• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Errata
 March, 1824
 April, 1824
 May, 1824
 June, 1824
 Appendices
 Index to debates in the House of...
 Index to debates in the House of...
 Index of names - House of...
 Index of names - House of...














Group Title: Parliamentary debates (1820-1829)
Title: The parliamentary debates
ALL VOLUMES CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00073533/00011
 Material Information
Title: The parliamentary debates
Uniform Title: Parliamentary debates (1820-1829)
Physical Description: 20 v. : ; 25 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Great Britain -- Parliament
Hansard, T. C ( Thomas Curson ), 1776-1833
Publisher: Published under the superintendence of T.C. Hansard
Place of Publication: London
Publication Date: 1820-1829
 Subjects
Subject: Politics and government -- Periodicals -- Great Britain -- 1820-1830   ( lcsh )
 Notes
Dates or Sequential Designation: New ser., v. 1 (1820)-v. 20 (1829).
Numbering Peculiarities: Covers Mar. 1820-Feb./Mar. 1829.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00073533
Volume ID: VID00011
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 07655703
lccn - sn 85062629
 Related Items
Preceded by: Parliamentary debates for the year 1803 to the present time
Succeeded by: Hansard's parliamentary debates

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
    Errata
        Errata
    March, 1824
        Page 1-2
        House of Lords - Tuesday, March 30
            Page 1-2
            Page 3-4
            Page 5-6
        House of Commons - Tuesday, March 30
            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
            Page 31-32
            Page 33-34
        House of Commons - Wednesday, March 31
            Page 35-36
            Page 37-38
            Page 39-40
    April, 1824
        Page 41-42
        House of Commons - Thursday, April 1
            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
        House of Lords - Friday, April 2
            Page 67-68
            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
        House of Commons - Friday, April 2
            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
            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
        House of Commons - Monday, April 5
            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
        House of Lords - Tuesday, April 6
            Page 173-174
            Page 175-176
        House of Commons - Tuesday, April 6
            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
            Page 215-216
            Page 217-218
            Page 219-220
            Page 221-222
            Page 223-224
            Page 225-226
            Page 227-228
            Page 229-230
            Page 231-232
            Page 233-234
        House of Lords - Thursday, April 8
            Page 235-236
            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
        House of Commons - Thursday, April 8
            Page 281-282
            Page 283-284
            Page 285-286
            Page 287-288
            Page 289-290
            Page 291-292
            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
        House of Commons - Friday, April 9
            Page 319-320
            Page 321-322
            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 349-350
            Page 351-352
            Page 353-354
            Page 355-356
            Page 357-358
            Page 359-360
        House of Commons - Monday, April 12
            Page 361-362
            Page 363-364
            Page 365-366
            Page 367-368
            Page 369-370
            Page 371-372
            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 389-390
        House of Lords - Tuesday, April 13
            Page 391-392
        House of Commons - Tuesday, April 13
            Page 393-394
            Page 395-396
            Page 397-398
            Page 399-400
            Page 401-402
            Page 403-404
            Page 405-406
            Page 407-408
        House of Commons - Wednesday, April 14
            Page 409-410
            Page 411-412
        House of Commons - Thursday, April 15
            Page 413-414
            Page 415-416
            Page 417-418
    May, 1824
        Page 419-420
        House of Commons - Monday, May 3
            Page 419-420
            Page 421-422
            Page 423-424
            Page 425-426
            Page 427-428
            Page 429-430
            Page 431-432
        House of Lords - Tuesday, May 4
            Page 433-434
            Page 435-436
            Page 437-438
            Page 439-440
            Page 441-442
            Page 443-444
            Page 445-446
            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 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
        House of Commons - Wednesday, May 5
            Page 497-498
            Page 499-500
            Page 501-502
            Page 503-504
            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
        House of Lords - Thursday, May 6
            Page 527-528
            House of Commons - Thursday, May 6
                Page 527-528
                Page 529-530
                Page 531-532
                Page 533-534
                Page 535-536
                Page 537-538
                Page 539-540
                Page 541-542
                Page 543-544
                Page 545-546
                Page 547-548
                Page 549-550
                Page 551-552
                Page 553-554
                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
            House of Commons - Friday, May 7
                Page 587-588
                Page 589-590
                Page 591-592
                Page 593-594
                Page 595-596
                Page 597-598
                Page 599-600
                Page 601-602
            House of Commons - Monday, May 10
                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
            House of Lords - Tuesday, May 11
                Page 627-628
                Page 629-630
                Page 631-632
                Page 633-634
                Page 635-636
                Page 637-638
                Page 639-640
                Page 641-642
            House of Commons - Tuesday, May 11
                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
                Page 661-662
                Page 663-664
                Page 665-666
                Page 667-668
                Page 669-670
                Page 671-672
                Page 673-674
                Page 675-676
                Page 677-678
                Page 679-680
                Page 681-682
                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
                Page 707-708
                Page 709-710
                Page 711-712
                Page 713-714
                Page 715-716
                Page 717-718
                Page 719-720
                Page 721-722
        House of Commons - Tuesday, May 12
            Page 723-724
        House of Commons - Tuesday, May 13
            Page 725-726
            Page 727-728
            Page 729-730
            Page 731-732
            Page 733-734
            Page 735-736
            Page 737-738
            Page 739-740
            Page 741-742
            Page 743-744
            Page 745-746
            Page 747-748
        House of Lords - Friday, May 14
            Page 749-750
            Page 751-752
        House of Lords - Monday, May 17
            Page 753-754
        House of Commons - Monday, May 17
            Page 755-756
            Page 757-758
            Page 759-760
            Page 761-762
            Page 763-764
            Page 765-766
            Page 767-768
            Page 769-770
            Page 771-772
            Page 773-774
        House of Commons - Tuesday, May 18
            Page 775-776
            Page 777-778
            Page 779-780
            Page 781-782
            Page 783-784
            Page 785-786
            Page 787-788
        House of Lords - Friday, May 21
            Page 789-790
            Page 791-792
        House of Commons - Friday, May 21
            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 - Monday, May 24
            Page 815-816
            Page 817-818
            Page 819-820
            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
        House of Commons - Monday, May 24
            Page 841-842
            Page 843-844
            Page 845-846
            Page 847-848
            Page 849-850
            Page 851-852
            Page 853-854
        House of Lords - Tuesday, May 25
            Page 855-856
        House of Commons - Tuesday, May 25
            Page 857-858
            Page 859-860
            Page 861-862
            Page 863-864
            Page 865-866
            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
        House of Commons - Wednesday, May 26
            Page 899-900
        House of Commons - Thursday, May 27
            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 Commons - Friday, May 28
            Page 919-920
            Page 921-922
            Page 923-924
            Page 925-926
            Page 927-928
            Page 929-930
            Page 931-932
            Page 933-934
            Page 935-936
        House of Lords - Monday, May 31
            Page 937-938
            Page 939-940
        House of Commons - Monday, May 31
            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
    June, 1824
        Page 959-960
        House of Lords - Tuesday, June 1
            Page 959-960
        House of Commons - Thursday, June 1
            Page 959-960
            Page 961-962
            Page 963-964
            Page 965-966
            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 987-988
            Page 989-990
            Page 991-992
            Page 993-994
            Page 995-996
            Page 997-998
            Page 999-1000
            Page 1001-1002
            Page 1003-1004
            Page 1005-1006
            Page 1007-1008
            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
            Page 1063-1064
            Page 1065-1066
            Page 1067-1068
            Page 1069-1070
            Page 1071-1072
            Page 1073-1074
        House of Commons - Wednesday, June 2
            Page 1077-1078 (MULTIPLE)
            Page 1079-1080
            Page 1081-1082
            Page 1083-1084
            Page 1085-1086
        House of Lords - Wednesday, June 2
            Page 1075-1076
        House of Lords - Friday, June 4
            Page 1087-1088
        House of Commons - Friday, June 4
            Page 1089-1090
            Page 1091-1092
            Page 1093-1094
            Page 1095-1096
        House of Lords - Wednesday, June 9
            Page 1097-1098
        House of Lords - Thursday, June 10
            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
            Page 1117-1118
            Page 1119-1120
            Page 1121-1122
            Page 1123-1124
            Page 1125-1126
            Page 1127-1128
            Page 1129-1130
            Page 1131-1132
            Page 1133-1134
            Page 1135-1136
            Page 1137-1138
            Page 1139-1140
            Page 1141-1142
            Page 1143-1144
            Page 1145-1146
            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
        House of Commons - Thursday, June 10
            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
            Page 1189-1190
            Page 1191-1192
            Page 1193-1194
            Page 1195-1196
            Page 1197-1198
        House of Lords - Friday, June 11
            Page 1199-1200
        House of Commons - Friday, June 11
            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
            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
        House of Lords - Monday, June 14
            Page 1315-1316
        House of Commons - Monday, June 14
            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
        House of Lords - Tuesday, June 15
            Page 1337-1338
        House of Commons - Tuesday, June 15
            Page 1339-1340
            Page 1341-1342
            Page 1343-1344
            Page 1345-1346
            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
            Page 1401-1402
            Page 1403-1404
            Page 1405-1406
            Page 1407-1408
            Page 1409-1410
            Page 1411-1412
            Page 1413-1414
            Page 1415-1416
            Page 1417-1418
            Page 1419-1420
            Page 1421-1422
            Page 1423-1424
            Page 1425-1426
        House of Lords - Wednesday, June 16
            Page 1427-1428
        House of Lords - Thursday, June 17
            Page 1429-1430
            Page 1431-1432
            Page 1433-1434
            Page 1435-1436
            Page 1437-1438
            Page 1439-1440
            Page 1441-1442
            Page 1443-1444
            Page 1445-1446
            Page 1447-1448
            Page 1449-1450
            Page 1451-1452
        House of Lords - Friday, June 18
            Page 1453-1454
            Page 1455-1456
        House of Commons - Friday, June 18
            Page 1457-1458
            Page 1459-1460
            Page 1461-1462
            Page 1463-1464
            Page 1465-1466
            Page 1467-1468
        House of Lords - Saturday, June 18
            Page 1469-1470
        House of Lords - Monday, June 21
            Page 1469-1470
            Page 1471-1472
        House of Commons - Monday, June 21
            Page 1473-1474
            Page 1475-1476
        House of Lords - Wednesday, June 23
            Page 1477-1478
        House of Lords - Thursday, June 24
            Page 1479-1480
            Page 1481-1482
            Page 1483-1484
            Page 1485-1486
            Page 1487-1488
            Page 1489-1490
            Page 1491-1492
        House of Commons - Thursday, June 24
            Page 1493-1494
            Page 1495-1496
            Page 1497-1498
            Page 1499-1500
            Page 1501-1502
            Page 1503-1504
        House of Lords - Friday, June 25
            Page 1505-1506
            Page 1507-1508
            Page 1509-1510
            Page 1511-1512
    Appendices
        Page i
        Public income
            Page ii
            Page iii
            Page iv
            Page v
            Page vi
            Page vii
        Public expenditure
            Page viii
            Page ix
            Page x
            Page xi
            Page xii
            Page xiii
        Consolidated fund
            Page xiv
            Page xv
        Public funded debt
            Page xvi
            Page xvii
        Unfunded debt
            Page xviii
            Page xix
        Disposition of grants
            Page xx
            Page xxi
            Page xxii
            Page xxiii
            Page xxiv
            Page xxv
        Arrears and balances
            Page xxvi
            Page xxvii
        Trade and navigation
            Page xxviii
            Page xxix
            Page xxx
    Index to debates in the House of Lords
        Page xxxi
    Index to debates in the House of Commons
        Page xxxi
        Page xxxii
    Index of names - House of Lords
        Page xxxiii
    Index of names - House of Commons
        Page xxxiii
        Page xxxiv
        Page xxxv
        Page xxxvi
Full Text


"I
THE


PARLIAMENTARY



DEBATES:


FORMING A CONTINUATION OF THE WORK ENTITLED

THE PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY OF ENGLAND,

FROM THE EARLIEST PERIOD TO THE YEAR 1803."


PUBLISHED UNDER THE SUPERINTENDENCE OF

T. C. HANSARD.


VS r ;ie
COMMENCING WITH THE ACCESSION OF GEORGE IV.



VOL. XI.

COMPRISING THE PERIOD
FROM ,
THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH, A
TO
THE TWENTY-FIFTH DAY ^ NE,/ .'




LOND ON.' ?
Printcb bpg Q. Wanatrb at te parrr no ."E -f't ,
FOR BALDWIN, CRADOCK, AND JOY; J. BOOKER; LONGMAN, HURST, REES, AND CO.;
J. M. RICHARDSON; KINGSBURY AND CO.; J. HATCHARD AND SON; J. RIDGWAY
AND SONS; E. JEFFERY AND SON; RODWELL AND MARTIN; R. H. EVANS;
BUDD AND CALKIN; J. BOOTH; AND T. C. HANSARD.

1825,
s ,.!*















TABLE OF CONTENTS

TO

VOLUME XI.

NEW SERIES.






I. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF IV. PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
LORDS. V. PETITIONS.
II. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF
COMMONS. VI. PROTESTS.
III. KING'S SPEECHES. VII. LISTS.




I. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

1824. Page
Mar. 30. Slave Trade Piracy Bill ................................ 1
April 2. Silk' Trade Bill .................................... 67
Irish Tithes Commutation Bill........................... 68
Unitarians Marriages Relief Bill .......................... 75
6. Burials in Ireland Bill .................................. 174
8. The Earl of Darnley's Motion on the State of Ireland ........ 236
13. Newfoundland Judicature Bill............................ 392
May 4. Silk Trade Bill ....................................... 433
Unitarians Marriages Relief Bill .......................... 434
6. Kensington Road Bill .................................. 527
Newfoundland Judicature Bill............................ 527
11. Alien Bill ........................................... 628
14. Alien Bill ............................................ 749
Silk Manufacture Bill .................................. 750
17. State of Ireland ...................................... 753
21. General Gas Company's Bill ............................ 790
Silk Manufacture Bill .................................. 792
24. Restoration of Forfeited Peerages ........................ 815
English Catholics Relief Bill ......................... 817







TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Page
May 25. Joint-Stock Companies-Standing Orders relating thereto .... 856
31. Roman Catholic Petitions .............................. 937
W elch Judicature ................. ............... .... 941
June 1. Scotch Entails Bill .................................... 959
2. Joint-Stock Companies................................. 1076
4. W elch Judicature Bill .................................. 1088
Cruelty to Animals Bill ............................... 1089
9. Game Laws Amendment Bill ........................... 1097
10. Poor of Ireland .. ................................. 1098
Standing Orders respecting Joint-Stock Companies ......... 1100
Irish Insurrection Bill .... ............................... 1102
Irish Tithes Composition Amendment Bill.................. 1104
British Museum Bill-Mr. Payne Knight's Bequest.......... 1165
11. Game Laws Amendment Bill ......................... 1199
14. County Courts Bill .................................... 1315
15. Scotch Judicature Bill .................................. 1338
Equitable Loan Bill ................. ................ 1339
16. Scots Jury Bill ........................................ 1428
17. Marine Insurance Bill ................................. 1430
New Churches Bill ................................... 1430
Cruelty to Animals Bill ................................ 1431
18. Protest against the Irish Insurrection Bill ................. 1454
Earl Marshal's Office Bill................................ 1455
Marine Insurance Bill .................................. 1456
19. Earl Marshal's Office Bill............................... 1469
21. Marine Insurance Bill .................................. 1470
23. Dublin Equitable Loan Bill.............................. 1478
24. Recognition of the Independence of South America.......... 1479
Protest against the Earl Marshal's Office Bill............... 1482
425. The Speaker's Speech to the King ........................ 1505
The King's Speech at the Close of the Session .............. 1507



II. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Mar. 30. Manchester Gas-Light Bill .............................. 8
Secret Societies-Orange Processions in Ireland ............ 15
Courts of Justice in Scotland ........... ...... .......... 18
Settlement of the Poor Bill .............................. 32
Salmon Fisheries ...................................... 33
New Churches ........................................ 35
31. Usury Laws Repeal Bill ................................. 36
Burials in Ireland Bill .................................. 39
April 1. Complaint of the Absence of the Attorney-General from the
Isle of M an ........................................ 41
Plymouth Breakwater .................................. 46
Legacy Duty ...... ..... ............ ... ....... .... 46
Burials in Ireland Bill .. .. ................ .................... 48







TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Page
April 1. Coal D duties .......................................... 49
2. St. Catherine's Dock Bill ..................... ........ .. 95
Angerstein Collection of Pictures ........................ 101
Consuls to South America .............................. 104
Army Extraordinaries ...................................... 105
Civil Contingences ............................ ........ 107
A lien Bill ........................................... 113
5. Alien Bill .................................... ..... 146
Repairs of Windsor Castle ................................ 147
6. Salt Tax....................... .................... 178
Mr. George Lamb's Motion for allowing Defence by Counsel in
Cases of Felony.................................. ........... 180
Mr. Maberly's Motion respecting the Redemption and Purchase
of the Land Tax ...................... I .......... 220
Poor in Scotland Relief Bill.............................. 226
Beer Duties .......................................... 227
8. Manchester Gas-Light Bill Committee .................... 281
Usury Laws Repeal Bill ................................ 283
9. Law of Libel-Case of Mr. Butt ...................... 319
Education of the Poor in Ireland ........................ 321
Admission to Westminster Abbey ...................... 325
Turkey Company .................................... 327
Building of New Churches .............................. 328
12. AlienBill ............................................ 361
Building of New Churches ............................ .. 384
Game Laws Amendment Bill ............................ 389
13. Dublin Coal Trade Bill................................ 94
Hammersmith-Bridge Bill .............................. 397
Conduct of the Rev. J. Smith at Demerara-Petition from
London Missionary Society ............................ 400
Roman Catholic Marriages in England .................... 408
14. Combination Laws .................................... 409
Hides and Skins Repeal Bill ............................ 410
15. Corporate Rights-Roman Catholics of Drogheda ....... .. 413
Sale of Mackarel on Sundays-Petition against ............ 414
May 3. Standing Orders-Tees and Weardale Railway Bill.......... 419
Irish Tithe Composition Amendment Bill ............... 421
Customs (Coals and Linens) Bill ....................... 426
4. Orange Lodges-Petition against ........................ 446
Distilleries-Petition from Lanark for a Free Trade in Spirits.. 448
Captain Maberly's Motion for an Advance of Capital to Ireland
for the Employment of the Poor ........................ 450
Scotch Juries Bill ................................. ..... 496
5. Kensington Road Bill-Petition of Mr. Cobbett against ...... 497
Tithe System in Ireland-Petition against Tithes Composition
Bill ..................................... .......... 502
Tread-Mill-Petition of Sir J. C. Hippisley &c. against the Use
of ................................................ 509
Irish Militia .......................................... 524
6. Standing Orders respecting Petitions ,., ............ 528







TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Page
May 6. Irish Royal Mining Company Bill ....................... 529
Oaths-Petition of Separatists........................ 530
Mr. Hume's Motion respecting the Church Establishment of
Ireland ............................................ 532
7. Beer Duties Bill .................................... 588
The Budget ........................................ 589
Saving Banks Bill ............................... ..... ... 601
10. Derry Cathedral Bill.................................... 603
Corporate Companies ............. ................... 608
S West-India Company Bill.............................. 609
Mr. Maberly's Motion for the Repeal of the Assessed Taxes .. 617
11. Petition of Joseph Swann complaining of Imprisonment in Chester
Castle........................................... 643
Administration of Justice in Ireland- Petition of J. M'Cusker.. 647
Freedom of Election in Ireland-Petition from Cavan ........ 652
Lord Althorp's Motion for a Select Committee on the State of
Ireland ........................................ 654
12. Petition from the Separatists ........................... 7241
13. Superannuation Fund-Petition against.................... 726
Mr. Whitmore's Motion for a Committee on the Sugar Bounties 730
Mr. Wodehouse's Motion respecting the Continuance of the
Salt Tax ............................................. 741
Salary of the Judges................................. 748
17. Parliamentary Reform ................................. 755
Law-Merchant Amendment Bill ........................ 756
Warehoused Wheat Bill .............................. 760
Marine Insurance Bill ................................ 766
18. Derry Cathedral ..................................... 775
Mr. Calcraft's Motion for the Repeal of the Leather Tax .... 776
Banking Establishments in Ireland ........................ 786
Mariners' Apprentices Settlement Bill ................... 788
21. Kensington Turnpike Trust-Petition of Mr. Cobbett ........ 793
Seizure and Imprisonment in Jamaica-Petition of L. C. Lecesne
and J. Escoffery ................................... 796
Wool Importation and Exportation Bill.................... 804
Combination Laws-Resolutions of Select Committee on Arti-
zans and Machinery ................................ 811
New Courts of Justice-Petition of Mr. Soane ............ 814,
24. Alliance Assurance Company Bill ........................ 842
Beer Duties Bill ..................................... 843
County Courts Bill .................................. 852
25. Equitable Loan Society Bill........................... 857
Liberty of the Press in India-Petition of Mr. Buckingham .. 858
First-Fruits Fund of Ireland........................... ..... 890
26. Education of the Poor in Ireland-Petition of Mr. Owen .... 899
Usury Forfeitures Bill ................................ 900
Scotch PoorJ.egulation Bill .. ...................... 900
27. Commitments and Convictions.......................... 902
.Mp .of Conducting the Private Business of the House in Com-
mittees above Stairs .......*.........,,,, ......... 910







TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Page
May 27. Irish Clergy Residence Bill............................ 918
Warehoused Wheat Bill ............................... 919
28. Marine Insurance Bill' ................................. 920
Irish Butter Trade ..........i........................ 933
Scotch Jury Bill ................................. 935
31. Roman Catholic Claims-Petition of Catholics of Ireland...... 941
Roman Catholic Association-Petition from Ireland against .. 943
Game Laws Amendhent Bill ........................... 956
June 1. Equitable Loan Coi ny Bill ........................... 960
Mr. Brougham's Motion Respecting the Trial and Condemna-
tion of Missionary Smith at Demerara-The Debate adjourned 961
3. Freedom of Discussion-Petition for ...................... 1078
Trial and Condemnation of Missionary Smith at Demerara .... 1079
New Churches Bill ................................... 1080
Vagrants Bill-Whipping................................ 1081
Marine Insurance Bill .................................. 1086
4. Corporation and Test Acts-Petition for Repeal of.......... 1089
Earl of Mar's Restoration Bill ............................ 1090
Transportation of Offenders Bill ........................ 1091
New Churches Bill .................................. 1093
Horses Slaughtering Bill ................................ 1095
10. Abolition of Slavery-Trial of Missionary Smith ............ 1167
Roman Catholic Claims-Petition from Cork................ 1168
Small Debts Bill in Scotland ............................ 1170
Mr. Hume's Motion respecting the Impressment of Seamen .. 1171
Roman Catholic Association ............................ 1197
11. Marine Insurance Bill .................................. 1202
Petition from R. Carlile, complaining of his Imprisonment .... 1202
Breach of Privilege-Mr. Gourlay's Assault on Mr. Brougham 1204
Mr. Brougham's Motion respecting the Trial and Condemnation
of Missionary Smith at Demerara ...................... 1206
14. Historical Painting-Petition of B. R. Haydon for encourage-
ment of .......................................... .1316
Breach of Privilege- Mr. Gourlay........................ 1317
Reversal of Attainders ................................. 1318
Land Tax Redemption Bill ............................. 1320
Irish Insurrection Bill .................................. 1322
15. Petition of Robert Bell complaining of being called upon by the
War Office to pay Money as a Surety.................... 1340
Recognition of the Independence of South America-London
Petition for .................... .................. 1344
Abolition of Slavery-Petition from Carlow ................ 1406
Roman Catholic Church Establishment in Ireland............ 1427
17. Derry Cathedral ...................................... 1432
Orange Processions-Petition of Mr. Lawless .............. 1434+
Petition of Bernard Coile, complaining of Sufferings during the
Rebellion in Ireland ................................... 1435
Roman Catholic Association-Petition of, complaining of the
Morning Chronicle ......................... ,-... .. 1438
Scotch Judicature Bill .............. ........... .. 1440
VOL. XI. b







TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Page
June 17. East India Possessions Bill .............................. 1442
Superannuation Fund Bill .........................i.... 1451
18. Abuses in the Isle of Man-Petition of House of Keys ...... 1458
Irish Insurrection Bill .................................. 1463
Juries Empanelling Bill ................................ 1468
21. Superannuation Fund .................................. 1473
Recognition of the Independence of South America-Petition
from Manchester ................................... 1475
24. Regulations of Surrey Magistrates-Petition of Debtors in
Horsemonger-Lane Gaol .................................. 1493
Petition of Luke Carlos O'Callaghan complaining of Ill-treat-
ment in the Surrey County Gaol....................... 1501



III. KING'S SPEECHES.

June 25. KING's SPEECH at the close of the Session ................ 1508


IV. PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.

Finance Accounts for the Year ended 5th January 1824 .... Ap. i


V. PETITIONS.

Mar. 31. PETITION respecting the Burials in Ireland Bill.............. 39
April 1. - from the Proprietors of Collieries, respecting the Pro-
position for altering the Coal Duties ............ 49
6. - from certain Jurymen, for allowing Defence by Counsel
in Cases of Felony ............................ 180
9. from Westminster, complaining of the power of Com-
mittal for Libel before Trial, in the Case of Mr. Butt. 320
13. - from London Missionary Society, respecting the Trial
and Condemnation of the Rev. J. Smith at Demerara 401
15 ... from London and Westminster, against the Sale of
Mackarel on Sundays .......................... 415
May 5. - from Mr. Cobbett, against the Kensington Roads Bill 500
- from Ireland, against the Tithes Composition Bill.... 502
- of Sir J. C. Hippisley, &c. against the use of the
STread-Mill .................................. 511
21. - of Mr. Cobbett, respecting the Kensington Turnpike
Trust........................................ 793
26. - of Mr. Owen, respecting the Education of the Poor in
Ireland ...................................... 899
June 15 - of the Merchants of London, for the Recognition of the
Independence of South America ................ 1392
24. > of Luke Carlos O'Callaghan, complaining of Ill-treat.
meant in the Surrey County Gaol ......,,* ..... 1503







TABLE OF CONTENTS.


VI. PROTESTS.
Page
June 18. PRoxEST against the Irish Insurrection Bill ............... 1454
24. - against the Earl Marshal's Office Bill.............. 1482



VII. 'ISTS.

Mar. 30. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Lord Archi-
bald Hamilton's Motion for referring the Reports of the
Commissioners of Inquiry into Courts of Justice in Scot-
land to a Committee .............................. 31
April 2. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Second
Reading of the Alien Bill .......................... 115
5. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Grant for
the Repairs of Windsor Castle ...................... 171
6. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. George
Lamb's Motion for allowing Defence by Counsel in Cases
of Felony........................................ 220
8. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Usury
Laws Repeal Bill ................................ 315
12. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the third
reading of the Alien Bill .......................... 384
of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Grant
for Building of New Churches ...................... 389
May 4. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Captain
Maberly's Motion for an advance of Capital to Ireland .. 496
5. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Irish
Militia Bill ..................................... 526
6. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. Hume's
Motion respecting the Church Establishment of Ireland.. 588
10. of the Minority, in the Houseof Commons, on Mr. Maberly's
Motion for the Repeal of the Assessed Taxes........... 628
11. of the Minority, inthe HouseofCommons, onLord Althorp's
Motion for a Select Committee on the State of Ireland.. 723
17. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. Calcraft's
Motion for the Repeal of the Leather Tax ............ 786
June 10. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. Hume's
Motion respecting the Impressment of Seamen ........ 1197
11. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. Broug-
ham's Motion respecting the Trial and Condemnation of
Missionary Smith at Demerara ..................... 113
18. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the third
reading of the Irish Insurrection Bill ................ 1467





























ERRATUM.


In the report of Lord Holland's Speech in
the 'House of Lords, on the 3rd of February,
which vill be found in Vol. X. p. 31, his lord-
ship's onions, with regard to the resumption
of Cash Payments, have been misapprehended.
Instead of the words Indeed, he felt the more
"anxious to express this opinion, because
" he had been one of those, who, when that
" great measure was agitated in parliament,
"most warmly opposed it. Appalled at the
Possible consequences that might ensue, he
"certainly had been far from friendly to the
" execution of a measure which he did then
" believe to be fraught with danger; and
" which he now acknowledged to have been
"thus instrumental in restoring prosperity to
"the kingdom," the Reader will please to


substitute the following-" Indeed, he felt the
, more anxious to bear his testimony to the
" wisdom as well as honesty of that measure,
"because, though he had always been a strenu-
" ousfriend to it, as the Journals of the House
" would shew, yet, when the moment came, he
" owned he had felt in secret somewhat ap-
"palled at the danger with which it was
"fraught, and would have been brought to
"consent to modifications which he now re-
"joiced were never adopted; inasmuch as the
prosperity of the kingdom had not materially,
Sor at least permanently, suffered by the
' change, and the character of parliament and
" of the country, and the credit of the govern-
" ment and of the empire had been greatly
" benefitted thereby."


PARLIAMENTARY










THE


Pr jamentaryDebates


During the Fifth Session of the Seventh Parliament of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
appointed to meet at Westminster, the Third Day of
February 1824, in the Fifth Year of the Reign of His
Majesty King GEORGE the Fourth.


HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, March 30, 1824.
SLAVE TRADE PIRACY BILL.] On
the order of the day for going into a com-
mittee on this bill,
Earl Bathurst said, that the bill to which
he had to call their lordships' attention
was one of very great importance, and it
was also of importance that it should be
passed into a law as soon as possible. Un-
less the bill should now pass, so that the
news of its passing might arrive in Ame-
rica previous to the separation of Con-
gress, the convention agreed to between
this country and the United States could
not be carried into effect, as the sanction
of Congress was necessary. If it were
not now obtained, it could not be had till
November, and the measure would re-
main incomplete. Instead, therefore, of
moving that the bill be now committed,
he should propose that it should not go at
all to a committee, but be now read a
third time.
Earl Grosvenor said, he would not ob-
ject to the course proposed by the noble
earl. He wished to see the bill passed as
soon as possible into a law, that the con-
vention might receive the assent of the
United States, and that both countries
might reap equal honour from passing
such alaw. He congratulated the House
and the country on the progress which
this measure had made since the question
of the Slave Trade was agitated forty
years ago; and he particularly congratu-
lated the House at finding that after so
long a period, some of those persons who
first started forward in the good work,
VOL. X. I {sriJ


were still living, and zealously employed
in carrying it to its full completion. He
did not rise to make any opposition to the
bill, with which he fully concurred, but to
advert to a subject connected with it; and
to take that opportunity of putting some
questions to the noble earl. He had be-
fore expressed his hearty approval of the
instructions sent out to our colonies by
the noble earl ; but there were one or two
points connected with those instructions,
to which he wished to draw his attention.
He understood that the object of those
instructions was, to lead to the final aboli-
tion of slavery; this was the ultimate view,
and to promote this, every facility was to
be given. It had been stated, he under-
stood, by the noble earl opposite, on a
late occasion, that four years ago the
question was doubtful, whether the pro-
geny of slaves were themselves slaves or
not; and that then an act had passed,
settling the doubt, and declaring that they
were. He supposed, therefore, if nothing
further than these instructions were to
issue, that the children were to remain, as
before, the slaves of their masters, because
their parents were slaves. He wished
some measure to be adopted to obviate
this-a measure something like that which
had been agreed to in Colombia, where a
sum was appropriated gradually to pro-
mo'e the manumission of slaves. He had
understood from the noble earl at the head
of the Treasury, that the government was
disposed to give every facility to attain
his object. Indeed, that noble earl had
pledged himself, if the present measure
should be found not to afford facilities
enough, that other and more extensive
B










THE


Pr jamentaryDebates


During the Fifth Session of the Seventh Parliament of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
appointed to meet at Westminster, the Third Day of
February 1824, in the Fifth Year of the Reign of His
Majesty King GEORGE the Fourth.


HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, March 30, 1824.
SLAVE TRADE PIRACY BILL.] On
the order of the day for going into a com-
mittee on this bill,
Earl Bathurst said, that the bill to which
he had to call their lordships' attention
was one of very great importance, and it
was also of importance that it should be
passed into a law as soon as possible. Un-
less the bill should now pass, so that the
news of its passing might arrive in Ame-
rica previous to the separation of Con-
gress, the convention agreed to between
this country and the United States could
not be carried into effect, as the sanction
of Congress was necessary. If it were
not now obtained, it could not be had till
November, and the measure would re-
main incomplete. Instead, therefore, of
moving that the bill be now committed,
he should propose that it should not go at
all to a committee, but be now read a
third time.
Earl Grosvenor said, he would not ob-
ject to the course proposed by the noble
earl. He wished to see the bill passed as
soon as possible into a law, that the con-
vention might receive the assent of the
United States, and that both countries
might reap equal honour from passing
such alaw. He congratulated the House
and the country on the progress which
this measure had made since the question
of the Slave Trade was agitated forty
years ago; and he particularly congratu-
lated the House at finding that after so
long a period, some of those persons who
first started forward in the good work,
VOL. X. I {sriJ


were still living, and zealously employed
in carrying it to its full completion. He
did not rise to make any opposition to the
bill, with which he fully concurred, but to
advert to a subject connected with it; and
to take that opportunity of putting some
questions to the noble earl. He had be-
fore expressed his hearty approval of the
instructions sent out to our colonies by
the noble earl ; but there were one or two
points connected with those instructions,
to which he wished to draw his attention.
He understood that the object of those
instructions was, to lead to the final aboli-
tion of slavery; this was the ultimate view,
and to promote this, every facility was to
be given. It had been stated, he under-
stood, by the noble earl opposite, on a
late occasion, that four years ago the
question was doubtful, whether the pro-
geny of slaves were themselves slaves or
not; and that then an act had passed,
settling the doubt, and declaring that they
were. He supposed, therefore, if nothing
further than these instructions were to
issue, that the children were to remain, as
before, the slaves of their masters, because
their parents were slaves. He wished
some measure to be adopted to obviate
this-a measure something like that which
had been agreed to in Colombia, where a
sum was appropriated gradually to pro-
mo'e the manumission of slaves. He had
understood from the noble earl at the head
of the Treasury, that the government was
disposed to give every facility to attain
his object. Indeed, that noble earl had
pledged himself, if the present measure
should be found not to afford facilities
enough, that other and more extensive
B







3] HOUSE OF LORDS,
measures should be adopted. The point
to which he wished first to direct the at-
tention of the noble earl was, this pledge
of the noble earl at the head of the Trea-
sury; which he hoped the noble earl op-
posite would now confirm. The next
point to which he wished to direct the
attention of the noble earl was, the con-
tumacious Islands. He was disposed to
infer from the speech of the noble earl,
that it was not intended to adopt any pro-
ceedings to extend to them the regulations
which had been drawn up for the other
islands. But these islands might proceed
further than they had done, and Jamaica
might carry those threats into execution,
which the orators of its House of Assem-
bly had uttered. He wished to know, in
this case, what measures the noble earl
opposite was prepared to adopt? For
his own part, he should prefer having re-
course to those fiscal regulations to which
the noble earl had formerly alluded; as
he thought it better to carry on a blood-
less war of the Custom-house, which might
restore those colonies to their reason,
than have recourse to any stronger mea-
sures. If such regulations were adopted
in time, they might save their lordships
and the country from being ultimately
obliged to adopt measures of a more disa-
greeable character. This was a point of
the greatest importance, on which it
was necessary their lordships should have
some correct information. One other
point to which he wished to direct the at-
tention of the noble earl opposite was, the
proposed ecclesiastical establishment. He
wished to know how this was to be pro-
vided for? At present, there was an ex-
tensive system of spiritual instruction in
the islands which cost the country no-
thing; and of the missionaries the noble
earl himself had spoken with considerable
approbation. It would certainly therefore
be satisfactory to their lordships to know
what that establishment was to cost by
which they were to be replaced. The
last point on which he would touch, was
free labour. It was idle to say, that this
could not be adopted in our West-India
Islands. At Sierra Leone it had succeed-
ed so well, that men just captured and
rescued from the hands of the slave-deal-
ers, were found to make good labourers.
All these points were of considerable im-
portance; and the House required infor-
mation respecting them, before it could
see any prospect of the final abolition of
the abominable system of slavery. Before


Slave Trade Piracy Bill. [4
he sat down, he could not refrain from
expressing his regret at finding that there
were persons in this country, who main-
tained that the situation of West-India
slaves was better than that of the labour-
ers of England. Perhaps, in some instan-
ces, the slaves might be better off, in point
of food; but what did that amount to, when
the great difference between the situation
of an English peasant, enjoying all the
blessings of liberty in a free country, and
the slave compelled to labour at the will
of his master, was taken'intoconsideration?
It was astonishing that any persons could
compare the freedom in the one case, with
the slavery in the other. The difference
was as striking as that of light and dark-
ness.
Earl Bathurst said, that as the noble earl
had no objection to make to the measure
then before their lordships, it was not ne-
cessary for him to take up the time of their
lordships by making any remarks on that
subject, and he only rose to answer the
questions put by the noble earl with
respect to slavery, and with respect to the
future amelioration of the condition of the
slave population. On the subject of the
first question, he had been misunderstood.
The noble earl seemed to think that he
had, on a former occasion, entered into
the question, whether the issue of slaves
were to be free or not ? and also to think,
that he had stated, that until within the
last four years the law on this point was
uncertain, and that then an act of parlia-
ment had declared, that the issue of slaves
should be also slaves. What he had
stated was, that the proprietors of slaves
had a right to their issue; and this prin-
ciple was confirmed by all the statutes,
which throughout recognized the principle,
that the issue of a slave was the property
of his master. He had stated this as a
general principle, with reference to the
registering of slaves. There was a clause
in the Registry act, thatno creditor having
lent money on any particular estate, could
have any hold on the slaves of that estate
as a security for his debt, unless they
were particularly mentioned in the mort-
gage. In those islands where the Registry
act was in force, it was not possible to
raise money on mortgage, unless the slaves,
in whose labour the value of an estate
consisted, were expressly mentioned. In
the law referred to, the registering of the
slaves was considered as one of the means
therefore of securing property; and his
observations, on the occasion alluded to







5] Slave Trade Piracy Bill.
by the noble earl, were not applied to the
general question, of the offspring of slaves
being always slaves, but solely went to
recognize the principle, with a view to
this registry ; and to this security of
property, that the offspring of the slave
was also the property of his master.-As
to the second point in the noble earl's
speech; namely, the giving facilities to
the manumission of slaves, it was a fact,
thatthere were already existing by custom
many facilities for attaining this object;
and the instructions mentioned by the
noble earl only gave the sanction of law
to previous customs. As the laws now
stood in most of the islands, property
under mortgage derived much of its value
from the slaves ; and it certainly was not
intended by these regulations, that any
persons having an interest in that property
should be injured by these regulations.
If the encouragement given by the govern-
ment to manumission were found ineffec-
tual, he could assure the noble earl, that
there was a strong disposition on the part
of his majesty's government to encourage
the manumission, and if the instructions
already sent out did not lead to this object,
more efficacious measures would be adopt-
ed. As to the legislative assemblies of
the other islands, and their disposition to
adopt the instructions and regulations
sent out, he thought nothing could be
more likely to injure the cause which the
noble earl meant to serve, than nowmaking
their conduct the subject of discussion.
He hoped and trusted, that they would
take a more liberal and calmer view of the
question.
The Marquis of Lansdowvn, while he
thought it was natural that his noble friend
should wish to obtain information respect-
ing the state of the slaves and the future
intentions of his majesty's government,
agreed with the noble earl opposite, that
it was better to refrain, at present, from
entering into any detailed discussions on
the subjects which had been agitated.
He trusted, however, that the noble secre-
tary of state had some solid ground for
believing, that the islands in which the
order in council was not to be imme-
diately enforced, would be induced to
take a more reasonable view of the sub-
ject than they had hitherto done. Indul-
ging this hope, he certainly was disposed
to let the question rest as it now stood.
But if, unhappily, those islands should
persist in the course they had hitherto
taken, then the discussions which the


MARCH 30, 1824. [6
noble earl deprecated must come on. In
the mean time, it certainly was much
more desirable that the assemblies in the
West-India islands should, of their own'
accord, entertain right views on this im-
portant subject; that, from the example
of the other colonies, where the system
of amelioration was to be carried into
effect, they might at last be induced to
adopt those measures, to which their own
interests, not more than humanity, re-
quired them to resort, and by which alone
the population of the colonies could be
improved, and civilization advanced; and
thereby relieve the king's government and
that House from the disagreeable task
upon which they would have to enter,
were they to be called upon to discuss
the question of the means of enforcing the
measures for the well-being of the whole
of his majesty's dominions which, in the
case of undue resistance, must arise. For
the reasons he had stated, he did not
wish to go further into this subject.
Neither did he rise to offer any opposition
to the bill, which, happily for the country
and for the world, was now on their
lordships' table-a bill, the object of which
he had long taken every opportunity to
urge and recommend, as a measure indis-
pensably necessary for the total abolition
of the slave trade. The measure, how-
ever, could not be efficient without the
concurrence of other powers. A bill,
making the slave trade piracy, had pre-
viously passed the congress of the United
States; and it was satisfactory to see a
free people thus taking the lead, by acts
of their own suggestion, in measures of
justice and humanity. He understood
that the treaty concluded between the
United States and this country was as yet
conditional. He knew not why it had
not been laid on the table; perhaps it was
kept back in consequence of its being as
yet regarded as merely conditional. He
knew not whether what he was stating was
right [Earl Bathurst said across the
table that the treaty was not ratified].
That accounted for its not being laid on
the table. But his reason for now ad-
dressing their lordships, or rather the noble
secretary of state, was his wish to be in-
formed whether the treaty contained a
provision binding the twocountries to press
the adoption of the same stipulations by
all christian nations. The governments of
Europe having already adopted the prin-
ciple, that the slave trade is contrary to
humanity, it would be an everlasting







7] HOUSE OF COMMONS,
disgrace to those who permitted ainy
practices calculated to counteract the
object of this bill. Happy as he should
always be at seeing this country and the
United States of America embarked in
any common cause, he still more rejoiced
at seeing them united in one, the principle
of which was humanity, and which was so
important to the welfare of both countries
and so consistent with what was to be
expected from their common origin and
common religion. Taking it for granted
that the treaty contained a provision of
the kind to which he had alluded, he
trusted and hoped that no time would be
lost by the two contracting powers, in
recommending, by their example, and en.
forcing by their demands on other states,
the execution of the treaty; and, should
any be hardy enough to oppose its execu-
tion, that they would, if necessary, be de-
clared "hosteshumanigeneris,"and stamp-
ed with that character of disgrace which
such a conduct would deserve. Having
said this much, he felt it to be an act of
duty to a most worthy individual, to men-
tion, that the .principle of piracy, as
applied to the slave trade, was first
acted on by a British officer employed in
the Arabian gulf. SirW. Keir Grant had
concluded a treaty with the Arab princes
on the shores of that sea, one condition of
which was, that carrying away persons
from the coast of Africa should be con-
sidered a crime against the law of nations
in general, and against this country in
particular. He did not know whether
this condition had-been strictly adhered
to by the Arab powers ; but the introduc-
tion of the principle redounded not the
less to the honour of the gentleman with
whom it originated. He hoped that the
same condition would be introduced into
all future treaties, and so strictly enforced,
as to effect the extinction of the barbarous
atrocities committed on thecoast of Africa.
He had no wish to oppose the course by
which the noble secretary of state pro-
posed to expedite the bill, and could not
but applaud the zeal he had manifested in
bringing forward this important measure.
The Earl of Harrowby stated, that the
constitution of the United States required,
that the treaty should have the sanction
of congress before it could be ratified:
for that reason it was proper to despatch
the present bill as speedily as possible,
one of the same kind having already pass-
ed the congress. Our bill and treaty
were, however, measures independent of


Manchester Gas-Light Bill. [8
each other; and so were the American
bill and treaty. It followed, therefore,
that, whether the treaty should be ratified
or not, the slave-trade would still be pi-
racy by the laws of both countries. In
reply to the question of the noble marquis,
he had to state, that there was in the
treaty a stipulation, by which the United
States and Great Britain pledged them-
selves to invite other powers to accede to
the same measure.
The bill was then read a third time,
and passed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, March 30.
MANCHESTER GAS-LtHT BILL.] Sir
J. Mackintosh said, he had a petition to
present from a Mr. William Walker,
a solicitor of Manchester, which the
House would be inclined to listen to
with attention, when he told them,
that the petitioner complained, that his
private and professional character had
been attacked in the course of a proceed-
ing under the sanction of the House, by
charges which he had no opportunity of
refuting, but which he was able to refute
by evidence, and which he prayed to be
allowed so to refute. He (sir J. M.)
had no bias whatever on the subject of the
proceedings, in which the matter com-
plained of by the petitioner originated;
or, if the names connected with it could
give him any bias, it would rather be
hostile to the party which the petitioner
had espoused. The fact was, that a wit-,
ness had been examined before the Man-
,chester Gas-Light bill, who threw impu-
tations upon the conduct of the petitioner,
and subsequently before any evidence
could be offered in refutation of this evi-
dence, the committee adjourned sinedie.
Whether this adjournment was or was not
within the words of the reference to that
committee, he would not inquire; but
when the petitioner stated, that by the
imputations which he had been thus de-
prived of an opportunity of answering, his
character would be taken from him, his
professional prospects blasted, and him-
self reduced to utter ruin, if the House
did not interpose, the petition could but
receive the most favourable consideration.
He moved that the petition be brought
up.
Mr. Bright rose to order. It was, -he
said, irregular for any member of that
House to allude to the proceedings of a







,9] Manchester Gas-Light Bill.
committee, unless the minutes of those
proceedings were before the House. Now
what was irregular when done by a mem-
ber, must certainly be as irregular when
done by a person who had not a seat in
that House. He therefore objected to
the bringing up of the petition.
The Speaker said, it was clear that the
petition referred to a matter of which the
House had no cognizance whatever. This
was the state of the case. The House
had entertained a bill, and sent it to a
committee up stairs. It having been so
sent, the committee was bound, according
to the strict forms of the House, to make
a report; and, until the time had expired
within which the committee had received
directions to make their report, the House
had no means of knowing that a report
would not be made. At present, as there
had been no order directing the minutes
of the proceedings to be laid upon the
table, the House could have no cogni-
zance of what had passed in the committee,
but must presume that every thing had
been done correctly. In these days, it was
very difficult to say what petitions should
not be received, if they were properly
worded; but it would be rather extra-
ordinary to receive a petition which had
been framed under such circumstances as
that presented by the] hon. and learned
member for Knaresborough.
Mr. Hume thought it extremely hard,
that the petitioner should receive no re-
dress for the injustice which he alleged
to have been done to him by the com-
mittee.
The Speaker was not quite sure that he
had made himself perfectly understood.
It was clear to him, that the case stated in
the petition was not one for which there
were no means of redress. All that he
said was, that the House could have no
knowledge of the circumstances mentioned
in the petition. It was, however, compe-
tent to any member who knew that the
committee was not sitting, to move that
the minutes of their proceedings, up to
the time when they ceased to sit, should
be laid before the House. If such a mo-
tion were made and agreed to, the House
would be cognizant of all the proceedings,
and might then act upon any representa-
tion which should be made.
MIr. Bright said, he was borne out by
the orders of the House in declaring,
that it was incompetent to any member of
that House to speak of what had passed
in 4 committee, before the minutes of the


MARcH 30, 1824. [10
proceedings had been laid upon the table;
a fortiori, it was incompetent to any indi-
vidual, not a member of that House, to
do so.
The Speaker said, he did not know that
he had even now made himself understood,
It would not, he thought, be safe for a
person in his situation to go the length
of saying that, under no circumstances,
could any representation be made to that
House by petition of what had passed in
committee. The course of proceeding
which he had pointed out would be more
efficacious, and more likely to afford a
remedy for any grievance, than any other
which, under the present circumstances,
the House could adopt.
Mr. P. Moore observed, that until the
report from the corhmittee was made, no
motion on the proceedings in the com-
mittee could properly take place. It was
not to be presumed that the committee
would strangle by an adjournment the
bill which it was referred to them to
consider.
Mr. B. Wilbraham said, that the hon.
member for Sussex had given notice of a
motion for that day, on the subject of the
adjournment of the committee, and he
should therefore not detain the House on
the subject. As to the supposed wrong
done to Mr. Walker by the adjournment,
he should merely state, that the committee
on the bill had sat every day for a month;
that every tittle of the evidence for the
bill had been gone through, and in the
course of the evidence against the bill,
a fact had been incidentally spoken to,
which bore on the character of Mr. Wal-
ker. The committee subsequently ad-
journed sine die; but it was evident to
those acquainted with the course of pro-
ceedings, that if the committee had con-
tinued to sit, Mr. Walker would not have
been allowed to offer evidence in reply to
the evidence against the bill; because
such a course was never followed, and
would never bring the business on a bill
to a termination. Evidence was first of-
fered pro, and then contra, and the com-
mittee immediately after reported.-Such
was the invariable practice.
Sir J. Mackintosh in the understanding
that the motion of the hon. member for
Sussex would come on immediately, said,
he should consent to withdraw the petition
for the present.
Mr. Curteis then rose, in pursuance of
notice, to move, that the committee, to
whom the Manchester Gas-Light bill was







Hl] HOUSE OF COMMONS,
referred, and which had adjourned sine die,
should be revived and proceed to business
to-morrow. His only motive for bringing
the subject before the House was, that in
the course of the proceeding, in the com-
mittee, most extraordinary practices had
been detected, which the adjournment
sine die had preventedfrom being brought
under the consideration of the House.
He proceeded to read from the minutes
of evidence, a statement of a witness, that
he had signed, on one occasion, to a pe-
tition in favour of the bill, 400 names of
persons, some living, some dead, while a
man assisted him by mending and chang-
ing the pens, to give an appearance of
difference to the hand-writing.
SLord Stanley rose to order, and object-
ed to the reading of the minutes of evi-
dence which had not been regularly laid
before the House. He had been chairman
of the committee, and he did not know
that the minutes were yet regularly in the
hands of a single individual.
Sir J. Mackintosh said, that every mem-
ber who had attended an open committee,
might state in his place what had taken
place there.
Lord Stanley admitted that a member
might state what had occurred, to lay a
ground for the production of the minutes
but to read those minutes before they were
produced, was irregular.
The Speaker confirmed the opinion of
lord Stanley. It was difficult to lay
down a strict rule, as to the statements
which might be made of transactions in a
committee, but the regular course was
first to move the House, that the mi-
nutes be produced.
Mr. Curteis said, that his only object
was, to bring before the House the manner
in which petitions from manufacturing and
mercantile places were got up; that,
when the House saw the hon. member for
Yorkshire, or any manufacturing county,
come down loaded with petitions like
Atlas, for the abolition of slavery, and
what not, they might know what value to
give to them. He had no concern with
Manchester, and scarcely a wish on the
subject of the bill; he only wished to see
these matters investigated.
Mr. Stanley, in a maiden speech of
much clearness and ability, opposed the
motion. The bill which had been under
investigation had, he said, excited so
much interest among many members
connected by no local concern in
the affairs of Manchester, that he would


Manchester Gas-Light Bill. [12
briefly state the proceedings of the
committee, and explain the motives on
which it had come to its final determina-
tion. He had himself attended during the
whole of the proceedings of the commit-
tee, and he could truly state, that he had
gone into that committee with no bias
against the bill, but with prepossessions
rather favourable to the objects of it.
But, before the evidence in favour of the
bill had concluded, from the cross-exami-
nation of its own witnesses, his opinion in
favour of it was entirely changed. It had
been represented, that this bill was advo-
cated by the body of the population of
Manchester. He found that it was nei-
ther demanded nor desired by them, nor
by any considerable part of them. It
was contended, that under the present
mode of supplying gas, the quantity
and quality were deficient: both these
assertions were disproved. It was assert-
ed by the petitioners for the bill, that
their wish was, to break up a monopoly.
It appeared that the monopolists" were
a committee elected by a body of com-
missioners, said by some of the witnesses
to amount to 20,000, who consisted of all
persons possessing or occupying property
to the value of 301. a year. Of these
every one had an equal vote, while, under
the bill, the petitioners proposed to give
votes to the proprietors of shares, whether
resident or not in Manchester, according
to the amount of shares, with liberty to
vote by proxy. In support of the bill a
petition had been presented, signed by
seven hundred names. Of these, one
hundred and eight were duplicates. He
acquitted the petitioners of any attempt
at fraud in this particular; it was too
gross to suppose it to be premeditated.
But, what was the defence ?-that they
had attached to the petition a skin of sig-
natures which had nothing at all to do
with it. It was, however, intimated, to
the committee, that a person of the name
of Corbett had informed a friend of his,
that he, Corbett, had signed 300 names
to the petition on one occasion, and, on
another 196 names; and, after consider-
able discussion before the committee, it
was decided, that he should be sent for.
Subsequently to the statement to his
friend, Corbett had made a deposition as
to the facts; and, when he was examidbd
before the committee, his testimony com-
pletely agreed with the deposition, and
with his original statement. The only
manner in which Mr. Walker was affected







Manchester Gas Light Bill.


by the evidence before the committee
was, by a fact mentioned in the course of
Corbett's evidence. Corbett -had stated,
that he had been met by a friend of his
of the name of Hardman, who had in-
formed him that he was paid 6s. a sheet
for getting signatures, and that he ac-
cordingly, to oblige him, signed 300
names. That as he was afterwards
passing through the streets, he saw the
same petition lying for signature at an
office, and that he walked in and there
signed 196 names more, some of per-
sons who had been dead for ten or twelve
years, and some of persons who had never
existed at all. The fact that affected Mr.
Walker was, that the office where the
petition lay for signature was his; and
that a young man, whom Corbett repre-
sented to be Mr. Walker's clerk, assisted
him, by changing and mending the pens.
It was on this statement only, that Mr.
Walker complained that his character and
prospects in life had been ruined and
blasted. The motive of the committee
in not bringing up the report, was that of
mercy, because they could not make a
report without bringing the authors of the
fraud and contempt to punishment; and
the reason of this mercy was, that not
having obtained the evidence in the most
regular way, they did not think them.
selves justified in using that evidence to
punish the witness and his friends. In
this decision the committee was next to
unanimous. An hon. member who had
supported the bill at the outset, had
stated, that he was shocked and asham-
ed" of the conduct of those whom he had
supported, and gladly consented to the
adjournment, sine die, on the express'con-
dition, that no further proceedings should
be taken. As not a single reason of any
validity had been adduced by the hon.
member for Sussex, he should vote against
the motion [hear!].
Sir J. Mackintosh said, he had heard,
with the greatest pleasure, the speech
which had just been delivered by his hon.
young friend behind him-a speech which
must have given the highest satisfaction
to all who heard it, and which afforded
the strongest promise, that the talents
which the hon. member had displayed in
supporting the local interests of his con-
stituents, would be exerted, with equal
ardour and effect, in maintaining the rights
and interests of the country. No man
could have witnessed with greater satis-
faction than himself an accession to the


talents of that House, which was calcu-
lated to give lustre to its character, and
strengthen its influence; and it was
more particularly a subject of satisfaction
to him, when he reflected, that those
talents were likely to be employed in
supporting principles which he consci-
entiously believed to be most beneficial
to the country. He did not rise for the
purpose of answering any of the objec-
tions which had been urged by the hon.
gentleman, or of entering into the merits
of the bill. This was wholly unnecessary;
for the only question before them was,
whether the House should order the com-
mittee to make a report upon the bill,
that committee having resolved to make
no report, and having consequently ad-
journed sine die. He did not mean to
throw any imputation on the committee
for having taken this course; but, as the
act of adjourning sine die was, in point
of form, a disobedience of the orders
of the House, he thought the committee
should be directed to comply with the
order of reference. He thought also,
that the prayer of the petitioner, whose
character had been involved in the evi-
dence before the committee was entitled
to the attention of the House. Under
all the circumstances he thought the hon.
member for Sussex was justified in call-
ing upon the House to enforce its original
order.
Mr. Philips thought, that as the com-
mittee had adjourned sine die, it was at
present extinct, and the regular mode of
proceeding would be to revive it. This
course was justified by a precedent which
occurred in the year 1816. A more
gross and fraudulent attempt to impose
upon a committee of that House had
never been made. So far were the people
of Manchester from concurring in this
bill, that it had been promoted only by a
number of ale-house keepers, a quack
doctor, and other persons, who had no
sort of connexion with the respectable
inhabitants of Manchester.
Mr. T. Wilson said, lie had supported \
this bill in the first instance, because the
company, in whose hands the lighting of
the town of Manchester with gas had
been for the last seven years, had only
lighted one-fifth part of the town. He
had withdrawn his support from it, not
because he did not think the object of
the bill useful, but because it had been
promoted by means which could not be
justified.


MARCH 30, 1821.







15] HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Mr. Bright thought the proceed-
ings before the committee ought not to
go forward, because this step would be
attended with additional expense to the
parties concerned. Whether some step
ought not to be taken-such, for instance,
as the appointment of a select committee
to examine into the way in which these
petitions were got up-he would not now
inquire. Such a mode of getting up
petitions was, undoubtedly, a high parlia-
mentary offence, which might be visited
with severe punishment. It had been
declared, in the case of the Barnstaple
petition, that it was highly unwarrantable,
and a breach of the privileges of that
House, for any person to sign the name
of another person in any petition sent to
that House. It was high time that the
House should take some steps to put a
stop to this dangerous and unjustifiable
practice.
Sir I. Coffin said, he should vote for
the revival of the committee, because
that measure would afford an opportunity
of doing justice to all parties.
Mr. H. Sumner said, that after what
had fallen from hon. members, he had no
wish for the revival of the committee.
He thought, however, that the committee
might have expressed some opinion in
the form of a report, as to the nature of
the evidence which had been brought be-
fore them.
Mr. Alderman Heygate thought the
main question was, whether a commit-
tee of that House should exercise the
discretion of making no report on a bill,
in disobedience to the order of the House
-a discretion which would give them an
enormous power, and which might se-
riously involve the fortunes and character
of individuals concerned in private peti-
tions. He gave no opinion on the merits
of the bill; nor did he mean to cast the
slightest reflection on the committee, or
to say a word in favour of the mode in
which the bill had originated.

SECRET SOCIETIES-ORANGE PRO-
CESSIONS IN IRELAND.] Mr. Dawson,
in presenting a petition from certain
Freemasons in Ireland, praying to be
exempted from the provisions of the law
against Secret Societies, observed, that
societies of this description had given rise
to the greatest excesses and crimes in
Ireland. Orange processions, and Orange
associations, were pregnant with as much
danger and mischief as Catholic proces-


Secret Societies. [16
sions and associations. In fact, one pro-
cession led of course to a counter-proces-
sion; and he did not hesitate to declare,
that he considered all processions of this
kind, whether of Orangemen or Ribbon-
men, as illegal and most mischievous,
particularly in the north of Ireland.
These processions, on days when strong
political feelings were excited, such as
the 1st and 12th of July and the 4th of
November, had produced murders and
mischiefs of every kind. He rejoiced at
having an opportunity of expressing his
sentiments on this subject, and he trusted
that other gentlemen connected with
Ireland would exert their influence, as
far as possible, to discourage proceed-
ings which could end only in mischief and
disgrace to the country.
Mr. S. Rice thanked his hon. friend for
the observations he had just made. He
could not help thinking his present de-
claration as one of the most important
which had been made this session. He
trusted the recommendations of his hon.
friend would be carried into effect, by all
who possessed any influence in Ireland.
The evil arising from Orange lodges was
of late date ; those associations had only
been established within the last few years.
He again begged his hon. friend to accept
his acknowledgments for his present state-
ment ; a statement which, he trusted,
would not be lost on the government with
which he was connected.
Mr. Hume said, he wished to make one
remark upon the subject; and it was this:
that the lord chancellor of Ireland should
turn his attention to the question, and
remove from the commission of the peace,
all magistrates who gave a countenance
to these processions. He understood
that most of the meetings, of which they
had heard, had been attended or counte-
nanced by some of the magistrates. The
government had it in their power to put
down these processions; and they could
not hope to do it effectually, unless they
resorted to some strong and decided
method.
Mr. Brownlowo said, he had another
petition to present on the same subject,
and he was desirous to say a few words,
The petition which had just been preo
sented was, in every way, deserving of
consideration. It was a petition from
certain Freemasons in Ireland, in which
they stated that the Orange Societies
have not been put down, although the
Freemasons' Societies had been effectually







MARCH 30, 1824. [18


suppressed. That secret societies have
not been put down, must appear clear to
any man who had attended to the proceed-
ings at the Spring Assizes in Ireland.
The House could not but have felt sur-
prised at the declaration of Mr. Baron
M'Clelland, at the Assizes at Antrim,
that although he and his learned brother
had not completed half their circuit, yet
they had gone through various trials of
murder, arising out of these party pro-
cessions. Though an Orangeman, and
the representative of one of the most
Orange counties in Ireland, he felt it his
duty to call upon the government to take
some steps to put an end to these proces-
sions; for he quite agreed with the learned
judge to whom he had alluded, that as
long as they were continued, no man's
life was worth a pin's point; no man's
property was worth a year's purchase in
Ireland; and any man who was worth a
penny-piece would transport himself
beyond the reach of these hateful contests.
The petitioners stated, that they were a
charitable institution, founded upon bene-
volent principles; and the best security
that could be offered for their character
was, that. they could boast to have the
name of George 4th enrolled amongst
their members, and the duke of Sussex
for their Grand Master. The case then
stood thus : the duke of Sussex and a
large party of freemasons might dine to-
gether to-day in England; but if, to-mor-
row, they were to take a ship and sail for
Ireland, the moment they arrived, they
would be considered an illegal society.
He therefore thought, that either the
freemasons of Ireland should be exempted
from the operation of the law, or the law
itself should he made to extend generally
throughout the whole empire.
Mr. Abercromby said, that having called
the attention of the House to these secret
societies in the course of the last session,
no individual could feel more sincere sa-
tisfaction than he did, at the opinions
which had been delivered by the gentle-
man opposite. He could not help remark-
ing the great change which had taken
place in the course of one year; for when
he had given notice of his motion last
year, he had been admonished, directly
and indirectly, that the only effect of the
proposition must be, to increase the
strength of the Orange party. Gentle-
men opposite now concurred in his
opinion, that there was the most imminent
danger to be apprehended from the con-
VOLXI.


tinuance of these processions. He rejoiced
in the statement of the gentlemen opposite,
the more, because he had always been one
of those who thought that more good
could be done by influence than legislation.
He had always been of opinion, that it
was by the exertion of influence rather
than by positive legislation, that these
societies must be put down. He was the
last man in the world for putting down
opinions by violence; and would never
consent, much as he hated the Orange
institutions, to make them the objects of
vindictive persecution. He saw, however,
with great concern, that, notwithstand-
ing the anxiety with which the govern-
ment professed to put down these asso-
ciations, persons of rank, holding offices
of favour under it, still lent their names
and countenance to them. He did not
mean to say that those persons were privy
to the secret oaths by which such asso-
ciations were held together: no such thing.
He thought, however, that they did nearly
as much harm by holding nominal offices
in them, as they would have done had
they actually taken their oaths of secrecy.
It would not be an act of persecution to
those officers-on the contrary, it would
be an act of humanity to those ignorant
persons whom their name and authority
misled, to make them feel, that the
government would withdraw its favour
from them, unless they withdrew their
countenance from societies which produced
little else than tumult, insurrection, and
violence to the country.
Mr. Monck said, he was sure that all
gentlemen must agree, that the more
opportunities there were for Catholics and
Protestants to meet on neutral ground,
the better. Now, as the Freemasons
admitted amongst their members persons
of all denominations, he thought it de-
served encouragement, and he hoped that,
in the course of the session, some gentle-
man would introduce a bill to exempt the
Freemasons from the operation of the law
respecting Secret Societies.
Ordered to lie on the table.

COURTS OF JUSTICE IN SCOTLAND.]
Lord A. Hamilton rose, in pursuance of
notice, to move to refer the twelve reports
of the commissioners of inquiry into courts
of justice in Scotland to a committee of
the whole House. The noble lord ob-
served, that so long as ten years ago, his
right hon. friend, the member for Water-
ford, had succeeded in getting commis-
C


Courts 2f Alstice in Scotlan~d.







19] HOUSE OF COMMoNs,
sions appointed to examine into the courts
of justice in England, Scotland, and Ire-
land. But, though the commissiQn, which
had been appointed to examine into the
Scotch courts had presented several volu-
minous reports to the House, little or
nothing had been done to remove the
evils of which they complained. His ob-
ject in bringing forward his present motion
was, first of all to discover, whether go-
vernment had any proposition to bring
forward in furtherance of those reports,
and then if they had not, to suggest him-
self such propositions as he thought were
required by the circumstances of the
country. When he formerly alluded in
his place in parliament to the first three
or ,unr reports, which were presented by
the commissioners, he was told by the
then Lord Advocate, and also by the go-
vernment, to wait till the whole subject
had been under their consideration, and
not to attempt prematurely to discover
the intentions of government. He had
now waited to the full extent of time
which had been required of him, and sure
he was, that the country would be disap-
pointed at finding that one large portion
of this important subject had received no
adequate notice, and that another large
portion of it had received no notice at all.
He would state to the House, first,
what the reports declared ought to be
done; and then, what had been actually
done; and he trusted, that by that state-
ment'he should convince the House that
a great deal was still left for it to do.
He would likewise show, that the pro-
ceedings of government were so slow in
executing the recommendations of its own
commissioners, that it was absolutely ne-
cessary for the House to apply a stimulus
to the members of it. Though the bill
for the abolition of the inferior commis-
sary courts was a measure recommended
to the adoption of government so far back
as the year 1808, and though the Scotch
judges had repeatedly expressed their
concurrence in its provisions, it had not
been carried into effect until the year
1823. If this was the way, in which the
recommendation of commissioners was
to be received, it was nothing else but a
mockery to appoint them. Those com-
missioners had sat for seven or eight years
at an expense of 5,000L a year, and had
so cost the country about 40,0001.; and
yet their recommendation had not been
attended to, when they proposed to make
certain alterations in the Scotch courts,


Courts of Justice in Scotland. [20
which would have saved 6,0001. a year to
the public, and 12,0001. a year to the
suitors in them. Was such conduct fair,
either to the country, or to the individual
commissioners? The government had,
indeed, made some saving; but he believ-
ed it did not amount altogether to 5,0001.
The commissioners had likewise recom-
mended the abolition of ninety offices
but, if the offices in the inferior commis-
sary courts were excepted, it would be
found that not more than fifteen had been
abolished.
He did not think it necessary to proceed
into the details of the different courts, and
should therefore confine himself to men-
tioning the number of offices to be abolish-
ed, without enumerating them more par-
ticularly, unless he was forced to such
enumeration by any denial on the part of
hon. gentlemen opposite. In the court of
Session it was proposed to abolish ten
offices. Now, three only had been abolish-
ed. When he thus found that the re-
commendations of the commissioners had
not been carried into effect, he thought it
was fitting that he should appeal from the
judgment of his majesty's ministers to
that of the legislature. It was calculated
that a saving of 6,0001. a year would
have been effected in this court, if the
proposed alterations had been made. The
ostensible saving by reductions was, how-
ever, only 1,6001.; and if from that sum
they deducted the addition made to the
salaries of the judges' clerks (contrary
to the recommendation of the com-
missioners), it would be found that the
entire saving made by his majesty's go-
vernment amounted to no more than 3801.
a year. One half of the propositions
made by the commissioners appeared
never to have been considered; and the
result derived from those recommenda-
tions which had been attended to were
not so beneficial as they ought to have
been; since, though expense had been
reduced in one quarter, it was increased
in another. The next courts were the
Commissaries' court 6f Edinburgh, and
the inferior Commissaries' courts. In
these courts it was recommended to re-
duce five officers, but one only had been
removed. The total amount of retrench-
ment in those courts, if the recommenda-
tion had been obeyed, would have been
1,8001. a-year; but a saving of only
4001. a-year had been effected. The next
court noticed by the commissioners was
the Scottish Chancery. In that court







21 ] Courts of Justice in Scotland.
very great abuses existed with respect to
the collection of fees, especially in the
director's department, which was exe-
cuted wholly by deputy. He was not
aware that any alteration, conformably
with the recommendation of the sixth re-
port of the commissioners, had been made
in that court; but he wished to get some
insight into the subject from the learned
Losd Advocate. The commissioners, in
the report he had just mentioned, re-
ferred to a very extraordinary charge
which was made by the clerk of Chancery
under the denomination of treatment
money. That charge amounted, in 1816,
to 6771.; in 1817, to 8001.; and in 1818,
to 6801. The commissioners did not ap-
pear to understand on what ground the
demand was made.-
He would next call the attention of the
House to the Exchequer court. It was
recommended, that five offices should be
reduced in this court; but, in point of
fact, none had been abolished. It was
very true, that the situations of one baron
of the Exchequer, and of one deputy-re-
membrancer, had not been filled up when
the vacancies occurred; but they ought
to be abolished regularly by legislative
enactment. He was convinced that the
recommendation of the commissioners
ought to be fully carried into effect with
reference to this court; for no doubt
could be entertained that four barons
were amply sufficient to perform all the
duties connected with it. In this court
the saving ought to have been 5,0001. but
he believed that, in reality, not a single
shilling of the existing expense had been
reduced. According to the sixth report
it appeared, that enormous abuses were
found in this court. The king's deputy-
remembrancer had got his office secured
to him, by patent, for life, while the prin-
cipal only held his situation during plea-
sure. So that the deputy existed wholly
independent of the principal; independent
of any responsibility to which, under
other circumstances, he would be liable.
And here he could not avoid making a re-
mark on the subject, which was very often
brought before the House. He meant
the doctrine of vested rights. He would
read to the House four or five lines, which
would shew what the commissioners
thought of that doctrine. In the sixth
report, they said, It is thus, we may
remark, that abuse in those matters origi-
nates, and is too apt to be perpetuated.
An individual succeeds in exacting an


MARCH 30, 1824-. [L22
illegal sum for a considerable length of
time-his successor pursues the practice
which he finds-and thus it goes on, until
it is impossible to stop it, and that which
was originally wrong, is finally claimed
as a vested right." Under circumstances
such as these, compensations had been
demanded from, and awarded by, this
House, for vested interests, which, if the
allegations had been properly examined,
would never have been admitted, It was
recommended to reduce the expense of
the court of Lyon to the extent of 1,0001.
a-year; but nothing had been done in
consequence of that recommendation.
The justice of Peace court was the next
which the commissioners noticed; and
they recommended an abridged form of
proceeding in actions before that court.
That recommendation had not, however,
been adopted. In his opinion, the small
debt jurisdiction of that court ought to
be extended to a higher sum. At present
the sum was confined to 51. It ought, he
conceived to be enlarged to 101.; and he
had made up his mind to bring in a bill
for that purpose.
He now came to the borough courts;
and he believed there never was a subject
investigated by that House which required
so much revision and reform as the internal
state of the Scotch borough courts. He
had not been fortunate enough to persuade
the House to sanction a measure which he
had brought in on the subject; and that
which the noble lord had brought in and
carried was wholly inadequate to the in-
tended purpose. The reports of the com-
missioners fully confirmed his assertion,
that the internal state of those borough
courts required revision and reform. Of
sixty of these borough courts, at least one
half were liable to the strongest objection.
Nothing had been done with respect to
them; and he thought ministers were.
censurable, when twelve reports had been.
laid before parliament, in abstaining from
taking the subject into their serious con-
sideration. There was no uniformity-he
might say there was no honesty-of charge
,in those courts. Many of the charges
had been stigmatised by the commissioners
as illegal. It appeared that, with respect
to the Court of Session, little had been
done. No bill had been brought in relative
to the Chancery Court. In the Court of
Exchequer, the vacancy of one baron and
a deputy remembrancer had not been filled
up. As to any intended alteration in the
Sheriff'sCourt,t he Lord Lyon's Court, the







23] HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Justice 6f Peace Court, or the Borough
Courts, he knew nothing. Certainly there
was no bill or measure of any description,
relative to any of them now pending in
parliament. He wished therefore, that
the reports of the commissioners should
be referred to a committee. They would
then hear from the learned lord what
could be said in defence of the total
neglect of the reforms recommended by
the commissioners. The noble lord then
moved That the twelve Reports of the
commissioners of Inquiry into Courts of
Justice in Scotland be referred to a com-
mittee of the whole House."
The Lord Advocate said, that as this
subject could not be interesting to the ma-
jority of gentlemen present, he would
make his statement as short as he possibly
could. If the noble lord had moved that
the twelve reports of the commissioners
relative to the fees and emoluments connec-
ted with courts of justice in Scotland
should be referred to a select committee,
to declare what had been and what ought
to be done, he could have understood that
proceeding ; but he was somewhat at a loss
to know what the noble lord meant by
submittingthosedocuments to a committee
of the whole House, although he could
perhaps guess at the noble lord's object.
The noble lord, it appeared, was anxious
that he (the Lord Advocate) should de-
fend himself from the charge of having
neglected his duty, by not giving effect
to the recommendation of the commissio-
ners. Now, he must say, that the noble
lord had been for someyears mostattentive
to individuals holding the situation which
he had the honour to fill at present; and
it was a matter of great satisfaction to him,
considering the various duties he had to
perform, to find that the only matter of
blame affecting him, which the noble lord
could bring before the House, was his
supposed neglect of the reports of those
commissioners. He, however, denied that
he harboured any disinclination to carry-
ing into full effect the recommendations of
the commissioners. He was not in parlia-
ment when the right hon. baronet, the
member for Waterford, made the motion,
in consequence of which commissioners
of inquiry were appointed. He was,how-
ever, glad that the proposition had been
carried becausemuch valuable information
excellent historical accounts of the dif-
ferent courts, and various importantrecom-
mendations had arisen from the inquiry.
Still, however, looking to the whole sys-


Courts of Justice in Scotland. [24
tem of the courts in Scotland, it could not
be asserted that any thing radically wrong
was pointed out in their constitution.
He would now run over the practice of
those courts, shortly and generally, but
he hoped correctly. Two of the courts
which the noble lord had mentioned did
not properly come within the instructions
of the commissioners-he alluded to the
Lyon Court and the Chancery Court.
The situation of Lord Lyon was exactly
the same in Scotland, as that of Garter
King at Arms in England. It was the duty
of that officer to find arms for those who
had not previously borne them, or in
whose armorial bearings an alteration was
directed. For this service the individual
holding the office received certain fees.
It was evident, that this was an office un-
der the Crown-an office, the functions of
which were exercised under the king's
prerogative; and he felt that it was not
competent for him or others to interfere
with it. When he learned that an inter-
ference was meditated, he sent down an
injunction, as he was bound to do, to pre-
vent it from being carried into effect; as
the office was one emanating from the king
and not from the legislature. As to the
Scotch Court of Chancery, it was a mere
office. They had, in fact, no such thing
as a Court of Chancery. It was a mere
office ,from which certain writs were is-
sued, and in which all charters were recor-
ded. As to the fees of that office, the
commissioners reported, that they were
not excessive, and that they ought to be
continued. The noble lord had stated,
that the commissioners found fault
that the Director of the Chancery, with
his clerks, might levy fees to any extent
he thought proper : but the noble lord did
not tell the House what the commissioners
recommended in consequence. They re-
commended, that at the termination of
the existing interests in that office, the
officers should receive a regular salary,
and the surplus should be paid over to the
public revenue. It was not, however, ne-
cessary to follow up that regulation; be-
cause,by the act of the 51stofGeo. 3., cap.
64, it was directed, that on the termination
of the existing interests, a variety of offices
should be regulated-that salaries should
be given to those performing the duties,
and that the surplus should go to the re-
venue. Amongst those offices were, that
of director of the Chancery, and the clerk
of the Chancery in Scotland. Thus, that
which the commissioners had recommended







25] Courts of Justice in Scotl6ndl
was actually done by act of parliament.
When he came into parliament, he had
found those reports before the House, and
he immediately took measures to carry the
recommendation of the commissioners into
effect. With respect to the Court of Ses-
sion, an act was introduced by him, which
was deemed sufficient to carry into due
effect the intentions of the commissioners.
If some offices were not abolished, it only
showed that, on mature consideration, it
was not thought right to do them away,
under existing circumstances. The noble
lord, in mentioningthe court of Exchequer,
had admitted that certain offices in that
court had not been filled up. So far, cer-
tainly, the recommendation of the com-
missioners had been complied with. As
to the fees taken in that court, the 5th of
queen Anne expressly declared, that no
officer shall demand higher fees than are
.authorized by the barons, and if any person
shall exceed the fees fixed by the barons,
right shall be done to the party complain-
ing, and the offender shall be punished by
fine or suspension from office." Now, in
consequence of the recommendation of
the commissioners, the court had gone
over all those fees, and had regulated
every one of them. With respect to the
.court of Justiciary, it had by the act of
1617, a right to regulate its own fees.
Like the court of Exchequer, the judges
of that court were authorized to declare
what fees should be taken.
He would next come to the Commis-
sary courts, with respect to which a bill
had been brought into the House last
session, and the opposition of the noble
lord opposite, and of his friends, to that
bill, would not be readily forgotten.
Really, the individual who filled his (the
lord advocate's) situation stood in an en-
viable predicament! Ifhe proposed new
measures, he was resisted at every step;
and if he abstained from proposing new
measures, he was charged with neglect of
duty. The bill which he had introduced
last year upon the subject of the Commis-
sary courts, had gone to abolish, at once,
three-and-twenty patent places, all of them
in the gift of the Crown; and yet that
bill-brought in by an officer of govern-
ment-had been divided against, even on
the third reading. He was happy, how-
ever, to find, that whatever treatment the
measure had experienced in that House,
in Scotland it had been received with gra-
titude, and welcomed as a boon.-With
respect to the Sheriff's court, it would be


MAICH 30, 1824. .[2
recollected, that he had deferred bringing
in a bill, in consequence of a recommen-
dation from the upper House, in favour of
a commission generally upon the courts of
justice in Scotland. That commission
had reported, but the report was not yet
in the hands of members. As regarded
the state of the Sheriff's court, however,
the fact would be found to be this: in the
Sheriff's court, during the last year, fifty-
two thousand causes had been tried, which,
as compared with the business of the court
of Session, was in the proportion of one
hundred and seventeen to one; and the
commissioners recommended, in their re-
port upon the subject, that the practice
of the court of Session should be assimila-
ted to that of the Sheriff's court as much
as possible.
The hon. and learned lord then proceed-
ed to notice the recommendation of the
commissioners, as to an alteration in the
jurisdiction of justices of peace in Scot-
land. At present, the justices had juris-
diction in cases of debts under 51., and the
noble lord opposite had given notice of a
motion, to extend that jurisdiction to
debts of larger amount. Opinions were
something divided as to what should be
done in this matter. Some persons thought
that the power should extend to debts of
151.; others thought that it should go only
to 101.; and others were for letting it re-
main as it was, at 51. There were cir-
cumstances to be considered both ways.
No doubt, the cheap and speedy recovery
of small claims was an advantage; but,
carried too far, it led to indiscriminate
credit, and to the imprisonment of men for
debt who ought to have paid ready money.
Out of 212 persons confined for debt in
Edinburgh-the total number confined
within the last year-132 had been con-
fined for claims under the sum of 51. The
justices, too, were empowered at present
to decide these claims without a jury, and
not according to law, but according (in
the words of the authority) to equity
and good conscience." This might do
very well in disposing of small stakes, but
it would scarcely serve in the settlement.
of large ones; and for this, and a variety
of other reasons, he thought the jurisdic-
tion in debts above 51. would be most
conveniently lodged in the court of the
sheriff: the justices having, in the last
year, disposed of 8,700 causes, had already,
as it would seem, as much work on their
hands as they could dispense with; and as
for himself, lie should resist the noble







271 HOUSE OF COMMONS,
lord's motion, therefore, when ever it
came before the House, and move for the
appointment of a committee upon the
question. But, if he was unwilling to add
any thing in the way of civil duty to the
business already performed by the justi-
ces, there was a right of which he was
most anxious to see them in the exercise.
Whenever any step was to be taken *with
respect to arranging the administration of
criminal justice in Scotland, it ought at
once to be remembered-though the fact
generally perhaps was hardly known-that
the justices of peace in that country did
not, in fact, act magisterially. The ap
pointment of the sheriff, and the nature of
the duty intrusted to him, took away all
necessity for the interference, in criminal
matters, of the justice of peace; but he
(the lord advocate) was most anxious to
take the country gentlemen from that un-
profitable state of quiescence. It would
be incomparably better, in his view,
to give the justice of peace in Scot-
land, the same power which was
exercised by the justice of peace in Eng-
land; such a course would raise the con-
sequence of the individuals acting (who
were well entitled to so much attention),
and would, further, very materially expe-
dite the despatch of business. He re-
peated, that the giving of this additional
power to the magistracy would prevent
delays which now arose constantly from
all the press of duty lying in one quarter
-prisoners detained over from one session
to another, and expenses incurred, which
a more open course would avoid; and
besides, it would awaken the country gen-
tlemen from an apathy which they were
inclined to feel upon such matters. At
the time of the riots in Glasgow, none of
the country gentlemen had come in to of-
fer assistance to the constituted authori-
ties: not from any indisposition, of course,
to preserve tie peace, or to expose them-
selves in such discussion; but because
they thought the business was one with
which they had, by ri4ht, nothing to do.
But this was not a feeling calculated to
aid the safety, or promote the advan-
tage, of a country. Government was
entitled, in time of trouble, to look
to the country gentlemen, for their
assistancepersonally, and by means of their
authority and their influence. With this
view, it was most desirable that they
should be accustomed to take their share
in 'the important duty of administering
the criminal justice of the state; and ccr-


Courts of Justice in Scotland. [28
tainly, therefore, his feeling would be, to
refer to a committee that part of the
report of the commission which referred
to the powers of justices of peace in Scot-
land. The hon. and learned lord then
briefly recapitulated the effect of the ar-
rangements which had been made in the
several courts of Scotland, as those ar-
rangements bore, in his opinion, upon the
observations of the noble lord, the member
for Lanark; and, after trusting that he
stood clear, at least of having neglected
his duty in the matters referred to, sat
down, amidst loud and general cheering.
Mr. Abercromby said, he rose hardly
for any other purpose than that of ex-
pressing his satisfaction at the declaration
with which the learned lord had concluded
his speech. The learned lord's proposed
reform in the manner of administer-
ing criminal justice in Scotland was a
far greater consideration than the motion
immediately before the House; and he
most sincerely returned his thanks to the
learned lord for the intention. For him-
self, he had long considered the large ju-
risdiction held by the sheriffs in Scotland
to be a part of the Scottish law most
especially requiring revision; because it
gave a monopoly to the profession of the
law, in the administration of criminal jus-
tice, to the entire, and most impolitic,
exclusion of the country gentleman; and,
what was worse, these high powers being
too weighty to be born by the sheriff
himself, the country gentlemen, who were
deprived of them, had the mortification to
see them in fact exercised by the sheriff
depute. He did assure the hon. and learn-
ed lord, that he had listened with the
highest possible pleasure to his suggestion,
for increasing the qualifications of the
magistrates of Scotland; and with no
less, to his objection, that those magis-
trates should hold the power, in cases of
debt above 51., of deciding without the
intervention of a jury. Hearing such
opinions expressed from such a quarter,
he could hardly entertain a doubt that a
further measure of benefit to Scotland--he
meant the introduction of the system of
grand juries-would at once meet with
that reception, to which it was entitled by
its importance: and he wished, that an
instruction to consider the fitness of in-
troducing that measure should be given
to the committee for which the learned
lord was to move. With regard to the
answer which the learned lord had given
to his noble friend, he must confess he was







29] Courts of Justice in Scotland.
not so well satisfied with that answer, as
with the rest of the learned lord's speech.
With respect to the court of Session, the
commissioners had suggested a saving of
6,0001. a-year; the saving effected had
been little more than 1,6001.; and so
great a discrepancy ought to be accounted
for. Again, with respect to the court of
Exchequer, the learned lord said, that the
barons had made alterations.-Certainly,
they had made such alterations as to them
seemed fit and necessary: but, did it ap-
pear that the barons had made the altera-
tions suggested by the commissioners ? It
was mere waste of time for the House to
appoint a commission, if the officers of
the Crown could say, We have done
what we think right, and we will do no
more." The question was, not-had the
barons done that which they considered
necessary; but had they done that which
the House would consider necessary?
For these reasons, he should support the
motion of his noble friend.
Lord Binning declined following the
noble mover through his speech, because
he thought it had been sufficiently an-
swered by his learned friend, the lord ad-
Svocate. He rose for the purpose of thank-
ing the learned lord, for his intention with
respect to the magistracy of Scotland;
and hoped the hon. member for Calne
would not press the grand-jury question
into the same inquiry.
Mr. Hume admitted that the lord advo-
cate had done more than his predecessors
for the Scottish courts ; but thought that
that admission threw a very heavy blame
upon those predecessors. He gave great
credit to the noble member for Lanark for
his perseverance, and hoped he would
press his motion to a division.
Mr. Kennedy felt so highly pleased
with the intention of the lord advocate,
with respect to the Scottish magistracy,
that he wished to know whether it was
meant to be proceeded with in the present
session,
The LordAdvocate said,he had not made
up his mind whether he would pursue the
suggestion which he had thrown out in
this session or the next. He must first
know a little of the feeling of the profes-
sion in Scotland upon the subject.
Mr. Abercromby protested that from
the manner of the learned lord, he had
doubted whether he would not move for
the committee before theHouse adjourned.
The case was very much changed indeed,
if the matter, which he had been looking


MARCH 80, 1824. [30
upon as certain, was only something
which had passed through the learned
lord's mind, On his side of the House,
the impression had been, that the learned
lord's intention was absolute; but the
value of his speech was at leabt diminished
one half by his explanation.
Mr. W. Courtenay had felt much satis-
faction at hearing the declaration of
the lord advocate, and conjured him not
to allow any thing to divert him from pro-
secuting his view. There might be, and
would be, a division of opinion in Scotland
upon the subject; but the view of the
learned lord himself was decidedly the
enlarged and the liberal one.
Sir R. Fergusson said, that the lord
advocate's speech had deceived thegreater
part of the House. Certainly, it had been
understood that he meant to move for an
immediate investigation. But, as the
learned lord said, that he wished to con-
sult the feelings of his countrymen upon
the question, he begged to know who the
parties were whom he wished to consult,
and how and when their opinions were to
be ascertained ?
Mr. K. Douglas said, that the measure
which his learned friend proposed to in-
troduce was one of great importance, and
deserved the greatest consideration. If
the learned lord could introduce the mea-
sure during the present session, he no
doubt would do so ; but if, on the other
hand, the learned lord should find that he
could not press the measure, the House,
he trusted, would not withdraw their con-
fidence, but would leave in his hands a
question, which he had no doubt would be
treated by the learned lord with all the
consideration which its importance claim-
ed.
The Lord Advocate, in explanation,
stated it to be his intention to go on with
the inquiry, but would not pledge himself
as to the time.
Lord A. Hamilton in reply, expressed
his surprise at the reluctance of the learn-
ed lord, after ten years of indecision, to
fix the time. He took that opportunity
of justifying his own parliamentary con-
duct from the aspersions of the learned
lord. One assertion of the learned lord
was most unjustifiable, and altogether
unfounded. The learned lord had char-
ged him with running away from his own
country, at a time in which danger was
expected from a general rising. This
had been put forward in a newspaper,
under the immediate sanction, if not di-







31] HOUSE OF COMMONS,
reaction, of the learned lord, in which
there was no slander, however false and
absurd, that did not find a ready access
to the public. The real facts were these.
He had delayed his departure for Eng-
land from his own country, which was
also the country of the learned lord, in
consequence of notices which were re-
ceived from the government of an intend-
ed general rising. No such event oc-
curred then, though it did afterwards;
and he had therefore made his way to
Edinburgh, where he inquired for the
learned lord, in order to ascertain the real
state of affairs. He found that the learned
lord was busily engaged.in the pursuit of
his own political game-he was canvassing
for votes; as the general election was at
hand. He then called at the office of the
Solicitor-general, and found that gentle-
man as busily occupied as the learned
lord, and, in the self-same pursuit; so
that here was an actual running away of
these two learned persons. He then
called at the office of the Commander-in-
chief, and there he was told, that they
had received information of a general
rising, but that it had been repeated so
often that they began to laugh at it.
And these were the grounds upon which
he had been accused of running away, by
persons in the department of the learned
lord, who had heaped upon him the gros-
sest slanders, and the most abominable
falsehoods; alleging, in one instance, that
the only person executed in the subse-
quent riots, was a particular friend of his,
and that on searching his papers, two let-
ters in his (lord A. H's) hand-writing had
been discovered, the whole of which was
to be found in a newspaper which was sup-
ported and owned by the learned lord and
ten other official gentlemen. He believed
that there was not one man in the country,
and he was certain that no member of
that House, would continue to put faith in
suchcalumnies, which they saw were refuted
by the most simple reference to the facts.
The House divided-For the motion 76.
Against it 124. Majority 48.
List of the Minoritu.


Abercromb'
Allen, J. H
Althorp, vi
Baring, sir
Barnard, vi
Bennet, hon
Benyon, B.
Bernal, R.
Bentinck, ld


y, hon. J. Buxton, T. F.
Calvert, N.
sc. Campbell, hon. G. P.
Thomas Clifton, vise.
sc. Colborne, N. W. R.
n. H. G. Corbet, P.
Creevey, T.
Crompton, S.
L.W.H. C. Cradock,'S.


Settlement ofthe Poor Bill.


Denison, W. S.
tbrington, vise.
Ellis,hon. G. A.
Farrand, R.
Fergusson, sir R.
Fane, J.
Graham, S.
Guise, sir B. W.
Haldimand, W.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Honywood, W. P.
Hume, J.
Hutchinson, hon.C.H.
Jervoise, G. P.
Johnstone. W. A.
Lambton, J. G.
Leycester, R.
Leader, Wm.
Maberley, W. L.
Macdonald, J.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Marjoribanks, S.
Martin, John
Milton, vise.
Monck,J. B.
Moore, Peter
Newport, rt. lion. sirJ.
Nugent, lord
Palmer, C.
Palmer C. F.
Pares, Thomas


Philips. G. H. Jun.
Pym, Francis
Rice, T. S.
Robarts, A. W.
Robarts, G. J.
Rumbold, C. E.
Rickford, W.
Scott, Jas.
Sebright, sir J. S
Sefton, earl of
Smith, J.
Smith, Wn.
Smith, Robert
Stuart, lord P. J. E.
Sykes, D.
Taylor, C. M.
Taylor, M. A.
Townshend, lord C.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Warre, J. A.
Wharton, Johnr
Whitbread, S. C.
Whitbread, W. H.
Wilkins, W.
Williams, Wm.
Wood, Matthew
Wrottesley, sir J.
TELLERS.
Hamilton, lord A.
Kennedy, T. F.


SETTLEMENT OF THE POOR BILL.]
Lord Althorp rose to move for leave to
bring in a bill to abolish Settlement by
hiring and service. The noble lord re-
ferred to the great evils which prevailed
at present from the facilities given for
procuringsettlement by hiring and service.
Though the weight of this grievance was
sometimes averted by hiring for 51 weeks
and by other devices, yet these cases were
met by the judgment of courts, which
frequently made the contract void. It
might safely be asserted, that a change in
the law was necessary, were it only to cut
off the enormous and expensive litigation
which sprung out of this particular claim
of settlement. Another evil arising out
of the law, as it now stood, was the diffi-
culty which a poor man found in getting
work out of his own parish. This would
be, in a great measure, removed by his
bill. At the same time, he was aware
that some evil must arise from any change.
It was, therefore, on a balance of the
advantages and disadvantages, which he
thought to be decidedly in favour of his
plan, that he took leave to propose the
present motion.
Colonel Wood said, he did not mean to
oppose the motion for leave to bring in
the bill, but, as an isolated measure, he







83S Salmon Fisheries.
could not help feeling that it must be at-
tended with considerable difficulty. If the
bill should be brought in and go to a
committee, he would propose a clause to
obtain for the poor a mode of gaining a
settlement which the noble lord had not
provided in his plan. The mode he would
propose was, to give a settlement to all
persons who paid poor-rates, in the parish
in which they had paid them. As the law
now stood, no person could obtain a settle-
ment who did not pay rent to the amount
of ten pounds a-year; but he would have
the right allowed, without any consider-
ation of rent whatever. It was his inten-
tion to have introduced a bill founded on
the resolutions which he had proposed
last year; but having consulted the
opinions of the great manufacturing
towns, he found them so averse to the
plan, that he feared it would be impossible
to carry the measure. The great grie-
vance which the agricultural parishes had
to contend with was, that their people
were enticed away to the large manufac-
turing towns. There the young women
were seduced and impregnated; and then
they were sent back, and became incum.
branches upon their former parishes.
Mr. Cripps observed, thatmorelitigation
was occasioned by the claim of hiring and
service than by any other ground of set-
tlement, and as far as the noble lord's mea-
sure operated to remove that cause of dis-
pute, it waslikelytohave a beneficial effect.
He thought the fairest principle was, that
the parish which had enjoyed the labour
of the pauper should have the onus of his
support when he could labour no longer.
His great fear was, with respect to the
noble lord's bill, that, as it went on birth
and the paying of poor-rates, it would
appear still more objectionable to the
manufacturing towns, than the bill intend-
ed to have been brought forward by his
hon. friend.
Mr. Lockhart approved of the bill,
because it went to encourage residence,
and to cut off one great head of litigation,
which now thrived upon the uncertainties
of settlement by service.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.

SALMON FISHERIES.] Mr. Kennedy
rose to move for a committee to inquire
into the existing laws relating to the
Salmon Fisheries. The importance of the
interests which were connected with it,
and the number of petitions which had
been presented to the House, sufficiently
VOL. XI.


SMARcH 30, 1824. [34
proved the necessity of such an inquiry ;
and he had no doubt that, conducted as
it would be, it would establish every
private right, while it would protect the
public interests. The reason for pre-
serving these fisheries was, to secure a
supply of the valuable and peculiar food
they produced. They had been an early
object of the care of the Scottish parlia-
ment; by an enactment of which, so long
ago as the year 1424, the violation of their
privileges was punished with no less a
penalty than loss of life. It was obvious,
that a law of such a date must partake of
the barbarism of the age; but it continued
with little change, up to the reign of queen
Anne, when the existing laws were ratified
and confirmed. That these laws needed
revision, it was only necessary to refer to
the state of decay in which many fisheries,
once valuable, were at present; and to the
fact, that many of them were completely
destroyed. If the committee should be
granted, there were three main points to
which its inquiry would be directed. First,
an investigation, which was no less curious
than important, into the natural history.
and habits of the salmon. Upon this
point, though little had hitherto been
understood, a very considerable quantity
of information might now be procured.'
The second object of inquiry would be,
into the different modes of fishing which
had been introduced at various times, all
of which were under the sanction of the:
law; but some of which he was author-
ized in saying, were highly injurious to
the public interests. It would also be for
the committee to say, whether some of
the old modes at present prescribed,-might
not be advantageously revived. The third
topic would embrace an inquiry into the
policy of the ancient and existing laws, as
they affected the preservation of private
and public rights. He was of opinion,
that it would be impossible for the com-
mittee to come to a final decision in the
course of the present session. He thought,
therefore, that if they should report to,
the House the evidence they would be
enabled to collect during the session, the.
parliament would be in possession of the.
subject; and then, if the committee were
revived in the following session, it would
be in their power to recommend some
wise and salutary measure for the preser-
ration of the fisheries. He concluded by
moving, that a select committee he
appointed, to inquire into the state of the
salmon fisheries of Scotland and of the
D







353 HOUSE OF COMMONS,
United kingdom, and the laws affecting
the same, and to report the minutes of the
evidence given before them, from time to
time to the House."
Mr. C. Grant agreed, that this subject
was a more important one than it might at
first sight appear to be. With it, however,
were connected many private rights of a
very ancient date, which ought to be kept
sacred. The persons holding these private
rights, which in Scotland were all derived
from royal grants, entertained some ap-
prehensions, lest the proposed committee
should recommend an infringement of their
privileges. He was satisfied that the hon.
mover had no such intention, and he
thought there was no ground for such
apprehensions. It was a notorious fact,
that the supply of fish in the rivers of
England and Scotland had considerably
diminished, and this was of itself sufficient
to recommend a parliamentary inquiry,
not for the purpose of violating any exist-
ing right, but to exclude certain injurious
modes of fishing. He perfectly concurred
with the hon. mover as to the expediency
of such a committee.
The committee was then appointed.

NEW CHURCHES.1 Mr.Arbuthnot hav-
ing moved for leave to bring in a bill for
the sale of stock and other purposes rela-
ting to the land revenue,
Mr. Grey Bennet begged to take that
opportunity of inquiring the name of the
architect under whose directions the new
church in Largham-place was construc-
ting? Every body who saw it shrugged
up their shoulders, and inquired who could
be the architect who invented such a
monstrosity ? Rumours had gone abroad
and several persons had been mentioned
as the authors of the plan; and it was but
fair, using a vulgar proverb, to place the
saddle upon the right horse. He should
like also to hear what this mass of defor-
mity had cost. For one, he was resolved
not to pay willingly a farthing towards its
erection; on the contrary, he should be
glad to see it referred to a committee to
inquire into the propriety of pulling it
down, and for that object, though he was
not rich, he was not unwilling to subscribe
a fair proportion of the expense. Among
the many deplorable objects of the kind
in the metropolis and its neighbourhood,
this was the most melancholy departure
from the rules of good taste that he had
yet seen. The spire-was only to be com-
pared to an extinguisher on a flat candle-


Usury Lawas Repeal Bill. [36
stick. He had looked at a great number
of new churches, and they seemed to vie
with each other in deformity. They seem-
ed to proceed from bad to worse; and
the faults were multiplied with each. suc-
cessive effort. The architects seemed to
strive with each other, how to produce
an edifice unlike any thing that had
ever been seen before, as if they wished
to surprise the world with a new order of
architecture, most purely absurd and most
truly British. The good sense and good
taste of the public were disgusted in every
quarter; and there was hardly a man in
the community (excepting the architects
employed) who did not join in one opinion
upon the subject. Even the common
people poked up with astonishment at the
edifices, wondering who were the asses
that planned them and the fools that paid
for them.
Mr. Arbuthnot begged to assure the
hon. gentleman, that he was not at all
responsible; he disavowed any connection
with the church in Langham-place and
admitted that it was not the most orna-
mental in the metropolis. But if the new
street built under the auspices of his right
hon. friend was looked to as a whole, he
apprehended that a general charge of bad
taste could not be established. The church
in question certainly would be better away,
but it might not be easy to removeit. He
would rather not name the architect [cries
of name name!]. If he were required to
give up the architect, he must say that
the church was built according to the plan
of Mr. Nash. He might be allowed to
add, that if this building was not very

creditable to that gentleman's taste, there
were many others in its neighbourhood
that were eminently so.
Mr. Huskisson said, that up to that
hour he had never seen the church in ques-
tion, and was consequently not prepared
to offer any opinion as to the good or bad
taste or design. Neither had he inspec-
ted the plan, which he concluded had
been submitted to the commissioners and
adopted by them.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, March 31.
UsURY LAWS REPEAL BILL.] Mr.
Ellis presented a petition from the
chamber of commerce in Dublin, setting
forth,
6" That the petitioners have observed







37] Ustry 'Laws .Repeal Bill.
with great satisfaction the bill now before
the House to repeal the existing laws
against usury; that the petitioners are
convinced that very erroneous opinions
have prevailed with respect to the opera-
tion of these laws, and that their real
tendency is, to aggravate the evils they
were designed to remedy; so far from
regulating the relations between the lender
and the borrower on just and salutary
principles, they only serve to encourage a
recourse to evasive expedients, ruinous in
numberless instances to both parties; to
the lender in the risks his cupidity tempts
him to incur, and to the borrower, forced
into circumstances which render him in a
yet greater degree the victim of extortion;
thus the law that affects to interpose for
the benefit of the necessitous man, only
tends to confirm his subjection, to deepen
his difficulties, and by its fatal protection,
to precipitate his ruin ; that the usury laws,
mischievous in their evasion, are also
mischievous in their observance; to esta-
blish under penal sanctions a fixed stand-
ard for the use of money, which, like
other commodities is liable to perpetual
fluctuations in value, can have no other
effect than to divert it from the beneficial
purposes to which it would otherwise be
certainly applied, and to prevent the
intimate connexion between capital and
industry so conducive to the advantage of
both; on the one hand it tends to dimi-
nish the usefulness by obstructing the
circulation of capital, and on the other,
to deprive industry of pecuniary aids,
which, if adapted to its exigencies, and
acquired without undue sacrifices, could
not fail to give new vigour, and a wider
field for its operations, while they would
in numerous instances be the means of
averting the irremediable ruin of which a
temporary pressure is the occasion ; that
the laws in question are directly at vari-
ance with the enlightened policy which
the wisdom of the House has so distinctly
recognized, and so beneficially applied, as
the rule of legislation ; the policy founded
upon the principle, that to liberate private
interests from legislative interference, and
to leave them, as far as practicable, to the
discriminative management of the indi-
vidual, is the most effectual means of
providing not only for their advancement,
but their security ; that the petitioners
beg leave to add, that at a period when
the market rate of interest is so much
under the legal rate, an opportunity is
presented for accomplishing all the objects


MaRCH 31, 1824. [3I
of this great measure without the hazard
of incurring even the temporary incon-
venience which is sometimes found to
attend the movements of improvement;
may it therefore please the House to
proceed to the total and immediate
repeal of the existing laws against usury."
Sir H. Parnell spoke to the respecta-
bility of the petitioners, and to their
ability to judge upon this question.. He
hoped that the House would attend to the
strong arguments which the petition con
tainted.
Mr. Alderman Heygate did not at all
acquiesce in the doctrines of the petition.
Among the landed interest the greatest
alarm prevailed upon the question; and
the further the bill proceeded, the more its
opponents multiplied.
Mr. Curwen said, he should oppose the
measure.
Mr. Sykes said, that the opposition to
the measure must proceed upon the ap-
prehension, that the rate of interest would
be increased; but he was satisfied that
any such fear was totally unfounded.
Sir T. Lethbridge was of opinion, that
the effect of the bill would be, to place
borrowers at the mercy of lenders.
Mr. Philips supported the change of
the law, disputing the assertion of the hon,
alderman, as to the increase of the oppo-
nents of the bill. There never had been
such a coincidence of testimony among
intelligent men, as upon this question.
They all agreed that the existing laws
were injurious both to borrowers and
lenders.
Mr. Grenfell was convinced that, even
as the law now stood, money could never
be obtained at a lower rate of interest than
it was worth.
Mr. T. Wilson argued, that such an
alteration ought not to be made but at
the request of the landed interest. When-
ever other persons were paying 5 per cent.
landed proprietors would be obliged to
pay 7 per cent. The repeal of the present
law would be beneficial to Ireland.
Mr. D. Gilbert said, that the passing of
the bill before the House would be
highly advantageous to the landed in-
terest.
Sir E. Knatchbull observed, that money
could not now be obtained on mortgage,
at a less rate of interest than 4- per
cent.
Mr. Monck remarked, that money on
mortgage bore a higher rate of interest
than money advanced on good bills, 'be-







39] HOUSE OF COMMONS,
cause it was exposed to the risk of a
chancery suit, and could not be obtained
again immediately on its being wanted.
Ordered to lie on the table.

BURIALS IN IRELAND BILL.] Mr.
'Hutchinson presented a petition, which,
he said, he offered with pain and regret.
It prayed, that the bill which had been
brought in by the Attorney-general for
Ireland, respecting the right of burial of
the Catholics, might not pass into a law.
He felt regret, because, whatever were
the defects of the bill, if defects there
were he had no doubt of the kind intep-
tions of his right hon. friend, and of the
Irish'government on this subject; and he
felt it his duty, as an Irish gentleman, to
say that he considered Ireland deeply
indebted to lord Wellesley for his unceas-
ing anxiety to promote the welfare of
Ireland, and that he was persuaded that
if his excellency's administration had not
succeeded to the extent ofhis excellency's
wishes in restoring peace and quiet, it was
not for want of his earnest exertions.
The petition was from Mr. Devereux, a
Catholic gentleman of great fortune, of
the county of Wexford; and Mr. Eneas
Macdonald, of the county of Mayo. It
prayed that the bill might not pass into a
law.
The petition was then read, setting
forth,
That the Petitioners have read the
draft of a bill now before the House, for
repealing a certain act, and making cer-
tain provisions therein specified, with
respect to the burials in Ireland of per-
sons dissenting from the Established
church; that it is truly stated in the said
draft, that the easement of burial in the
church-yards of Protestant churches has
been long enjoyed by all classes of his
majesty's subjects; that no injury or in-
convenience affecting the rights, interests,
privileges, or prerogatives of the estab-
lished church, or of the ministers thereof,
at any time resulted, or is now alleged to
have resulted from such practice or en-
joyment in Ireland; and the petitioners
further humbly submit, that they are sus.
trained by the said bill in the position that
such practice is also justifiable in prin-
ciple, for the professed object of that
bill is, to provide that all classes of his
majesty's subjects may be permitted to
have the said easement of burial accord-
ing to the rites of the several religions
professed by them; that although the prin,


Burials in Ireland Bill, [40
ciple of toleration is thus distinctly recog-
nized in the terms of the said bill, never-
theless its provisions not only render
such principle inoperative, but introduce
new enactments more intolerant and ob-
noxious than those which they affect to
remedy; that the operation of the said
bill, if passed into a law, would be, to
tempt and excite the clergy of the estab-
lished church to the exercise of an odious
jurisdiction, to taunt the great body of
the people of Ireland, both lay and eccle-
siastical, daily and hourly upon the de-
gradations to which the law proscribes
them, on account of their professing the
Catholic faith, to produce constant and
immediate collision between the clergy
of the different communions, and to in-
crease that spirit of disunion and discon-
tent already so perniciously prevalent in
Ireland; that the provisions of the pro-
posed law would apply in a particular
manner to the city of Dublin, inasmuch
as the burials in that city are generally
had in the church-yards of Protestant
churches; that no inconvenience had re-
sulted from the practice of free burial, as
it existed in that city prior to the appoint-
ment of the most reverend Dr. Magee as
archbishop of the diocese; and the peti-
tioners humbly submit to the considera-
tion of the House, whether it can be es-
teemed a just or reasonable regulation to
subject the enjoyment or dispensation of
such a right to the caprice of the very
same individuals whose proceedings res-
pecting the same matter have rendered
necessary any application for the inter-
position of the legislature ; the petitioners
are unwilling to trespass on the House
with a detailed reference to the manifold
inconsistencies and insufficiencies of the
said bill, they are more anxious to solicit
the attention of the House to the illiberal
and impolitic principles which it tends to
establish, nor can they disguise the senti-
ments of regret and disappointment with
which they are impressed on observing
that its first necessary consequence would
be, to pronounce,.by implication, the sanc-
tion of the legislature for proceedings
which have been universally condemned
by every liberal and enlightened mind,
by declaring, as is insinuated by the said
bill, that such proceedings were indis-
pensably unavoidable, according to the
existing law; the petitioners, therefore,
most respectfully suggest, as a course
more suitable to the high office of parlia.
ment, and to the importance of the sub.







Attorney General of th Isl of Man.


Ject, and the real merits thereof, and also
more likely to remedy the evils lately
created, that inasmuch as it is admitted,
that the practice of free-burial has long
existed in Ireland, without any injury or
inconvenience, and the principle thereof
is distinctly recognized and professed, the
legislature may, in its wisdom, directly es-
tablish such right by positive enactment,
instead of transferring its own jurisdiction
or control to other persons, or making
provisions, avowedly unnecessary, but
directly tending to the perpetuation of
the most prejudicial collision and contest,
without effecting, or even professing to
seek, any one countervailing benefit or
advantage; and it is further most humbly
submitted, that if it shall be considered
necessary, provisions may be made at the
same time, to prevent the use of such
rites of burial in any Protestant church-
yard during the performance of divine
service in the church situated therein;
the petitioners for these reasons, among
many others, humbly pray the House,
That the said bill may not be passed into
a law, but that such measures may be
adopted in the matter as may protect the
public feelings from the offensive interpo-
sition of inconsiderate fanaticism, or more
furious intolerance."
Ordered to lie on the table.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, April 1,
COMPLAINT OF THE ABSENCE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL FROM THE ISLE
OF MAN.] Mr. Curwen, in rising, ac-
cording to notice, to move for a copy of
the appointment of the Attorney-general
of the Isle of Man, said, that he was not
at all influenced by any personal or local
feelings, and that his only object was, to
procure an equal administration of justice
for all parties. The hon. member then
went into a detail of the grounds of his
motion. He said, that an opinion of the
attorney-general of England, in 1789, had
recommended, that the attorney-general
of the Isle of Man should always be taken
from the English bar; an opinion, of
which every one who considered the
situation of the Island would acknowledge
the justness. The governor and lieuten-
ant-governor of that Island sat under
their commissions in the court of Chan-
cery, and the attorney-general acted as
their assessor. It was, therefore, of the
utmost importance that a person should


hold that situation who could render the
governor such assistance as he could con-
fide in, and whose decisions would not be
suspected of the local partialities and
prejudice, which must almost necessarily
be imputed to an officer from the Manx
bar. In criminal justice the duties of the
attorney-general were equally important.
All the prosecutions in the island were
instituted by him alone. He, assisted by
a jury of six, heard the evidence, and he
finally sat as one of the judges to affix
the punishment. It was not to be sup-
posed that any Manx-man could perform
duties such as these to the satisfaction of
all parties in the Island. Accordingly an
attorney-general had been appointed from
the English bar, and, in 1816, his salary
was increased from 3001. to 5001. a-year,
the additional 2001. being given on the
condition of his residing in the Island.
In point of fact, however, the attorney-
general had not so resided. He only
repaired there on a few great occasions,
and the business was ordinarily performed
by a deputy from the Manx bar, and liable
to all the objections against which the
appointment of a gentleman from the
English bar was intended to guard. It
might be said, that a gentleman from the
English bar would not accept the office,
if the condition of residence were en-
forced. But the residence of a proper
attorney-general was so important to the
island, that it would be worth while to
pay a larger salary, if his residence was
thereby enforced. There was a surplus
revenue in the isle of Man, which the
government had not applied; and it was
therefore to be presumed, that it was to
be considered applicable to insular pur-
poses. A salary of 1,000/. or 1,5001. a-
year, would be well bestowed, to secure
an object which nearly affected the 40,000
persons residing in the island. He
should take occasion to notice an imputa-
tion which the right hon. secretary's
speech on a former occasion seemed cal-
culated to cast on him (Mr. C.), namely,
that he had applied for the appointment
of one of his sons, who had been named
by the right hon gentleman, a judge in
the island. He had sat thirty years in
that House, without asking a favour from
the right or the left, and he certainly had
not deviated from his practice in the case
referred to. He concluded by moving
for a copy of the memorial of the House
of Keys, complaining of the absence of
the attorney-general from the Isle of Man;


Aptu. 1, 1824. [42







Attorney General of th Isl of Man.


Ject, and the real merits thereof, and also
more likely to remedy the evils lately
created, that inasmuch as it is admitted,
that the practice of free-burial has long
existed in Ireland, without any injury or
inconvenience, and the principle thereof
is distinctly recognized and professed, the
legislature may, in its wisdom, directly es-
tablish such right by positive enactment,
instead of transferring its own jurisdiction
or control to other persons, or making
provisions, avowedly unnecessary, but
directly tending to the perpetuation of
the most prejudicial collision and contest,
without effecting, or even professing to
seek, any one countervailing benefit or
advantage; and it is further most humbly
submitted, that if it shall be considered
necessary, provisions may be made at the
same time, to prevent the use of such
rites of burial in any Protestant church-
yard during the performance of divine
service in the church situated therein;
the petitioners for these reasons, among
many others, humbly pray the House,
That the said bill may not be passed into
a law, but that such measures may be
adopted in the matter as may protect the
public feelings from the offensive interpo-
sition of inconsiderate fanaticism, or more
furious intolerance."
Ordered to lie on the table.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, April 1,
COMPLAINT OF THE ABSENCE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL FROM THE ISLE
OF MAN.] Mr. Curwen, in rising, ac-
cording to notice, to move for a copy of
the appointment of the Attorney-general
of the Isle of Man, said, that he was not
at all influenced by any personal or local
feelings, and that his only object was, to
procure an equal administration of justice
for all parties. The hon. member then
went into a detail of the grounds of his
motion. He said, that an opinion of the
attorney-general of England, in 1789, had
recommended, that the attorney-general
of the Isle of Man should always be taken
from the English bar; an opinion, of
which every one who considered the
situation of the Island would acknowledge
the justness. The governor and lieuten-
ant-governor of that Island sat under
their commissions in the court of Chan-
cery, and the attorney-general acted as
their assessor. It was, therefore, of the
utmost importance that a person should


hold that situation who could render the
governor such assistance as he could con-
fide in, and whose decisions would not be
suspected of the local partialities and
prejudice, which must almost necessarily
be imputed to an officer from the Manx
bar. In criminal justice the duties of the
attorney-general were equally important.
All the prosecutions in the island were
instituted by him alone. He, assisted by
a jury of six, heard the evidence, and he
finally sat as one of the judges to affix
the punishment. It was not to be sup-
posed that any Manx-man could perform
duties such as these to the satisfaction of
all parties in the Island. Accordingly an
attorney-general had been appointed from
the English bar, and, in 1816, his salary
was increased from 3001. to 5001. a-year,
the additional 2001. being given on the
condition of his residing in the Island.
In point of fact, however, the attorney-
general had not so resided. He only
repaired there on a few great occasions,
and the business was ordinarily performed
by a deputy from the Manx bar, and liable
to all the objections against which the
appointment of a gentleman from the
English bar was intended to guard. It
might be said, that a gentleman from the
English bar would not accept the office,
if the condition of residence were en-
forced. But the residence of a proper
attorney-general was so important to the
island, that it would be worth while to
pay a larger salary, if his residence was
thereby enforced. There was a surplus
revenue in the isle of Man, which the
government had not applied; and it was
therefore to be presumed, that it was to
be considered applicable to insular pur-
poses. A salary of 1,000/. or 1,5001. a-
year, would be well bestowed, to secure
an object which nearly affected the 40,000
persons residing in the island. He
should take occasion to notice an imputa-
tion which the right hon. secretary's
speech on a former occasion seemed cal-
culated to cast on him (Mr. C.), namely,
that he had applied for the appointment
of one of his sons, who had been named
by the right hon gentleman, a judge in
the island. He had sat thirty years in
that House, without asking a favour from
the right or the left, and he certainly had
not deviated from his practice in the case
referred to. He concluded by moving
for a copy of the memorial of the House
of Keys, complaining of the absence of
the attorney-general from the Isle of Man;


Aptu. 1, 1824. [42







48] HOUSE OF COMMONS, Attornei GMneral of h Isle of Man. [44
and also a copy of the appointment of to the council of the Island. 'On that
that officer." occasion Mr. Clarke went to the Island;
Mr. Secretary Peel said, that the course and he was sorry to say that such impro-
taken by the hon. member had not a little priety of conduct was proved against a
surprised him. He had moved for papers, Judge, that he had thought it necessary
which he (Mr. P.) had not the least ob- to advise his majesty to remove him from
jection to produce, and, before they were the office. The hon. member had stated
produced, he had entered into details on him to have imputed to the hon. mover,
the subject, which shewed how little value the having made an application for the
he attached to the papers called for. The appointment of his son. He could readily
hon. member had, however, thus rendered acquit the hon. member of any such im-
it necessary for him to say a few words putation. The son of the hon. member
on the subject. The question was, what was the candidate who appeared to him
was the best arrangement for the appoint- best qualified for the office. On that
tnent of attorney-general for the Isle of account he (Mr. P.) had recommended
Man. The hon. mover admitted, that him for the appointment ; and he only
the attorney-general should not be an mentioned the fact, to shew that, at least
individual from the Manx bar; and indeed in that appointment, party motives could
it was clear to every one that, with the have nothing to do. Returning to the
important functions he had to perform, it appointment of the attorney-general, he
was most desirable that he should be a contended, that they could not find any
lawyer versed in the liberal principles of one to reside in the island for 4 or 5001. a
English jurisprudence; which nothing but year ; and if they could, it would not be
practice in the English courts would give, adviseable to get him. They could not
Being agreed on this point, in what way even suppose that a gentleman of Mr.
should they proceed ? He must say, that Clarke's eminence would go to the island
in an island with so limited a revenue as three times a-year for 4001. In fact,
the Isle of Man, expense was a material money happened to be a subordinate con-
consideration, and though the hon. mem- sideration with him; and from the extent
ber was very liberal in his proposal of of his private fortune, he could afford to
giving 1,0001. or 1,5001., he thought the make the sacrifice. Why, then, should
present arrangement was not only less they displace him ? In this, as in every
expensive but better. The present attorA capacity, he performed his duties in an
ney-general, Mr. Clarke, was appointed exemplary manner. He had himself
in 1816. He was recorder of Liverpool, received the greatest assistance from him,
and, in that capacity, tried as many cri. with regard to the internal legislation of
minal cases as any Judge of the kingdom, the Island. The sheriffs in Scotland, who
and should be, and in fact was, competent were most important officers, were dis-
to much higher functions. As attorney- pensed from residing in their counties
general of the Isle of Man he had 4001. a more than four months in the year; it
year [Mr. Carwen, 5001."]. The nett being deemed more desirable, that they
income he received was 4001., as 1001. was should practise in the courts of Edinburgh,
paid to an individual in the Island, for and thus keep up their knowledge of the
performing the duties in his absence, law, while they exercised a control over
Mr. Clarke was appointed because he was their subordinate officers. If a vacancy
recorder of Liverpool, and because, after occurred (and he hoped sincerely there
attending the Liverpool sessions, he could would not) in the office of attorney-
repair to the Island with less inconvenience general of the Isle of Man, he should
than any other individual of equal emi- make the best arrangement he could with
nence. The stipulation under which he the candidates who presented themselves;
was appointed was, that he should repair but he thought the manner in which the
to the island as often as the public duty office was at present filled, left nothing to
required; and in the last twelve months be desired, and much to be apprehended
that very eminent individual had repaired from a change.
thither three times. In one instance Mr. Hume said, that his hon. friend
there was the rare case of a trial for had not intended to blame the govern-
murder, which it was necessary the attor- merit for the system at present adopted;
ney-general should conduct in person, but he thought that the conditions on
In the second case, there was corruption which Mr. Clarke got his appointment
imputed to a judge, which he had referred should be fulfilled by that gentleman, as







45] Legacy Duty.
long as he chose to hold the office. One
of those conditions was, that the attorney-
general should reside on the island; and
he was in consequence to have an addition
of 200L a-year, to the 3001. a-year enjoyed
by his predecessor, making his salary
5001. a-year. But, though he received
the salary, he did not reside on the
Island.
Mr. Peel asked the hon. member, how
it was possible that residence in the Isle
of Man could be made an indispensable
condition of Mr. Clarke's holding the si-
tuation of attorney-general, when it was
notorious, that he had duties to fill at
Liverpool as recorder ?
General Gascoyne said, that before Mr.
Clarke held the office of attorney-general
for the Isle of Man, it had always been
considered a sinecure. The salary had,
however, been recently increased, in order
to obtain the occasional residence of that
officer, which had been recommended by
lord Sidmouth. Now, Mr. Clarke, from
residing in Lancashire, was at no great
distance from the Isle of Man, and was
always willing to repair thither, whenever
he thought his presence would be advan-
tageous.
Mr. Huskisson said, that the statement
of his right hon. friend, as to the mode in
which the duties of the office were exe-
cuted, rendered it unnecessary for him to
make a single observation. He would
observe, however, that, in point of prin-
ciple, he thought it desirable that the
attorney-general should not reside per-
sonally on the island, as it excluded the
possibility of that officer mixing himself
up with the party differences, which pre-
vailed in the island. If the office were to
be vacant to-morrow, he would rather
give it to a person of professional emi-
nence, who might go occasionally to the
island, than to a person who might be
willing to accept it on the condition of
permanent residence.
Mr. Curwen, in reply, said, he should
not have troubled the House with any ob-
servations; had he been aware that the
right hon. gentleman would have assented
to his motion, but as he had not felt secure
of that assent, he had thought it necessary
to lay before the House the grounds on
which he deemed himself entitled to the
production of the papers. He by no
means meant to say that a salary of 4001.
was too much for a man of Mr. Clarke's
abilities; but he certainly believed, that
the addition of 2001. had been granted on


APRIL 1, 1824. [i6
the express condition of a constant resi-
dence in the island.
The motion was agreed to.

PLYMOUTH BREAKWATER.) Mr.
Hume moved for a return of the expenses
of the establishment of the Breakwater at
Plymouth, specifying the salary paid to
each person employed, according to the
last return. He understood that the sums
expended had been less and less every
year; and there could be no necessity
therefore for keeping up the establish-
ment on the same scale as when the ex-
penditure amounted to 100,0001.
Sir G. Clerk said the expenses of this
establishment had been reduced to the
lowest possible scale. He was sure the
House would not think there had been
any improvidence in the management of
the funds for this great national work,
when he stated that it was likely to be
completed at a sum less by 200,0001. than
the original estimate.
Sir I. Coffn said there had never been a
work of so much importance conducted
in so economical a manner. It had com-
pletely answered the public expectations;
for oneofthe most unsafe anchorages with
which he had been acquainted, had now
become a perfect mill-pond. Ten thou-
sand advantages had accrued from this
great national undertaking, which had
never been contemplated : and if it had
cost half as much as the national debt, he
should not have grudged it.
The motion was agreed to.

LEGACY DUTY.] Mr. Hume rose to
call the attention of the House to a branch
of the revenue which, though small in
amount, was the source of great trouble
and vexation to the persons on whom it
was levied. He alluded to the legacy-
duty on sums which did not exceed 1001.
He was satisfied that the whole system of
the legacy duties ought to be re-examined,
and undergo a complete revision. At all
events, an alteration ought to be made
with respect to that portion of the duties
which affected individuals possessing but
little property. It appeared, from a return
which had been laid on the table of the
House a few days ago, that the duties on
probates, administrations, and inventories
in England and Scotland amounted to
1,800,0001. and that the portion arising
from the duties on sums under 1001. was
by no means great, compared with the
vexation and trouble they occasioned. to







471 HOUSE OF COMMONS, Burials in Ireland Bill. (48
the class of persons on whom it was levied; the poorer classes were subjected by the
In one instance, the expense of obtaining enaction of legacy, duties, the hon.mem-
probate on a property of 1061. amounted ber concluded by moving for a return of
to 141. being more than 141. per cent.; in the total amount of revenue received in
another case, the bill of charge for obtain- the united Kingdom for stamp duties on
ing probate on a sum of 551. amounted to legacies, probates, administrations, and
41. 14s. 6d. He felt satisfied, from the testamentary inventories, for sums not ex-
disposition which the chancellor of the ceeding 1001., in the year ending the 5th
Exchequer had shewn to extend relief to of January 1824 ; distinguishing the
those classes whichsuffered most from tax- amount in England, Scotland, and Ire-
ation, that he would be disposed to remit, land."
at leapt this part of the legacy duties, when The Chancellor of the Exchequer said,
he came to investigate the subject. He he had no objection to the motion. As to
begged to suggest to the chancellor of the the other points to which the hon. mem-
Exchequer, a mode of giving this relief ber had alluded, he did not know that he
to the public without affecting the amount could give him any answer, that the hon.'
of revenue. He would be enabled to do gentleman would consider satisfactory.
this by discontinuing the system of allow- He had lately looked with some attention
ing the enormous discount of SOs. per at the subject of stamps, and particularly
cent to proctors. In one case, a discount at that part of it which involved the le-
of between 40 and 501. was allowed on gacy duties. He had not, however, been
a single bill : the proctor having no other yet able to satisfy himself, as to what he
trouble than that of sending to the Stamp- could and ought to do by way of relief.
office. In another case the discount He admitted that the matters to which the
amounted to 901. He recommended the hon. member had alluded deserved.his
chancellor of the Exchequer to establish most serious attention; but in saying so
an office in Doctors' Commons, from he begged not to be understood as hold.
which, at an expense of 4001. or 5001. a ing out any expectations either one way
year, all the stamps required for this de- or the other. After the statement which
apartment might be issued. If the public he had recently made to the House
suffered great inconvenience in this coun- respecting the finances of the country, it
try, from the legacy duties on sums under could not be expected that he would will-
1001., the inconvenience derived from this ingly consent to any material diminution
source was even still greater in Scotland. of the revenue; at the same time, it was
He had a letter from a magistrate in Scot- no less his wish than his duty to give the
land, in which it was stated, that so strict community every relief in his power upon
were the officers in requiring an exact those minor matters which, without dimi-
account of the goods left by the deceased nishing the revenue, were likely to render
that they would insist on a man's old the raising of it less severely felt by the
night cap and slippers being included in public.
the inventory of the goods which he left Lord Binning said, there was one point
for his widow and children. Whilst he connected with this subject to which the
was upon this subject, he could not help hon. member for Aberdeenhad not advert-
calling the right hon. gentleman's atten- ed. He alluded to the tax on legacies
tion to a hardship which he thought ought left for charitable purposes. He thought
to be remedied as speedily as possible. If this part of the subject deserved the atten-
a man died, leaving property to the tion of the chancellor of the Exchequer.
amountof 1,0001.anddebtsto theamountof Mr. Lockhart suggested, that consider.
950., his executors were obliged to pay able expence and inconvenience, to which
the stamp duty, not upon the 501., of legatees residing in the country were
which he ,as really possessed, but upon exposed, might be removed, if the arch-
the 1,0001., which was in his custody at bishop of Canterbury were to appoint
the time o his decease. It was true that, standing commissioners in the several
under such circumstances, this duty was counties.
afterward returned, if application were Mr. Hume said, it was his intention to
made for it to the proper quarter; but he move for a copy of the expenses attendant
understood that the application was sel- upon those proceedings.
dom made, in consequence of the trouble The motion was then agreed to.
with which it was attended. After some
further remarks on the grievances to which Bv IAL.S IN IaLAND BILL.) On







491 Coal Duties.
the order of the day, for the third reading
of this bill,
Mr. Hume said, he had received a
communication, calling on him to request
the postponement of this measure until ts
contents were known in Ireland. Only a
few days had elapsed since it was brought
into the House, and it had since been
hurried forward, before its object was
known to the people of Ireland. Under
these circumstances, he asked whether it
would not be better to postpone the third
reading for eight or ten days, until the
opinion of the people of Ireland respecting
it was ascertained.
Mr. Peel said, as it was a subject which
had already created much angry dispute,
and,if not settled, was calculated to pro-
duce much more, he deemed it advisable
to proceed with the bill. At present, one
party in Ireland alleged, that another was
doing that which was contrary to law ;
and as this bill would prevent all further
doubt on the subject, it was proper to
avoid unnecessary delay.
The bill was then read a third time,
and passed.

COAL DUTIES.] Sir M. W.Ridley pre-
sented a petition from the proprietors of
collieries on the rivers Tyne and Wear;
setting forth:
"That it being generally understood
that a proposition will be shortly submit-
ted to parliament for altering the existing
duties on coals, the petitioners humbly
beg leave to state their situation, for the
information and consideration of the House,
that they have an immense capital embar-
ked in their mines, from which they raise
a much larger quantity of coals than the
markets now open to the petitioners can
take off, burthened as they are by the ex-
isting duties; that this surplus amounts, in
many collieries, to more than one fourth
of the whole quantity worked (making a
total upon both rivers, of about 400,000
London chaldrons), which is wholly lost
to the proprietor and the public, being
from its want of size of inferior value, and
not transportable on account of these
duties; that the repeal of these duties
would cause this surplus to be distributed
around the coast, and into the interior of
the country, greatly to the advantage of
the shipping, agricultural, and manufac-
turing interests, and to the immediate
reliefof the poorer classes ofthose districts
where, under the present system, they feel
the pressure of taxation in the direct pro-
VOL. XI.


APRIL 1I, 1824. [50
portion of the difficulty they have in pro-
curing an article essentially necessary to
their health and comfort; that these duties
on coals exported from the Tyne at the
London market amount to 10s. 8d., and at
the coasting markets to 6s. 6d.; and on
coals exported from the Wear to 10s. 2d.
at the former market, and to 6s. at the
latter, per London chaldron; that the
highest price charged by the coal-owners
upon the Tyne and Wear for coals put on
board is 16s. 6d. and the lowest 8s. per
London chaldron for housekeepers coals,
making the general average upon all the
sorts ofcoalless than 13s. per London chal-
dron; that any addition to that priceto the
consumer depends on circumstances over
which the petitioners have no control, and
in the advantages to be derived from:
which they do not participate; that the
petitioners are aware thatan impression
exists that there is a combination among
them by which the price of coals in London
has been kept up beyond the fair and free
competition price; this the petitioners
deny; for, on the contrary, the effect of
the regulations in their trade, necessary
for their mutual protection and conveni-
ence, has been, to keep the London mar-
ket fully supplied, and the price so low
that the inland coal-owners cannot com-
pete with the petitioners without a sus-
pension in their favour of the just princi-
ple of equal taxation, which was recogni-
zed by the legislature in the act passed
in 1805 for allowing a limited quantity of
canal coals to he brought to the port of
London, upon payment of equal duties
with the sea-borne coals; that the petition-
ers are convinced that the existing duties
are the chief grievance that the consu-
mers have to complain of and that these
duties are a partial and impolitic tax upon
the capital and industry of the Northern
counties, and of all places to which sea-
borne coals can be transported, from
which they ought to be relieved; the pe-
titioners therefore pray ,and humbly pray,
that the House will be pleased to make
such arrangements as will at no distant pe-
riod secure to the petitioners and the con-
sumers of coals the benefitsofa free trade,
and that in the meantime, in considering
any regulations that may be proposed for
securing to London a supply of this ne-
cessary article of life, the House will not
abandon the principles of equal taxation
and free competition, nor permit the intro-
duction of inland coals without subjecting
them to equal duties with the sea-borne
coals." E







5I] HOUSE OF COMMONS,
The House having resolved itself into
a committee on the coal acts,
Sir M. W. Ridley observed, that the
petition which he had just presented from
the coal-owners of the North embraced
the principle which he felt it his duty to
support. The question he wished to bring
under their consideration was extremely
important; and he requested the attention
of the committee, for a short time, while
he laid down the grounds on which the
proposition he intended to conclude with
was founded. His object was, that the
alterations proposed to be made by the
chancellor of the Exchequer in the coal
duties should be re-considered, before
they were ultimately carried into effect.
Those alterations would, he was convinced,
considerably injure the coal-trade of Lon-
don, if not of the country at large, and
were, as it appeared to him, founded on
an absurd and unjust principle of taxation.
He was sure that no one who had heard
the right hon. gentleman, when he detail-
ed'to the House the financial situation of
the country, or who had read the speech
which he made on that occasion, could
feel other sensations than those of pleasure
at the recognition of the principles of free
trade by which that speech was distin-
guished-principles which were then ge-
nerally approved of and asserted. But in
proportion as he felt pleased at that ex-
position, did he afterwards feel dissatisfied
when he found that the right hon. gentle-
man had so soon forgotten the principles
of equal taxation, and adopted a partial
and unfair system with respect to two
commodities of the same kind. When
the right hon. gentleman, at the period to
which he had alluded, expressed his inten-
tion of making an alteration in the duty
on rum, he had said, "It is my intention
to propose a reduction in the duty on
rum, so as to relieve it from one of the
peculiar difficulties under which it labours,
by reducing that duty to the level of the
duty on British spirits. No one, I pre-
sume, can think it desirable to reduce
the duty on rum lower than the duty on
spirits produced by British distillation.
All that can be done with propriety is,
to put them on the same footing I
propose, therefore, to make a reduction of
one shilling and three half-pence a gallon
in the duty on rum." Here was a prin-
ciple of fair and just taxation laid down
in one instance; and he could not conceive
why, in legislating on another, the
right hon. gentleman had thought fit to


CoalDuties. [5
deviate from that principle. Why, instead
of pursuing this system of equality, he had
chosen to exempt from taxation one
species of coal, while he placed a harsh
and unjust impost on another, he could
not conceive. It was the right hon.
gentleman's duty to legislate for the ge-
neral interest. The agricultural interest
and the distilling interest were affected by
the alteration in the duty on rum. The
right hon. gentleman on this point had
said, I am aware, that there are circum-
stances connected with the practice of
levying the duty according to the strength
of the spirit, which may prevent our
bringing the two descriptions of spirits to
exactly the same point of equalization:
but then it ought to be recollected by
those who are interested in the question,
that the distillers of British spirits are also
liable to the malt duty. So that I believe,
where the whole is taken together, the
difference between these two interests may
be considered as fairly balanced by the
proposed reduction. Whether or not
this diminution of duty will have any im-
portant effect upon the dealings in rum,
I do not know. It may be said, that it
will not do much for the West Indies;
perhaps not. But I know that the reduc-
tion is sound in principle; and I am always
ready to adopt a measure that is sound in
principle, even though I do not anticipate
any extensive benefit from it in the first
instance, because I am satisfied that its
result cannot be bad. A measure sound
in principle may, or rather it must, ulti-
mately lead to good. If we cannot do all
we would, let us do all we can." Now,
if the principle were a sound and good
one, he should be glad to know why the
right hon. gentleman had, in another case,
acted on a very different principle? He
should be glad to know why one body of
persons dealing in a necessary of life,
should be favoured more than another
body occupied in the selfsame trade ? Was
it for the benefit of the consumer? If it
was, the right hon. gentleman must carry
the principle further. He must repeal, at
once, if it were possible, the entire duty
on coals. The consumer would then
indeed be considerably benefitted; and no
party would have just cause for complaint.
Let the right hon. gentleman, in legis-
lating on this question, not confine him-
self to one party. Let him consider not
only the situation of the inland coal trade,
See Vol. x. p. 524.







53] Coal Duties. APRIL 1, 1824. [54
but the state, also, of the coal trade in the that it did operate as a prohibition; and
north. It must be known to all, that the it might, he conceived, be removed at the
northern owners had coals of various de- present moment, an equivalent relief being
scriptions, many of them of an inferior granted to the northern owners. In 1805,
quality, and which fetched an inferior as a protection to the sea-borne coal, it
price-just as was the case with inland was found necessary to charge a duty of
coals-but they paid on those inferior 1Os. 2d. a ton on coals of a certain quality,
coals precisely the same duty as was levied brought by the canal, which was equal to
on the best that came to market. Now, if the duty of 9s. 4d. a chaldron paid on sea-
the right hon. gentleman meant to bring bornecoals. Onthatoccasion, aminutewas
into competition with a good article a written by a right lion. gentleman then in
commodity of inferior quality, there cer- the Treasury, the recollection of which
mainly ought to be an equal portion of tax would, perhaps, induce him to lend the
taken off, so as to reduce the two articles northern owners a hand, instead of over-
to something like a level, turning that which he had himself assisted
The right hon. gentleman had observed, to build up. In that minute, dated the
that the interests which had grown up 6th of April, 1805, the right hon. gentle-
under the existing coal system were such man observed That the sale of coals
as to prevent him from proposing a plan by brought by the GrandJunction Canal must,
which, on this point, an act of general of necessity, excite the jealousy of those
relief, and of strict justice to the whole who brought sea-borne coals ;" and he ex-
country, might be effected. He had, pressed his confident hope that the former
however, yet to learn what those interests would not be allowed "to interfere with
were. The general interests of the public so valuable a branch of British navi-
surely were not to be sacrificed to any gation."
particular interest; and, when the right He would now refer to certain language
hon. gentleman spoke of particular inter- which the chancellor of the Exchequer
ests, he must have recollected, that they had held when he first touched on this
had only sprang up, under the present subject-language which, coming from
duties, in the course of a century. The such high authority, must have had the
subject of the introduction of inland coals effect of conveying impressions very unfa-
had always attracted the attention of the vourable to a highly respectable class of
northern coal-owners; and they had con- men. He could not, however, bring him-
stantly resisted any attempt to bring those self to believe that such was the intention
coals into the market, by the operation of of the right hon. gentleman. The right
any measure that would act as a protect- hon. gentleman had declared, that he
ing duty. To prove that government had would remit Ss. 4d. per chaldron on coals
always viewed with a favourable eye, the brought to the London market. Now,
coal coasting trade, the hon. baronet read before he proceeded further, he might be
an extract from the letter of a gentleman allowed to say, that he himself had no
intimately acquainted with the subject, in objection whatever to this reduction of
which, and after several prefatory obser- duty. On the contrary, he wished that
nations, hedeclared, that "the coal-owners more should be taken off; but he was by
had been taught that government would no means sure that the measure was satis-
never cease to protect the coasting trade." factory to the people of London. He
He also cited a letter from Mr. Ward to had seen a series of resolutions passed at
the secretary of the coal trade, in which a meeting of merchants, bankers, and tra-
that gentleman stated that stations ders of the city of London, who were
should be appointed, and duties, equal to desirous that the 3s. 4d. should be retain-

the coasting duties, levied on inland coal." ed, for the purpose of improving the me-
This clearly showed the existence of a tropolis. The right hon. gentleman, by
feeling on the part of the government, taking off 3s. 4d. from the duty on sea-
that the northern owners were likely to borne coal, and by making a much larger
be injured by the introduction of inland reduction in the duty payable on inland
coals, except under certain regulations. coal, did, in fact, introduce a system of
The right hon. gentleman had spoken of unjust because unequal, taxation ; because
the useless, unmeaning, and preposterous lie treated with marked difference the
restriction on the importation of inland same commodity coming from different
coal, which operated as a prohibition. parts of the same country. The right
He agreed with the right hon, gentleman, hon. gentleman had confidently stated








55] HOUSE OF. COMMONS,
that such a regulation would have a be-
neficial effect. It will put an end to the
power which those who engage in this
trade now possess, in common with all
monopolists, to enhance the price of coals
beyond their fair value,bystating the sup-
ply, and proportioning it to their own in-
terests rather than to the wants of the
consumer." This was a point, respect-
ing the coal trade, which appeared to be
understood. It was said, that there was
a regulation amongst the coal-owners
to limit the quantity of coals sent to
London. Now, he'begged leave to state
to the committee-and he would, if ne-
cessary, prove the fact at the bar of the
House,-that there was no regulation
between the coal-owners, directly or in-
directly, the quantity of coals sent to
London. All the regulations they en-
tered into had for their object to make the
best of their time and the most of their
capital. The coals supplied by Shields
and Newcastle were taken from 56 collier-
ies, the property of 150 proprietors.
They gave employment, food and raiment,
to not less than 100,000 persons. They
were prohibited by sea-duties from car-
rying coals into the foreign market. A
considerable quantity of coals was, from
the very nature of the trade, annually
wasted. If they could intro duce small
coals into the London market-and they
would answer every bit as well as large-
it would be a very great advantage to
them : but while the large coal was so
entirely preferred in London, small coal
could not be brought in, and they were
not allowed to export it. The only regu-
lation which the owners had, with respect
to the London market, was, that the quan.
tity assignable to the metropolis should
be in certain proportions, and at certain
times; but nothing whatsoever existed to
limit the quantity which it might be found
expedient to send to the London market.
The coal-owners were a little too far north
to be so blind to their own interest. Those
who were acquainted with the colliery
business must know, that the expense of
the owner must, in many respects, be the
same, whether the quantity of coal he
raised was great or small. Therefore it
was clear, that the more he shipped to
London, the greater must be his profit.
To prove that the supply of coals for
the London market was not so limited as
to enhance the price, even supposing for
argument's sake, that such a regulation
existed as that which had been alluded to,


Coal Daties. [E6
he would call the attention of the House
to a document which he held in his hand.
For many years the price charged by the
coal-owners had not been raised. At
length a rise from 2s. to 4s. took place.
But, it must be observed, that the charge
which was made in the London market
depended on the coal duties, over which
the coal-owners had no control. He held
in his hand an account of the number of
ships at market, for every day during the
year 1823, and it appeared from that do-
cument, that there were but five days in
the whole year, when the entire supply of
coals in the market was brought up.
There were on the first day of each
month, the following ships left unsold :-
In January 250, February 104, March
250, April 126, May 116, June 44, July
72, August 126, September 156, October
97, November 43, December 569. Here
it appeared that there was, in some in-
stances, a supply of 250 ships unsold in
the market. The legislature had thought
proper, for the security of the consumer
to appoint certain officers denominated
meters, whose duty it was, to see that the
coals were properly delivered ; but, it
very often happened, that, for want of
meters, the ships could not deliver their
cargoes. To prove this fact, the hon. ba-
ronet read an account, from which it ap-
peared, that at different periods in the
year 1823, there were from 10 to 265 ships
waiting for meters.
Having stated thus much in defence of
the coal-owners, he should merely state,
that the object which he had in view, in
the resolutions which he was about to
propose, was, to put the two trades on an
equality, as he supposed the right hon.
gentleman had intended. He wished to
leave untouched a wholesome and just
principle, that of equality of taxation, so
far as regarded two dealers in the same
commodity. The hon. baronet concluded
by reading the following resolutions :-
1. That the present duties on coals,
culm, and cinders, carried coastwise, or
by inland navigation, from any port or
place, to any place in the county of Mid-
dlesex or Hertford, shall cease and deter-
mine, and that the following duties shall
be hereafter paid thereon, viz.-on coals,
culm, and cinders, in case such are usual-
ly sold by weight, 4s. 6d. per ton. and
in case such coals, culm, and cinders are
usually sold by measure, 6s. per chaldron,
That all coals, culm, and cinders, navigat-
ed by the Grand-Junction or Paddington







571 Coal Duties.
canal, coming near the stone, or post, at
Grove bank; or if by the Thames, com-
ing up to the City stone, shall pay, if
usually sold by weight, 3s. per ton. and
if by measure, 4s. 6d. per chaldron;
Second, that, next year, a further reduc-
tion of duty to the amount of 2s. shall
take place. And third, that it is expe-
dient that the said duties be totally, but
gradually repealed."
The first resolution having been moved,
Mr. Littleton said, that if he thought
that any benefit could possibly arise from
the hon. baronet's recommendation, he
would be the very last man to object to it.
When the duty on coals carried coastwise
was first projected, the principles of poli-
tical economy were not so well known as
they were at present. It was then felt,
that coals borne by sea had a very great
advantage over those which were carried
by land.; and it should be observed, that
at that period the conveyance by canal was
extremely limited. The sea was an open
navigation ; it afforded advantages not
possessed by any other mode of convey-
ance, and therefore duties were imposed
on that species of carriage. In 1805,
when the Grand-Junction canalwasfinish-
ed, it was deemed proper to place a
heavy duty on coals carried through that
channel. This he looked upon as a great
injustice. If it were intended to place a
tax on inland coals, why was it confined
to only part of the inland trade, whilst
every other portion of it was suffered to
remain untaxed ? There were hundreds
of places where inland coal came in com-
petition with the sea-borne coal. Here
only it was excluded. If the right hon.
gentleman did not repeal the tax in this
solitary instance, the owners of inland
coal had a much greater right to complain
of injustice than the northern coal-owners
This tax on inland coal was imposed in
1805. At that period, the Grand-Junc-
tion company had nearly completed their
undertaking. The northern coal-owners,
afraid that inland coal would be brought
to their market by that canal, contrived,
that a clause, which prevented the impor-
tation of such coal, should be introduced,
under the mask of protecting the revenue.
Those gentlemen, not content with pre-
venting inland coal from coming into the
London market, as the sea-coal did, procur-
ed the insertion of a provision in the bill,
which gave totheir coals a monopoly, not
merely of the London market, but of the
country, for seventeen miles round it.


APran 1, 1824, [5s
The hon. baronet had neglected to state
the price of each sort of coals. No.doubt
he depended on the principle; but, the
scale of prices was necessary for the
elucidation of the question. His (Mr.
L's) object was, to show the House the
cost of a certain quantity of inland coals
at Paddington, the cost of a certain quan-
tity of sea-borne coal in thepool,and then
to prove, that the freight, charges, and
king's duty were far heavier on the in-
land than on the sea-borne coal. The
freight and other small charges on Stewart
or Wall's-end coals, as compared with the
prime cost, was as 11 to 17; and on
Staffordshire coals, as 291 to 18. The
amount of king's duty and other trifling
charges on Newcastle coals, was as 13
to 17; on inland coals, including the
London duty, it was as 19to 18. So that on
both these heads of charges, as compared
with the prime cost, the inland coals were
taxed infinitely more than the sea coals.
The charge for tonnage on the inland
coals was also worthy of notice. On a
quantity of coals, which cost 181., the ton-
nage charge would be 301. or 311., being
163 per cent on the prime cost of the ar-
ticle. No person needs be surprised at the
small quantity of inland coal introduced
to the London market, from the year 1807
to the year 1815. During that period,
only 50,000 tons had been navigated be-
yond the stone in lord Clarendon's Park.
In 1814, 1815, and 1816, there were 4,359
tons of inland coal brought to the London
market. In 1821 1,359 tons; in 1822,
912 tons: in 1823, 663 tons. Some ap-
prehensions were entertained, that the
facilities afforded by the Grand-Junction
canal would operate most prejudicially
against the northern coal-owners by ad-
mitting the importation of a large
quantity of inland coal to the London
market; but he would ask whether, on
the contrary, that. work had not been
more advantageous to them .than to any
other body of men ? They 1had an op-
portunity of sending their coals from the
Thames to the interior by that channel,
instead of being compelled to use waggon
carriage ; which was far more expensive ?
They had thus an exclusive monopoly
through a country extending from twen-
ty-five tothirty miles. The hon.baronet's
constituents stood, therefore, in a.much
better situation than his (Mr. L's) did.
It ought not. to be. overlooked, that the
northern coal-owners had, and probably
always would have, an unvarying demand







59] HOUSE OF COMMONS,
for their coals for domestic purposes-a
matter ofno small importance. The coal
proprietors of the north, even un-
der the circumstances of which they
complained, would have an overpowering
advantage over the inland proprietors, and
one which the latter would never, pro-
bably be able to surmount. With the
duty reduced, as it was to be, or even re-
duced still further, the inland coals could
never come, in any great quantity, into
the market of London; nor did the in-
land proprietors imagine that in the long
run, they could resist the gradual re-
duction of the duty on coals from the
north. He, for himself, spoke without
thesmallest personal interest; and,so far,
was differently circumstanced from hon.
members on the other side, who would
be likely to address the committee upon
the subject. He should certainly sit down
by opposing the proposition of the hon.
baronet.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said,
he-felt himself bound, in justice to the
hon. baronet opposite, and his friends, to
say a few words in explanation of the
remark attributed to him on a former
evening. The words quoted against him,
as to monopolies, were correct; but the
spirit of them had been a little mistaken.
They had been used, he believed, with
reference to some part of a petition, com-
plaining of combination, presented by one
of the hon. members for the city of Lon-
don; certainly, without any intention of
casting a slur upon individuals. Because,
in fact, if the legislature had given the
northern coal-owners a practical mono-
poly, no one could blame them for avail-
ing themselves of it. All he had said was
this-that if they had by law the practical
power of a monopoly, might it not be fit
to alter the state of the law, whether they
actually made use of that power or not?
With respect to the reduction which he
had proposed in the duty upon inland
coal, he was desirous, in fact, only to
rectify a kind of mistake that had been
committed. The existing law restricted
the importation of inland coal into Lon-
don to annually 50,000 tons. It appeared,
therefore, that the law thought that, with
safety to the northern interests, 50,000
tons might actually be admitted: but the
duty which this coal paid prevented 50,000
tons, or a tenth part of 50,000 tons, from
being sent; so that, in fact, it made the
resolution as to the quantity which might
come altogether nugatory, and imposed


Coal Duties. [60
a hardship which, it was evident, the le-
gislature had not intended. The hon.
baronet said, that the reason the inland
coal could not bear a high duty was, its
inferior quality ; and that if the duty upon
it was to be lowered, it ought also to be
lowered upon the inferior sea coal, which
paid the same duties at present as the
dearest coal at market. But, there were
reasons, independent of its quality, why
the inland coal could not bear high duty;
namely, the heavy tonnage which it paid,
for instance, to the canal companies-a
charge from which the northern coal was
altogether free. And, after all, what was
it that the northern coal proprietors were
alarmed at? Could their London sale
of 1,400,000 chaldrons a year be much
endangered by an inland sale of 50,000
tons? In fact, their demand had been
rather increasing ever since the peace;
and now there was to be a reduction of
price to the consumer, unless the consumer
was defeated by some combination which
the legislature was practically unable to
resist. They had a growing market, and
a reduced duty; and what more could
they well desire ? The right hon. gentle.
man sat down with observing, that he
certainly could not go the length of pledg-
ing himself to get rid of the coast duties
on coals within the next three years, be-
cause, independent of any question of
policy, the revenue could not afford to
lose the money. He could not, at pre-
sent, spare 900,0001. a-year. It was pos.
sible he might be wrong in his view of
the best mode of dealing with the surplus
which the country had disposable; but
he could not assent to a proposal which
would go to destroy the whole foundation
he had built upon. For these reasons,
he objected to the resolutions of the hon.
baronet.
Mr. Cuthbert Ellison denied the exis-
tence of any combination among the coal-
owners of the north, and trusted that no
one would continue to impute it to them,
after the manner in which it had been
disavowed. The reduction proposed by
the chancellor of the Exchequer, in the
duty upon inland coal, seemed to him not
to be justified upon any sound principle.
The fluctuation which took place in the
price of coals in the London market, arose
out of causes with which the pit-owners
had nothing to do. They arose almost
entirely in the pool, and might be checked,
in a considerable degree, by a change of
the city regulations.







61i Coal Duties.
Sir John Wrottesley was sorry to see
an opposition to the chancellor of the Ex-
chequer's intention in favour of the inland
coal, because most of the persons inter-
ested in that proposed measure had left
town, not anticipating any resistance to
it. At present, the House would see
that the duty on inland coal amounted to
a prohibition; for such a quantity as 900
or 1,200 tons in a year could have no view
to general consumption, and, in fact, was
only brought to London for certain specific
purposes. Surely, if there was any likeli-
hood of combination among the coal-
owners of the north, the true way to de-
feat it was, to give every facility toithe
inland coal-owners; among whom the
mode of working made combination im-
possible. He admitted, that very little
of the inland coal, under any circum-
stances, would come into the London
market ; but it was fair to the coal-owner,
as well as for the advantage of the con-
sumer, that it should have the power, up
to a certain point, of coming there. At
present, however, the Staffordshire pro-
prietors were actually in apprehension
that the northern owners would not
merely keep possession of London, but
compete with them in their own markets.
Mr. Stuart Wortley said, that the
northern coal-owners asked for no advan-
tage over the inland proprietors, except
the advantage which they had received
from nature. They had the best article
to sell, and the cheapest; and all they
required was, to be let alone with it. They
asked for no duties to be imposed upon
others; they only wished to be relieved
from unreasonable duties which were im-
posed upon themselves. Now, hon. gen-
tlemen talked of the antiquity of those
duties. Certainly,theyhadilasted great deal
too long: but would any one argue that
they had ever been imposed upon any
thing like a principle of trade, or with
any other view than that of extracting
revenue from a commodity which was
supposed to be well calculated to afford
it? Was the House aware that the ave-
rage price of coals was 13s. a chaldron
at Newcastle; some were as high as 16s.,
but some were low; so that 13s. was a
high average; and that these coals paid
a duty of more than 12s. 6d. a chaldron ?
He repeated, that the sea coals wanted
no advantage or protection. They only
wanted to be left to themselves. He
desired no limitation as to the quantity
of Staffordshire coal brought to London.


APRIL 1, IS-2. [62
Let the restriction be taken off: but then,
if the sea coal could go cheaper than the
inland coal to Berkshire or Oxfordshire,
why so much the better for the consumer,
and the inland coal-owner ought not to
complain. Let the duties, which now
pressed unfairly upon the northern pro-
prietors, be taken off, and they would
realize the apprehension of the inland
owners-they would supply those places.
The proposition, that the inland coal was
entitled to pay a less duty in London than
the sea coal, because it came to town by
a more chargeable road, and because there
were more expenses in bringing it, was
one of the most extraordinary to which
he had ever listened. Upon exactly the
same principle, a tax might be laid upon
Kent or Essex wheat, to balance the ad-
ditional cost which attended wheat com-
ing from Yorkshire. This certainly was
a little opposed to the doctrines of free
trade; but, if the course was to be taken
with regard to one article, he hoped it
would be taken with respect to another;
and that the Essex wheat would be charged
with a duty for the benefit of Yorkshire.
But, in fact, he knew what had led the
chancellor of the Exchequer to this mea-
sure in favour of the inland coal-owners.
The right hon. gentleman had been misled
by a cry of monopoly in the north; where
the proprietors certainly had a monopoly,
for they had an article which could never
be driven out of the market. It could
not be supposed that the coal proprietors
of the north were afraid of the chancellor
of the Exchequer's measure at present;
but they were afraid, and fairly so, of the
principle on which it proceeded. The
measure, at this moment, could do the
sea coal-owners no hurt; but circum-
stances might arise under which it would
do them hurt. At present, take the pro-
posed duty off, and the inland coals would
not come; but the duty was taken off to
cover the greater expense, to the inland
coal, of carriage. Suppose a war, or the
rumour of a war, which doubled the freight
and insurance of the sea coal-in what
situation would those who dealt in it stand
then ? The hon. member then commented
upon the usefulness, at least, of protecting
the sea-coal trade, on account of the
nursery which it formed for our seamen.
Mr. W. Courtenay wished that a tax
so full of extreme hardship and impolicy,
raised upon one of the essential articles
of life, could be entirely done away with.
He expatiated upon the benefits which a







63] HOUSE OF COMMONS,
total repeal of it would confer on the
western counties, where all enterprise in
manufacture was checked at present by
the weight of these unequal duties. He
could not determine whether or not the
plan of reduction proposed by his right
hon. friend was the best which could pos-
sibly be adopted, with a view to a gradual
and total repeal.
Colonel Wood said, that the argument
had been almost entirely conducted, as if
it only referred to a struggle or competi-
tion between the Staffordshire and the
northern coal-owners about the monopoly
of the London market. The fact was,
that there could not, in the nature of
things, be any such question. There was
no competition, there could be none, be-
tween the two classes of coals; so great
were the natural advantages on one side.
As proofs of the truth of this assertion,
the committee had only to notice what
was the effect of the competition, slight
as it was, which already existed. The
northern coals which came into the ports
of London ascended the Thames, charged
with all these extraordinary and unequal
duties, as high as the stone at Staines;
they went on to Windsor, and even as
far as Reading, where they met the inland
coals, charged with no duty whatever.
Now, let the committee observe the re-
sult of this conflict. The inland coals
could not keep the markets into which
the northern coals entered, charged with
the heavy duties, and the extraordinary
expense of freight incurred in ascending
the Thames ; but they were pushed back
into their own domicile, where alone they
could get and keep any steady rate of
consumption. A good fire was, doubtless,
a very comfortable thing: but, was not
plenty of light also a very comfortable
thing? For his part, if it were a matter
of choice with him, he could not hesitate
a moment in preferring light to fire. He
would, therefore, prefer the repeal of the
window-tax to the repeal of the coal
duties. It was difficult to manage ques-
tions of this kind with the chancellor of
the Exchequer. He well recollected the
hon. member for Surrey saying, on a
former occasion, with respect to the coal
duties, that he had a substitute to propose
in his pocket, but he would not take it
out, for fear the chancellor of the Exche-
quer should not only retain the tax, but
add the substitute to it. In all proba-
bility, that substitute was a duty at the
pit's mouth; and if so, he advised all


Coal Duties. [64
sides to join in expressing their content
at the remission of any part of the duty;
for, assuredly, nothing could be more
detrimental to the interests of coal-owners,
whether in Staffordshire or Northumber-
land, than the duty at the pit's mouth.
Therefore, though he would have pre-
ferred the repeal of some tax of more
general and impartial operation, and the
abolition of which would have been more
consonant with the principles of free trade,
he advised the committee to rest content-
ed, rather than put the question in danger,
by pressing his right hon. friend too far.
Lord Milton said, he would have given
the preference to the repeal of either the
window or malt duty. He could not com-
pliment either the justice or the policy of
this repeal. It appeared to him to be as
objectionable to proceed by favour, in the
repeal of taxes, as in their imposition.
The right hon. gentleman seemed in this
affair to have acted as if he had a surplus
revenue of 100,0001. with which he actu-
ally did not know what to do. It was
true that this was originally a very unequal
tax; but, how long had it continued? For
more than a century. Capital bad accom-
modated itself in the mean time to the
tax, and that capital would produce as
much in the western counties as it would
in the northern at this or any other time.
If the chancellor of the Exchequer was
able to remit 100,0001. of the public taxes,
London and its neighbourhood could have
no more right to the repeal than the rest
of the country. As to the boon intended
for the western counties, in remitting
the duty on sea-borne coal, he must look
at it with suspicion. It was intended as a
trap to catch the worthy gentlemen who
were connected with those counties: and
if the bait should take, undoubtedly it
must be a desirable thing for the right hon.
gentleman. For, though those counties
were not flowing with coals and iron, they
were abundantly flowing with members of
parliament: the population of Cornwall,
which was little more than 200,000, re-
turning more members than York and
Lancaster, with two millions of people.
But why should the House proceed in the
repeal of taxes by parallels of latitude
and longitude, instead of the great prin-
ciples, of justice policy, and free trade?
Mr. N. Calvert objected to the strange
proposition of the noble lord, that because
a tax of most unjust imposition had con-
tinued for along time, it was not, there-
fore a less proper subject for repeal He







65] Coal Duties.
preferrtl the repeal of the coal duties to
that of the remaining window tax, which
was paid chiefly by the rich; and hoped
to see the coal duties entirely done away.
Mr. Tremayne supported the resolu-
tions.
Sir T. Lethbridge pressed for the repeal
of the malt or window tax, in preference
to the duty on coals, and complained, in
strong terms of the monopoly enjoyed by
the proprietors of coal pits.
Mr. Lambton said, that having a great
personal interest in the present question
-a much greater interest, perhaps, than
any of the hon. gentlemen who had pre-
ceded him-he certainly would best con-
sult his own feelings by remaining entirely
silent. He, however, rose in consequence
of some observations that had been made,
to state a few facts, in justification of the
proprietors of coal mines in the North.
He was induced to do so in consequence
of what had fallen from the chancellor of
the Exchequer, and, in still stronger terms
from the hon. baronet below him. He
would state, in the name of those gentle-
men, that there was no foundation what-
ever for the charge, that the proprietors
of coal mines in the North had entered into
any combination to limit the supply of
coals in the London market. Whatever
resolutions they had entered into were not
for the purpose of limiting the supply, but
for the purpose of insuring to the city of
London, a regular and constant supply of
coals, at every season of the year. In con-
firmation of the truth of that assertion he
wouldappeal to theincreased supply of each
year. On every market day there were
more ships in the river than there were pur-
chasers. Theproprietors of the coal-mines
in the North looked not for monopoly-
they disclaimed all monopoly-they never
aspired to it-the existence of monopoly
was as odious in their eyes, as in the eyes
of any member in that House. The mo-
nopoly which had been created, had been
created by the government, for its own
purposes, and not to serve the proprietors
of coal-mines. Those gentlemen did not
seek to retain any monopoly. All they
asked for was a clear stage and no favour.
They wished to bring coals to the London
market on fair terms. He thought it was
hard that thosegentlemen should be driven
out of the London market without having
an opportunity afforded to them of export-
ing their coals to foreign ports. There
were no less than 400,000 chaldrons of
inferior coals allowed to rot in the North
VOL. XI.


APRIL 1, 1824. [66
because they could notbeexportedabroad,
in consequence ofthe high rate of duties to
which they were subjected. If these coals
could be exported, instead of going to
utter waste, they would bring in a fair re-
turn to the owners-while the exportation
of the article would employ a number of
ships, and many thousands of seamen.
The hon. member concluded by disclai-
ming upon the part of the proprietors of
coal-mines in the North all idea of mono-
poly.
Sir T. Acland supported theplan ofthe
chancellor of the Exchequer and hoped
that it would lead to the entire repeal of
the coal duties.
Mr. Money said, there were two points
to which he hoped the attention of the
right hon. gentleman would be directed.
The first was, the importance of the coal-
trade as a nursery for seamen, and as one
of the chief sources of the strength of the
British navy. The other was theadvan-.
tages experienced by the port of London
from the quantity of ballast which was ta-
ken from the bed of the river for the use
of the colliers on their homeward voyages.
He trusted that care would be taken that
nothing in the operation of the proposed
resolutions would affect either of these
important topics.
Mr. H. Sumner thought the coal-trade
had .a paramount claim to relief, and
trusted that the chancellor of the Exche-
quer would, whenever the opportunity
should occur, extend it as far as possible
beyond what was now proposed.
Mr. Alderman Bridges said, an hon.
baronet had been mistaken in supposing
that the proposed reduction of theduty
was considered by the city of London as
a trifling matter. The reason which had
induced them to wish that some part of
the London port duty should be retained,
arose from their wish to embellish and im-
prove the city by widening streets and tur-
ning corners; to which purposes the sums
raised by those duties were applied.
Alderman Wood begged it might be
understood, that the reduction in the duty
was an advantage to the public, and not
confined, as had been stated, to the coal
owners. It had already had an effect on
the bargains, and there could be no doubt
that the public would be benefitted to the
whole extent of the 3s. 4d.
The committee then divided on the
first resolution: for the resolution 51
Against it 83. On the second resolution:
for the resolution 54 Against it 80. On
F









the third resolution: for the resolution 60 deed, after the inquiries which had been
Against it 73. made, he was perfectly satisfied, that the
present bill would have a beneficial effect
HOUSE OF LORDS. on the trade of the country. When the
measure was first introduced, it was in-
Friday, April 2. tended that the prohibition on importa-
SILK TRADE BILL.] The Earl of tion should cease at'the same period that
Liverpool rose to move the second reading the reduction of the duty on the raw ma-
of this bill. The measure, he observed, trial commenced; but it had since been
was one of great importance; but, the thought reasonable, that the manufacturer
more he considered the subject, the should have the start, by being allowed
more he was satisfied that the effect of the reduction earlier. Such were the
the proposed change would be advanta. principal grounds on which the present
geous to the country. He had been bill had been brought forward. His ma-
one of those who formerly entertained jesty's government might have easily in-
doubts of the propriety of permitting a produced measures more generally popu-
competition in certain manufactures, but lar; but what they looked to in this was,
more mature consideration had convinced the establishment of sound principles, and
him of the impolicj of any restriction the laying the foundation of a just corn-
whatever. If it were possible for their mercial system. He concluded by mov-
lordships now to have any apprehension ing, that the bill be now read a second
of injury from allowing the importa- time.
fion of foreign silk manufactures, that The Marquis of Lansdown concurred
apprehension would, he trusted, be re- most completely in the views which the
moved on learning, that in consequence noble earl at the head of the Treasury
of the change in the law proposed to be had expressed. They were, indeed, the
made by this bill, new silk manufactures same as those which he had himself long
were likely to be established in different entertained on the subject. As to the
parts of the country. Arrangements, last point on which the noble earl had
he understood, were making at Manches- touched, namely, the removal of the pro-
ter for the introduction of this manufac- hibition against the introduction of fo-
ture, which would give employment to reign silks, nothing could be more poli-
30,000 or 40,000 persons. Indeed, there tic, or calculated to be more advantageous
could be no doubt of the manufacturers to the country. The principle of prohi-
of this country being able to compete bition being once removed by this bill, he
with foreigners, without the protection earnestly hoped it would never be per-
derived fromprohibitory laws. The princi- mitted again to have a place in the British
pie of free trade, on which the bill was code. As to the effect of this bill, he
formed, would put the silk-manufacture retained the same sanguine opinion which
on a fair footing; it was that of the he had formerly expressed. Whatever
quid pro quo; for the object of the bill apprehensions some individuals might en-
.was to reduce the price of the raw mate- tertain, lie had not the least doubt that,
rial, while it did away with the prohibitory aided by the improvement of machinery,
system, and admitted the foreign-manu- and the reduction of the duties on the
facturearticleunderaprotectingduty. The raw material, the manufacturer of this
impolicy of prohibitions was now too ob- country would be able to maintain his
vious to be questioned. It was to be place against any foreign competition,
expected that foreigners would always The only question on which there could
obtain a superiority in some branch of be any doubt was, that of the time to be
manufacture or other, and this was not allowed to the manufacturer. As the
to be regretted. It was not desirable change was great, it was certainly but
that other countries should not improve fair that a sufficient period for preparation
as we improved; for such reciprocal im- should be granted.
provement was advantageous to all par-
ties. Looking, however, at the silk ma- IRISH TITHES COMMUTATION BILL.]
nufacture on the extensive scale in which The Marquis of Lansdown said, he had
it was prosecuted in this country, in all some petitions to present on the subject
its branches, he saw no reason to think of the Irish Tithe Commutation Act, to
that the competition of the English ma- which he wished to draw the particular at-
nufacturer would not be successful. In- tention of their lordships. In the last


Irish Tithes Comrmutation Bill.


67T1 HOUSE OF LORDS,







APRIL 2, 1824. [70


session of parliament, he had felt it his
duty to support the principle of the mea-
sure introduced for the commutation of
tithes, as such a measure had been long
sought for in Ireland ; but it was neces-
sary that it should be impartial, in order
to produce even a partial restoration of
tranquillity in that country. In giving
his support to the measure, he had thought
it right to qualify that support with some
exceptions; and if he now found it ne-
cessary to recal the attention of their
lordships to the objections he had former-
ly stated, he should not advert to any one,
of the justice of which he was not con-
vinced he could satisfy the House and the
noble earl opposite. He should first re-
mind their lordships, that he had stated,
that the bill exhibited a prima facie ine-
quality in its operation on the parties to
whom it applied; in consequence of which
many were disinclined to assist in carrying
it into effect. A power was given by the
bill of last session to increase the pro-
vision for the clergy, beyond what had
been received for the last seven years.
This he thought was fair; because it was
but just that a clergyman should be al-
lowed an increase, if he had received less
than was due during the seven years; but
instances might occur in which it would
be equally just to give him less; and it
would have been proper to have inserted
a clause in the act, allowing the parishion-
ers to state their reasons for reducing the
provision. This reciprocity, however,
was not allowed. Had such a clause ex-
isted, it would have taken away a plausi-
ble argument or just objection, which
was seldom omitted to be urged against
the measure; namely, that the parishion-
ers, if they agreed to act under this bill,
might have to pay more, but it was im-
possible they could have to pay less. He
did not know whether it was owing to any
dulness of apprehension on the part of
the Irish peasantry, or from that confu-
sion of ideas which was by some attri-
buted to them, that they could not find
out the justice of this regulation. They
felt, however, that they were shut out
from making a fair bargain, and thought
that they perceived a design to make the
arrangement unfavourable to them.-The
clause which related to the machinery of
the bill was equally objectionable. It was
impossible for any one to foresee to what
extent the expense of executing the bill
might go; but, as the measure was alto-
gether for the benefit of the church, it


was reasonable to expect that the clergy
would pay a share of that expense. On
the contrary, the whole of the burthen
was thrown on theother party. Itwasthere-
fore by no means surprising, that this
part of the arrangement should be re-
garded as unjust, both by the country
gentlemen and farmers, who suffered by
it.-Another ground of complaint arose
from an obscurity in the bill, which it
would perhaps be in the power of the
noble earl opposite to. remove. The noble
earl must be aware, that nearly all the ar-
rangements which had taken place under
the bill, had been made under a clause
introduced by a member of his majesty's
government in the other House of 'parlia-
ment, the effect of which was, to give a
power of altering the arrangement made,
on the meeting of the vestry. 'It was un-
derstood, that the arrangement settled at
the meeting should be final; but the re-
sult was, that a further proceeding was
forced upon unwilling parties. Meaning
only to come to a final settlement at the
vestry meeting, they found that they were
obliged to go on to something else ; that
having agreed to one arrangement, they
were understood to have given their as-
sent to any subsequent one which might
take place. This provision, which was
called the trap clause, had given great
offence. It was therefore most desirable
that the matter should be made clear,
and all appearance of unfairness removed.
That the act containing these objection-
able clauses would be amended in the
present session, he was encouraged to
hope. By the votes of the other House
of Parliament, which were before their
lordships, he had, however, become ac-
quainted with a bill introduced into that
House of a very extraordinary nature.
SIf that bill should pass the other House,
there would be proposed for their lord-
ships' adoption a measure, which he did
not hesitate to say was more subversive
of the rights of property than any mea-
sure ever introduced into parliament. It
was a bill which he must believe never
could pass that House, or any assembly
exercising a sound judgment. In the
course of the last session, he had adverted to
the three parties subject to the operation
of the bill. One consisted of the holders
of the existing tithes; and he supposed it
was natural in them to wish to receive
more than they had previously done.
The tithe-payers constituted another
party; and it was to be presumed that


Irish Tithes Commutation Bill.








71] HOUSE OF LORDS,


they would wish to pay less. The third
party was formed of those who possessed
land tithe-free, and who were not legally
bound to pay any thing. It certainly did
occur to him, that there lurked under the
bill, a design to conciliate two of these
parties, the receivers and the payers, at
the expense of the weaker party who had
hitherto not been bound to pay any
thing. He had stated his suspicion, and
had felt it to behis duty to point out the in-
justice of the course which appeared to
be contemplated. What answer did the
joble earl opposite then give ? He said,
that no compulsion was meditated against
those who were not bound to pay tithes ;
that, in fact, compulsion with respect to
them was impossible, as they were em-
powered to vote, and no less than six
votes were given them for their protec-
tion. He had no interest in this question ;
but he could not express to their lordships
his astonishment at finding, that a clause
was introduced into the bill before the
other House, which went to deprive the
persons to whom he had alluded, of the
six votes to which they were at present
entitled, and to place the largest holder
of property in the country on the same
footing with the smallest. If this bill
passed into a law, the small proprietors
would be able to out-vote the proprietors
who possessed the greater part of the
land in each parish, contrary to all the
principles on which parliament had ever
acted in cases of property; as, in the
making of roads, canals, and so forth,
the possessors of one tenth of the pro-
perty of a parish would be enabled to
,control those who possessed the other
nine-tenths. Could any thing be more
unreasonable than this ?-Another clause
which he found in the bill now before the
Commons was not less reprehensible. It
empowered any person who might be ap-
pointed a commissioner, to order to be
brought before him the title deeds of the
estates, which any noble lord or any other
person might have in Ireland. Was it
possible that their lordships House, which
had always manifested such a delicate re-
gard to property, could sanction such a
clause as this ? Was it to be endured
that their lordships should be thus called
upon to produce every title deed, every
scrap of paper, connected with their
property ? It was impossible the noble
lord opposite could give his assent to
such a measure. It was impossible the
learned lord on the woolsack, who paid


so much attention to questions of pro-
perty, could permit it to proceed.
The Lord Chancellor rose to order. It
was, he said, the first time he had ever
heard the clauses of a bill in progress
through the other House of parliament
made the subject of discussion in their
lordships' House.
The Marquis of Lansdown considered
that he was strictly in order, as he was
speaking on a bill against which the peti-
tion he had to present was addressed.
He was entitled to state-and he thought
it but fair to call the attention of their
lordships thus early to the subject-that
the measure which was in progress in the
other House of parliament, so far from
being calculated to relieve the parties com-
plaining of the act, would aggravate the
evil under which they laboured. But, to
avoid all dispute on the question of order,
he would put the case hypothetically, and
say he understood that so and so had been
proposed elsewhere, which would come
precisely to the same thing. He would
state, that last year the average taken on
the last seven years, had been considered
too high, and it was thought right to cor-
rect it by giving the opportunity of an al-
teration at the end of three years. Not-
withstanding this arrangement, it had
been proposed, that when the average of
the seven years should once be determin-
ed on, it should be irrevocable, and could
not be altered at the end of the first three
years. Such an enactment as that he had
described, their lordships must perceive;
would be norelief from the hardship com-
plained of last session. He could assure
their lordships, that in stating these objec-
tions to the measure, he was actuated by
no opposition to tie principle of the mea-
sure. He was most desirous of seeing it
carried into effect, but wished the objec-
tionable clauses of the bill to undergo
amendment. In particular, he thought it
due to the proprietors not liable to pay
tithes, that they should be relieved from
compulsion, and that whatever they did
towards the execution of themeasure, they
should be permitted to do of their own
freewill. While the lay-holders and im-
propriators of tithes were not subject to
compulsion in coming to an arrangement,
he trusted their lordships would not be so
unjust as to impose compulsion on those
who hitherto had not been bound to pay
tithes, and who surely were entitled fo
remain as free as the other party who re-
ceived the tithes. He concluded by pre-


Irish Tithes Commurtation Bill.







'73] .Irish Tit4es Commutation BA
renting a petition against the Tithe Com-
mutation bill, from a parish in the county
of Tipperary.
The Earl of Liverpool said, he would
not be induced by any thing the no-
ble marquis had stated, to anticipate the
discussion which would probably regular-
ly come on, as to what alterations it might
be proper to make in a measure now be-
fore the otherHouse. Whenever that bill
camebefore theirlordships, it wouldbe time
to consider in what respect the bill of last
session was defective, and what amend-
ments it might require. What he wished
now to explain was, the real state of the
case with respect to the bill which was
said to have failed. When he proposed
the second reading last year, he had ob-
served to their lordships, that neither he
nor any person could expect the measure
to be otherwise than imperfect, and that
nothing more could then be expected
than to establish the principle. It was
under this impression that he stated his
opinion of the effect which was to be ex-
pected from the bill last session; but that
opinion was now completely changed.
Many amendments were made with a view
to compulsion, because it was supposed
that without compulsion there would be
no success. But, he was now prepared
to say, that the measure had succeeded
beyond the most sanguine expectation
which any person had ever formed re-
specting it. He found that it had suc-
ceeded in more than one-tenth of the
parishes. It had been carried into execu-
tion in 279 cases. It had besides been
carried into effect in twenty-three cases
since the meeting of that House, and fresh
applications had been made for thirty-nine
arrangements. With regard to what the
noble marquis had stated on the subject of
the clause, according to which, in some
cases, the clergyman might receive more
than had been paid on an average of seven
years, he must observe, that the objection
was far from being well founded. The
reason of the provision obviously was, be-
cause the clergyman could not have re-
ceived more than his right. There could
therefore, be no reason for inserting a
power to give him less than his due; but he
might have received so much less than
what he was entitled to, that in common
justice it would be necessary to give an
increase. Hence the necessity for the
power which the noble marquis regarded
as a mark of partiality. The measurehad
been carried into operation in a most li-


ill. APRlb 2, 1824. [74
beral manner in ten dioceses, and the
amount per acre received by the clergy-
man in some of them he would state. In
the diocess of Cashel, he received Is. 3d.
per acre; in Clonfert, 6d.; in Elfin, lld.;
in Meath 11d. In short, he could assure
their lordships, that the measure had suc-
ceeded far beyond any expectation he had
at first thought himself warranted in en-
couraging.
The Earl of Kingston stated the fact,
that in one parish there was no protestant
church erected, therector having objected
to the expense of751. year for the salary
of the curate; and the consequence was,
that many Protestants went to mass,
rather than go to no place'of worship at
all.
Lord King said, that after the many
grants of public money for the erection of
churchesand glebe-houses, it must be very
mortifying to the House to find their inten-
tion frustrated by those who ought to
promote them. He had heard of a mer-
cantile Hibernian reciprocity, but here was
a clerical Hibernian reciprocity. Was
the cure of souls a sinecure in Ireland, or
would the Irish clergy content themselves
with a mere salvage ? Would they take
the fee, and leave the sinner to work his
own way to heaven as he .could ? The
fact with respect to the clergy was as no-
torious as the sun at noon day.
The Earl of Clare inferred from cer-
tain facts which had taken place in his
own county, that, in some instances, the
composition had been taken too high, but,
generally, he maintained the right of the
clergy, to church property to be as
valid as that by which their lordships held
their estate, and the measure against
which the petitioners remonstrated to be
necessary to the salvation of the Church.
The Earl of Darnley contended, that,
though the clergy might be legally enti-
tled to claim the fullamount of their tithe,
the right could not easily be insisted
on after the statements of his noble friend,
which remained uncontroverted.-Hisno-
ble friend had made out a charge of gross
neglect Was the unwillingness of a rec-
tor to pay a curate 751. a year, a sufficient
reason to prevent the building of a church
and thereby compel the parishioners to
charge their religion for want of a Protes-
tant place of worship ?
The Earl of Kingston said, there was
not a single statement in the petitions re-
lative to the non-residence and neglect
of the clergy, which he could not esta-







75] HOUSE OF LORDS,
blish by evidence at their lordships' bar.
Ordered to lie on the table.

UNITARIAN MARRIAGE R~IJEF
BILLS..] On the order of the day for the
second reading of this bill,
The Marquis of Lansdown said, he
should not have thought it necessary to
have called their lordships' attention to
this subject at any length, if it had not
been intimated to him, that an opposition
was intended to be made to the measure
now before the House. The present bill
originated in petitions which had been
presented from the Dissenters in the last
session of parliament, in which they com-
plained of the necessity they were under,
as the law now stood, of taking a share in
the celebration of the marriage ceremony
to which they could not in conscience as-
sent. It was the first duty of the legisla-
ture, on civil grounds, to provide against
the celebration of clandestine marriages;
but, that being provided for, it was most
important that marriage should be con-
tracted with that solemnity which should
give to it, in the eyes of the parties, the
most lasting and binding obligation;
When if it was the duty of the legislature
to provide against clandestine marriages,
it was equally their duty to give every fa-
cility which was possible, and to avoid
every thing that had even the appearance
ofa violation of conscience; and on this
ground, their lordships would find it ne-
cessary to adopt the proposition which he
had now to submit to them. It had been
said, that the present measure would in-
clude an alteration of the Liturgy. This
was not the time to discuss whether such
an alteration were desirable, as his propo-
sition left that part of our church service
entirely untouched. Their lordships, he
was persuaded, would not think that per-
sons who were tolerated by the law, ought
in the ceremony of marriage, to be com-
pelled to violate their consciences, and be
brought into our churches, and appear to
signify their assentto doctrines, which the
law did not, in any other instance, call
upon them to do. It was most important
that marriage contracts should be entered
into under all the circumstances most
binding to the parties; and the object of
the state being secured by publicity and
solemnity being given thereto, that publi-
city and solemnity should take place in the
manner which the parties thought proper.
He therefore proposed, in the bill now be-
fore the House,thatthe classof Dissenters,


Unitarian Marriages ReliefBill. [76
commonly called Unitarians might, under
certain regulations, be married in their
own chapels, they having previously given
security for their publicity, the publica-
tion of bans and the payment of fees due
to the established church. He should
have beenpleasedtohave brought in a bill
of a more comprehensive nature, includ-
ing all dissenters from the Church, who
could not reconcile it to their consciences
to concur in the marriage ceremony.
With a view, however, to practical benefit
be had thought it best to limit the mea-
sure ; for when this subject was formerly
before the House, it was said by thosp for
whose authority he had the highest re-
spect, that there might be trivial objec-
tions taken, which the legislature was not
bound to attend to ; and it was also said,
that it would afford facilities to clandes-
tine marriages. It was then said, let us
see the case of the individuals who have
most reason to object to the law, and pro-
vide for that. The bill before their lord-
ships attended to the case of the parties
who, by the admission of some of the
right reverend prelates, were acknowledg-
ed tq have most reason, in foro conscientima
to complain of the marriage ceremony. It
was stated, with a spirit honourable to
the church, that the moment a case ap-
peared, in which the parties had conscien-
tious objections, there would be a dispo-
sition to afford it relief. The bill went
on to provide, that the chapels of the
Protestant dissenters commonly called
Unitarians might be registered, and after
being soregistered for not less than a year,
their marriages might be celebrated in
them. It was also provided, that minis-
ters should be punishable, if they cele-
brated any marriage contrary to the act;
and he should have no objection that
transportation should be the punishment
assigned for it. Although the publication
of bans was perhaps the best security
against clandestine marriages ; yet, if any
other should be thought preferable, such
as registering the intended marriage, he
should not object to it. Though the par-
ties to be relieved by the bill were the
furthest removedof any Protestant dissen-
ters from the doctrines of the Church of
England, yet that was no reason for the
House to refuse indulging them ; they
being, in common with all dissenters, tole-
rated by the law, and unquestionably that
class, who had most reason to object to
the marriage ceremony as it now stood.
It was on this allegation on their part, that







Unitarian Marriages Relief Bill.


the legislature was called upon to extend to
them the required indulgence, and unless
any noble lord could contend, that the
Unitarian ought to be cast without the
pale of society, or that he should not be
allowed to marry, or, if he should have
that permission, that the occasion of the
marriage ceremony should be taken to
subject him to what he esteemed a viola.
tion of his conscience-unless any noble
lord was bold enough to maintain these
propositions, he could not conceive any
objection to the Unitarians being married
in the way proposed by the present bill.
The Archbishop of Canterbury said, that
if the relief sought for, was to be obtained
by removing the scruples from one de-
scription of men to lay them on another
-from the smaller number to the larger-
from the Unitarian dissenter to the mem-
bers of the established church-he should
certainly have objected to it. At the
close of the last session of parliament, a
bill was submitted to their lordships, pro-
ceeding on a very different principle; for
whatever other faults it had, it was not
charged with transferring to others the
grievances which it assumed to redress.
To that bill he had been adverse; and it
was also opposed by others of their lord-
ships, and was ultimately rejected. At
that time there appeared a disposition in
the House to give, in some form, relief to
the Unitarians. That relief could only be
givenin one oftwo ways-eitherby enabling
the Unitarians, under certain regulations,
to intermarry in their own places of wor-
ship, or by an alteration of the form of the
marriage ceremony in the church of Eng-
land service. To the last he objected, and
still did object; deprecating as he did any
alterations of that kind. It might be said
that it was onlycertain prayers that were to
be omitted; but it would hardly be argued
that as great alterations might not be
brought about by omissions as by substitu-
tions: besides, the omission was avow-
ed to be in favour of persons whodisbeliev-
ed the doctrine of the Trinity. If that
measure had been carried, the Unitarians
were to have made use of that form so
mutilated; but it was rejected by the
House, and he rejoiced that it was. The
only mode of relief, then, was by this bill;
the two-fold object of which was the ease
of the Unitarian and the security of the
church. The latter would be attended
to in the committee, if their lordships
should agree to the bill going to that stage.
It had been said that it was extraordinary


that this favour should be granted to the
Unitarian dissenters, and yet be refused to
others; but the ground on which the le-
gislature proceeded was not favour, but a
regard to conscientious scruples; and where
such scruples existed they certainly were
entitled to relief. There did appear some
danger of clandestine marriages; but the
consideration which was due to conscien-
tious scruples outweighed that objection.
The publication of bans in the parish
church, when the usual place of worship
of the Unitarian might be ten miles off,
would leave a door open to evasion, which
it would be desirable to avoid. As to the
claim of the Dissenters generally, it was
not rested on conscience; but objections
stated as essential, were taken to theforms
of ceremonies, few as they were, in our
church, and inoffensive as they were in
principle. He was friendly to the second
reading of the bill; trusting that they
might be able in the committee, to make
such restraints and restrictions as would
make it a measure which, while, in the
first instance it consulted the conscien-
tious scruples of the Unitarians, should,
in the second instance, give the necessary
security to the Protestant church at large.
The Lord Chancellor declared, that no
respect could be more sincere than that
which he entertained for the most rever-
end prelate who had just addressed their
lordships, although, on the present occa-
sion, he felt that he could not conscienti-
ously concur with the most reverend
prelate on the important subject under
their consideration. On the provisions of
the bill he should not touch. They would
be fit matter for the consideration of the
committee, should the bill reach that
stage of its progress. His present busi-
ness was with the principle of the Ineasure.
In the first place, if he understood the
principle of Unitarianism at all, it went
to deny the doctrine of the Trinity. And
here he begged leave to say, that he had
nothing to do, on the present occasion,
with the merits of the doctrines of the
church of England. The church of Eng-
land he was bound to support, without
examining whether the doctrine of the
Trinity was or was not a part of its doc-
trines. He belonged to that church : he
always had supported it, and he trusted
he always should support it. The first
question that he had to ask, was, whether
the measure should be preceded by some
declaration to remove any doubts which
might be entertained, and which he cer-


APRIL 2, 11824. [78







Unitarian Marriages Relief Bill.


tainly did entertain, whether to deny the
doctrine of the Trinity was not at present
penal? The repeal of the 9th and 10th
of William had, in that respect, been much
misunderstood. It was supposed, that
the repeal of those acts made it legal to
deny the doctrine of the Trinity. He did
not believe that it did so. He did not
believe that the repeal of those acts ope-
rated at all upon the common law. At
any rate, the friends of the measure ought
to endeavour to remove all doubt on this
subject. That the acts in question were
of a nature which rendered it extremely
proper they should be repealed, no man
living would deny; but he still doubted,
whether their repeal affected the common
law, by which it was a penal offence to
deny the doctrine of the Trinity. The
great objection which he had to the bill
was, that it proposed a marriage between
a member of the church of England and a
Unitarian, to consult the conscience of
the latter in preference to that of the for-
mer. It was evidently impossible to
reconcile the religious opinions of the two
parties. They were as different as light
from darkness. Now, as to the existing
legislative provisions with respect to Jews
and Quakers, it must be recollected, that,
in the cases for which those provisions
were enacted, both parties must be Jews
or Quakers. If, however, the present
principle of granting this relief whore only
one of the parties dissented from the
church, was to be allowed, where would it
stop ? If it were granted to the Unitarians
could it be denied to the Roman Catho-
lics ? Why should such a privilege be
granted exclusively to the Unitarians,
who, of all classes of dissenters, dissented
the most widely from the doctrines of the
church of England? Nor had he less objec-
tion to allow the marriages made under such
circumstances tobe registered by ministers
of the church of England. It was to make
the church of England the servant and
hand-maid of those who denied her first
doctrines. The noble marquis had stated,
that the repeal of the acts of William had
given Unitarians the benefit of toleration.
So it had. But what was given was only
a repeal of certain pains and penalties to
which they were before subject; and he
believed it would be extremely, difficult
for any one to say, that the common law
was at all affected by it.
The Earl of Liverpool said, he should
vote for the second reading of the bill ;
but if it should come out of the committee


in its present shape, he should certainly
feel it his duty to oppose it. He was
prepared to give relief to the Unitarians
quoad Unitarians; but he was not prepar-
en to give that relief in such a way as
should affect the rights and interests and
security of the established church. That
church had a right to expect that those
who belonged to it should be married ac-
cording to its ceremonial. Where both
parties dissented from the established
church, as the Jews and Quakers, he saw
no objection to allow a different ceremo-
nial ; but not otherwise. How was it at
present, when a Catholic married a pro-
testant? The marriage was only valid
when it was performed by a clergyman
belonging to the religion of the state; al-
though, in most cases, it was performed
a second time by a Catholic priest. He
could not therefore agree to a marriage
being valid when performed by a Unita-
rian minister, unless both parties were
Unitarians: nor could he allow the simple
declaration of the individuals themselves,
when they applied for the license, to be
sufficient. He thought it was requisite
that they should have a certificate from
the Unitarian minister, that they were
bona fide Unitarians, and did not assume
the character for a temporary purpose.
If the bill were so qualified, he should
be ready to agree to it; but not other-
wise.
The Bishop of Chester expressed his
dissent from the bill, though he believed
no noble lord was more decidedly friend-
ly than he was to the principle of religious
toleration. He agreed, that in the inter-
course between the creature and the
Creator, no restriction should prevail, but
that it should be free as the air we breath-
ed. But, this appeared to him not a
question of religious scruples, but of civil
jurisprudence ; not of church doctrine, but
of church discipline. It would be only to
waste their lordships' time, were he to
endeavour to shew the advantages of a
national and established religion. Those
advantages had been proved by many ex-
cellent writers; and among others by
the excellent author of Moral and Po-
litical Philosophy"-an author who
required no praise of his, and to whom
he was sure the noble lord opposite would
be ready to pay the just tribute of his
admiration. But, if it was clear that the
establishment of a national religion was
advantageous, it was equally clear, that
that establishment must be upheld and


791 HOUSES OF LORDS,








protected by peculiar rights and privi- him to acquiesce in them. He (the
leges. That marriages should be celebrat- bishop of Chester) would deal with a
ed in the churches of the establishment Unitarian as he should himself wish to be
was one of the privileges which had been dealt with, under similar circumstances.
conceded to it; and, having been so con- Were he in a foreign country-in a coun-
ceded as a peculiar right and privilege, it try of Jews, of Catholics, or Mussulmen,
ought not to be taken away without the -and it were necessary for him to marry,
assignment of valid reasons. The fair way no consideration on earth should induce
of considering the subject was, to see what him to subscribe to any form of words, or to
it was, according to the marriage cere- assent to any doctrines,contrary to his own
mony of the church of England, that the conviction. But, in things indifferent in
Unitarian was called upon to subscribe, themselves, he should consider any objec-
to declare, or to deny. In the first place, tion as ridiculous, and should hold himself
the Unitarian was called upon to subscribe bound to comply with the established laws
his belief of the Scripture. He could find and ceremonies of the country. Now
no difficulty in doing that. But, besides really, the objection of the Unitarians to
this, he was bound, in the progress of the conform to the marriage ceremony of the
ceremony, to say, With this ring I thee established church, seemed to be of the
wed, with my body I thee worship, and latter description. It did not appear ti
with all my worldly goods I thee endow : him, that by acquiescing in the terms of
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, that ceremony, they could consider them.
and of the Holy Ghost." But, were not selves, in foro conscientise, as sinning
these the words of Scripture ? If the against any law, either of God or of man.
Unitarian believed in Scripture, what As to the machinery of the bill, thle
reasonable objection could he have to re- present was not the fit opportunity to
peat those words? He might affix to discuss it; but he would just observe, that
them what meaning he pleased. Every in the bill which regulated the marriages
one was at perfect liberty to do that. of Jews and Quakers, it was provided,
But, how could those words be considered that both parties must be either Jews or
as objectionable by the Unitarians, when Quakers. If the present bill passed into
the following words were used by the a law, let not the House lay the flattering
Unitarians themselves in the baptismal unction to their souls, that the same pri-
part of their form of prayer;-" I baptise vileges and immunities would not be
thee in the name of the Father, of the Son, required by all other sects of dissenters.
and of the Holy Spirit." It seemed to Now, although he was far from wishing to
him, therefore, to be impossible that they say any thing against the Unitarians, he
could object to words in the marriage ce- really did not think that they ought to be
remony of the Church of England, which considered as a favourite sect. If, there-
they themselves pronounced in their own fore, the other sects of dissenters were to
forms. So far, therefore, their lordships be invested with the same privileges, let
would agree, that the Unitarians had no their lordships consider what a falling-off
just cause for complaint. He wished, there would be in the number of marriages
however, to treat this important subject celebrated by ministers of the established
fairly and without reserve; and he would church, and what a diminution of their
therefore observe, that the marriage ser- emoluments. He certainly did not mean
vice of the Church added a blessing by to lay any great stress on this last argu-
the minister, in the following words : ment. If the dissenters were entitled to
God the Father, God the Son, and God this indulgence, let it be granted to them-
the Holy Ghost, bless," &c. But, would "fiat justitia ruat ccelum." But, un-
notthe Unitarian be benefitted rather than questionably, the.effect of such a measure
injured by the blessing of the minister of would be-and especially in large manu-
the established church ? He could have facturing towns, such as those within his
no objection to its being given in the terms own diocese-to make little livings still
which, in the apprehension of the minister less. Now, really, it seemed hardly fair to
of the church, adequately described the deprive the possessors of those little livings
Being whom he adored. The Unitarian of a portion of that stipend which was
was not bound to assent to the accuracy already sufficiently scanty. Marriage fees
of those terms: he might affix to them formed a large part of the stipend of those
what meaning he pleased. There was no clergy who always resided on their livings,
force or compulsion upon him to induce faithfully discharging all their sacred
VOL. XI. G


APRIL 2, 1814. [8!9


Mnitarlian Marriages Relief Bill.








83] HOUSE OF LORDS, Unitarian Marriages Relief Bill [84
functions, and from whom, therefore, it divinity was not attributable to two of
would be very hard to deduct so import- those persons. The Unitarian gave an
ant a portion of their income. Such was implied assent to the propriety of those
the view which he took of the question. expressions, however, if he allowed them
Whatever effect the arguments which he to be pronounced over him in one of thd
had urged might have on their lordships' most important acts of his life. He really
minds, he could assure them that they had did think that this might be considered a
produced Conviction in his own. He bona fide and conscientious objection. He
should be extremely sorry if the opinions would ask their lordships whether they
whichhe had expressed should give offence would be satisfied with a marriage cere-
to any person. It was far from his wish money for themselves, in which the name
to give any such offence. But he was not of Mahomet was adjured. Marriage was
so unobservant of the signs of the times, a civil contract, to which it had been
as not to remark, that those who were wisely determined to give a religious
most clamorous for religious toleration for sanction. Of course that sanction was to
themselves, were the least inclined to be binding on the conscience. But, where
grant even a little toleration to others. was the propriety of involving in the
If, also, he had the misfortune to differ marriage ceremony itself a violation of
from any of those with whom it was his that conscientious feeling which it was
pride and pleasure to agree, that would be expressly ordained to cherish ? While he
to him a source of still deeper regret; but said this, he was as anxious as any man,
everysuch circumstance was comparatively that the security of the Protestant church
unimportant, when put in competition with generally should hot be endangered, nor
duty, Amicus Plato, sed magis amica its authority diminished. With respect
veritas." He trusted, that on all questions to the publication of the bans, he did not
in which the interests and the stability of see why they should not be published in
the church of England were concerned, the Unitarian chapels. He was certainly
their lordships would never show any notsurprised at, indeedhe could notregret,
thing like apathy or indifference ; and the existence of a jealousy on all matters
that they would, on the present occasion, which threatened to weaken the security
exclaim, if not in the exact words, at of the church of England. But it did not
least in the spirit and feeling, of the on that account follow, that he should raise
ancient barons-" NolumuslegesEcclesim scruples "light as air" into matters.of
mutari." importance. He should vote for the bill
The Earl of Harrowby declared, that if going into the committee, in the hope that
he thought the bill before their lordships the objections to it might there be entirely
would, in the slightest degree, affect the obviated.
interests of the church of England, it Lord Calthorpe could not help feeling
would not meet with a more determined that tie degree of relief which this bill
opponent than himself. Nothing he had afforded ought to be granted to the Uni-
heard, however, satisfied him that such tarians, as offering them an opportunity of
was the case. With respect to the first being married without any violation of
passage in the marriage ceremony, in their principles; for he thought the
which the bridegroom took the bride to strength of the Church did not, and could
wife in the name of the Father, the Son, not, arise from persecution. She loved to
and the Holy Ghost, it certainly did seem relieve the honest scruples of men, if, at
strange that the Unitarian should object the same time, she could satisfy herself,
to words which were introduced into his that the measure of relief was consistent
own form of prayer; although he under- with the interests of those great and im-
stood that there was some slight difference, portant truths which those men denied.
such as the substitution of "into thename" Considering the remarkable observance of
for in the name." That, however, did the decencies and proprieties of life by
not appear to be a rational objection on the the sect of Unitarian dissenters, and consi-
part of the Unitarian. But he could easily during their regular and exemplary dis-
conceive that a serious and, in his opinion, charge of the duties of their situations,
a well-founded objection might arise in which afforded the church a sufficient
the mind of the Unitarian to the expres- guarantee for the due and proper perform-
sion God the Father, God the Son, and ance of this solemn rite by their ministers,
God the Holy Ghost;" because the Uni- the church ought not to press her forms
tarian conceived that the attribute of upon them too strictly. At the same







Unitarian Marriages Relief Bill.


lime, he could not help thinking, that
she ought to do something which would
effectually prevent them from being iden-
tified with her. Feeling, as he did, that
the doctrine of the Trinity was affirmed
by the English church ; that it formed the
base of her structure; and that it was
infused into all her articles-he could not
help thinking, that she was bound to shew
to those individuals who differed from her
in that essential point, however respect-
able they might be, that she could
encourage no ecclesiastical communion
with them. He wished to do justice to
the merits of the Unitarians, and he should
do them great injustice if he did not
recognize the excellence of those pa-
triotic virtues which had often placed them
in the foremost ranks of the friends of
humanity and truth ; but while he said this,
he could not refrain from broadly and
decidedly expressing his dissent from the
lamentable doctrines in which they be-
lieved. He called those doctrines lament-
able, for they appeared to him to strip
the christian religion of all that made her
the grace, the hope, and the consolation of
her followers. While, therefore, he re-
spected the merits of the Unitarians, he
could not help remembering that they
held opinions at variance with what the
English church considered as constituting
the very essence of Christianity. The
church of England had, indeed, marked
that doctrine in a distinct and authoritative
manner; and she considered those truths,
not merely in the light of speculative
doctrine, but as an active and fruitful
spring of action. But though he spoke'of
the Unitarian doctrine with pain, he did
not wish to speak of its professors with
harshness; for that was not consistent
with the true christian mildness on which
all the articles and institutions of the
church of England were founded. It did
seem to him, that the church owed it to
herself, to her supremacy, and to the high
and important truths which she taught, to
mark in this bill, her total dissent from
the opinion of the Unitarian dissenters.
He had no apprehension, that such a step
as the passing of the present bill wobld
lead to an injurious degree of indulgence,
nor to a rash and indiscreet spirit of sur-
rendering the privileges of the church.
But, at the same time that he said this, he
could not refrain from applauding the
conduct of those prelates, who, fearing
such a danger, had deprecated any altera-
tion whatever. He could not but rejoice,


that the bench of bishops had refrained
from setting a precedent so full of danger.
He admired the service of the church of
England; he particularly venerated the
Liturgy, which he looked upon with an
affection almost equal to that with whicl
he viewed Holy writ itself, and he thought
the bench of bishops deserved the thanks
of every supporter of the church of Eng-
land, for having offered their fair and open
opposition to the principles of this bill,
although at the same time, he differdd
from the members of that bench, as to the
danger which they supposed likely to
ensue. He did not think this would afford
a means f6r the further extension of Unti
tarian doctrines; for, in his opinion, human
nature required something more consoling,
more heart-sustaining, than their cold and
precise doctrines. He did not think that
such of the bishops as supported this bill
could be accused of inconsistency, because
they had spoken and voted against grant-
ing any further concessions to the Catho-
lics. On the contrary, he could easily
conceive, that they might oppose one,
and conscientiously vote in favour of the
other. He thought this to be a measure
not only of justice to the Unitarian dissent-
ers, but to the church itself. He should
give his vote for its being committed,
though, with the view he had of the ques-
tion, he should have thought it better for
the church to have asked for the relief
which this bill would give them, than thus
to have accorded it as a boon to the dis-
senters. He called it a reliefto the church,
for the clergy must have felt uneasy in
doing that which nearly amounted to
profaneness; namely, calling on the Uni-
tarian dissenter, when appearing at the
altar, to do violence to his conscience, by
professing sentiments which he positively
disavowed, or by using expressions which
obliged him to screen himself under men-
tal equivocation and reservation.
The Earl of Westmorland felt it his
duty to state the reasons on which he
should be induced to vote against the bill.
The first ground of his opposition was,
that he absolutely and distinctly objected
to the principle of the measure. When
he said this, he did not wish it to be sup-
posed that he was an enemy to toleratio
generally, when about to be extended to
any man or set of men of any particular
sect; but he objected to this measure
because he considered it a complete alter-
ation ofthe law ofthelandand of the church
establishment. By the law of the land,


APRIL, 2,- 1824.








87] HOUSE OF LORDS,


for the purpose of protecting families in
the possession of their property, and pre-
venting frauds, the solemnization of the
marriage contract was required to be in
the church of England. To this general
law there were only two exceptions, in the
instances of Jews and Quakers. On
the policy of those exceptions he should
not now stay to argue; it was sufficient that
they existed and were recognized by the
law ; but, if they were to be extended-
jf other exceptions to the general law
were to be created-he wished to know
why the alteration should be special and
not general ? He saw no reason why the
Unitarian should be put forward in pre-
ference to other dissenters. His next ob-
jection was, that by this bill the church
was made a mere handmaid, an assistant,
to this particular description of dissenters,
in preference to all others. He could not
conceive why, if the principle of extension
of right were to be allowed, it should not
be rendered general, if not universal. He
did not see why the Unitarians should form
the only exception to the general law of
the land. On these grounds, he should
feel himself bound to give his negative to
.a measure, which, he conceived, would, if
passed, form a considerable alteration of
the ecclesiastical law, and of the common
law of the land.
The Bishop of London said, that at so
late an hour of the night he would not
take up much of their lordships' time, but
would succinctly state what were the
grounds upon which he intended to vote
for this bill going into a committee. He
thought the policy which had induced the
legislature to place the solemnization of
marriage in the hands of the church
was a very wise one. It contributed to
that publicity which was so desirable in
its celebration; and thereby had a ten-
,dency to protect parties from having
their ignorance or their credulity prac-
tised upon by the designing and the
vicious. It secured the decent and so-
lemn performance of that which the law
held to have been, in its origin, a civil
more than a religious contract. This
might not be, indeed, a primary view of
the subject; but it went to shew the
wisdom of the policy which the legisla-
ture had pursued, in conferring upon it a
certain distinction, by confiding it to the
care of the church. It was in this view
.of the matter, that he thought no altera-
tion ought to take place in the law, ex-
cept upon very weighty reasons indeed.


Now it appeared to him, that no general
dissent from the doctrine of the church
of England was a sufficient ground for
effecting such alteration in favour of a
particular class of persons. With respect
to the class in question, if there was any
entire and essential difference between
their tenets and any doctrine recognized
in our marriage-service itself, he was
willing to admit, that that might consti-
tute some ground for the sort of altera-
tion he spoke of; but, in the present
case, the fact was not so. Their lord-
ships would remember, that some time
since, there was brought into that House
a bill which proposed to give relief to
dissenters of all denominations, who enter-
tained opinions that differed from those
of the church of England upon particu-
lar doctrines. No sect or class was
named in it. To that bill he ventured
to offer objections as to the principle;
but he supported the proposition for its
going into a committee. In the present
instance, the case was very different. In
this bill, a particular class of persons was
named, and their particular scruples were
recited; and their lordships were told,
that while the parties felt all this difficulty
as to the solemnization of marriage, they
were very much agreed in other points
with the church. He could not agree
with a noble earl in his view of such an
application. It had been said, at the
same time, that the Unitarians had made
no particular profession of faith. Now,
if any noble lord were to say to a Uni-
tarian, that because he had married ac-
cording to the rites and ceremonies of the
church of England, he had therefore
given up his own peculiar doctrine, and
had recognized that of the Holy Trinity,
the Unitarian would smile at the infe-
rence, as a calumny upon him. No Uni-
tarian, he apprehended, had ever scrupled
to be married in the church upon any
such grounds. The measure before their
lordships was not one which ought to
override every other consideration; but,
on the contrary, the House ought to take
sufficient security that it should not, in
any event, be abused by individuals for
the purpose of clandestine marriage, or
other improper purposes; that marriages
to be solemnized under it should be so-
lemnized with decency; and that, as far
as possible, every fraud that it might be
attempted to practise in consequence of
such an act should be obviated. As the
bill was at present worded, bans might be


U~nitariann Marrriages Belief Bill.







Unitarian Marriages Relief Bill.


falselyand unduly published, and marriage
licences might be forged; and yet no
parties were named as responsible, and no
punishment was assigned as the penalty
for such offences. The exceptions in
favour of Jews and Quakers had been ad-
verted to, in the course of this discussion.
He would be very willing to grant all that
had been granted by the legislature to
them, in these respects; but nothing
more. As to the Jews, it allowed them
an exemption from the operation of the
marriage law, where both the parties
were Jews. But, what was it that the
dissenters asked? A similar exemption,
where one only of the parties was a Uni-
tarian. The Jews, again, married ac-
cording to a very ancient and established
form of their religion: but the dissenters
prayed, that parties might be married
according to their religious principles.
What was meant by so vague and so ex-
tensive an application as this? Among
the Jews and Quakers, the parties were
liable, before the solemnization of their
marriage, under the permitted exemp-
tions, to be called upon for the proof of
their connexion with those persuasions.
Let their lordships observe, too, what se-
curities there existed against clandestine
marriages, both among Quakers and Jews.
In the case of the latter, they were de-
rived from his prejudices, his habits, his
religion, the usages of the people, and
even -the authority of the synagogue.
There had once been a case decided, by
the learned and noble judge (lord Stowell)
who now sat in that House, and who had
formerly presided, with so much honour
to himself and benefit to the country, in
the consistorial court, upon the fact only,
that one of the parties to a Jewish mar-
riage was proved to have entertained
opinions that were not consonant with
the religious prejudices of the Jews.
The Quakers, again, were another class,
among whom the same securities would
always exist to a great degree. The
members of any branch of this society
coming from one part of the kingdom
were obliged to produce testimonials and
certificates before they could be received
or admitted into another body of the same
connexion in a different portion of the
empire. Without troubling their lord-
ships with any further detail, he believed
he might say, that courts of justice had
never been called on to try a single case,
in which the indulgence of the legislature
to the marriage of Jews or Quakers had


been to be regretted. With regard to
the Unitarians, if they could giie the
same securities, possibly no harm might
result from extending the same indul-
gence to them, but no such securities
did they offer. For these reasons he
should feel bound to vote against the bill
after it came out of the committee; al-
though he should not oppose its being
committed. He wished to add one re-
mark as to the fees of the clergy, which,
indeed, was a subject that he had viewed
with considerable attention, and' at the
same time with no small degree of pain
and uneasiness. It was certainly true,
that many of the clergy were inadequate-
ly paid, and it was no less true, that a
considerable part of their income arose
from their fees on marriages. He was
unwilling to deprive them of any part of
their revenue, but at the same time he
felt, that though that was important, it
did not equal in importance the loss
which the church would sustain by being
deprived of the exclusive rights and pri-
vileges of solemnizing the marriage cere-
mony. According to the present system,
the clergyman received a pleasure in
uniting together the earthly destinies of
two individuals attached to each other,
and they remembered with satisfaction
the person who had performed the cere-
mony of their union, and in offering him
his fee they were influenced by no cold
or repulsivefeelings, and frequently added
if not at the time, at least afterwards, a
gratuity, offered with the purest and
warmest benevolence. By the operation
of this bill, the clergyman would be re-
duced to the character of the tax-gatherer;
all the gracious part of his office being
abstracted. On this ground, he felt a
great difficulty in acceding to the clause
which secured their fees to the clergy;
though, at the same time, he felt very un-
willing to offer a premium to the increase
of dissenting ministers.
Lord Holland said, the principle on
which this bill proceeded had been so
well developed by the noble marquis
who had proposed it, that he did not think
it necessary to enter into any further dis-
cussion on that point. He considered it
as a proof that the church of England
deserved the praise for liberality which
had been bestowed upon it, when he
heard the head of the English church ex-
press himself as he had done, in such a
liberal and truly christian manner. There
had been but few objections urged to the


.APnmt 2, 18244. (go







91] HOUSE OF LORDS,


bill, and these had been so ably answered
by the noble president of the council,
that he should abstain from entering ge-
nerally into the subject. He must, how-
ever, call on the noble lord on the wool-
sack, and on the right rev. prelate (the
bishop of Chester), for a little further
explanation. As to the latter, indeed,
he could not but remark the truth of the
maxim, that when a man was about to at-
tack or destroy a principle, he first felt it
necessary to express his loud and anxious
praise of that principle which he was
about to violate. The right rev. prelate
had began his speech by dealing with
plain truths in such a manner, as to excite
suspicion by the extravagant praise which
be had bestowed upon them. He had
expressed his love for toleration in the
most positive terms; but, unluckily, he
did not appear to have much affection
for the particular application of that ge-
neral doctrine to which he seemed to be
so much attached. He boldly avowed,
indeed, that the scruples of the Uni-
tarians ought not to be so much respected;
and he had entered into a long and inge-
nious argument to shew that they were
not entitled to much weight with the
House. But surely the only true judge
of the conscientiousness of those scruples
was the man who entertained them; who
was not to be judged by the reasoning of
others as to their fitness or propriety. It
was said, that the Unitarian, by the act of
marriage, did not conform to the doc-
trines of the church of England, and
that on other occasions he used the ex-
pression-" In the name of the Father,
So, and Holy Ghost;" but, with respect
to that, there was this distinction, that he
only used that expression as it had been
used by the holy founder of the Christian
religion, and when he was enabled to an-
nex to it the particular sense which he
thought it properly bore. It had been
asked, what could the Unitarian hear in
the performance of the marriage cere-
mony which was disagreeable to him?
To that might be answered-the very
doctrine, which he believed to be con-
trary to Scripture. That question had
been followed up by another-" Does it
do him any harm ?" Why, could the
right rev, prelate recollect the oath taken
at the table of the House, and say that
certain things contained in it were indif-
ferent? Would hp venture to declare,
that, in his opinion, the invocation of the
Virgin Mary, in the Rotnish church,


would be a matter of indifference to a
Protestant ? If he could not, then let
him judge the cause of others, and their
feelings, by his own. It had been said
by the learned lord on the wool-sack,
that these objections had not been found
out till the statute of William had been
repealed. It ought to have been said,
that until the repeal of that statute, the
grievance had never been complained of.
And why? because, when that statute
was in. force, a Unitarian could not avow
himself; for if a man had declared him-
self a Unitarian he might almost as well
have avowed himself a traitor. The same
learned lord had asked, what was the
common law with respect to Unitarians ?
Surely such a question from him must be
unnecessary, for if he did not know, who
could be expected to answer? If, on the
other hand, he was satisfied on that point,
why did he put the question so as to raise
doubts and create alarms in the minds of
those sectarians? Why did he go about
-"s Spargere voices in vulgum ambiguas ?"
Why did he insinuate, that the Unitarian
doctrine was forbidden by the law of this
country ? He had asked, whether deny,
ing the Trinity was not an offence at
common law. When he (lord H.) re-
collected the debates which had taken
place in that House on the subject of
religious liberty (for, with Locke, he
should reject the word toleration"),
and the part which the learned lord took
in those debates, it did seem strange that
he should have chosen such a path on the
present occasion. Surely the opinions
of Locke, of Tillotson, and of Hoadley,
must have been sufficient to satisfy his
conscience; and it did seem very wonder-
ful, that he should venture to differ from
such authorities. If he referred to them,
he would find that Locke. had expressly
disapproved of the Toleration act, because
it did not extend specially to Unitarians.
What could the learned lord, who had so
deeply studied, and so warmly admired
Locke-what could he say, when the
opinions of that great man were found
different to those which he now enter,
tainted? Could any man read the cor-
respondence of that great writer, and
not be convinced that in the passage, be-
ginning Caeteri tui similes", he had re.
ferred particularly to the Unitarians, who
were also mentioned in his other writings ?
Surely not, and if they had any respect
for that celebrated author, or for his
opinions, they would pause before they


Unitarian, Marriage& 14eief Bill.







Unitarian Marriages Relief Bill.


ventured to disclaim and deny the princi-
ples for which he had contended. Chris-
tianity had been called part and parcel
of the law of the land." It was lord Hale.
he believed, who first said this of Christi-
anity; but the doctrine was afterwards
more sensibly and emphatically laid down
by lord Raymond. This happened in the
famous case of the King v. Woolston. On
that occasion the learned judge had said
he would not allow it to be debated,
whether Christianity was authentic, be-
cause it was in fact a part of the law of
the land; but he begged it to be obser-
ved, that by this he meant Christianity
generally, and not the tenets of any par-
ticular sect of Christians. Why, then, he
must ask here, what was Christianity?
Was it a belief in the Holy Scriptures, or
was it a belief in certain expositions of
those Scriptures by human beings He
would leave the noble and learned lord on
the woolsack to choose, in the dilemma to
which he must be reduced. If the first
point were held, then the Unitarians were
Christians in every sense; for they held
the Scriptures to be as sacred as any of
their lordships. They held them to con-
tain the rule of right, and the rule of faith,
and'by them alone they stood. If it were
said, on the other hand, that those persons
only were Christians who believed the
Holy Scriptures as they were expounded
by the church, then, if the noble and lear-
ned lord held that, it followed, that he
must be prepared to hold also, that before
the reign df Henry 8th, the Roman Catho-
lics were the only Christians in England;
for until that period the Roman Catholic
religion was part of the law of the land.
-Another of the objections which had
been raised was, that the proposed mea-
sure would make the church of England
ancillary to the Unitarian dissenters. He
did not see the force of this objection.
Did the church of Ireland consider itself
in the light of a handmaid ? He did not
believe it did. He suspected that, until
the passing of lord Hardwick's marriage
act, the church had never exercised that
right which it was contended she could
not forego without derogating from her
dignity. All foreign marriages, previous
to that period, were celebrated according
to the lex loci; and all marriages duly
celebrated by a priest, whether of the
church of England or of Rome were bind-
ing. As to the pathetic .part of the
speech of the learned prelate, in which he
had deplored the hard fate of the clergy-


man, who, by this bill, would be deprived
of his fees, all he had to say in reply was,
that the bill provided they should have
their fees. "* But," said the learned pre-
late "' those for which the bill provides are
only the actual dues, and beyond these
dues it is usual for parties to give a'small
gratuity on the solemnization of marriages
which forms considerable source of emolu-
mentto theofficiatingclergyman." Well!
it might be so; but was it not at least as
likely that an Unitarian would be willing
to bestow as large a gratuity when he had
his marriage solemnized and registered
in such a manner as should satisfy the
scruple of his conscience, as when it was
performed in a manner irksome and pain-
ful to his feelings? It was said, too, by
a noble lord, why should we grant this
favour to Unitarians alone-why was it
not granted to every other sect? After
the answer which had been given to this
question by the noble president of the
council; he would not take up the time
of the House any more than by say-
ing-merely because the others did not
ask for it, and they, the Unitarians, did.
He could not help thinking that the Uni-
tarians were very hardly dealt with. If
general relief was sought for them, up
jumped the -noble and learned lord from
the woolsack, and complained that it was
too general. He said, that it did not ap-
pear what sort of dissenters they were-
whether they were the disciples of Joanna
*Southcote, or Jumpers, or Shakers; and
feared, if the relief were given in this shape
they would not be able to make head nor
tail of it. He therefore proposed that it
should be postponed until the next session
and then that the points should be discus-
sed one by one. Then, when the next
session came, the noble and learned, lord
said, why should we give relief to one?
He (lord H.) said, it was the plainest and
best way to give relief to them as they
came to ask for it. If no danger should
appear in doing so, lie would grant it to
all; but it did appear to him to be the
most strange, unparliamentary, and illo-
gical reasoning that could be imagined,
to say We will not give you the relief
you ask for, because there are others who
want it as much as you, and they do not
ask for it." It might be a very good reason
for granting the relief to all, but it could
be no reason for withholding it from any.
Highly as he held private judgment, he
held religious liberty still higher, and he
would not, therefore, have the member of


APAIL 2, 1924. (94







95] HOUSE OF COMMONS,
any one church call on another for con-
formity to his opinion; but those who
thought conformity absolutely necessary
in other cases, must waive it here, for the
marriage ceremony was merely a minis-
terial office of the clergy; and, if he
might express his opinion on that point,
he must say, that he should be equally
well pleased to see that part of the office
which consisted in registering the marriage,
performed by a magistrate as by a clergy-
man. That however was not the law, and
on that subject he should observe no fur-
ther. He should have been pleased if
the clause relating to marriages by license
had been left out, and the parties had
been permitted to marry by bans in their
own church. The right rev. prelate who
spoke last, had said, that he felt more hurt
at the loss of the exclusive privilege of
marrying, than at the loss of the fees, for
that the clergyman who performed the
ceremony felt a pleasure in its performance.
That was undoubtedly a good feeling; but
if the clergyman felt any pleasure in so-
lemnising the marriage according to
forms obnoxious to the parties married,
he must at least feel equal pleasure in con-
firming, by signing the certificate and re-
gistry of that marriage, the happiness of
those parties who had been united to each
other in a way which did not shock their
conscientious scruples, If, as had been
somewhatawkwardly expressed, Christian-
ity was part and parcel of the law of the
land, and Christianity was founded on the
Holy Scriptures, as the rule of faith, then
was the Unitarian a Christian, and then
could he say, that in no manner did he
offend against those laws which allowed
him the full liberty of extending his opi-
nion, and diffusing the principles of his
sect. If he was no enemy he should be
treated as a friend, and allowed that liber-
ty in the point of marriage, which the
law did not refuse him in any other
respect.
The House divided: For the second
reading 35. Against it 31. Majority 4.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, April 2.
ST. CATHERINE'S DOCK BILL.] Mr.
Grenfell rose to move the second reading
of this bill, and stated, that he should
have confined himself according to the
usual practice, to moving the second rea-
ding, in order, when that motion was
carried, to refer it to a committee up stairs


St. Catherine's Dock Bill. [96
where alone it was practicable properly to
examine it, if he had not known that
an opposition was to be made to the
present motion. The bill was calculated
to secure to the public a very great public
advantage; namely, additional dock and
warehouse accommodation for the increa-
sing trade and navigation of the port of
London. Of the fact of this increase he
needed no better evidence than the ac-
count of the exports and imports from
1798, when the present dock establish-
ments were formed, to the present time.
The increase of imports was from thirty
millions to fifty-six millions; and this in-
crease had been accompanied by a cor-
responding increase of the ships moored in
i the river Thames. The increase had
been gradual and progressive. In 1798
it was thirty-millions, in 1806 thirty-
six-millions in 1819 forty-six millions,
in 1823 fifty-six millions. But, besides
this increase, the recent measure intro-
duced by the late president of the board
of trade, now master of the Mint, ren-
dered more extended accommodation
necessary. That measure, the Ware-
housing act, allowed above two hundred
new articles to be lodged in warehouses in
this country, and could not fail greatly to
extend the deposit trade of the country,
and to create demand for additional ac-
commodation. The company who were to
be incorporated by the present bill, asked
for no exclusive privileges.-They had no
wish to interfere with the existing com-
panies. They only wished to increase
that accommodation in the port of Lon-
don. It was natural that those compa-
nies which had had the monopoly of ware-
housing for the last twenty years, should
wish to oppose the measure; but their
hostility was the very reason which should
induce the House to support it.
Mr. C. Calvert said, he could not be
influenced to oppose the bill by any
interest in the existing Dock companies,
as he was not a proprietor in any one of
them; but he opposed it on this ground,
that there was at present accommodation
for hundreds of thousands of tons of goods
more than were brought to this country.
He alluded particularly to the warehouses
in the parishes of St. Olave and St. John's,
Southwark, where gentlemen had invested
their fortunes in warehouses, and whose
rights ought not to be interfered with
without necessity. He moved, "that the
bill be read a second time this day six
months."








Sir Joseph Yorke said, he should fire ceeded with for want of sufficient en-
off his squib against this little blue-eyed couragement. This went to prove that
nun of St. Catherine's. He understood there was not that clear case of necessity
this piece of business was supported by which would justify the departure from
eighteen gentlemen and a half; that was their standing orders.
to say, by eighteen gentlemen who put Mr. T. Wilson supported the bill. It
down 50,0001. a piece, and one who put was not enough to say, that there was
down 30,0001. Where this money came room in the present docks, to render the
from he could not tell; he hoped not from establishment of new ones inexpedient.
members of that House. He did not If the new Dock company could carry
oppose the bill because there was already on the business at a cheaper rate; if they
a sufficiency of Dock :accommodation, could afford better accommodation; or if
for if the gentlemen chose to lose their the probability of a new and 'growing
money, they had a clear right to do so, trade was made out, there was a good
but because the twenty-five acres of reason for passing the bill. The bonded
ground on which the docks were to be trade could not be carried on in the
built, and which now contained 1100 warehouses that were not within docks.
houses and 10,000 souls, had been wanted Mr. Bright contended, that the stand-
twenty years ago by the London Dock ing orders ought to be enforced. Here
company, and had been refused for sound was a whole town thrown into confusion
and wholesome reasons. There were no by a sudden project, of which the parties
reasons that prevailed twenty years ago who were to be expelled from their
that ought not to prevail now, unless it homes had no notice until the 6th of
were said, that the late excellent queen March. If a new dock was required,
Charlotte, who was now removed from why not give due notice ? What neces-
this world to one infinitely better, had sity was there for pressing the bill until
some property in that quarter, which next year? The fact was, that the
there was a delicacy about touching, parties would, by the delay, be compelled
but which delicacy was now removed, to pay a larger price for the ground than
He had a great affection for docks, as he its present value. They ought to uphold
thought the river itself should be kept their standing orders, which enjoined
free, as the high road of nations; but, as due notice, or else abandon them alto-
this new company wished to thrust itself gether.
into the place which should have belonged Mr. Alderman Heygate said, that hav-
to the London Dock company, resting ing presented two petitions against this
on those docks on the right, and on the bill, it should have his most determined
Tower on the left, he should try to keep opposition. He was surprised that his
the contending parties separate. majesty's ministers should have given the
Mr. J. Smith could not discover in the measure any countenance by suspending
copy of the bill which he had seen, any the standing orders, when they found
sufficient necessity for the measure, that its execution would be an act of ty-
This perhaps might be shown in the ranny and cruelty towards a large body
committee; but, unless that was done, lie of individuals. It was a cruel attack
should object to interfere, to the extent upon individual rights, without any para-
that was proposde, with private pro- mount necessity. Let the supporters of
perty. the bill be called upon to show that the
Mr. Hume said, that sufficient notice growing trade of the port of London
had not been given. There were 10,000 indispensably required the new dock ;
people who were entitled to six or eight but they knew that to attempt such proof
months notice under the standing orders, was impossible, since it was notorious,
These orders, which were rules for the that many of the existing dock companies
protection of private property, should not had plenty of room unoccupied. There
be slightly superseded. On this ground, were in London at present six dock com-
he should oppose the second reading. panies : two of them paid no interest ;
Mr. Manning said, he had presented a one paid S3 per cent; the London Dock
petition from the London Dock company paid 4- per cent; and two others paid
against the bill, in which it was stated, more than 5 per cent; because one of
that they had foundations laid for ware- them had enjoyed a particular monopoly,
houses capable of containing 2 or 300,000 which had just ceased, and the other had
tons of goods, which had not been pro- a monopoly which would expire in two
VOL. XI. H


APRIL 2, 1824. [98


St. Catherine's Dock Bill.







99] HOUSE OF COMMONS,
years. What sort of prospect did this
hold out ? But, he might be told that
this was the affair of the subscribers. If
it was only their own money which they
fooled away, this answer might be valid;
but they were to turn hundreds of people
out of their habitations. To pass the bill
was not to encourage fair competition ;
for what chance had a wharfinger against
a body of subscribers, invested with par-
liamentary immunities, and whose fortunes
were not answerable for their misconduct,
except to the amount of their shares ?
This bill was one of'those projects which
had grown out of the high price of stocks,
and which, if stocks fell again, would dis-
appear like the South Sea bubble.
Mr. Haldimand said, it was perfectly
true, that if consols had not been at 95,
this undertaking might not have been
thought of; but, if the interest of capital
was so low that it forced itself into new
channels and reduced the rate of profit
in old ones, was it not natural that docks
also should feel the influence ; and how
could that happen but through the conm-
petition of new companies ? He corrected
the statement of the gallant admiral, tlat
this ground had been refused to the
London Dock company. The fact was,
that company had been authorized to
purchase it, but had preferred a spot
lower down, where they would have to
pay less compensation money. The
warehousing system could not be carried
on, except in docks in the situation of
the proposed one. He was not ashamed
to avow himself one of the 18- gentle-
men" mentioned by the gallant admiral;
but he should not have subscribed to it
had he not conceived it would be a public
benefit.
Mr. Butterworth opposed the bill, as
a measure which would entail ruin on
thousands.
Mr. Littleton opposed the bill, on the
same grounds as the hon."member for
Bristol. Every bill of this kind was an
invasion of private property, for an alleged
public purpose; and the thousands of
persons whose property and means of
living were, affected by the bill, were-at
least-intitled" to notice. There could
be no better occasion than the present,
for setting their faces against the session-
ally increasing disregard of their stand-
ing orders.
Mr. IV. Smith said, that an extremely
strong case had been made out against
the violation of the standing orders, es-


St. Catherine's Dock Bill. [100
pecially as there was no immediate neces-
sity for the Docks, which were only
supposed to be necessary in consequence
of the increase of trade, which it was
supposed might arise from the bonding-
system. The warehouses of the existing
docks were not full, and never had been,
except during a temporary influx of wine,
when the French invaded Portugal ;
besides, the present warehouses were so
constructed, that, by adding story on
story, their capacity might be indefinitely
increased.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said,
he was so far cognisant of this bill, that
the parties interested in it had, in the
early part of the year, come before his
majesty's government, to know whether
they would have any objection to the
measure. The answer given by the go-
vernment was, that, in point of principle,
they saw no objection to the establish-
ment of a new dock, if it could be shewn
thatbenefit to the publicwould result from
it. So far they had expressed acquies.
cence; but they certainly were not awarq
of all the circumstances of the case. When
so many interests were affected, the ques-
tion as to the standing orders became one
of considerable importance; and un-
doubtedly, if the standing orders had been
strictly enforced, the bill would not have
arrived at its present stage. Under all
the circumstances, he thought it would be
better to allow the bill to be read a second
time, and to investigate its merits in the
committee. If it should then appear,
that the bill could not pass without occa-,
sioning great hardship to a number of in-
dividuals, this would certainly constitute a,
groundfor its rejection at the present time.
On the other hand, it might turn out, that
the case, as it affected those individuals, had.
been greatly over-stated. Most of them,
for instance, might be tenants at will; and
in that case, the degree of hardship would
be much less, because they would be
compelled to quit, if the proprietors of
the soil were disposed to acquiesce in the
propositions of the subscribers to the
(lock. He repeated, that in principle he
had no objection to the measure of erect-
ing a new dock, with a view to.extended
competition and increased commercial
advantages; and he could not object,
therefore, to the second reading of the
bill.
Mr. Wallace said, that with respect to
the question as to the standing orders,
those orders had been repeatedly dispens-







Angerstein Collection of Pictures.


ed with, and'the expediencyof dispensing
with them in the present case had been
decided by a majority of the House.
There had appeared a paragraph in one of
the newspapers, which wouldlet the House
into the secret of the opposition to this
bill; it stated, that the parties whose in-
terests were most strongly opposed to
the measure, were the proprietors of the
East-India, West-India, and London
Docks. If these three parties succeeded
in obtainingthe rejection of the bill, they
would have a complete monopoly of the
trade; which would probably end in dri-
ving from the port of London its fair pro-
portion of the trade of the country.
Mr. Grenfell, in reply, said, that so far
from 10,000 persons being exposed to in-
convrenience from this measure, the whole
number of inhabitants within the pre-
cincts of the parish of St. Catherine
did not amount to 5,000. He might
add, too, that out of 11 or 1,200 house-
holders, 300 had expressed their assent
to the bill. Upwards of 1,100 of the
principal mercantile gentlemen jin the
country had concurred in the expediency
of the measure.
The House then divided : For the se-
cond reading 74. Against it 55. Majo-
rity 19.

ANGERSTEIN COLLECTION OF PIc-
TURES.] The House resolved itself into
a committee of supply, On the resolu-
ti6n, That 60,0001. be granted, to de-
fray the charge of purchasing, and the
expenses incidental to the preservation
and public exhibition of the Collection of
Pictures which belonged to the late
John Julius Angerstein, Esq. for the year
1824,"
Mr. Agar Ellis said, he could not re-
frain from expressing his thanks to his
majesty's government for having purchas-
ed this valuable collection of pictures.
He was sure that every person who wasatall
acquainted with the arts, would agree with
hinm in saying, that no private collection of
pictures could be better suited to form the
basis of a national gallery. All the pic-
tures were of the very first excellence.
Indeed, there was not one of them which
it would not be almost a calumny to call a
moderate picture. He trusted that the
present would form a new era in the his-
tory of the arts in this country, and that
the'advantage which was now given to
our own school of painting, by placing
before it first-rate models, would tend to


advance its character and renown. If
tlHde' were any gentlemen in that House
who disapproved of the expense to which
these pictures were putting the country,
he would ask them, whether they might
not be productive of emolument to the
nation, even in a pecuniary point of view?
What was it that attracted so many tra-
vellers to Italy, but the numerous works
of genius which were contained in it ?
And, if a similar collection were made in
London, was it not likely that a similar
cause would produce a similar resort of
strangers to it ? He hoped that his ma-
jesty's government would not stop short
in the great work which it.had underta-
ken, but would proceed steadily and pro-
gressively in it. He would not recom-
mend it to purchase any more whole
collections: for, in all probability, they
must contain many moderate pictures,
and moderate pictures ought not to be
found in national galleries; but he would
recommend it to purchase single pictures
of acknowledged excellence, whenever
any such pictures came into the market.
By such means, they would obtain the best
specimens of the best masters, and would
so erect a gallery which would be ho less
beneficial to the taste, than it would be
conductive to the glory of the country.
Mr. Bernal said, it appeared that there
was to be a keeper of the gallery, at a
salary of2001. per annum, who was to have
the charge of the collection, and to attend
particularly to the preservation of the pic.
tures, and that lord Liverpool was of
opinion, that the person to be appointed
to this office should be competent to value,
and, if called upon, to negociate the pur-
chase of any pictures that might in future
be added to the collection. Now, he
really thought that a salary of 2001. was
too small a remuneration to a gentleman
possessing such qualifications.
Sir C. Long spoke in terms of the
strongest praise of the pictures' which
formed the late Mr. Angerstein's collec-
tion. They were selected by the judg-
ment of sir T. Lawrenc6, and appeared,
on inspection, so exquisite to his majesty,
that he it was who had first suggested the
propriety of purchasing them for thenation.
Indeed, they were generally considered
the finest models of art that could be sub-
mitted to the contemplation of the artist.
He agreed with his hon. friend, that the
plan which the government ought to pur-
sue in forming this gallery, would not be
to purchase whole collections, but to buy


APRIL 2, 1824~. [102







103] HOUSE.OF COMMONS,
single pictures of undisputed excellence,
and that, too, at a liberal price. With
regard to the remarks made by the hon.
member for Rochester, on the smallness
of the salary to be paid to the keeper
of the gallery, he would merely observe,
that the person who was appointed to su-
perintend it was as well qualified for such
an office as any man could be, and that he
was perfectly satisfied with the salary
annexed to it, If, at any future time, it
was found insufficient, government could
ask the House to increase it. It ought to
be recollected, that this officer did not
give up the whole of his time to the gal-
lery, but was only required to attend in it
occasionally. There was another officer,
whose duty it would be to devote his
whole time to this collection.
.Mr, A. Ellis bore testimony to the qua-
lifications of the gentleman appointed to
superintend the collection. He wished to
know, however, who was to superintend
the superintendent?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said,
the general control and superintendence
would be in the Lords of the Treasury.
He did not apprehend, however, that it
would be necessary to exercise that con-
trol with any degree of violence.
Mr. Humesaid, that as it was at last de-
termined to make a national gallery, and
by so doing to rescue the country from a
disgrace which the want of such an esta-
blishment had long entailed upon it, he
trusted that responsible individuals would
be selected to take care of the pictures
which had already been purchased. Some
regulation of that nature was rendered
necessary, by the recollection of the in-
jury which had been sustained in the Bri-
tish Museum by the want of it.
Sir C. Long trusted, that he had con-
vinced the committee, upon a former
evening, that there was no reason to com-
plain of the trustees of the British
Museum. Indeed, he had cause to be-
lieve, that the hon. member for Shrews-
bury who had brought forward the
charge against them, was convinced that
it did not rest upon any accurate founda-
tions.
Mr. A. Ellis was so far from thinking
that there was any ground of complaint
againstthe trustees of the British Museum,
that he had been about to suggest, that
they should also be made trustees of this
national gallery.
The resolution was agreed to,


Consuls to South America. ,


CONSULS TO SOUTH AMERICA.] On
the resolution, That 34,4501. be granted
to defray the outstanding charges for Out-
fit and Salaries to his Majesty's consuls-ge-
neral, consuls, and vice-consuls in Spanish
America, in the year 1823; and also to
defray the probable charge for Salaries
to the said consuls-general, consuls, and
vice-consuls, for the year 1824,"
Mr. Hume rose to ask a question. Was
it to be understood, that, after this grant
was made to the consuls and vice-consuls
in Spanish America, the British trade in
that quarter of the globe was to be free
from the imposition of any further toll to
them ? He did not object to the amount
of the salaries which it was proposed to
give these gentlemen; for he thought
that they would not get men of respecta-
bility to fill them, unless they were pro-
perly remunerated. He was, however,
anxious, that our different consuls should
be paid by the public, and should be debar-
red from receiving any fees, save such as
were merely nominal, upon the delivery of
certificates required in the course of trade.
Whilst he was upon the subject, he would
suggest a plan to his majesty's ministers,
which several eminent merchants had in-
formed him was calculated to obviat-
many of the vexatious difficulties whice
they sometimes experienced in foreign
countries, owing to the uncertain nature
of our consular fees. The planwas this-
that the captain of any ship, on clearing
out for a foreign port at the custom-house
should be entitled to ask and receive a
printed copy of the consular charges at
all the ports at which he was likely to
touch in the course of his voyage. It
might be said, that such a plan could not
be put into execution without some ex-
pense. He allowed that it would oc-
casion some trifling expense; but it ought
not to be regarded, when it was consider-
ed that it was incui red on behalf of the
commerce of the country, and that that
commerce was the chief source of its
strength and revenue. He was certain
that if our consuls were paid fixed salaries
and were only allowed to receive certain
small stated fees, many of the difficulties
would be removed with which our com-
merce was at present impeded.
Mr. Huskisson was, to a certain degree,
of the same opinion with the hon. member
for Aberdeen, with regard to paying our
consuls out of the public revenue. He
intended, within a short period, to bring
in a bill to enable government topay them


[104'








out of thepublic purse, and to establish parties who received these pensions, some
some uniformity in the system by which were not knights of Malta, and others'
they were remunerated. At present were receiving pensions from the island
nothing could be more vague and uncer- of Malta itself. He considered this item
tain than the mannerin which they obtained to be as gross a job as ever was perpetrat-
their emoluments. In some places they ed by any administration. Last year he
had fees, in others they had none; in had not seen it in the estimates ; and he
some places they exacted high, and had hoped it had been withdrawn-for
in others they exacted only trifling ever.
duties. He wished to reduce them all to Mr. W. Horton observed, that the item
one uniform practice; and to effect that in question was a payment made on ac-
purpose, he wouldgive them fixed salaries count of the government of the island of
and allow them certain moderate fees on Malta. A special injunction had been
the different commercial instruments given to that government to make inquiry
which it was their duty to make out in the whether the parties who received these
ordinary course of trade. He would also pensions were entitled to be considered as
propose to levy a small tonnage upon all knights of Malta. That inquiry was not
ships touching at the ports where we had in progress; and it was thought right not
consuls ; and he would propose it for the to withdraw the pensions until it was con-:
purpose of defraying certain incidental eluded ? The pensions had been granted
expenses that were not paid out of the to the parties who now held them from
public purse ; such as those for distressed motives of humanity, during the French
or ship wrecked-seamen and others of a revolution-an event which had reduced
similar nature. the greater portion of them from compa-
Mr. Hume expressed himself well satis- rative opulence to the most wretched state
fiedwith the observations which had fallen of want and destitution.
from the right lion. gentleman, and said, Mr. Hume wished to draw the attention
that if there were any points on which he of the committee to the very great ex-
differed from him, they might bediscussed pense to which this country was put, on
when the right hon. gentleman brought account of the islands of Guernsey and
his bill before the House. He would take Jersey. They were, so far as this country
that opportunity of expressing his thanks was concerned, altogether free from tax-
to the right hon. secretary for foreign ation : the revenue of the Crown wias
affairs, for the attention which he had wasted; at least no part of it was appro-
paid to a subject, in which, though he was printed to the service of the islands, and
not himself personally concerned, the the people of England were constantly
public were largely interested. He allud- called on to meet every expense. He ob-
ed to our trade with the Brazils. He served a charge of 4,4711. for extraordi-
could not at present say what effect the nary military expenses, on account of
regulations which the right hon. secre- the staff. Now, he had formerly moved
tary had made might have produced for a correspondence between his majei-
abroad; but this he could not say, that ty's government and the authorities in the
they had given perfect satisfaction to all islands, from which it appeared, that a
persons at home engaged in that trade, part of this force was not wanted, and was
Before he sat down, he would suggest to really considered a nuisance. He had
the right hon. president of the board of received a communication from a highly
trade, whether it would not be advisable, respectable individual, who stated, that
in any future regulation, to prevent con- nothing would be more grateful to the in-
suls from deputing their duties at will to habitants of these islands, than the re-
any person, they might choose to appoint moval of the staff, for the support of
as vice-consuls, which the people of England were obliged
to pay. If those islands must have the
ARMY EXTRAORDINARIES.] On the protection of the British government, they
resolution, That 620,0001. be granted to certainly ought to defray a portion of the
defray the Extraordinary Expenses of the expense. It would shortly be his duty
army for the year 1824," to present a petition to the House on the
Colonel Davies objected to the item in subject. It was the work of a gentleman
this grant, charging 2,3001. for pensions who had gone through those islands; he
to. the knights of Malta. His objection had put his observations on paper, and he
wasfounded on this ground-that, of the stated, verydistinctly what, in his opinion


Apitr. 2, 18,24. (106


.4rm~y Extraordihacries.







107. HOUSE OF COMMONS,
the islands ought to contribute towards
defraying the various expenses inciden-
tal to their government. It was a fit sub-
ject for the House to take into its consi-
deraton. He was quite sure the estimate;
might be reduced one half, without
crippling, the service in the smallest de-
gfep, He had, himself made out a:list of
various items which might be greatly, re-
duced, If the right hon. gentleman oppo-
site. would make use of any hint it con-
tained, it was entirely at his service. It
was fit the country, should knowwhat
became of the ,revenue of these islands.
Situated as Great Britain was, her expen-
4iuire ought to be lessened in every pos-
sible, way; but though these islands were
capable of producing a certain revenue,
the people of England were obliged to
p fortheir civiland military establishment.
The latter was wholly unnecessary; for
the inhabitants of the islands would con-
sider it a pride to clothe and arm the
militia, but government would not allow
it.
Mr. Secretary Peel understood the hon.
nlember to say, that he could throw out
some suggestions by which the expenses
of Quernsey and Jersey might be lessened
If, the. hon. member would favour him
witl those suggestions, they should re-
ceive, the fullest attention. It was his
duty.to listen to such communications;
and, if a curtailment of expense could be
elected,. that object certainly should not
be neglected. When the hon. gentleman
presented to the House the rather extra-
ordinary, document (for it was not a peti-
tip,bht a two or threemonths' tour through
Guernsey) to which he had alluded, he
would read it with attention. With re-
spect fo the military part of the question,
hlmight observe, that the constitution of
these islands was of a very ancient date,
ari that no individuals were more jealous
oftheir old customs than the inhabitants
wqre, According to their laws, every
male, from sixteen to sixty, was bound
to.military service. But it was deemed
better to have a few expert soldiers, than
anudisciplined rabble; whichwouldpro-
bably be the case. if they were left to
clotjip and arm themselves;. and there-
fore it was necessary that a staff should
be )ept up.

CIVIL CONTINGENCIES.] On the re-
solution,." That 106,5071. be granted to
defray the charge of Civil Contingencies,
foifthe year 1824,"


Civii Contnrgencies.


[108


Mr. Hume directed the attention of the
committee to an item of 1,8101., being the
amount, of a bill drawn by Mr. James
Walker, who was employed on an experi-
ment relative to free labour amongst the
negroes. A number of slaves had been
given up to government for the purpose of
this experiment; and all he: said was,
make use of their labour, teach them to
support:themselves, but do not call on us
to maintain them.
Mr. W. Horton said, the experiment
was an important and a useful one. The
commissioners who were now in the West-
India islands had made a report on the
subject, which would be laid before parlia-
ment. It would. then be for the House to
decides whether this establishment should
or should not be kept up.
Mr. Hume said, he had stated, four or
five years ago, that these slaves were
perfectly competentto support themselves.
In the possession of an individual, they
would be a property; but in the hands of
government they became an expense. If
they were set free to-morrow they would
maintain themselves, without assistance
from this country. Such was the plain
state of the case. He wanted no report
from the commissioners to enable him to
decide on a subject of which he could
judge as well as themselves. He now
begged leave to draw the attention of the
House to a charge of 6201. for conveying
the insignia of the order of the garter to
the king of Portugal. This was an ex-
pense which he did not think the public
ought to bear. If the country were to
pay for honours granted by the crown, it
ought to be shown that those honours
were deservedly bestowed. In this case,
the public, looking to the conduct of the
individual selected, considered the pro-
ceeding rather as a disgrace than an
honour. When the Portugese government
had violated its contract with the people,
was it becoming in an Englishparliament
to vote a sum of money for defraying the
expense of an honour conferred on the
head of that government ? He hoped that
something might be stated to show either
that the time formerly justified the grant-
ing of the honour, or that some very
peculiar circumstances called for it at
present.
Mr. Secretary Canning said, that as to
the time, this honour was not of a recent
date. It was conferred several years ago,
when a similar mark of respect was be-
stowed on the king of Denmark, and







109] Civil Contingencies.
various other sovereigns. Circumstances,
however, intervened, which prevented its
being then sent out. With respect to the
conduct imputed to the king of Portugal,
he would only say, that as the order was
not bestowed on account of any event
which had occurred in the interior of that
country, neither could it, when once con-
ferred, be withheld in consequence of any
thing that had since taken place there.
Mr. Hume wished to make a few obser-
vations on the charge relative to foreign
ambassadors. He had last year shown,
that the expense, on an average of the five
preceding years, was 300,0001. per annum.
This, exclusive of what was paid'for
consuls, was a very large sum, and every
means ought to be taken to reduce it. It
would give him great satisfaction if he
should find that he was mistaken in what
he was about to state, relative to the ex-
pense of the embassy to Holland. It was
said, that last year the Dutch government
intended to reduce, in the diplomatic scale,
the rank of the individual who was to act
as ambassador to England; and that of
course a gentleman of similar rank would
be sent from this court to the Hague.
He understood the Dutch government had
come to a resolution of that nature ; but
that, so far from his majesty's government
approving of the alteration, and seizing
the opportunity which it afforded of re-
ducing the expense, they had absolutely
solicited the Dutch government to keep
up the rank of the ambassador, in order
that they might serd one of equal grade
to the Hague, and thus continue the
usual rate of expense. He heard this with
feelings of great regret; because, if the
fact were so, it afforded a strong proof
that no disposition existed to lessen the
expense in this department. If the report
were incorrect, he should be glad to hear
it contradicted.
Mr. Canning said, the hon member had
been quite misinformed, if he supposed
that such a request as he had alluded to
had been made by his majesty's govern-
ment. It did not follow, as the hon. gen-
tleman seemed to think, that a reduction
of expense should naturally attend a re-
duction in the rank of the ambassador
sent to this court from Holland. He
believed that for fifty years, it had been
the constant policy of this country to have
an ambassador of the first class at the
Hague, even though the Dutch ambas-
sador was, not of equal rank.
Mr. Hume observing a charge for ex-


APaiL 2, 1824. *C'10O
penses incurred by sir William Congreve,
in prosecuting his inquiries as Inspectd0-
general of gas-light companies, wished to
know by what patent he held that office P
If it were an appointment under thecrown,
did it not bring the lion. baronet under
the act of queen Anne ? It certainly was
a new office; for gas was not known if
that queen's reign; and considering the
appointment as a new one, was it of sach
a nature as to vacate the hon. baronet's
seat in that House? He also wished to
know what was the annual expense.
Mr. Secretary Peel said, the appoint-
ment took place in 1821, under an act of
the legislature. At that time more fear
was entertained of the danger which might
be expected from the explosion of gat
than at present. In 1817 and 1818 two
acts were passed, which gave to the secret
tary of state the power of appointing anl
inspector. The appointment, therefore,
was not in the crown, but in the secretary
of state under the act of parliament. The
hon. baronet had proved himself to be a
most useful officer, and he received no
more than a remuneration for the acttiul
expenses he incurred. He had reported'
last year that the same degree of appre-
hension no longer existed as was formerly
entertained; but still it was thought ex-
pedient, that the secretary of state should
have an opportunity of knowing how the
gas-works were going on; and he hoped,
that next year, the same skilful individual
would give him the benefit of his scientific
knowledge. As this was not a new ap-,
pointment under the Crown, it did not'
come under the ate of queen Anne; and of
course did not vacate thehon. baronet'sseat.
Mr. Lambton observed, that the hon,
baronet, in his reports, had furnished sug-
gestions of considerable importance; some '
of which had been acted upon. Every one
who knew the extreme danger tobe appre-
hended from the explosion of those gas-
ometers, must be pleased to see the'
attention ofagentleman of so much science
and knowledge directed to the subject.
He thought that the right hon. secretary,
in continuing the office, did nothing more
than his duty. The salary paid to the
hon. baronet, was, he thought quite inade:-
quate to his services,
Mr. Hume denied the assertion, that'
sir W. Congreve had made valuable re-'
ports on6 which the gas-companies'had-'
acted. He had, it was true, made reports,
in which he spoke a great deal about the
danger of our being blown up by the ex.







ll] HOUSE OF COMMONS,
plosion of gas-all of which was afterwards
contradicted. The hon. member had
spoken of the science and knowledge dis-
played by sir W. Congreve; but it ap-
peared to him, that the hon. member
knew nothing about the business. The
hon. baronet asserted in his reports, that
if the gasometer were approached by fire,
it must immediately explode: but sir H.
Davy, and other really scientific men,
proved the contrary. He had no interest
in this question, but the hon. member had ;
for he supplied the material of which gas
was made. When the extraordinary bill
was brought in on this subject, he, though
not interestedone way or other, found it
necessary to have it sent to a committee
up stairs, where evidence could be ex-
amined. Gentlemen talked of the danger
of gasometers being blown up. He re-
peated, that it was hardly possible for a
gasometer to be blown up. The situation
of gas-inspector was unnecessary; but if
necessary, sir W. Congreve ought not to
have been the person appointed to it; for
no man could have any knowledge of
chemistry who could make such a re-
port as the one now on the table. At
least the salary of the gas-inspector ought
to be a definite one.
. Mr. Lambton said, that the hon. mem-
ber for Aberdeen had treated him as an
interested party in the present discussion,
because he might be supposed to supply
the article from which the gas was manu-
factured. The hon. member, however, if
there were any force, in his argument,
would stand, in his own person, exposed
to the effect of it; for, if he did not ab-
solutely supply the gas companies with
the material from which their smoke was
produced, they might go to him, if they
pleased, for the pipes which conveyed it.
. Mr. Secretary Peel observed, that Mr.
Millington, to whom the hon. member
had just adverted, said in his evidence,
with respect to the danger from the ex-
plosion of gasometers, that the blowing
up of the one in Dorset-street would pro-
bably bring down all the adjacent houses
in Fleet-street. Dr. Wollaston, too, had
distinctly declared, that his opinion as to
the properties of gas had been altered by
that very report of sir W. Congreve, to
which the hon. member for Aberdeen
objected. The most respectable chemical
authorities, sir H. Davy among the rest,
had spoken in strong terms of the danger
likely to arise from the explosion of. gas;
and the House would say, under such


Civil Contingencies. 112
circumstances, whether it was not fit that
the secretary of state should have the
means of knowing the condition of the
gas institutions, and the precautions which
were used, from year to year. The very
report quoted by the hon. member for
Aberdeen stated, in terms, the necessity
there was for the secretary of state to be
watchful on the subject; and, so long as
sir W. Congreve would consent to hold
the office of inspector, no person could
be more fit to be intrusted with it. Upon
the claims of that gentleman, generally,
to the gratitude of the country, he should
not say a word because he was sure
they were already sufficiently appreci-
ated.
Mr. Leslie Foster said, that the possi-
bility of the explosion of gasometers was
sufficiently proved by the fact, that one
gasometer had exploded and done con-
siderable mischief. He certainly approved
of the appointment of an inspector.
Mr. Dawson defended the appointment
of sir W. Congreve.
Sir W. Congreve would only say, that
he had accepted the situation in question,
under a conscientious belief, that the du-
ties of it were most necessary to be dis-
charged. As far as his experience had
gone, he thought inspection from time to
time, very necessary. In one. instance
he had found a gasometer floating in coal
tar, instead of water; coal tar being an
article of the most combustible descrip-
tion. In other cases, large fires had been
kept in the neighbourhood of the gaso-
meters; which he considered unsafe. He
had also recommended, as a general prin-
ciple, the use of smaller gasometers ; and
in some quarters his suggestions had been
adopted.
Mr. Alderman Wood said, that he
claimed from the secretary for the home
department, in behalf of the city of Lon-
don that the gas-master, or general in-
spector, or whatever designation that
wonderful person bore, should inspect the
Mansion-house. There was a very large
gasometer there, over which he himself
had slept for two years. He spoke for
the safety of future lord mayors, as it was
most probable he .should not, though he
hoped frequently to dine, sleep' there
again. There was another gasometer,
too, at the Bank, which perhaps would
not be the worse for an occasional call, on
the part of the gas-master.
SThe several resolutions were agreed
to,







113] Alien Bill.
ALIEN BILL.] The order of the day
being moved for the second reading of
this bill,
Mr. Hume said, that it had been the
deterniination of a number of members
of that House, who were decidedly hos-
tile to the spirit and principle of the Alien
bill, to allow no one stage to pass, but to
resist its progress from its introduction.
In consequence, however, of rumours that
had transpired respecting certain views,
supposed to be entertained by the right
hon. secretary for foreign affairs, they
were most solicitous to obtain the benefit
of his information on the subject, and to
hear, from such an authority, the argu-
ments upon which he considered it expe-
dient that such an unconstitutional mea-
sure should pass. On a former night it
had been contended by the right hon.
secretary for the home department, that
the powers sought by this bill were powers
which the kings of this country had, for
centuries, in right of their prerogative,
possessed. And yet there was a right
hon. colleague of the right hon. secretary
(Mr. Wynn) who had denied that such
a power was vested in the throne. It was
natural, therefore, between these two dis-
cordant authorities, sitting in the same
cabinet, for members of that House to
feel most solicitous to know the opinion
of the right hon. the secretary for foreign
affairs, and to be made acquainted with
the views on which he recommended its
adoption. What, le would ask him, did
he discover in the internal state of our
relations, or in the character of our fo-
reign policy, to justify the passing of a
bill, which was at variance with the an.
cient policy and acknowledged hospitality
of the country? Could its adoption be
accounted for under any other impression,
than that there existed a secret under-
standing between our government and the
absolute sovereigns of the continent, to
act in concert against those whom these
sovereigns were disposed to persecute;
that whenever the emperor of Austria, or
the king of France, were pleased to de-
clare a foreigner obnoxious to them, he
was to be expelled from our shores ? If
there was no such concert, no such secret
understanding-surely the House had a
right to be informed what the actual mo-
tives were, and to obtain the fullest ex-
planation, before it agreed to continue
an act so hostile to our national character.
Was there no law on our Statute-book in
favourof foreigners seeking the hospitality
VOL. XI.


APRIL 2, 1824. [114
of our soil? Had the great charter not
acknowledged the principle ? The very
fact of an uniform and uninterrupted
practice for centuries was a full acknow-
ledgment of our policy. Nothing could
be more decisive of the principle than the.
very law which, on the trial of foreigners,
entitled them to such a disposition of
the jury, as allowed them to cldim an array
of half foreigners. From the period of the
Revolution until the year 1793, the coun-
try never heard of such an act; and it
was to be recollected that, during that
interval, the country from one extremity
to the other, was frequently in arms; that
rebellion followed rebellion, and that there
was a succession of pretenders to the
throne. Who, that turned his attention
to those countries over which the despots
of Europe exercised an unjust influence
-Switzerland, for instance, where unfor-
tunate refugees were forced from the
asylum they sought, at the mandate of
these despots-who, he repeated, that
considered the progress and probable re-
sult of such a state of things, was not
persuaded that this country ought to take
a decided course, and not be considered
as in any way aiding and abetting such
a system ? We should get rid altogether
of such trammels. We should take our
stand in support of the freedom of man-
kind; and, with the rapid growth of edu-
cation and knowledge, under our coun-
tenance, the system of despotism would
speedily disappear. An Alien law was
abhorrent to our policy. It was admitted
by its advocates to be useless, as it was
rarely exercised; but, on the principle
of investing any set of men with arbitrary
power, no matter how acted upon, it was
most dangerous in the- principle. Under
these circumstances, he should resist the
order of the day for its second reading,
and move, as an amendment, that after
the word that," the following words be
substituted: It appears to this House,
that from the Revolution in 1688, up to
the year 1793, a period in which the tran-
quillity of this country was endangered
and disturbed by pretenders to the throne,
it was not considered necessary by par-
liament to invest ministers with such ar-
bitrary power as the Alien bill confers:
that it is contrary to the spirit of the
British constitution, and hostile to the
best interests of the civilized world; and
in accordance only with the unprincipled
declarations, and tyrannical acts, of the
constitutional despots: that this House,
I








115} HOUSE OF COMMONS,
therefore, deem it inexpedient to continue
a power, mischievous, even if not used,
and cruel and unconstitutional, whenever
exercised."
Mr NCalvert said, he was one of those
who never would join in any language of
abuse applied to the sovereigns of foreign
states; because he could not stoop to do
any thing so unfair as to attack those
ivho, from distance, were disabled from de-
fending themselves. He thought the
practice, to say the least of it, might lead
to great national mischief. He could not
support the amendment, though he ob-
jected to the bill.
The Speaker having again read the
airendment, loud laughter followed, on
account of the word constitutional,"
which was then found in it.
Mr. Hume said, there was no such word'
as constitutional" in the paper; the
words were continental despots."
The Speaker ordered the paper to be
handed to Mr. Home, who, upon reading
it, presented another copy, in which the
words stood as he proposed. The amend-
ment was put, and negatived without a
division. Upon the motion, that the
order of the day for the second reading
of the bill be nowread,the House divided :
Ayes 120; Noes 67.
List of the Minority.


Abercromby, hon. J.
Althorp, vise.
Allen, J. A.
Baillie col.J.
Barrett, S. M.
Benyon, B.
Bernal, R.
Birch, J.
Byng, G.
Calvert, C.
Calvert, N.
Cavendish, hon. C.
Clifton, vise.
Colborne, N. W: R.
Creevy, T.
Crompton, S.
Davies, col.
Dundas, hon. T.
Farrand, R.
Fergusson, sir R.
Gaskill,B.
Haldimand, W.
Hamilton, lord A.
-Honywood, W. P.
Huskisson, hon. H.
James, W.
Jervoise, G. B.
Johnstpne, W. A.
Jones, J..
IKenaedy, T. F.


Lambton, J. G.
Leader, W.
Leycester, It.
Maberly, W. L.
Macdonald, J.
Marjoribanks, S.
Martin, J.
Milton vise.
iMonck, J. B.
Moore, P.
Newport, sir J.
Nugent, lord
Ord, W.
Osborne, lord F. G.
Palmer, C.
Palmer, C. F.
Pares, T.
Pryse, P.
Rice, T. S.
Robarts, A. W.
Robarts, col.
Robinson, sir G.
Russell, lord W.
Scott, J.
Sefton, lord
Smith, W.
Smith, R.
Stanley, E. C.
Sykes, D.
Tierney, right hon. G.


Alien Bill.
Townshend, lord C.
Warre, J. A.
Whitbread, W. H.
Wilkins, W.
Wilson, sir R.


Wood, Mr. aid.
Wrottesley sir J.
TELLERS.
Hume, J.
Hobhouse, J. C.


On the question being put, That the
Bill be now read a second time,"
Sir Robert Wilson said, he rose to de-
fend the right of the members of that
House to express themselves freely upon
the conduct of foreign potentates, and to
repel the contrary principle implied in
the observations of his hon. friend. They
were bound to call things by their right
names. If those sovereignsweretyrants,no
gentleman could be wrong in designating
them accordingly. It was not simply
their right to do so; it was their duty to
use that language towards them, which
would best express the opinion the parlia-
ment of England entertained of their con-
duct, and to admonish the people of Eng-
land of the steps which had been taken
to give due expression to that opinion.
When his hon. friend talked of those
sovereigns having no means of defending
themselves in that House, he seemed to
forget that they were defended by their
guards and armies-that irritated tyrants
had reaching arms, and could strike those
whom they never had seen. The House
had no other means of exercising its
power, but those strong expressions of
the public feeling through its agency,
which frequently had the effect of rescu-
ing the victims of extreme and abused
authority. He hoped his hon. friend
would not attempt to deter the House
from this important exercise of its duty.
It was not using the language of abuse
to those princes, but the language of
solemn declaration in favour of liberty,
and to prove to them incontrovertibly the
general detestation in which the people
of England held the crimes of tyranny.
Upon the progress of the bill he would
make only these observations. It had
undergone very ample discussion-much
more discussion than he had hoped for-
and he should have concluded, that it
was not likely that any thing more of
weight could be added to it, but for that
promise which fell from the right hon.
secretary for foreign affairs the other day.
He hoped that if the bill did pass, it
would be presented to the public under
more favourable circumstances of justifi-
cation than those in which it stood at
present. The argument was Bow con-







-171 Alien Bill.'
siderably simplified: the bill was no,
longer defended upon the ground ofe
power inherent in the prerogative. While
on the other hand, he was equally ready
to admit, that although the right of fo-
reigners to land on these shores had been
always allowed, the right of regulating
that reception, and the residence of those
who were received, must remain with the
parliament. The right of passing a law
to regulate the reception and residence
of aliens, could not be seriously question-
ed: the only question was, as to the
policy of passing such a law under the
present circumstances of the country.
He concluded that no gentleman in the
House would deny parliament that power.
.Every country must have a right to pass
bills of exception and exclusion, and
more especially as they went to control
the rights of foreigners to land and reside;
seeing that that power was to be con-
sidered almost in the light of an Euro-
pean law. But, the subject for their con-
sideration was, the policy of the measure
at the present time. Their ancestors
well knew that they had the right, but
they seldom used it; thinking, as it would
appear, that the disadvantages greatly
outweighed any benefits to be attained
by the use of it, because of the facilities
which it would have afforded to an op-
pressive government to cover its rigours
under the pretence of watching strictly
over foreigners. Every one who had
travelled in foreign countries knew, that
with respect to nations, character is
power, and that England was particularly
strong in that kind of power. This bill
had received modifications, it was said,
for which he was not at all thankful. He
thought they were against the general
principle for which he would contend.
It was said that, in its present form, no
less than 9,000 foreigners out of 26,000
had been withdrawn from its operation:
he disliked it so much the more. If those
9,000 were rich foreigners, they would
tend greatly to lessen the opposition to
the bill. He would rather that all should
be included in it. With a bill so ob-
noxious in its principle, the wider the ex-
tent of operation the better; because,.the
general sense of indignation and injustice
to which it would give rise would be so
much more powerful in its manifestation.
As to thea statement which had been
hazarded,,that this power had never been
abused, he could nqt allow the assertion
to pass. uncontradicted. He hadt supo


APRL 2, 1824. [1 I8
ported the case of general Gourgatd,
who, after so many years of faithful ser-
vice to his unfortunate master, had been
cruellytreated., He thought thatthecon-
duct of government in refusing him permis-
sion to land, was nothing less than illibe-
ral and ungentlemanly: lhe would not at-
tribute it, however, exactly to the govern-
ment, because they were not apprised at
the moment of what their agents were
doing, although they afterwards justified
it. There was another case in which he
could not but think that the power had
been still more abused. He alluded to
that of baron Eben, who had beeri
banished by the king of Portugal after
sixteen or seventeen years of zealous and
faithful service; and yet government,
though they could not charge him with
any crime, would not permit him to land,
because he was said to have been opposed
to the kingly government in Portugal.
These two cases showed that the powers
given were liable to abuse, and that they
had been abused. As to madame Mon-
tholon and others, excluded on the gene-
ral principle of not admitting any of the
partisans of Bizonaparte, it was clearly
most ungenerous treatment for a free
government. The House should seize
this opportunity of proving to the Holy
Alliance, and to the people of Europe,
that all those bonds which had unhappily
united them for a time, were now dissolv*
ed-that the interests of this country
were no longer interwoven with their
system. No opportunity could be more
favourable for that purpose than the pro-
gress of the bill now in discussion. An
opinion prevailed abroad, that this bill
was passed at the instigation of the Holy
Alliance, and that it could not be repeal-
ed without their consent directly ex-
pressed. He hoped that the House
would prove most fully and satisfactorily,
that the opinion was groundless; and to
give them an opportunity for so doing,
he would now move, That the bill be
read a second time this day six months."
Mr. N. Calvert explained. He said;
he had not wished to dictate any rule to
guide the conduct of the House: he had
only prescribed a rule for his own be-
haviour with respect to foreign govern,
ments, and the princes at the head of
them.
Mr. Serjeant Onslow justified the con-
duct of government in the treatment of
general Gourgaudi and the other members
of the suite of Buonaparte, and argued








119] HOUSE OF COMMONS,
for the inherent right which existed in
the prerogative to exercise the power
asked for by ministers.
SMr. Secretary Canning said, he rose
rather in fulfilment of a pledge into which
he had been seduced a few nights ago by
the soft persuasion of the hon. member
for Aberdeen, than from any admission
that the question required more ample
argument; -and still less did he feel it
necessary to rise for the purpose of mak-
ing any acknowledgment that, on any
former occasion of discussing the prin-
ciples of this bill, his own sentiments
required any, even the slightest qualifica-
tion. The hon. member for Aberdeen,
in a style half complimentary to him, and
half composed of serious censure on the
measure itself, had done him the honour
to oppose the principle of the bill to that
which he deemed to be the general
character and genius of his (Mr. Can-
ning's) policy. If, however, the hon.
gentleman should find any thing contra-
dictory to the opinions which he had
formed of him, in the arguments he was
about to use in support of the measure ;
if lhe should find any thing which he
might conceive to be opposed to the
opinions which he (Mr. Canning) had
professed, he would enable the hon. gen-
tleman to thread those differences, to
reconcile those seeming contradictions in
his expressions, by producing, in one
word, the clue of the labyrinth-the
shiboleth of his (Mr. C.'s) policy upon
this and every other public question; and
that word was England." His wish
was only that of being found siding, on
all divisions of opinions, with the interests
of his country.
He was desirous of disclaiming at the
outset, the slightest reference to the
wishes of any other sovereign, to the
feelings of any other government, or to
the interests of any other people, except
in so far as those wishes, those feelings,
and those interests, may, or might, concur
with the just interests of England. Per-
haps, of all the questions that had been
recently discussed in that House, the
present bill had been the most subjected
to the influence of the reigning vice of
all discussion at the present day-the
vice of exaggeration. If, without refer-
ence to time and place, we were to hear
it asserted, that it was a monstrous and
unheard-of proposition, that a sovereign
state should arrogate to itself the power
of determining what foreigners should be


* Alien Bill.


[120


admitted into its territories, and on what
conditions they should reside there, the
assertion would appear so monstrous and
so extravagant, that no one would venture
seriously to repeat it. And yet all the
strength with which it had been clothed
by the opponents of the bill, had been
by dressing up a proposition so simple
and so absurd, with facts with which it
had no connexion, and with suppositions
which had no foundation. He must
forfeit, he feared, some of the good
opinion of the hon. member when he said,
that in discriminating, in the arguments
on this bill, between those which main-
tained its principle and those which were
conversant in its details, he was inclined
to give most consideration to those which
confirmed the principle; and, the prin-
ciple once established, though it might
afterwards be shown that errors accom-
panied the exercise of it on particular
occasions, it was still good for all times
and circumstances. Being a principle of
that force and generality it could not be
done away, and the details must conse-
quently form but a secondary considera-
tion. He said, that the right must have
existed, and must continue to exist, at all
times and under all circumstances. He
did not therefore say, that at all times
and under all circumstances the power
was equally applicable. But he would
say, not meaning to take the power of
the Crown apart from the authority of
parliament, that if it were found that no
such power as that of constraining aliens
more than natural-born subjects existed,
and upon any new and unexpected emer-
gency the want of that power should be
felt, that would be such a state of things
as ought not to be allowed to exist, even
if this temporary bill should expire; and
he trusted that expire it would, without
another renewal. [Loud cheers.] He
repeated his earnest hope and expectation,
that it would expire without another re-
newal. But even in that case, with re-
spect to the principle of power, govern-
ment, of whomsoever itmight be composed
at the time, would not do its duty, if it
suffered the principle to lapse into annihi-
lation, or if by neglect they should after-
wards allow the power itself altogether to
escape from their hands. He hoped he
should not be taunted by the hon. gentle-
man with throwing any thing out as a lure
for popularity, when he thus candidly
avowed,- that his onjy consideration was,
how to reserve the principle of the ipea-







i21] Alien Bill.
sure; and, that being once effected, that
he was little anxious about the details,
and was not at all disposed to undertake
to show how, by whom, and on what
particular occasions, that power should
be now exercised. When he said "now,"
he wished not to be misunderstood. Much
argument had been wasted on the ques-
tion of situation. Honourable gentlemen
had gone back to former times to show
that the power was or was not in the
Crown, without the parliament; and, in
his opinion, the precedents produced were
equally strong in proof for either side of
that argument. The power had undoubt-
edly been exercised by the Crown, some-
times with, sometimes without, the con-
sent of parliament: but, it was absurd
to be drawing comparisons between the
exercises of power, with regard to the
different parts of the constitution now,
and in former times. Suppose a precedent
were shown of Henry 8th having exer-
cised this power with the consent of par-
liament, would that imply the least resem-
blancebetween the constitutional functions
of parliament then, and at the presentday ?
The consent of that parliament of Henry
the Eighth, which voted the proclamation
of the king to have the force of law, was
surely something different from the con-
currence of a parliament of the present
day; and if to add any sanction to a
strong measure against aliens, the monarch
clothed it in the name of such a parlia-
ment, it was no proof that it was subject
to any real control. The monarch, in
fact, discussed his measures in parliament
as in a large council, where his influence
was as complete as in his own privy coun-
cil. But, he did not want to prove that
the power was originally with the Crown ;
that it was inherent in the prerogative.
It was matter of perfect indifference to
him, whether it was innate in the Crown
to be exercised by the Crown, or in the
Crown to be exercised with the consent of
the parliament; or if it were lodged first
with the parliament to be shaped by the
parliament in its exercise, with the assent
of the Crown as a branch of the parliament:
there must be a power lodged somewhere
in the constitution to deal with aliens, if
it should be found necessary, more sum-
marily than with their own subjects.
The question had been argued, as if
this bill 'would form an exception to the
practice of all' other countries. It had
been repeatedly' urged how odious it
wauid' be in them to retain power which'


APRIL 2, 1824. [(1S
from its objectionable nature, was not
Claimed by the government of other states.
But the argument was quite the other way.
England was the exception. This coun-
try alone stood without the continual ex-
istence and frequent exercise of that pow-
er. He defied those who objected to pro-
duce facts. Let them show him any state
in Europe from the most arbitrary to
those supposed to be the most free-from
the highest degree of despotism, through
all the range of political inventions by
which states were governed, down to the
most widely-spread democracy-which
had ever consented to be without the
power of controlling the abode of aliens
more rigidly than that of native subjects.
Why, then, was this country to be depri-
ved of a defence which no other state, of
any kind-or at any period-would be
without ? Why was this country to divest
itself of a power essential to its own secu-
rity, when occasions might arise for bring-
ing it into action?
Another argument used by honourable
gentlemen opposed to this measure was,
that the acquisition of power over aliens
resulting from it would be inconsistent
with freedom. Why, the experience of
all history went the other way. He had
before said, that all governments had had
this power; but more particularly was it
exercised by those governments which
were considered the best of ancient times.
Look at-the ancient republics of Greece
and Rome. Were gentlemen altogether
to forget their classics on the present oc-
casion, and overlook the instances which
they afforded bearing on the present case?
Let them look at Sparta, where the con-
dition of the stranger was little better than
that of the unfortunate Helot. Let.
them look at the polished rival of Sparta
-Athens; and what was the condition of
the alien who went to reside there for a
time? He was, in the first place, obliged
to put himself, during his stay, under the
protection of some patron; orindefault
thereof, he was subject to every kind of
inconvenience. But even under thepatron,
he was liable to have his goodssold, and his
person sent to prison, for non-payment of
the alien-tax. Letthem look at Rome-
atancient Rome-in the days of her great-
est freedom. Was the alien the object of
any peculiar care? On the contrary, he
was rather the object of peculiar jealousy.
It was necessary that there, too, he should
place 'himself under the protection of
some patron; butthat did riot exempt him







12s] HOUSE OF COMMONS,
fr9m the liability to be qept from the city
without notice. Aliens were sometimes
sent out, ot by one or two at a time, but
frequeptly in whole droves together, at
the caprice of the tribunes, or consuls.
Why did he mention these facts ? Not for
the purpose of urging them as reasons why
we should now act in a similar manner, but
tq show that, at all times, such a power
wa, exercised by those states most jealous
pf heir freedom, and that the power was
n~v( held to be at all inconsistent with
thqt frepedm. Look at the practice of
th4i country in ancient times. It was true,
that aliens were invited, and that peculiar
protection was given to glien merchants.
Why ? Why, because the only men who
traveled in those days were merchants.
)id it follow because qecouragement was
given then, that the same shl.ud be held
9ot a) the present day ? And this brought
him to, ntice wiat was the radical error
of tl,,argupaentsofgentlemen opthisques-
tion; namely, that they made nq diRtinoc
tipn between the pqoicy of~. ancient state
and that of a modern one. At that period
of the'e ,oma state, when the fight between
t~he H;oati, and Ciriatii was, to decide whe-
tHer AJla Rasto be Rome, o1r Rogme Alba
M-rt that time, the desoriptioR of ae*t of
aePA qamongg the number of 4qman citi-
easp might ba natite pf daep. epqdien-
Py, w,N4,iqh~,l ld4 n ftebwards exist, The
jealsy of sqFr anp sagIlrp, t, in, af utou
period of the Roman. history was not iJ~
coqni~stIt wth tphe foap~ mehsre, XI
the one casepa ew P ate approe 4qfwhat
vyo 0ie flYpq9iqns; jinthe cther, a44 ol4d
stgway sjeal4pSfwha) bs,ippolyged ipgo as
engrpa.inp gfl .s, hy,. t~le rape ofb the
ahyip twoslens was, ,aideds a mefasre
9f qxpediienqy to supply the wants of thp
yoiig statP;,bpt, np man wjoqld .gq, so far
qgtp assert, that because satchaiapsprehad
Qwhpe.n xpedieptit)wouldhaeqpil}y ax
pi,eAins, that it sAulp4:be rpsprted to at the
g ofi every lustrum, Yet, it was by con-!
foudjing twy evry disiilar epQchs in the
listpry.pfstates. and arguing the pecessity
r ppolicyr operytain measulr in qoe be-
cause they had been foupd to existkip the
'her, that gaptlJmepAwIa opposed this
hill ha4 so. egregipusJydeqeivyed' them-
selves. It. iglhtl be rational, whe it was
an object fop Bngland to, collect' capital
and, industry, tp, penhe? pq ta inpdjsri-
4iQ0ately to- alq eAtyogers whno alone
wiulapthe ab thieal aAttqs but
whiep tlie paths indEtsy wemafilly, 9P
cupied, w1a0 t0i.peeplQe werfeflys*emr


played, and the country overflowing with
capital, it might be natural to look to the
introduction of strangers with other eyes,
and to see less of the advantages than of
the perils of the influx. Let the House
look at the two kindred British states,
happily joined in amity, though divided by
institutions, |which now occupy, perhaps,
a greater space than any others in the
eyes of the world. And here let him ob-
serve, that when he spoke of, and admit-
ted, the freedom of America, he must add,
that we in this country enjoyed as much
freedom as was enjoyed there or in any
other part of the world, and that our free-
doam was watched over and protected by
a monarchy, which so far from being a
check, was in reality its best and safest
guardian. But, let the House look at the
policy of the two governments. The po-
licy of America was facility of admission;
the policy with us was jealousy of admis-
sion. They wished to increasq.their sub,
jects; we, to secure thosowealready pos,
sessed-to prevent them from going off,
and others from coming to us. The dif+
ference of this policy was not the difference
between despotism and freedom--No: one
was the policy of a new, the other that of
an.old state. He would ask iq what part
of Europe could Englishmen travel with
sueh complete freedom, as foreigners could
in this? On the continent, a man could
not movie beyond a certain limit without
his passport, as had been truly observed
by the h4p. and learned serjeant (Ons-
law);, beyond that limit he felt the chain
round his leg, which he possessed no
means of lengthening, This fact at once
pwt, an end to, the argument of invidious,
ne$s, and that we were committing an
outrage on, foreigners, to which we our-
selves were not abroad exposed; that this
was the only despotic country of the world
-r-that Turkey was not despotic-Russia
not despotic-Austria not despotic--
France not despotic, in comparison with
thedespotism of Great Britain. Let him
ask, in addition, whether the police was
not a source of inconvenience to English-
men abroad? Why, a young Englishman
had been kept in custody, some time back,
fora whole night, for gallopping at night
over the birdge of Geneva. What conr
solution would it be to this young Englishr
manwho rode over the bridge of Geneva,
andthereby almost shook the little repubi
lic to,its foundation, that the despotism to
which he was there exposed was not inflic-
tedhy'f Amlignant.aada, turbandiTairk,"


Alien Bill.


t124







125] Alien Bill.
butbythe hon. aindlearnedgentletan's (ir
J. Mackintosh's) literary friend, M. Sis-
mondi, or by his own arithmetical friend,
sir Francis d'Ivernois? And yet, after
experiencing all the inconvenience of tra-
velling in foreign countries, some young
English travellers returned, and declared
that an Alien bill here would be a disgrace
to the country!-He had said thus much
of the measure as a general principle re-
cognized by the states most attached to
freedom. He had considered a certain
power over aliens, as a thing which ought
to be possessed permanently. He would
not go into the details of the present bill,
or the alterations which it might or might
not be necessary to make, if it were to re-
main permanently on our Statute-book.
He would not say whether the measure
which might be eventually decided upon
to supply the place of the bill should be
a registry; but, without entering into any
details of that kind, he would repeat, that
when this bill should expire, it would be,
necessary to introduce some measure, with
respect to the power which the executive
ought to possess over foreigners in this
country. He was afraid, then, that he
should not satisfy the hon. member for
Aberdeen when he not only declared
himself in favour of the measure before
the House, but of the general principle
out of which it arose.
He now came to the measure before
the House as applicable to the present
times ; for, having cleared the general
principle, it remained for him to consider
not whether this bill was good from be-
ginning to end, but whether it was a mo-
dification of an admitted principle, suited
to particular and existing dangers. Now
what were the existing dangers ? With
regard to internal perils, he was perfectly
ready to admit, that he saw none to the
institutions of this country from the exer-
tions of any foreigner, however dis-
posed such foreigner might be to assail
them. He firmly believed that, in the
very worst of times, there was inherent in
the English constitution, or he should
rather say, in the constitution of the Eng-
lish mind, that which would repel the aid
of foreign treason, and would not inocu-
late itself with any infection that was not
at least of native origin. And therefore
was it that his right hdn. friend had intro-
duced into this bill a modification of the
former law, striking out from its opera-
tion all those foreigners who had been, for
certain length of time, domilciled atongst


APRIL 2 i82 4. trr6
us, And with whose clhaiters and conne-r
ions we had had the means of becoming
acquainted. But the particular danger of
the time was that which had been stated
by the hon. gentleman who last spoke,
and which had been frequently referred
to in the course of the present session;
namely, that there was a struggle now
pending in the world, between extreme
principles, and that this country was na-
turally and necessarily (and long right
she continue to be so) the asylum for the
beaten in that warfare. As that asylum We
had a right to inscribe over our gate, not,
indeed, with Dante-" Lasciate ogni spe-"
ranza,voi ch'entrate,"-" All ye that enter
must leave hope behind;" but rather,-
,"All ye that enter must leave plots be-
hind."-" You must leave behind your
party feuds and your political squabbles,'
for you coma here to seek an asylum foi
repose, not a workshop, where, without
danger, you may forge new reasonss"
Those who courted a shelter had no right
to question the terms on which it was
granted. If then we did not make these
terms, what must be the necessary conse-
quence ? That which we called an asy-
lum would be felt and called by Europe
and the world a refuge, a hiding place,
for all who retired but to meditate fresh
disturbances. He was anxious that the
nations of the continent should not be
disturbed; because, the contact of inde-
pendent governments was often so close
and nice, that the disturbance of a part
might lead to the disturbance- of the
whole, and we ourselves might not be free
from the contagion. He was anxious,
therefore, for English purposes and Eng-
lish principles, that this bill should pass,
as well as on account of the countries
whose safety might be more immediately
placed in hazard.
His gallant friend(sir R. Wilson), as well
indeed as the hon. member for Aberdeen,
had both spoken out plainly and fairly,
and from both ofthemhe certainlydiffered
toto celo: there was no point of resem-
blance or accordance upon this subject
between them. They were of opinion,
that, in this struggleof extreme principles
England ought to side with those who
espoused the extreme principles of liber-
ty ; that she ought to unfurl her banners
at the head of that discomfited party;
That she ought to array, under her stan-
'dArd, all those who were disposed'to league
together to bverthrow the establish-
nimeits ofthe World,- [No, no; hear, hear !]'







17]) HOUSE OF COMMONS,
The hon. gentleman did not, perhaps, use
those precise words; but in argument
they went that length; and the shades of
distinction between them must be nice
indeed. What they contended for was
this-that, while our unvarying principle
was neutrality-neutrality recommended
from the throne, advocated by the go-
vernment, supported by parliament, and
echoed throughout the country; while
we would adopt measures the best calcu-
lated to preserve that neutrality, they
would at once overthrow it. No doubt
their object was laudable : no doubt they
wished to accomplish magnificent pur-
poses; but it was in direct opposition to
the wishes of the sovereign, the parlia-
ment, and the people. But, it was some-
what unreasonable, somewhat too much
to expect that we should conform to their
views, and at once abandon our settled
and approved course, for their scheme of
national exaltation. At least before they
called upon us to do so, they ought to try
parliament upon the question-whether it
was willing to adopt and pursue this new
line of policy-a line of policy, the object
of which was, not to keep down and soften
animosities, not to reconcile differences-
and promote general harmony and good
will, but to exasperate into action these
modern principles of extravagant liberty ;
to march at the head of the exiles of every
country, against their legitimate govern-
ments, and ancient institutions. If par-
liament could be brought to adopt this
new and exploded course, then he freely ad-
mitted, not only that this paltry Alien bill,
but with the hon. member for Aberdeen,
" wise in his generation," that the foreign
Enlistment bill must be at once repealed,
and we must begin a new era in legislation.
But, the House would give him leave to
say, that when the hon. gentleman and his
friends had attained this most desirable
object-when they had converted par-
liament, convinced the sovereign, and in-
duced his ministers to retrace their steps,
they might still find themselves consider-
ably disappointed.. He should not be
surprised if, after all their vehement de-
nunciations, they were at last to come to
parliament for something like the enact-
ment of an Alien bill ; for they assumed,
that this country, unarmed with power to
prevent the levying of war against a foreign
state-the Foreign Enlistment bill ; and
unarmed with power to control the resi-
dence of foreigners, the lien bill, the
consequence would be, that nothing would


4tien Bill. El128
be heard of in great Britain, but the fitting
out of armaments against what were term.
ed the despots of Europe. But, let him
call the attention of those hon. gentlemen
to one circumstance. There were two
parties engaged in this struggle of extra-
vagant principles. The one party might,
indeed, carry with it the sympathies of
mankind. They had all the common
places of liberty on their side; but, un-
fortunately, their achievements had been
few indeed. They had talked largely and
done little; and the strength, at present,
at least, was all the other way. Let him,
then, put a case. His hon. and learned
friend opposite (sir J. Mackintosh) had
given notice a short time since, of a.mo-
tion for the recognition of the indepen-
dence of South America : but he had
withdrawn it, because he understood that
the king's ministers were prepared to con-
sider any armament, fitting out in Spain,
while the French retained a preponderat-
ing influence there, a French armament.
Sir J. Mackintosh.-I said, if any con-
siderable armament" were fitted out in
Spain against South America, whilst that,
country was in the occupation of the
French army, it ought to be considered as.
a French armament.
Mr. Secretary Canning.-Well, any
considerable armament;" and, let them
see, if the hon. and learned gentleman
tried other powers fairly, by this rule.
What we had a right to say of France,.
France and other countries had a fair right
to. say of us. They mightdeclare, that they
would consider any armament sailing from
the ports of England for South America
as a British armament; and his hon. and
learned friend would admit, that this
kingdom was at least as responsible for
what was done upon her own soil, as
France was responsible for what was done
in Spain. Now, he said, that the Foreign
Enlistment bill alone prevented the fitting
out of armaments in British ports, and
that the Alien bill alone kept foreigners
under control, and prevented their trea-
sonable machinations. If you stripped
the Crown of the powers thereby given,
there was no physical impediment to any
number of foreigners, whether beaten or
triumphant, coming to Plymouth or Ports-
mouth, fitting out an armament there, and
sailing with it for the conquest of South
America, whether for Ferdinand or his
enemies. If France were to place herself
in such a situation, we should instantly
assert, that it afforded a ground for going







129] Alien Bill.
to war. It was ridiculous, then, to deny,
that, if we pursued the same line of corr-
duct, we might be justly called upon to
answer for it in the penalty of hostilities.
Then he maintained that it was for the
interest of England, for the peace of
England, and not merely for the interest
and peace of foreign nations, that we
should retain and, when needful, enforce,
these measures. God knew when we
should see the end of the prevailing agi-
tations-when the struggle of opinion and
principle would terminate No man could
wish for it more than he did; but he
claimed these bills, in order that we might
not be fooled, gulled, bullied, cheated, de-
ceived into hostilities in which it was never
our intention to engage. He claimed
them for the preservation of peace-for
the preservation of the character, reputa-
tion, and good sense of this country-to
prevent it from being the laughing-stock
and the dupe, instead of being the dread
and the support ofEurope-and that she
might not be made by foreigners the
starting-place of their animosities. So
long as these extreme parties were in pre-
sence of each other, no measure but this
Alien bill could save us from danger; and
the moment we parted with it, we volun-
tarily incurred the hazard. We should
then justly subject ourselves to the sus-
picion, that we had thrown this security
away, with the express intent of affording
the facilities of our shore, and the conve-
nience of our harbours, for the promotion
and encouragement of warfare; and he
cared not whether that warfare was in
favour of the one side or the other. Let
us not deceive ourselves by supposing that
the champions of freedom would make no
use of our means and our ports. We well
knew that, at this moment, there was
scarcely a power in Europe that was not
collecting from the capitalists of Great
Britain, the sinews of war- that there was
scarcely a single power that did not look
for resources to the exchequer of our
Exchange. He did not mean to justify
the moral character of such loans ; but we
were all aware, that our monied men lent
indiscriminately to all parties; without
reference to any other consideration than
the security which the borrower had to
offer. In the best days of our consti-
tution, it was known that hostile armies
were led by English captains; but here
were the captains of English captains,
whose resources were the springs on which
the power of each side rested. The mo-
VOL. XI.


APRIL 2, I1824.


[1i0


ney-lender lent to each, and would lend
wherever he got a security. He should
therefore be sorry to trust the neutrality
of the country to the morality of money-
lenders; for get rid of the foreign enlist-
ment, and let Ferdinand once show a little
strength, and we should soon see him
aided by the capitalists of this country, and
an expedition sent from our ports, making
another effort to crush the rising liberties
of South America. [Cheers.] It was to
prevent such a result that he was unwil-
ling to part with the power which the
Crown at present possessed by the acts now
in force. He would maintain a strict neu-
trality, not onjy in act and deed; but'he
would reject any of those little flirtations
that might tend to the violation of it. He
hoped never to see England leading those
armies which contended for extreme free-
dom against those who were called the
despots of the continent. And here he
was aware that he must, as he had often
done before, guard himself against the
contrary supposition. To those who
thought, or said that they thought, that
the measure upon the table had been pro-
duced at the dictation of any foreign
government, or any set of governments,
he replied that he denied it, and he
claimed that his denial should be as good
as their imputation. He said it in the
hearing of the Commons of England ; he
said it, thank God, in the hearing of the
whole country; and, what was more to his
purpose, he said it in the hearing of all
those against whom the imputation was
made-he rejected it as unfounded-he
denied it (not in any offensive sense), as
utterly false [Hear, hear]. Dearly as
he valued all the ties by which European
nations were held together, there was not
a connexion that he would'not sever at
once, rather than allow any measure
brought forward in that House to originate
in a foreign source. He denied that this
bill proceeded from foreign influence, or
that it was at all founded upon considera-
tions of the interests of other states.
The question, therefore, was, whether
for the purpose he had mentioned, the
provisions of the bill were adequate or too
powerful-whether they trenched more
upon individualliberty, than was necessary
forour domesticpolicy ? He'took theliber-
ty of assuming, that the purpose of the
bill was the purpose of the House; because
the measure was consonant with its recor-
ded votes. What, then, did the bill do?
Did it enable government to punish or im-
K







131] HOUSE OF COMMONS,
prison, to seize and to confiscate ? No; it
only empowered them to remove from the
kingdom the foreigner who, there was
reason to suspect, was violating the asy-
lum that had been affordedhim. Lest, too,
there should be any temptation to turn the
power to any other account, there was an
appeal to the privy council. He did not
mention it as an effective process of law;
but, it ensured notoriety. And who did
not know that, in this free country, where
a minister was compelled to act in the open
face of day, nine times out often, he
dared not act otherwise than in the honest
discharge of his duty ? This bill then ena-
bled government to remove the foreigner ;
and a still more valuable and a more avail-
able consequence of that power is, that it
enabled them to permit him to remain.
One example in point was as good, or
better, than a thousand arguments; though
they might be in point also. It had been
his fortune, a short time since, to receive
intelligence of the authenticity of which
he could not doubt, of a plot being in agi-
tation among certain emigrants against the
peace of their native country. The plot
was well got up, plausible in its object,
and not deficient in means. This infor-
mation, as it was his duty, he had commu-
nicatedto his right hon. friend (Mr. Peel).
His inquiries had led precisely to the
same conclusion. What was done ? Did
they enforce the provisions of the Alien
act ? Did they send the parties accused,
and to whom the plot was brought home
with moral certainty, out of Great Britain,
to be exposed to the vengeance of irritated
royalty ? No. They had desired to see
the individual principally implicated.
They told him they were aware of the
design, and informed him of the names of
his associates. He did not deny its exist-
ence, though, as might be expected, he
did not confess his own participation.
Theybade himgo andbe cautious ; adding,
that.they should let his government know
Sof the discovery of the plot, but conceal
the names of the parties. In his con-
science, he believed that they had thus
prevented the completion of the scheme.
Was this, he asked, an instance of abuse
of the powers of the Alien bill. The case
to which he referred happened within the
last fortnight; and, while his right hon.
friend and himself were hesitating about
this measure, this incident occurred, and
completely satisfied them both, that they
would not do their duty if they did not
propose it to parliament. Now, then, the


Alien Bill. [132
House had the history of the origin of this
hill; and it knew the intentions of govern-
ment in endeavouring to make it an enact-
ment. He asked, then, hon. gentlemen
on the other side, whether in the enact-
ment or in the mode in which it had been
applied, they saw any thing that roused
their constitutional jealousy ? But,he mis-
took when he talked of their constitutional
jealousy--he ought rather to say, their
continental jealousy. When this instance
had been mentioned by his right hon.
friend on a former night, a noble lord (Al-
thorp)-who did not often deliver his
opinions upon foreign policy, but when he
did, what he said always bore the stamp of
good sense-suggested,that all the advant-
age to be derived from a temperate use of
the powers of the Alien bill might be at-
tained by an act of parliament brought in
for each specific case. The noble lord
had had some experience in acts of par-
liament: be had one now before the
House for correcting the practice of cer-
tain small courts, and when he got rid of
that, he would really beg of the noble lord
to try his hand a little further at legislation;
and bring in a bill to arraign a foreigner
in this country of treason against his own.
At least he would have to encounter the
difficulty of being without a precedent, in
the history of any state, ancient or modern.
He only requested the noble lord when he
went home that night, to try his hand at
framing such a bill ;and, depend upon it,
even the mighty undertaking of regulating
the County courts would sink into insigni-
ficance before it. He must not only try
a new mode of legislation, but must erect
new courts for his purpose, such as hither-
to the imagination of man had never
conceived.
That some measure should be devised
by which a certain poweroveraliens should
be granted to the Crown at the expiration
of the present law, he would repeat ; but,
in the mean time, the present would act
upon the principle, that prevention was
better than cure, and he thought it better
to act in that way, which would secure the
interests of this country without inculpa-
ting individuals. He would repeat, then,
that, in the present state of the world, such
a measure as that before the House was
necessary. What satisfaction would it be
to any foreign power against whom secret
combinations were plotting, and by whom
we might be accused of suffering such
practices to be carried on-what satisfac-
tion, he would ask, would it be, to say,







133] Alien Bill.
that we had caught the party, and were
about to try him by a law made for the
purpose? Such a proceeding would not
be so much our proper policy, as to take
steps by which the practice might be pre-
vented altogether. He admitted that, ac-
cording to the present law, the innocent
was often subject to inconvenience as well
as the guilty. That must be the effect of
all general laws : by the very nature of
them, the innocent must be subjected to
inconvenience. To detect the guilty, it
would be necessary to cast the net very
wide.
He must, before he sat down, protest
against another species of exaggeration
which he found to exist on this question.
He meant that disposition to take it for
granted, that all foreigners who fled from
their own country to seek an asylum in
this, must be models of their kind-more
angels than men, though somewhat fallen,
and with, at least, "the excess of glory
obscured"-heroes of the noblest order,
and patriots of the purest water; forgetting
the ancient jealousy which existed, with
respect to the coming of foreigners into
this country? Did they forget the
line-
London the needy villain's general home ;
The common sink of Paris and of Rome !"
He did not say, that the Alien bill had
completely effected a beneficial change;
but it was not to be taken for granted, that
because a foreigner came to this country,
he was persecuted and driven away from
his own. Besides these illustrious heroes
-these immortal patriots-these cham-
pions of freedom and martyrs-there were
to be found pimps and quack-doctors,
et id genus omne,'-a striking instance
of which was to be seen in a recent case
at Manchester. He by no means intend-
ed to convey an impression, that all
aliens were of this description; but he
thought, when gentlemen on the other
side assumed, that none but heroes and
patriots arrive here, he had at least as
good a right to assume, that persons of a
very contrary description also found their
way to our shores. All he contended for
was, that there was a necessity for some
such supervision-that the Alien bill was
addressed to the specific danger of the
times-and that it had hitherto been
found effectual in suppressing, orheshould
rather say, in preventing it. He had not
heard even an insinuation of an abuse of
its powers. He would conclude as he be-
gan, with expressing his hope that the


APRIL 2, 1824. [13
measure might not outlive the term for
which its renewal wasnow proposed. When-
ever the danger was at an end, he would
return, with all his heart, to some more mi;
tigated and moderate system of legisla-
tion ; but for legislation upon this subject,
he should still be an advocate, for the
House would ill perform its duty to the
public if it left the government without
the means of protecting the country from
the dangers to which he had adverted.
[Loud cheers].
Mr. Tierney next addressed the House,
but for some moments he spoke in a tone
quite too low to be audible in the gallery.
He observed, that he felt it necessary to
offer a few remarks to the House after the
extraordinary speech of the right hon.
secretary, in which he had throughout
defended the bill, and had nevertheless
expressed his readiness to abandon it for
a more mild measure. If ever he had
heard a speech an hour and a half long in
that House, in which the speaker more
decidedly looked one way and rowed an-
other, it was that which the right hon.
gentleman had just delivered; and, if he
were one of the right hon. gentleman's
followers in that House, he should think
that, on thepresent occasion, he might vote
against his patron, without much risk of
giving offence. The right hon. secretary
had charged gentlemen on the Opposition
side with the figure ofspeech called exagge-
ration; asifhe himself had not condescend-
ed to borrow a little from fancy in the
course of his address. Why, the right
hon. gentleman's speech was full of
fanciful images-of aliens coming over in
thousands and thousands, fitting out ar-
maments, and then taking (as the sailors
say) a fresh departure, to conquer their
own country. The House had heard
these fanciful statements, and they had
also heard the right hon. gentleman charge
others with making too free a use of the
figure called exaggeration! But the right
hon. gentleman stated that his object in
supporting this bill was to support the in-
terests of England. The House, however,
had all this at second-hand-the right hon.
gentleman having already announced it at
one of those travelling parties which he
had got round him in his late tour. It
was stated in the hearing of the mayor,
aldermen, and burgesses of Plymouth ;
and no doubt they must have been as-
tounded at the declaration then, as the
House was now. Now, he would take the
right hon. gentleman's own text; and say,







135] HOUSE OF COMMONS,
that he would also support the bill for the
interests of England, provided it could be
shown that it really tended to support
those interests. If any member should
prove this to his satisfaction, he should
have his vote : but no man should have
his vote in support of the measure, until
that tendency of the bill was clearly de-
monstrated. Looking at the right hon.
gentleman's observations, it struck him,
that the right hon. gentleman was not
half so friendly to the measure as he had
pretended to be; for after having raked
all foreign and ancient history on the sub-
ject-after having ransacked the annals of
the ancient republics.-The home secre-
tary having already gone through the
whole History of England on the ques-
tions-after all this trouble, it turned out,
that it was only within the last fortnight
that the right hon. gentleman had made
tip his mind to bring it forward at all; and
then, even that was owing to one of the
luckiest accidents in the world. He would
not follow the right hon. gentleman into
his disquisition of ancient history: he
would come to that period of English his-
tory-(which was, after all, the only one
that had any thing to do with the matter)
-he'would come to that part of it which
he looked upon as its best-he meant the
period since the Revolution. This Alien
bill, said to be so essential to our very
safety as a nation, had no existence in all
this long period. Putting out of our view
the Alien bill of 1793, which was dif-
ferent from the present, it had been a law
about ten years; and now we were so jea-
lous of it, that if we were to believe the
right hon. gentleman, the country could
not go on without it. But, before this bill
was in existence, England had been ex-
tolled for her generous foreign policy, and
had raised herself to greatness, without
possessing an alien bill. This measure,
which, in these perilous times, was to save
the country, was to last, however, only for
the next two years. Then the right hon.
gentleman gave the House to understand
we should hear no more of it, but some-
thing else would be introduced in its stead;
but what that something else was he did
not himself yet know. This conduct of
the right hon. gentleman looked very
much like a compromise somewhere; as if
one part of the government had said to the
other part, Here we have been acting
on the ancient principles of the constitu-
tion, for the last 25 years: and now you
come with your new-fangled doctrines,


Alien Bill. 13i
your reforms in trade, and your inquir.es
into Chancerycourts, and a thousand other
novelties, as if you wanted to turn every
thing upside down; you must give us
something in lieu of all this-let us see,
what have you got to give ?" Well,"
said the colleague, what will you have?"
" Oh give us the Alien bill." Well,
take it for a couple of years or so ; but at
the end of that time it must be modified."
And they had got it, and he did not see
that it was likely to be of any advantage
to them, except to show that they were
not entirely beaten, and to give them an
opportunity of worrying some poor devil
of an alien, if they should feel so inclined.
-The right hon. gentleman then proceed-
ed to contend, that the bill was not call-
ed for by any existing necessity. If fo-
reigners flocked hither in thousands, the
power might be considered not unreason-
able;but when they came inindribblets, one
now and one then, they could not possibly
call for the exercise of the power which
was now demanded. Foreigners might
come here either as emissaries for foreign
purposes, or as fomenters of discontents
here. That any danger was likely to arise
from the latter, had been fully disclaimed
in the king's speech, and in that of the
right hon. gentleman; and any object
which they might hope to gain in the for-
mer character would be defeated by the
foreign enlistment bill, to which, by the
way,the righthon. gentleman had.adverted
as fully as if it were a measure then before
the House. Now, as to the possibility of fo-
reigners fitting out armaments from this
countryagainst their own governments. In
the first place, how were they to get men ?
He shouldlike to know to what description
of persons these foreigners could go, who
would not give them this answer-" this
is a bad time for you to apply to us for
such a purpose; we have got plenty of
work, and we shan't get half as much by
going with you as we shall by staying at
home." They might, too, add-" this
is a bad time for applying to us to serve
any party purposes; party in this country
is nearly extinct, and many persons think
that the Opposition are playing booty, be-
cause they do not make a greater stir."
[Hear, and alaugh]. The danger which
the right hon. gentleman apprehended was
altogether imaginary. The foreigners
who came to this country arrived here as
fugitives; and it was a new and painful
thing for him to hear it stated, asa ground
for watching those persons with jealousy,







137J Alien Bill.
that they were likely to enter into machi-
nations against the governments which
had oppressed them. But, it was said,
that such machinations would be danger-
ous, inasmuch as they would involve this
government in difficulties and disputes
with foreign powers, whilst it was pro-
fessing to .observe the strictest neu-
trality. Now, he wished the British
government to act impartially, on the
principles which it professed. He
thought that the Holy Alliance, and all
the proceedings of the different con-
gresses which had been held, were machi-
nations against the liberties of the people
of Europe. The crowned heads who com-
posed those congresses had evidently
bound themselves together to crush liberty
on the continent, wherever it might arise.
Had the British government remonstrated
with foreign ministers against the machi-
nations of their masters ? Had it said,
that their proceedings were likely to en-
danger the peace of Europe? Not at
all! The machinations which govern-
ment was willing to put down were those
of the oppressed against the oppressors ;
not those of the oppressors against the
oppressed. He really should like to know
what the right hon. gentleman thought
any number of foreigners who sought
refuge in this country could, by any pos-
sibility, achieve. The right hon. gentle-
man had said, that loans were easily ob-
tained. To be sure they were-when
good security could be given. But, the
experiment had been tried, not whether
the poor foreigners who had recently ar-
rived in this country could get loans, but
whether they could procure a small pit-
tance from the generosity of individuals
to supply their pressing necessities; and
he was sorry to say, that the result of the
experiment had not been very flattering.
On the other hand, it was notorious that
loans for the assistance of crowned heads
could be procured very easily in this
country. Was it possible to apprehend
any danger from the circumstance of four
or five unfortunate foreigners meeting in
a garret, to talk over the miseries which
they had endured from their oppressors.
Was the House of Commons to be called
upon to pass a law like that proposed, in
order to prevent four or five such unhappy
persons as he had described from dipcuss-
ing, whether they might not, by some
romantic attempt, rescue their wives and
families whom they had left behind them,
from the evils which they were enduring.


Anam 9, 1824. [138
It was most repugnant to English feelings
to pass the bill upon such grounds. The
right hon. secretary had, however, spoken
with great gravity of a discovery which
had been made within the last fortnight,
of a plot which had been formed by cer-
tain foreigners against some foreign power.
He would do the right hon, gentleman
and the right hon. secretary for the
home department this justice, that he
believed them to be utterly incapable of
degrading their country so far as to esta-
blish in it a system of espionage against
poor foreigners here. The information,
then, which had led to the discovery of
the plot must have come from some
foreign minister. He was sure of this,
because he was convinced, that the right
hon. gentleman would be above adopting
the miserable course of tracking the foot-
steps of individuals, of whose names he
kept a register. But, what had happened
with respect to the plot in question ? The
right hon. gentleman said, that he
acted a kind part with respect to the con,
spirator who had been brought before
him. He remonstrated with him; told
him he knew his accomplices, and gave
him warning that, if he did not abandon
the course in which he had embarked, he
would be sent out of the country. Why,
could not all this have been done without
the Alien bill? If the plot had been disr
covered when no alien bill was in exist
tence, the right hon. gentleman might
have informed the government against
which the conspiracy was directed, of the
circumstance; and that was all that had
been done in the present instance. On
this occasion, therefore, the Alien act had
been of no efficacy. The principle oa
which the bill was founded was, that ma,
chinations carried on in this country by
foreigners against their own governments,
were dangerous in the eye of the British
law; and, by passing the bill, govern,
ment took upon itself the task of watching
the acts of foreigners, not because they
were injurious to our society, but because
they were hostile to those who had op-
pressed them. He had before observed,
that foreigners in this country were not
very likely to be able to effect much
against their governments, by means of
money or arms; but, they were able to
injure those governments a great deal in
one way-he meant by publications.
Most of the continental governments
were of that description, that the greatest
injury which could be done to them was







139] HOUSE OF COMMONS,
to tell the truth of them [cheers]. Was
it not very probable that foreign powers
would make an application to prevent
such publications from issuing from the
press, by sending those who were inclined
to compose them, out of the country.
The right hon. gentleman shook his head ?
but, such applications might be made,
and he had no doubt that they would be
made: and then would arise the danger
of war, which the right hon. gentleman
was so anxious to avoid, if those applica-
tions were not attended to. 14o persons
could differ more than the right hon.
gentleman and those with whom he came
in contact on the other side of the water.
The right hon. gentleman said, that it
was the policy of this country to acknow-
ledge the South American states, when
they should become clearly independent
of the mother country: but the French
ministers said, that to act in that manner
would be to sanction the principle of re-
volution. He gave the right hon. gentle-
man credit for having treated such an ar-
gument with the contempt which it merit-
ed, and, instead of condescending to dis-
cuss the point, passed, as it were, to the
order of the day. The difference of opinion
to which he had just alluded was very
strikingly exemplified on the subject of
the late attack upon Spain. He believed
that the right hon. gentleman was sincere
in the disapprobation which in the warmth
of his heart, he had last session expressed
againstthe invasion of Spain. But, how was
that invasion regarded by the French go-
vernment ? It had recently been proclaim-
ed to the world in the speech of the king of
France, with a degree of effrontery, and
he would add of impiety, never before
witnessed, that Providence had been
pleased to bless his endeavours in tlhe
" most generous as well as the most just
of all enterprises"-meaning the invasion
of Spain. Suppose, now, one of the
Spanish emigrants in this country were
to be incited to write a pamphlet on the
subject of the king of France's speech,
and to shew what was the real nature of
the Spanish war, and suppose him to ex-
press himself, with regard to his most
christian majesty, not in such decorous
terms as he (Mr. T.) was inclined to ob-
serve towards him in that place. If the
king of France were to complain to this
government on the subject, and there were
no Alien bill in force, ministers might say,
"If you are aggrieved, you must seek your
remedy by English law; the executive


Alien Bill. [140
power can do nothing for you." But
ministers could not give that answer as
long as the Alien act was in existence, be-
cause the French government would im-
mediately say, "You are bound to com-
ply with our wishes, because you have
established the principle, that you are to
interfere to put down all machinations
against our government." He did not
know whether he had made himself un-
derstood upon this point [cheers]. It
struck him as being a question of deep.
importance; and he implored the House
to act as the supporters of ministers, and
not to pass a bill, the effect of which would
be to render those ministers liable to the
very danger from which they thought it
was calculated to protect them; namely,
the danger of being embroiled with fo-
reign powers on the subject of aliens re-
siding in this country. He had really
been surprised to hear the right hon. gen-
tleman talk of the probability of great
captains and heroes coming over to this
country, and fitting out mighty armaments
against foreign governments. If there
was one hon. gentleman in that House
who could believe that to be the case, he
would do very right in voting for the bill.
Certainly, nothing could be more incon-
venient than to find, all of a sudden, a
vast fleet assembled at Plymouth, having
come God knew whence, and going God
knew whither! But he had no doubt that
some individual, who knew the manner
in which a fleet was got together-who
was aware that, in order to effect that
object, it was necessary to publish adver-
tisements inviting contracts for provisions,
stores, &c.-would comfort the right hon.
gentleman, and tell him that he needed
not to be under any apprehension on that
score [hear, and a laugh]. The right
hon. gentleman had a part to perform, and
he had certainly performed it most ably
for his colleagues. He had given them a
speech with which, under all the circum-
stances, he thought they ought to be very
well satisfied. But, throughout the whole
of that speech, the right hon. gentleman
had taken care to show that the Alien act
was not a thing of which he greatly ap-
proved. He had treated it as a drug
which was poured down their throats and
had hoped that the dose would not be
repeated two years hence. For himself,
he must contend against the principle of
arming government with powers to meet
a case that might possibly arise. He
thought it the wiser course for govern-







1411] Aen Bill.
ment to wait until a case should arise,
which might require extraordinarypowers,
and then to apply to parliament for assis-
tance. He hoped the right hon. gentle-
man would inform the House what powers
the foreigners in this country would pos-
sess of disturbing the peace of Europe,
if the Alien act were allowed to expire.
If that right hon. gentleman made out a
case of real danger, he would give him
his hearty vote in favour of government.
He was, however, satisfied that there was
no danger to be apprehended, and that
the Alien bill had its origin in the restless
ambition, to use the mildest phrase, of
the sovereigns of the continent. The
right hon. secretary for foreign affairs
had disclaimed this. He had said, that
he would submit to no dictation from fo-
reign powers. He believed theright hon.
gentleman when he said so. But the
right hon. gentleman had not originated
the Alien act: he had found it existing
when he came into office; and how it had
been introduced as a part of the policy
of government, he, of course, could not
know. At what was called the settlement
of Europe, after the fall of Napoleon, the
great European powers had,.he sincerely
believed, entered into an agreement-he
did not, of course mean an agreement on
a stamp-that liberty should be crushed
wherever it was possible to crush it. For
this it was, that this country had spent
hundreds of millions; for this it was, that
they had restored the Bourbons. That
family now found they could not maintain
their newly-acquired power, unless they
were assisted by extraordinary means.
They, therefore, addressed the British
government in these terms:-" We have
spies and large armies to serve our pur-
poses, and if an individual renders himself
obnoxious, we can take him up, clap him
in a fortress, and he will never more be
heard of; but, in your free government,
what can you do ?" This being the case,
it was determined that no persons who
were obnoxious to the continental govern-
ments should be allowed to find a refuge
in England. He was as satisfied that that
was the origin of the Alien act, as that he
was at that moment speaking [cheers].
It was extraordinary that, at the present
moment, when this country was at peace
with all the world-when our situation was
prosperous-when every man was con-
tented-when all domestic differences had
subsided-and when therewere no grounds
for alarm, parliament should be called


ApRlL 2, 1824.


[142


upon to pass a bill, which had no otheF
object than to prevent England from being
the asylum of the oppressed. He was
anxious that the character which England
had acquired of being an asylum for the
oppressed of all nations should be main-
tained. It would, he admitted, be a breach
of neutrality, if the British government
invited persons who were plotting against
their own governments to come to this
country, and sent ships to convey them
hither. But, under present circumstances,
only a limited number of aliens found.
their way here, to enjoy that freedom
which they could not obtain in their own
countries; and God forbid that in his life-
time the case should ever be otherwise!
The moment a poor foreigner set his foot
upon the shores of England, his chains
fell from him, and he became as free as
Englishmen, and entitled to all the privi-
leges which they enjoyed, except with
regard to certain distributions of property,
which they were aware before they came
here, that they would not be allowed to
possess. The right hon. secretary for the
home department, however, would not
allow foreigners to enjoy those blessings.
He set about watching them, in order to
discover whether they were engaged in
any machinations against their respective
governments. He would advise that right
lion. gentleman, who must have work
enough of his own on his hands, not to
undertake to be police-agent for other
states [hear]. He did not use the term
in an offensive sense; but it really appear-
ed to him, that the information respecting
the plot to which the right hon. secretary
for foreign affairs had alluded, must have
been furnished by some foreign power.
He implored the House, at the present
moment, when this country was triumph-
ant, prosperous, happy and contented, and
all Europe was moved by discontent-pro-
voked by the treachery of their govern-
ments, by broken promises, and by as-
surances of the bestowing of constitutions
never performed-to preserve, not a no-
minal, but a real neutrality, and to deal
as fairly by the oppressed, as by the op.
pressors. This was the only course which
England could steer with honour and ad-
vantage. He thought, with many other
persons, that if England had taken a more
decided part a short time since, much of
what had happened might have been pre-
vented. But he would not dwell upon
that topic: it was wiser to consider the
present than to regret the past. Neutra.








143] HOUSE OF COMMONS,
lity was the policy which England must
adhere to, and he opposed the Alien bill
on the ground that it tended to provoke
a breach of that neutrality. For the same
reasons on which the right hon. gentle-
man had rested his defence of the mea-
sure, he (Mr. T.) opposed it-namely,
for the interests of England.
Mr. Secretary Canning said, he felt it
necessary, in consequence of what had
fallen from the right hon. gentleman, to
declare, that government had not received
their information on the subject of the
plot of which he had spoken from any
foreign power.
Mr. Tierney begged to ask, whether
the information had proceeded from any
persons who had been employed by go-
vernment to look after aliens ?
Mr. Canning.-" No."
Mr. Secretary Peel said, he would not
have risen at all that evening, had it not
been for the very pointed manner in
which he had been alluded to by the
right hon. gentleman opposite. It was,
however, not a little gratifying to him to
find, that, after all the blame which had
been cast upon government, and after
the many propositions which had been
made for altering the constitution of that
House, the right hon. gentleman himself
was candid enough to acknowledge, that
not only had the country been triumphant
in war, but that with respect to her internal
affairs, she was contented, happy, and
prosperous. The right hon. gentleman's
arguments against the bill were founded
upon two assumptions; namely, those
which refer to the motives of its first
introduction, and to the objects to which
it was to be applied, now that it had been
introduced. The right hon. gentleman
had said, that the Alien act was first pro-
posed, in consequence of an understand-
ing amongst the sovereigns of the conti-
nent, that liberty was every where to be
put down. Now, he must say, that he
had never heard of any such understand-
ing, and that, for his part, no considera-
tion on earth could ever have tempted
him, as an Englishman, and a minister of
England, to propose a measure pro-
fessedly for the internal security of this
country, which had been either dictated
or proposed by a foreign power. The
object of the bill, according to the inter-
pretation of the right hon. gentleman,
was, to prevent the distressed from find-
ing an asylum in this country. He could
only meet that assertion, by stating, the


Alien Bill. [144
well-known fact, that in no instance had
that asylum been denied. The right hon.
gentleman had mentioned one instance
which occurred before he (Mr. P.) was
connected with the home department,
upon which, therefore he was not pre-
pared to give a decided answer; but he
could state, that since he had held the
office of secretary to the home depart-
ment, not a single foreigner had been
refused an asylum in this country, either
on account of his political principles, or
his previous conduct. The right hon.
gentleman had said, that, from the period
of the Revolution, up to the year 1793,
there was no Alien act, and therefore he
had contended, that there ought to be no
Alien act now. But, did not the right
hon. gentleman's own speech prove, that
nothing could be more different than the
state of Europe in the two periods ?
What was his own description of the pre-
sent state of Europe? So agitated was
the state of Europe, according to his own
representation at the present moment, that
every king was regarded by the constitu-
tional party as a tyrant, and every friend
to constitutional reform was regarded by
the royalists as a rebel. The object of
his majesty's government was to maintain
a perfect neutrality; and they would
neither permit the constitutional nor the
monarchical party to make this country
the theatre of their machinations. During
the government of Spain in 1821, for in-
stance, they would no more have per-
mitted the monarchical party, than they
would now permit the constitutional
party, to make England, as his right lion.
friend expressed it, the workshop of
their intrigues. But, though there was
no Alien act during the period to which
the right hon. gentleman alluded, the go-
vernment frequently resorted to a much
stronger measure-the suspension of the
Habeas Corpus act-a measure which
enabled them to imprison a suspected
foreigner. It had been said by the late
Mr. Windham, that sending a foreigner
out of the country was no more than
drowning a fish; but, the suspension of
the Habeas Corpus act enabled the go-
vernment not merely to drown the fish,
but to put the fish in prison. The right
hon. gentleman had put the case of a
pamphlet, written by an oppressed French-
man, and had asked whether, if the French
government called upon us to send such
a man out of the country, the requisition
would be obeyed ? Now, he did not







145] Alien Bill.
know what the French government might
ask in such a case, but, if it made such a
demand, he well knew what would be
the answer of his right hon. colleague.
In the course of the last ten years many
pamphlets of the description alluded to
by the right hon. gentleman must have
been written, and yet no instance of the
oppressive exercise of the Alien act could
be cited. If, therefore, they might judge
of future dangers from the experience of
the past, the right hon. gentleman's ap-
prehensions were perfectly groundless.
The right hon. gentleman had cautioned
him not to become a police agent for
foreign governments. He trusted he
knew his duty as an English minister too
well.to submit to become the agent of
any other country. He declared most
distinctly and unequivocally, that he
never had had the slightest communica-
tion with any foreign minister on the
subject of the Alien bill. What could he
do more than make this unequivocal decla-
ration? He never had yielded, and he
never would yield to such considerations
as had been suggested by the right lion.
gentleman, and he repeated, that he had
never had any communication on the
subject of this bill with any foreign power
whatever. He asked for the bill solely
because he thought that the interests of
the country demanded it. Why, when it
was the acknowledged policy of this
country to be at peace, should we suffer
foreigners to disturb'that peace by mak-
ing England the theatre of their machi-
nations ? The right hon. gentleman had
said, that if it were found that machina-
tions were carried on by foreigners in
this country,-so as to endanger the public
tranquillity, parliament might be applied
to, but surely it was better that his
majesty's government should retain a
power which had not been abused, than
that such an expedient should be resorted
to. The subject of the Alien act had
been so fully and repeatedly discussed,
that it was impossible to devise any new
argument in support of it. He was
satisfied that, if this act were repealed at
the present moment, they would soon be
under the necessity of resorting to much
harsher measures. He considered the
continuance of this act, under existing
circumstances, an advantage to Aliens
themselves. The hon. member for South-
wark (sir R. Wilson) had assigned a sin-
gular reason for his opposition to the
measure: he had declared his intention
VOL. XI.


APRIL 5, 1824. [140
to oppose it, because it was rendered
more palatable, because the power was
rendered less liable to abuse; or rather
because all possibility of abusing it was
taken away. He had argued, that Aliens
who had resided seven years in the
country, were as likely as any others to
plot against their government, and yet no
precautions were taken against them.
This might or might not be consistent
with sound policy, but he would ask
whether it did not conclusively prove,
that foreign governments had nothing to
do with this measure, and that his
majesty's ministers had not acted on
foreign suggestions ? They had acted
only with a view to English interests;
they were ready to permit foreigners to
take refuge in this country as an asylum,
but not to allow them to desecrate that
asylum, by converting it into a scene of
intrigue and machination. On these
grounds he sincerely hoped'that parlia-
ment would consent to continue to his
majesty's government for two years, the
powers which the Alien act conferred.
Lord Althorp said, there were some
parts of the speech of the right hon. se-
cretary for foreign affairs, which he had
heard with satisfaction. He alluded par-,
ticularly to that part of it in which he
had stated; that this was the last time he
should apply to parliament for these
powers. The right lion. gentleman had
stated, somewhatinaccurately, an observa-'
tion which he (lord A.), had made on.a
former occasion. He had not stated,
that he should prefer a specific act of the
legislature for each particular case, but
that he should prefer a general act of
parliament, making such machinations as
excited the apprehensions of the govern-
ment illegal, to a continuance of the
Alien act.
The House divided: For the .second
reading now, 172. For the amendment
92. Majority 80. The bill was then
read a second time.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, April 5.
ALIEN BILL.] Mr. Secretary Peel
hoped there would be no objection to
passing the Alien bill through a com-
mittee without opposition, and taking the
further debate on the third reading.
Mr. Hume was unwilling to create a
debate at present, and particularly as the
right hon. secretary for foreign affairs
L








W'] HOUSE OF COMMONS, Repairs of Windsor Castle. [148
had intimated that this was the last time and repairsin WindsorCastle, which seem-
they should be troubled with this ob- ed to him, and he trusted would be con-
noxious measure. Still, he considered it sidered by the committee, becoming the
so objectionable, that he should, in the nature and character of that structure.
committee, propose a clause, to limit the He had stated also that it would be im-
duration of the bill for one year. portant to the advancement of that object
The House resolved itself into a com- to make some purchases of certain Houses
mittee on the bill, and Mr. Hume moved and portionsofland, without which the im-
a clause, confining the duration of the bill provement of the Castle and the demesne
to one year instead of two. could not be accomplished. He had fur.
Mr. Secretary Peel hoped that the their stated, that the prob::ble sum which
declaration of his right hon. friend, which would be required, as far as it was possi-
so materially altered the view of the bill, ble to form an estimate, might be taken
would induce the hon. gentleman not to at 300,0001.; but that all which he meant
press his motion, to ask for in the present session, was half
Mr. Hutchinson said, that nothing but that sum. It would not be necessary to
the lateness of the hour when the right trouble the committee with a repetition
hon. secretary for foreign affairs spoke of the observations he had made, to ex-
on a former night, prevented him from plain the grounds upon which it appeared
replying at the instant to a speech fraught to him fitting and proper that that an-
with the utmost injustice to the emigrants cient and venerable structure, so long
who had sought an asylum in England. the chosen residence of the monarchs of
He should, therefore, on the third reading, this country, should be treated with that
state his sentiments generally upon this respect which parliament and the country
most obnoxious and unconstitutional bill, had ever evinced, with a view to uphold
and upon the speech with which it was the splendor and magnificence of the
attempted to be so improperly forced monarch who reigned over them. How-
upon the attention of the House. ever, it would be necessary that he should
Mr. Secretary Peel said, it would be state the mode in which it appeared to
certainly open to any hon. member to government that this money could be best
endeavour to throw out the bill on the applied. The first object which was to be
third reading, and that allowing it to pass considered, was the personal comfort and
through the committee compromised no convenience of the monarch. Every one
hon. member's opinion on the subject. who was acquainted with Windsor Castle
Lord Nugent protested strongly against must know, that the apartments usually
the bill, which should, in all its stages, occupied by his majesty were in many re-
have his most decided opposition. aspects extremely inconvenient, on account
Mr. Hobhouse did not wish that any of a want of proper communication be-
body should have the opportunity of say- tween them, which was only obtained by
ing, that this bill had received amendment cutting off parts of different rooms, and
from his side of the House. He would thereby destroying the proportion of the
give all the honour of it to the other side, building; and no one could deny, that the
and would allow no part of it to be shared palace which the monarchs of the country
among his friends. He therefore in- had chosen for their general residence,
treated his hon. friend to withdraw his should not be deficient in comforts and
amendment, conveniences, for want of the necessary
The amendment was then negatived, funds which the public were bound, and
and the original clause carried without a had always been accustomed, to supply.
division. It was to accomplish this object that their
exertions should be directed in the first
REPAIRS OF WINDSOR CASTLE.] The instance. It would be material to make,

House having resolved itself into a com- what did not at present exist, a convenient
mittee of Supply, access from that part of the castle which
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, was appropriated to private use, to what
that early in the course of the present ses- were usually denominated the state apart-
sion he had given notice of his intention to ments. There were many purposes to
call upon the House to grant his majesty which this part of the castle was applica-
a certain sum of money, which appeared ble. Then there were apartments which
to be within their means, to be applied to had been known for centuries by the name
the purpose of making certain alterations of the king's state-rooms, and others that







149J


Repairs of Windsor Castle.


were equally well known by the name of
the queen's state-rooms. Between these
rooms and those which the king usually oc-
cupied, it was only fitting thatthere should
direct and commodious communication.
Now, it was impossible for the king to go
into the state apartments from his private
apartment at present, without making a
considerable detour, and without encoun-
tering several inconveniences, to which,
for various reasons, he ought not to be
subjected. To open a free communication
between these distinct parts of the castle
was the second object to which this sum
of money would be applied. The third
had also reference to the state apart-
ments. Nobody would deny that they
ought to be maintained with a degree of
splendor that was becoming the sove-
reign who ruled over the country, and
also the country over which he ruled. It
was therefore proposed that a certain part
of the grant should be applied to the em-
bellishment and improvement of this part
of the castle. It was also not impossible
that it might be advisable to make some
alterations, though not to any great extent
in the interior of the castle. The com-
mittee were aware, that at different pe-
riods several alterations had been made
in its interior, and those not always con-
sistent with the age and character of the
pile, or conducive to the convenience of
those who occupied it. It might perhaps
be as well, now that they were occupied
in repairingand beautifying this venerable
structure to remove also the unsightly
alterations which ignorance and bad taste
had made in it. The committee were
aware, that there had already been a
removal of certain buildings reserved for
the residence of certain officers of state,
which though not belonging to the
castle, were placed directly before it.
The buildings to which he alluded
ran across the long walk, intercepted
the view over it, and were one of the
greatest eye-sores that could be well ima-
gined to any person who was anxious to
obtain a distinct view of Windsor-castle.
It had therefore been thought advisable
to remove them altogether. Besides these
buildings, there were others which, were
objectionable as deformities in themselves,
and still more objectionable as deformities
growing upon that otherwise beautiful
structure. Now, as there could be no
difference of opinion as to the propriety
of removing buildings so incongruous, he
trusted there would also be nio difference


APRIL 5, 1824.


as to the mode of effecting that removal.
Some of these buildings, he must inform
the committee, were the property of pri-
vate individuals, and therefore must be
purchased before they could be removed,
One of the objects of the grant would
therefore be the purchase of those build-
ings; to which he thought nobody woldd
be averse, who felt at all interested in the
beauty of the Castle. The same observa-
tion would also apply to the purchase of
certain portions of land, which were ne-
cessary to the improvement of the domain
of Windsor-park. There were at present
several detached portions of ground in the
hands of private individuals, which were
completely surrounded by the Park, and
which it would be a great improvement to
add to it. These portions of ground were
adjacent to the Long-walk. Every body
knew that that walk was the most majestic
avenue in the world; and yet there were
individuals possessed of ground on both
sides of it, who could at any mome nt de-
stroy its grandeur by erecting houses, or
streets of houses, upon it. Those indivi-
duals, he knew, were willing to part with
their property for a suitable remuneration;
and, if the committee should be of opinion
that the domain of Windsor-park ought to
be improved, he did not know of any me-
thod by which it could be better improved
than by purchasing such portions of land as
he had just described.-He had now stated
to the committee the objects for which he
wanted this sum of 300,0001. He might
perhaps be asked,-how it was that he
came down to parliament to request of
it so large a sum of money, when he had
no detailed estimates, or accounts of the
expense to be incurred to lay before it ?
To such a question he would answer, that
it was not easy to draw out estimates upon
a subject like the present, especially when
there was property to be purchased for
which the negotiations had not been con-
cluded, and when there were plans to be
considered, of which every portion ought
to be discussed before one step was taken
to execute them. He said every por-
tion ought to be discussed," because'with-
out such discussion they might be involv-
ed, as they had already been once this
session, in works which it might be unad-
visable to bring to a conclusion. It would
be particularly unfortunate if any thing of
that kind should occur in the works at
Windsor, because they could not be com-
menced without considerable inconveni-
ence to his majesty-a consideration








151] HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Swhigh he was sure would induce the com-
mittee to do every thing in their power to
shorten the time during which his majesty
must necessarily submit to it. If the
committee should refuse to place in the
hands of government the funds which it
demanded, until it received an estimate of
all the expenses to be incurred, the pre-
sent year would elapse before a single
measure could be taken, either to repair
or beautify the Castle ; and his majesty
must remain for another twelve months
exposed to all the various inconveniences
which he had before attempted to de-
scribe. He therefore trusted, that the
committee would not think the circum-
stance of his not detailing the precise
nature of the alterations to be made, and
the expense to be incurred, a sufficient
reason for denying him the sum which he
requested. He knew that in asking for
the money in the manner he did, he was
incurring a serious responsibility on behalf
of the government of which he was a
member, and that he was calling upon the
committee to repose upon the government,
in full confidence that it would not allow
the money intrusted to its care to be ap-
plied to unworthy Ipurposes. That re-
sponsibility, however, government was
willing to incur, and he trusted that its
conduct had been such as to justify the
committee in placing in it the confidence
he demanded.-There was one part of
this subject which he had not yet mention-
ed, and to which he was particularly anx-
ious to refer; he meant that part of it
which referred to the appointment of a
commission to superintend the plans, upon
the execution ofwhich this sum of300,0001.
was to be expended. Great misapprehen-
sion appeared to have prevailed with
regard to this 'commission. In the first
place, it never was intended that parlia-
ment should have the appointment of this
commission, unless it were found necessary
to give it powers which no branch of the
government at present possessed. As it
was not, however, necessary to give them
any such powers, there would be no occa-
sion to ask parliament to sanction the
commission, and the commission would
therefore be issued in the usual manner.
With regard to the appointment of a
commission, he had heard it stated, that it
was not only an unnecessary, but even an
unconstitutional measure. He allowed,
-that a commission would be highly impro-
per, if it were appointed for the purpose
of withdrawing from his majesty's govern-


Repairs of Windsor Castle. [ 15
mont the responsibility which naturally
belonged to it. Some individuals would
necessarily be placed in the commission,
from the very nature of the offices which
they happened to hold; and that being
the case, gentlemen would see, that his
majesty's ministers were not desirous of
throwing off their own shoulders the bur-
then which they acknowledged it to be
their duty to bear. He fully admitted, on
behalf of government, that it was the only
party that could be responsible for the
expenditure of the money: he likewise
admitted, that it was responsible also for
another part of this subject-he meant
that which related to taste ; but, at the
same time that he admitted all this, he
still thought, that the committee would
not be surprised at hearing that those who
would become commissioners ex-officio,
were anxious to avail themselves of the
opinions of other gentlemen, who were
fully competent to give trust-worthy opin-
ions. He did not know that it was the
part of the executive government, or of
the first lord of the Treasury, or of the
gentleman who filled the office which he
then held--he did not know that it was
incumbentupon allor any oneofthem, that
they should be persons skilled in matters
of taste. He could not pretend to the
character of a man of good taste himself;
lie should therefore be happy to have the
advantage of the judgment of others, to
direct him upon any points on which his
own might be defective. Mr. Burke had
declared, that it was quite hopeless that
much attention should be paid by the go-
vernment of this country to the fine arts;
for it was impossible, he said, that our
statesmen, either from their education, or
from their various occupations, should be
much skilled in matters of that kind. And,
if he were to judge of the difficulty of
performing this part of his duty-if, in-
deed, matters of taste fell within his duty
-from what had already occurred during
this session, he should say, that it was by
far the most arduous duty that he had to
perform. Every one was, to certain de-
gree, able to condemn, and in all affairs of
the world, condemnation implied a proof
of a capacity to execute. When, howe-
ver, it became necessary to consider what
ought to be done, and not to find fault
with what was already done, then he found
that there were scarcely two persons who
agreed on any one point. He therefore
considered it too much to say, that go-
vernment ougbt.not to avail itself of the







APRIL 5, 1824. [154


assistance which it could not fail to derive
from men of acknowledged taste and in-
genuity. Besides, the mode which go-
vernment was inclined to adopt upon this
occasion was not entirely without prece-
dent. In former times of our history,
nobody ever thought it requisite that the
executive government should have any
taste ; and, for his own part, he did not
know whether it had ever possessed any.
Matters of that kind were generally left
to the Board of Works, and to the indivi-
dual who happened to be at the head of
it. In consequence of that arrangement,
the repairs of Windsor Castle were, on
one occasion, left to sir W. Chambers.
Whatever opinion the committee might
have formed as to the merits of sir W.
Chambers-and he, for one, thought that
they had been considerably over-rated-
lie was still thought able to perform the
task allotted to him, notwithstanding all
the satire which Mason had launched
against him in his celebrated Heroic
Epistle." At that time nobody suspected
the Treasury of taste, and, as he had be-
fore said, over matters of that kind tlhe
Board of Works reigned supreme arbiter.
In the year 1802, however, when parlia-
ment voted a large sum of money for the
purpose of perpetuating the gallant
achievements of our army and navy, and
when it was determined to erect public
monuments to the memory of those who
had died in bravely fighting the battles of
theircountry-atthatperiod, measure was
adopted, which had been regularly adopt-
ed ever since, for the purpose of giving
full effect to the resolutions of parliament.
A Treasury minute was issued, appointing
certain individuals to consider all plans
which should be submitted to them, for the
erection of monuments to departed worth.
Those individuals had been treated in that
House with a degree of disrespect which,
in his opinion, they little merited. They
had been sneeringly denominated the
committee of taste." Now, those indivi-
dualshadnever had any thingtodo with the
erection of the monuments-to that part
of the business the Treasury always look-
ed itself: all that they had to do was, to
judge of the plans submitted for their
approbation. The system which the
Treasury adopted in 1802 had been pro-
ductive of great advantage ; and he believ-
ed that a great and visible improvement
had taken place in the arts, owing to its
having availed itself of the assistance which
it then called in. That system, he again


repeated, did not deprive the Treasury of
any responsibility to which it was before
liable: it inspired the public, however,
with confidence that the monuments which
its gratitude erected to its benefactors
were not erected without the sanction of
the most competent judges. He therefore
considered it productive of great practical
benefit, that the executive government
could have, through this medium, the ad-
vantage of the opinion of those persons
who were best able to take a scientific view
of such matters, and by the weight of
their character to recommend their view
to the public generally. It was for that
reason that his noble friend at the head of
the Treasury and himself thought that the
public would be better satisfied if they
were authorized to call in to their assist-
ance individuals with the qualifications he
had before described. His noble friend,
and his right hon. colleague the commis-
sioner of Woods and Forests, would be
members of the proposed commission.
Without wishing to withdraw themselves
from the responsibility which belonged to
them, being always ready on his own be-
half and on that of his colleagues to come
beforethe House and defendtheir conduct,
taking for his motto Adsum qui feci-in
me convertite voices he trusted that it
would not appear strange that they wish-
ed to avail themselves of the assistance of
men whose opinions upon points of taste
all the country agreed in respecting. He
therefore hoped that the committee would
not, either on account of the amount of
the sum, the principles on which he asked
it, the mode in which he intended to ap-
ply it, or the assistance which he designed
to call in for furthering the objects for
which it was wanted, withhold from him
the grant of 150,0001. for this year. He
should now conclude by moving, ", That a
sum, not exceeding 150,0001. be granted
to his majesty, towards defraying the
charge which may be incurred in the year
1824, for Repairs and Works to be executed
at Windsor Castle, and for the pur-
chase or exchange of certain lands adjoin-
ing thereto; and that the said sum be
issued and paid without any fee or other
deduction whatsoever."
Sir Joseph Yorke thought, that nothing
required more taste or greater delicacy,
than the approach to a question like the
present, in which the subject was, the re-
sidence of the sovereign, and in the dis-
cussion of which it might perhaps be
necessary to throw cold water on the


Repairs V Wiindsor Castle.







155] HOUSE OF COMMONS,
ardent speech of the chancellor of the
Exchequer. With respect to Windsor
Castle, it struck him that, as it had been
so long the residence of a race of monarchs
all that it was necessary to do regarding
it was to keep it in proper repair. For
what purpose were they now going to
expend this sum of money on that vene-
rable structure? To render it of one
uniform style of building? It was well
known that the second Charles had altered
all the windows to the Saxon arch, and
that the third George had altered them
to the Gothic arch. If gentlemen would
examine the Castle through, they would
find, that all the windows were of one or
'other of these two orders. Now, were
the committee going to alter these win-
dows to some standard of uniformity ?
And, if they were, could they give the
country a guarantee that some successor
of the present monarch would not alter
them back again to their former condi-
tion? With regard to the commission,
he supposed that, in addition to the noble
earl at the head of the Treasury and his
two right hon. friends below him, there
would be Mr. Smirke from Covent-garden,
with Mr. Soane at his back, Mr. Nash,
with his Chinese pavilion (on whom, by
the by, his hon. friend the member for
Corfe Castle, had lately borne rather too
hard), and Mr. Wyatt, with his genuine
Gothic. In that mixed commission of
taste, and arithmetic, and architecture, he
did not know what might be done with
Windsor Castle; but he suspected, that if
his right hon. friend went gallopping on,
buying up lands and houses as he had
professed that he would do, he would not
conclude until he had purchased up the
whole town of Windsor. With respect
to the proposed alterations, it was very
probable that the opinions of architects
would be taken, whose ideas were opposed
to each other as completely as the four
points of the compass. Then, they were
to have the assistance of a mixed com-
mission; and, finally, the House of Com-
mons, which never decided any thing, was
to be consulted. Under such circum-
stances, it appeared to him, that they
would not form a better building than
that which they had at present. He
understood it was intended to erect a sus-
pension bridge between Windsor-park
and the palace itself. If they went on in
this way, he supposed that, ultimately,
this venerable royal residence would be
taken down, and some extraordinary


Repairs of Windsor Castle. '[156
Gothic structure would be raised on its
site, such a structure as would probably
excite the astonishment, if not the admi-
ration, of mankind. Though he did not
mean to vote against the grant, yet he
should not be doing his duty to the
country, if he did not call on the House
of Commons to approach this subject
with some degree of caution. If they
did not, it was very likely that a large
sum of money would be laid out, and a
palace less noble than the present would
be the result of the expenditure.
Mr. Bankes wished to impress on the
House the necessity of proceeding cau-
tiously and circumspectly on this occa-
sion. The ill effects of haste and precipi-
tancy were observable in the buildings
now erecting in New Palace-yard, by
which the beautiful entrance to West-
minster-hall was absolutely disgraced.
He believed there was not a man in that
House who did not wish that those build-
ings had never been erected. With re-
spect to Windsor Castle, he admitted the
necessity of taking down some adjacent
buildings, which were objectionable to
the commonest and least scientific eye.
If that fine edifice were intended to be-
came, as he trusted it would, the perma-
nent residence of the sovereigns of this
country, he thought it ought to be re-
paired in a manner befitting the dignity
of the Crown, and the grandeur of this
great nation. In such a case, it would be
proper to inquire, whether there was suf-
ficient accommodation for the conve-
nience of the sovereign in private, and
whether the public apartments were pos-
sessed of that splendor which ought to dis-
tinguish a court. He believed the fact
to be, that the private apartments were
by no means commodious, and that those
of a public character were not suited to
the splendor of a court. A good deal of
what had just fallen from his gallant
friend struck him very forcibly. His
gallant friend had accused him with hav-
ing, on a former night, spoken slightingly
of a certain architect; but, what his gal-
lant friend had said on the present occa-
sion was not much in that individual's
favour. He (Mr. B.) was of opinion,
that there was no modern architect whose
works could be entirely commended. If,
for instance, they looked to the new
street, they would find some of the build-
ings remarkably beautiful, whilst others
were not deserving of approbation. He
conceived that, in forming those apart-







APa~u 5, 1824. [158


ments in Windsor Castle that were to be
devoted to public business, one grand
prevailing feature of taste ought to be
adopted. As to the exterior, the great
object ought to be, to pull down as little
as possible, and to preserve with the
utmost care, the uniformity of style by
which the building was distinguished.
IHe wished that the style of architecture
of the reign of Edward 3rd, the great
monarch in whose reign the Castle was
built, should be kept up as much as
possible. In order the more effectually
to attain the object which government
had in view, he thought it was important
that a great variety of plans should be
obtained from different quarters. These
should be submitted for approbation to
persons whose knowledge of the subject
was generally admitted. His right hon.
friend the chancellor of the Exchequer
was, he believed, perfectly competent to
decide; but, as his other duties might
prevent his attending to this subject, it
would be proper, that some person should
be appointed in the office of the Board of
Works, or the Surveyor-general, or else-
where, not to find fault with any plans
that might be sent in, but to insure the
selection of the best. It was impossible
that his right hon. friend, or the members
of the Treasury Board, could compare
plan with plan, drawing with drawing,
and elevation with elevation. Therefore
he wished that duty to be performed by
others. It was desirable that the intended
palace should be not only beautiful in
itself, but that the style of the reign of
Edward 3rd should be uniformly preserv-
ed in every part. He was quite convinced
that, if an attempt were made to restore
Windsor Castle to what it was formerly,
every application to that House for the
funds necessary to carry on the work
would receive the most cordial support.
Lord G. Cavendish was of opinion, that
the whole responsibility of this measure
ought to rest with his majesty's ministers,
and with them alone. There was, un-
doubtedly, a certain sum proposed to be
granted; but, who could say, that double
or quadruple that sum would not be de-
manded before the works were finished ?
He thought it, therefore, unfair to call on
gentlemen who were not connected with
his majesty's government to lend their as-
sistance, and they to become responsible,
in some degree, for the expenditure of
the public money. For his own part, he
would recommend those who might be


requested to give their aid on this occa-
sion, to refuse the application.
Mr. Curwen observed, it was very true
they had the declaration of the right hon.
gentleman that 300,0001., of which the
sum now proposed formed a part, would
be perfectly sufficient for the intended
object; but that declaration was not
enough for him. He did not think he
would be justified in agreeing to this
grant, unless it were proved to him, that
the alterations and repairs would not re-
quire more. He felt that he should not
be acting fairly towards the public, if he
agreed to a plan, with the details of which
he was wholly unacquainted.
Mr. Hlume said, it had been recom-
mended, long ago, by the report of a
committee, that no money should be
advanced for the purpose of erecting or
repairing public buildings, unless a plan
and estimate were previously laid before
the House. Now, what plan or estimate
had been produced on this occasion ?
They had nothing on which to act, except
the statement of the chancellor of the
Exchequer: and a more indefinite state-
ment he certainly had never heard. He,
therefore, was much surprised, that the
hon. member for Corfe Castle should at
once give his sanction to this measure.
Ground, he understood, was to be pur-
chased. He should like to be informed
to what extent. He had been told the
purchase of ground would require at least
150,0001. He thought it necessary to
stop, in limine, until the whole of the
details were before the House. The right
hon. gentleman himself did not know what
plan would be finally decided on. Why,
then, did he call on the House for this
grant ? Why, did he not wait till the
plan was adopted ? Whoever was to
erect or to repair this building, let the
proposed alterations be pointed out to
him; and let him submit a plan of the
best mode in which the changes could be
made, and an estimate of the probable
expense. This was the only way in which
the subject could be grappled with. If
he were rightly informed, one-half of the
sum mentioned by the chancellor of the
Exchequer would be swallowed up in the
purchase of ground. Next year the right
hon. gentleman would ask for 50,0001.,
and the year after for 100,0001. Then,
perhaps, he would tell the House, after
having expended these sums, that the
work must stop short, unless a further
supply were granted. If the plan were


Repairs of Wfindsor Castle.







159] HOUSE OF COMMONS, Repairs of Windsor Castle. [160
to be settled by the 1st of May, why did art. The late experience which they had
the right hon. gentleman-come down for had on the subject of architecture was not
money now ? He believed there was no calculated to remove his apprehensions
necessity for this hurry. In his opinion on this point. They must have remarked
there was at present very good private with regret the progress of bad taste in
accommodation at Windsor Castle; and architecture, beginning at Brighton and
as to holding courts there, he certainly ending in the New street. Such struc-
did not think it was necessary. If prepa- tures had been raised in all quarters, as
rations were to be made for holding a must excite the disgust of every man
kingly court on an extensive scale at who had any pretensions to taste. Build.
Windsor, they might rest satisfied, that ings of the most strange description had
five times the amount of the proposed already been erected in the vicinity of
sum would not be sufficient for the under- Windsor. One of these was a sort of
taking. The right hon. gentleman told Gothic cottage, with a thatched roof-a
them, that a specific plan would be sort of thatched Henry the Seventh's
adopted: but, could he say that his ma- chapel, the building of which cost 30,000/.
jesty might not hereafter alter it? He The architect had also raised a red brick
must know very well, that the plan laid tower in Windsor park. That, he under-
down on the 1st of May might be altered stood, was to come down ; at least he
on the 15th: there was nothing to prevent hoped it would. At Brighton, too, a
it. He would not vote against the grant most extraordinary edifice had been erect-
altogether; but he could not vote for it, ed, at a great expense. He believed the
unless he knew what changes were con- money for its erection was not voted by
templated, and what the probable expense parliament, but was taken out of the
would be. Certainly, that House would droits of the Admiralty. That, however,
be acting in a way in which they had was of little importance. Whether it was
never acted before, if they voted money taken out of the right hand or the left, it
for erecting or altering a building of was unquestionably abstracted from funds
very great extent, without having all the which might have been made available
necessary information before them. He for the public service. Before they hastily
hoped, therefore, the right hon. gentleman ,voted the sum now called for, he wished
would see the propriety of postponing to put the House on their guard against
this grant, until he was ready to submit supposing, that the work would be com-
his plans to parliament. It would show pleted for the sum mentioned by the right
an utter regardlessness of the public hon. gentleman. He would put them on
interest, and a decided contempt for their guard, by repeating two words-
various reports made by committees of Caledonian Canal." Let them recollect
that House, if they proceeded to vote a the history of that notable work, and
sum of 300,000/. without knowing for pause. They were told, that a certain
what specific object. He should there- stipulated sum would be sufficient to finish
fore move, That this vote be postponed the canal ; but, year after year, they
until the plan and estimate are prepared, found the same item in the estimates.
and laid on the table." After 500,0001. had been voted, ministers
Mr. Grey Bennet begged leave to se- said, we want 50,0001. more." Those
cond the motion of his hon. friend. He who objected to the job, called on the
felt no small alarm at the speech of the House not to throw good money after
right hon. gentleman coupling it, as he bad. But ministers always had the ready
did, with the observations of the hon. answer, Oh as we have gone so far,
rpember for Corfe Castle. In making the let us spend something more, and make
alterations at Windsor Castle, which were the work perfect." Thus, the Caledonian
now threatened, he hoped care would be Canal went on; and thus, he believed,
taken not to disfigure the south front, those repairs would proceed. Year after
It was one of the most beautiful specimens year there would be a call for 150,0001.,
of Gothic architecture in the kingdom. and he believed the youngest man in that
It was admired by all as a perfect model House would never live to see Windsor
of that species of the art, and ought to be Castle finished. It would take millions
preserved with the utmost care. He was, of money to complete that work. He
however, afraid, that in the rage for would ask of any person who had ever
alteration, some unhallowed hand would attempted to repair an old house, whether
deform and disfigure that noble piece of it did not always cost much more than he







161] Repairs of Windsor Castle,
had supposed it would ? He knew, in his
own family, that an estimated expenditure
of a. few hundreds for repairs was ulti-
mately swelled to many, many thousands.
He ventured to predict, that, in this in-
stance, the result would be the same.
He wished to see the plan, and to know
the name of the hardy architect, who
would project the pulling down of any
part of Windsor Castle. He would not
consent, either that the select many"
of the right hon. gentleman opposite, or
the select few" of the hon. gentleman
on the floor (who, he supposed, would
himself be one of them) should decide on
the subject. He wished the plan to be
laid before the public: he wished them
generally to give their opinion on it; and,
above all, he was desirous to learn the
name of the architect who entertained the
project of pulling down a portion of that
ancient and venerable edifice, Windsor
Castle.
Sir C. Long said, that those gentlemen
who fancied that any intention of pulling
down a part of Windsor Castle was enter-
tained by his majesty's government,
laboured under an entire mistake and
misconception. He neverheard that it was
meant to pull down any part of that
ancient edifice: he believed such a project
never entered into the contemplation of
any person. With respect to what had
been said as to the responsibility which
would be incurred by those whose services
might be required in looking at the plans,
a great mistake prevailed. In calling on
them to examine the plans, it never was
intended that they should be at all respon-
siblefor the expense thatmightbeincurred.
The responsibility, with reference to the
expenditure of the public money, would
attach solely to his majesty's ministers.
His hon. friend, the member for Corfe
Castle, appeared to think that Windsor
Castle ought not only to be repaired, so
as to afford the best possible private
accommodation for his majesty, but that
great regard should also be had to the
splendor of the apartments, to render
them fit for holding courts. He, however,
never knew that his majesty entertained
any intention to keep his court at Wind-
sor. Occasions might arise, when it
would be necessary for his Majesty to
meet large assemblies there; but the idea
of holding courts there never was promul-
gated. The hon. gentleman who last
spoke condemned, in strong terms, any
alteration of Windsor Castle, and more
VOL. XI.


APRIL 5, 1824. [162
particularly any alteration of the south
front. Here, again, there was a miscon-
ception. He never heard it insinuated
that the south front was to be altered.
That front was pretty much in the state
in which it had been left in the time of
Edward, and was undoubtedly, as the hon,
member had stated, a very perfect spe-
cimen of the architecture of that day,
His hon. friend on the floor had suggested
the propriety of having the alterations
made, as nearly as possible, in the style of
the original architecture. This would be
done as far as it was practicable: but it
would be absurd to have them entirely in
that style. Gentlemen would recollect,
that at the period when that edifice was
founded, castles were built as places of
defence, and therefore a species of archi-
tecture was adopted, which could not, in
some instances, be followed now. Cir-
cumstances had rendered the application
of that species of architecture improper,
in some instances; but care would be taken
to preserve as much of the original cha-
racter of the architecture as it was possi-
ble to retain. His hon. friend on the floor
had said, that he would invite plans from
all quarters. They had tried that system,
in many instances; and those who had
tried it acknowledged that it was beset
with difficulties. It frequently happened,
that the man who produced a good plan
was totally unable to carry it into effect.
He who presented a good plan, always
expected to carry it into execution, how-

ever inadequate he might be to the task;
and it was very difficult, if he were not
allowed to carry it into execution, to
procure another person who would. It
was therefore better that the competition
should be confined to a few architects, but
that they should be of the first-rate excel-
lence. He conceived that the statement
of his right hon. friend was perfectly
satisfactory. He had given a general
estimate, as nearly as possible-A detailed
estimate could not be expected at that
moment. His right hon. friend had ex.
plicitly stated, that the whole sum required
for the necessary purchases, and for the
repairs of the Castle, would not exceed
300,0001. The hon. member for Aberdeen
asked how it was possible for his right hon.
friend to confine the expenditure to the
estimated sum ? He saw nothing difficult
in it. The architect, when called on to
give in his plan, would, of course, be told,
that he must form such a plan as would
come within a specified sum. To that it
M








103] HOUSE OF COMMONS, .'Repairs of Windsor Casle.


was his duty to conform. The hon. gen-
tleman seemedto think, that this modewas
very objectionable: but, he was quite sure,
that if some specific sum were not stated,
the lion. gentleman would say, that it was
impossible for any one to tell to what
extent the expenditure would be carried
in the absence of a plan and estimate.
The architects would be told, that they
would be confined to a certain sum of
money ; and that, he conceived, was the
only mode by which the object could be
properly attained. Every thing should be
done for the convenience of his majesty;
and it was an undoubted fact, that Windsor
Castle was not at present in a state fit for
his majesty's residence. The communi-
cation between the private and the state
apartments was very defective, and it
would take a considerable sum of money
to connect them properly.
Lord J. Russell quite agreed with the
last speaker, that it was proper Windsor
Castle should be rendered every way
worthy of his majesty's residence. He
believed it was at present in such a situa-
tion, as made it prudent to delay the
necessary repairs as little as possible.
Still, however, he should like to know
what repairs or alterations were intended.
They ought not blindly to vote this money,
they knew not for what; with a chance,
perhaps, that some part of this ancient
edifice would shortly assume the external
appearance of a Mahometan mosque. The
right hon. knight observed, that the hon.
gentleman on the floor was mistaken in
supposing that his majesty meant to hold
courts at Windsor; and he had also ob-
served, that his hon. friend was in error,
when he spoke of the pulling down of the
south front. Now, the right hon. knight
might be very well informed on this sub-
ject; but it was fit that the House also
should have some regular information as
to what was meant to be done. The vote,
he thought, ought to be postponed until
they knew the manner in which the money
was to be disposed of, The right hon.
knight observed, that those gentlemen who
would be selected to act on the commission,
would not be answerable for the expen-
diture of the money, as the whole of that
responsibility would rest on the Treasury.
But, if there happened to be a call for
more money, or if the building should be
repaired in bad taste, there. could be no
doubt but that the commission would be
blamed in a greater or less degree, al,
though theywerenot lords of the Treasury.


He therefore thought it was a situation
which those who might be selected for the
commission would not like to accept.
The chancellor of the Exchequer had said,
that this was a subject on which every
person could speak the language of cen-
sure and condemnation. Now, when that
condemnation was flying about plentifully,
he, for one, if selected, should say, I am
much obliged to-you forthis offer, which
will enable me to share in the general
condemnation, but I must decline accept-
ing it. I would much rather make one
of a commission which is likely to be eu-
logized." The architects might say,
"This sum is not sufficient, to render
Windsor Castle a fit residence forthe king;
we will give you a plan that will complete
the Castle, and make it worthy of the
monarch; but it will cost 50,0001. more."
The chancellor of the Exchequer would
perhaps reject that plan, after having re-
ceived 150,0001. on account, and no per-
son would know what was to become of
that money. 1 he proper course would
be, for the right hon. gentleman to come
down with a plan and estimate, drawn up
by an architect, and then to call for the
necessary sum. The architect who might
be employed to make the Castle comfort-
able would be responsible to those who
engaged him, not to expend a larger sum
than that which was stipulated. It had
been stated, that 150,0001. out of the
300,0001. would be required for the pur-
chase of ground. If that were the case,
it would be much better to build on.the
Crown lands, rather than to call on the
public for this money.
Mr. Maberly wished to know, whether
the right hon. gentleman was prepared to
say that the vote of 150,0001., now called
for, was part of the 300,0001. which he had
mentioned in the course of his speech,
and whether the House would be called on
for no more than this specific sum of
300,0001. ? What he wanted distinctly
to understand was this-was the 150,0001.
which the right hon. gentleman asked for,
part of a specific sum which was not to be
exceeded ; or was it only so much on ac-
count of a charge not yet ascertained?
He was far from wishing to limit. the
personal convenience, or to dictate to the
taste of the sovereign; and if the chancel-
lor of the Exchequer distinctly declared,
that 300,0001. would be the utmost farth-
ing called for, he had no objection at once
to vote the 150,000/. ; but, unless that
assurance was given unequivocally, he







APRIL 5, 1824. [166


should certainly support the postponement
of the grant, until ministers produced such
plans as the House might concur in. He
begged to repeat the indisposition he felt
to oppose the present grant a moment
longer than was absolutely necessary; but
he thought that after the monstrous waste
of money which had taken place on the
schemes of the Caledonian Canal and the
Millbank Penitentiary, parliament could
.not be too cautious how it voted large
sums without the authority of plans and
estimates.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer ex-
pressed his satisfaction at the ready dis-
position which appeared in the House to
acquiesce in every thing which was neces-
sary for the convenience and honour of
the sovereign. Such a disposition was
creditable in the highest degree to the
House, and the exhibition of it could not
fail to give much pleasure to every lover
of constitutional monarchy. With refer-
ence to that which had just fallen from
the hon. member opposite, nothing could
be more preposterous, certainly, than for
him (supposing he was doing such a
thing) to be calling for sums on account
of an expenditure which he believed to be
indefinite. But, the view which he took
of the thing was extremely different. He
had stated on a former evening, that the
sum to be laid out was 300,0001. ; and he
now asked, distinctly, for 150,0001. on ac-
count of it. He had no hesitation in say-
ing, that certainly nothing which was con-
templated-nor any thing, as it seemed
to him, which could reasonably be con-
templated-would.go beyond that charge
of 300,0001. Obviously, it was difficult to
come to any detailed estimate at the pre-
sent moment, because a portion of this
800,0001., the House was aware, was to
be laid out in the purchase of land and
houses adjoining Windsor Castle ; and to
name any specific, or even any probable
sum for such a purchase would, in all
likelihood, be for government to raise the
market against itself. With regard to the
course of alteration which was to be pur-
sued, the hon. member for Shrewsbury
was mistaken in supposing that all sorts
of tricks were to be played with the out-
side of the Castle. There had been some
buildings of late years added to the main
structure, which were not very effective
in the way of convenience, and perhaps de-
formities, rather than otherwise, architec-
turally considered. These were to come
down; but, no hand was to be laid upon


the body of the Castle ; in fact, the bad
taste of making any deviations from the
simple grandeur which characterized the
building as it stood, was too obvious,
under any circumstances, to be fallen into.
The course which was proposed was this
-four architects of the first eminence were
to be called upon tofurnish plans,thenature
of the work wanted, and the amount of
expense allowed, being explained to them
beforehand. They were to be shown the
want of accommodation for the personal
residence of his majesty, and the insuffi-
cient communication existing at present
between the private residence and the
state apartments; and the repairs and im-
provements which were necessary in the
state apartments themselves. They were
then to be told. that 300,0001, was all that
could be allowed for what was to be done,
and that they must frame their plans in
such a manner as to lie within the scope of
that amount. Now, really, this, he appre-
hended, was the only reasonable course to
pursue. For if architects had been set.to
work without any notice of what would
be paid or what was wanted, each plan
would have depended upon the accidental
fancy of the gentleman who drew it, and
so nothing like an available or definite con-
clusion would have been got at. Indeed,
he could not but feel the more surprised
at the objection taken to the present vote,
because the House had madeno scruple of
granting two sums for building last year-
17,0001. to the board of Trade, and
40,0001. for the new library to the British
Museum-without any demand that plans
or estimates should be produced. The
right hon. gentleman sat down by stating,
that, as far as regarded the question of
responsibility, there could be no question
that all responsibility belonged to the
government. In an affair which was pure-
ly a matter of taste, there would be an ad-
vantage, and he should feel it, in having
opinion to resort to ; but the commission
was not suggested with any view to
screen ministers from blame. Blame, he
anticipated none; because he had no
doubt that the whole arrangements would
be such as to meet the public approbation;
but if any blame did arise, it would be the
business of the government to meet it;
and, although he could not exactly agree
that a minister ought to have his head cut
off, or even that he ought to be impeach-
ed, for such a misdemeanor as bad taste, -
yet, whatever reasonable consequences
accrued out of the present transaction, he
should be ready to take his share of.


Repairs qf Windsor Casotle.







167] HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Mr. Ellice observed, that the right hon.
the chancellor of the Exchequer did those
on his side of the House only justice,
when he allowed that they had not ex-
-pressed any objection to put Windsor
Castle into a proper state for the residence
of his majesty. He perfectly concurred
in the expediency of that intention, and
hoped that such plans and estimates
would be formed respecting it, as would
prove satisfactory to all parties. When
such plans and estimates should be pro-
duced, he, was prepared to vote a sum for
carrying them into effect, whether the
sum required was precisely 300,0001., or
whether it was less, or even if it should
amount to halfa million. Whatever was
necessary for his majesty's comfort and
dignity he should be prepared to vote;
but he repeated, that he must have the
distinct plans and estimates before him.
To this conclusion all the speeches tend-
ed which he had heard, even that of the
right hon. gentleman, whose plan was, to
use a vulgar expression, to make the
architects cut their coats according to
their cloth." The hon. member then
proceeded to notice the intended purchase
ofland and houses at Windsor, and wish-
ed to know, whether that purchase might
not be paid for by a sale or exchange of
Crown'lands, instead of putting the coun-
try to expense, when the remission of
taxes was so very desirable ? He should
be sorry to see any thing disposed of
which tended to the comfort or to the
splendor of the Crown. It had been
said, for instance, "sell Kew," but le did
not like theideaof parting without palaces
or royal gardens. But the ground-rents
which had accrued to the Crown out of
the new streets in Westminster shed no
lustre upon thet hrone. Since what was
called the hereditary income of thekinghad
been given up for the civil list, there could
be no reason why the Crown should have
ground to let out to tenants; and the sale
of these ground-rents in Westminster
might cover the expense of the purchase
to be made at Windsor. The hon. mem-
ber concluded by noticing, with reference
to the statement of the chancellor of the
Exchequer, as to architectsemployed, the
peculiar merit of a new church which had
been built at Chelsea. A want of money
had prevented the building from being
completed exactly as might have been
wished; but no one could look at it with-
mut paying a tribute to the talents of the
architect.


Repairs of Winasor Castle. [Et168
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said,
that the ground-rents to which the hon.
member alluded, were not available to the
Crown, but were paid into the consoli-
dated fund. It could make no difference,
therefore, whether they were sold to
make the purchase at Windsor, or whether
money were at once granted for that ob-
ject.
Mr. Calcraft thought, it still was not
quite clear, that, with reference to the in-
terest of money, a sale might not be ad-
vantageous. With respect to the main
question, however, most decidedly he
wished to see an estimate; because, it
might so happen, that an architect, on
hearing the sum to which he was limited,
would say, that, to do the work properly,
that sum was not sufficient. If the chan-
cellor of the Exchequer would pledge
himself distinctly not to embark in the
work unless he found the 300,0001. would
be sufficient to complete it properly, he
would give the money now; but, if not,
he should vote for the postponement.
The Chancellor f the Exchequer said, he
could have no objection to answer the hon.
member'squestion. Of course, it would be
extremely unwise to embark in the present
business, either as regarded purchase or
building, if the architects represented that
300,0001. was insufficient to perform the
work proposed to them, in the way in
which it ought to be done. No man, he
apprehended, would be likely to plunge
himself into bricks and mortar, under such
circumstances.
Lord Milton said, that, as it seemed to
him, the chancellor of the Exchequer
must support the proposition of the hon.
member for Aberdeen; because, the right
hon. gentleman pledged himself, that he
would not embark in the work, if it should
appear upon inquiry that the sum allotted
was inadequate to complete it. Then why
not make that inquiry at once, and defer
the vote until an estimate was prepared ?
Certainly, ministers ought not to take
any money, until they could say that they
had seen plans and estimates which led
them to believe that the grant would be
sufficient.
Mr. Secretary Canning understood all
parties to concur in a desire to further,
up to any reasonable amount, the honour
and convenience of the Crown. The
question was, as to the most expedient
mode of managing the transaction. This
might be done, certainly, by calling for
plans and estimates of expense; but, the







169] Repairs of Windsor Castle.
excess which in almost every case arose
above estimates so furnished, would leave
the House still in a state of much uncer-
tainty, as to what the eventual cost of the
work would be. Every instance which
had been quoted in the course of the de-
bate, showed how very little the accuracy
of plans and estimates was to be relied
on. The Penitentiary and the Caledonian
Canal, were cases in which plans and esti-
mates had been presented, and yet the
House had gone further than it originally
intended. The better mode, as it seemed
to him, of confining the expense within
a given limit, would be, to vote the par-
ticular sum, and leave the responsibility
of not exceeding it, with the government.
Whether the burthen were greater or less;
in any given way, upon government, the
burthen was less upon the House in the
way now proposed. He should certainly
support the plan of voting at once a de-
finite sum.
Mr. Tierney said, that the right hon.
secretary had only done justice to the
gentlemen with whom he sat, in stating,
that they were actuated by a common
wish to do every thing that was necessary
for the dignity and convenience of the
Crown. But, the security which the right
lon. gentleman offered upon the present
occasion was such as he (Mr. T.) feared
the House could not accept; because a
grant of 150,0001., according to the pre-
sent proposal, would appear upon the
votes, and nothing at all to justify it. The
right hon. gentleman said, that govern-
ment took all the responsibility upon itself
of confining the ultimate expense of the
buildings in question within 300,0001. ;
but how, in fact, could that be, when the
chancellor of the Exchequer stated dis-
tinctly, that so far there was no calcula-
tion in existence upon the subject ? Surely
nothing could be more easy than to make
the estimates required. There were the
repairs to be paid for; the purchase of
land and houses; and the interior altera-
tions. Now, the external alterations were
matter of measurement; any architect
would give the ultimate amount without
difficulty. With respect to the land and
houses purchased, no difficulty had been
found in preparing similar estimates, in
the matter of the new Post-office. But
here there was no estimate, no explana-
tion given at all. The right hon. gentle-
man said, give us 300,0001., and we will
ask for no more;" but what a situation
did this leave the country in, and even


APRIL 5, 1824. [170
the king! The 300,0001. might turn out
to be just enough to spoil every thing
that was already existing; and, in such a
case, what could ministers do but come
down to parliament, and say they had been
mistaken ; and what could any parliament
do under such circumstances, but grant
more money to complete the work? He
was very sorry to say any thing which had
the appearance of opposition to the vote
before the House. He wished much to
see Windsor Castle put into a sufficient
state of fitness and repair, and thought
there could be no difficulty in naming an
early day for the chancellor of the Ex-
chequer to,bring down his estimate; but,
he would rather vote 500,0001. seeing hig
way, than give 300,0001. in the circum-
stances under which the present grant was
brought forward.
Mr. Brogden observed, that according
to the forms of the House, the amendment
could not postpone thegrant toanyspecifid
day. All that could be done was to move
its postponement generally.
Lord Milton only asked to have the
House placed where the chancellor of the
Exchequer meant to place himself--that
it might not be called upon to take any
step accompanied with expense, until it
was ascertained that the 300,0001. would
accomplish it.
Mr. Grey Bennet said, that part of the
work at Windsor Castle had already be-
gun, and adverted to the change which
had taken place at Windsor since the
death of the late king. The park could
not be shut up, for there was a public way
went through it; but even the freedom of
the park was not given as it dught to be,
and the terrace was entirely shut up. He
thought this was bad taste, and bad judg-
ment in every way. Nothing had tended
more to the popularity of the late king
than the freedom with which he used.to
walk upon the terrace, in the view of his
subjects. He perfectly remembered the
effect which the sight had produced upon
him when a boy; and it had been one of
the most pleasing, as well as of the most
impressive description. He did not mean
to say any thing offensive; but he thought
that a hint should be given by ministers
in the proper quarter upon this subject.
Mr. tlume, as he could not fix a spe-
cific day, was content to move the post-
ponement of the grant in question gene-
rally. He hoped that in his division he
should have the support of the hon. mein-
ber for Corfe Castle, and of the member







171] HOUSE OF COMMONS,
for Wareham; and he begged to remind
those hon. gentlemen, that it was al-
most an order of the House, and cer-
tainly a maxim which they had always
been in the habit of inculcating, that the
House should never embark in anyexpense
without having plans and estimates before
it.
Mr. Canning said, that the terrace at
Windsor was open to the public on Sun-
days, and they had the benefit of the band
of music, the same as in time past. It
was true, it had not been open to the pub-
lic on the other days of the week; nor
could it, with convenience to the party
for whose use and benefit it had been laid
out. There was not afoot of ground about
the domain to serve for a promenade ex-
cept the terrace; and certainly it could
not be talked of as an innovation, seeing
that, for ten years, it had been shut up
altogether, and that from circumstances
which no human prudence could control.
Mr. Abercromby complained of the want
of a plan and of estimates, to satisfy that
proper jealousy which the House ought to
entertain with respect to any grant of the
public money.
The committee divided: For the reso-
lution 123.; for the amendment 54.
List of the Minority.


Abercromby, hon. J.
Allen, J. H.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Benyon,1B.
Bernal, R.
Birch, J.
Blake, sir F.
Bright, H.
Butterworth, J.
Calvert, C.
Colborne, N.
Crompton, S.
Curwen, J. C.
Ebrington, vise.
Ellice, E.
Gordon, R.
Hamilton, lord A.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Honywood, W. P,
Hurst, R.
Hdtchinson, hon.C.H.
James, W.
Jervoise, G. P.
Johnstone, W. A.
Kennedy, T. F.
Lambton, J. G.
Leader, W.
Leycester, R.


Macdonald, J.
Martin, J.
Milton, vise.
Monck, J. B.
Normanby, vise.
Nugent, lord.
Ord, W.
Oxmanton, lord.
Palmer, C. F.
Philips, G. H. jun.
Rickford, W.
Robarts, A. W.
Robarts, G. J.
Robinson, sir G.
Russell, lord J.
Smith, J.
Smith, W.
Tierney, right hon. G.
Tremayne, J. H.
Wells, J.
Western, C. C
Whitbread, S. C.
Wilkins, W.
Williams, O.
Wodehouse, E.
Wrottesley, sir J.
TELLER.
Hume, J.


BUILDING OF NEW CHURCHES.] The
Chancellor of the Exchequer having


Building'of New Churches. [172
moved the order of the day for going
into a committee on the Building of
Churches acts,
Mr. Hume wished to know, what was
the nature of the resolution which the
right hon. gentleman intended to propose.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said,
that the resolution was for granting
500,0001. to be paid into the hands of the
commissioners appointed under the acts
for building new churches, to be laid out
by them, in further execution of the
powers of the said acts.
Mr. Hume complained, that no notice
had been given of this vote which could
have informed gentlemen of the nature
of the proposition which it was the inten-
tion of the chancellor of the Exchequer
to make. The invariable custom was,
that an estimate should precede a grant;
whereas, in this instance, there was no
mention made of any sum of money, even
in the notice of motion entered on the
paper.
Mr. W. Courtenay said, that the chan-
cellor of the Exchequer had given notice
of a resolution in the committee, and ad-
mitted that he had not given notice of any
specific sum, but after his statement at
the commencement of the session, and
the notice of the present resolution, which
was made a few nights ago, he put it to
the House, whether the object of his reso-
lution of to-night could be mistaken.
Mr. Hume was so far from anticipating
the nature of the resolution, that he really
had been led by the secretary for foreign
affairs to suppose, that the plan of build-
ing new churches was laid aside for the
present, because the money was to be ap-
plied to the establishment of the new
West-India churches.
Mr. Hobhouse said, he was not aware
of the nature of the proposition, and had'
been so far deceived by the explanation of
the foreign secretary, that he had actually
congratulated himself on being for the
present rid of the discussion. He con-
curred with his hon. friend near him in
considering this a most profligate mode
of laying out the public money. He
would be the last man to deny the people
of England the means of worshipping ac-
cording to the faith and discipline of the
establishment. Wherever those means
were now defective they ought to be fully
provided; but not by extraordinary grants
of the public money. It was his intention,
if the chancellor ofthe Exchequer should
persist in applying this God-send" of







173] trialss in Ireland Bill.
money, to propose another plan, far more
eligible in his opinion. He would pro-
pose to lay out the 500,0001. in buying
up as many rotten boroughs as the money
would purchase. He was not the in-
ventor of the plan. The credit was due
to Mr. Pitt: but it was a very good plan ;
and, unless he deceived himself, he could
produce much better reasons in support
of it, than the right hon. gentleman
would be able to urge in favour of his new
churches. If these churches were not to
be built this year why should the House
be called upon to vote the money.
Mr. J. Smith did not like this mode of
applying the public money in the present
situation of the country. There were no
petitions on the table in favour of building
these churches. The public would sub-
scribe towards building their own churches
readily, if they could have any reasonable
share of the control and appointment of
the ministers. There were in many
parts of the kingdom, the most scandalous
struggles upon this subject. He did not
profess to be accurately acquainted with
the ecclesiastical law of presentations;
but, if ministers could find a remedy for
this part of the case, they need not come
to parliament for grants of public money
to build churches. The people would
cheerfully tax themselves for that pur-
pose. But how could the parliament ap-
ply money in this way, when they saw
all around them thousands of unhappy
wretches left to all the disorders and mise-
ries attendant on an untaught condition.
The first duty of every government was
to provide instruction for its poor-a duty
the execution of which would be more
pleasing to the Almighty than the-build-
ing of churches. To what better use
could this money be applied than in
furnishing the means of education to the
poor of Ireland, a country torn with dis-
orders for want of moral improvement and
sound instruction ? At any rate he would
try this proposition against that of the
right hon. gentleman in the committee.
Sir J. Newport begged the House to
notice a singular anomaly between the
cases of Ireland and England. While the
population of Ireland, composed five-
sixths of Catholics, were taxed for the
building as well as the repairing of
churches for the one-sixth who were Pro-
testant, the people of England, who were
Protestants, were only called on to pay
for the repairing of the churches, and the
public at large were taxed for the build-
ing of them.


APRIn 6, 1824. '[17
Mr. James said, that a petition would
shortly be presented to the House against
this appropriation of the public money.
No doubt there would be many more of a
similar nature, particularly from the Dis-
senters, who entertained strong objections
to a measure, in none of the benefits of
which they were to participate. He there-
fore hoped the chancellor of the Exche-
quer would consent to postpone it for a
short time.
Mr. Bennet complained, that the esti-
mates had only been in the hands of mem-
bers eight hours, and that it was not rea-
sonable to call on the House to come to
a decision on a subject, respecting which
they had so little information.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer re-
gretted that the papers had not been de-
livered at an earlier period. He was,
however, far from wishing to entrap thed
House into giving an opinion which they
had not had due time to consider. Al-
though, therefore, he had been desirous
to explain to the committee the views he
entertained on this subject, he would con-
sent to its postponement until Friday.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, April 6.
BURIALS IN IRELAND BILL.] Lord
Holland, before the order of the day was
read, for this bill being sent to a commit-
tee, rose to present a petition on the
subject which had been put into his
hands. At present he wished to give
no opinion on the bill, or to say any thing
of the contents of the petition; for he
knew nothing about the provisions of the
bill which had been brought up from the
other House; he knew nothing of the
law of the case or of the facts on which
the petition was founded. He understood
the measure to be conciliatory, but to
him it seemed strange, that a bill intended
to sooth angry feelings should be hurried
through the House before there was an
opportunity for those most concerned to
state their objections to it. The petition
complained, that while the bill in its pre-
amble recognized the right of toleration
most fully,there wasaclause init encroach-
ing upon that right, inasmuch as it gave
to the clergyman of the Protestant church
the power of refusing sepulchre toa Catho-
lic. This was sowing the spirit of disu-
nion and discontent, and particularly af-
fected the city of Dublin by sanctioning
those proceedings on the part of the









present archbishop .whichhad been cen- to give the people the right of sepulture
sured by every liberal mind. in them; and if any litigation arose, some
,TheiEarl of Liverpool merely wished regulation might be adopted for obtaining
tostate,the course pursued with regard to the consent of the proprietors.
their bill. Their lordships must be aware, The Earl of Liverpool said, that to the
by the votes of the other House, that this latter suggestion of the noble earl he had
matter, had early, in the present session, no objection, and should introduce a ver-
been brought before its notice. There bal amendment into the clause referred to.
were evils which this bill was introduced As to the suggestion relative to the absent
to remedy, and it was introduced after the ministers, and the want of Churches, there
subject had been well considered by the were numerous difficulties in the way
law officers for Ireland. The bill was which no legislative enactments could
brought up,to their lordships on Friday, meet, without a mutual disposition on the
and had been printed; and he was not part of the people; and if that disposition
aware of any unusual haste in passing it existed, the regulations of this bill would
through the House. None of the standing be as effectual as any which could be pro-
orders had been dispensed with, nor had posed. As to the suggestion of the other
any hasty proceedings taken place. noble earl, it did not appear to him that
The Earl of Darnley believed that this it could be acted on. No doubt, as the
measure was intended solely to produce law at present stood, the church-yard was
beneficial effects to Ireland ; but there was a place over which the Rector or Vicar of
onepointwhichhethought worthyof their the parish had full and complete authority
lordships consideration. No person need It was his. But this applied to Protest-
be informed of the violence of party spirit ants as well as Catholics; and protestant
in Ireland; and he thought if a constant dissenters who wished to have a funeral
appeal must be made by the Catholics to service read over their dead were obliged
the Protestant clergy for permission to to ask the permission of the rector. As
bury, this could only be productive of the law stood, the rector was bound to
vexation and animosity. He would sug- perform the funeral service in his own
gest whether it might not be possible to church-yard; but this was altered by the
enact that the Catholics should be entitled present bill. The Catholics, as he under-
to bury their dead in the church-yards, on stood, in general, performed the whole of
giving notice of their intention. He the funeral service in their houses, and
would allow the Protestant clergyman a then removed the body to the church-yard.
veto stating his reasons but lie wished By the present bill, the Catholic clergy
the right of burial, without asking his were permitted to proceed to the church-
leave, to be granted to the Catholics. He yard, and there perform the service, if
merely threw this out as a suggestion they pleased. And here he must be per-
which, perhaps, the noble earl oppos te mitted to say one word of the most re-
might be disposed to adopt. verend archbishop, alluded to in the pe-
The Earl of Carnarvon did not think tition. Certain reflections were there
it was a good reason why their lordships thrown on that respectable primate which
should not discuss a measure, that it had he by no means deserved. At the very
been maturely considered in the other time when he was accused of interfering
House. There were some measures which with the burial of the Catholics, he was
could be better examined by their lord- at Leamington, for the benefit of his
ships, than by the other House of Parlia- health, and had called on him (lordL.)
ment. He did not wish to say much on and had shewn him the letters he had re-
the bill, not being particularly acquainted ceived on the subject. It was his wish,
with that part of the country to which it that no more distinctions should be pre-
applied. But it would appear as an ob- served among the different classes of per-
jection to the measure, that in many pa- sons in Ireland than could possibly be
rishes there was no church, and in still avoided, and therefore he did not wish, by
more, no resident minister. There was no a legislative enactment, to give them dif.
place to affix a notice, unless it was post- ferent burial places. Either their lordships
ed on the ruins of a church. In some must legislate for every circumstance con-
cases, the minister who would have to nected with funerals, or they must leave
give this permission resided in England. a discretion somewhere; and, after the
As to the church-yards belonging to mo- fullest consideration, it had been thought
nasteries, he thought it might be possible most advisable to leave this discretion in


171HOU$EOF bpIOADS,


;Ourials in,&eland -Bil.







177] Salt Ti .
the hands of the clergyman. His lordship
than read a portion of the preamble of
the bill, stating, that its object was, to de-
clare, that all classes of his majesty's sub-.
jects had the same right of sepulture. It
was not possible, he continued, to use
words more expressive, and the,power
given to the clergyman to refuse this right,
was to be taken. in conjunction with this
preamble. In refusing it, also, he was
bound to inform his diocesan; which
clearly shewed, that he was only to refuse
it on special grounds, which grounds he
was to state. He could not say what a
wrong-headed man might do, but he
thought .the present security as good a
one as could be devised. There was a dif-
ficulty in framing the measure so as to
meet all the circumstances of the, case;
but he thought those most adverse to it
would, when it was adopted, be most de-
sirous of its continuance.
The Earl of Limerick said, that the
Catholics.of Ireland had a strong desire
to have burial places in the suppressed
convents; and, if the existing law was al.
tered, he had no doubt that arrangements
would be made for that purpose with the
proprietors.
Lord Holland, after the explanation of
the noble earl, expressed his hearty con-
currence with the objects of the bill,
which, he was convinced, were entirely
conciliatory; but he still thought it was
hurried rather too fast through the
House..
Lord Kingunderssood, he said, from the
noble earl,.that the clergyman was bound
to accede to the request of the Catholics.
He would suggest, therefore, whether it
would not be proper to add aclause com-
pelling him to grant it By this act it
was made lawful for the Catholics to be
buried in the church-yards; but many
things.which in Ireland were lawful were
not done. Much rancour and ill-will had
already sprung from the right claimed by
a foolish Protestant clergyman over a
church-yard. He would remind the
House of what was said by a learned di-
vine, that if the Protestants wished to pre*
serve the churches, they should leave the
church-yards to theCatholics.
The Earl of Harrowuby stated, the ob.
jects of the bill were not only to relieve
Catholics, but to give the whole body of
dissenters the right of sepulture, by their
own clergymen. As the clause stood re-
lative to the clergyman's refusing theright,
as he. was bound, to state his reasons
VOL. XI.


S AP'r' 6,1824. i* (78
for doing so, t-this must be. onsirlevedaa;'
nearly synonymous with his .b inog Comr,
pulled to grant it.. : ,- :
The bill was then committed:.:;. : :I

HO USE OF Cb MMN I.I.6 N .
Tuesday, April 6.: ..
SALT-TAX.] Mr. Wodehouse moste4fo'r.
'a return of the total :nanber of wcsei
Prosecutions that:have been entered4 14-,
ing.the last six years, fqrt offena agiAsti
the. Salt-laws; showing theamottim~ie.
nalties received, and the pariculapigtUih
ber in each year."' He wished at thie saWe
time to ask his right hon. friend .Iheo-htmn
cellor of the Exchequer whetleer, il (the
event of the tax being: continued,.it,
would not be practicable to remove PSIie.
of the restrictions complained of in tha,
mode of collecting the tax.
The Chancellor.of the Exchequer replied
that he could not .anticipate what! would;
be the decision of thb House upon the,
hon. gentleman's motion, of whiCj1 he had
given notice, for a continuance::ofithis,
particular tax; but heihad nodiffioultyiig
saying, that if it should, be the i.tsi jf,
parliament to continuee .the, present duty
he hoped that some means, might bo de-
vised for relaxing the restrictions .whic~
arose out of the previous high dcity, flnd
which were considered ,necessay.y Ar.t b
preservation of the revenue., A4t.4 ;ewgqtsi
he should feel extremely anxious, to, try;
every possible means of relaxing the seven,
rity of the existing regulations; further
than that he could not pledge himself.:.
Mr. Calcrafl rose to express, a.ooagidore
able degree of surprise attheanotic whiy h
the hon..member for Norfolk hshd givyp
yesterday. He did not at the timei0eli0t
decorous to animadvert upon.that ptnie a
but he rejoiced exceedingly at the pxreet
opportunity of delivering his opinion upon
the subject. He was astonished:at the
attempt now to call upon .them to break
through a solemn compact, by whichit
was stipulated, .that ..the .present 4duty
should expire on the 5th of January next,
The way in which this notice was Pon-
ducted, looked as if the hon. member had
some bargain to make for the public,
which he deemed more useful than that
to which the House stood committed, for
theabolition,of this tax. He was perfectly
astonished at the cool and calm manner
in which ,the Chancellor of the Exchequer
seemed to meet the hon. member's views.
What were. the people to.depend upon,.df
N




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