Elrbate an rnterbing1 in Parliament.
1. Tun BUDGET. The House of Commons last night resolved itself into a Committee of Supply; arid, Mr. M. ATWOOD having consented to postpone his motion relative to Distress and the Currency,
Lord Aurnoar proceeded to make his financial statement. The present Administration, he said, had fulfilled their pledge of introducing economy into the mode of conducting the public service. They had abolished 1,387 places, and salaries to the amount of 231,4061.; from which was to be deducted 38,0001., the amount of retired allowances ; leaving the actual present saving 192,000/. Three Parliamentary places, with salaries amounting to 21,8941., had been abolished ; and the saving in the Diplomatic service was 91,735/. During the last two years, 506 persons had been brought from the retired list of the Re- venue department, and placed on active service ; by which a saving of 28,000/. had been made in the retired allowances.
The amount of income for the year ending 5th Apri11833 was £46,853,000 The amount of expenditure 45,366,000
Leaving an excess of income over expenditure of £1,487,000 He had only estimated this excess at 800,000/. ; but as it amounted to 1,487,000/. it would more than cover the deficiencies of the preced- ing year. That deficiency was 1,200,041/. Taking the deficiency and excess together, there was an improvement of not less than 2,728,0001.; created, however, not so much by increase of income, as by decrease of expenditure. This was proved by the fact that the excess of the income of 1833 over 1832 was only 235,000/. The expenditure of 1833 was less than that of 1832 by 2,493,000/. Having stated in detail the income and expenditure of the last year, Lord Althorp proceeded to take the income for the ensuing year at £46,494,128
This was less than the income of last year, because there were certain arrears of Malt-duties collected last year, which would not be received in this.
The whole expenditure for the year, including the charge of 30,300,000/ on the Consolidated Fund, would be 44,922,219 Leaving an estimated surplus of ............ .E 1,571,909
With regard to taxes to be taken off, Lord Althorp said, that looking to the growing increase in the produce of the Malt-duties, he did not conceive that the tax pressed heavily on the consumption of the article; and although he had been much pressed on the point, he would not consent to reduce it. With regard to the Newspaper-duties, he con- sidered it would be expedient to take off the whole of the tax, if the money could be spared. He objected to reduce it partially. But the abolition of this tax, which yielded 440,000/., would not afford relief to the distresses of any considerable portion of the community. He did not believe that the increased consumption of paper, or the produce of a postage-duty, would make up the loss occasioned by the repeal of the Newspaper Stamp-duty. He admitted that he had held out an expectation that the tax would be re- pealed, but he thought now that it would be better to take off those taxes which pressed more heavily on the productive industry of the country. The first duty which he would take off was that on Tiles, amounting to 37,000/. The next would be half the duty on Advertisements. Instead of charging 3s. 6d. for each insertion, he would impose a tax of 2s. on the first, Is. 6d. on the second, and Is. on every subsequent insertion. The loss to the revenue would equal half the amount now produced by the duty, or 75,0001. The Marine In- surance dnty, which had fallen in amount from 452,0001. in 1815, to 220,000/. in 1832, would be also reduced as follows. Where the pre- mium does not exceed 15s., he would reduce the duty from 2s. 6d. to Is. 3d. per cent. ; where not exceeding 30s., from 5s. to 2s. 6d. This would occasion a loss of 100,000/. With respect to the Assessed Taxes he proposed to take off the duties on Windows in all shops em ployed as such, or as warehouses. The House-duty, wherever shops were attached to the houses, would also be reduced in the following way : in houses containing fifteen windows, of which five belonged to the shop, one third of the House-duty would be reduced. This would amount to a reduction on the House and Window-duties of 100,0001. The duty on Taxed Carts, amounting to 30,0001., would be taken off. He would also take off the duty upon Shopmen, Warehousemen, Hawkers, Stewards, Bookkeepers, and Clerks. This would make the whole reduc- tion on the Assessed Taxes 244,000. He had always considered the tax on raw cotton as altogether wrong in principle ; but he could not do with- out it, when he took off the duty on Printed Calicoes, from which so much relief had been experienced. The tax on raw cotton, in 1831, was three-eighths of a penny per pound, he had increased it to five- eighths of a penny. The whole duty now produced 626,000/. He proposed to take off the additional tax; which would cause a reduction to the amount of 300,000/. He intended to propose a fried duty of five-sixteenths of a penny per potted. The tax on Soap was the next to which he would call the attention of the House. The annual pro- duce of tills tax was 1486,0001. He proposed to reduce the duty one- half. This would appear to be a great reduction ; but when it was considered that 100,000/. now paid in drawbacks, would be saved, and that a large increase of consumption might safely be calculated upon, be did not think that the real loss to the revenue would actually be more than half the amount of the reduction. He should therefore put it down at 300,000/. In reply to a question from Mr. O'CoxiveLe, Lord ALTHORP said, he was not certain whether the drawback on soap exported to Ireland would be done away, but he thought that there ought not to be a lower duty on soap in Ireland than in England. He would now recapitulate- 1.. Tiles—Whole duty taken off £37,000
'I. Marine Insuracce—Estimated diminution 100,000 3. Advertisements—ditto 75,000 4. Assessed Taxes—Reduction of House and Window Duty on Shops 244,000 5. Cotton—Reduction of additional duty impos-Al in 1831 300,000 6. Soap—Half the present duty 593,000 £1,349,000 Estimated return on Soap 293,000 Probable loss to Revenue 1,056,000 Surplus for year ending. 1834 1,572,000 Estimated surplus after the above reductionq £516,000 This surplus was smaller than it had been usual to calculate upon ; but the principle which guided him was, to carry the reduction of taxes to the greatest practicable extent. If more taxes were repealed, the House must see, if public credit were still to be preserved, that other taxes must be substituted for them. He would not detain the Com- mittee any longer, but would move the first resolution—that the duty on Tiles should henceforth cease to be paid.
Mr. HUME could not deny that Lord Althorp, as far as he had gone, had done well. He was sorry that he had not gone further, for the country would not be satisfied with the amount of relief bestowed. There was a great pressure for the total repeal of the House and Window-tax. There would have been no great loss to the revenue by taking off 10s. per quarter on Malt; double the quantity would be con- sumed. The reduction upon Advertisements would have been better if it bad been less complex : If the duty were reduced to Is. 6d. upon all advertisements it would be much better. The duty on Soap might be still further reduced. He was opinion that a general commutation of taxes, and the substitution of a Property-tax, was the best thing that could be done to relieve the distresses of the country.
Sir ROBERT PEEL thought that the reductions had been carried to a greater extent than was prudent. He entirely disapproved of the pro- posal of an Income-tax, and thought that Lord Althorp had done wisely in rejecting it.
Sir S. WHALLEY regretted that Lord Althorp had not repealed the House and Window-duties entirely, and laid a tax on the Funds.
Mr. O'CoxNeLe said, that except the reduction of the duty on Ad- vertisements, there was nothing beneficial to Ireland in Lord Althorp's proposition. The Ministers favoured the mighty " we " of the press— the great monopolists of the Fourth Estate.
Mr. R. PALMER was very grateful to Lord Althorp for what he had done, but wished the duty on Malt had been lessened.
Mr. A. BARING disapproved of this plan of relieving the country by taking off taxes. Mr. Pitt had acted upon a wiser principle, at the close of the American war, when be added to the taxes constantly for the succeeding ten years. If the plan of raising money for a sinking- fund had been adhered to, there would have been a great reduction of debt effected.
Alderman THOMPSON generally approved of Lord Althorp's state- ment.
Mr. ROBINSON thought that the 509,000/. surplus should be applied to a further reduction of taxes. The reductions would have been better had they been applied more to the relief of productive industry.
Mr. SLANEY and Sir T. FREMANTLE thought that some improve- ments might have been made in the plan of Lord Althorp, but gene- rally approved of it.
Lord ALTHORP replied. He admitted that the amount of reduction was small, but it should be recollected that his predecessor had taken off four millions, and that he had taken off 3,100,000/. He intended to do what he could for Ireland, by regulating the Soap-duty, and remedying the defects in the drawbacks. The tax on Printed Calicoes had pressed heavily on Ireland, and he had taken that off last year. He confessed that he was adverse to keeping up a large annual revenue for the sake of reducing the Debt. He disagreed entirely with Mr. Baring on that point.
Lord SANDON Mr. SINCLAIR, Mr. SLANEY, and Mr. EWART, sug- gested several alterations in the Stamp-duties, which pressed heavily on the people; and Mr. SINCLAIR also wished a tax to be levied upon every species of property for reducing the whole or part of the prin- cipal of the Debt.
Lord ALTHOR,P'S resolution was agreed to.
2. COMMUTATION OF TITnES. Lord ALTHORP, on Thursday, moved for leave to bring in a bill for the general commutation of tithes. Be- fore going into the question be would state to the House. the actual amount of the income of the Clergy ; which was very much exagge- rated. It had been asserted lately, that Church Property amounted to nine millions per annum ; nothing could be more extravagant than that statement The fact was, that the net income of all the Bishops, including the Bishop of Sodor and Man, was only 158,527/. The incomes of all the Deans and Chap- ters together amounted to 236,358/. He was not so well able to state the amount of the Parochial Clergy, because the returns were not yet all made; but from those which had been made, he concluded that the whole income did not exceed 3,000,000/. The whole income of the Clergy, therefore, did not exceed 3,500,0001. instead of 9,000,0001. He would state the grounds of his estimate of the income of the Parochial Clergy. They had obtainedreturns from 9660 benefices. The whole number of benefices was 11,400. The 9660 of which they had obtained returns, gavean income of 2,769,7791. Supposing the others, from which no returns had been obtained, to be at-the some .average, the who ainottni would be about 4250,0006 If. they- supposed: that whole sum equally divided, it would give to each clergyman about 285!. a year. If to that they added the income of the Prebends and the Deans and Chapters, the average income of each clergyman would be about 300/.
He did not consider this too large a sum to devote to the support of a National Church. It was generally allowed that the residence of a clergyman in every parish was highly desirable ; but then, it was equally to be wished, that he should be on good terms with his parishioners; which could not be the case as long as the present system was upheld. The measureehich he was going to propose was not one which would make a great sensation, but one which should be fair and just to both parties. It would apply to the clergyman, the tithe-owner, mid the tithe-payer. When he spoke of the clergyman, he did not think it right to confine the commutation simply to the clergyman, but that the same measure should be applicable to the lay impropriator.
His first principle would be to give a period of twelve months from the pas- sing of the bill, to permit the tithe-payer and the tithe-owner, by mutual con- sent to commute tithes into a perpetual corn-rent; but if, after the expiration of twelve months, that were not generally done,—and in many instances it would, probably, not be done, although he believed in a vast number it would be ;—if, after that period, the commutation were not accomplished, he then pro- posed that either the tithe payer, or tithe-receiyer, without making it necessary for a whole parish to agree,—for he would allow any individual tithe-payer to give notice —he then proposed that either the tithe-payer or tithe-receiver should he allowed to give notice that he intended to commute the tithes.
Valuators should then be appointed ; a certain number of whom should be selected by the Bishop of the diocese, and an equal number by the Magistrates at Quarter-Sessions. Either party might then give notice to the other party, that he intended to appoint a valuator, and the valuation might proceed.
Any person, however, who knows any thing of the state of tithe property in this country, must know that if an actual valuation were to take place for tithe- able property in each parish, the effect would be to raise the tithes throughout England most enormously, and would most certainly prevent any commutation from taking place ; and, although it might seem to he justice, would really and practically be most unjust. His plan, therefore, was, that the valuators should not tab the tithes at the amount which ought to be paid, but at the amount which had been actually paid and enjoyed through the previous years. The valuers, therefore, would not have the dusty of valueing the tithe on the ground ; they would only have to ascertain what had been the amount paid during. an average of seven years previously.
The valuators, however, should have the power of altering the valu- ation to a certain percentage—say from five to ten per cent; he should think five per cent. sufficient. The valuation thus made, the valuators should commute that valuation for a perpetual corn-rent, estimated in different kinds of grain, wheat, barley, and oats ; and the average of the value of those kinds of grain should be-the perpe- tual rent imposed. He also proposed that these valuators should value the dif- ferent portions of the tithes. Suppose, for example, an individual wished to snake an arrangement for his tithe, it was obvious that his land might varyin its qualities; and it was necessary that the amount of the tithe should he feted on each portion, or it would be Impossible to dispose of any part of that pro- perty, unless it was known what amount of tithe-rent it was subject to. If the valuators should differ, an award by an umpire must must settle the dispute. It was necessary that the appointment of the umpire should rest with some im- portant and eminent person ; and he should propose that the senior Judge of Assize should have the appointment. There were cases in which tithes had already been compounded for, and in such cases the composition would be taken as the basis of the valuation for the tithe-rent. Whenever the composition was a fixed payment, the valuators would only have to determine its value as a corn- rent.
The Quarter-Sessions should ascertain the average during the pre- ceding years of the different kinds of grain.
He proposed, on the valuation being made, that the tithe-receiver should have the option of being paid in money or in corn-rent during a fixed period of years. The clergyman should have the option of fixing this during -the period of his incumbency; and if the tithe-owner was a lay impropriator,lie should not have less for his option than seven years. All these, however, were points of detail, which the House could consider in the progress of the bill.
He would allow individuals to make arrangements with individuals, and a tenant, in the case of an existing lease, to make an arrangement without the consent of his landlord for the term of the lease. The landlord might make an arrangement with the tithe-receiver, whether they had granted a lease or not, in case the tenant refused to enter into any arrangement. In that case, the tenant would be bound to pay the landlord what was due to the c' 3rgyman.
There was only one other case lie had to mention—that relating to moduses. By an act recently passed, all mod uses not disturbed before July next could not be questioned ; and it was not likely that this bill could come into operation before July. Before this hill could come into operation, all litigation would cease on the subject.
He begged the House would not suppose that this was the only measure which Government intended to propose for the reform of the Church- Establishment. Others were absolutely necessary. One was the prevention of pluralities. That measure would soon, he hoped; be brought forward either there or in the House of Lords. There were other plans, beset with great difficulties, which he hoped would be over- come. He concluded by saying, that he thought this measure for the commutation of tithes would be acceptable to both the land-owner and the clergyman.
The proprietors of land, and those generally interested in agricultural pursuits, generally would reap the very greatest advantage from the measure, asthey would have the power of employing their capital on their land for their own advantage.
On the other hand, he did not think. the Church ought to make any resistance
whatever : he would say, too he did not think it would. He did not think.the Clergy would consider the advantages which they might claim from the extended application of capital to land, could be so great as to counterbalance the advan- tage they would be sure to derive from putting an end to the occasion of quarrels and disputes.
In reply to a question by Mr. BARING, Lord ALTHORP was under- stood to say, that although compositions had lately been made by width.
the Clergy were exempted from the payment of poor-rates ; still"he thought it of essential importance that the- Clergy should remain libble, in-order to give them an interest in keeping down the amount ofIthe poor-rates.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS thought, that Lord- Althorp's permissiont,was like a conga d'ilire—it was permission for w year, and compuliion atthe end of it He would only then remark, that he was glad to hear ,l/brd Altborp,dechire that he would deal with-tithe property in the- sanieltay
whether it was in the hands of laymen or the Clergy. He hoped the same principle would be adopted when they came to legislate on this subject for Ireland.
Mr. HUME said, the appointment of the valuators would be wholly in the power of the Clergy ; one half being nominated by the Bishops, the other by the Magistrates at the Sessions, more than half of whom were clergymen. He thought those functionaries ought to be nomi- nated by Government. He objected to making the present payments of tithe the basis of the valuation for future payments ; for that would enable the man who had screwed up his tithes to a high pitch to reap the benefit of his extortion, while the more moderate of the Clergy would get no more than they did at present. Inasmuch as Lord Althorp's plan did not take into consideration the very great difference in the amount of the tithes collected in different parts of the country, it appeared to him to be very defective. He wished a money value to be fixed by the Commissioners instead of a fluctuating value in corn ; and that the Commissioners should be appointed directly by the House or by the Exchequer. He was not inimical to the proposed changes, but thought that the details of the plan would require much alteration.
He thought it would bebetter for the public if Commissioners were appointed by Government to value the tithes throughout the country, and buy them up, and then let the Clergy be paid either out of the Exchequer or by that House. (Cries of " Hear ! " and " Oh, oh !") Such a plan had been formerly under the serious consideration of persons in the situation of the noble lord ; and if such a plan had been carried into effect some years ago, it would have been better for the Church itself.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said, the success of the measure must mainly de- pend upon the details : he would give these his careful consideration. lie was by no means averse—he believed no member in the House was averse—to the principle of the commutation of tithes. He agreed with Mr. Hume in his objection to the mode in which the value of the tithe was to be taken and as to the hardship which it would inflict on those clergymen who taken, been lenient in the collection heretofore. He objected also to the proposition for taking the tithe either in money or in three different kinds of grain.
Lord ALTHORP explained—
What was meant in that part of the measure was that the tithe-receiver should have the option of being paid according to the price of so many bushels of a certain grain, according to which the tithe had been valued.
Dr. LUSHINGTON was surprised to hear Lord Althorp say that the plan proposed would not create a sensation in the country. It was im- possible that any plan could be formed for changing the mode of pay- ment of so large a sum as 3,250,0001.—the amount of the income of the Parochial Clergy—without detriment to some parties. He was not disposed to concur in Lord Althorp's plan— He thought it faulty both in principle and practice ; and believed that it would occasion great dissatisfaction, because persons who had never paid tithes before would, under the noble lord's arrangement, be obliged to pay. In any scheme of partial commutation he likewise saw great difficulties. He did not admire the justice of the compulsory system, by which if one-half of the tithe- payers in a particular district agreed to a commutation, the other half, however unwilling, would be obliged to submit. One general and comprehensive mea- sure would be vastly preterable to such a partial and compulsory enactment. He advocated a general and sweeping measure, because he felt convinced that the sooner the period arrived when the very name of tithes, now so odious, should be extinguished, the better.
He had objections to the mode of payment, and other parts of the plan ; but he would reserve them for the Committee.
Mr. BARING said there was no spoliation in the plan, no party feel- ing, but a spirit of fairness equally to the Clergy and the Public. So far as the principle was developed, the measure should have his support: at the same time, he must state the difficulties that occurred to him.
He objected in tato to the proposition of Mr. Hume with regird to the volu- tion of tithes, because he conceived it presented insurmountable obstacles. He thought, however, that a simpler mode of valuation than that propounded by Lord Aftliorp might be hit upon. One difficulty in the arrangement, which particularly struck him, was connected with the poor-rates. He felt satisfied that the present state of things could not be suffered to remain unaltered. Many
i
persons n the South of England, he knew, were in the habit of paying a poor- rate of 27s., and some even as much as 32s. in the pound. What would become of the clergyman in this case? It was well known that the landowners often expressed a desire to "work the clergy" by means of the poor-rate, and under the noble lord's plan they would have an eligible opportunity of so doing. But if the clergyman were left without income, the parish must be left without church-duty. There was another difficulty. In some parts of England—the bop lands in Kent, for example—tithes were levied at the rate of 40s. per acre, in many cases more than the rent. If this scale were to he perpetuated, the cultivators would never be able to meet the demands upon them. Besides, it was possible for portions of land to go out of cultivation, and this without any intention to defraud the clergy of their tithe. It would be an absurdity and an injustice to perpetuate a tithe payment on land which produced nothing at all; he would therefore suggest that lands only which were in cultivation should be subject to the valuation.
Lord Jour/ RUSSELL said, that every plan would be open to some objections, but he thought the one now brought forward was the least open to such attacks.
Colonel TORRENS -expressed his hearty approbation of the plan.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY, Sir R. PRICE, and Mr. CURTEIS, who ap- proved the plan.
Mr. HALCOMB thought some diffieulty would arise with respect to the valuation of tithes in kind, owing to the frequent removal of live stock for the purpose of shearing, feeding, &c. ; which practice might be put in force for the purpose of altering the rate. He begged to ask whether the present measure had been introduced with the approbation of the Heads of the Church.
Lord ALTHORP said, the plan had been submitted to the Heads of the Church, but he was not authorized to state either their approval or disapproval of it. He objected to Mr. flume's proposal for a general actual valuation of land : he was sure it would create discontent throughout the country. He was willing to concur in any plan for the appointment of the valuators, less objectionable than that which he had proposed. He did not attach much weight to Sir Robert Peel's objec- tion to that part of the measure which left it optional with parties to commute their tithes. In many parts of the country, some land in the parish was tithe-free, while the other parts paid tithe, and no incon- venience resulted from it. He was not favourable to the Clergy hold- ing land instead of tithes ; but he thought that such a suggestion de. served consideration.
Leave was then given to bring in the bill.
3. CHURCH Ittroax. Mr. FAITHFUL, on Tuesday, moved the following resolutions. " That the Church of England, as by law established, is not recommended by practical utilityr; that its revenues have always been subject to legislative enact- ments ; and that the greater part if not the whole of those revenues ought to be appropriated to the relief of the nation."
He said that he was by no means hostile to religion—far from it ; but the Establishment he detested. The Church was one thing, the Establishment another. But he did not wish to overthrow the Esta- blishment : they might keep their Bishops, Deans, and Archdeacons : all he desired was that each sect should support its own establishment.
He would ask the House one pointed question. Was an establishment like this sanctioned either directly or indirectly by our Lord Jesus Christ, or any of his Apostles, or was it not 2—No, it was not. lie defied any one to show that it was. He would not ask the House to believe this on the evidence—incontro- vertible as it was—of the Dissenters ; but he would call to their most serious at- tention the opinions of the soundest Divines of the Establishment itself, begin- ning with that of Archdeacon Paley; who declares that " we find in the Chris- tian religion no scheme of building up any Church, or of administering to the particular views of any Ecclesiastical Government ; but, on the contrary, our religion exhibits a complete abstraction from all ecclesiastical or civil bodies." Such was the opinion of Paley ; and Mr. Faithful would ask any of those mem- bers who were conversant with Scripture, if they could :point out any passage in the New Testament which could directly or indirectly induce the most distant apprehension that Jesus Christ or any of his Apostles contemplated such an establishment as this as an eligible institution? Certainly not ; it was never originated by our Saviour, or any disciples of the religion he taught.
No one could say that it was through love of the Holy Ghost that young men entered the Church. They entered it as if it were the Army, Navy, or any other profession. It was all an affair of calcula- tion. Livings were bought and sold at noon-day. As Dr. Hartley said, the Clergy teach the doctrines of men, and are merchants upon earth. Mr. Faithful concluded by declaring his belief, that Parliament had as much right to interfere with the Church as with the Bank.
Mr. COBBETT seconded the motion.
Lord ALTnoite was sure that he should not be expected to answer Mr. Faithful's speech. He was a Churchman, and Mr. Faithful a Dissenter. They might therefore be reasonably expected to differ respecting the practical utility of the Church. He should meet the question with a decided negative.
Mr. COBBETT—" The Chancellor of the Exchequer has declared that the House hardly expected him to answer Mr. Faithful's speech. No— nor did I either." (Laughter, and calls of" Question !") Mr. HARVEY, though a Dissenter, and prepared to support the abstract proposition contained in Mr. Faithful's resolution, could not agree to all its terms. He hoped the motion would be withdrawn.
Sir RoaraT Nous expressed his utter dissent from all that had fallen from Mr. Faithful, in the course of his half-sermon, half-speech. It was not fair in Mr. Faithful, who was not only a Dissenter, but a licensed preacher among that body, to attack the Church of England Clergy, who were not permitted to be there to defend themselves.
Mr. O'DwvEtt moved, as an amendment-
" That the revenues of the Church of England have always been subject to legislative enactments, and they ought to be appropriated to their original in- stitution."
Mr. HARVEY objected to the amendment, as one to which no Pro- testant Dissenter could agree.
The amendment was then withdrawn, and the original motion nega- tived without a division.
4. JEWISH DISABILITIES. In a Committee of the whole House, on Wednesday, Mr. WARBURTON being in the Chair, Mr. ROBERT GRANT moved the following resolution- " That it is expedient to remove all civil disabilities at present existing affect- ing his Majesty's subjects of the Jewish religion, with the like exceptions as are provided with reference to his Majesty's subjects professing the Roman Catholic religion."
The great principle which he advocated was this—that in every civilized and properly-regulated community, no man ought to be ex- cluded, as a general rule, from any civil right or privilege, on account of his religious sentiments being different from those of the community at large, unless those sentiments threatened the disorganization of civil society. There was ample evidence contained in the history of many nations, among whom the Jews had resided, to prove that the Jewish religion by no means unfitted men or being good subjects. It was an article of the Jewish faith, that until the corning of the Messiah,
the king under whose protection they lived was- be considered the King of Israel. Mr. Grant then gave a sketch of the history of the Jews in ancient times ; when in captivity under the Babylonish and Persian monarchs, under the Ptolemies of Egypt, the Seleucidm of Syria, Julian the Apostate, and Charlemagne. The golden age of the Jewish captivity might perhaps be placed under Charlemagne, who sent a Jew ambassador to Haroun al Raschid. Pope Gregory tke Great, had encouraged them, and so had the Moors in Spain. It was at the time of the Crusades that their persecution became so dreadful; and England and France had led the way in those cruelties. Passing on to modern times, he mentioned the emancipation of the Jews by Napo- leon, and the testimony of Charles Dupin to the benefits which had re- sulted from that measure. The Jews in France had substituted industry for usury, and had become Frenchmen in heart as well as in birth. In Prussia, the Chancellor Hardenberg had obtained the partial eman- cipation of the Jews in the year 1811; and they bad since become the best subjects in the Prussian dominions, as was clearly proved by their conduct in the last war with France. He replied to the argument, that to emancipate the Jews would be to interfere with the Divine decree which doomed them to persecution.
In reply to that argument, he would say, that it was One that proved infinitely too much; for, according to those persons Who used it, the proscription which was predicted as affecting this People, and to which they appealed, would not go merely to the extent of civil disabilities, but would go to the rack, the stake, tbe torture, &e. ; and therefore it was not a right argument to say that because the Jews, being in a peculiar state of probation, were eXiMed to certain evils, we, idfultIlment of the prophecies relating to them, bad a right to inflict those evils upon. them.
He quoted Bishop Newton, Dr. Buchanan, and Robert Hall, to prove that the time was come to sweep of the long arrear of guilt which the nations of Christendom had contracted by their persecution of the Jews. He concluded by saying, that he would rest this question upon the broad ground of religious toleration.
The infliction of civil disabilities without any reason was oppressive, and their infliction for no other reason but a difference of creed, was religious nersecutiou ; and he nosy, therefore, called upon them to wipe away a stain which had so long attached to their religion : he called upon them, as professors of Christianity, to wipe away the heavy stain that had so long disfigured its fair fame, and to show it as it was and as it ought to be—the religion of goodwill and of charity towards all mankind.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS said, that Mr. Grant had made large conces- sions to the spurious liberality of modern days. He had laid down the propesition that religious opinions should not disqualify their profes- sors from holding political power— If seeli a proposition were to he admitted, and it was upon it that Mr. Grant grounded his motions, it would enable the Parsee, the Brahmin, the Mussulman, the Jew, and all other sectaries and religionists whatever, who were natural- born subjects of the King of this realm, to participate in all the rights of British subjects ; and he would ask whether. they would be tit persons to be in- trusted with all the ecclesiastical as well as civil interests of England? If such a principle were to be carried, the effect of it would be to place in the custody of very incompetent and unworthy men all the dearest interests of this country.
The nationality of the Jews, which none of them would disclaim, was a strong argument against their admission to the privileges now sought to be bestowed upon them. He would not deny, of course he would not defend, the cruelties practised in former trines upon the Jews. s He would not go into the antiquarian law upon the subject: he would rest his argument upon this point,—that the Jews coming to a country as strangers, and sojourning there as a distinct people, should be obliged to take the law as they found it. Christianity was admitted on all hands to be part and parcel of the law of the land— How, then, could any person sit in that House, or as a Judge on the Bench, who was not prepared to call himself a Christian and give the requisite proof by appealing to the inspired Word of God ? There was no right to power in the abstract. If an individual were protected in his person, his pro- perty, and in the exercise of his worship, he was bound in return for that pro- tection to bow before the supreme authority, whatever it might be, of the country in which he resided ; but unless his person or his property were inse- cure or subject to annoyance on account of his worship, he had no ground for demanding the possession of political power.
.What would be the consequence of allowing a Jew Judge to try a cause of blasphemy ? It was grossly inconsistent to place one man on the bench who professed a certain doctrine, and another at the bar as a criminal for professing similar doctrines. He was not prepared to grant this favour to the Jews, neither was the House called upon to grant it, at the expense of their religious belief.
Mr. MACAULAY objected to the doctrine of Sir R. Inglis, that whatever the supreme authority of a country chose to exact from per- sons living in it, no man had a right to complain of oppression on that account.
A doctrine of this nature, if carried out, would lead to consequences so mon- strous, that even Sir R. Inglis himself would be disposed to shrink from them. Supp.,,e, for instance, it were to be an enactment that every man who bad blue eyes, or stood six feet high, should be excluded from the possession of certain political rights: would not such a law be considered a piece of gross injustice? And yet, if the distribution of political power were to be regarded as mere mutter of caprice, no man would have aright to complain. Suppose some such clause as the following were inserted in a bill which should be brought before the House—" That no person should be appointed Governor-General of India, or be sent out as Governor of Madras and Bombay who had nut been educated at the University of Oxford." He could imagine what a cry would be raised by those who thought with the honourable baronet ; and yet no man had a right to the Governor-Generalship of India—it was a pure matter of grace.
It was said that it would be an anomaly to see a Jewish Judge try a man for blasphemy— He would not defend the present law relative to blasphemy ; but he thought that a sound law upon the subject might exist with an enlightened Jew upon the
bench. Ile thought that every man ought to be at liberty to discuss the truth
or falsehood of religion but not to force upon the unwilling eyes and ears of others sights and sounds which were insulting to then,. The distinction was perfectly clear: if a man chose to sell Paine's Age of Reason in a back shop
to such as though proper to buy it, or if another man chose to deliver a lecture against venerated religion in a private room, he thought that neither of them ought to be prosecuted; but if an individual exhibited at a window in a thoroughfare a caricature of what was an object of veneration to 999 men out 1,000, or in a place of public resort should apply outrageous and insulting ex- pressions to beings and things which almost all who heard him were disposed to
venerate, he would punish such a man, not for a libel, but for a nuisance—not for attacking what he thought true, but for inflicting useless pain and disgust on his neighbours. (Cheers.) The Jewish religion had one peculiar advantage over all those which we deemed to be false—it was not a proselyting religion; there was no chance of its sprcaiing- TheJews did not wish to gain proselytes ; they discarded and almost rejected them, looking upon it as something like culpable presumption for any person to
aspire to belong to their religion. Hence it was, that the conversion of any
person to the Jewish faith was almost as rare an event as a total eclipse of the sun. He had never heard but of one such occurrence, and that was a remarkable
one—it was the case of Lord George Gordon. If ever there was a convert of
-whom a proselyting sect might have been proud, it was Lord George Gordon ; for he was not only a man of rank and a legislator, but he distinguiaied himself in the eyes of the world for the ferocity of his zeal in favour of a particular sect. He turned Jew, and how was he treated ? His adopted brethren admitted him reluctantly to all the painful parts of their . religion,. but when upon his death- bed he claimed the Jewish burial-rites, they told him his request could not be complied with.
The Jews had been termed a mean and sordid race—averse to agri- cultural and honourable pursuits.
This was only another example of the logic of bigotry in all ages. You first generate vices, and then put them forward as a plea for persecution ; you make'
England but half a country to the Jews, and then you wonder that they have only half patriotism; you treat them as foreigners; and then wonder that they have not all the feeling's of natives ; you draw a line of separation, and then express
astonishment that they do not mingle with you; you will not allow them to possess an acre of land, and yet complain that they devote themselves exclusively Clerk of Idiot,: Ch.r1; ot the II:limper, held by two young ladies, the daughters of an Earl Ch.'s': of the Crown in Chancery, Earl Bathurst Clerk of King's Beneh, Lord Ellenborough Keeper of the Seals in the Court of Common Pleas, the Duke of
Grafton 2,2.96 0 0 Registrar of Affidavits iu Chancery, Honourable W. If. Scott Patentee of Bankrupts, Lord Thurlow 1,816 0 0
C1:-.neellor of Scotland, the Earl of Rosslyu 1,519022 (01 oo Keeper or the Hamper, Lord Thurlow
1,712 0 0 Cle:k in Chaucer:, held for his children, the Earl of Rosslyn
9 25 0 0 His own opinion was, that the present holders of these offices ought to br deprived of them ; but the motion which he intended to submit did not raise that question, but left existing interests untouched. He con- cluded by moving the first resolution,—to the effect, that on all future vacancies of sinecure offices at home and abroad, no new appointments shall be made, nor any salary, allowances, ovemoluments granted.
Lord Amione would not object to the substance of the motion.
31r. Hume had, however, cited a nullifier of offices, from the Report of ist6, sever. ,I of which lie knew had been abolished. He was surprised that lie had mentioned the case of Lord Thurlow, which was abolished by the Bank' uptcy 13111. Lord Frederick Campbell, too, who had held an office in the Chancery of Scotland, was dead. He therefore hoped that the House would not believe that all this list of offices still remained.
With respect to Civil and Colonial offices, he did not object to the motion as it stood ; but Lord Ebrington had given notice of a motion for a Committee of inquiry into the Military and Naval offices, and he thought Mr. flume's motion would interfere with it.
1.11*. HOME would alter his resolution, by substituting the words "all future vacancies of sinecure offices in the Civil and Colonial ser- vice of the country." to trade ; you debar them from all exertion of honourable ambition, and then reproach them for taking refuge in the arts of avarice; in tine, you have for ages subjected them to every species of injustice, and then you condemn them for resorting to what is the natural resource of the weak against orerwhebiling power—artifice and cunning. (Prolonged cheering.)
Mr. Iletcoms opposed the motion. It was supported by Mr. Hume, Mr. O'CONNELL, and Mr. POULTER, Sir ROBERT INGLIS declined dividing the House ; and the resolution was carried apparently by a large majority. The Chroniek report says that the " Ayes " resounded in one loud and hearty tone through the House ; the " Noes " were weak, and "few and far between." Loud cheering followed the announcement from the Chair that the resolution was carried.
5. SINECURES. Mr. HUME, on Thursday, brought forward a nio- tion respecting sinecures, upon a broader basis than those which he had submitted on two former occasions. Objections had been taken to the manner in whielehe had introducedhis former motions, and explanations had been given by many members of their reasons for voting against them. These objections did not satisfy him that he had done wrong. The Finance Committee of 1808 had reported the amount of sinecure offices as follows.
Sinecures in England and the Colonies... £199,137
I 10,000
Ireland Scotland
82any of these had since been abolished. How many na d, he
could not say ; the returns which he had moved for not having been made.
On the 3d of April 1816, a return was presented to the House signed "Henry Goulburn," containing a list of thirty-three sinecure offices in only eight West India Islands, held by persons who did not reside there, the emoluments of which amounted to 53,0004 annually. From those individuals he had selected seven, including the Honourable C. W. Windham, Lord Braybroke, and Sir C. Greville, who, he found, had received, from the date of their appointment to the sinecure offices which they held up to 1816, no less than 1,623,9301. in principal alone.
In fact, every device was resorted to, to extort money from the public in the shape of fees. He eulogized the conduct of the Marquis of Camden, who had given up a sinecure of 23,1)7/. per annum. He proceeded to mention some of the sinecures at present existing.
s. d.
1163 0 0
1,108 0 0 7,00.5 0 0 The resolution, thus restricted, was agreed to.
Mr. Hume then moved the second resolution,—" That no person should receive an appointment to any situation to which emolument was attached, the duties of which were to be performed by deputy."— Agreed to.
Mr. HOME then moved the third resolution,—
" That all offices filled up after this date, in any department under the Crown, Civil, Military, Naval, or Colonial, shall be subject to such alterations as to duties, and to such deductions and alterations as to salary and emoluments, as his Majesty's Ministers, or the heads of departments, under the sanction of this House, shall make, without the persons so appointed having any claim for com- pensation or allowance for such alterations."
This rosolution was objected to by Lord .ALTHORP.
The eff:ct of it, he observed, was to regulate offices hereafter ; and the Crown had that power which it bad acted upon, and had reduced the salaries of several situations. The House, by passing this resolution, would assume that it would be out of the power of the Crown to regulate officers hereinafter appointed.
Mr. Hums consented to withdraw the resolution.
6. NAVY ESTIMATES. The House, on Monday, having resolved itself into a Committee of Supply, Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, that in addition to the 7,000/. saved in the last Estimates in the expense of the Admiralty, he was enabled to re- duce the expense still further by 17,000/. These two sums, with the 5,000/. worth of fees which had been abolished, would make the saving 29,000/. during the last two years. The balance-sheet was now laid on the table. It would be seen that the Estimates of last year had not been exceeded ; on the contrary, there was a considerable balance re- maining out of them. He concluded by moving, that 104,070/. should be granted for defraying the salaries of officers and contingencies for the year 1833. Mr. HeltE said, that as the House had decided on the number of men to be employed, he would not divide it On any of these resolutions. He admitted that many reductions had been made, but still the scale of re- duction was too limited. The vote was agreed to ; as were also one for 21,7251. for the Navy Pay Office, and one for 22,109/. for the salaries and contingent expenses of the Scientific departments of the Navy.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM, in answer to a question from Mr. .HUME, stated, that the Verno4 which was built by Captain Symonds on his new construction, had been pronounced by competent persons to be a very superior vessel.
Captain 1). DUNDAS also said, that the Captain of the Vernon bad assured him that there was no doubt of the superiority of the plan upon which his ship had been constructed.
On the question that 114,970/. be voted for the expenses of the Naval Establishments at Home, a long and desultory conversation arose re- specting the yachts. which arc at present maintained. Sir JAMES GaA- s-tam explained, that there were now four Royal yachts ; of which two were employed in the public service at Pembroke and Woolwich, and two were reserved for the King's private use.
The sum of 9,3,422/. was voted for wages of persons employed in es- tablishments abroad, and 438,426/. for those of persons employed at home.
Sir JAMES Gaanaar said, that the practice of employing convicts in the Dockyards was to be discontinued. He regretted very much the distress necessarily occasioned by the reduction of persons employed in the Navy-yards. It was necessary, however, to turn off' many. He bad waited till the winter was over, before dismissing them, in order that they might get work in the summer months when it was easier to be obtained. Ile then proposed that 63,700/. should be granted to de- fray the expenses of new works and improvements. He wished to call the attention of the House to the unfinished state of the Plymouth Breakwater. It was considered desirable to case the western a nil with masonry, and to lay the foundation for a lighthouse at the extreme western end. This would cost 99,7011. ; and was strongly recom- mended by Sir John Rennie; to whose honour it should be mentioned, that while his estimate for the Breakwater was 1,200,000/. the expen- diture would not exceed 1,100,000/.
Mr. HUME thought, that what the engineer recommended ought to be done.
-Upon the stun of 871,85S/ being proposed for the payment of the Half-pay of the officers of the Navy and Marines, Mr. RUNE objected to so large a sum beina° required. He thought, that as vacancies oc- curred, officers should be taken from the half-pay, and put upou the full pay list. This was strongly opposed by Captain DUNDAS, and Sir. E. CODRINGTON,—on the ground of its being unjust to the Junior officers to see themselves superseded by old worn-out officers who could do no effective service to the country, while they checked time prefer. meta of young and vigorous men who would he of real use. Sir EDWARD also complained of the scanty half-pay allowed to officers of the Navy compared with the retiring allowances of those in the civil departments.
Several other votes were then passed ; and the Chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Wednesday.
7. REFORM OF THE CRIMINAL LAW. Mr. LENNARD, on Tuesday, inured for leave to bring in a bill . . to repeal so much of the 7th and 8th George IV. c. 9.9, s. 12, a-; enacts, that ii a ii person shall break and enter any dwellinghouse, and ste:: therein any dud, money, or valuable security, to any value whatever, or iall steal any such property to any value whatever in any dwellingliouse, or any pers,ai therein being
g put n fear, every such offender being convicted thereof, shall suffer death as a felon."
He said, that no real improvement could be effected in the criminal code, until something was done to remove that sanguinary and ferocious character, which Mirabeau bad described as exacting blood and pounds of flesh as the penalty for every offence. It was the opinion of Sir Samuel Romilly, and other friends of humanity, that the terror of capi- tal punishment ceased to operate when the chances of escape, arising from the unwillingness of the injured to prosecute and of juries to con- vict, were so numerous. He referred to some tables drawn up by Mr. Wrightson, a barrister ; which proved that the severity of the law defeated its efficiency. During the last seven years, the proportion of acquittals in England and Waces for capital offences was nearly 29, and for non-capital cases only about IS out of 100. The proportion of ac- quittals in London and Middlesex in capital eases was greater, because the proportion of executions was greater also. Under the old law, to steal in a dwellinghouse to the value of 40s. was a capital offence. Juries were in the habit then of findina° offenders guilty of stealing to the value of 39s. Sir Robert Peel therefore had raised the sum to 51. ; but since the passing of that law, 555 verdicts had been given against prisoners for stealing to the value of 99s., when it was clear that the amount actually stolen was much greater. The whole system was full of mischief. In several of the United States, and in Tuscany, the punishment of death was abolished. Sir James Mackintosh, when Recorder of Bombay, discontinued capital punishment during seven years, without any increase of crime being the consequence. Mr. Lennard wished to make the letter of the law agree with the practice. Instead of affixing the punishment of death to the offences of breaking into and stealing in dwellinghouses, he would empower the Judges to transport offenders, or to imprison them with hard labour.
Sir J. CAMPBELL (Solicitor-General) was desirous of abolishing the punishment of death whenever it was found practicable to do so. Crimes attended with violence, he feared must always be punished with death. Much had been lately done to mitigate the severity of our criminal code, which two years ago was one of unexampled severity. He fully concurred with Mr. Lennard in his wish for a careful and thoughtful revision of the criminal code; but he looked with fear at the multifarious notices for amendment of the law then on the books; there being no fewer than ten for alterations of the criminal and fifteen for the civil code.
Mr. Wvsna, strongly recommended Mr. Lennard to alter his motion, and move for a Committee on the laws in question. For the present, he should be sorry to see the House sanction such a bill as the one now proposed. It went too .far.
Mr. J. H. LLOYD supported the motion. Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON would advise Mr. .Lennard to withdraw /As motion, if he were assured that a Commission should be appointed I to inquire into the punishments, and the effects of punishments for all offences ag iinst property.
Mr EWART supported the motion. Mr. CORBETT was disgusted with the constant reference made to the practice and experience of foreign countries,—to France, America, and he knew not what country. What to them were the opinions of people abroad ? He knew nothing, and he wanted to know nothing, of the opinions of France on these matters. The Lord deliver him from French courts of justice ;—that's all he could say. Then as to Ame- rica—it was one of the articles in the Constitution of each State, that • their laws should be the same as the English. Every alteration which -we made in the common law of England, we always managed to make for the worse.
Mr. M. HILL strenuously supported Mr. Leonard's motion.
Ile regretted that a man of the talents of Mr. Cobbett should clothe himself in the worn-out vocabulary of prejudiced invective, so long worn only by the ignorant and the malevolent. If .11r. Cobbett's argument was good for any thing, it was for their returning.oninino to the state of things obtained in his lauded golden era of 1776. They should readopt the bloody penal code of that period ; they should reenact the capital punishments for minor offences then in force, with all the baneful consequences of such sanguivary enactments.
Leave was then given to bring in the bill.
8. JUVENILE OFFENDERS. Sir EARDLEY WILMOT, on Tuesday, moved to bring in a bill to alter and amend so much of the 7th and 8th of Geo. IV. c. 28, as related to proceedings in indictments against offenders previously convicted of felony; also to alter and amend so much of the 7th and 8th of 'Geo. IV. c. 29, as re- lated to proceedings by indictment against persons under seventeen years of age charged with simple larcenies.
He complained of the system of punishing boys for trifling offences by imprisonment among hardened criminals. During the last seven years, 1,300 individuals had been tried in the county of Warwick who were under the age of eighteen, and half of them under the age of fif- teen. Thus crime was spreading among the young; and our system of imprisoning them both before trial and afterwards, had a direct tendency to increase it.
One object of his bill Iva, to render a boy of tender age incapable of convic- tion for felony on the ground of a petty larceny; he would snake it a misde- meanour. This alteration in the law would remove the objmtiou which existed to dealing with such offenders without the intervention of a jury, and reconcile the mind-to summary convictions before Magistrates.
Mr. GEORGE LAMB would not object to the bill !wing brought in; but great doubts had been started as to the practicability of plans simi- lar to those proposed by Sir E. Wilmot for removing the evils corn. plain ed of. It was very well known, thatamongst the juvenile thieves and offenders taken up in London, there were boys as experienced as the oldest practitioners in guilt ; and it would surely be extremely unjust that such boys, who bad been actually nursed in crinm, should escape under cover of their age, and be treated as children, lie believed that the general opinion of the Committee that sat upon Secondary Punishments was, that any measure upon this particular subject would be unadvisable.
Sir T. FREEMANTLE said, if it were established that boys of a cer- tain age should be exempt from a certain degree of punishment, the old thieves in town would employ them to commit the most during robberies and offences.
Sir OSWALD MOSELY said— lie had known a boy in the country who, for stealing three eggs, was com- mitted to gaol for two months, and then brought up for trial with as much array of justice as if he had stolen as many- hundred pounds. One great evil was, that no proper distinction was made between le:ser and greater offences. If Magistrates at Petty Sessions should get a summary jurisdiction with regard to minor offences, three fourths of those offenders that were now sent to the Gene- ral Quarter-Sessions would be thus disposed of, at much less expense to the couutry, and with greater advantage to the public and to the offenders them- selves. He was also for giving Magistrates at Petty Sessions the power of sum- moning a Jury, which would be as fully competent to try the case as the Juries they met with at the General Quarter-Sessions ; and he would have a Jury em- . ployed wherever the offender called for its intervention.
Mr. CORBETT would not oppose the bringing in of the bill; but would oppose every future stage of it, if it increased the power of Ma- gistrates and dimimshed the use of Juries. If Magistrates were to be allowed to tiy offenders for felonies without Juries, they might soon have the power of banging them without Juries also. The Magistracy of England contained too many Clergymen and officers of the Army and Navy on the half-pay list—the most dependent men on earth.
The independence of their Judges was the constant boast of Englishmen that . the King himself could not displace the Judges was a remark repeatedly in the mouths of the people of this country. But just look to the Magistrates, and. behold the contrast! The Magistrates were nominated at the pleasure of the Minister of the Crown, they held their situations at tile pleasure of the Ministers of the Crown, and many of them could have their bread taken from them by the Minister of the Crown.
Mr. HARDY supported the motion, and defended the character of the Magistracy of England from the attacks of Mr. Cobbett. They were incapable of being Influenced by the base motives imputed to them.
Mr. CHARLES Bou.an. spoke in support of the measure.
He mentioned an instance in his own county where a boy was committed for stealing a mackerel, whose imprisonment and trial cost the county 401.; and yet when he was convicted, the Judge sentenced him to only one day's imprison- ment. He stated that he knew of another case where two boys who had stolen a few potatoes on a Sunday out of the open window of a store-house, and had roasted them at an adjoining lime-kiln, were taken up, and brought twenty miles to the county. gaol. They were afterwards tried and convicted ; and those boys, both before and after their conviction, were confined amongst a parcel of felons, some of whom were in prison for au offence that he should not name.
Mr. O'CONNELL entertained great repugnance to giving Magistrates summary jurisdiction over children without the intervention of a Jury.
From the statements they had heard that evening, it was plain that Magis- trates committed for the most ridiculous and farcical offences. It appeared to him that it was a great mistake to lay it down as a principle--a principle which he thought a very bad one—that an Englishman should not accuse - himself. If an Englishman committed a crime, who so good an evidence as himself? Why should not prisoners, when they were taken up upon a criminal charge be interrogated seas to come at the truth? The present Lord Mayor of London had been sneered at in some of the newspapers for exercising the
power of interrogating the prisoners brought before him ;_ but he thought it was a proof of great good sense on his part. He trusted the time would come interrogatories. Lord all prisoners would be subject to
Lord JOHN RUSSELL would not support the bill in its future stages, if the power of inflicting summary punishment was to be given to the Magistrates. He strongly approved of the principle of interrogating prisoners as to their guilt or innocence, though at the same time he thought that examinations should not be suffered to run into all the mazes of professional subtlety.
Sir EARDLEY WILMOT, in reply, stated that he would avail himself of the suggestions which had been thrown out in the course of the de- bate. His only object in introducing the measure was to do away with a notorious and extensive evil.
Leave was then given to bring in the bill.
9. COMMON LAW AMENDMENT BILL. Lord WYNFORD, On Tuesday, moved the second reading of this bill. He explained that its principal object was to lessen the expense of law proceedings ; by allowing the parties in a trial to examine each other before Commissioners who were to go within five miles of their residence, and who were to report to the Judge in chambers in London the result of this conference. The Judge, he expected, in a great many instances, would decide the ques- tion satisfactorily without going into Court ; to which, however, the parties might resort if they were dissatisfied. The Judges were in favour of his bill,—it was also recommended by the Common Law Commissioners.
Lord LYNDHURST denied that the Judges approved of the bill. He was utterly opposed to it. It would increase the expenses of going to law a hundredfold. Nothing good was done by it that was not better done at present by a bill of interrogatories. The bill was a most im- perfect and injudicious measure. He would move as an amendment, that it be read a second time that day six months.
Lord ELDON concurred with Lord Lyndhurst, and expressed his strong disapprobation of the bill.
Lord BROUGHAM was rather disposed to like the principle of the bill ; and he thought its details might be amended in Committee.
Lord WYNFORD spoke a few words in reply ; when the Gallery was cleared for a division; but none took place ; and Lord Lyndhurst's amendment for reading the bill that day six months was carried.
10. SEVERITY OF THE CRIMINAL LAW. Lord LYNDHURST, on Fri- day, moved for a return of the number of "cases of transmutation of sen- tences which took place in conviction for cattle-stealing and house- breaking, to the amount of 5/., up to the latest period to which such returns could be made." He complained in strong terms of the exist- ing state of the law, by which a lad who stole a lamb was punished as severely as an old offender, who stole a whole flock of sheep ; and by which a hungry wretch, who, pressed by famine, lifted the latch of a baker's shop and stole a loaf, was transported for life, while the most hardened gang of housebreakers receive no heavier punishment. The law which took away from the Judge the power of mitigating punish- ment, was productive of the worst consequences. Viscount MEL- MOURNE, Lord DACRE, Lord WYNFORD, and Lord SHAFTESBURY, made a few remarks, and the motion was agreed to.
11. LOCAL COURTS BILL. Lord BROUGHAM, on Thursday, at the request of Lord LYNDHURST, postponed the second reading of this bill. No day was fixed for the second reading.
12. ASSIZES BILL. Mr. EWART, on Monday, obtained leave to bring in a bill to authorize his Majesty to remove the Assizes in any county, to any place where, with the advice of his Council, he might think fit.
13. IRISH CHANGE OF VENUE BILL. Sir JOHN HODHOUSE moved, on Thursday, that the House resolve itself into a Committee on this bill. He mentioned several instances in which jurors and witnesses had been prevented from doing their duty, by the threats of the White- feet. It was necessary for the due administration of justice, that the court should have the power of removing the accused for trial to the tranquil parts of the country.
Mr. O'CONNELL denounced the measure as tyrannical and quite unne- cessary. Almost every man who was tried at the last Assizes was con- victed. In Queen's County, there were 49 trials and 48 convictions. In Kilkenny, every Whitefoot had been convicted. He moved an amendment; that the bill be referred to a Select Committee.
After some remarks by Sir Joitar CAMPBELL and Sir R. INGLIS, the House went into Committee ; in which Mr. FITZGERALD moved an amendment to exclude the city of Dublin from the operation of the bill. The House divided : for the amendment, 19; against it, 84; majority, 65. The Chairman then reported progress, and the bill was ordered to be recommitted next day.
14. PROCLAIMING OF KILKENNY. Mr. O'CONNELL, on Wednesday, moved for certain returns relative to the proclaiming of Kilkenny. lie
wished to have a copy of the despatch of the Lord Lieutenant, contain- ing the reasons for proclaiming the city of Kilkenny; also a return of the number of persons who had been committed to the gaol of that city, with an account of the offences with which they were charged. He maintained that it was wanton and unnecessary tyranny to proclaim the city of Kilkenny.
The city, it should be known, contained 25,000 inhabitants, and had strag- gling suburbs tracing into the county. In those suburbs there had, he too well knew, been three or four Whitefeet offences; but they furnished no valid ground for proclaiming the city. The night before this harsh and uncalled-for measure, there was what he might term a little melancholy merriment amongst the peo- ple. Music was provided; and when night was fast closing in, many of those melancholy airs were played which were for ever wedded to the Irish mind by the series of calamities inflicted on her by this country. Thesecond night came on; but they were interfered with by the Lord Lieutenant issuing his proclatna- tion,—which, to call despotic, was to treat it lightly, for it was, in fact, most brutal. [A good deal of conversation had been gomg on since the commence- ment of Mr. O'Connell's remarks.] The House was careless. Why should it not be? It was only an act of despotism he was complaining of; it was only an added insult—a new wrong upon his unfortunate country. He was obliged to raise his voice beyond its usual pitch, for the poor chance of getting some one on the other side of the table to hear him. The proclamation of which be com- plained was signed, to his astonishment, by several of the Judges. He was as-
sured that the reason Why the city of Kilkenny had bi.ea proclaimed was, that i the officers who were doing duty n that county might have the benefit of good accommodation. He believed he should be able to show that this was the sea- son if he was allowed to have a copy of the despatch from the Lord-Lieutenant
or the Secretary of Ireland, stating the reason why that city had been proclaimed. If the despatch was produced, the reason he had stated would be found to be avowed. But it would not be produced—it would be suppressed ; and he knew that it was of little use for him to appeal to that House, who were not inclined to listen to appeals on behalf of Ireland.
Sir JOHN HORHOUSE refused to give a copy of the despatch ; he did not object to the return of the committals, though that would give a' wrong impression, as out of ten offences there were not more than two. or three committals. The city of Kilkenny was proclaimed, to pre. vent its becoming an asylum to the Whitefeet, who would take refuge in it when driven from the country. The inhabitants were well pleased to have it proclaimed.
Mr. SULLIVAN thought that the ground for inflicting the act upon the city of Kilkenny ought to he stated openly. It was most unnecessary, and very injurious to the city it had already prevented the usual sup- plies of provisions from being brought to market.
Sir J. CAMPBELL (Solicitor-General) said, the Magistrates of Kit.. kenny petitioned that the Coercion Bill might be passed, in order that it might be put in operation in the county. Now, but for the acciden- tal circumstance of the city being a county of itself, it would necessarily. have been included within the terms of the proclamation regarding the county of Kilkenny. Why was that mere accident to make a difference in the conduct of the Government, and to make them neglect the means of preserving the peace of the city ?
Mr. Hum% Mr. D. W. IL-Inver, Mr. AGLIONBY, Sir S. WHALLEY", and Mr. O'DwYen, strongly disapproved of the conduct of Govern- ment in proclaiming the city; and considered that Mr. O'Comiell'S motion for information should have been acceded to.
Sir W. HORNE ( A ttorney- General) and Mr. SPRING RICE defended the non-production of the papers. Mr. then asked, What would have been the consequence, had the city of Kilkenny, situate as it Wilti in the heart of the county, been permitted to remain as a sanctuary for all offenders—a place where the Whitefeet might resort for protection from the law, and whence they might send out their illegal expeditions ? It would have been utterly impossible to carry the Act into effect in the county of Kilkenny. without placing the city within the proclamation. Mr. O'CONNELL replied. He bad been told, when he complained of the possible abuse of this Act, that he had only to come to a Reformed Parliament, and he would find Government ready to give its reasons. Of course it would, if it had any. But the only at- tempt at a reason was, that the powers of the Act must be applied to the city of Kilkenny, because the place might be an asylum. But the word "asylum," was not in the Act; the Act spoke only of places in an insubordinate at4 disturbed state' Kilkenny was not in such a state, and the proclamation was a lie. This had been admitted by the Secretary for Ireland, and by the Attorney and Solicitor-General; for they admitted that there had been no outrage, no clinic ; yet the Lord-Lieutenant had issued such a proclamation.
The House then divided : for the motion, 28; against it, 115; ma- jority, 87.
1.5. Com:la:rat SLAVERY. MI. STANLEY, on Thursday, postponed the Goverianent statement upon this subject, from Tuesday next to. Tuesday die 14th of May.
10. SAYINGS BANES. Lord ALTHORP, on Tuesday, moved the first reading of a bill to enable persons to purchase small annuities through the means of the Savings Banks. He entered into a detail of the advantages which would arise from enabling poor persons, by a small monthly payment, to secure an annuity for life which would render them comfortable in their old age. The peculiarity of the scheme con- sists in providing for the return of the amount paid for the annuity, to the representatives of the purchaser, in case of his death happening previously to his coaling into the receipt of the annuity.
After some remarks from Mr. T. Arrwoon and Mr. PEASE, the bill was read a first time.
17. SCOTII BURGH REFORM. Mr. KENNEDY, on Tuesday, in the absence of the Lord Advocate, obtained leave to bring in several bills for the reform of the Royal and other Burghs of Scotland. '
IS. CORPORATION OF LAUNCESTON. Sir W. MOLESWORTH, Ora Wednesday, presented a petitIon from the inhabitants of Launceston, complaining of the corrupt state of their corporation : it was under the complete control of die Duke of Northumberland, who had lately made his gamekeeper an Alderman. Sir HENRY HARDINGE said, the game- keeper was a man of property, who received no wages from the Duke, but havine° a fondness for shooting, the Duke had given him the depu- tation of his manor. Mr. C. tunntit said, the gamekeeper received 50/. per annum from the Duke, and it was his principal means of support. Sir H. HARDINGE reiterated his statement, on the faith of letters from respectable people at Launceston. The petition Iva§ referred to the Corporation Committee.
19. CUSTOMS CONSOLIDATION BILL. On Wednesday, this bill was read a second time on the motion of Mr. SPRING RICE. It consolidates into one bill the following ten statutes, without adding new provisions to any of them—British Possessions Act, Registry of Vessels Act, Customs Duties Act, Customs Management Act, Customs Bounties Act, Customs Regulation Act, Isle of Man Trade Act, Warehousing Act, Smuggling Act, and Navigation Act.
20. POLICE-OFFICES. Mr. GEORGE LAMB, on Monday, moved the second reading of the London Police-Office Bill. He stated, that it was a consolidation of former acts. It was intended to abolish the Whitechapel Office, to take one Magistrate from each office, and to give the power of conviction to a single Magistrate. Mr. HAWES said, he would not object to the second reading of the bill, if Mr. Lamb would consent to a Committee to inquire into the whole of the Police system. Mr. LAMB said, he would not object to such a Committee; and the bill was read a second time.
21. BEER SIIOPS. The MARQUIS OF CIIANDOS moved, 011 Thurs./. day, for a Select Committee to inquire into the state and management of beer-houses ; which, after some remarks from Lord Avritone, Mr. HUME, Mr. BARING, Mr. 'WARBURTON, and Colonel WOOD, was ap- pointed. 22. &ram. II ETURNS. Mr. Comirrr, on Tuesday, moved for certain returns relative to the salaries and emoluments of the Commissioners, Solicitors, and other officers in the Stamp departments. LordAerunue objected to the motion, on aceouut of the great_expense it Would occa- sion; and it was accelingly negatived. 23. PAYMENT OF DEBTS BILL. This bill, which renders real estate liable to the payment of simple contract debts, was read a second time last night, on the motion of Mr. J. ROMILLY.
24. GAME-LAW MLL. Mr. LINNARD, on Wednesday, moved the second reading of this bill. Mr. FYSHE PALMER objected to legislating again on the subject, till the bill of 1831 had had a fair trial. Mr. HORATIO Ross moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months. Mr. LAMB opposed the bill. The House divided : for the amendment, 43; for the second reading, 29; majority against the bill, 14.
2. MARYLERONE ELECTION. Sir ROBERT INGLIS, OR Tuesday, moved that the time for entering into recognizancee on the 'Marylebone election petition be enlarged to the 22d April. The recognizances had ;lot been entered into by the petitioners, Abraham Wilkinson and John Kates, owing to the neglect of the agept. The SPEAKER said, the petitioners must be called to the bar to verify their statement. Mr. HOME and Mr. O'CONNELL said, there was no ground for calling them to the bar. The failure to enter into the recognizances was owing to the gross neglect of the petitiselers,and there was no ground for the in- dulgence asked for. The House divided : for extending the term, 22; against it, 61; majority, 40. The election of Sir S. Whalley therefore stands unchallenged.
26. CARRICKFERGUS ELECTION. Mr. O'CONNELL., OR Monday, brought up the report of the Carrickfergus Election Committee.
It stated, that Conwv nit:bard Dobbs, was not duly elected, that the late election for the town it Carrickfergus was void, and that neither the petition nor the opposition thereto was frivolous or vexatious. The Committee had come to a resolution that there had been most gross and scandalous bribery and treating on both sides at the late election, amd although it did not appear that Mr. Dobbs personally took a part in corrupt practices, yet his return had been procured by means of them through his friends and agents ; that a large pro- portion of the constituency had been influenced in their votes by bribery ; that corrupt practices had prevailed, not only on the occasion of the late election, but at former elections ; and, lastly, that great expense had been occasioned by delay in the production of certain documents required in the progress of the case.
The report having been brought up, Mr. O'Connell moved that the evidence be printed, and that time writ be suspended till the 15th May, as the Committee were unanimously of opinion that a case had been made out for altering the constituency of the town, if not for wholly disfranchising it.
27. LONDONDERRY ELECTION. Mr. WARBURTON, on Monday, brought up the report of the Londonderry Election Committee; which was ordered to be printed.
The report declared the sitting member $ir R. A. Ferguson to be duly electeo, the petition against his return to be frivolous and vexatious, and that an exten- sive system of treating, accompanied by other corrupt practices, had been car- ried on previonAv to and during the late election by the Independent Club, con- sisting of men all opposed to the sit iitg member, who was not implicated in those practices. The Coinmittee also reprobate:I the conduct of Mr. George Hill, the Mayor, and returning-officer, for not verifying the poll-books on oath, nor certifying that they had not been altered in any way.
28. BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION. Lord JOHN RUSSELL, on Tuesday, obtained leave to bring in a bill to provide for the trial of petitions complaining of bribery and corroption in cities and boroughs sending members to Parliament.
29. Mr. HALCOMB'S QUALIFICATION. Mr. HALcome applied, last night. to have the time extended for giving in the particulars of his qualification by a single day. Mr. WyNx moved that the consideration of the question be adjourned to Monday ; which was negatived, by a majority of 54 to 46. Mr. Wvsie afterwards said, he was fivourable to the extension of time asked fur by Mr. Halcomb. Mr. AICRRAY and Mr. G. LAMB were opposed to it. The SPEAKER said, that • the Committee on the petition against Mr. Halcomb's return would decide on time question of qualification or no qualification ; and the petitioners might appeal to the House against the infraction of the Standing Order, if they felt themselves aggrieved by it. The House then rejected Mr. Halcomb's request, by a majority of 54 to 36.
Previous page
