moved the postponement of the order for the second reading of the West India Revenues Bill. After some discussion between Mr. Marryatt, Mr. Brown, Mr. Cochrane Johnstone, Mr. Rochdale, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Bill was ordered to be read a second time that day three weeks.

observed, that it was not the intention of ministers to press this Bill through during the present session. He would now merely correct a misapprehension, which was, that the public would be incumbered with a fresh expence: on the contrary, 2,000l. of the new salary would be taken from the profits of the Chancellor, though his business would not be at all diminished.

did not see how the Chancellor would have the same business, if a vice-chancellor was to be appointed: and if more than 2,000l. worth of business was taken from him, more than 2,000l. of salary should likewise be deducted.

stated, that the business of the Chancellor would be the same: the vice-chancellor would do that business which was now left undone, and would be paid in part out of the fees of the Chancellor. Ministers would renew the measure at the beginning of next session. He would now move that the Bill be read that day two months.—Ordered.

moved the third reading of this Bill.

opposed the Bill as perfectly unnecessary in the present state of the country. He pointed out the tendency it must necessarily have to excite disturbance and disaffection whenever attempted to be put in execution; and the dangerous situation in which it would place those individuals who might be deprived of their arms in consequence of it.

considered the present Bill rather as an aberration from the practice than the principles of the constitution. He defended the conduct of the magistrates of the country, which, though in all large bodies there might be found some exceptions, was in general distinguished for the utmost mildness and humanity. Much as he deplored the necessity for the Bill, he conceived that necessity was sufficiently proved to the House, though he hoped it might never be found necessary to carry the Bill into execution, and that the disturbances would subside of themselves.

objected to the clause relating to searching for arms. He did not think that there was sufficient evidence before the House to warrant them in going the length of that clause in trenching upon the rights and liberties of the subject. The House ought to know what was the state of the countries said to be disturbed since the repeal of the laws which obstructed their manufactures. The information on which the present Bill was founded, was dated in February, March, April, and May last, and the House had had no information since the 23d of June on the subject. His information was, that the people were returning faster than the most sanguine could have expected to their regular habits. He should therefore vote against the Bill, on account of the objectionable clauses contained in it.

objected to the Bill, as calculated to violate every principle of a free constitution. If a power was given to break open houses in search of arms, such a power would necessarily lead to the commission of the greatest outrages. Such a power ought not to be entrusted to the hands of any persons whatsoever, except in the case of the most urgent necessity. It was because he was most firmly convinced that such a necessity did not exist, that he had opposed the present Bill in every stage of its progress. He called on the noble lord opposite, to communicate some evidence to the House, to shew them that the state of the country was such as he had represented it. It was not enough for the noble lord to deal in dark and vague surmises; he ought to establish his proposition in a satisfactory manner. This, however, he had never yet thought proper to do. While the noble lord was apparently unable to bring forward any evidence that the country was in a state of disturbance, there was positive information on the table of the House, that it was now restored to tranquillity. He wished to draw the attention of the House to the contradiction in the conduct of the noble lord during the progress of the Bill. When he introduced it to the House, his chief reason for inducing the House to grant such excessive powers, was, that no danger could be apprehended from magistrates resident in the country, and who had so great an interest at stake; and then at a late hour of the night, when no person could entertain the least apprehension of such a step, the noble lord came forward, by way of what he called a technical alteration, with a power to nominate magistrates without many qualification whatever. So much for the reliance which could be placed in the noble lord. The Bill went altogether on a false principle, assuming the existence of an array, whereas it had been stated to the House, by several respectable members of the committee, that there was not the smallest evidence for such an assumption. He would object to the Bill on the ground of experience. He had seen a similar measure adopted by government, and acted upon in another country, where it had produced the greatest possible mischief. He was convinced that many persons were then driven to disaffection by the outrages committed against themselves and their families.

, said, before the act alluded to by the hon. gentleman who spoke last, had passed, Ireland was in a state of the greatest confusion. The outrages, which no man lamented more than himself, were not the cause, but the effect, of the disturbances of that country.

was perfectly willing that a measure should be adopted adequate to put an end to the disturbances in the interior, but he thought that the provisions introduced regarding arms, were altogether unnecessary, particularly if ministers placed any reliance on the efficacy of the previous sections of the Bill against unlawful assemblies; because without the existence of those meetings, the seizure of arms by the rioters could not be effected. He begged to state to the House three amendments that he had proposed in the committee, and it would be seen that they were such as ought to have been included in this measure, although they were peremptorily rejected by the noble lord and his friends. They were as follows: 1. That the power of entering a man's dwelling house should be conferred upon two magistrates instead of one. 2. That the magistrates should be subjected to some degree of responsibility in committing this act of violence, by the insertion of the words "upon any reasonable ground of suspicion." 3. That the magistrate should not have power to make search for arms during the night. In consequence of the negation of these propositions, he felt himself called upon to resist the measure, and should take the sense of the House upon it.

declared, that the evidence as to the seizure of arms was already complete, but he could add, that this very morning information had been given at the office of the Secretary for the Home Department, that no less than eight new attempts of that kind had been made within these few days. He admitted that the disturbed districts were now more tranquil, but how could the House be assured that the flame would not be re-kindled before the next session.

, wished to be informed in point of law, to what punishment a peaceable inhabitant would be subjected, who should kill a constable duly authorized to search for arms, but who was mistaken for a rioter?

called the attention of the House to the inconvenience arising from such mistakes, which might often prove fatal.

thought, that the constable of the parish would be sufficiently known to render all danger of that kind merely imaginary.

proposed the following amendment to be inserted in the Bill by way of rider. "Provided always that it shall and may be lawful for his Majesty, by and with the advice of his privy conncil, to declare such districts as are now subject to the operation of this act, to be no longer in a state of disturbance, and that this act shall no longer be in force in such districts."

approved of the amendment, and wished the clause to be so drawn as to include counties that might hereafter be disturbed. It was rendered the less necessary, however, by the shortness of the duration of the Bill.

The House then divided upon the question, that the Bill be read a third time. For the third reading 69; Against it 15; Majority 54. The further proceeding upon the Bill was then postponed for an hour, for the purpose of having Mr. Tierney's amendment added by way of rider, after it should have been engrossed.

said, that as it might be of considerable importance to ascertain in how far Great Britain had of late years been dependent upon foreign countries for the requisite supplies of grain, and in how far also we had been enabled at different periods to export corn from this country to others, he was desirous that returns should be procured of the quantity imported and exported during the course of the last twenty years, and having communicated his wish to his hon. friend the Secretary of the Treasury, he had been informed, that it might be complied with, without much difficulty or delay. He availed himself of this opportunity to state, that it had been his intention to introduce a Bill on the subject of General Inclosures, similar to that which had passed through this House without opposition in the year 1797, under the auspices of a right hon. relative of his, who had formerly held a seat in this House; but which had not been equally fortunate in another place. Considering however, the advanced period of the session, and the pressure of important business before the House, he should postpone for the present the measure he had intended to propose; but should certainly bring it forward if parliament again assembled. The hon. member concluded by moving for an account of the quantity of grain imported into, and exported from, Great Britain, from the year 1792 to 1811 inclusive, distinguishing each species, the price of the year, &c.

begged the House would give its attention to this Bill, as one of great importance to a very great number of the poor industrious people of Ireland; it was a Bill not only objectionable on general principles, but also for the great variety and severity of its penal regulations. He was, in principle, an enemy to every description of legislative interference with matters of trade, as it always failed in its avowed object of doing good, and as it was commonly productive of great patronage to the authors of it, and great oppression to the poorer classes of those who fell under it.—In his opinion, the natural competition belonging to trade was a much more certain security against abuses in it, than such a law as this, which sought perfection by fines, distress and imprisonment. It professed only to continue the existing laws, and to be founded on the same reasons. But the preamble of it was in direct variance with the preambles of those laws. It recited, that in consequence of the great increase of the butter trade, it was expedient to enact, &c.—Whereas the preamble of the law of William 3, stated great abuses to prevail, by the using of bad casks, false weights, and other practices, which brought the trade into disrepute. We heard now of no such complaints; so far from it, the trade was in the most flourishing state, and the very reason on which the Bill was founded, the great extent of it, was the precise reason for no such measure being wanting; as it was sufficiently established not to want the protection of legislative regulation. The market for it, in point of fact, was so very certain, that nothing else was requisite, than common honesty on the part of the exporting merchants, to preserve and improve it. Though it was said this Bill was approved of by the buyers and exporters of butter, the opinion of the farmers and makers of it had never been consulted, or the persons against whom the penal clauses were to operate. Their sentiments should, in common justice, be collected; and even if the Bill should be deemed wanting by a majority of the House, no injury could arise from postponing it till next session, as the existing laws would remain in force till the end of that session. To pass such a Bill, making every farmer who brought butter to market liable to such a code of penalties, without giving him an opportunity of being heard in this House, was, in his opinion, a most unjustifiable and cruel proceeding. This Bill required of the farmer to comply with no less than fifteen penal regulations. If he failed in any one, he was liable to pay a sum of money—in failure of which, to have his goods distrained; and in failure of having sufficient goods, to be committed to prison. It in fact did no less than place him at the mercy of some deputy weigh-master or taster, whether or not he should have liberty to sell his butter; for it was nearly impossible that regulations so numerous and so precise could be accurately complied with by the very poor and ignorant persons who are the makers of the greater part of the Irish butter. This Bill, like all of its kind, contained ample provisions for creating patronage, and endowing those who were to be the objects of it. Weigh-masters and tasters were to be appointed in every market town in Ireland, and fees, amounting to 4d. on each half hundred weight of butter, were to be paid to them by the seller. This would be a tax on the article of a very enormous amount, as every one must see who considers the quantities of butter made for exportation and home consumption. But these were not the only grievances; as the casks are to be branded before they are sold, no cooper could make them, unless he lived in a town where there was a weigh-master appointed to brand his casks. No farmer could buy a cask without going to such a town, which might be many miles distant from him. All he desired at present was time for further consideration, and to allow the Bill to be known to those most concerned in it—In regard to several of the clauses that were the most objectionable, as the right hon. gentleman had agreed to expunge them, he would not trouble the House by exposing their defects. He should move as an amendment, that the Bill be read this day three months.

After some conversation between Mr. W. Pole, Mr. French, and Mr. Herbert of Kerry, the House divided on Mr. Parnell's Amendment. For the Bill 67. For the Amendment 35; Majority in favour of the Bill 32. The Bill was then read a third time and passed.

moved the order of the day for the third reading of the Bill to repeal certain acts, and amend other acts, relating to Religious Worship and Assemblies, and Persons teaching or preaching therein.

said, that the unanimity with which the present Bill had passed through the House, was a most favourable omen of the increasing liberality of the present times. He could have wished that this Bill had gone a little further, and had granted complete religious liberty. As an Act of Toleration it was certainly the most complete which had hitherto been passed in this country.

The Toleration Act had been formerly construed by the magistrates as enabling them at their discretion, to refuse qualifications, instead of confining the exemptions within the bounds of the law. A noble lord (Sidmouth) had attempted to rectify, by his Bill, the misconstrctions which had taken place, but this Bill gave great alarm to the Dissenters in general. He must however perfectly acquit the noble lord of any hostile feelings towards the Dis- senters, and was sure that he meant this Bill for their good, but they differed in opinion from his lordship as to the probable effects of it. He thought that the present Bill would remove the practical evils which the Dissenters had to complain of, although it did not recognise the great principle which they maintained, that the civil magistrate had no right to interfere in matters of religious opinions, and that every man was to profess or promulgate any religious opinions, provided he did not disturb the public peace. Mr. Perceval had consented, that what had been the practice with respect to the Dissenters, should be made law, and the present Bill, (so far from meriting the opprobrious epithets which had been bestowed upon it in another place) would be felt by all the Dissenters as a great advantage gained, inasmuch as it removed the arbitrary discretion of magistrates, and required no other oath except the oath of allegiance. He would have wished that the Bill had gone farther, and recognised religious liberty to its utmost extent, but as it stood, he conceived it a great point gained. He concluded by moving a clause, "to continue the exemptions now enjoyed under the Toleration Act, without requiring a fresh oath."

said, that he concurred with the hon. gentleman in congratulating the House on the general acquiescence and unanimity with which this important measure had been carried to its last stage. He conceived this union of sentiments on a subject so apt to awaken prejudice and excite jealousy, a most satisfactory proof that the spirit of religious animosity was fast subsiding in this country, and a temper gradually establishing itself far more conformable to the principles and favourable to the interest of genuine Christianity.

He could not indeed have felt any pleasure in this unanimity, if he had considered it as proceeding from an indifference to religious opinions in general, and a willingness to shew equal favour to all persuasions because the nation was growing careless as to any.

But it gave him peculiar pleasure when viewed in conjunction with the other proceedings of the legislature, and when he considered that the same parliament which had shewn the utmost liberality of sentiment towards the Dissenters, had been no less distinguished by its bountiful regard to the interests of the established Church.

It had not been deterred by the difficulties of a period of such extraordinary exertion and expence from providing for the wants of the parochial clergy by grants of unexampled munificence; besides the discharge of the land tax on small livings, to the value of at least 200,000l. and which commenced in 1806, direct grants had been made for their augmentation amounting in the four last years to no less than 400,000l.

It was with sentiments of pleasure and admiration, mingled with the deepest regret for what had since occurred, that he recollected that these grants, not less novel in their nature than liberal in their amount, had been proposed to the House by the friend whom he had lost—the minister to whose unsullied virtues all parties had united in paying the just tribute of their applause and grief. Among the many titles of deserved encomium which a lamenting nation might inscribe on the tomb of such a man and such a minister, there could not be one more honourable or more justly merited than that of the Benefactor of the Church of England. But to his liberal and conciliatory spirit, the Dissenters also owed the first design of this beneficial Bill, introduced into parliament by the noble lords now at the head of the government, and conducted to its last stage in that House with such general approbation. The honourable gentleman had observed, that this was a Bill of complete toleration, but not of religious liberty. He (Mr. Vansittart) did not well understand how religious liberty, as it respected the parties concerned in the Bill, could be carried farther; or how that system which allowed to every man perfect freedom in the exercise of public worship, according to the sentiments of the sect he might embrace, could be denied to be a system of religious liberty.

He was aware that the hon. gentleman thought some further provisions necessary for the protection of a particular sect, and had intended to propose a Bill for that purpose. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) believed there were many persons belonging to that sect, highly respectable for their moral virtues, and eminent for their charitable dispositions, and he most sincerely desired they should enjoy, what every man was entitled to, the power of worshipping God according to the dictates of their own consciences. But he was glad that the hon. gent. had withdrawn his intended motion, as he did not believe the persons in question had suffered, or were in any danger of suffering, any practical restraint upon their worship, and he thought the Bill intended by the hon. gent. would have given great offence to many well-meaning persons, by apparently leaving doctrines which were viewed with the most sacred veneration, not only by members of the established Church, but by the great body of the Dissenters, exposed to irreverent and contumelious treatment. In a future session, means might perhaps be devised to reconcile the respect due to those doctrines with a full protection to the decent profession of the opinions of those who might dissent from them.

With respect to the Bill immediately before the House, and which had met with such general concurrence, he should think it necessary only to state, that it had in view the repeal of laws founded upon a state of society totally different from the present, and containing provisions, which, if they had not been long obsolete in practice, would have been found intolerably grievous. He did not believe that they had for many years past been productive of actual hardships; but this was no reason for preserving on the statute book acts which could not be executed without oppression, which no longer operated as any protection either to the ecclesiastical or civil government, and the very existence of which unavoidably gave occasion to disunion and dissatisfaction. They were the relics of religious animosity and civil faction, and sprang from the embers of a civil war then recently extinguished, and were both in their spirit and their provisions wholly unsuited to times of settled tranquillity, and mutual liberality of sentiment.

The exercise of the public worship of the Dissenters could not however be left wholly without regulation. Two regulations were preserved by the Bill, and appeared to him of great importance. First, that their places of meeting should not be secret, but should be publicly known, and that the meetings themselves should not be of a clandestine nature, but open and avowed. The first of these objects was attained by providing that the places of meeting should be licensed and registered, and the second by the clause which requires that the doors of the meetings should not be locked or barred during the performance of the service.

These precautions are necessary to pre- vent the possible danger of clandestine meetings for dangerous purposes, under the colour and pretext of religious worship. They are also useful in vindicating the character, and preserving the credit and respect due to the divine service of the Dissenters. We know how readily suspicion attaches itself to, and malevolence attacks the conduct of secret meetings. We know that the meetings of the earliest Christians, the purest, the most pious, and benevolent of mankind, were not exempt from such attacks, on account of the secrecy with which, in times of persecution, they were necessarily conducted, and that various sects of Christians at different, and even in recent times, have, with more or less appearance of reason, been exposed to the most disgraceful suspicions. But against all unfounded accusations, the publicity of the service is the surest and most effectual protection.

With respect to a clause about to be proposed by the hon. gent. for facilitating the process by which dissenting teachers were to obtain the exemptions from certain civil and military duties to which they were legally entitled, he saw no objection, provided that were the sole object of the clause, and that it did not extend the exemptions themselves. He wished as much as the hon. gent. that every indulgence which could be afforded to the Dissenters should be granted in the kindest manner, and should be not only effectual to its purpose, but attainable with the least possible difficulty or inconvenience.

But he thought those exemptions liable to great abuse, unless strictly confined to persons whose whole time was devoted to religious duties. Those whose lives were entirely devoted to the purposes of religious instruction were undoubtedly entitled to be liberated, so far as was practicable, from secular cares and charges: but those who employed themselves in temporal occupations for their own benefit, might also be justly called upon to discharge them for the benefit of society.^*

^* This clause was admitted by the House of Commons, but afterwards rejected by the Lords as carrying the exemption further than had been intended.

said he had examined the Bill, and he found it was the same he had himself intended to have brought in. He drew the same happy inferences from the silent progress of this Bill as were drawn by his hon. friend, and he hoped it would continue till the great work of religious freedom received its final consummation, convinced as he was, that the strength of the Established Church rested in the freedom of religious opinions.

The clause was then brought up and agreed to, and the Bill read a third time and passed.