself, was a suffici-
ent refutation of the allegations of the hon.
member for Aberdeen, that his views with
regard to Church property had met
with the sanction of the great body of the
Protestants of Ireland.
Mr. Baring wished to enter his protest
against the doctrine which had just been
laid down by the two right hon. Gentle-
men opposite, that in no case was it com-
petent for Parliament to meddle with the
property of the Church, which was to be
considered as safe as any gentleman's
private property. At the same time, he
felt himself bound to declare, notwith-







77 Irish Protestant Church. {APRuL 27} Irish Protestant Church. 78


standing all the respect which he felt for
the public conduct of his hon. friend, the
member for Aberdeen, in other respects,
that the hon. Member was the last man
in the world to whom he would submit
either the reformation or the re-organiza-
tion of our Church establishments. Still,
he was of opinion that, without some re-
vision, these establishments might be in-
volved in great danger. He particularly
adverte, to the mischief likely to arise
from the unequal distribution of the pro-
perty belonging to the Church. There
were several Bishops in England, who were
unable to reside in their dioceses, owing
to the want of proper residences within
the limits of them, and owing to the in-
sufficiency of their incomes to provide
such residences. He happened to know
that a most venerable and meritorious
prelate, the Bishop of Hereford, resided,
not in his diocese, but at Winchester.
The Bishop of Llandaff resided in Lon-
don, where he held other preferments,
from the insufficiency of his income to
provide him a suitable residence in Wales.
The Bishop of Rochester, whose jurisdic-
tion extended over a large portion of
Kent, had an income not larger than many
of our parochial clergy, whilst there were
Bishops of other sees, with incomes so
great as to amount to 100,0001. a-year;
or at least with incomes which would reach
that amount in a very short time. When
such was the case, he thought that it
could no longer be denied that some
change must be made in the distribution
of the property of the Church, for the
sake of the Church itself. He had no
wish to establish an equality of revenue
and of rank in the Church. He felt the
advantage of our having and retaining a
gradation of both; but still, it would, in
his opinion, be of great advantage to the
character of our hierarchy-which, he ad-
mitted, stood as high as that of any hier-
archy in the world-to have such a distri-
bution of property made among its mem-
bers as would enable all of them to reside
within their dioceses in a manner suitable
to their rank in the Church, and to their
respectability in society. When he was
told that these were matters with which
it was not competent for Parliament to
deal in any imaginable case, he felt bound
to protest against the doctrine. If Par-
liament acted upon such a doctrine, it
would not promote but injure the Church.
What the state of the Church of Ireland


might be, he did not pretend at that mo-
ment to know. On that point he should
have better information when the report of
the Ecclesiastical Commission was laid upon
the Table; but this he knew, that there
was sufficient power in the three branches
of the legislature to revise the distribu-
tion of its property. He would say the
same with respect to the Church of Eng-
land; not that he thought that Church
too rich or too well paid ; all that he con-
tended for was, that Parliament had not
merely the power, for that was unquestion-
able, but also the equitable right to exer-
cise the power of distributing the property
of the Church, as it thought most advis-
able, among the members of the Church.
Whether Parliament had a right to say,
" The Church is rich and too well paid,
and we will devote its surplus revenue to
the formation of Schools and Collegiate
Endowments," was another question, into
which he had no intention of entering on
the present occasion.
Dr. Lushington had no intention of
speaking upon this Petition when he
entered the House, but felt himself called
upon to rise, in order to set right a state-
ment which had just been made respect-
ing some of our Bishops, and their mode
of performing their duties. His hon.
friend, the member for Callington, had
stated to the House that the Bishop of
Llandaff, who possessed but a small in-
come from his diocese, resided constantly
in London, owing to his being unable to
provide himself with a suitable residence
in his diocese in Wales. But he could
inform the House, from his own knowledge,
that that meritorious prelate had held it
to be his duty to hire, at his own expense,
a residence within his bishopric, and had
gone down to it last summer, for the ex-
press purpose of performing his Episcopal
duties. He should be extremely sorry if
it went forth to the public that the Bishop
of Llandaff had failed in the discharge of
the functions of his station, when his
conduct was of the most exemplary de-
scription. Next, as to the residence of the
venerable Bishop of Hereford at Win-
chester. When the House considered
that that Prelate was now past eighty
years of age, and that he had discharged
his duties in the most exemplary manner,
as long as his strength and health per-
mitted, it would hardly expect a man of
his advanced age to do more than what he
now did. It was only last year that he







79 Irish Protestant Church. {COMMONS} Irish Protestant Church. 80


had gone down to his own diocese, though
with great pain and suffering to himself.
But then, said his hon. friend, "There
are sees of which the incomes either are,
or shortly will be, 100,0001. a year. Last
year, however, they had had before them
a bill for the purpose of enabling the
Archbishop of Canterbury, to raise a sum
of money for the repair of Lambeth Pa-
lace, and other purposes therein specified.
Upon that occasion it was proved that his
whole annual income did not exceed
32,0001. That was the greatest amount
of income enjoyed by any English Bishop.
Neither the see of York nor the see of
Durham was worth any such sum. The
revenues of the see of Durham, which
was thought to be the richest see, he was
assured, upon good authority, had never
exceeded 22,0001. a year. As to the re-
venues of the bishopric of London, he
must admit that they were on the increase.
What might be the consequence of build-
ing on the land belonging to that see he
could not pretend to tell; but he was of
opinion, that the most sanguine calculator
could not anticipate any thing at all ap-
proximating to such an income as his hon.
friend had just stated, though he admitted
that many buildings had been recently
constructed on land belonging to the see
of London. He thought it necessary to
make this statement, as it would be pro-
ductive of great inconvenience if the as-
sertions of his hon. friend should go forth
to the world without a contradiction.
With respect to the Church of Ireland,
he had only a few words to say. The
noble Lord on the other side of the House
thought it a defect in the discipline of
that Church that curates were not licensed
as soon as they received their curacies.
But there was no such defect in its dis-
cipline as he imagined. If the noble Lord
would look at a small volume, by a writer
who possessed as much talent and ability
as any Bishop who had ever sat upon the
Bench,-if he would look at the first
charge which Horsley, Bishop of St. Asaph,
delivered to his clergy, he would see that
the Bishop told them, in words as plain as
could be, that if they continued to em-
ploy curates without licenses, he would
proceed against them, one and all, as the
law directed. The licensing of curates
was, in his opinion, a matter of great im-
portance ;. and he could wish that greater
attention were paid to it throughout the
country. He could assure the noble Lord


that the employment of curates without
licenses was not the discipline of the
Church of England; on the contrary,
express provision was made, that no man
should perform permanent duty in any
of our churches or chapels without re-
ceiving either institution as incumbent,
or license as curate. That provision was
one of the best safeguards of the Church,
and had always been so considered by our
greatest writers upon ecclesiastical mat-
ters. With respect to what had been said
of Church property, he wished to observe,
that his views with regard to it did not
accord exactly with those avowed by
either of the two parties which had sprung
up in this discussion. In certain cases he
considered Church property to be indi-
vidual property, as in the case of advow-
sons; in other cases he looked upon it
as public property. As to altering the
present system of its distribution, that was
a project to which he, for one, could
never consent. He knew the incon-
veniences which occasionally arose from
one clergyman holding a small and ano-
ther a profitable preferment; butwhen he
balanced those inconveniences with the
advantages which he saw springing every
day from the present system, he was re-
luctant to disturb the present arrange-
ment for any which had yet been proposed
in its stead. He must have stronger rea-
sons than any which he had hitherto heard
to satisfy his mind thathe should be doing
right in adopting any of the alterations
which had been recently suggested. With
respect to the Church of Ireland, and he
might add the Church of England,--he
agreed with those who said that plural-
ities and non-residence were sources of
great mischief and inconvenience, and he
would accede with pleasure to any mea-
sure which would put a stop to these evils.
He had often considered whether it might
not be expedient to pass a prospective law,
enacting that no clergyman, who should be
ordained after a certain day, should be
permitted to hold a plurality of livings,
unless they were so contiguous as to en-
able him, whilst residing upon one, to per-
form in person the duties of all. To any
remedial measure which should compel
the residence of the clergyman who re-
ceived the profits of the living no one
could be more friendly than he was, con-
sidering the residence of the incumbent
to be one of the greatest blessings that
could happen to a parish. He had seen







{APRIL 27} Irish Protestant Church. 82


the advantage of it over and over again in
England; and thank God, it had latterly
been exemplified in Ireland also. By the
various measures which the right hon.
Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) had introduced into and car-
ried through Parliament since he had been
in office, he had effected-and what was
more, he had been the first person who
had effected-a great reformation in the
Church of Ireland. So far as related to
the introduction of measures beneficial to
that Church, the right hon. Gentleman
had accomplished a great and permanent
good. There was a time-it was in vain
to deny it-in which every appointment in
the Church of Ireland was regularly
bought and sold. At the Union, a num-
ber of appointments to offices in the
Church were made, without regard to any
thing except the interest which could be
secured by them. Of late years that sys-
tem had been departed from, and the
duties of the Church had, in consequence,
been performed more decorously and more
beneficially than before. When he saw
the Church thus improving, not, indeed,
so rapidly as he could wish, but still, at
any rate, progressively improving, he could
not help hesitating before he gave his con-
sent to any strong measure which, under
the name of revision, might effect a revo-
lution in its constitution and discipline.
Lord Oxmantown had no doubt that the
learned civilian had correctly explained
the law; but if the law respecting the
licensing of curates were such as he had
stated, it was never acted on, and he be-
lieved it was unknown in Ireland. He
was himself acquainted with a case, in
which a clergyman had faithfully perform-
ed the duties of a curate for five years;
during the whole of that time he never
could succeed in obtaining a license, and
at the end of it he was dismissed by the
rector who employed him, without any
S cause being assigned for his dismissal.
The Petition read.
Mr. Baring said, that from the obser-
vations which had just fallen from hii
hon. and learned friend, he was afraid
that he had unintentionally used express
sions which reflected on the conduct o
the reverend prelates whose names he hac
mentioned in his former speech. Hi
assured the House, that if he had used sucl
expressions, it was most unintentionally
No one could entertain a higher respect
than he did for the Bishop of Hereford


and he fully agreed with his hon. and
learned friend, that while his health and
strength permitted, no prelate was more
anxious to perform his duty to the congre-
gations committed to his charge. The
usefulness of the Bishop of Llandaff's
labours to the Church was undeniable, and
it was impossible that any duty which
that prelate undertook should be ineffi-
ciently performed. In mentioning the
names of those illustrious prelates, he had
no other object than to observe, that they
might obtain from their respective sees a
sufficiency for the support of their rank in
the Church and in society. He believed
that at no former period was the reverend
bench more respectably filled than at pre-
sent. Still, he thought it a great incon-
venience that one Bishop should have
only 1,5001. a-year, whilst another had
32,0001. Such an arrangement did not
contribute to the preservation of the inde-
pendence of the clergy. Great as the in-
formation of his hon. and learned friend
was on ecclesiastical subjects, he must
say, that in his opinion his hon. and
learned friend strangely under-rated the
incomes of some sees. He had judged of
the amount from their ordinary income,
and had not taken into his consideration
the fines paid for the renewal of leases,
which were considered as part of their ex-
traordinary income, though some fell in
every year. The Bishops of some sees
received in this manner more than three
times the amount of their ordinary income.
Sir R. Inglis concurred in the observa-
tions which had been so pertinently made
by the hon. and learned civilian who had
just addressed the House. From every in-
formation which he had been able to ac-
quire, the hon. and learned civilian was
perfectly correct in the maximum of in-
come which he had assigned to the differ-
ent sees of Canterbury,York, and Durham,
arising not only from ordinary, but also
from extraordinary receipts. The income
of the Bishops in Ireland had been so
- grossly exaggerated, that if he were to say
s that it approached a fourth part of the sum
I ordinarily stated, he too should be guilty
- of gross exaggeration. With regard to the
f Bishop of Hereford, he had enjoyed the
I satisfaction of being known to that venera-
e ble prelate for the last twenty-seven years,
h and, in point of fact, was under great obli-
. nations to him. From his acquaintance
t with him he was able to say, that no
; man could discharge his duties in a more


81 Irish Protestant Chur~ch.







83 Vestries in Ireland.


punctual, faithful and exemplary manner.
Last year he had gone down to Hereford,
and had resided three months in his dio-
cese. He concurred with the right hon.
Baronet in his remark as to the propriety
of not then discussing the merits of the
Irish Church, and he hoped that no fur-
ther reference would be made to this sub-
ject until they had upon the Table the re-
port of the Ecclesiastical Commission,
which had been recently appointed.
Petition laid on the Table. On the
question that it be printed,
Mr. Hume took the opportunity of
complaining that two of the right hon.
Gentlemen on the opposite benches had
strangely misrepresented what he had
stated respecting Church property. He
would never shrink from avowing any
language which he had uttered; but he
thought it a little too bad to hear language
palmed upon him which he had never
used. There was all the difference ima-
ginable between the property belonging
to Deans and Chapters and the property
which private individuals had in advow-
sons. He wished that the vested interest
of every incumbent, and of every advow-
son should be held sacred. His observa-
tions merely applied to Church property
belonging to Bishops, Deans and Chapters,
and other ecclesiastical corporations. The
result of this debate satisfied him that
some further inquiry was necessary, and
he trusted that Ministers would institute
it speedily.
Petition to be printed.

VESTRIES IN IRELAND.] Mr. O'Con-
nell said, he wished to call the attention
of the House to a Statute passed so re-
cently as in the year 1827, which consi-
derably affected the property of his Ma-
jesty's subjects in Ireland. The voice of
the country had been raised against it.
This was abundantly evident from the nu-
merous petitions which had been laid upon
the Table of the House. He had himself
presented at least thirty petitions against
this Statute, and he was convinced that
three times as many had been presented
by other hon. Members. In a word, the
Act gave universal discontent, and he
considered that its provisions were well
calculated to do so; but he relied not,
however, upon his own judgment, nor did
he wish the House to take the fact upon
his simple assertion. He could bring
forward, in support of what he had stated,


the authority of a clergyman of the Esta-
blished Church-of Mr. Daly, the War-
den of Galway, who, at a public meeting
held in that town, stated, that not only
were the people and gentry opposed to
this Statute, but that even a magistrate
on the bench of justice had designated
the Vestry Act as infamous and abomina-
ble, and as a substitute for the Penal
Code. Now this showed that the hosti-
lity to the Statute had not originated
with him; and he was not giving utter-
ance to his own sentiments and feelings
alone, when he complained of it as an in-
vasion of private property, and denounced
it as giving individuals a power over the
property of others which they ought not
to have. The Act, he begged the House
to remember, was a recent one; it
changed the law, and inflicted additional
grievances upon a class of people who
were then unrepresented in that House;
and he could not refrain from observing,
that one of the greatest benefits which
had resulted from the Relief Bill was, that
there was at least one person, however hum-
ble and incompetent, at present, to endea-
vour, as far as his limited powers would ad-
mit, clearly to show the injusticeof such Acts
as this. The provisions of the Act against
which he complained were shortly these:
-The Vestry had the power of assessing the
inhabitants to any amount for particular
objects. The Act excluded the greater
number of rate-payers from all meetings
of the Vestry to consider of the building
of any church or chapel of ease, or the re-
building, repairing, and enlarging of the
same. It excluded the Roman Catholics
from the Vestries upon all these occa-
sions. Next, it enabled the Protestant
inhabitants exclusively to levy a rate upon
all the other inhabitants of the parish for all
purposes necessary to provide for the cele-
bration of divine worship, as laid down in
any Canon or Rubric now in force either
in England or Ireland; thus including
not only the Canons which may be in ex-
istence in Ireland, but also those which
may only be known in England. Up to
the passing of this Statute, the Roman
Catholics were not excluded from meet-
ings to consider the expediency of en-
larging or repairing churches, or of voting
upon any other questions, excepting for
the building of churches, for the election
of churchwardens, or for the demise of
parish estates. In former times they were
admitted to the discussion respecting the


{COMMONS}


Vestries in Ireland. 84







85 Vestries in Ireland.


making of the rate, although they were
not to that respecting the propriety of im-
posing it. The cases of exclusion had
therefore been augmented since 1827,
though the law then passed was not justi-
fied by any complaints against the Catho-
lics. They had not obstructed the build-
ing, or repairing of churches, though all
parties had before that time complained
of the monstrous system of jobbing that
was carried on by the Protestant Vestries.
Now, nothing, in his mind, could be more
unjust than this system. In England the
Vestry had the power of levying rates on
all the inhabitants for repairing churches,
and this was perfectly just; but nothing
could be more unfairthan throwing the bur-
then of keeping up Protestant churches
upon Roman Catholics, who formed the
mass of the population in Ireland. Before
the Reformation the churches were all in
repair, and they were in sufficient num-
ber. By the canon law the clergy
were obliged, out of the revenues of the
church, to keep the church in repair.
After this period, however, they were neg-
lected and dilapidated, and instead of
applying to the ecclesiastical fund, which
ought to have been sufficient, the govern-
ment of that day turned to the people,
who were not guilty, and made them con-
tribute for these purposes. Up to the pass-
ing of 12th of Geo. the 1st, Roman Catho-
lics were admitted to vote at Vestries, but it
was recited in this Act, that inasmuch as
they had improperly prevented the building
and repairing of churches, they should be
therefore excluded from the Vestries.
And yet, strange to tell,'by an Act passed
two years before, by the 10th of Geo. 1st
c. 6, it was declared, that the consent of
the majority of Protestants was sufficient
for the building or repairing of churches,
and consequently it was evident that the
Roman Catholics could not, by possibility,
have been guilty of that with which they
were charged by the Statute of the 12th of
Geo. 1st. He also complained,that if the
Vestry did not choose to tax the parish to
build and repair churches, the Bishops
had the power of so doing. He had for-
merly been contradicted when he made
this assertion, and had been consequently
since led to examine into its correct-
ness, and he found in the 23rd section,
that the Bishop, if he thought fit, might
issue a monition, ordering an assessment
either for rebuilding or repairing churches,
or providing any of the things necessary


for the celebration of divine worship ; and
this order could be legally enforced.
Thus it appeared the Bishops possessed
unjust and unconstitutional power over
the property of Roman Catholics, Protest-
ants, and Dissenters. Another provision
was, that if a churchwarden, acting for
the Vestry, were defeated in any action,
he having even gone beyond the powers
of the Statute (for otherwise he must be
successful under its protection), yet was
the amount of the verdict added to the
costs, and the whole was levied on the
parish. The Act also had an inconve-
nience with respect to the union of pa-
rishes. By one Act of Parliament, the
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and the
Bishop of the diocese were enabled to
unite parishes in perpetuity. But the
Statute of George 4th enabled the Bi-
shop, where a parish was destitute of a
church, to unite that with any other pa-
rish he thought fit, and then it was to be
taxed for the support of the church in
the parish to which it was united, though
it had, at the same time, to pay its own
clergyman. He knew instances in which
such unions had been made solely for the
purposes of taxation ; and the right hon.
the member for Waterford had mentioned
a case in which one parish, for this pur-
pose, had been united to another ten
miles distant. This was, he thought, a
state of the law which ought not to be
allowed to subsist. He complained also
of this Statute, because in many parishes
the number of Protestants was very small
as compared with that of the Roman Ca-
tholics, while in other parishes there were
no Protestants at all. He knew fifty pa-
rishes in Ireland, containing a population
of 283,621 Catholics, and 3,228 Protest-
ants, making the persons who imposed
taxes about one in ninety of those who
paid them. He also contended that the
Statute was vague, and the powers of the
Vestry were not defined. It might be
objected, that if Roman Catholics were
admitted, they would prevent the building
and repairing of churches ; but he thought
that each class of persons should support
its own religious establishment. The
present state of the Roman Catholic
Church in Ireland fully proved that there
was no necessity for Government's contri-
buting anything to the support of a church
establishment. He did not, however,
propose to introduce any principle into
his Bill which should have the effect of


{APRIL 27}


Festries in Ireland.








depriving the Church of England of any of land, who assisted him in passing the
those rights it at that time possessed. bill. He differed entirely from the hon.
He only wished to give the Roman Catho- Gentleman with respect to the view he had
lics the right of voting, as well respecting taken of the general question : and lie
the propriety of imposing any rate, as the did so because he thought an Established
mode of levying it; and he would be at the Church was an integral part of the Consti-
same time ready to point out the remedy tution, which was essential to the well-being
in the case of any improper opposition, of the people, and ought to be supported
If a pertinacious and unjust opposition for the benefit of the State, by the general
were made to re-building or repairing a contribution of all classes of the commu-
Protestant Church, the parish authori- nity. If, therefore, he had assisted in
ties might apply for a mandamus to the preparing a bill proceeding on a principle
King's Bench ; and the whole expense of different from the principle entertained by
the proceeding would fall on the parties the hon. Gentleman, it was because he
unjustly opposing the measure. It was had a strong feeling in favour of an
impossible, under the present system, Established Church, instead of allowing
when parish money was voted away by a different sects to support their own insti-
few, that great favouritism should not ex- tutions, without contributing to the ex-
ist in the expenditure of it. He would, penses of the National Church. The
however, avoid entering into any particu- hon. Member complained that the bill
lar details, contenting himself with stating now under discussion gave larger powers
it was inconsistent with human nature of assessment to Protestant Vestries than
that it should be otherwise. His Motion they enjoyed under the former law. He
was simply this-to prevent the possibi- told the House, that until this bill was
lity of any one class being bound to keep passed, the assessments could only extend
its pockets open, that another might to the re-building and repairing of
thrust its hands into them. The hon. and churches, but that the bill had added the
learned Gentleman moved for leave to building and the enlarging of churches,
bring in a Bill to alter and amend the and the building and the repairing of
laws relating to Vestries in Ireland. chapels, from which the parishioners were
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, previously exempted.
that as he was the person who introduced Mr. O'Connell had only spoken as to
and conducted through the Housethe mea- the additional powers relating to the en-
sure, against which the observations of the larging of churches and chapels.
hon. and learned Gentleman were directed, The Chancellor of the Exchequer then
and which had been so often attacked, he understood the hon. Gentleman to say,
might be allowed to say a few words in that so far as related to the re-building
its defence. He would not enter into the and repairing of churches, the previous
subject with reference to any of the ante- law gave the Vestry a right of assessment.
cedent attacks which had been made Now, the hon. Gentleman had much
against the measure, but would rather insisted on the system of procuring funds
imitate the temper displayed by the hon. for building churches in England and
Gentleman upon the present occasion. Ireland, and he had stated particularly
He would proceed to show that the Act the hardships to which he asserted the
was not, as had been represented, an latter country was subjected. It was true
invasion of private property, and that it that in England the Vestries were not
was not entitled to any of the appellations bound to levy assessments for the build-
which had been bestowed upon it. When ing of parish churches; but it was equally
the Statute was passed, it was generally true, that latterly in Ireland the parishion-
acknowledged to be an improvement of ers were not assessed for that purpose. In
the law which had previously existed, and Ireland the funds came from another
an alleviation of the burthens and obli- source-namely, the First Fruits. Advan-
gations of that class whose cause the hon. ces were made to parishes from that source,
Member particularly professed to advocate, and the sum so advanced was afterwards
It received the approbation of men who repaid, without interest, by the parishes.
were as jealous of the interests of the In the same way, when there was a
Roman Catholics as the hon. Member necessity for erecting a church here, a sum
himself; and amongst others, of Lord of money was advanced by the Com-
Plunkett, then Attorney-general for Ire- missioners for Building Churches, and the


87 Vestries in Ir~eland.


f COMMONS I


Vestr~ies in Irelanzd. 88







89 Vestries in Ireland.


amount so advanced was repaid out of the
proper rates. But whatever might be
the hardship or inconvenience which the
hon. Gentleman said resulted from oblig-
ing the parishes in Ireland to restore the
sums granted to them for such purposes,
that evil, it should be observed, did not
arise under the bill of which the hon.
Member complained. The law on that
subject had its origin at an antecedent
period ; and by that law it was directed,
that money lent for the purpose of re-
building churches, &c. should be repaid.
In framing the bill he had not overlooked
that which the hon. Gentleman stated on
former occasions to be the great and crying
evil of the system, but which he appeared
to have forgotten to-night. The first and
most prevalent evil under the former law
was, that the Roman Catholic could be
compelled to take the office of church.
warden ; or, in other words, he might be
forced to appear in a situation the duties
of which he was not competent to dis-
charge. For that hardship the bill now
complained of furnished a remedy. It
did not exempt the Roman Catholic from
any honour or advantage which might be
derived from filling the office of church-
warden (for it was sometimes said, that it
was connected with honour and advantage,
and sometimes the assertion was denied),
but it gave him the option of taking the
situation or of refusing it, just as he
pleased ; he could no longer be compelled
to undertake those duties. Another ob-
jection to the former bill, but which was
removed by the present, although the
hon. Gentleman had omitted to mention
it, was this-that all matters of dispute
relative to rates necessary for repairing or
beautifying a church, were brought before
an ecclesiastical tribunal, and the church,
in such cases, was supposed to act as
judge in its own cause. What, then, was
done, in the bill which the hon. and
learned Gentleman condemned with re-
spect to this point ? Why, that power
was altogether withdrawn. It could not
now be said by the Roman Catholic that
cases of this kind were heard before an
interested tribunal. Those cases were
submitted to a tribunal of magistrates,
where Roman Catholics as well as Protest-
ants might sit in judgment. He would
therefore say, that this single change in
the system, if there were no other altera-
tion effected, showed clearly the feelings
which actuated the framers of this measure.


It proved that they had no wish unduly
to uphold the interests of the Established
Church by the influence of ecclesiastical
authority. The hon. Gentleman had said,
that in other parts of the bill provisions
were introduced, imposing very heavy
burthens on the Roman Catholics. He
admitted that the clause for enlarging
churches was added to the provisions for
building and repairing churches. But
why was it added ? Simply, because it
was a compromise between existing inter-
ests, and it certainly appeared reasonable
that the Vestry, which had the power of
building, rebuilding, or repairing, should
possess the minor power of enlarging,
which, in many instances, might render
it unnecessary to incur the greater expense
of re-building. The hon. Gentleman's next
objection was, that the bill gave to the
Bishop full power, as he had stated on a
former occasion, to levy any sum of money
he might think proper on a parish, and
that such sum might be raised without any
interference on the part of the Roman
Catholics. Now it would be necessary
for the House to consider in what case
that power was given. By the law of both
countries, as it stood at present, the
parishioners were bound to keep the parish
church in repair; and so long as an
Established Church was kept up, it must
be so. If a church were suffered to fall
into decay, the Bishop had a right to
require that a rate should be levied for the
purpose of having it repaired. That was
the law of this country. When visitations
were made, it was the duty of the Bishop
to see that the necessary repairs of the
church were effected; and if the parish-
ioners did not think fit to make such
repairs, the Bishop here, as in Ireland,
had a right to compel them to do that
which they ought to have done voluntarily.
Of course a rate of that description must,
like other parochial rates, be shared amongst
all the parishioners. Such a principle
might not have existed in the Statute-
law of this country before, but it had long
formed a principle of the Ecclesiastical
law, that the Bishop should have a right
to levy a rate for proper repairs where it
was necessary. The present bill trans-
ferred that power from the ecclesiastical
courts to another tribunal; and in doing
so, it had effected any thing rather than
the imposition of an additional burthen
on the Roman Catholics. Another ob-
jection made by the hon. Gentleman to


{APRIL 27}


Yestries inl Ireland. 90







91 Vestries in Ireland.


the bill was, that when a churchwarden
proceeded against any parishioner, and
was cast, the parish were bound to defray
his costs. He admitted that this was so;
but as the individual acted under the
direction of the Vestry, it would be very
hard, should the Vestry have taken a wrong'
view of the question, that the person
acting in his official capacity should not
be remunerated. He had thus gone over
several of the provisions of the bill against
which the hon. Gentleman had directed
his complaints ; and he thought, if the
House had done him the favour to listen
to what he had said, that he had shown
that the present bill had effected a great
amelioration in the former law. He had
corrected a great abuse which existed
under the previous measure,-that of
charging a gross sum as levied in the
shape of rates, without stating to what
purpose or purposes they were applied.
Every item must now be distinctly pointed
out. Indeed, the present bill went further,
for it provided that the accounts should be
open to the inspection of all the payers,
and it gave the right of appeal to the
magistrates against the amount of the
rate, as well as against its particular
appropriation. He would not say that
the law was without any objections; but
though he might admit that some provisions
of it were capable of amendment, he could
not consent to a bill for altogether setting
it aside. Above all, he could never allow
the hon. Gentleman to introduce a bill to
amendthe existing Act, on the ground of
the enormities or abuses which he had
been pleased to assert had been generated
by it. The hon. Member's amendment
came to this, that every rate-payer within
a parish should in future vote for the main-
tenance of the church, and for those
things that were necessary to be supplied
for it. He thought that was going too far.
He knew there had been a dispute as to
the matters on which Vestries ought to
vote, and it had been suggested to him to
state in the bill the subjects to which their
votes ought to be restricted. He had not
adopted that suggestion, but had attempt-
ed to attain the same end, by sending to
the different parishes a circular letter, in
which he referred them to the Rubric and
Canons for their guidance. He had felt
it necessary to say so much in vindication
of himself and of his right hon. friend, for
having prepared a bill which he
must continue to think was an amelio-


ration of the former law. He should
therefore oppose the Motion of the hon.
Gentleman.
Mr. S. Rice said, he agreed with much
of the latter part of the speech of the
right hon. Gentleman, but not with the
early portion of it. The right hon. Gen-
tleman had risen to vindicate his bill; but
the real and practical object which it was
the duty of the House to discuss was,
whether or not a case had been made out,
even by the admission of the right hon.
Gentleman himself, which rendered it
expedient and necessary, without looking
to the feelings and views of those who
framed the law, to alter and amend it.
On the part of those immediately con-
nected with individuals who were affected
by measures of this character, he thought
the House had a right to expect that a
more distinct pledge should be given-and
that, too, without loss of time-by his
Majesty's Government, of their intention
to propose some alterations in this measure.
He confessed for one, without meaning
any disrespect to the hon. member for
Clare, that he should be glad to see the
amendment of the law taken up by the
Government of the country rather than
by an individual. The hon. member for
Clare appeared to agree with him in that
sentiment; and therefore would acquit
him of any disrespectful feeling. He
should, with reference to the success of
any new measure, wish to see it proceed
directly from the Government, in prefer-
ence to its being introduced by an indi-
vidual unconnected with the Administra-
tion, because, coming from such a quarter,

it was undoubtedly more likely to be
carried. He entirely concurred in the
sentiment of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer that, whatever defects were to be
found in the bill as it now stood, such
defects were not to be imputed to those
who introduced the measure to Parliament,
.or to those who endeavoured to improve
it. The whole spirit which was manifested
in the debates in Parliament on this sub-
ject, was evidently dictated by a desire to
apply a remedy to an admitted evil; and
he must say, that in many important
points that remedy was afforded by the
bill before them. But admitting that,
was he to be precluded from voting for a
measure to remove other defects? Cer-
tainly not. At the same time,hewould vote
with the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
provided a pledge were given by the


f COMMONS


Fesirks in2 Ireland.








93 Vestries in Ireland.


Government that it would adopt other,
and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman
would give him credit when he said, better,
remedies for the evils than those which
had yet been proposed. On the ground
that the present law was capable of
amendment, and because he thought it
ought to be amended,-on this ground,
and after the gross violation of the law,
such as it was, that had taken place in
Ireland, and holding in view the neglect
of the circular promulgated by the right
hon. Gentleman opposite on the subject,
-he thought Ministers were bound to give
immediate notice of their intention to pro-
pose some alteration and amendment of
the law. Such an amendment need not
affect the principle of the bill, and would
strengthen instead of impairing the solidity
of the Church establishment. It should
be so managed as to cast the burthen of
the rates on the landlord, instead of im-
posing it upon the tenant. He thought
that such a change would be most bene-
ficial. There was one subject in the right
hon. Gentleman's speech to which he could
not avoid alluding. The right hon. Gen-
tleman had told them that he had sent
a circular letter to the Vestries, referring
them, for the guidance of their conduct, to
the Rubric and the Canons. He must
say, that he wished that instead of such
a reference, their duties had been clearly
defined in a schedule annexed to the Act
of Parliament, that it might have come
before the Vestries as a legislative measure,
instead of appearing in the form of a circu-
lar letter from the Chief Secretary of the
Lord Lieutenant. To whom was that
letter addressed ?-Why, to Irish Vestry-
men. He was at that moment speaking to
the English House of Commons; yet he
would venture to assert, that there were
hardly ten Gentlemen present at that
moment who knew one single word of the
directions contained in the Rubric or
the Canons. What then could Irish
Vestrymen know of such things? This
uncertainty of the law had introduced a
spirit of hostility and litigation which he
had hoped would be taken away, and re-
called feelings which he had hoped were
entirely set at rest. It was under these
circumstances that he wished to call his
noble friend's (Lord F.L. Gower's) attention
to the constitution and operation of the
Irish Vestries Act. The present was a sub-
ject which excited more attention in Ire-
land than many others of greater import-


ance: the petitions upon the Table proved
that. The Legislature was asked to amend
a law which it was pretty generally ad-
mitted required amendment, and unless
the Government took up the subject, he
should therefore vote for the proposition of
the hon. and learned member for Clare.
In doing so, he did not mean to pledge
himself to go to the full length which it
was possible that hon. Member might have
in view; he should pledge himself to
nothing more than an amendment of the
Irish Vestries Act, and that in the absence
of a pledge from Government. But he
trusted that the noble Lord, who from the
nature of his office, was charged peculiar-
ly with the interests of Ireland, would not
return to that country without being able to
say to the people of Ireland, There has
been a case of grievance and considerable
existing evil made out with respect to the
operation of the Irish Vestry law; and
feeling it to be my duty to devise a remedy
for the evil myself, I introduced a bill
into Parliament, which is now law. You
owe the removal of the grievance to the
Government and the Legislature."
Mr. Moore said, the principle that Ro-
man Catholics and other dissenters from
the Established Church should be ex-
empted from contributing to its support,
had been very adroitly disclaimed by the
hon. and learned Gentleman opposite on
this occasion, who, however, at the same
time that he disavowed any intention of
introducing that principle in his amended
bill, spoke in such a manner, that he could
not but believe, if the Bill were allowed to
pass into a law, that the very next attempt
of the hon. and learned Gentleman would
be to introduce and establish that principle.
The hon. member for Limerick gave up
the remaining principle which the learned
Gentleman sought to enforce, so that he
(Mr. Moore) was relieved from going into
the details of the subject. Of this he was
satisfied, that infinitely more excitation
would be produced in Ireland generally by
an alteration of the law, as suggested by
the hon. member for Clare, than could be
compensated by the soothing effect which
the learned Gentleman expected from the
change in parishes where the numbers of
dissenters from the Established Church
predominated. It was well known that
there were parts of Ireland where the Pro-
testant inhabitants had no parochial place
of worship. In such cases, the act of the
4th of Geo. 4th gave the Bishop of the


{APRIL 27}


Vestri~es in Ireland. 94







95 Vestries in Ireland.


diocese the power of conferring upon
the inhabitants a right of attending the
church of the adjoining parish; and so
long as circumstances required them to do
so, and no longer, were they to pay rates
towards the support of that church; for
although the Bishop had, to a certain ex-
tent, the power to unite adjoining parishes,
it was a power only to be exercised for
good and wise purposes, and in cases
were necessity required it; and as soon as
a parish built a church for its own use, the
annexation fell to the ground, and the
rates payable to the other parish ceased.
He denied that there was anything inde-
finite in the existing law, which it was
true, contemplated the providing of all
things necessary for the celebration of
divine service, according to the rites and
ceremonies of the Church of England."
This was explained to be all things re-
quired by the rules, and canons, and
rubric of the church, and upon the exten-
sive meaning of the latter word Rubric "
the hon. and learned Member had rung
the changes here and elsewhere. The
hon. Gentleman went on to say, that the
meaning of the term "Rubric" was ex-
tremely simple, and that if the learned
Member looked into Burn's Ecclesiastical
Law, he could find a definition of it. In
fact, the Rubric" was the directions con-
tained in the Book of Common Prayer
with regard to the celebration of divine
service, and in old Prayer Books these di-
rections were frequently printed in red ink,
and were therefore termed the Rubric.
After this explanation, he thought it could
not be maintained that the Act of Parlia-
ment was not sufficiently distinct and de-
finite on the subject. The hon. Member
concluded by expressing his determination
to vote against the Motion.
Sir J. Newport said, the hon. and
learned Gentleman who had just sat down
thought it right to refer the House to
Burn's Ecclesiastical Law for the meaning
of the terms Rubric and Canons of
the Church ; but the right hon. Gentle-
man opposite wascontent with issuing a cir-
cular as to what the Rubric required with-
out referring to Burn's Ecclesiastical Law.
What was the result of this letter? The re-
sult was, not only that many of the parishes
treated it with levity, but several of the in-
cumbents said,the right hon.Gentleman had
no authority to send such a communication,
and one individual went the length of saying
he set it at nought. In one parish in


Dublin, under the head of matters neces-
sary for the celebration of Divine Service,"
was a vote of 3001. agreed upon in vestry,
and granted to two curates for performing
of early service,not leaving it to the incum-
bent to provide for the payment of his cu-
rates. Sums of moneywere voted for vestry
clerks, bellows-blowers to the organ,
organ-tuners, teachers of charity children,
and other objects never contemplated by
the Act, and all this under pretence of
"things necessary for the celebration of
Divine Service, according to the rites and
ceremonies of the Church of England."
Such circumstances showed the necessity
of guarding the Act against the possibility
of misconstructions. He heartily wished
that the assessments could be provided for
by other means than annual vestries, for
the purpose of avoiding the chance of ex-
citement. One great evil was, that if an
aggrieved parish appealed, and were suc-
cessful in that appeal, the costs were
still thrown upon the parishioners. Another
was, that when an appeal was determined
on, it was necessary to enter into recogni-
zances to prosecute, and as few parties
liked that responsibility, the power of
appeal, which he admitted was intended to
benefit the population of Ireland, was in
fact, and practically of no use whatever.
The right hon. Gentleman concluded by
expressing a hope that the noble Lord(Lord
F. L. Gower) would give an assurance of
his intention to propose an amendment
in the existing law, and observed, that
if this suggestion were not adopted, he
should feel bound to support the Motion
of thehon. member for Clare. If Govern-
ment took the matter into their own hands,
no doubt the learned Gentleman would be
content to leave it with them.
Lord F. L. Gower considered it his
duty to oppose the Motion of the hon.
member for Clare, and in doing so would
take the opportunity to explain very briefly
his views of the subject. When first he
undertook the duties of the office which
he now held, he entered upon them with
impressions and notions as to this law,
which had been considerably changed by
what he had observed since he went to
Ireland. He was prepared to find a case
of remarkable failure and grievance, but
he must say that his impression, arising
from recent experience, and from what he
had seen of the working of the law in the
country, was, that it was a law which
rather admitted than urgently required


Festries in Ireland.


COMMONS}







97 Vestries in Ireland.


amendment. It was not necessary for
him, after the explanation offered to the
House by his right hon. friend, the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, who, from his
share in the enactment of the measure,
was the most proper person to explain its
details, to go into the subject minutely.
The hon. member for Limerick must ex-
cuse him if, with the impressions now ex-
isting in his mind, he felt considerable
caution as to pledging himself to the imme-
diate introduction of any enactment on
the subject. On general principles he was
reluctant to do so, not having made up his
mind fully on the matter. He had formed
an opinion with respect to various details
of the act, and thought that some of them
might perhaps be amended and improved;
but bearing in his recollection all the sug-
gestions that had been offered on the
subject, he had not yet been able to de-
termine as to the course he should take,
or the extent to which he might be able to
adopt these recommendations. The hon.
Gentleman seemed to think that it was a
fit subject for inquiry by a committee up
stairs; and that was sufficient to entitle
him to decline giving the pledge which
the hon. Gentleman so urgently pressed
for. He felt it his duty to deal candidly
and fairly with his hon. friend, and to say,
that if he were disposed to rest his vote on
the hope that Government would, in the
course of the present Session, bring forward
an enactment on the subject, anxious as he
felt to have his hon. friend vote with him,
he could not purchase that vote by offering
the pledge which his hon. friend required,
because in doing so he might only he de-
ceiving him, and the House. If he un-
derstood the hon.member for Clare aright,
his proposed alterations would amount to
an admission of rate-payers of all descrip-
tions to privileges from which they were
excluded by the present Act; and the hon.
Gentleman appeared to think that the
danger and inconvenience that might once
have resulted from this course was now re-
duced to almost nothing, by the good
feeling existing among all classes on the
other side of the water. He was happyto
say this good feeling did exist in a great
degree on many subjects, and he could
wish that the temperate tone of the pre-
sent discussion had prevailed in all dis-
cussions of the subject, and in regard to
all matters relating to Ireland. Such a
circumstance might have almost reconciled
him to the learned Gentleman's proposi-
VOL. XXIV.


tion: but the tone and temper referred to
was not the tone of feeling that always
prevailed in Ireland on this or other sub-
jects, as the hon. member for Clare well
knew. He was not sure that the tone of
feeling in Ireland with regard to the par-
ticular Statute in question, was such as
rendered it desirable to deal with the sub-
ject at the present moment. It was partly
upon this ground that he thought the hon.
Member's expectations, with regard to the
working of his proposed alterations, would
not be borne out. Under all the circum-
stances of the case, he could not give the
pledge required at the hands of Govern-
ment, and felt bound to oppose the Motion
of the hon. member for Clare.
Mr. Trant said, the hon. and learned
Member had told them how highly a
Church could flourish without any provi-
sion; while he said, at the same time, that
it was not his present intention to go fur-
ther than the measure then before the
House: but who could doubt the hon. and
learned Gentleman's ultimate intention ?
No one who, like him, was an earnest and
sincere member of the Roman Catholic
Church, could reconcile it to his feelings,
to omit bringing forward motions of that
nature. He could not help endeavouring
to make some progress-he hardly knew
what to call it-in undermining what he
could not but regard as an intrusive
Church: it was perfectly natural, and so
obvious, that all men had foreseen that
the moment a Roman Catholic Member
obtained a seat in that House, measures
would be introduced for the purpose of
overturning the Established Church in
Ireland. This, in fact, was the object of
the lion. and learned Gentleman, though
he couched it under the name of an
amendment in the Vestries Act. He
should deeply regret to see the Church of
Ireland regulated by a schedule in an Act
of Parliament, as proposed by the hon.
member for Limerick, instead of being
regulated by the Canons and the Rubric.
There might be philosophers and econo-
mists in that House, but he trusted, the
people would support him in maintaining
the rights and privileges of the Church of
England. He hoped and believed that
the people of England would support him
and other Members of that House, in
watching, with the greatest vigilance, any-
thing affecting the interests of the Esta-
blished Church in Ireland.
Mr. Secretary Peel said, he most fully
E


{APRIL 27)


V~estr~ies in Ireland. 98







Vestries in Ireland. 100


concurred with the hon. Member who had
spoken last, that they should look with the
utmost vigilance to all that affected the in-
terests of the Established Church--there
was no motion brought forward as the
present had been which should not be re-
garded with, he might even say, suspicion
-a motion made upon such a subject,
and having such an effect, by an hon.
Member dissenting from the doctrines of
the Church, and avowing opinions with
respect to contributing to the maintenance
of the Established Church, such as had
been avowed by the hon. and learned
Mover-to which he added, that he con-
templated ulterior measures, which, for
the present, he did not think it expedient
to put forth. Now it was to be regretted
that he had confined himself to that im-
perfect statement of his opinions; it
would have been much to be desired, that
those opinions had now been submitted to
the House, that they might know at once
what the hon. and learned Gentleman pro-
posed to do. With respect to the parti-
cular question then before them, he begged
to say, that he was far from denying that
very plausible arguments had been brought
against points and portions of the Act, of
which it was the object of the hon. and
learned Gentleman to procure the repeal;
but he looked to the main principle of the
Motion, and upon principle he opposed it.
He understood the main object of it to be
to enable Catholics and other Dissenters
to vote at Vestries concerning the imposi-
tion of Church-rates.
Mr. O'Connell: Other Dissenters vote
now.
Mr. Secretary Peel resumed: If Roman
Catholics were permitted to vote, he fore-
saw it must be productive of the most
endless confusion in Ireland, and would
lead to the destruction of that peace and
good-will now so happily prevailing in that
country. The Church of Ireland was a
branch of the Protestant United Episcopal
Church of England, and the reform carry-
ing on in the whole of that Church re-
quired an increased supply of places of
worship, and he knew not how those were
to be had otherwise than by taxing the
possessors of land in Ireland. They
could not expect England to pay for those
churches; and if it turned out that the
possessors of land in Ireland were not able
to pay for them, then England must see
that they were paid for from some other
quarter, so as to keep the burthen, if pos-


sible, upon the shoulders of those who
ought to bear it. The members of the
United Church had a right to look to the
possessors of land in Ireland, for the
maintenance of the decent performance of
public worship, according to the form of
the Established Church. For his part, he
knew nothing better than levying paro-
chial rates for this purpose. He confessed
he heard with surprise a lawyer recom-
mending an enactment, giving the power
of application to the Court of King's
Bench-it might be said, that even at the
present moment there existed the means of
application to the King's Bench; he did
not know whether it was so; if it was,
he regretted it; for, in his opinion, the
Court of King's Bench ought to be kept
aloof from all party contention, whereas
the measure which the hon. and learned
Gentleman sought to carry, would have
the effect of erecting the Court of King's
Bench into a political tribunal, exercising
a discretion upon the expediency of erect-
ing a church in every parish in Ireland.
He knew that in certain cases of rates,
that Court could issue a mandamus; but
he should mostdecidedly object to devolving
upon that Court the exercise of a political
discretion, instead of leaving it exclusively
to its legitimate business, the administra-
tion of justice. Admitting the force of
some observations which had been made
respecting the operation of the Vestry
Act, he preferred giving the present Motion
a decided negative, to adopting any other
course; nor should he purchase the con-
currence of any hon. Gentleman in that
House, by giving a distinct pledge to pro-
pose any alteration in it. He could not
conceal from himself the difficulties that
were in the way of any attempt to specify
by law, in what cases Vestries should have
the power of imposing rates. The Canon
Law and the Rubric were, it must be
admitted, but little understood, and rarely
referred to by those who took an active
part in the business of Vestries; and, in
the circumstances in which the circular
letter of his right hon. friend had been
issued, he did not, he confessed, see how
a more expedient course could have been
pursued. Though fully aware of the diffi-
culty of accomplishing the object of which
he spoke, he could not help expressing a
wish that all those cases were specified by
law; for it was scarcely to be supposed
that the Roman Catholic would remain
satisfied with any practice, merely because


{COMMONS}


99 Vestr~ies in Ir~eland.







{APRIL 27} Vestries in Ireland.


it was prescribed by the Canon and the
Rubric, and not specified in any legislative
enactment. It would be, therefore, con-
venient and advantageous, that a law
should be passed, did no grounds of
objection to it appear; but to say any-
thing decisive, one way or the other,
would be giving a pledge in the course of
a debate too important to be given, except
upon due consideration. There were other
points connected with the present ques-
tion, which required much consideration,
and to which he was willing to give his
serious attention, but upon which he could
then give no pledge. As to the Motion of
the hon. and learned Gentleman, he dif-
fered from it in principle; and therefore
he was prepared to give it his most decided
negative.
Mr. O'Connell claimed the privilege of
saying a few words in reply. He objected
to the payment of cess by Catholics, so
long as they were denied the power of
voting at vestries, and so lohg as the pur-
poses for which the money was voted re-
mained undefined. It was most unfair to
charge him with making the present a
question of religion-he had studiously
avoided making it so-it was a question
of pounds, shillings, and pence-it was a
question about levying distress, and the
pocketing of fees upon that distress-that
was not religion, that was extortion, and
the party guilty of it was an extortioner,
and no Christian at all. Those who had
to observe upon what had fallen from him,
and who felt themselves called upon to
oppose his Motion, seemed much dis-
contented at the manner in which he had
introduced his Motion. He remembered
once hearing a counsel say to a witness,
" Why don't you say something that I can
lay hold of?" Hon. Gentlemen opposite
seemed to be somewhat in that situation-
they seemed to be amazingly discontented
with him for not saying something that
they could lay hold of. He should now
come to another point. The great princi-
ple for which he contended was this-that
no one sect ought to have the power of
taxing another at its discretion, for the
maintenance of an adverse system of reli-
gion. If the Protestants of England bore
the same numerical proportion to the
Catholics here, which the Catholics of
Ireland bore to the Protestants there, he
should feel but little respect for the Pro-
testant body, if they allowed a few Catho-
lics to tax them for the maintenance of


their own form of worship. But then it
was said, that all this pecuniary aid was
necessary for maintaining the poor Esta-
blished Church of Ireland; impoverished
as it was, and destitute of pecuniary
means to defray the charges of its public
worship, it behoved them to do something
for its protection and support. Good
God was it to be endured that such lan-
guage should be applied, as he had heard,
with respect to the Established Church of
Ireland ?-a Church the richest in the
world, compared with the wealth of the
people amongst whom, and at whose ex-
pense, it was established. Yet they were
told that the inordinately rich church ought
not to be expected to pay for its own sacra-
mental elements; for the decoration of its
places of worship; for the salaries of its
pew-openers; nay, for the winding-up of
its vestry clock: he found that to be one
of the items. No; the Church was to
pay for none of these; but that richest of
Churches was to tax the poorest of nations,
and that for the maintenance of a system
opposed to the feelings and principles of
the great mass of the people. Formerly
vestries could not impose taxes oftener
than once a year-on Easter Monday or
Easter Tuesday. By the present law, they
could impose taxes on every Monday,
Tuesday, Wednesday, and every day in
the year except Sunday. They possessed
an unlimited power of taxation over their
fellow-subjects. It was said, that the
people possessed a power of appeal to the
magistrates at sessions; yes-but then
they must give two sureties in 1001. each
[No, no]. Yes, but he had the Act. He
wished the hon. Gentleman to refer to the
16th section, and then to the 17th.
He would there find, that appellants to the
Sessions were bound to find two sufficient
sureties in 1001. each. The Act stated,
indeed, that the appeal should be received
with securities or without them, at the
discretion of the magistrates, should they
think fit to dispense with them. But
would the magistrates dispense with them
in any case except in the cases of rich
men, to whom the dispensation would be
of no value ?-the poor man, who could not
find the securities, would be the very
person required to find them. He then
proceeded to observe, in detail, upon some
of the clauses of the Act, complaining
that the least irregularity in the form of
proceeding was fatal to any appeal-that
the whole time, therefore, occupied in try-
E2


101 V~estries in Irelanld.







{COMMONS} Administration of Justice. 104


ing appeals, was spent in trying, not the
merits of the question at issue, but the
forms of the proceeding. It was a system
such as that which made law-reforms ne-
cessary-it was well known that the
greater portion of the time of the inferior
courts in this country was spent in settling
questions of form, without the slightest
reference to the merits of the questions in
dispute between the litigants. It was
objected by the right hon. Gentleman
opposite, that the Court of King's Bench
was not a fit tribunal for the purposes
whichhe contemplated. The power which
he proposed to confer on the Court of
King's Bench was perfectly analogous to
powers already possessed by that Court,
and in many cases of rates exercised by
the Court of King's Bench, in England,
amidst its multifarious duties. A manda-
mus in the case of rates in Ireland was
perfectly usual, and the power which he
meant to convey would not place the
King's Bench in any novel or inconvenient
position. What formed the chief ground
of his complaint was, that there should be
taxation without the power of voting, and
for purposes opposed to the feelings of the
people, and not defined by law. He knew
fifty parishes in Ireland in which the Ca-
tholic population were to the Protestant as
eighty to one-was it to be endured that
one should be placed over the eighty, and
invested with power to tax them at his
discretion, and for purposes of his own
sect ? It was against every principle of
British justice, and opposed to every prin-
ciple of the British Constitution. Was
he, a Catholic, then to be taunted with
complaining against that ? He was in
that House because the people of Clare
sent him into it; but he did not appear
there as a sectarian-he rose in his place
to contest a question of pounds, shillings,
and pence-he had done all in his power
to bring forward the Motion in a manner
the best calculated, as he conceived, to
avoid offence---and he must be allowed to
say, that he thought he had not been
treated as he deserved. The motive which
had been imputed to him by the hon.
member for Dover was most unjust-he
was influenced by no such considerations
--he knew no religious distinctions ex-
cept in the Temple of his God-he scorned
and repudiated the purposes imputed to
him-and he appealed on behalf of the
people of Ireland to the justice of an
English House of Commons,


The House then divided, when there
appeared-For the Motion 47; Against
it 177-Majority 130.

List of the Minority.


Althorp, Lord
Buller, C.
Baring, Alex.
Baring, B.
Blandford, Marquis
Benett, J.
Clements, Lord
Clive, E. B.
Cave, Otway
Cavendish, W.
Duncombe, Thomas
Dundas, Thomas
Dawson, Alexander
Davenport, E.
Easthope, J.
Ewart, T.
Fazakerley, J. N.
Graham, Sir J.
Guise, Sir W.
Grattan, J.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Howick, Lord
Knight, R.
Kennedy, Thomas
Lambert, Colonel


Monck, J. B.
Macintosh, Sir Jas.
Macdonald, Sir James
Marshall, John
Maberly, Colonel
Martin, John
Macauley, W.
Morpeth, Lord
Newport, Sir John
Ord, William
Philips, Sir G.
Power, R.
Parnell, Sir HI.
Palmer, Fysche
Ponsonby, hon. F.
Robinson, Sir G.
Rice, Spring
Stanley, hon. E.
Talbot, R.
Tuite, II. M.
Wilson, Sir R.
Warburton, Henry
TELLERS.
O'Connell, Daniel
Hume, Joseph


ADMINISTRATION or JUSTICE.] The
Attorney General moved the Order of the
Day for the second reading of the Bill
for Improving the Administration of
Justice.
Mr. Jones objected to proceeding with
the Bill at that hour. The Bill itself was
objectionable in most parts, particularly
in those which referred to the Welsh judi-
cature. It was divided into two parts,
which were not at all necessarily connect-
ed, and between those was introduced a
measure not connected with either-
namely, the abolition of arrest for debt for
any sum less than 1001. Many who ap-
proved of one part would disapprove of
the other. Indeed, the Bill, taken alto-
gether, was the greatest skeleton of a bill
he had ever seen. It would take six
months in a committee to put flesh on its
bones. It looked as if the hon. and learned
Gentleman had put together all the margi-
nal notes of a whole volume of statutes, and
put them together without order or form.
Such a bill lie had never seen in that
House, except it was a Poor-bill which the
hon. and learned Gentleman himself had
introduced some few years ago, and which,
though he had been two years in preparing
it, appeared such an abortion when laid
on the Table of the House, that it was al


103 Y~estr~ies in Irelanzd.







S{APiIL 27} Administration of Justice. 106


most immediately withdrawn. The Bill
before the House was full of absurdities
and inconsistencies; he could mention
several, but one or two would suffice. The
Bill left to the King in Council the power
to consolidate two shires in Wales as might
be deemed necessary, and thus one
sheriff was to act for the two-the sheriff
acting in one county, and his sub-sheriff
in the other. But he should be glad to
know, if the King's writ were to be direct-
ed to the sheriff to return a Knight of the
Shire for each county, how he was so to
divide himself as to avoid the penalties
which would fall on him for not attend-
ing to each as directed? Then, under this
Bill, there was no way by which a person
in Wales could levy a fine and suffer a re-
covery; so that all property would be at a
stand-still in that country. On the whole
he would say, that a greater jumble of in-
congruities he never saw put together in
the shape of a bill; and if the question of
the second reading was pressed at this late
hour [nearly eleven o'clock,] and when
many Welsh members had left the House,
not expecting that it would be brought
on, he should feel it necessary to move
the question of adjournment.
Mr. Secretary Peel observed, that the
opposition of his hon. friend to the Bill
was certainly unfair. He raised objections
to the measure, and then compared it to
a measure on the Poor-laws which had
been introduced by his hon. and learned
friend some three or four years ago, with
which, however, it had nothing whatever
to do; and after having made a speech
himself, he wished to prevent farther dis-
cussion by moving an adjournment. If
his hon. friend had objections to parts of
the Bill, the committee was the place to
discuss them, and it would therefore be
more proper to let the Bill go into com-
mittee, and discuss them there.
Mr. O'Connell objected to the Bill, and
the present was the proper time for making
the objection, because it was too late an
hour to enter upon the consideration of a
measure of such importance There were
parts of the Bill which had no connexion
whatever with each other; one part relating
to Wales, and the other to regulations at
Westminster-hall. The appointment of
the three Judges to the courts in Wales
had no necessary connexion with the
courts in Westminster ; for if the business
were equalized in the Courts of King's
Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer,


there would be no need of any additional
Judges. The Speech from the Throne
promised legal reforms, and this Bill
was the performance of that promise. He
agreed, however, with the hon. member
for Carmarthen, that it was an abortion,
and that it diminished no expense, al-
though it might remedy some delay. It
was intended, indeed, to benefit no one
but lawyers in first-rate practice. He
objected to the Bill, also, because of its
abolition of some parts of the Welsh juris-
diction,-for instance, the sending-up
every Welshman to the Court of Chan-
cery here, who had any equity business,
was an inconvenience to the people of that
country, to which they ought not to be
subjected, and if the hon. Member did
not move, under these circumstances, the
adjournment of the House, he would.
The Order of the Day for the second
reading was read.
Mr. T. P. Williams moved that the
House do now adjourn.
The Attorney General said, that if he
postponed the Bill from to-night, he did
not know on what night or day he could
fix, and many Members expected that the
Bill would be brought on to-night. The
hon. and learned Gentleman who had
shown so much zeal in defence of the
Welsh judicature as to travel out of his
way to make a personal attack on him,
which certainly reflected very little credit
on his good taste, had himself not pointed
out any day on which the second reading
could be fixed, if postponed from to-night.
The fact was, the hon. and learned Gen-
tleman wished to defeat the Bill altogether;
but he might have taken a much more
fair and manly course in meeting it on
proper grounds. He had objected to the
appointment of three Judges in West-
minster-hall, as not connected with any
alteration in the Welsh judicature, but
their appointment would be rendered ne-
cessary by the removal of the eight Welsh
Judges. He did not think the Bill perfect.
He did not say it was so, but if the House
would allow it to go into a committee, he
had no doubt alterations could be made,
which would remove every objection. He
was quite ready to divide the Bill into two
or three bills, if the House desired it; but
even that could not be done until they
went into committee. Under these cir-
cumstances he did not think it necessary
to enter into the principle of the Bill, as
he felt the House would not do the mea-


105 Billfor inip~rovinyl the







107 Bill for improving the {COMMONS} Administration of Justice. 108


sure the injustice to consent to the learned
Gentleman's proposal for adjournment,
which was only intended to defeat the
Bill in an unfair manner.
Mr. T. P. Williams denied that his ob-
ject in moving the adjournment was to
defeat the Bill-his great objection at
present was to the lateness of the hour at
which it was brought forward.
Mr. F. Lewis said, that as a Welsh
Member he could not agree with the ar.
guments of the other Welsh Members for
the postponement of the measure. The
House was now called upon to recognize
the general principle of the Bill. As far
as he had been able to ascertain the opini-
ons of his constituents, they were willing
to enter into the consideration of a mea-
sure founded on the allegation that it was
desirable to make a change in the Welsh
judicature; but then it was absolutely nle-
cessary that they should be informed what
the proposed change was-what sort of
judicature it was intended to introduce in
lieu of that at present in existence. As
the Bill at present stood, that could not
be discovered. It was impossible that the
measure could meet with their support un-
less the right hon. and learned Gentleman
took an opportunity of stating the outline
and detail of the measure which he in-
tended to substitute for the present Welsh
judicature. It was impossible to think of
subverting the present administration of
justice in Wales, and leaving that country
exposed to the introduction of no one
knew what in its place. Were the counties
to be divided? To such a proposition
many of the Welsh counties would object.
That one which he had the honour to re-
present disliked parting with the Assize
altogether. Let the plan, however, be dis-
tinctly explained to the House, and then
only could it be fairly pronounced upon.
That could only be done in the com-
mittee, when the details would be given,
and it would depend upon them whether
he supported or opposed the Bill.
Colonel Wood was desirous, as a Mem-
ber for a Welsh county, of saying a few
words on the subject. He had no hesi-
tation in declaring, that it was the decided
opinion of the best-informed men, pro-
fessional and unprofessional, in the county
which he had the honour to represent,
that the time had arrived, when an alter-
ation ought to be made in the Welsh ju-
dicature, and when it ought to be assimi-
lated to that of England. This was not a


party opinion; it was one which he had
formed from a long and deliberate con-
sideration of the subject. But if there
were any one measure to which the Welsh
were disinclined, it was that which had
been proposed by the Law Commissioners,
but their plan for dividing the counties,
he believed, had been abandoned. There
was another proposition which was con-
sidered quite as bad; he meant the con-
solidation with the English counties. To
that there were great and serious objec-
tions. In the first place, most of the
evidence by the lower classes of the people
on criminal trials was given in Welsh.
He knew that the disinclination of the
people to give their evidence in English
was attributed not to their ignorance of
the language but to prejudice. He would
put it, however, to any hon. Gentleman,
however familiar with the French lan-
guage, if he would like to give evidence in
that language in France, in a case in
which the life of a countryman was con-
cerned? If this were a prejudice, it ap-
peared to him that it was at least a pre-
judice that ought to be respected. Again,
it was highly important that the juries
should be Welsh, for an interpreter was a
very inadequate expedient in cases in
which the precise meaning of a word or
the turn of an expression might involve
very serious consequences. That, of itself,
was an insuperable objection to the con-
solidation of Welsh with English counties.
He hoped, therefore,that when the Bill came
into the committee the right hon. and
learned Gentleman would withdraw that
provision in it: otherwise he (Colonel
Wood) should be under the necessity of
taking the sense of the House as to the
expediency of expunging the provision by
which power was given to his Majesty's
Council to consolidate any Welsh county
with an English one. Having said this,
he would now shortly call the attention of
the House to the present state of the ju-
dicature in Wales. All admitted that it
required amendment, and an amend-
ment which involved the necessity for
an Act of Parliament. Even those
who advocated the retaining of the
Welsh Judges, admitted the evil which
resulted from the same judges constantly
going the same circuit; and acknowledged
that, after a course of years, theymust be-
come familiar with parties, or at least that
the inhabitants would think that they had
become so. That, therefore, was gene.







{APRIL 27} Administration of Justice. 110


rally allowed to be objectionable. The
hon. and learned member for Clare pro-
posed to let the eight Welsh Judges be
ambulatory every term, and to let them
choose their circuits as the English Judges
did. But did the hon. and learned mem-
ber for Clare suppose, that the evil of
allowing the Welsh Judges invariably to
go the same circuit had not been before
discovered, and that a similar remedy had
not been before proposed ? The fact was,
that it was impracticable to adopt that
remedy, because, as the Welsh judicature
was one of Equity as well as Law, one
Judge might, under such circumstances,
hear the commencement of a case, while
another was called upon to preside over its
continuation, and a third to give judg-
ment upon it when finished. The question
also arose-who ought to be a Welsh
Judge ? Some said a practising barrister.
To that it was objected, that merely by
inserting fictitious names the opinion of a
Welsh Judge, in his capacity of barrister,
might in that case be obtained on a cause
upon which he would be subsequently re-
quired to give his opinion as a Judge.
Then, again, there were no retiring
pensions to the Welsh Judges: let their
personal infirmities be ever so great, they
must go on in their judicial capacity to the
last. That was an evil which might be obvi-
ated by giving them retiring pensions.
But would the House of Commons agree
to give these retiring pensions, when they
could get a better description of Judges
by a cheaper process? The great object
was, to let the people have cheap justice
at their own doors. As the law at present
stood, however, the opulent plaintiff had
the power to remove a cause to the near-
est English county, by laying the damages
at above fifty pounds, and,thereby, to put
the defendant to a great expense in trans-
porting his witnesses, in some cases above
a hundred miles. What he should have
no objection to was this, viz., to leave it to
his Majesty's Council to send an English
Judge into each county town in the North,
and another into each county town in
South Wales; there to hold an assize as
in Westminster-hall. To this it had been
objected that there would be no Bar. It
would be time enough to make an altera-
tion on that subject whenever the com-
plaint should be actually made. A special
retainer might always be given for a special
case. By some means or other he had no
doubt that barristers would find their way


into the courts in question, and that there
would soon be enough of them. Of this
he was perfectly satisfied, that, as far as
his county was concerned, if an assize
were held by an English Judge in every
county town, all opposition to the measure
would cease.
Mr. Harrison Batley maintained, that it
was extremely desirable that the adminis-
tration of justice in England and Wales
should be uniform, and that a measure to
render it so should be no longer delayed.
Mr. E. Davenport was favourable to the
principle of the Bill, but was apprehensive
that the benefits of it were more than
counterpoised by the mischiefs which ac-
companied it. The hon. and learned
Gentleman proposed to give Cheshire the
advantage of the Judges of Westminster
Hall. So far, Cheshire was extremely
obliged to him. It was certainly most
desirable to withdraw that rat-trap, the
Chief-justiceship of Chester--an office
which had been but too frequently the re-
ward of apostacy and tergiversation. If,
also, the Chief Justice of Chester proved
to be worth his purchase, he soon left that
post, while, on the other hand, if he turned
out a dear bargain, he remained in it for
life. One point, however, seemed to him
to require explanation. There were three
Counties Palatine- Chester, Lancaster,
.and Durham-placed under nearly the
same circumstances; and yet it was pro-
posed to continue their courts to Lancaster
and Durham, and to withdraw those of
Chester. He wished the hon. and learned
Gentleman would show some reason for
this. He would not then press upon the
House by detailing the privileges of which
it was thus proposed exclusively to deprive
the County Palatine of Chester; but they
were very important; and yet, without the
slightest reason assigned, it was proposed
to abrogate them; and to substitute ex-
pensive and dilatory law at a distance, for
cheap and prompt law near at hand. This
would be a serious inconvenience; and he
trusted that the hon. and learned Gentle-
man would allow the County Palatine of
Chester, like the other Counties Palatine,
to be excused from the operation of his
Bill. The petitions, which would presently
pour in thickly, would sufficiently apprise
him of the general feeling on the subject.
Mr. Jones was not desirous of any un-
necessary delay in the consideration of the
measure : when he proposed the ad-
journment, it was far from being with any


109 Pillfor improving the







{COMMONS} Administration of Justice. 112


such view. He had done so because some
hon. Members had gone away who wished
to speak on the subject, and because it
had been declared too late to bring for-
ward other business, to which the present
question did not appear to him to yield in
importance. If, however, the House was
disposed to go into the discussion, he for
one was perfectly ready; but he must
protest-[It was here suggested to the
hon. and learned Gentleman, that the mo-
tion before the House was only to read
the Order of the Day.-The Order of the
Day was accordingly read.]
The Attorney-general moved, That
the Bill be read a second time."
Mr. Jones resumed-the hon. member
for Brecon had talked of the practicability
of removing a case to the nearest county.
That, however, could not be done without
a writ of certiorari; and there had been
repeated instances in which the application
for such a writ had been refused. Even
lately an application had been made to the
Lord Chancellor, in a case relating to land,
which the Chancellor dismissed, on the
ground that the question could be equally
well tried in Carmarthen. He considered
the time which had been chosen for bring-
ing in the present Bill extremely improper.
The Law Commissioners had conceded
that the practice of the Courts at West-
minster Hall required complete reform.
Surely that reform ought first to be effected,
before the English practice, "with all its
imperfections on its head," was introduced
into Wales. There was another curious
point. By the annihilation of the exist-
ing Courts in Wales, a great many com-
pensations would be rendered necessary.
Now the first step ought to have been to
bring in a bill for the purpose of granting
those compensations. That had not been
done. If the present Bill passed, therefore,
many persons who'had purchased their
places would be deprived of them, and
would be thrown on the generosity of the
Legislature. He had heard the amount of
those compensations estimated at a hun-
dred thousand pounds. Was the princi-
ple which it was proposed to adopt worth
so large a sum? As to the superior ad-
vantages of the English mode of judica-
ture, he was at a loss to perceive them.
He had heard a great deal on that point;
but it was entirely assertion. Two com-
mittees of that House had investigated the
subject. Now, with all due deference to the
learned Law Commission, he must say,


that they had not opportunities of obtain-
ing information equal to those which had
been enjoyed by the committees. The
latter examined witnesses-the former
merely proposed queries in writing, to
which they obtained answers. Of the treat-
ment of the learned commissioners he had
a right to complain in common with others.
Fifty queries had been sent to him by the
learned commissioners, to which queries
he had answered to the best of his judg-
ment, and so much to their satisfaction,
apparently, that they sent him a letter of
thanks, and fifty more queries, which he
answered also. He had not sought the
commissioners they had sought him.
What was his surprise, therefore, to find
that in the report of the learned commis-
sioners, because he and others differed in
opinion from the commissioners, they
were described as being either prejudiced
or self-interested. If he were so disposed,
he might easily retaliate. He might ob-
serve, that two of the commissioners were
Serjeants at Law, and therefore, that they
were interested, because they wished the
monopoly of the Common Pleas to be kept
up.-HIe might observe, that others of the
commission were interested; because,
being on the Northern Circuit, they re-
tained in their Report some of the best
towns on that circuit. The fact, however,
was, that these learned commissioners
were ignorant of all which respected the
Principality of Wales. Some of them
had never been in Wales; none of them
had ever been in a Welsh Court. He
found in the Report of these learned Com-
missioners a memorial, said to be signed
by the principal inhabitants of the county
of Cardigan. The number of signatures
was twenty-three.-Among them he did
not find his hon. friend, the representative
of the county; he did not find other prin-
cipal inhabitants; he found the names of
four respectable persons, but there were
100 as respectable in the county. But he
also found the names of seventeen persons,
who were merely farmers and landholders,
and whom the learned commissioners,
nevertheless, held out as the principal in-
habitants of the county. To the memo-
rial from Carmarthen there were the names
of five or six persons sent up by the agent
of Lord Cawdor; with the remark, that
but for the necessity of haste, thousands
would have come. When, however, a
county meeting was held, only seven-
teen hands were held up against the


III Billfor improving the







{ArnIL 27} Administration of Justice. 114


petition praying that the proposed aboli-
tion of the Welsh Judicature might not be
adopted. It was admitted that many
parts of the Welsh Judicature were better
than the corresponding parts of the Eng-
lish system ; and it was said, therefore, let
the excellencies of the Welsh Judicature
be introduced into the English. He, how-
ever, wished to see those excellencies
brought into use before the Welsh Judica-
ture should be annihilated. What was to
become of the records of Wales, the very
props of property in that country ? If the
present officers were dismissed without re-
muneration, they, of course, would no
longer attend to their preservation. It
would also be a great hardship on a prisoner
to be removed fifty or sixty miles farther
than he was at present obliged to go, and
to be tried at a great distance from all his
connexions and witnesses. At present, a
Welsh suitor could get a judgment signed
the instant it was delivered, and as the
action might be commenced three weeks
before the assizes, all his trouble and anx-
iety were over before two steps could be
taken at Westminster Hall. The cheapness,
too, of the Welsh Courts, might be envied
by the people of England. Only last
year, a sum of 13,0001. was recovered in
Carmarthenshire at the expense of 51, while,
at the very lowest, it would have cost 401.
in Westminster Hall. An action begun
in London in Easter Term, could not ob-
tain a judgment before September or No-
vember, leaving a dishonest man at liberty
all that time to dispose of his property and
make off. He did not expect either, like
some Gentlemen, to see a bar follow this
Bill into Wales. The rich might carry
down a clever barrister, by a special re-
tainer, but that privilege would necessarily
be denied to the poor man. Fines and
recoveries also were at present levied and
suffered before the Judge of the Great
Session-that was very convenient; that
would be abolished by the present mea-
sure, which substituted no equally con-
venient contrivance in its stead. With
the exception, he believed, of two counties,
there had been no petitions from Wales in
favour of the Bill; and one of them was from
a few persons only, constituting the Grand
Jury of one county. He trusted that Mi-
nisters would not, therefore, force upon the
people of Wales an alteration which they
heartily disliked. It is never prudent,"
said some wise counsellors to Cromwell, to
make needless alterations; because we are


already acquainted with the consequences
of known establishments, and ancient
forms ; but new methods of administration
may produce evils, which the most prudent
cannotforesee,nor the most diligent rectify;
but least of all, are such changes to be
made as draw after them endless alter-
ations, and extend their effects through the
whole frame of Government. Long pre-
scription is a sufficient argument in favour
of a practice against which nothing can be
alleged. Nor is it sufficient to affirm
that the change can be made without in-
convenience, for change itself is an evil, and
ought to be balanced by some equiva-
lent advantage, for bad consequences may
arise, though we do not expect them." He-
trusted that Ministers would comply with
that advice, and endeavour to ascertain all
the changes which would necessarily fol-
low from their Bill, before they attempted to
carry it into effect. At least, he hoped
that the present Bill would not be forced
upon Wales as a boon, and that Ministers
would pause before they annihilated the
Welsh judicature.
Mr. C. Wynn did not mean to follow
the last speaker through all the details
he had gone into, which he thought would
form a fitter subject for discussion in the
committee. Of the principle of the Bill,
he completely approved, though he should
wish to have a full explanation of the
manner in which the Attorney General
meant to carry it into effect. The principle
was, to complete the union between Eng-
land and Wales, and give to Wales
the benefit of English judicature. At
present it was impossible to obtain Welsh
Judges without paying them salaries far
exceeding the duties they performed.
They only executed their offices three weeks
in summer, and three weeks in autumn,
and for this duty they were paid their
whole annual salary, the country deriving
no other advantage from them but the
little duty they performed in those six
weeks. Now he thought, that the only
way to make a Judge efficient was, to give
him constant employment; for unless he
had constant employment, he was likely
to forget whatever legal knowledge he
might once have possessed. What his
hon. friend (Colonel Wood) had said
about the power of a rich suitor insti-
tuting his cause in one of the Courts of
Westminster, had been completely misun-
derstood. His hon. friend did not mean
that the suitor could remove his cause t9


113 Billfor improving the







115 Bill for improving the {COMMONS} Administration of Justice. 116


the Courts in Westminster after it had
begun to be heard in Wales, but that he
could, if he chose, commence his action at
once at Westminster. The hon. Member
concluded by saying, that the Bill had
been drawn up hastily, and that more
time was necessary for its consideration.
He, however, thought that the Bill ought
to be allowed to pass the present stage,
because it was on every hand admitted,
that the appointment of the Welsh Judges
should not be made in the manner it now
was.
Mr. Rice Trevor said, there were ob-
viously great inaccuracies in the Bill
before the House; and perhaps it would
hereafter assume a very different shape;
but he was bound to deal with the Bill as
it stood, and so dealing with it, he must
declare that he had insurmountable ob-
jections to it. It was said, that it was
impossible to have three new Judges
added to the twelve in Westminster Hall,
unless the Welsh Judicature were given
up, and so it was to be sacrificed for that
change; but he could assure the House
that the Principality did not think the
change any benefit. It was then stated,
that Wales could not, under the present
system, have Judges such as she ought to
have ; but he begged to refer the House
to the list of eminent Judges who had dis-
tinguished that country, and he would then
ask if that assertion was true. If the Go-
vernment chose to exert itself to find men
competent to fill the situation of Welsh
Judges, he had no doubt it would find,
among the rising members of the bar, a
sufficient number of individuals of talent
to fill those situations. The removal of
the Courts of Judicature would be a great
inconvenience and additional expense to
all parties concerned in law proceedings.
The commissioners said, in their Report,
that those who had local interests were
not to be chiefly consulted; but if the
House were legislating for Yorkshire or
Kent, would it not appeal to the members
for those counties? He was not'one of those
who thought very cheap law likely to be
beneficial, particularly to the Welsh, who
were very litigious ; but certainly it ought
not to be too dear, nor ought such impe-
diments to be thrown in the way of admi-
nistering justice, as to give the rich a mo-
nopoly of the Courts. Even the cost of
letters backwards and forwards, between
Wales and Westminster Hall would be
found no inconsiderable expense--not


much less, probably, than the cost of a
suit in the Welsh Courts. Additional ex-
pense also would be caused, both to the
petty and grand jurors, while the latter
would probably lose the opportunity they
now possessed to consult over matters
that might be useful to their country. He
felt himself bound to press these matters,
even at that late hour, because they had
all been insisted on in a petition he had
lately presented to the House. He would
not then, however, enter further into the
subject; he would only express his hope,
that the idea of cutting up or consolidat-
ing the Welsh counties, for the appre-
hension of that had given rise to much
hostility towards the present Bill, would
be given up.
The Attorney General could not help
admitting that the Bill, in its present state,
was very imperfect, but this imperfection
arose from the mistake of the printers.
Corrections had been made in the margin
of the draft of the Bill, which the printer
had forgotten to attend to. His design
was, to have the Bill read a second time
to-night, and to go into a Committee pro
forma. He would wish the principles to
be discussed when the Bill should be re-
committed; and on that occasion he would
only state sufficient to prevent the object
he had in view from being misunderstood,
which was, to put the administration of
justice in both countries on the same foot-
ing; to allow the Judges of the superior
courts to administer justice in Wales, and
to make the King's writs travel there as
widely as the wants of the population
required them. That was the great ob-
ject of the Bill, and the collateral regu-
lations it contained were calculated to
promote, not retard, the attainment of the
principal object. It was perhaps natural
that those who thought that multiplying
the instruments of justice in every town
was the best way to carry justice home to
every man's door, should oppose the Bill.
He could easily imagine, when it was pro-
posed to make the metropolis the great
centre of the administration of justice,
whence circuits should proceed over the
whole kingdom, administering justice on
one uniform principle, that those who
liked local jurisdictions, and were attached
to the ancient system which existed in
the Welsh counties, would be hostile to
the alteration. In fact, they were so
much attached to their own views, that
they proposed to make the English system







{APRIL 27} Administration of Justice. 118


assimilate to the Welsh. He, however,
wished to combine the system, as he pro-
posed to do in the Bill. He wished to
abrogate a number of separate jurisdic-
tions, to have a new circuit, and to make
such alterations as would make the admi-
nistration of justice uniform. He pro-
posed, among other things, to abridge the
interval between the different terms, so as
to afford means more rapidly to despatch
causes. Some Gentlemen wished that
the Bill should be divided into two parts,
one declaratory of the principle, the other
regulating the details, and at first that
was his own view; but on further con-
templating the subject, he found so much
difficulty in separating one part from the
other that he preferred uniting both into
one measure. One hon. and learned
Member said, the Bill was intended only
to accommodatethe Judges; but heknew
no bill in which the Judges were less per-
sonally considered. It imposed on them
more duty than ever was imposed on
them, either by the injunctions of the law,
or the practice of the Courts. It would
abridge their vacation between Hilary and
Michaelmas Terms, and between Trinity
and Easter Terms, several days, so that
they would have to perform their functions
from November to the end of August, or
the beginning of September, with no other
vacation than a few days in December and
the month of October. The hon. mem-
ber for Carmarthen had attempted to
undervalue the measure by saying that it
was supported by nothing but the recom-
mendations of the commissioners; but he
really could not see that the force of that
argument applied against the Bill. For
who were these commissioners ? They were
gentlemen of the greatest learning in their
profession, without the slightest tincture
of partiality, and able to conduct such an
inquiry to a correct conclusion. The
House must decide whether or not it
would take the recommendations of such
men for their guide. The hon. and
learned Member, however, assured the
House, that the great mass of the popula-
tion of Wales was in favour of retaining
their present Courts; but his own impres-
sion was, that the majority of the intelli-
gent part of the people of the Principality
were in favour of some alteration. They
might differ as to what the alteration ought
to be, and therefore the House, having no
guide in the different opinions of the
people, must determine whether or not it


would follow the recommendation, of the
commissioners. The praise which had
been bestowed on the process of levying
fines and suffering recoveries in the Welsh
counties was, in his opinion, rather mis-
placed; for a simpler and shorter method
of proceeding was adopted in the Court
of Common Pleas, and suitors he was sure,
would derive great benefit from the
change. He admitted that the Bill at
present provided no place for keeping
records, but that omission might be sup-
plied, and means taken both to preserve
them, and give all parties interested a
ready access to them. Objections had
been taken to the Bill because it did not
provide compensation for those whose
interests or rights might be injured by it;
but to those objections he would reply,
that the principle of the Bill did not go to
that object. This must be provided for
by some other measure ; and he was willing
to admit that means ought to be devised to
remunerate those who had a freehold in
their offices, as had been done on former
and similar occasions. The Bill did not
regulate the appointment of Sheriffs, as
some hon. Members seemed to suppose, but
it provided for the incorporation of Welsh
counties to form an Assise. It had been
said, however, that if three counties were
thus incorporated, there would be only
one Sheriff, and what then, it was asked,
would be done at an election, when Mem-
bers were to be returned for different
counties? To this he replied, that the
counties of Cambridge and Huntingdon
had only one Sheriff, and yet two elec-
tions were often held in them, and by a
very simple process. The Sheriff sent
his deputy to preside at one hustings,
while he himself superintended the busi-
ness at the other: the same might be
done in Wales. The sheriff might
have two or three deputies, or under-
sheriffs, and as they were now generally
professional men, they would be more
competent to the performance of such
duties than the Sheriffs themselves. It
had also been objected to the Bill, that it
would cause a considerable increase of
trouble to grand and petty jurors, whowould
have to travel a considerable distance to
the Assize town. This objection was per-
haps unfounded. As the law formerly
stood, each county had to furnish twenty-
one gentlemen to act as grand jurors; but
by the Bill,that number would be supplied
by three counties, so that only seven would


117 Bill for improving the







119 Billfor improving the {COM
come from each county. The labour
would, therefore, be diminished, not in-
creased. There would also be another
advantage. At present it was sometimes
difficult to find a proper person to fill the
office of High Sheriff in the small counties,
andhy having three counties to select from,
the chances of obtaining a proper person to
fillthis important office,would be multiplied.
He knew that no changes could be made,
even with a view to attain some practical
good, without suffering some inconve-
nience; and being desirous to make the
Bill as satisfactory as possible to all par-
ties, he should propose, after the Bill had
been committed, that it should be re-com-
mitted, and printed with all the details,
and proposed alterations, in order to give
ample time to discuss every clause.
When that was done, he was persuaded
that many of the difficulties now in the
way of the Bill would be obviated, and
then he hoped he should have the good
fortune to convince Gentlemen of its
justice and its advantages, and obtain their
support. It had been asked, why should
not each county have its Great Sessions;
but he might ask, why should each dis-
trict be subject to a different jurisdiction,
regulated by different rules? In the
County Palatine of Chester there is a
Court of Chancery; but in twenty-five
years, only four causes had been brought
before that Court; and the learned Judge
who presided in it was quite free from
those reproaches concerning an accumu-
lation of business which were heaped on
other courts of Equity. The great argu-
ment in favour of these local tribunals
was their antiquity; which was, he ad-
mitted, a venerable authority; but not
always conclusive in matters of govern-
ment and legislation, in which changes of
circumstances frequently compelled alter-
ations. He was aware that each Assize
town derived some benefit from the
Assizes being held in it; in Lancaster, for
example, which was perhaps the most in-
convenient town for holding the Assizes
in all Lancashire, there were many persons
who would object to another town being
selected, because they would suffer by the
change, though the whole county would
be benefited. Thus a complaint had
been made by the people of Anglesey
against the removal of the local jurisdic-
tion from their town, which would lessen
their business a little. In four years,
however, there had been only three causes


MONS Administration of Justice. 120
tried in Anglesey, so that it was plain that
these complaints were not dictated by any
views of the public interest, but of private
advantage. Such complaints therefore
ought not to have much weight with the
Legislature, when they were directed
against a measure which promised to be
of great benefit to the public : at all events,
he hoped that the Bill might be read a
second time, and he should be ready in
the committee to make the details as
palatable as possible consistently with
preserving the great principle of the
measure, that of regulating the administra-
tion of justice on one uniform principle
throughout the country.
Sir John Owen could assure the hon.
and learned Gentleman, that the sense of
the majority of the inhabitants of the
Principality was against his proposed mea-
sure; and he could also assure him that
the advantage he expected to obtain in
the nomination of proper persons to serve
the office of Sheriff, would be of trifling
moment, for at present there was no diffi-
culty in procuring gentlemen of character
and suitable station to serve that high
office.
Mr. Owen Williams concurred with the
hon. Baronet, and felt himself obliged to
oppose the Bill.
Mr. Hume inquired if the hon. and
learned Gentleman meant to continue the
clause respecting arrests for debt; and if
he did not, would he bring in any mea-
sure on that subject during the present
Session ?
The Attorney General said, he knew
that many persons were of opinion that
arrests for debt should not take place for
small sums, but he had not included the
clause his hon. friend alluded to in this
Bill. He had refrained from doing so,
not as objecting to the principle it in-
volved, but in consequence of some com-
munications with gentlemen out of doors.
A suggestion had also been thrown out,
which he thought deserved attention,
as it might prevent individuals from resist-
ing the payment of just debts; that was,
to make debts bear a legal interest. A
clause he thought might be drawn to pro-
tect creditors against vexatious opposition;
but whether or not he should introduce
any general measure on this subject during
the Session, must depend on the state of
business in the House.
Mr. Brougham rose merely to defend
the Law Commissignerr from the charge







See of London. 122


which the hon. member for Carmarthen
had, he was convinced, under some mis-
apprehension of their Report, made against
them. That hon. Member had remarked,
that in laying out the plan of new circuits,
those learned persons, who were chiefly
attached to the Northern Circuit, had taken
great care to keep all the great towns in
that Circuit. Now this was altogether
erroneous, for they had actually recom-
mended that either Liverpool or Manches-
ter should be taken from it. The Com-
missioners certainly had not consulted the
convenience or the profit of the profession,
for they had proposed that the Assizes for
the county of York should be held both
at Wakefield and York; and that the As-
sizes for Lancashire should also be held at
two places, thus materially augmenting
the trouble of the Bar, without adding to
its emoluments. The commissioners had
also recommended an alteration of the
Terms. The interval between Michaelmas
and Hilary Terms at present generally ex-
tended from December 24th to January
23rd, and this interval the commissioners
recommended should be reduced to ten
days. They also recommended that the
intervals between the other Terms should
be shortened, leaving to the Judges, and
to all professional men, barely time enough
to keep up their knowledge of the law, to
read the reports of cases which had been
decided in courts where they do not prac-
tise, or at which they had not been able to
attend. It was impossible for any man to
do that with but three weeks vacation in
the whole year. His last vacation was
only three weeks, and he believed no gen-
tleman who went the Northern Circuit ever
had a longer time than that for relaxation,
and for studying: business usually com-
menced about the 18th of October one
year, and continued till the 20th of Sep-
tember the following year; and the inter-
val between those periods was the only
time allowed to recover from the fatigues
of an arduous and laborious profession.
If that system be continued, professional
men must necessarily abandon every othei
species of literature, every other kind
of learning; lawyers would do nothing
from year's end to year's end but draw
pleas, and address juries; and woulc
be not very competent to fill the higl
office of Judge; though it was from their
alone the Judges could be selected. Witl
respect to the Bill, it had his entire concur
rence-and seeing in it nothing at all in


consistent with the plan he should shortly
submit to the House, to bring home justice
to every man's door, he should give it his
support.
Mr. O'Connell thought this a piebald,
patched-up measure, which would do no
good whatever. He objected to it on the
very ground that the Attorney General
supported it. He approved of local juris-
dictions, and thought it was a great evil to
have all law and all justice confined to
Westminster Hall.
Bill read a second time.

IIOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, April 28.
MINUTEs.] The Four-per-Cents Bill, and the Haymarket
Removal Bill were read a third time and passed.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of HARDWICKE, from
Wisbeach, praying that the Punishment of Death for
Forgery might be abolished. By the Duke of BEAUFORT,
from the Manufacturers engaged in the Woollen Trade in
the County of Gloucester, against paying Wages in Goods.
By the same noble Duke, from Bristol, against the Re-
newal of the East India Company's Charter:-By Earl
GOWER, a similar Petition from Stoke, in the Staffordshire
Potteries. By the same noble Earl, from several Places in
the Staffordshire Potteries, praying that Climbing Boys
might be disused.
REVENUE OF THE SEE OF LONDON.]
On the Motion for the second reading of
the Bishop of London's Estate Bill,
The Bishop of London said, that he
wished to take that opportunity of saying
a few words with respect to some observa-
tions which had been made last night in
another place concerning the Revenue of
his own and of other Sees, which were so
inaccurate that he thought he owed it
to himself and the church of which he was
a member, to lose no time in giving them
a public refutation. At the same time he
was sure that the hon. Gentleman who had
made the statement had not willingly been
guilty of misrepresentation; but he had
spoken from imperfect data, which made
it more necessary to refute the assertion.
He would in a few words correct the state-
Sments which he had seen in the only
Source they possessed of such information
of what was said to have been asserted in
another place. The assertion was this:-
"TheBishopof Rochester's income was not
More than that of many of the parochial
Clergy, whilst other Sees possessed an im-
Smense amount of income. Some of the
i episcopal Revenueswould amount in a short
Time to 100,0001. a year." The hon. Gen-
Stleman who was said to have made this
- statement had mentioned Canterbury and
- Durham, and gave an account of their


Revenue of the


{APRIL 28}







123 The See of London.


Revenues, but he had not pointed out
specifically the See whichhad the verylarge
income. He had reason however to be-
lieve, that the observation was meant to
apply to the See of London, for he had
seen the same assertion made in a public
paper a few weeks before. He was un-
willing to trespass on their Lordships' time
with any remarks that might be thought
to relate formally to himself; but knowing
the mischief which might ensue,were such
an assertion to be uncontradicted, he could
not allow it to go forth unrefuted. The
See of London never had, and was never
likely to have, a revenue to that amount;
and if it were he should be puzzled, with
all his respect for the inviolability of
ecclesiastical property, to defend such an
income. The Revenues of the See of
London had been stated at eight times
more than what they actually amounted
to. He would assert, without fear of
contradiction, that the fixed Revenues of
the See did not amount to one-fourteenth
of the sum stated, and that, including all
the casualties and contingencies which
might arise, it never had, in his time,
amounted to more than one-seventh. Part
of the fixed income was derived from an
estate, of which the Bishop of London, in
conjunction with certain trustees, was em-
powered to grant leases for building on,
which was what he supposed was meant
when it was stated that the Bishop's Re-
venue would hereafter be so large; but
the Bishops of London had granted leases
of that property for upwards of forty
years, and the actual amount of the income
at present derived from it was 2,7001. a
year. The land did not now let as well
as formerly : there was no probability, he
believed, of its letting better; and there
was no probability that in the next thirty
years it would yield 1,0001. additional.
The other sources of the Bishop's income
were not increasing, but diminishing. It
consisted of impropriate rectorships: and
as their Lordships well knew, the value of
these was not likely to increase. By these
remarks he had only done an act of justice
to himself and the church. He had stated
the full annual value of the property; he
saw no prospect of any considerable in-
crease, and there were many incumbrances.
As to the claims on the Bishop of London,
their Lordships knew very well what they
were, and when they were satisfied, there
would not remain more than a suitable
competency to enable the Bishop to pro-


vide for his family. He would only add,
that the hon. Gentleman who had made
the statement no doubt believed it, but it
was his duty to say that it was greatly
exaggerated, and he knew that similar
exaggerations had gone abroad relative to
the Revenues of other Sees.
Bill read a second time.

IOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, April 28.
MINUTEs.] Petitions presented. For an Amelioration of
the Criminal Code and the Abolition of the Punishment of
Death for Forgery-By Mr. E. CLIvE, from Hereford:-
By Lord BELGRAVE, from the Inhabitants of Chester:-
By Mr. Huts, from the Inhabitants of Ross (Hereford):-
[The hon. Gentleman stated, that he for
one was very desirous to see the punish-
ment of death abolished in all cases, ex-
cept murder and treason.]
And by Sir R. WJLSON, from the Inhabitants of Spratton
and Creaton (Northamptonshire). Against the Beer Bill,
by Mr. PORTMAN, from Gillingham (Gloucestershire):-By
Colonel LYBon, from the High Sheriff, Magistrates, and
Corporation, of Kidderminster:-And by Sir JOHN WROT-
TESLEY, from the Magistrates of the County of Stafford;
suggesting also that no person should be allowed to have
a License who did not produce a Certificate of good
Character from the Churchwardens and Overseers of his
Parish. Against the Truck System, by Mr. EGERTON,
from the Inhabitants of Stockport (Cheshire). By Sir
G. CLERK. from the Dalkeith Farming Society, praying
that no additional Duty might be imposed on British
Spirits without a corresponding Duty being imposed on
Rum. By Mr. RICE TREVOR, from the Magistrates and
Grand Jury of the County of Carmarthen, against the
Abolition of the Welsh Judicature. And by Sir F.
BURDETT, from the Commissioners for Paving St.
James's, Westminster, against the Watching and Lighting
Bill.
LAW OF DIVORCE.] Mr. Peach having
moved the Order of the Day for going
into a Committee on Muskett's Divorce
Bill,
Mr. Rice took that opportunity to ex-
press a hope that the unanimous feeling
of the country with respect to the law
affecting Divorces would have a due
weight with the Government, and that a
repetition of those proceedings which they
had recently witnessed on another Divorce
Bill would be avoided by an immediate
alteration of the law. It was the unani-
mous opinion both in the House and out
of the House, that the House was not a
fit tribunal to try such causes, and it would
be more advantageous to the public, as
well as more creditable to Parliament, if a
particular tribunal were established, to de-
cide and determine all such cases cheaply
and expeditiously.
Mr. Hume, before the Bill was disposed
of, begged to say, that he regretted much
no Member of the Government was pre-


I COMMONS


Lawe of Divorce. 124







See of London. 122


which the hon. member for Carmarthen
had, he was convinced, under some mis-
apprehension of their Report, made against
them. That hon. Member had remarked,
that in laying out the plan of new circuits,
those learned persons, who were chiefly
attached to the Northern Circuit, had taken
great care to keep all the great towns in
that Circuit. Now this was altogether
erroneous, for they had actually recom-
mended that either Liverpool or Manches-
ter should be taken from it. The Com-
missioners certainly had not consulted the
convenience or the profit of the profession,
for they had proposed that the Assizes for
the county of York should be held both
at Wakefield and York; and that the As-
sizes for Lancashire should also be held at
two places, thus materially augmenting
the trouble of the Bar, without adding to
its emoluments. The commissioners had
also recommended an alteration of the
Terms. The interval between Michaelmas
and Hilary Terms at present generally ex-
tended from December 24th to January
23rd, and this interval the commissioners
recommended should be reduced to ten
days. They also recommended that the
intervals between the other Terms should
be shortened, leaving to the Judges, and
to all professional men, barely time enough
to keep up their knowledge of the law, to
read the reports of cases which had been
decided in courts where they do not prac-
tise, or at which they had not been able to
attend. It was impossible for any man to
do that with but three weeks vacation in
the whole year. His last vacation was
only three weeks, and he believed no gen-
tleman who went the Northern Circuit ever
had a longer time than that for relaxation,
and for studying: business usually com-
menced about the 18th of October one
year, and continued till the 20th of Sep-
tember the following year; and the inter-
val between those periods was the only
time allowed to recover from the fatigues
of an arduous and laborious profession.
If that system be continued, professional
men must necessarily abandon every othei
species of literature, every other kind
of learning; lawyers would do nothing
from year's end to year's end but draw
pleas, and address juries; and woulc
be not very competent to fill the higl
office of Judge; though it was from their
alone the Judges could be selected. Witl
respect to the Bill, it had his entire concur
rence-and seeing in it nothing at all in


consistent with the plan he should shortly
submit to the House, to bring home justice
to every man's door, he should give it his
support.
Mr. O'Connell thought this a piebald,
patched-up measure, which would do no
good whatever. He objected to it on the
very ground that the Attorney General
supported it. He approved of local juris-
dictions, and thought it was a great evil to
have all law and all justice confined to
Westminster Hall.
Bill read a second time.

IIOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, April 28.
MINUTEs.] The Four-per-Cents Bill, and the Haymarket
Removal Bill were read a third time and passed.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of HARDWICKE, from
Wisbeach, praying that the Punishment of Death for
Forgery might be abolished. By the Duke of BEAUFORT,
from the Manufacturers engaged in the Woollen Trade in
the County of Gloucester, against paying Wages in Goods.
By the same noble Duke, from Bristol, against the Re-
newal of the East India Company's Charter:-By Earl
GOWER, a similar Petition from Stoke, in the Staffordshire
Potteries. By the same noble Earl, from several Places in
the Staffordshire Potteries, praying that Climbing Boys
might be disused.
REVENUE OF THE SEE OF LONDON.]
On the Motion for the second reading of
the Bishop of London's Estate Bill,
The Bishop of London said, that he
wished to take that opportunity of saying
a few words with respect to some observa-
tions which had been made last night in
another place concerning the Revenue of
his own and of other Sees, which were so
inaccurate that he thought he owed it
to himself and the church of which he was
a member, to lose no time in giving them
a public refutation. At the same time he
was sure that the hon. Gentleman who had
made the statement had not willingly been
guilty of misrepresentation; but he had
spoken from imperfect data, which made
it more necessary to refute the assertion.
He would in a few words correct the state-
Sments which he had seen in the only
Source they possessed of such information
of what was said to have been asserted in
another place. The assertion was this:-
"TheBishopof Rochester's income was not
More than that of many of the parochial
Clergy, whilst other Sees possessed an im-
Smense amount of income. Some of the
i episcopal Revenueswould amount in a short
Time to 100,0001. a year." The hon. Gen-
Stleman who was said to have made this
- statement had mentioned Canterbury and
- Durham, and gave an account of their


Revenue of the


{APRIL 28}







123 The See of London.


Revenues, but he had not pointed out
specifically the See whichhad the verylarge
income. He had reason however to be-
lieve, that the observation was meant to
apply to the See of London, for he had
seen the same assertion made in a public
paper a few weeks before. He was un-
willing to trespass on their Lordships' time
with any remarks that might be thought
to relate formally to himself; but knowing
the mischief which might ensue,were such
an assertion to be uncontradicted, he could
not allow it to go forth unrefuted. The
See of London never had, and was never
likely to have, a revenue to that amount;
and if it were he should be puzzled, with
all his respect for the inviolability of
ecclesiastical property, to defend such an
income. The Revenues of the See of
London had been stated at eight times
more than what they actually amounted
to. He would assert, without fear of
contradiction, that the fixed Revenues of
the See did not amount to one-fourteenth
of the sum stated, and that, including all
the casualties and contingencies which
might arise, it never had, in his time,
amounted to more than one-seventh. Part
of the fixed income was derived from an
estate, of which the Bishop of London, in
conjunction with certain trustees, was em-
powered to grant leases for building on,
which was what he supposed was meant
when it was stated that the Bishop's Re-
venue would hereafter be so large; but
the Bishops of London had granted leases
of that property for upwards of forty
years, and the actual amount of the income
at present derived from it was 2,7001. a
year. The land did not now let as well
as formerly : there was no probability, he
believed, of its letting better; and there
was no probability that in the next thirty
years it would yield 1,0001. additional.
The other sources of the Bishop's income
were not increasing, but diminishing. It
consisted of impropriate rectorships: and
as their Lordships well knew, the value of
these was not likely to increase. By these
remarks he had only done an act of justice
to himself and the church. He had stated
the full annual value of the property; he
saw no prospect of any considerable in-
crease, and there were many incumbrances.
As to the claims on the Bishop of London,
their Lordships knew very well what they
were, and when they were satisfied, there
would not remain more than a suitable
competency to enable the Bishop to pro-


vide for his family. He would only add,
that the hon. Gentleman who had made
the statement no doubt believed it, but it
was his duty to say that it was greatly
exaggerated, and he knew that similar
exaggerations had gone abroad relative to
the Revenues of other Sees.
Bill read a second time.

IOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, April 28.
MINUTEs.] Petitions presented. For an Amelioration of
the Criminal Code and the Abolition of the Punishment of
Death for Forgery-By Mr. E. CLIvE, from Hereford:-
By Lord BELGRAVE, from the Inhabitants of Chester:-
By Mr. Huts, from the Inhabitants of Ross (Hereford):-
[The hon. Gentleman stated, that he for
one was very desirous to see the punish-
ment of death abolished in all cases, ex-
cept murder and treason.]
And by Sir R. WJLSON, from the Inhabitants of Spratton
and Creaton (Northamptonshire). Against the Beer Bill,
by Mr. PORTMAN, from Gillingham (Gloucestershire):-By
Colonel LYBon, from the High Sheriff, Magistrates, and
Corporation, of Kidderminster:-And by Sir JOHN WROT-
TESLEY, from the Magistrates of the County of Stafford;
suggesting also that no person should be allowed to have
a License who did not produce a Certificate of good
Character from the Churchwardens and Overseers of his
Parish. Against the Truck System, by Mr. EGERTON,
from the Inhabitants of Stockport (Cheshire). By Sir
G. CLERK. from the Dalkeith Farming Society, praying
that no additional Duty might be imposed on British
Spirits without a corresponding Duty being imposed on
Rum. By Mr. RICE TREVOR, from the Magistrates and
Grand Jury of the County of Carmarthen, against the
Abolition of the Welsh Judicature. And by Sir F.
BURDETT, from the Commissioners for Paving St.
James's, Westminster, against the Watching and Lighting
Bill.
LAW OF DIVORCE.] Mr. Peach having
moved the Order of the Day for going
into a Committee on Muskett's Divorce
Bill,
Mr. Rice took that opportunity to ex-
press a hope that the unanimous feeling
of the country with respect to the law
affecting Divorces would have a due
weight with the Government, and that a
repetition of those proceedings which they
had recently witnessed on another Divorce
Bill would be avoided by an immediate
alteration of the law. It was the unani-
mous opinion both in the House and out
of the House, that the House was not a
fit tribunal to try such causes, and it would
be more advantageous to the public, as
well as more creditable to Parliament, if a
particular tribunal were established, to de-
cide and determine all such cases cheaply
and expeditiously.
Mr. Hume, before the Bill was disposed
of, begged to say, that he regretted much
no Member of the Government was pre-


I COMMONS


Lawe of Divorce. 124







{APRIL 28} Affair at Terceira.


sent, that he might urge on him the neces-
sity and the propriety of putting an end
to such a mockery of justice as these bills
presented, by some effectual alteration in
the Law of Divorce.
Dr. Phillimore said, that if the Govern-
ment did not come forward with some
proposition on the subject, it was his in-
tention to move for leave to bring in a
bill to amend the Law of Divorce.

SCHEDULE OF TAXATION.] Sir J.
Newport complained of the non-perform-
ance of the promise of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, viz. that an amended
Schedule of the comparative Taxation of
Great Britain and Ireland should be pro-
duced, and put into the hands of Members.
It was hard to call upon the House to
enter upon the discussion of the subject
without having had the documents neces-
sary to its elucidation. He complained
also that in the Consolidation Bill, addi-
lional Taxes had been introduced, of which
no notice or explanation had been given;
and he considered the conduct of the
Minister highly culpable in that respect.
Mr. Herries, in the absence of his right
hon. friend,explained the difficulties under
which he had laboured on the subject;
and expressed his persuasion that the paper
in question would be presented as soon as
possible.
Sir J. Newport repeated his statement
with respect to the introduction of addi-
tional Taxes into the Consolidation Bill;
and declared his conviction, that as to the
intended Taxes, they would have the effect
of decreasing instead of increasing the
Revenue. He never knew a Consolidation
Bill introduced which did not, like this,
augment the burthens of the people.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer [hav-
ing now entered the House, ] stated
the reasons which had retarded the ex-
planation for which the hon. Baronet was
desirous. There appeared to be such e
general anxiety before the holidays to see
the Schedule of Duties, thathe had moved
for leave to bring in a bill, in order that ii
might be printed without making any re-
marks, deferring the explanatory state
ments until after the recess, when he ex.
pressed his intention of moving its re-comr
mittal for that purpose. That no state
ment had been made, arose entirely front
his wish to satisfy the demands of thi
House; and the right hon. Baronet hai
done him injustice if he had attributed t,


him any wish to take the House by sur-
prise.
Dr. Phillimore objected to the intro-
duction into the bill of an indirect Taxation
on law proceedings. He urged the speedy
production of the Schedule.
Mr. Hume concurred with his lion.
friends, that many increases of Taxation
had been made in various departments, of
which no notice had been given. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer had men-
tioned an increase of 110,0001. on Stamps
in Ireland, and had stated that the in-
crease was confined to Ireland; it now
however turned out, as he understood,
that an increase was also to take place in
England and Scotland. He hoped there
would be no longer delay in furnishing
explanations on the subject.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer ex-
pressed his desire to give all the informa-
tion that could be required.

TERCEIRA.] Mr. Grant commenced
his speech by reading the Resolutions
which it was his intention to submit to the
House, and which were as follow:-
That prior to the 12th of December,
1828, her Majesty the Queen Donna
Maria 2nd had been recognized by his
Majesty, and the other great powers of
Europe, to be legitimate Queen of Portu-
gal; and that at the period above-named
the said Queen was residing in this coun-
try, and had been received by his Majesty
with the accustomed honours of her royal
rank.
"That on the said 12th of December,
the Island of Terceira, part of the domi-
nions of the Queen of Portugal was go-
verned by authorities, civil and military,
in allegiance to her Majesty.
That on the said 12th of December
instructions were given by the Lords Com-
missioners of the Admiralty, stating that
S'a considerable number of Portuguese
L soldiers, and other foreigners, were about
Sto sail in transports from Plymouth to Fal-
mouth, and it is supposed they intend
t making an attack on Terceira, or other of
- the Western Isles; and his Majesty having
- been pleased to command that a naval
- force should be immediately despatched to
- interrupt any such attempt, you are hereby
- required and directed to take the ship and
i sloop named in the margin under your
e command, and to proceed with all practical
I expedition to Terceira; and having ascer-
o tained that you have succeeded in reach-


U25 Schedulee of Taxation.







127 Afair at


ing that Island before the transports
alluded to, you will remain yourself at
Angra or Praia, or cruising close to the
island in the most advisable position for
intercepting any vessels arriving off it;
and you will detach the other ships as you
shall deem best for preventing the aforesaid
force from reaching any of the other is-
lands.'
That on the arrival of the naval force
sent to Terceira, in pursuance of these in-
structions, the commanding officer found
that island in possession of and governed
by the authorities above-mentioned.
That in the beginning of January,
1829, a number of Portuguese, subjects
or soldiers of her said Majesty, voluntarily
left this country, with a view of repairing
to the said island, and that their departure
and destination were known to his Ma-
jesty's Government; that they appear to
have embarked and sailed in unarmed
merchant ships, to have been unaccom-
panied by any naval force, and themselves
without any arms or ammunition of war.
"That these unarmed merchant ships
and passengers were prevented by his Ma-
jesty's naval forces, sent for the purpose,
from entering the harbour of Porto Praia;
and that after they had been fired into,
and blood had been spilled, they were
compelled, under the threat of the fur-
ther use of force, again to proceed to sea,
and warned to quit the neighbourhood of
Terceira and the rest of the Azores, but
that they might proceed wherever else
they might think proper.
That the use of force in intercepting
these unarmed vessels, and preventing
them anchoring and landing their passen-
gers in the harbour of Porto Praia, was a
violation of the sovereignty of the state to
which the Island of Terceira belonged;
and that the further interference to compel
those merchant ships or transports to quit
the neighbourhood of the Azores, was an
assumption of jurisdiction upon the high
seas, neither justified by the necessity of
the case, nor sanctioned by the general
law of nations."
The hon. Member stated, that he read
the Resolutions in order to make the
whole subject impressively known to the
House. He then proceeded to observe,
that some discussion had taken place on
it during the last Session, on the Motion
for Papers respecting it, which had been
made by his hon. and learned friend, the
member for Knaresborough. Ministers


had consented to give the papers, and
they were now on the Table. But they
by no means afforded all the information
which was necessary, and the House had
a right to complain of their vague and
unsatisfactory character. It was no dis-
paragement of Ministers to require papers
in corroboration of their assertions; and
as they had already produced some papers,
they had established this proposition-
that the question was no longer one of
confidence, but one of proof. That being
the case, he thought the House, with re-
spect to some important points, was left
without any information, except what
rested on the mere declarations of Minis-
ters, which could only be explained by
the production of further papers. The
House had not been fairly dealt with on
the subject. Still, however defective the
papers already produced were, they afford-
ed sufficient ground for his Resolutions;
and he should, therefore, proceed to point
out to the House the reasons on which
they were founded. Before, however, he
entered on the main question, he wished
to make one remark. His Majesty's Go-
vernment had resolved that this country
should maintain a strict neutrality between
the two parties in Portugal. On the wis-
dom or the expediency of that resolution
he would offer no remarks, nor would he
give any opinion, because he did not wish
to draw the attention of the House from
the topic which he was more particularly
desirous of bringing before it. He would
therefore assume that we were in a
strictly neutral position between the par-
ties, and on that assumption his remarks
would be based. But he begged to ob-
serve, that neutrality, as all the great
writers on national law had stated, was of
two kinds--voluntary and stipulated. It
might exist with reference to two belli-
gerents, with one of whom we had, and
with the other of whom we had not, any
previous alliance or friendship. What
then was our position in respect of neu-
trality with the two parties in Portugal?
With Don Miguel we had never had any
treaty of alliance, or any compact what-
ever. More than that, we had denounced
the cause of Don Miguel as unjust; we
had denounced Don Miguel himself as a
usurper, and as deserving of every oppro-
brium which could be cast on the most
profligate person who had ever unjustly
acquired a throne. It was clear, there-
fore, that our neutrality, as it respected


f COMMONS


Terceira. 128








Terceira. 130


Don Miguel, was voluntary; that it was a
neutralitywhich we observed for our own in-
terests, not for those of Don Miguel, with
whom we had no compact nor understand-
ing. What resulted from this? Why, if
it pleased us to-morrow to convert our
neutrality with reference to Don Miguel
into hostile relations, he would have no
right to complain, and the character of
England would be untarnished. But how
different was the case with respect to the
Queen Donna Maria! She was the de-
scendant and representative of a long line
of Sovereigns with whom this country had
concluded several treaties of alliance, and
had long maintained the most intimate
intercourse. We had acknowledged her
cause to be just. We had recognized her
as the lawful Queen of Portugal. To her
we were bound by compact to be at least
neutral. What resulted from this ? That
if we were to convert our neutrality with re-
ference to Queen Donna Maria into hos-
tile relations, she would have a right to
complain, our faith would be broken, and
the character of England would be tar-
nished. Nothing could be more clear than
our relations with the two contending
parties. With the usurper of Portugal
our neutrality was voluntary, and the
maintenance of it was optional; with the
lawful Queen of Portugal our neutrality
was the effect of previous stipulations, and
we could not abandon it without dis-
honour. To Don Miguel we had shown
every degree of alienation short of actual
war: to the Queen Donna Maria we had
shown every degree of friendship short of
actively espousing her cause. It followed,
that if circumstances should compel us
to depart from the strict line of neutrality
which we had prescribed to ourselves, the
departure ought to be in favour of the
party with whom we had previous engage-
ments of amity, and not in favour of the
party with whom we had no such previous
engagements. If any doubt whatever ex-
isted on the subject, that doubt ought to
be thrown into the scale of the former.
He would now proceed to consider the
course of conduct which had been pursued
by his Majesty's Government; and in so
doing, he would adhere to the order of
time, as calculated to render the statement
more perspicuous. In the first place, he
could not help thinking it rather extra-
ordinary that, although the Portuguese
refugees came to this country in August,
their presence did not seem to have at-
VOL. XXIV.


traced the attention of his Majesty's Go-
vernment until it was brought under their
notice, in the middle of October, by the
letter of the Marquis Barbacena. Pro-
fessing neutrality, it was undoubtedly the
right of our Government to require that
the refugees should leave this country; it
was natural that our Government should
wish these refugees not to remain embodied
ready for war; as far then as obliging them
to leave this country, the Government, he
admitted, was quite right; but it had no
right to direct the course of these refugees,
and in prohibiting them to go either to
Portugal or the Azores, it had plainly
overstepped the limits of its rights.
Neutrals could not possibly interfere with
any contending parties beyond the bounds
of their own territories. The duty of a
neutral was to be passive, not active; neu-
trals ought to be abstinent, andnot interfere
beyond their proper jurisdiction. A great
writer has said, that neutrals ought not to
interfere on the principle of rendering
equal justice to both parties; they ought
not to interfere at all. It was impossible
for any neutral to know what equal assist-
ance is, for he could not form any accurate
judgment of the situation of the parties.
if a neutral had a right to interfere, he
must have a right to enforce his inter-
ference. A weak neutral would respect
the law of nations, but a strong neutral
would disregard them. The English Con-
stitution said, that if a slave entered her
territory he was free; but Ministers said,
that when the martyrs to liberty put foot
upon her shores they became slaves; and
this they termed the law of nations. But
they proceeded further, and prevented
them going to their own country. Not
contented even with controlling their
actions here, the Ministers wished to sever
the connection between these refugees and
their country and their Queen. At every
step a new principle started up. The
Minister wished to establish in all cases
the dependence of colonies on the mother
country, and to lay it down as the law of
nations that the fate of the latter ought
always to determine the fate of the former.
The Portuguese colonies were, therefore, to
follow the example of the mother country,
and the usurper who was de facto Sove-
reign of Portugal, was also legitimate so-
vereign of the colonies de jure. Accord-
ing to their despatches, the Sovereign de
facto of Portugal, was de jure the Sove-
reign of the colonies, while at the same
F


{APRIL 28}


Affair at








131 Afair at


time they acknowledged a Sovereign de
facto of these colonies, whom they also
recognized as the Sovereign de jure of
Portugal itself. Such was at least the
language held in the papers submitted to
Parliament, and it was an inconsistency Go-
vernment could not extricate itself from.
The only justification of Government was,
that civil war was raging in Terceira;
but the papers before the House proved
directly the reverse. The first proof of
the internal condition of Terceira was the
letter of the Marquis Barbacena. This
was dated the 15th of October, and it
stated, that Terceira remained faithful to
its Sovereign. On the 18th of October
this was answered by the Duke of Wel-
lington, who did not, even by implication,
deny this statement. The next evidence
was the letter of the Marquis Palmella,
of 20th December. This stated that Ter-
ceira remained perfectly true to its legal
Sovereign, and had never swerved from
its allegiance. It inclosed an address
from the authorities of the island, pro-
fessing the strongest fidelity to their So-
vereign. On the 23rd December the
Duke of Wellington answered this letter.
In that answer nothing was said about
Terceira being in a state of civil war, al-
though it was written under an impres-
sion that the Marquis had abused his
good faith. If the Duke of Welling-
ton had thought that civil war had raged
in the island, that would have formed the
climax of his assertions; but the letter
showed that Government was not at that
time in a condition to refute the statement
of the Marquis Palmella. His Grace
said, the troops referred to were the same
that the Marquis Barbacena wanted a con-
voy for, to Terceira, and of which General
Stubbs was in the command, and the same
that Marquis Palmella wanted to send to
the Brazils. The Duke therefore said, that
he should not advise his Majesty to give the
Marquis the permission he asked, but he
did not say one word about Terceira being
in a state of insubordination. It was not
till the 30th of December that the Duke of
Wellington found out that Terceira was in
a state of civil war. He wished to know
from whom, and at what precise period, the
Government obtained this information.
Captain Walpole first communicated the in-
formation of his arrival off the island in a
letter dated February 14th, one month after
he received his orders. He then said, that
the country was in possession of Guerillas,


favourable to Don Miguel, but that the
garrison consisting of 750 men remained
faithful to Donna Maria. This was, ac-
cording to the ordinary rules of diplo-
macy, sufficient to establish the fact that
the island was obedient to Donna Maria.
But at the time the population amounted
to 20,000 persons, and was it to be be-
lieved that this population would continue
tranquil and submissive, if they had been
devoted adherents to Don Miguel. The
tranquillity of this population was more
remarkable when it was known that Tova,
the Governor of Terceira, was a creature
of Don Miguel's, who had displaced all
the officers favourable to Donna Maria,
and was not himself removed till he had
done much mischief. This person had
endeavoured to get a few persons together
and to proclaim Don Miguel, but it was
also true, that he was eminently unsuc-
cessful. An invasion was subsequently
attempted, but the peasantry, far from
assisting the invaders, resisted them. The
information then possessed by the Govern-
ment was incorrect, which was also the
characteristic of what it had stated re-
specting money being coined at Terceira
with republican emblems. This money, it
was subsequently proved, bore the inscrip-
tion of Donna Maria. There never was
any design of establishing a republic en-
tertained, and neither the people nor the
garrison had ever swerved from their al-
legiance to the legitimate Sovereign. Our
Government described the departure of a
few unarmed men as a, hostile attack on
Don Miguel, but as Terceira never was in
his possession, a more incorrect expression
was never used to cover a wanton aggres-
sion. The Duke of Wellington, in one of
his letters, described this country as having
been asked to convoy a hostile expedition
to Terceira; but this was obviously a mis-
take of that great man. The Marquis de
Barbacena wrote to him to say that Terceira
was then in the possession of the legiti-
mate Sovereign, and he proposed that if,
on the arrival of the men it was found to
be occupied for Don Miguel, that then
the men should not land, and he proposed
that the convoy should go with them to
see that this was performed; to him this
appeared very like good faith, and the
least like a hostile attack of any expedi-
dition he had ever heard of. In the first
place, the island was in possession of
friends, and in the next place, if it were
not, the Marquis asked for a convoy of a


ICOMMONSI


Terceira.







Terceira. 134


man of war to prevent any hostile attack.
This mistake, though, perhaps ludicrous
enough, was not half so laughable as the
terms used in the instructions given to
Captain Walpole, which were such a far-
rago of nonsense as he had never before
read, Whereas," they said, a consider-
able number of Portuguese troops are
about to sail in transports from Plymouth
or Falmouth, and it is supposed that they
intend to make an attack on Terceira, or
some other of the Western islands;" but
these troops who were going to make this
supposed attack, were without arms, equip-
ments, or ammunition. Well might the
Marquis Palmella say, in a letter which,
for its fidelity and dignity of expression,
placed him high in the ranks of diplo-
macy, I had hoped, that you would
have taken into consideration the dis-
tinction I had drawn in my letter of the
20th of this month, namely, the essential
difference which exists between the in-
tention entertained by the Portuguese re-
fugees, of proceeding to the island of
Terceira, and that which you attribute to
them, of going to attack some part of the
Portuguese territory. I do not find in
your Excellency's answer a single word
relative to this distinction, although it
appears to me evident." The document
went on to observe, that the refugees
will leave the country as they came, with-
out arms, and successively, as the trans-
ports are ready to receive them." Here
then was an invading expedition, not only
sailing without arms, but successively, as
transports could be provided for them.
It had been urged, however, that arms
had been sent from this country to Ter-
ceira in the first instance; but if this had
been permitted, he asked, would it violate
neutrality to let these persons follow ? It
was notorious that arms and ammunition
had been purchased, both at Gibraltar and
in this country, and sent both to Portugal
and Terceira, but because there were
arms at Terceira, that did not seem to him
a reason for stopping those persons in pro-
ceeding to that place. It was said, that
the arms were sent by a Brazilian frigate:
but surely it made no difference whether
they were sent by a merchant ship or a
vessel of war. According to the doctrines
of Ministers, however, he must conclude
that the whole question turned on the kind
of vessel, which conveyed the arms, and that
our neutrality was violated by the single
fact of their having been sent by a Bra-


zilian frigate. The arms appeared, how-
ever, to have nothing to do with the
question, for Captain Walpole was ordered
to stop these people should they proceed
to Madeira, and Madeira was in possession
of Don Miguel, and no arms had been
sent thither. On that place they could
make no attack. The plain fact was,
whether the interference were just and
proper or not, it was another question,
that our Government had resolved, that
these people should quit England, and
should not be allowed to go to Terceira.
He would then speak of the conduct of
Government in enforcing its prohibition;
and here its proceedings were tantamount
to war-to direct and positive war. If
those persons had had the power to defend
themselves, what would have been the
consequence? Our Government chose a
victim, well knowing whom it could in-
sult and trample upon. It knew that it
was not dealing with France, Russia or
the United States, but with fugitives,
and these were the victims on whom
our Government showered its gratuitous
neutrality. Even war itself ought not to
be commenced in such a summary man-
ner; the law of nations required something
to be said before the blow was struck: and
although we had commenced war without
the usual preliminaries in the attack on the
Spanish frigates in 1804, and on Copen-
hagen in 1807-the persons we attacked
being nominally our friends, but actually
our enemies-our acquittal had not yet
been pronounced by the nations of Europe.
Two or three of these vessels had their
boats out to land the people at Terceira
when the English frigate appeared. Now
nothing could be a more gross outrage of
the law of nations than for a neutral to
interfere within the territory of another
country, or within that distance from the
shore to which all writers considered the
territory of a country to extend. This
was not enough too, it appeared; for Cap-
tain Walpole had a roving commission
given him, with instructions to stop these
people wherever he might meet with them
They were not to be allowed to landia
other places, they were to be chased from
every spot they might select for their se-
curity, particularly if that spot were
within the territory that acknowledged the
sway of their own Sovereign, and he did
not believe that the most determined par-
tizan of Don Miguel, unless animated by
the most rancorous hostility towards these
F2


{APRIL 28}


Affair at









unhappy fugitives, could have done more neither arms nor provisions, nor had they
to support the cause of that prince. On spoken to anybody, except two of the
what grounds our Navy had a right to in- officers of the d6p6ts. These Germans
terfere with these unarmed, defenceless then went to Madeira, and from thence to
men, and chace them over the ocean, he Terceira, whence they, after having been
had yet to learn, being certain that no received in the name of the lawful Sove-
authority could be found for it in the laws reign of that island, were driven away by
of nations. This attack on the subjects of the armed vessels of a neutral power.
the Queen of Portugal took place at the Many insinuations had been thrown out,
very time that she was welcomed in this and many charges had been made against
country with the honours due to her rank. the persons who had conducted this expe-
It was a strange thing, as part of the con- edition, They were refugees. They were
duct of the Government in this proceed- unfortunate,and theywerenowabsent; and
ing, that it chose, the very moment when this, he thought, might have occasioned
Donna Maria was received in the Palace some little delicacy in condemning them.
of our ancient Kings, to turn back her But what had they done ? Did they, in
own subjects from the only spot of earth the face of Europe, take oaths which they
which acknowledged her control. He forthwith laughed at-steeping themselves
did not impute any blame to our gallant in the guilt of fourfold perjury ? Did they
Officers upon the occasion; they only violate the Majesty of our King by entering
acted under orders, which were not the into solemn obligations, which they at the
less reprehensible because they had not earliest opportunity tossed to the winds?
been followed by great bloodshed. The DidtheygotoPortugalandtakeoathsinnu-
ships might have been compelled, by re- merable, which they subsequently trampled
distance or flight, to fire broadsides instead under foot, in the presence of a betrayed, an
of a single shot, upon those unfortunate insulted, and oppressed people? Did they
individuals, when the destruction of life desecrate Thrones by the commission of
would have been appalling, and therefore, the basest and most revolting crimes?
although the loss was trifling, no argument No ; and yet he had heard of such things
in favour either of the justice or the hu- having been done, which had not excited
manity of Ministers could be founded any feeling of anger or resentment, and had
upon it. There was another point con- not led to any breach of neutrality. A
nected with this transaction which ap- charge of falsehood and treachery had
peared to him still more inexcusable. It been brought against these unfortunate
appeared by the letter written on the 18th of men. He had looked into the papers, and
October by the Duke of Wellington to the could not see anything in the least suspi-
Marquis Barbacena, that his Grace had cious, except the change of destination.
actually given these refugees permission On the 15th of October the Marquis Bar-
to go to Terceira. In that letter it was bacena proposed to lead the refugees to
said, that if the Portuguese subjects of Terceira; on the 20th of November the
Donna Maria desired to make war upon Marquis Palmella proposed the Brazils-
the Azores, instead of Portugal, they were and what could have been more natural?
at liberty to do so, provided they went as An expedition had been sent from Portugal
individuals. Nobody could put any other against Madeira, and it was known at the
construction on this passage, but that his time that it had succeeded, and conse-
Grace gave his assent to the refugees going quently the presumption was, that Terceira,
unarmed and unprovided with all the mu- which was a sort of dependence on Ma-
nitions of war to Terceira. They so under- deira, had also fallen into Don Miguel's
stood this passage; they did go unarmed, hands; but then, on the 20th of Decem-
and as individuals, and they were repulsed, ber, it was ascertained that Terceira was
Being without arms, and without warlike still safe, and what could be more proper
stores, they were as little like a hostile ar- than for the Marquis Palmella to again
mament as any body of settlers going to the propose to direct his course towards the
Swan River or New South Wales. He only place which continued to acknow-
would venture to contradict the assertion ledge the sway of his Sovereign ? He could
which had been made that one-half of this not admit that any treachery had been
body of men consisted of Germans, He used; but supposing that some disinge-
admitted that 260 men, raised in, Germany nuouspess had been employed, it was,
had touched at Plymouth, but they received after all, but the struggle of patriotism


135 Affair at


Terceira. 136


ICOMMONSI







137 Affair at


against power; and certainly the charge
of ill-faith came with a very bad grace
from those who had themselves forced the
parties thus accused into it. There was
another argument now much insisted upon,
although formerly it had been never urged.
It was said, that if the Government were
by fraud betrayed into a violation of the
neutrality it professed, it might follow
the guilty parties into any foreign port.
Now if this were so, the law of nations
had lost that inflexible character it
formerly possessed; it was no longer the
protection of the strong against the weak,
it was a mere rule, to be formed by a view
of expediency alone, subject to all the
follies and caprices of those who judged of
the expediency. The law of nations, in
that case, would be altogether uprooted,
and society would be driven back to that
state of confusion and violence from which
it had been rescued by this international
compact. But he would ask, was this
case of neutrality a new one ? Certainly
not. He would, however, only allude to
the case of 1819, which was the latest.
The Foreign Enlistment Bill was then
passed; prior to that, vessels laden with
warlike stores,in contravention of our neu-
trality, openly left our ports: after that,
vessels similarly laden left our ports under
false pretences; and it never occurred to
Spain, or even Turkey, to demand that
we should follow those vessels to a foreign
port. At that period, too, it was laid
down by Mr. Canning, respecting the mu-
nicipal law, that it did not extend beyond
our own ports; and doubtless this was
much more true of international law.
From that principle we could not depart
without infringing on the rights of other
nations: in the case under consideration,
we had departed from it and, our proceed-
ings werecondemned,both in the newworld
and the old. Reflecting men had ex-
pressed their opinion of our conduct, and
the nature of it was proved by the satisfac-
tion of all the enemies of freedom, and by
the sorrow of all its friends. The practical
question was, why we had not stopped
those persons in our own ports? But the
defence was, that they had left this country
under false pretences, and had sailed for
Terceira before we could stop them, or
knew anything about it. Was this so, or
was sufficient time allowed for Government
to be aware of their intentions? If there
was anything of correctness in the dates,
Government had ample time; for on the


20th of December, the Marquis Barba-
cena gave notice to the Duke of Wellington
that it was the intention of the refugees to
proceed to Terceira, and a correspondence
of a fortnight took place, the one urging
their right to go to that place, the other
denying it: what then became of the de-
fence as to time? It was blown away by the
dates of theMinister's own correspondence.
The right hon. Gentleman, in conclusion,
stated, that he had adverted to the prohi-
bition for the refugees to proceed to Ter-
ceira, he had shown that the reasons given
by the Ministers to justify that policy were
without foundation, and he concluded that
there was visible, throughout the transac-
tion, the same narrow and illiberal spirit
which had for some time marked our
foreign policy; which had made us sub-
mit to the insults and endure the hu-
miliation of being the servants of foreign
despots, which had lowered us in the
eyes of the world, and destroyed the
moral influence of England. The course
of the Ministers, he contended, had been
to endeavour to induce the Emperor of
Brazil to sacrifice Donna Maria to the
usurper of her rights, and the enemy of
her branch of the family. They had re-
versed the ancient and honourable policy of
Great Britain; they had extended friend-
ship to the traitor and the tyrant, and had
treated with cruelty the proscribed patriot.
To Don Miguel they had shown every
friendship short of an avowed recogni-
tion of his usurpation, and to Donna Maria
they had shewn nothing but indifference
and neglect-not to say hostility. Words
had, indeed, been used in another place
to justify a stronger assertion; for it had
been stated,'that thequestion of recognizing
him was one not of right but of policy; im-
plying that his usurpation was to be con-
sidered lawful, now that Great Britain had
contributed to ensure its success. He did
not envy France and the Netherlands the
glory they had acquired by their conduct to
the refugees; but he regretted that Eng-
land had been found wanting in those
qualities which were considered peculiarly
her own. If England were anti-liberal,
England could never be more than a
secondary power. She never could main-
tain her ascendancy-and he spoke not of
the vain ascendancy secured by conquests
and bloodshed, but of that secured by
the buoyancy of her principles-unless
she placed herself in the van of liberal
opinions. Then would she rise to her


{APRIL 28)


Trerceiila. 138








139 Afair at


native place, which was in the front of the
enlightened portion of Europe. Great
hopes had been formerly entertained that,
by the influence of England, nations al-
ready in the career of freedom might have
been assisted, and others might be led into
the same glorious course. It had been
hoped that Austria, with its vassal thrones,
and Spain with its banished patriots and
enslaved states, might have been set free,
and that the great crime by which Poland
had been blotted from the map of Europe
might be retrieved; but now the friends
of freedom throughout the world were
dismayed, and its enemies exulted. It
was in the power of the House to check
the one, and extinguish the other feeling;
and he now called upon it to record its
opinion in agreeing to resolutions touching
this transaction which had inflicted a
greater stain upon the English character
than any he was aware of, and which every
lover of his countrywould wish to seewiped
away. The right hon. Gentleman then
moved his first Resolution.
Lord F. L. Gower feared he might be
charged with presumption in rising to ad-
dress the House immediately after the elo-
quent appeal which had been made to it by
the right hon. Gentleman; but he trusted
his usual disinclination to trouble it, except
in concerns connected with his office, and
the zeal which he felt for the honour of
the country, might be considered to form a
sufficient excuse. He had for some time
looked with considerable anxiety upon the
laconic notice which had been so long on
the Paper of the House, which was so well
calculated by its obscurity to conjure up
phantoms of cases, which individuals might
suppose would be brought forward; he ap-
prehended a great deal more from the
experience and ability which the right
hon. Gentleman was confessedly so able to
bring forward in support of his view of the
question, than from any conclusions which
he could draw from the papers themselves.
The right hon. Gentleman had entered
into a subtle discussion respecting the dif-
ference between stipulated and voluntary
neutrality. In this it was unnecessary to
follow him, as neutrality had been, by his
own confession, agreed upon as the policy
of the State. It had also been remarked,
that it was singular those Portuguese
should have remained so long in this coun-
try without having attracted the notice
of Government; but in fact, there was
a disinclination to enter upon any obnox.


ious course of proceeding respecting those
unfortunate occurrences. He wished to
supply an omission of his right hon. friend's,
and to observe, that the good offices of
England had been used in Spain in favour
of these refugees, and the result was, that
they were treated with greater kindness
than before, and longer time was allowed
them to leave the Spanish territory. They
were afterwards received in this country
with hospitality, which they subsequently
abused. His right hon. friend had said, that
these people were treated like slaves, and
that Government had no right to dictate
where they should go. He denied that
Government had done so: it had only de-
clared where they should not go. Many
of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments
were founded on very questionable facts.
Captain Walpole's report as to the state of
Terceira rendered his right hon. friend's
second Resolution very questionable in
point of fact, and therefore it could not be
classed with some of his other propositions,
from which, though containing incontro-
vertible facts, his right hon. friend had
drawn very questionable conclusions. The
right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in
stating that Terceira was at the time under
the actual government of Donna Maria.
There was a party in her favour, and proba-
bly her adherents were much stronger than
their opponents ; but still there was a divi-
sion in the place. Theright hon. Gentleman
had been at great pains, but, as it seemed
to him, very unsuccessfully, to divest the
persons who went out to Terceira of a mi-
litary character. The garrison there had
effected a military revolution, and arms
were provided for the use of these refugees
on their arrival. The right hon. Gentle-
man had spoken as if these persons were
perfectly guiltless of drawing these pro-
ceedings on themselves; and as if, when
they had once quitted the ports of Eng-
land, they were fully entitled to all the
benefits of neutrality. Did the right hon.
Gentleman forget the three-fold warnings
of the Duke of Wellington; and did not
their inattention to those warnings take
from the force of the right hon. Gentle-
man's assumption ? In the letter of the
Duke of Wellington, giving the permission
to depart, the expression, "as indivi-
duals," had been employed, and the noble
Duke much regretted the misconstruction
which these persons had put upon that
expression-a misconstruction which the
right hon, Gentleman had alsq unfortu.


f COMMONS


Terceira.







141 Afair at


nately attached to it. Rightly understood
that passage could not be taken as imply-
ing a permission to go to Terceira. He
thought that in this discussion the merits
or demerits of the opposing parties ought
not to be considered. His right hon.
friend had, however, introduced them, and
the cheers given to that part of the speech
convinced him, that if the parties had been
reversed-if Donna Maria had been in pos-
session of the throne, and Don Miguel had
gone from this country to gain over Ter-
ceira to his party, and if he had been sunk
in the port of Praia, nothing would have
been said of the matter in that House. He
knew it was said, both in and out of the
House, that this country had been lowered
in public opinion in Europe, by her con-
duct towards Portugal. The credit of this
country with foreigners depended on two
considerations; first, the state of our in-
ternal prosperity and power; and secondly,
on the opinion entertained abroad, as to
the disposition of this Government to make
use of all its resources, whatever they might
be. With respect to the first there was
then no question, and Government was
not called on to answer for any want of
national power; and with respect to the
second, he confessed he entertained no
very high estimate of its worth-knowing,
as he did, how much it was influenced by
erroneous notions as to the nature of our
people and our institutions. He knew
how greatly difficult Mr. Canning had
found it to prevent, on the one hand, that
which was called the liberal party from
entertaining unfounded expectations, and
on the other to defend himself from the
charge of unwillingness to support them.
That right hon. Gentleman had been
praised for planting the standard of the
constitution in Portugal, and blamed for
not planting it in Spain? and he had
been accused, with reference to the latter
country, of tarnishing the national honour
by truckling to France. Opinionsthus
unsteady and inconsistent deserved little
notice, and he caredilittle for those of men
who, when not able to maintain their own
Government, quarrelled with us for not
expending English blood and treasure in
its support. He must say, that he had
often heard promises of national gratitude,
but had never been happy enough to see
them observed. Theymightbekeptthrough
the brief intoxication of a pageant or a re-
view, but was soon forgotten in the actual
business of politicallife, He believed, too,


that much of the national affection, of
which so much had been said, would, upon
examination, be found to smell rather
strongly of the wine casks of Oporto. The
noble Lord here read a letter from Lord
Aberdeen to the Admiralty, dated Jan. 24,
1829, and directing that a quick sailing
vessel might be dispatched to prevent the
vessels of Don Miguel from sinking or de-
stroying those of the emigrants. His
Lordship added, that in fact, additional
instructions had been sent out to the com-
manders of our ships to supplythe refugees
with whatever they might want, and that
those instructions had been fully obeyed.
He contended that these facts showed the
liberal disposition of this Government in
its conduct towards the refugees. Con-
sidering, therefore, there was no ground
whatever to call for the passing of the Re-
solutions oftherighthon. Gentleman,there
was no other course open to him but to
give them a decided negative. He there-
fore moved the previous Question.
Dr. Phillimore said, that he had been
extremely anxious to ascertain how the
person put forward by the Government on
that great occasion, would deal with argu-
ments as powerful, and combat proposi-
tions such as those which had fallen from
his right hon. friend who had introduced
this discussion, which appeared to him as
incontrovertible; but, after paying the ut-
most attention to what had fallen from the
noble Lord, he could not but complain
that the noble Lord had declined the real
argument in the case, and had confined
his defence of the Government tp the
merely petty technical parts of the subject.
The noble Lord had totally misapprehended
the point at issue, which was, whether, on
the papers now before the House, there
was not enough to show that the Govern-
ment of this country had been guilty of a
gross violation of the law of nations? On
all the principles of those laws, without
going out of these papers to seek for evi-
dence, without travelling either to the
right or to the left out of the brief, if he
might be allowed so professional an ex-
pression, which the Government had put
into his hands, he feared he must answer
that question in the affirmative. Since he
had the honour of a seat in Parliament,
no question had exceeded this in im-
portance ; inasmuch as for a century and a
half since the reign of Charles the 2nd, up
to this time, there had been no imputation
on the public conduct of this Government


{APRIL 28}


Terceira. 142Z







Terceira. 144


so strong as was conveyed in these papers.
It was the glory of the times in which we
lived, and it was the happiness of the
great commonwealth of Christendom, that
the law of-nations had now throughout
Europe acquired the stability and pre-
cision of positive enactments : its pre-
cepts were of universal obligation, and not
of difficult comprehension. Great lawyers
and publicists might expound and apply its
abstruse parts; but no statesman could be
ignorant of its general principles. The pre-
sent case involved merely the elements of
international law, which he was desirous
of stating in the plainest manner. Those
who argued on the same side with him
might be deemed pedants for supporting
their views by a reference to the law of na-
tions; and for his own part, being satisfied
that a conformity to that law was the sure
way to maintain our high national charac-
ter he should be content to bear this
reproach, even if it could be justly urged,
when his object was to bring back the
Government to the path of rectitude and
honour, though in this case the mere ele-
mentary principles of international law
were concerned; to refer to which, like re-
ferring to the rules of morality, might be
called trite, but could never with propriety
be called pedantic. The only principles
to which he should have occasion to refer,
were like the a-b-c of the laws of nations.
All the great writers on those laws--all the
eminent Judges who had expounded and
administered them, had agreed upon three
propositions which he would now state.
The first was-that in time of peace it
was not allowed to any State whatever to
search, stop, or chase any vessel on the
high seas, if that vessel had proceeded
beyond those limits which common con-
venience had assigned as the boundaries
of each country. The second was, that
the above principle was to be applied in
the spirit of the strictest equality. All
States were, with reference to its operation,
equal-the smallest and the greatest were
entitled to the same protection from it.
The same learned authorities had unani-
mously determined the third proposition-
namely, that the ports and harbours of each
country were the same as the body of the
land itself, and that, in fact, they were an
integral part of the country. We had no
more right, therefore, to commit acts of
hostility in a port, than in the center of the
territories ofaforeign State. To these three
propositions he begged to direct the attend.


tion of the House. There were many
remarkable instances of the adherence of
this country to these principles in the
course of the last war; and he would
quote two cases to shew in what manner
the first of these propositions had been
acted on. Every one knew how earnest
this country had been with respect to the
Slave-trade. During the last war an
American vessel engaged in that traffic had
been detained by one of the King's cruisers.
That vessel was brought in for adjudica-
tion, and the two countries having both
prohibited the trade, and declared it to be
contrary to justice, and the right of search
being justified by the existence of war,
the Court of Admiralty condemned the ves-
sel to be confiscated. But let the House
mark the difference of the jurisdiction ex-
ercised in time of peace. France also had
agreed with us as to the propriety of abo-
lishing the Slave-trade, and on the coast
of Africa one of our ships found a French
vessel, after the pacification of Europe,
engaged in the trade. The slave-ship was
brought in for adjudication ; but the Court
laid it down, that although the traffic was
illegal, and contrary to law and justice, any
exercise of the right of search was, during
peace, contrary to the law of nations;
and though it stated that this trade was
undoubtedly as contrary to humanity and
justice as it was to the laws of the two
countries, yet that in a time of peace there
was no right of search existing on the high
seas, and the French-ship was ordered to
be restored to its owners. The former
case, that of the American ship, was pressed
upon the consideration of the Judge; but
the answer was, that the existence of hosti-
lities gave in that case the right of search;
but in time of peace, whatever might be
the illegality of any traffic, it was of so
much importance to prevent every interrup-
tion to free-traversing the high seas, that
the seizure was unjustifiable, and the ves-
sel must be restored to its owners, be-
cause there was no warrant, in the ab-
sence of hostilities, for any party to stop
the vessel. He did not think that any
stronger illustration could be produced of
the proposition, that during peace no
State had a right to search, stop, or chace
any vessel on the high seas. With respect
to the rule relative to the ports and har-
bours of a country, and to some distance
from the shore being considered part of
the territory of that country, he should
quote an ordinance taken from the code of


143 Afair at


ICQBMMONSI







Terceira. 146


maritime law given to the Belgians so
early as the year 1563, and a breach of
which was rendered capital. It was as
follows: "Positd capitis pwen neque in
mari vis fieret vel suis subditis, vel sociis
vel peregrinis, sive belli sive alterius rei
caused, intra conspectum a terrl vel potius
a portu." Bynkershoeck's reasoning upon
this was worthy of attention :-" Intellexit
igitur imperium porrigi quousque e terra
prospici datum cst, et sunt auctores qui
sic sentiunt, sed id nimis laxum vagumque
esse ostendii, ratus imperiumfinir, ubifini-
tur armorumpotestas." That was now the
rule of international law throughout Eu-
rope, and the jurisdiction of a country was
taken to extend (since the invention of
fire-arms) to within cannon-shot of the
shore (supposed to be a distance of about
three miles.) Lord Stowell's decisions on
questions of this description were quite
clear. The principle was laid down by
him, in the case of the Twee Gebroe-
ders," 3rd Admiralty Reports, in the fol-
lowing words:--" In the sea, out of the
reach of cannon-shot, universal use is pre-
sumed." In the case of the "Anna,"
5th Admiralty Reports, it was laid down
as follows:-" The capture was made, it
seems, at the mouth of the River Missis-
sippi, and as it is contended in the claim,
within the boundaries of the United States.
We all know that the rule of law on this
head is-' Terre dominiumfinitur ubi fi-
nitur armorum vis;' and since the intro-
duction of fire-arms, that distance has
usually been recognized to be about three
miles from the shore." In another case,
that of "Le Louis," which was decided
twelve years ago by Lord Stowell, that
learned Judge said, Upon the first ques-
tion, whether the right of search exists in
time of peace, I have to observe, that two
principles of public law are generally re-
cognized as fundamental. One is, the
perfect equality and entire independence
of all distinct States. Relative magnitude
creates no distinction of right: relative
imbecility, whether permanent or casual,
gives no additional right to the more
powerful neighbour; and any advantage
seized upon that ground is mere usurpa-
tion.. This is the great foundation of
public law, which it mainly concerns the
peace of mankind, both in their politic and
private capacities, to preserve inviolate.
The second is, that all nations being equal,
all have an equal right to the uninterrupted
use of the unappropriated parts of the


ocean for their navigation. In places
where no local authority exists,-where
the subjects of all States meet upon a foot-
ing of entire equality and independence,--
no one State, or any of its subjects, has a
right to assume or exercise authority over
the subjects of another. I can find no
authority that gives the right of interrup-
tion to the navigation of States in amity
on the high seas, excepting that which the
rights of war give to both belligerents
against neutrals." Further down in the
same judgment Lord Stowell observed-
"Upon a principle much more just in
itself, and more temperately applied, mari-
time States have claimed a right of visita-
tion and inquiry within those parts of the
ocean adjoining their shores, which the
common courtesy of nations has, for their
common convenience, allowed to be consi-
dered as parts of their dominions for
various domestic purposes, and particularly
for local or defensive regulations, more
immediately affecting their safety or wel-
fare. Such are our hovering laws, which
within certain limited distances, more or
less moderately assigned, subject foreign
vessels to such examinations. This has
nothing in common with a right of visita-
tion and search upon the unappropriated
parts of the oceann" He had now shown
therefore, upon unquestionable authority,
that thethree propositions which head laid
down at the commencement were fully sus-
tained by the plainest and best understood
principles of international law. In time
of war, all belligerents clearly possessed a
right of search, but nations had no such
right when they were not engaged in hos-
tilities; next, the territory of every nation
was held to extend to within a cannon-
shot of its shores; and lastly, it was clear,
from the language of Lord Stowell, that
all nations, however strong or weak,
were equal before the laws of nations.
Such being the law, he should now briefly
advert to the facts of the case. In the
first place, it was impossible for any one
who read the correspondence between the
Duke of Wellington and the Marquis of
Palmella, not to be struck with the entire
want of sympathy manifested by the Duke
of Wellington with the distinguished in-
dividuals to whomhis letters were addressed
-he called them routed and dispirited
troops, who fled at the first sight of the
enemy. From the beginning to the end
of these letters there was no expression of
kindness used, no feeling of compassion


{APRIL 28}


Affair at







Terceira. 148


shown, to these unfortunate exiles. Surely
the noble Duke ought to have recollected
the ancient treaties of alliance which bound
the two countries together, and the reci-
procity of feeling and interest which had
long existed between them, and almost
identified the subjects of one state with
those of the other. It was impossible not
to recollect that the granting of the charter
in Portugal had drawn forth blessings and
benedictions from the Minister of the
Crown in that House, as the first at-
tempt to obtain free institutions for Por-
tugal. The protocol of Vienna, between
England and Austria, was of a similar
tenor. It stated that the parties might
remain perfectly tranquil on the head of
the abdication of Don Pedro, and the
sending of the young Queen to Portugal,
seeing that Austria and England were
convinced of the importance of not suf-
fering a longer time to elapse without
deciding upon questions of so high an
interest for the future tranquillity of Por-
tugal, and that these two powers were de-
termined to unite their efforts to urge and
obtain the decision of them at Rio Janeiro.
The protocol of the conferences at London,
in which the Courts of Vienna and London
bound themselves, in case of the abdica-
tion of Don Pedro--which it declared both
governments were anxious for-to use
their good offices in order to induce the
governments of Brazil and Portugal con-
jointly to announce this arrangement to
all the powers of Europe, and procure
their recognition of it. They also bound
themselves to use their good offices to pro-
cure, by means of a treaty, a settlement of
the order of succession of the two branches
of the House of Braganza. It was, how-
ever, a known fact, that the usurpation of
Don Miguel was so conducted as to be
a violation of all these arrangements, and
a personal insult to the Sovereign of this
country. An insult to the Sovereign had
always been esteemed an insult to the
State, and therefore, he was justified in
asserting, that the usurper of the throne
of Portugal. had offered an insult to the
people of England, which it was incon-
sistent with their dignity and character as
a nation to bear. It should-be recollected
who the Marquis Palmella was, and
the relation in which he stood to his
countrymen who had sought an asylum in
England-a distinguished statesman, and a
man high in the confidence of his Sove-
reiga and his own country. He was the


person who had called upon us, in the
fulfilment of our treaties, to send troops
to Portugal to succour those who were
struggling for freedom. We had obeyed
the call. The men therefore whom Mar-
quis Palmella regarded as the subjects
of his Sovereign were in truth the allies of
Britain. Though now reduced by defeat
and misfortune to be few in numbers and
powerless wanderers, whatever name might
be given them by the Government in the
correspondence laid before the House, and
though the noble Lord had called them a
routed and disbanded crew, he could but
consider them as illustrious exiles suffering
in the cause of liberty and of their country.
"I laugh, when those who at the spear are bold
And venturous, if that fail them, shriek and fear
What yet they know must follow-to endure
Exile, or ignominy, or bonds, or pain,
The sentence of their conqueror."
In examining the letters laid upon
the Table of the House, he could not but
consider it as peculiarly devoid of that
sympathy for the suffering portion of the
Portuguese nation, which they had a right
to expect, and which it reflected but little
credit upon the writers of those letters to
refuse them. There was to be found, how-
ever, one exception to that general tone-
it was to be found in the letters of a right
hon. Gentleman, who within two years had
filled the office of Prime Minister of this
country: there was a marked difference
between the letters of Mr. Canning and
those of the present Foreign Secretary,
and the noble Duke at the head of the
Government; such was the nature and
character of the difference, that it reminded
the reader of the illustrious Queen of the
heroic age, who anxious, on a high so-
lemnity, to propitiate an adverse Deity by
presenting to her, as a votive offering, the
most beautiful of all the robes she pos-
sessed, on opening her repository where
her choicest treasures of this description
were preserved, one garment, we are told
by the Poet, so far exceeded all the others
in splendour and brilliancy, that though
it was deposited at the bottom of the
chest, it emitted a ray of light which
eclipsed all the others, and entitled it to
decided preference: so it was with respect
to the letters of Mr. Canning; though they
were at the bottom, as it were of their re-
positories, though they did not relate to the
most prominent parts of this transaction,
yet they emitted rays of light, they blazed
beyond all the rest, they were eminently


147 Afai'r at


{COMMONS}







Terceira. 160


characterized by perspicuity of style and
felicity of expression; and above all, by
an elaborate and scrupulous adherence to
those great principles of public law which
ought to guide the public communications
of every British statesman-indeed, not a
single position contended for in the letters
of that right hon. Gentleman would, upon
the strictest examination, be found incon-
sistent with the acknowledged and recog-
nised law of Europe. Again, he thought
that the letters of the Marquis of Palmella
were likewise deserving the most serious
attention, for he appeared to be fully master
of the subject; but though he was so,-
he must say that throughout he rather un-
derstated than overstated his case. Either
his opponents were wholly forgetful of the
law of nations, or wholly ignorant of the
principles of them. They seem disposed
to over-ride arguments they could not
refute, and left the statements of the
Marquis unanswered and unanswerable.
As the Government had not even opened
a case that evening, he was at a loss to
know whether it was to be insisted upon
or not, that the conduct of our Govern-
ment towards the Portuguese troops was
the consequence of their own acts, or of
the acts of those on board the Brazilian
frigate. If that frigate was guilty of
a breach of public law or our muni-
cipal law, the government of the Brazils
alone was responsible for it. When the
Duke of Wellington therefore referred to
the acts of those on board the frigate, he
referred to a matter over which the Mar-
quis Palmella and the Portuguese officers
had no control, and for which they could
not be made amenable. This brought
him to the correspondence between the
Duke of Wellington and the Marquis of
Barbacena, whom the conduct of the Bra-
zilian frigate, he being the Brazilian
minister, particularly concerned. The
Marquis stated, than an application had
been made, to obtain permission to embark
a certain number of stand of arms on
board the Brazilian frigate. That was a
question of municipal not national law;
and he saw no reason why the frigate
should not be allowed to take those arms
on board; for he meant to contend that
carrying them to Terceira would be no
violation of international law. On this
point he took the 'law of nations to be
most clear and distinct-the principle had
never been controverted, and could not be
misunderstood; it was this-that during


the war a neutral could not supply either
belligerent with arms or with other means of
carrying onhostilities; buttherewasnothing
in the law of nations to prevent people
not at war from purchasing in the territo-
ries of foreign nations, arms, or whatever
else they might require. On that point
the language of Bynkershoeck was explicit.
He said, Idque in instruments bellicis
comparandis vulgb servamus; utat enim
et ad utrumque amicum non recte vend-
amus-sine fraud tamen vendimus utrique
amico, quamvis invicem hosti, et quamvis
sciamus alterum contra alterum his in
bello esse usurum." There was nothing
in thd case under consideration to take it
out of the rule here laid down. If the
subjects of Portugal even took out arms,
which is not alleged, they acted contrary to
none of the laws of nations, for they were
not at war with us; and by allowing them to
do so we contravened none of those laws.
Nor was the course taken by the noble
Lord supported by saying that the whole
thing was a subterfuge of Count Itabayana,
for that could not affect the conduct of
persons in a case that happened fourmonths
after the subterfuge had been practised.
Great stress had been laid upon the alleged
fraud and secrecy practised by those Por-
tuguese in their expedition to Terceira.
On that point he begged to challenge in-
quiry-he begged that lion. Members
would look into the correspondence of the
Marquis Palmella, and if, after that, they
imputed to him, or to the Portuguese, the
secrecy in question, he would abandon the
argument altogether. The Marquis Pal-
mella made no secret of the intended
expedition-on the contrary, through-
out the correspondence, he gave frequent
and distinct notice that such an expedition
was contemplated. TheBritish Government
therefore had been, from the beginning,
perfectly aware of the proposed expedition
to Terceira, and when it did sail, it could
not cause us any matter of surprise; but
then the false clearances were adverted to
as affording grounds of accusation against
the Portuguese-false clearances were a
matter of every day's practice-they were
amongst the most common transactions-
they were intended to deceive some other
party than the country from which the
vessels sailed; that could not be injured
by them-and then came the question, the
most important and real question at issue
in this case, had we a right to follow the
refugees upon the high seas ? Within our


{APRIL 28}


149 Afai~r at'







151 Affair at


own ports we might perhaps deal with
these people aswe liked, buthaving allowed
them to leave the country the case was
different. They were no longer in any
manner amenable to our Government. In
one of the cases to which he had already
referred Lord Stowell had laid down the
principle of law applicable to this case
very clearly. It is contended," he said,
that every State has a right to enforce
its own navigation law, and so it has on
its own subjects, and in certain cases on
ships of other States within its own ports;
but no nation is justified in searching, in
time of peace, the vessel of another State
on the high seas, to ascertain if it is in-
tended to commit any offence against her
municipal laws." Lord Stowell also added,
that however laudable the object of such
a search, it could not be justified in the
case of a vessel belonging to an inde-
pendent State with which we were at peace.
If this general rule were good, if we had
no right to visit or search the ships carry-
ing the troops to Terceira, we could have
no right to pursue or stop them; above all,
we could have no right to stop them within
cannon-shot of their own shores, within
the ports and waters of a friendly state
-in a position recognized by the law of
nations to be an integral part of the
territory of another power. It was not
his intention to go through the corre-
spondence in all its details, but he could
not avoid referring to that part of it con-
tained in page 106. He alluded to the
instructions given to the naval officers with
respect to the vessels bound to Terceira,
and they were well deserving a most
attentive perusal. He did not imagine
that the annals of civilized Europe afford-
ed a parallel to those instructions given to
a commander in time of peace. Hg was
instructed to pursue the vessels, to attack
them if necessary, and to prevent those on
board from effecting the purposes with
which they sailed. These instructions
bore the signature of Lords of the Admi-
ralty who had seats in this House, but the
act, as far as they were concerned, was only
ministerial-they certainly were not respon-
sible for it-the Government alone was
responsible for that most gross violation of
public law-a violation of its first princi-
ples, further aggravated by subsequent
circumstances. It was a most unprovoked
and most wanton attack, a most violent
act of aggression committed on a friendly
Neutral. The question was not, as sug-


gested, one of mere feeling, to be supported
by declamation, but of facts; but feeling
also was on the side of facts. Nothing
could be more touching, more natural,
or more forcible, than Count Saldanha's
appeal to Captain Walpole. You are
going," he said, to discharge your arms
against 500 friendly and defenceless Portu-
guese, embarked in British and Russian
vessels." He might have exclaimed-
Troies te miseri, ventis maria omnia vecti,
Oramus: prohibe infandos a navibus ignes,"
The attack on these refugees was as unjust
and as unprovoked a violation of the laws
of nations towards the subjects of a friendly
power, as could be met with in history.
When he had stated that he was not aware of
any act of aggression, bearing a semblance
to the one in question,having occurred for
upwards of a century and a half, he al-
luded of course to the attempted seizure
of the Dutch Smyrna fleet, within the port
of Bergen; but execrable as that act had
been to all posterity, this exceeded it in
atrocity; that was the act of a profligate
Sovereign, when the law of nations was yet
in its infancy-this was the act of the Ca-
binet of England, when the law of nations
was universally recognized and understood :
that was directed against an open and
avowed enemy-this was pointed against
an ancient ally, in a moment of extreme
difficulty and distress. It was a painful
consideration connected with this matter,
that the same individual should now be at
the head of the civil government of this
country, who, by a series of unparalleled
achievements in war, had liberated Por-
tugal from the tyranny of the ruler of
France. It was, he repeated, 'much to
be regretted, that history should have to
record that the same individual, when
placed at the head of the civil government
of England, sanctioned an act of insult
and outrage against the same Portugal;
which must ever be a blot upon the fair
fame of this country, and the most violent
breach of the laws of nations upon record.
It was much to be regretted that Great
Britain, who had on many occasions prided
herself on being the protector of the weak
and the defenceless, should on this occasion
have become their oppressor. For these
reasons, then, he should most certainly
give his vote for the Motion of his right
hon. friend, for he thought such a case
had been made out as fully entitled him to
support.
Mr. Harrison Battley would oppose


JCOMMONSJ


Terceira. 152








the Motion, for he believed that the con- that Princess. But the Government of
duct of Government was in perfect accord- this country was perfectly warranted in
ance with the law of nations, and that it requiring that body of men to disperse
would have betrayed the trust reposed in throughout the country; and it was also
it had it pursued a different course, perfectly warranted, on finding that they
Mr. Courtenay said, that the arguments were going to Terceira, in resisting the
of his right hon. friend, and also of his wrong attempted on that occasion. The
learned friend, had failed to convince him right hon. Mover had said, that the present
that the conduct of the Government had was an act of hostility without notice, and
been contrary to the laws of nations, and had so been considered by all. The reason
he was sure that those who supported an why declarations of war were unusual in
opposite view would find it difficult to modern times on the part of this country
extract from the papers on the Table the was, that England seldom went to war
materials to warrant such a conclusion, except for the purpose of defending itself
He contended that the principle of neu- from aggression, therefore notice in such
trality was not new to the present Govern- cases was not required. The case on the
ment; the Government of Mr. Canning part of the refugees was a violation of the
had acted upon it; and the present law of nations, and he believed that no
Administration had only copied it from man, impartial and informed upon the
his. In support of that assertion, he subject, could doubt that it was the duty
could quote from numberless speeches of of this country to prevent it. He was
that right hon. Gentleman to show that perfectly willing to admit, that what had
such had been the principle upon which happened at Terceira was an untoward
his government had acted. There could event, but on the whole, Government
be no doubt that this country was in a could not avoid taking the course which
state of the most perfect neutrality; and it had done. England had maintained
he put it to the House whether it would the position which her honour and her
not be the grossest breach of that neu- interests required, and throughout the
trality, and of the law of nations, as re- whole of his foreign policy it was his opi-
spected the conduct of neutrals, for this nion, that the Duke of Wellington was but
country to allow any one of the bellige- following the footsteps of Mr. Canning.
rents to fit out here an expedition, for the Mr. Horace Twiss:-I hope, Sir, that
purpose of carrying on hostilities-if that the House will grant me its indulgence if,
were not a breach of neutrality, he con- in the silence of others who would be
fessed he was incapable of understanding more competent than I am to the state-
wherein that breach could consist. The ment of this case, I endeavour to lay
forces were in this country; they were before them an outline of the facts on
about to embark, for the purposes of which the vindication of the Government
attack or relief, or the invasion of some part rests. On the 15th of October, 1828, it
of the disputed territory; were they then was requested by the Marquis Barbacena,
at liberty to make this country a port from that the Portuguese refugees, who are the
which to embark that which could not be subjects of this Motion, should proceed to
called otherwise than a warlike expedi- the Azores under a British convoy. The
tion? It had been his chance to observe, language he uses in this application is
as individuals, many of the persons extremely different from that of his par-
composing that expedition; he had like- liamentary advocates. He does not pray
wise viewed them as a body, and a that the suffering individuals-the scatter-
more complete corps of men he had ed wanderers of the Queen's followers,
never seen. They could therefore be who were sojourners here, might be for-
considered in no other light than as warded, after all their troubles, to a refuge
soldiers calculated to effect military ob- and peaceful home in the little Archipe-
jects. It was justly and naturally that lago of the Azores; but he plainly ac-
the Marquis Palmella attached import- quaints the Duke of Wellington, that the
ance to their remaining at Plymouth in Secretary of the government of the Azores
a collected form, as calculated to give is come to London, authorised to demand
encouragement to the party of Donna with the greatest urgency, the immediate
Maria; while, on the other hand, he despatch of a part of the faithful Portu-
regarded their dispersion as likely to bring guese troops, whose presence in the above-
despair and dismay among the friends of mentioned islands would ensure their


{APRIL 28}


Terceira. 154


153 Affair at







Terceira. 156


defence, as well as their tranquillity,
against the attack menaced by the illegi-
timate government of Portugal. He goes
on to declare, that these succours-for so
he describes them (ces secours)-when
once landed at Terceira, will be sufficient
to put that island out of danger: he
states that the succour is not to be landed
in the event of the Island having fallen
under the aggression threatened. The
question, therefore, he says, is not of an
hostile undertaking, but simply of a
measure of defence. Sir, the only island
of the Azores which was ever pretended
to be in the possession of Donna Maria
at the time when the Marquis Barba-
cena wrote, was Terceira; the other
islands were under the dominion of Don
Miguel: and it was known to the British
Government, that a quantity of English
arms and ammunition, shipped from this
country by the Brazilian minister in the
previous August, for which he had ob-
tained a license from the Crown, under
an assurance that they were not to be used
in the civil dissensions either of Portugal
or of its dependencies, and consequently,
not in the contests at the Azores, which
form part of those dependencies,-had
nevertheless been sent to Terceira. In
this state of things it was obvious, that if
the Portuguese, then at Plymouth set sail
from England to Terceira, there to take up
and use those arms and this ammunition,
either for the purpose of capturing those
of the Azores which were in Don Miguel's
possession, or for the purpose of rein-
forcing Terceira against the descent with
which the Marquis Barbacena states Don
Miguel was then threatening that island,
the Portuguese so sailing from Plymouth
to Terceira were neithermore nor less than
troops leaving England for purposes of
hostility between Donna Maria and another
Sovereign, with neither of whom we were
at war. No, say the Marquises Palmella
and Barbacena, not for the purposes of
hostility, but only for purposes of defence.
But what do you, the Portuguese, your-
selves allege as the objects of your expe-
dition? Why, one of those objects, as
you state them, is to secure the tranquility
of the Azores in general under Donna
Maria's government, which you entitle
generally the government, not of Terceira
only, but of the Azores. Why, then, as
the Azores in general were at that time in
the possession of Don Miguel, it is clear,
on your own shewing, that so far as the


Azores in general were concerned, you
meditated an actual attack; for before
you could govern and tranquillize, you
had to capture them. But suppose you
had made no claim on any one of the
Azores, except Terceira,-suppose your
only object had been to throw a reinforce-
ment into that one place, for its defence
against the threatened invasion of Miguel,
how could that have warranted England
in allowing your expedition to go forth
from her shores ? What substance is there,
as far as the duty of the neutral is con-
cerned, in the nice distinctions which the
Marquises de Barbacena and Palmella seek
to draw, between the defensive and offen-
sive hostility of the belligerents ? If you
may not allow troops to reinforce the
besieger, on what principle can you allow
them to reinforce the besieged ? If you
could not have forwarded a body of
soldiers to assist the expedition of Don
Miguel against Terceira, on what princi-
ple could you forward troops and ammu-
nition to assist Terceira against Don
Miguel ? The spirit and object of that
law of nations which we are now consi-
dering, are to preclude, by a strict impar-
tiality, all cause of umbrage to either
belligerent, and prevent the unnecessary
spread of war among the states which
may be contiguous to the theatre of it;
and it would be therefore an extraordinary
perversion indeed of the true intent, if a
neutral state were at liberty to cavil upon
words, in the manner contended for by
the Marquises de Barbacena and Palmella,
and to assume the rightof authorizing all
hostility against an obnoxious belligerent
which did not bear the form of actual
aggression, Consider too the difficulty-
nay, the impossibility of discriminating,
in a vast variety of cases, what measures
of war are offensive, aad what defensive.
The party which was retreating yesterday
may be advancing to-day-the garrison
which, when the succours went out to its
aid, was struggling for existence in the
citadel of a blockaded town, may, before
those succours can arrive, be the van of
a victorious army; nay, the spot on which
the contest is carried on, as in the instance
of this very Terceira, may change its
masters from time to time, so that the
reinforcement, for example, which Donna
Maria may have sought in the last week
for defending her possession, may have
been wanting by her, in the next week,
for attacking and recovering it. How


155 Affair at


{COMMONS}







Terceira. 158


frequent, in a few short months, were the
vicissitudes of the government of Terceira?
In the early part of 1828, the sovereignty
belonged to the Brazilian family. In
May a rising had taken place in favour
of Don Miguel, and a part of the inhabit-
ants had embraced his cause. In June
a counter-revolution took place, the ring-
leaders of Don Miguel's party were
arrested, and the Brazilian family again
proclaimed. In September, by the influ-
ence of the priests, another revolt was
stirred up. These insurgents again were
afterwards suppressed: and in the begin-
ning of December, the Brazilian interest
was once more successful, and Donna
Maria proclaimed as Queen. This is the
island, of which we are told, that at the
time of the expedition it was, and that
for a great length of time theretofore it
had been, in the uninterrupted possession
of Donna Maria, or of her father, the
Emperor of Brazil. Why, Sir, if the
troops had gone from England early
enough to arrive at Terceira in May, they
would have been wanted for a purpose of
attack, to quell the force of Don Miguel's
friends. If they had arrived in the begin-
ning of September, they would have been
wanted for a purpose of defence, to prevent
the revolt under the priests. If it had
been late in September before they
arrived, they would have been wanted
again for a purpose of attack to reduce
that revolt. If they could have been
landed later still, when that revolt was
already put down, they would have been
wanted for a purpose of defence, to pro-
tect the government of Donna Maria
against the threatened invasion of Don
Miguel. Can any thing more clearly
expose the fallacy of the assumed dis-
tinction between allowing an expedition
to go from your coast for the purpose of
attack, and allowing it to go for the pur-
pose of defence? Suppose that in a war
between France and England the French
had possessed themselves of Ireland, and
that after they had held it for a little
while, this country were making an effort
to regain it, but that Spain, a neutral
country, should allow the French to fit
out an armament from Ferrol, for the
defence of their Irish possession against
the English attempt to recapture it, should
we think it a sufficient excuse in neutral
Spain that the object of the French was
merely defensive? Now, Sir, I beg my
right hon. friend to pause a moment upon


the letter of the Marquis Barbacena,
and to ask himself what course it behoved
the government of a neutral country like
ours to take, on receiving this undisguised
intimation that a body of Portuguese
troops was about to set sail from our
shores for the purpose of throwing succours,
that is, reinforcements, into a station
occupied by one of the belligerents, and
threatened with an attack by the other.
Not merely to consider whether Don
Miguel, by whom this attack had been so
threatened, was estimable as a monarch,
or popular in this country as a man ; not
to consider by what connivance we might
favour Donna Maria, without actually
breaking the letter of our obligations as
against Don Miguel, but the manly course
which it became the Government of a great
country like England to take and abide
by, was that of preserving the spirit as
well as the forms of neutrality; to deal,
in the instance of Donna Maria's troops,
the same measure which she would have
dealt if the Portuguese at Plymouth had
been the adherents of Don Miguel: for,
to talk about the righteous cause of the
one party, or the usurpations and vices of
the other party, in a contest where you
profess neutrality,-to assume the dignity
and independence of being neutral, and
yet lack the integrity to be impartial, this,
Sir, may be a captivating and popular
morality with those who love better to be
liberal than just-but can never be the
policy of a nation that has, or hopes to
have, a character for public faith. I am
sure it would not have been the policy of
my right hon. friend. Now, Mr. Speaker,
let us suppose for a moment, that instead
of their being the body destined by Donna
Maria's party for the defence of Terceira,
the troops at Plymouth had been the body
destined by Don Miguel for the attack on
that island, what would my right hon.
friend then have said was the duty of a
government bearing a neutral character ?
-to say one thing and connive at another?
-to tell those Miguelites, in set language,
that they must not start an expedition
against Donna Maria from England, yet
allow them in fact to send their forces
against her by English Transports from
Plymouth ?-to take no note of the arms
already lodged, under circumstances of
deceit, at Terceira, and to presume that
the soldiers who were going out unarmed
to the place where those arms had pre-
ceded them, would religiously abstain


{APRIL 28}


Ajair at







159 Affair at


from employing a single gun ? Was this
the line which, if the refugees had been
the partisans of Don Miguel, my right
hon. friend would have had the Govern-
ment adopt? And if such acquiescence
on the part of our neutral Government
would have been intolerable in favour of
Don Miguel, whose cause is unpopular,
would it have been allowable in favour of
Donna Maria, because our wishes may be
on her side? Sir, the House will give me
leave to observe, that the language of the
Marquis de Barbacena's letter is very
important in this discussion; because
that letter, being written before the ob-
jections of the British Government were
expressed, is unentangled with any sophis-
tries for colouring or concealing from the
King's Ministers the real object, but plain-
ly tells the Duke of Wellington, that the
Secretary to Donna Maria's government
at the Azores is come to desire that a
body of Portuguese troops may be sent
from England to those islands, for the
purpose of defending the young Queen's
interests there against an expected attack
from her adversary Don Miguel. Here
then was an expedition (for so in substance
it must be considered) preparing to set
sail in English transports, from an
English harbour; to employ arms
bought on English ground, in reinforcing
the hostilities of one of two belligerents
against the other, with neither of whom
England was at war. Thus far on this
state of facts, the course of England
was the clearest that can be conceived;
and it was taken and announced by the
Duke of Wellington with his usual promp-
titude and fairness. He wrote to the
Marquis Barbacena, and told him
that the Portuguese in England could
not be recognized as troops, but only
as individuals; and that any of them,
meaning to retain the character of
troops, must quit the country without loss
of time. Upon the same established
principle, of forbidding the use of the
neutral territory for the purpose of re-
cruiting the military strength of one belli-
gerent against the other, the Duke pro-
ceeds to inform the Marquis Barbacena,
that the Portuguese, if they go to the
Azores from England, must go as private
individuals, and not as an expedition;
since his Majesty cannot allow England to
be made an arsenal, whence foreigners
may carry on their wars ; and still less, he
adds, can the British navy be permitted to


give safety to such expeditions by its
convoy. Finding, however, after the lapse
of more than four months from the date of
this intimation, that no step was yet taken
towards the removal of the Portuguese, the
Duke of Wellington acquainted the Mar-
quis Palmella, under whose direction they
were, that all their military must quit
Plymouth, where they were then assem-
bled, and disperse themselves as indivi-
duals through other towns and villages.
Against the right which England had, as a
neutral state, to direct the dispersion of
the military part of this Portuguese assem-
blage, no valid objection was offered, or
could have been attempted by the Marquis
Palmella: that experienced statesman was
too well acquainted with international law,
and the duties of neutrals, to state so un-
tenable a proposition. Now, Sir, except
the illicit conveyance of arms to Terceira,
under a license obtained through an assur-
ance that they were not to be so employed,
nothing had occurred until some days after
the time when the order for dispersion was
given, which could reasonably be com-
plained of, either by the British Govern-
ment or by the Portuguese. The Marquis
Barbacena's object in sending the troops
to Terceira, which he explicitly avowed,
was no doubt a fair one for him to attempt,
if he could persuade the British Govern-
ment to allow it; and the objection of
the British Government against so allow-
ing it, was equally fair and plain on their
part. The subsequent communications
and movements, which were conducted by
the Marquis Palmella, were of a much
more artful kind; and though I shall not
take the liberty to pronounce whether the
address, which was exercised by that very
skilful negotiator, went beyond the limits
which the rules of diplomacy allow to a
statesman, who has an important point to
carry for his Sovereign ; yet, if it shall be
made to appear, as to me I own it does
appear, from the papers and facts before
us, that the Marquis Palmella, from
the time when he commenced his cor-
respondence on this subject, was endea-
vouring, by a series of stratagems, how-
ever venial they may be deemed in such
affairs, to mislead and outwit the Govern-
ment of England, that he might slip the
Portuguese reinforcements into the island
of Terceira, I do apprehend that the
House will hardly think the Government
of England to blame for not allowing this
contrivance and artifice to achieve what


COMMONS }


Terceira. 160







161 Affair at


they had conscientiously refused to a frank
application. Nor can I attach any weight
to the charge which my right hon. friend
has made against the Government, of
cruelty in taxing the Marquis Palmella
with bad faith ; for if, in the debates which
have recently taken place on this subject,
they have spoken openly of the Marquis's
conduct, it has by no means been a gra-
tuitous censure, but was demanded of
them for their own vindication against
motives of censure, which have been aimed
at them by the advocates of that nobleman
himself. Sir, on learning the intention of
his Majesty's Government to disperse the
assembled troops at Plymouth, the Mar-
quis Palmella, in a personal interview, ac-
quainted the Duke of Wellington that the
troops, rather than acquiesce in that dis-
persion, would leave England entirely, and
betake themselves to Brazil. The an-
nouncement of such a resolution as this,
when coupled with the statement before
made by the Marquis Barbacena, that
these troops were wanted at the Azores,
made it natural to doubt whether the
Azores were not still their real aim, though
their nominal destination was Brazil, espe-
cially when it was remembered that the
arms and ammunition, for which a license
had been taken out by the Brazilian mi-
nister, on the assurance that they were not
intended for the civil wars between the
claimants of the Crown of Portugal, had
in fact been conveyed to Terceira. It was
natural, I say, to apprehend that the
stratagem which had been practised about
the destination of the arms, might be re-
peated about the destination of the troops:
and against this it behoved a neutral
government to guard. Accordingly the
Duke of Wellington said to the Marquis
Palmella, your troops are free to set sail
from England, bond fide, for the Brazils:
but to any of the colonies of Portugal, as
for example, to the Azores, we cannot
permit any military force to proceed from
our coast. If, therefore, these refugees
were to go to the Azores at all, they must
go as private individuals, and not as an
officered, organized body. The Marquis
Palmella then asked some protection
for these people of his on their voyage to
Brazil. He stated that he wished merely
for a verbal guarantee from the British
Government for their safety; but this the
British Government declined, on the
ground that a mere verbal guarantee, if
Don Miguel should be inclined to disregard
VOL. XXIV.


it, and attack these unprotected Portu-
guese on their voyage, might implicate this
country with that Prince; but they ex-
pressed their willingness, in order to effect
the safe transmission of the refugees to
the Brazils, that the British navy should
give to these strangers, when thus peace-
ably proceeding to their home, that convoy
which it had been found necessary to re-
fuse them when seeking to reinforce a
belligerent party at the Azores; a substan-
tial protection, which it was not very likely
that Don Miguel would violate. England
was certainly not bound to offer this con-
voy, although it may seem to have been a
reasonable protection on her part to the
Portuguese, against the dangers of a
voyage, which she had in some measure
compelled, by her refusal to allow their
continuance in England in their accustomed
capacity of troops. Perhaps even in
strictness such a convoy was a favour to
the Marquis Palmella's people, of which
Don Miguel might be entitled to complain,
as depriving him of the power to intercept
those troops in their way to the Brazils;
but would any one have imagined that the
objection to it would come from the
Marquis Palmella? Yet he did object;
and why? Because, alleged he, it would
look as if England were distrusting these
Portuguese, or expelling them by force
from her shelter. Surely, Sir, such ob-
jections were very far fetched ; so far in-
deed that it is impossible to avoid suspect-
ing that they could be only colourable.
This part of the case the more particularly
deserves attention, because my right hon.
friend has dwelt on the request of convoy,
on the former occasion, by the Marquis
Barbacena, as a proof of good faith in the
Portuguese. I believe there is not a man
in Europe who would not have said, on
hearing of such a convoy as was offered
by the Duke to the Marquis Palmiella,
that instead of looking like hostility to the
cause of the Portuguese, it looked, on the
contrary not a little like partiality to that
cause-like favour to Donna Maria's ob-
jects, and hostility to the objects of Don
Miguel. What interest, then, it may be
asked, could the Marquis Palmella be
supposed to have in declining so valuable
an assistance? Why, Sir, this interest;
that his party being destined only in name
for the Brazils, but in reality for the
Azores, would not have found it at all
convenient to be accompanied by a British
force, which would see to the due fulfil-
G


Te~cird.162


{APRIL 28}







163 Afair at


ment of their voyage to the Brazils, and
prevent their shipping any of their soldiers
into the harbour of Terceira. The convoy
was accordingly declined by the Marquis
Palmella in a letter dated the 3rd of
December; but the Duke of Wellington
having two or three days afterwards learned
that more troops had been enlisted in
foreign countries for Donna Maria's cause,
and ordered to Plymouth, and in a few
days more, that an officer, General Stubbs,
had taken the military command of the
Portuguese troops, who were still lingering
in the d6p6t at Plymouth, deemed it ne-
cessary to send directions to Captain
Walpole, of his Majesty's ship Ranger, to
prevent the landing of the troops at any
of the western islands. These orders were
issued from the Admiralty on the 12th of
December, and on the very same day the
Duke of Wellington unequivocally ac-
quainted the Marquis Palmella, that his
Majesty had been advised to give orders
for effectual measures, to prevent any
attack upon the Portuguese dominions in
Europe, by any of these troops. The
Marquis Palmella must have perceived
upon this, that notwithstanding the address
with which he had eluded the incumbrance
of a convoy, all hope of getting his forces
at all safely or openly into the harbour of
Terceira was effectually cut off, unless
some new stratagem could be devised to
lull the Government of England into a
permission for their transit to the Azores.
On the 20th of December, therefore, he
writes to the Duke of Wellington, and
tells him that, by fresh advices which he
had then just received, he finds Terceira
is tranquil, and entirely under Donna
Maria's government; and this state of
things opens a new prospect; and that the
refugees propose, therefore, to sail unarmed
for Terceira, which as their lawful Queen
is recognized there, is in fact, he says, to
return to their own home; and by way of
shewing that this is really anew resolution
produced by the new state of affairs, and
not a mere revival of the old proposal
under a new pretence, he encloses an
address of certain loyal Terceirans to
Donna Maria. The question then is, which
supposition is the probable one? Was
this a mere pretext to get permission for
the renewal of the old design of sending
out reinforcements to Terceira, or was it
bondfide a proposal for the departure of
unarmed men to a place which was really
the undisputed territory of their Queen,


and which they meant, therefore, to adopt
as their home ? Sir, I will not pretend to
define precisely what period of uninter-
rupted peace should have elapsed, before
a place long agitated and divided by fierce
combatants, might be deemed to have sub-
sided into repose; but really on the most
liberal construction, it is too much to talk
of Terceira as being an undisputed posses-
sion of Donna Maria, as being a place to
which her subjects, or any subject of Por-
tugal, could possibly dream of going, with
a view to obtain a home or a refuge from
war. Not only was it a dependency
belonging to the Crown of Portugal,
which Crown was at that moment defacto
on another's brow-not only was it one
of a cluster of islands of which all except
itself were in the allegiance of Don Miguel,
but even in this very .Terceira itself, the
ascendancy had been shifting between the
partizans of Donna Maria and of Don
Miguel, not less than five times within the
compass of that very year. The Marquis
Barbacena, in his letter of the 15th of
October, had spoken of the danger in
which that island then was; a danger so
pressing that the partizans of the Queen
seem to have felt that they could not in-
sure the defence without the troops, which
the Secretary therefore demanded, as the
Marquis Barbacena states it, with the
greatest urgency. The Marquis Pal-
mella, in the very letter which proposes
this return of his people as to their home,
speaks of the tranquillity of Terceira as a
new prospect opened to him by the intel-
ligence then lately received by him; thus
admitting expressly that until the arrival
of these last news, no nearer spot than
Brazil appeared to him to be capable of
affording them an asylum; and what then
was the favourable settlement of affairs
from which the Marquis Palmella in-
ferred that the sovereignty of his Queen
was now secure? Captain Walpole, who
arrived on the 13th of December, found
that Angra indeed was possessed by the
Queen's party, but that the country at
large was principally in the possession of a
Guerilla force, favourable to the govern-
ment of Don Miguel. But what says the
Marquis Palmella's own intelligence?
What says that address of certain loyal
Terceirans to the Queen, which he trans-
mits to the Duke, as the sole voucher for
his statement? Does it inform her Ma-
jesty that all is settled there, that war, and
discord, and discontent are no more-that


f COMMONS)


TSerceira. 164








Terceira. 166


the minds of all the inhabitants of Terceira
are united in her favour ? No; it solicits
her to accept the hearts of a number of
warriors, who defend her rights under a
provisional government, and then gives her
this very cordial, but certainly not very
quieting assurance against her enemies-
" To day, covered with the royal oegis of
your Majesty, and determined to enter into
no compromise with them, nothing but the
death of the last of us shall be capable of
opening a passage to them for the com-
pletion of their triumph." Surely, Sir, in
the face of such a document as this--to
say nothing of Captain Walpole's report
-the allegation that Terceira was a tran-
quil spot, inviting by its peaceful attrac-
tions the long-wearied wanderers of Por-
tugal, as to a resting-place and a home,
was one which a statesman of the Marquis
Palmella's sagacity could hardly expect
the Government to believe. But accord-
ing to the Marquis Palmella, the Portu-
guese at Plymouth were now no longer to
proceed in the character of an armament;
they were no longer called troops as the
Marquis Barbacena had called them;
the Marquis Palmella had more adroitly
denominated them refugees, and urged
that they were to leave England unarmed.
Why, Sir, it is a mere quibble to allege
that the expedition was less an armament,
because the arms had been sent on before;
it would matter nothing whether the sol-
diers went with their arms or to their arms,
if at the end of the voyage the arms were
to come into the soldiers' hands. It is no
more than if the arms had come in a dif-
ferent vessel of the flotilla. "But how were
they to get the arms" says my right hon.
friend, "if this expedition of their's was a
hostile one against the island where those
arms were deposited ? Were they to begin
by forcing the arms from their enemies,
that they might afterwards conquer those
enemies with them?" By no means: for
though the island at large was in the in-
terest of their enemies, my right. hon.
friend forgets that Angra, the place where
the arms were secured, was in the posses-
sion of their own partizans. But they
were not to go out as troops; they were
to go only as refugees returning home-
that must mean, if it is to mean anything,
as individual and private men; as civil,
and not as military persons. Indeed
Why what had happened so suddenly to
change their character? In October,
when "the Marquis Barbacena wrote,


they had borne the title of troops. Had
they since been disbanded? Had the
order been executed for their dispersion
into other towns ? Had the military d6p6t
at Plymouth been broken up ? Had the
command of their officers ceased ? Had
their pay been discontinued? Had they
been released from the superintendance of
Donna Maria's minister, and committed
each man to his own individual discretion
in his future movements, either to remain
in the service of their Queen, or to retire
from it? Such circumstances as these
would have been evidence, no doubt, that
the parties were now no more than private
individuals, but not one of these circum-
stances had occurred. They were still
commanded by their officers, still quartered
in their accustomed d6p6t, still regulated
by the Marquis Palmella, as agent for
the young Queen, still provided through
his hands with military pay, still directed
by him in the destination they were to
take. There was no one characteristic of
soldiers in a Sovereign's service which did
not fully exist in the case of these troops.
Does my right hon. friend think that the
emigrants to Canada and Swan River, to
whom he likens these passengers, go out
with military officers, and military disci-
pline, and military pay? or is there the
least resemblance in the purposes or in the
preparations of the peaceful and of the
warlike enterprise? The Duke of Wel-
lington therefore instantly acquainted the
Marquis Palmella, "That his Majesty was
not to be deceived as to the real intention
of the proposed voyage to Terceira, and
that Government had taken measures to
prevent these troops from proceeding in a
hostile character from England to any part
of the dominions or colonies of Portugal."
This was the second distinct notification
which the Government of Great Britain
had given to the Marquis Palmella; and
it might have been reasonably expected,
that after the hospitable reception and the
long protection which his people had re-
ceived from England, he would have felt
it incumbent on him to abstain from the
further prosecution of a design, which he
found to be regarded as a breach of the
obligations due from him to this country.
But he still made n6 change in his arrange-
ments. He gained some further time by
another elaborate and ingenious argument
in vindication of his own views; and the
Duke of Wellington answered him by
another distinct notification in these words:
G2


{APRiLr 28}







.Terceira. 168


-" There can be no doubt in the mind of
any man acquainted with the circum-
stances, of the object in view in sending
these troops to Terceira; and I repeat to
you, that they will not be allowed to land
there." Now comes the termination of
the Marquis Palmella's correspondence.
He replies, that the determination so an-
nounced gives him great pain (as if hehad
not been acquainted with it by the Duke's
preceding letters of the 12th and 23rd),
but he flatters himself that at the moment
of his writing, there will have sailed for
Terceira four transports, to which it will
be too late for him then to send fresh
orders. So that in spite of the repeated
and distinct prohibition of the British
Sovereign, and in breach of the express
conditions which, in the exercise of his
undoubted right, he had annexed to his
protection of these strangers, all the
arrangements for the voyage to Terceira
had been going on; and at the last
moment, when the Marquis Palmella felt
assured that it was too late to detain them
in the British seas, and that he might,
therefore, very safely throw aside even the
shew of respect for the requisition of
England, then he slipped the cables of
his vessels, with their complements of
troops shipped on board for Terceira, re-
gularly organized and officered, and kept
in pay, having first increased their force
by engaging an auxiliary body of German
soldiers to accompany the expedition from
Plymouth to the Azores. My right hon.
friend complains, that we enforced our
prohibition of entering Terceira against
these Germans, who were not fitted out in
England, as well as against the Portuguese
who were; but I answer, that if a set of
persons with whom,in their separate charac-
ter, we should have had no title to interfere,
think fit to make themselves a part of an
expedition against which our interference
is lawful, they must bear the consequences
of their own act, and submit to be treated
as members of the body with which they
have associated themselves. Sir, the
better to cover the departure of these four
transports for Terceira, a set of clearances
had been provided them, made out for
other parts of the globe; in order that, if
a direction should have been issued by the
British Government to stop all vessels
bound for Terceira, these transports might
evade that embargo. There were still
some other transports which were not
ready quite so soon as the first four, and


with respect to such of these as required
concealment, the same system of false
clearances was pursued. Three of them,
having but 103 passengers on board, clear-
ed out, avowedly for Terceira: so small
a number of persons distributed into three
ships, being likely enough to escape detec-
tion; but another left England with six
brass eighteen pounders and carriages
complete; another with eighteen pieces of
cannon and ammunition; another with
315 troops, including thirty officers; and
so on: and when these arrived at Ter-
ceira, it was found that they had left Eng-
land with clearances for Bahia, Virginia,
and other places. Now, Sir, on these
facts the question is, whether the British
Government, having a right (as I think it
has been shewn they clearly had) to pre-
vent the transit of this expedition to Ter-
ceira, were guilty of any abuse in the exer-
cise of that right. It is said, that if
Government were right in their view of
the facts, they should have taken their
remedy by stopping the ships at Plymouth,
and not in the Atlantic. Sir, I think I
can shew satisfactorily, that if both reme-
dies had been equally practicable, we
should have been as fully justified in se-
lecting the one as the other ; but in fact,
the remedy of detaining the vessels here
was not left so much within our power as
the argument on the other side would re-
present it. So long as the Marquis Pal-
mella continued his correspondence upon
the subject, pressing the British Govern-
ment to withdraw its opposition, so long
it was impossible for the British Govern-
ment to infer that he intended at all events,
to deny that opposition, especially when
he fully understood that his troops would
not be suffered to land at Terceira. If it
had been intended to deal fairly with Eng-
land, these strangers, who were under
such great obligations to her for her sup-
port, should, at least, have distinctly ap-
prised her that whether she deemed their
purpose to be lawful or not, whether she
opposed its execution or not, they intend-
ed in every case to fulfil it. If they meant
to be ungrateful, at least they should have
been explicit. But for the Marquis Pal-
mella to go on discussing, and arguing,
and gaining time, by repeated corre-
spondence, and never to communicate the
eventual intent, until he had reached the
period when, as he himself says to the
D)qke, it was too late to send fresh orders
to the ~hips,-this was to deprive us of the


ICOMMONSI


167 Affair at








169 Affair at


opportunity for effecting the detention in
port, which is recommended as the legiti-
mate course, until the period was past for
attenptingit. The remedy,therefore, which
the Portuguese thus uniformly prevented
England from taking against them in Ply-
mouth Sound, their own evasl-a warranted
her, even if she had not been otherwise
well warranted, in taking upon the Atlantic
Ocean ; for surely, if a neutral state may,
in the first instance, stop a belligerent,
who is making his outfit openly, it will not
be maintained that she is precluded from
stopping him afterwards because he has
contrived to do the same thing clandestinely
and unfairly. My right hon. friend talks
about the law of nations as if it lay in a
statute-book, where the rule must be the
written text, to the word, and the very
letter ; but even a written statute, when it
is remedial, is construed liberally to ad-
vance the remedy, not strictly to confine
it; and really when so much has been said
about the importance of the present ques-
tion to the rights of all the States of
Europe, it is due to that whole interna-
tional community, that we should look to
the spirit and object of the law of nations
upon this subject, and not merely to the
letter of text-books and decided cases,
even if texts and decided cases were to be
found. The neutral state in those matters
has a duty to the adverse belligerents;
and if the expedition have, by artifice,
evaded the determination announced by
the neutral of detaining it, then unless she
be at liberty to follow it to sea, there is no
remedy against that expedition at all, and
the adverse belligerent sustains a damage
of which the neutral is unfairly made the
instrument. If the neutral willingly con-
nived at the damage, the belligerent so in-
jured has no remedy but a war against
such injurious neutral. But it is precisely
to prevent neutral States from being ab-
sorbed into the vortex of an existing war,
that the rule of their conduct has been
prescribed by the law of nations, and if
they mean to take the benefits and immu-
nities of that rule, they must also be strict
in their fulfilment of its obligation. If
we, the neutral power, had really been
from the beginning unsuspicious of the
intention to enter Terceira, no doubt we
should have been absolved, as against Don
Miguel, by the plea, that we were uncon-
scious of any purpose injurious to him ; but
that was not our case; we had entertained
the apprehension from the beginning, Don


I Miguel would have had a right to say to
us, while these troops lay at Plymouth
You have notice that they have it in
contemplation, if you will allow them, to
go and reinforce my enemies at Terceira;
I call on you, therefore, to take effectual
means to prevent their transit thither."
To this our answer would have been,
Perhaps, indeed, you have strictly a right
to require that, after what the Portuguese
have said, through the Marquis Palmella,
we shall put an embargo upon their ships;
but really, while he is only arguing the
question with us, whether we are fairly
entitled to detain his people, when they
are only urging us to withdraw our prohi-
bition, and have not given us the slightest
hint, that if we persevere in our refusal,
they will execute this project in contempt
of us, their protectors-it would be too
strong a measure for us to put an actual
forcible detainer upon them, because we
suspect a possible bad faith on their part."
If we had been told in reply, that it was
a mere suspicion of bad faith which had
induced us, while yet Brazil was the alleged
destination, to send orders that Captain
Walpole should prevent the fraudulent
landing of the Brazilian-bound force at
Terceira, the plain answer is, "that those
orders were not to be executed except
upon proof, upon our suspicion being made
good by the event; but to act on the sus-
picion beforehand, to impose an actual
force in contemplation of contingent fraud,
that would be a course which we think,
under all the circumstances, we are bound,
in common forbearance and respect for the
Portuguese Minister and his Sovereign, to
abstain from adopting at present. More-
over we have reason to expect, that if we
persist, as we shall do, in refusing them
permission to enter Terceira, they will
recur to their original proposal of return-
ing to Brazil, a proposal which (avoiding
atonce the objection you have against their
going to Terceira, and the objection they
have against dispersing themselves through
Sour country towns,) it is on every account
our duty to promote, as being in the spirit
of a strict neutrality, but which we run
the risk of entirely frustrating if we lay an
embargo on the transports in our harbours.
But then, Sir, if forbearance was shewn
to the Portuguese in giving them credit
for some degree of fair intention, and in
therefore not imposing this embargo while
the Marquis Palmella was still pleading
against it, who was to pay the price of


{APRIL, 28}


Terceira. 170




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs