presented a petition from the inhabitants of Wandsworth, in the county of Surrey, praying the House not to permit the second reading of the Bill introduced for the better Observance of the Sabbath. The petitioners gave, as their opinion, that the Observance of the Sabbath was better kept now than informer years; and that any further enactments would only go to create dissatisfaction and schism. The hon. Member bore testimony to the respectability of the petitioners, who, he Stated, comprised above 200 of the oldest inhabitants of Wandsworth. If he thought for a moment that fine and imprisonment could tend to the propagation and support of the Christian religion, he would willingly vote for the present Bill; but, conscientiously believing the contrary, he could not support it in any of its Clauses.

felt the greatest pleasure in bearing testimony to the respectability of the petitioners, but he thought it right to state, that he could not concur altogether in the prayer of the petition, that no legislative enactment whatever should take place on the subject. He had al. ready presented a great many petitions from different parts of the country to the House, and they all prayed that some law might be introduced for the better Observance of the Sabbath-day. He could not, certainly, give his consent to the Bill as at present introduced; but, at the same time, it was very necessary that some legislative enactment should take place; and he believed all parties agreed that it should go to the extent of the entire suppression of Sunday trading ["Hear, hear!"]. He was very glad to hear those cheers, for it convinced him that there were Members of that House of the same opinion. The measure was called for by the industrious classes of the country, to enable them to enjoy a day of rest free from the ordinary demands made upon them during the other days of the week. To that extent he would give his support to the Bill of the hon. Baronet. Whether the Bill after the second reading would undergo such an alteration or not as would make it palatable to the country, he could not say, but he should be very sorry if no Bill whatever were carried through; and he was quite sure that in saying so, he expressed the opinion of the whole of the moral, enlightened, and religious people of the kingdom.

wished to set his hon. colleague right as to the prayer of the petition. It did not pray that no law whatever might be passed on the subject, but that no measure which might tend to restrict the innocent amusements of the people might be passed. The hon. Baronet's Bill went to shut the gates of the Park, which he quite objected to, though he had no objection to any measure which merely had for its object the prevention of Sunday trading.

was glad to hear the observations of the hon. member for Surrey regarding the Bill of the hon. Baronet, for he believed that many of the Members of that House had yet to learn the real purport of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman had said, that the object of the hob. Baronet was chiefly to protect the poor man in the enjoyment of a day of rest. Now, he could assure the House that every one of the provisions of the Bill had a directly contrary tendency; for it would compel the poor man's wife to cook his Sunday's dinner at home, instead of being able to have it done at the baker's. He was in favour of some alteration in the state of the law as it regarded the Sabbath, provided that legislation could improve the morality of the people, without interfering with their innocent recreations. He wished, and the people wished, for such a Bill as would prevent trading, so that they might be relieved of the toil and labour of the week, without suffering loss. He did not mean to speak of the motives of the hon. Baronet who brought in the Bill; but he could not help saying, whatever were the motives which he cherished, this Bill seemed to have the intention, and would have the effect, of preventing the people from enjoying themselves quietly, peaceably, innocently, and calmly on the Sabbath day. The steam-boats were not to be allowed to go down the river, and everything was to be done to confine within the unwholesome purlieus and dense houses of this metropolis those industrious artizans, who, confined closely to their workshops all the week, had an opportunity only one day out of seven to enjoy the fresh and healthful air of the surrounding country. His great objection to this Bill was its inequality. The poor man would be prevented from riding on horseback, because he had to hire the horse; but the rich man keeping a horse of his own would be permitted to ride or drive when and where he pleased. If the Bill were passed, he would move a clause, that if a gentleman's carriage or servant were seen in the streets on the Sunday, the master should be fined 50l. He would also move that Hyde Park should be shut up, and not a single beau or belle should be seen there; so that the whole metropolis should be converted into one solemn scene of unmitigated gloom and fanaticism.

presented a petition from nearly 4,000 in Merthyr Tydvil, in favour of the Beer Shops. This petition was a very singular one— almost every person who had signed it, had signed it by affixing not their names but their marks; they could not write, therefore it was, in every respect, to be considered the petition of the poor man, and entitled on this subject to great attention. The petitioners denied that the increase of crime was in any degree owing to the Beer Shops; and he was decidedly of opinion, not only that that statement was correct, but that there was no increase of crime. Proof of increase of crime did not depend on the number of committals, or even on the number of convictions; but on the state, habits, and manners of the people. The state of the people had been improving for the last thirty years—the mode of spending their lives and their earnings had been regularly improving. Mr. Place, of Charing-cross, who was originally in humble circumstances, and was peculiarly well able to form an opinion on this subject, had told him lately, that forty years ago, in the alleys and courts of the neighbourhood in which he lived, almost every woman was a prostitute, and almost every man a thief ["laughter"]. Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, though the subject when properly considered, was far from being a laughable one; at present that very neighbourhood was occupied by exceedingly respectable and industrious persons; and it had been proved that a similar change had taken place in many other parts of London. He had other petitions to present, and those petitions were from persons in prison praying for relief, but as none of his Majesty's Ministers were in their places, it was impossible for him to present them. He thought it a serious cause of complaint that the petitions of the people were not listened to by his Majesty's Ministers. When it was first proposed that the sittings should be at twelve o'clock, it was distinctly stated, that there would always be at least one Minister present, but that had not been attended to. If the newspaper reporters were not present, neither the Ministers of the Crown, nor the public would know anything about the presentations of petitions in that House, which had become a mere farce. There were none of the Ministers present and the benches were nearly empty.

said, that he was happy to see one petition on the subject of the beer shops which contained common sense. It appeared to him, that most of the petitions which had been presented to the House proceeded from persons who had not duly considered what would be the effect if the Sale of Beer Act were repealed. By that Act, which had been so much abused, he thought most absurdly and unjustly, the poor man could now buy his pot of beer for 4d. instead of 7d., which he had paid during the reign of monopoly. The consumption of malt since the passing of that Bill had increased nearly one third; and the additional demand for barley arising from that increased consumption of malt was of vast importance to the agriculturist. For his part, he trusted, that the House would not concur in any measure which would interfere with the most perfect freedom of trade in beer. If any well-considered regulations for maintaining order in the beer-houses should be found necessary, to them he should make no objection; but he must protest in the name of common sense against placing it in the power of any set of men whatever to grant or withhold a license for the sale of beer, as it would lead to great abuses, and be, in his opinion, exceedingly injurious to the community.

said, he did not want the beer-shops to be shut up, but only that persons should be confined to the purchase of the beer simply from the shops, and to carry it home, there to be drank.

believed, that every Grand Juror throughout the country, was prepared to come forward to declare, that the beer shops were the most complete nuisances that could possibly exist. Men met there, not to obtain refreshment, but to concert schemes of plunder. They were nurseries of crime. Public houses afforded accommodation to travellers, beer shops could only encourage tippling. It was, supposed when the sale of Beer Act passed, that men would buy their beer as they did their bread and meat, and take it home and consume it, instead of which they went to these beer-shops to carouse and commit all kinds of excesses.

rose to submit a Motion to the House with reference to the beer-shops, which, he said, had given rise to an alarming extent of crime and pauperism. It was not his wish to abolish them, but he wished them to be better conducted. At present they were receptacles for every thing bad. He attributed a great deal of the agrarian disturbances of last year to the assemblings in these shops, of which there were no less than 26,000 in the country. He did not, however, desire to put these Houses down altogether, but to put them under the same regulations as the public houses, taking care that the owners of them should be known as respectable persons, which was very far from the case in a great many instances at present. In fact, many of these houses belonged to brewers who put into them the poorest and most dependent men; and when it was considered that these houses were scattered through the country, and that many of them were in remote situations, it could excite no surprise that they were the haunt of the smuggler and the thief. At least every person who kept such a house should be a rated inhabitant. He would not, however, go further into the subject, as he understood that his Motion was not to be opposed, but would content himself, by moving, "that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the state and management of houses in which beer is sold by retail, under the Act of 1 Will. 4. cap. 64, commonly called Beer shops,' with a view to making such alterations in the law as may lead to their better regulation; and to report their observations, together with their opinion thereon."

seconded the Motion. He conceived the beer-shops to be fraught with unqualified abuses. They had added to the amount of pauperism in the country. The remedy for all these abuses was to revert to the original intention, and compel those who were allowed to sell beer, not to allow it to be drunk on the premises.

considered the inquiry desirable, and he would strongly support the appointment of the proposed Committee, though he did not go the length to which the hon. member for Ashton (Colonel Williams), was disposed to go. The hon. Gentleman said, that the original intention of the Legislature was, that beer should not be suffered to be drunk upon the premises. Now, that was a question of regulation; and he need hardly remind the House that a great deal of vexation arose from the manner in which in formations could be laid under such an Act. For instance, a man would purchase beer at one of these shops, and drink it with one foot inside the door and the other outside, and then he would lay an information against the proprietor of the House, on the ground of having been allowed to drink beer upon the premises. The only effect of the regulation suggested by the hon. Gentleman, would be, that instead of the beer being drunk on the premises, it would be drunk on some adjacent spot, where more irregularity and greater disorder would take place. These beer-shops should be placed under the same regulations, and have the same restriction imposed upon them, as the ordinary ale-houses. It seemed to him rather a singular anomaly that ale-houses—the proprietors of which were subjected to a strict investigation into their characters before a license was granted to them—should be placed under greater restriction than beer-houses, the proprietors of which were subject to no such inquiry. These beer-shops ought certainly to be put under as strict police regulations as the other public houses, and the owners' respectability ought to be established. He was inclined to think, that the Committee might suggest many useful regulations; and he therefore should make no objection to the Motion.

said, that the Magistrates ought to have quite as much authority with respect to these beer houses as to public houses. If Ministers, however, wanted the people to get good beer, the best thing they could do would be to take off a considerable portion of the Malt-duties, and impose a small duty on Beer, by which means both they and the people would be satisfied.

thought, that while these beer-shops were put, as proposed, under the same police surveillance as the public-houses, they ought, at the same time, to enjoy similar advantages, more particularly with reference to the hours of keeping open, which were at present very unequal. He had read one petition of a case where a beer-shop-keeper was fined for allowing his son to drink a mug of beer in his house after the hour at which he was required to close his shop; and the Magistrate even declared that he would have fined the landlord himself if he had done what he allowed his son to do. This was a most extraordinary state of things, that a man must not drink his own beer after a certain hour. As to putting these beer shops under proper regulations, he concurred in its necessity. He only desired that they should have fair play.

held the same opinion: instead of restricting their licences, he would have them extended. The difficulties under which the beer-shop-keepers laboured should be removed, not added to. He was decidedly of opinion, that these shops had been of great service, for the people had been provided with good and cheap beer by means of them.

was far from agreeing with the hon. member for Middlesex. Though the Sale of Beer Act might, perhaps, have worked well as far as concerned the single county of Middlesex, he had the best reason to believe that in all the rural districts it had been productive of the most ruinous consequences. The hon. member for Middlesex would find his opinion on this subject decidedly opposed to the opinion of the great bulk of the Magistrates, landlords, farmers, and respectable inhabitants of the agricultural districts; who, ninety-nine out of a 100, were strongly opposed to the Beer Bill, from their sad experience of its ruinous effects. The profligacy, the unmitigated mass of corruption and depravity arising from these beer-shops, throughout the country, was appalling. The Commissioners on the Poor-laws, whose experience must entitle their, opinion to the most serious attention, decidedly declared that they considered these beer shops had greatly aggravated the misery and distress of the lower orders. If the hon. member for Middlesex were right, nearly the whole country must be wrong. He was glad that the Committee was to be appointed, and he should certainly have gone further into the subject, but that he expected to have a better opportunity of explaining his views than in the House.

thought, that the Act might be made beneficial if the keepers of beer shops were to brew their own beer, which would put an end to the mischievous monopoly of the beer brewers.

, in rising to submit to the House a measure for the Commutation of Tithes in England, observed, that he need not say that the subject of his Motion was one of great importance; at the same time, he felt that it would not be necessary for him to detain the House at any length by adducing arguments in favour of the general principle of the measure he was about to introduce for the Commutation of Tithes. His chief duty on that occasion would be to explain the details of the measure, by which the principle of commutation was to be carried into effect. It was undoubtedly of great importance that the measure should be substantially just and equitable between the parties without adding to the burthens of the people. Before he, however, entered into the particular subject which he undertook to bring under their consideration, he thought it desirable that he should at the outset disabuse hon. Members and the public with respect to the very exaggerated statements of the amount of the revenues of the Church, which had been broached on several occasions, and very recently again referred to in that House, by an hon. Member. It had been asserted by the hon. Member to whom he alluded, that the Church property of England and Wales, was about 9,000,000l. per annum. Now, a more extravagant assertion never was uttered. The total nett income of the Bishops of England and Wales, including the Bishopric of Sodor and Man, was but 158,557l., and the revenues of the Deans and Chapters were 236,358l. per annum. He had not exact returns of the income of all the parochial clergy, but had sufficient data for asserting that it was very little more than 3,000,000l. sterling per annum, making, with the incomes of the Bishops and the Deans and Chapters, an entire revenue of very little more than 3,500,000l. instead of 9,000,000l. per annum. It would perhaps be well for him to state, in order to show that he had not understated the revenues of the parochial clergy, the data on which he had founded his estimate. There were 11,400 benefices in England; and he had received returns from 9,660. These returns gave a total of 2,759,657l. per annum, and as there was no reason for supposing that the remaining benefices were of a higher average than those 9,660; that would give, taking the mean of them as the average for the whole, speaking in round numbers, a total of 3,257,000l. per annum for 11,400 livings of England. This sum equally divided, would give an average of about 285l. a-year, which, with the revenues of the prebendaries, deaneries, and chapters, also equally divided among the parochial clergy, would give an average of 300l. per annum, and no more. It was hardly necessary for him to contend that, in this country where the Church was very differently situated with regard to the opinions of the people from the Church of Ireland, three hundred pounds per annum was not too high an income for a resident working clergyman of the Church of England. In the present state of this country, they would all agree with him he believed, that the residence of a clergyman was required in each parish. Indeed, there was no man who knew anything of the advantages of a resident clergyman to all classes, whether considered in a religious, a moral, or a political point Of view, who would not agree with him in saying, that it was most desirable that there should be a resident clergyman in each parish. That being the case, the amount of income which he had stated could not be thought extravagant when it was devoted to promote that desirable object. But the mode in which the clergy had hitherto been paid had, in practice, injured the beneficial effect of their residence amongst their parishioners. Looking at that in a legislative point of view, it could not be denied that it had produced great disadvantages; and it was greatly desirable, not merely to the prayers, that those disadvantages should be removed, but it was also desirable for the sake of the clergy themselves, that nothing should prevent those good feelings and fellowship which ought to exist between them and their parishioners. He believed that the subject had long been seen in that light by the Legislature, for scarcely one Act had passed in which tithes were concerned—scarcely one In closure Bill had gone through Parliament—in which the tithes had not been commuted for a fixed and definite sum. Although there were a great number of parishes in which inclosures had taken place, and in which the tithes had been commuted, yet in the majority of instances where tithes were taken in kind, it had produced great animosity and ill-will among the people. As he said before, nothing was more advantageous than the residence of a clergyman in a parish, but to render that efficacious it was necessary that he should be on good terms with his parishioners. If the resident incumbent were not on good terms with his parishioners, the half of the benefits were lost. The Legislature had, on several occasions, taken the same view, and had endeavoured to avoid these bad effects, while it had at the same time provided for the clergy on fair and liberal terms, so as to prevent collision and differences with their parishioners. Having made these observations, and believing that the House would go along with him in thinking that a Commutation of Tithes was most desirable, both, or the clergymen and their parishioners, he should next proceed to state the principles of his measure. He knew that in many parts of the country extraordinary expectations were entertained as to the measure; but what he had already said must satisfy the House that the object of his measure was not in any way striking. He was not about to take any step which would make a great sensation; but to propose a fair and equitable measure, which should be just to both parties. It was desirable that a measure of this kind should be, in the first place, purely permissive, and that the parties should agree as to any arrangement they thought desirable should be made. Even a permissive measure would, he hoped, to a great extent, lead to friendly commutations. He wished, therefore, that a permissive measure should have its fair trial first, although he was free to confess that he did not think that a purely permissive measure would have all the effect that was desirable. He would, therefore, propose, first, that the measure should give permission to the clergyman and the tithe-owner, and the tithe-payer; because, 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 a lay impropriator. The measure should, then, in the first instance, give permission to the tithe-payer and the tithe-owner, whether a clergyman or a lay impropriator, to make an arrangement for a perpetual commutation for a corn rent. He meant a rent varying according to the price of corn. He need not state that, in making this proposition, it was necessary that they should not confine themselves to a money value. They should take something as the test of the commutation which varied less in value than money. The clergyman, however, should not be allowed to commute tithes in perpetuity, without the consent of the patron of his living and the Bishop of his diocese; neither should the tenant be allowed to commute the tithes of his farm, without the consent of his landlord. His first principle would be to give a period of twelve months from the passing of the Bill, to permit the tithe-payer and the tithe-owner, by mutual consent, 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 proposed that either the tithe-payer or tithe-receiver, 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 the tithe-receiver should be allowed to give notice that he intended to commute the tithes. Valuators should then be appointed on both sides in the manner he should mention hereafter. It was of great importance that the valuators should be men of great respectability, and there were other reasons than this why they should not be indiscriminately selected, merely at the option of the parties themselves, but only from a class of persons previously appointed. It was his intention, therefore, to propose that a certain number of those valuators should be nominated by the Bishop of the diocese, and that an equal number should be nominated by the Justices of the Quarter Sessions for the county. It might thus frequently happen that the parties knowing the individuals who had been appointed as valuators, would both select the same, so that only one valuator would be required for both. Thus, each party, either the tithe-payer or the tithe-owner, might give notice to the other party that he intended to appoint a valuator; and, notice being given, the valuation would proceed. Any person, however, who knew anything of the state of tithe property in this country, must know that if an actual valuation were to take place for titheable 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 such a proposition might seem to be founded in justice, it would really and practically be most unjust. His plan, therefore, was, that the valuators should not take the tithes at the amount which ought to be paid, but at the amount which had been actually paid and enjoyed through several previous years. The valuers, therefore, appointed would not have the duty of valuing the tithe on the ground; they would only have to ascertain what had been the amount paid during an average of seven years previously. He thought, however, it would be desirable to give them some degree of latitude in making that valuation, and he proposed that they should have the power of altering the valuation either above or below the amount of tithe actually paid to the extent of a certain percentage, which should not, however, vary much from what had been the actual payments. It should not vary more than from five to ten per cent., though 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 perpetual rent imposed on the land in lieu of tithes. He also proposed that these valuators should value the different portions of the tithes. Suppose, for example, an individual wished to make an arrangement for his tithe, it was obvious that his land might vary in its qualities, and it was necessary that the amount of the tithe should be fixed on each portion, or it would be impossible to dispose of any part of that property, unless it was known what amount of tithe rent it was subject to. If the valuators should differ, an award by an umpire must settle the dispute. It was necessary that the appointment of the umpire should rest with some important 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. This mode made it necessary, in order to have an accurate account of the corn rent, that the Quarter Session should ascertain the average during the preceding years of the price 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. Every clergyman should have the option of fixing this during the period of his incumbency; and if the tithe owner was a lay impropriator, he 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. If the tithe-receiver chose to receive his tithe in grain, the tithe-payer should have the option in which grain he would pay, and one person might select one grain, and another another, according to different circumstances. He had said, that he proposed to allow individuals to make an arrangement with the individuals who were the proprietors, it being in his opinion desirable that individuals should have that power, as well as the whole parish. In such cases an individual, or a number of individuals, should appoint a valuator, who should value for them as individuals. In the case of an existing lease, tenants might be allowed to make a commutation, without the consent of the landlord, for the term of his lease. The landlords also might have the power to make an arrangement with the tithe-receivers whether they had granted a lease or not. If that were the case, the tenants would, of course, be bound to pay the landlord what was due to the clergyman; in fact, the landlord would in such a case possess the rights of the clergyman. He had but one observation to make in reference to the cases of disputed moduses. There were no cases of disputed moduses that would not be in course of litigation by next July, and as this Bill would not come into operation until after that period, no litigated case of modus would come under the operation of its provisions. He had now stated to the House the principles of this measure. The object which he had in view in proposing it was to render a commutation of tithes upon just and equitable principles easy and practicable for the country at large. It appeared to him, as he had already remarked, that the permissive operation of this measure would have considerable effect in consequence of the power which afterwards existed in the Bill of a compulsory nature. He had proposed, as he had already mentioned, a subsequent compulsory power for carrying into effect the provisions of the Bill; but when he said a compulsory power, it should be recollected that it would not be compulsory unless one party should consent to the adoption of it. He entertained little doubt that the effect of this measure would be pretty generally to produce a commutation of tithes throughout the country—an effect that he thought would be productive of the greatest possible advantage. He did not think that at the present time it would be desirable to propose any measure that would go to the extent of an actual compulsion of a commutation of tithes in this country. The difficulties that beset the question were so many and so great, that, after having given it the best consideration he could, he was of opinion that it would be hardly possible to propose any measure that would be equitable and just for an actual and forcible commutation of tithes throughout England. Having stated thus much, he hoped that it would not be considered that, in bringing forward this measure, his Majesty's Government had not at present under their consideration other measures respecting the Church of England. There was one other measure which was absolutely necessary, which pressed more or less in point of time for immediate consideration, and which he hoped in a very short time either he or some other Member of his Majesty's Government would have the honour of proposing, either in that House or in the other House of Parliament—he alluded to a measure for preventing, for the future, pluralities in the Church of England. With regard to other measures, there were difficulties in the way of their adoption, but, nevertheless, he hoped and trusted that at an early period other propositions would be brought forward to meet other evils. He would not pledge himself further at present than to say, that some measures would be brought forward by Government for that purpose. As he had said at the commencement of his address to the House, he would repeat, that this measure, though it did not appear to be one of great magnitude, yet, if it should effect that which would be of great and general advantage to the public—namely, a commutation of tithes, at an early period throughout the country—he conceived that it would be entitled to be looked upon as a measure of considerable magnitude indeed, though at first sight people might not be inclined to attach such importance to it. This measure was pregnant with this great advantage to the landed and agricultural interests of the country, that it would give them the power of employing their capital upon their land, without being checked by the collection of tithes, which had always been a check upon the improvement of agricultural property in this country. But if, on the one hand, the agriculturists, for the benefit of their property, should seek to enforce this measure, it might be said that the clergyman, on the other hand, would resist it. He did not think that they would do so. He was sure that if they did they would not be consulting their own advantage; whatever they might lose in the amount of their tithes by a commutation, taking into account the improvement which would immediately follow in the value of land by the expenditure of capital upon it, they would be more than sufficiently compensated for such loss by the advantages which they would reap in being relieved from the difficulties and dangers occasioned by those disputes and quarrels generated between them and their parishioners by the present tithe system, and to which a commutation of tithes would effectually put an end. The noble Lord concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to effect a commutation of tithes in England.

whether the valuators were to take the Poor-rates into consideration, for the tithes were, at present, rated to the poor?

in answer, said, that it was quite true, he believed, that where-ever a composition for tithes had been made, it included the Poor-rates, and that it would be only just and right that the valuators should take them into their consideration hereafter, whenever a commutation was about to be made. It would be for the public benefit that the clergyman should have an interest in the Poor-rates, in order to ensure their due administration.

thought the permission of the noble Lord was like a conge d'élire; it was permission for a year, and compulsion at the end of it. The measure kept the word of promise to the ear, but "broke it to the hope," He would not then enter into the subject; he would only notice the declaration of the noble Lord, that the same rule was to be applied both to the clergy and the lay impropriators; and he would express a hope, that that principle might be extended to all parts of the empire.

admitted, that if each clergyman had only 300l. a-year, as the noble Lord said, that it was not too large an income for gentlemen of education. He objected however, to the mode of appointing valuators, because it threw almost the whole power of nominating them into the hands of the clergy, one series of them being appointed entirely by clerical persons, and another by the Sessions, of whom one-half was also composed of clergymen. In his opinion, the best method would be for the Government to take upon themselves the appointment of these functionaries. Another very strong objection which he had against the system proposed by the noble Lord, arose from the injustice of appointing the future payments of tithes upon the basis of the present payments; the consequence of which would be, that the clergy in those parishes where the incumbents had been screwing up the tithes to the utmost possible extent would continue to derive a benefit from their exactions, while the more conscientious portion of the clergy, who had pursued a different course, were only to have a continuance of that income which they at present enjoyed. The plan would thus operate as a reward for former oppression, and a punishment for former leniency. At the same time he was not inimical to the proposed changes; but he considered, that the details of the plan of the noble Lord required very considerable modifications before they could answer the objects for which they were intended. The noble Lord did not seem to be aware of the difference which at present existed in different parts of England with respect to the amount of tithes paid—a difference which prevailed to such an extent, that any plan which did not embrace the consideration of it must be essentially defective. The noble Lord did not appear to be aware of the immense advantage which would arise from the adoption of some system of greater simplicity. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Lord would be persuaded to simplify the details of his measure, and also that Commissioners should be appointed to fix a money value on the tithes, instead of a fluctuating value in corn, and that these Commissioners should derive their authority directly from the Exchequer or from that House. He thought the Government, in short, ought to take the whole into their own hands, and pay the clergy from the Exchequer. If such a course had been adopted forty years ago, the Church would at present be in a much better situation in every respect.

said, he was by no means averse from a general plan for the commutation of tithes on any principle which could be considered equitable to all parties whose interests were concerned, and he saw nothing in the principles of the noble Lord's measure which should make him oppose it. He could not, indeed, at once say, whether he should oppose or support the Bill of the noble Lord; for it frequently happened that a measure were a very different complexion, when stated in all its particulars, from that which it assumed on its first announcement. His experience had sufficiently convinced him of that fact, as well as of the fact, that the success of any such plan must depend entirely upon the details, which were not yet before the House. He, therefore, intended to reserve his opinions upon the subject until he should see the whole plan upon paper, when he should be able to say whether the scheme deserved to succeed, and whether it would be just in its operation with respect to the clergy. He had heard with great pleasure one remark of the hon. member for Middlesex, that an income of 300l. a-year was not more than sufficient for a gentleman who had received an expensive education, and was required to perform the duties of a clergyman. He, therefore, hoped, that when they came to consider the Bill with regard to the Irish clergy, he should have the concurrence of the hon. member for Middlesex in a proposition for exempting all livings of 200l. or 300l. a-year from taxation; because if 300l. a-year were not too much for an English clergyman, residing in a country where he was exposed to no risk, how much stronger were the reasons for exempting an Irish clergyman from any deductions from his annual income, when it was only of the same amount, considering that he lived in a country where he was exposed to so much greater risks? As for the alterations proposed by the hon. member for Middlesex, in order to simplify the system of tithes, he (Sir Robert Peel). preferred the plan of the noble Lord, and was convinced, that any system of making the Government the collector of tithes would be both expensive and less efficient than if it rested with the parochial authorities. At the same time, he was of opinion, that the success of any plan of this nature would mainly depend on its simplicity; and he was inclined to think that some part of the noble Lord's plan might be advantageously modified. He did not exactly comprehend the reasons of the noble Lord for proposing, that, after the lapse of a year, either the tithe payer or the tithe receiver should have it in his power, if the opposite party had taken no means for the commutation of the tithe, to enter into a compulsory arrangement; bethought, that the period was rather short, and that it would be much better that the arrangement should be voluntary on both sides. Considering the extent and complication of the change, he thought a year much too little. As to the part of the plan which proposed to make the commutation compulsory, at the instance either of the tithe-payer or the tithe-receiver, it was all very well with respect to the tithe receiver, but if the noble Lord persisted in extending it to the tithe payer, it would give rise to a great deal of difficulty. Supposing, for instance, that there were forty tithe-payers, and only a few refused their consent to the commutation, it was easy to observe what a complicated system would arise, and how extensive a field for litigation would be opened. If one person out of forty were to oppose the introduction of the new system, did the noble Lord intend that the thirty-nine should be compelled to retain the old system? There was another part of the noble Lord's plan which appeared to him also to be liable to very considerable objections—that by which the tithe-receiver was to receive his tithe either in money or grain. It was to be left to the payer to determine in what species of grain he should pay it—whether oats, barley, or wheat; that was to say, whether fifty bushels of wheat, or a larger quantity of oats or barley. The noble Lord would see how many questions, if this scheme were adopted, would arise respecting the value of the grain, and for determining whether the corn was of good quality or not. He would not venture to say that he had rightly understood the noble Lord's meaning, but, as he conceived it, the plan would lead to these consequences.

did not mean that the party should pay in kind, but a sum of money equal to the value of so many bushels of grain.

Then it was the noble Lord's plan, that if the tithes were now worth 100 bushels of wheat, the land which paid them should be permanently charged with the payment of the value of 100 bushels. He apprehended, therefore, that the tithe would be variable with the price of corn. He should think also that it would be preferable to send down a single valuator, instead of allowing the adverse parties each to choose one, because the expense would be extremely great. He thought one objection taken by the hon. member for Middlesex was valid—namely, that in parishes in which tithes had been previously exacted with rigour, the present rate being taken as the standard, more than was properly due might be given, while in others, where the incumbents had been more lenient, the Church would be deprived of its rights. He had, certainly, considerable doubts respecting the measure; but he intended to give no positive opinion at present. All he had to say was, let justice be done to all parties.

rose merely for the purpose of offering a suggestion to the noble Lord, which might be conveniently done at that stage of the discussion; it respected the lay impropriations. It appeared to him, that it would be desirable to give the landlord the power, not merely to compound with the lay impropriators, but to purchase them outright, and to free the land from the burthen for ever. In respect to the tithes payable to the clergy, it was necessary to preserve a permanent fund for their maintenance. In Scotland, upon the happy settlement of the question of tithes in that country, in the time of Charles 1st, it was provided, that the lay impropriators, called Titulars, might be compelled to sell the right to tithe, at a certain number of years' purchase of the ascertained value, whilst such a settlement was not permitted in respect to the tithe payable to the clergy. It would be well if the history of the settlement of the great question of tithe in Scotland were referred to and consulted on the present occasion. It had done more for Scotland than any other measure, or, perhaps, than all other means that had since been adopted for the good of that country. For nearly 200 years it had been in the power of the landholder, by having his tithes valued, to prevent a tax being levied for the future on his industry, and on the outlay of his capital, in improving the land. The plan was simple, and had been completely successful; the tithes in Scotland were valued by Commission, appointed by the Crown; and he was disposed to prefer that to the mode proposed by the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He thought, also, that from the plan for ascertaining the value proposed by the noble Lord, there might arise, in many cases, the injustice pointed out by the hon. member for Middlesex. There would, however, be other opportunities for discussing these points, and he would content himself with congratulating the House and the country on the prospect which was at last opened to them of getting rid of an odious and vexatious system, which would prove a measure of relief to the people, and of peace to the Established Church.

observed, that the litigation which had taken place for the last 150 years on the subject of tithes, justified the introduction of some measure like the present. The system had gone on from century to century; had become complicated by so many minute and difficult questions, that it was impossible for any one to expect that a plan could be devised by which the numberless points which had hitherto perplexed the subject should be reduced to one simple method. If any observations of his noble friend had excited his surprise, it was his remark, that the measure was one which was not calculated to excite a great sensation. It was a question in which almost every individual in the kingdom was interested. He was persuaded, that the estimates of his noble friend respecting the amount of the revenues of the clergy would turn out to be perfectly correct, and that they did not exceed 3,250,000l.; but it was a great object to collect those revenues with the least possible annoyance to the people. With respect to the proposition of the hon. member for Middlesex, that the whole business should be managed by the Exchequer, he objected to it on every ground; he objected to it, first, on grounds of principle, because he thought the Government ought not to possess such a power. He objected to it, secondly, on grounds of practice, on account of the enormous expense into which it would lead the State; and, thirdly, he objected to it on account of the dissatisfaction which it would cause in every part of the country. It had been also stated, that inconveniences would arise from the greater lenity with which tithes had been exacted in one parish than in others; but the noble Lord had himself provided against that objection by intrusting the valuers with the power of increasing or diminishing the tithes by five per cent or ten per cent. For his own part, he thought ten per cent should be the extent of this discretionary power, rather than five per cent. Certainly the sooner the very name of tithes became extinct, the better it would be for all parties; for if they looked to the history of the Church for the last thirty or forty years, it would be seen that these had been the principal cause of alienating the feelings of the people from the Establishment. He approved of the proposition of his noble friend not to render the commutation compulsory in the first instance. His noble friend's plan would, he was sure, create a feeling of satisfaction amongst all classes interested in this question, and in particular it would be hailed as a great boon by the clergy of the Established Church, whom it would relieve from much odium, and whose influence over their flocks it would considerably increase.

thought it extremely desirable that the proposition of the noble Lord should come fully before the public, in order that the general opinion with respect to it might be ascertained. It certainly comprehended no spoliation of any kind, nor was it at all a party question. At the same time he thought that the objections made by the hon. member for Middlesex and others, against making the present payments the basis of the measure, were almost insurmountable. When the injustice of taking as data in one case payments in parishes where tithes had been screwed up by the clergymen to the greatest possible extent, and in another case payments in parishes where tithes had been liberally suffered to remain much below the real amount, was considered, he thought that this would be obvious. A general valuation would be preferable to such a system. Adverting to the question which had been raised as to the poor's rate, he must observe, that no one could read the melancholy Report which had recently been made upon that subject, and assert that it ought to be permitted to remain in its present state. In some parishes in the south of England the rates were 27s., and in one as high as 32s. in the pound! What was to become of the clergymen in those parishes? There might be rent in such places, but there would be no tithes. Another evil was, that in some parishes it was the constant custom to work, as it was called, the clergyman by means of a poor's rate, and the noble Lord's plan would enable the farmer still to do that. There was one point which it would be indispensable to consider in the proposed measure. He adverted to land which was in a state of garden cultivation; and to land where hops and other valuable produce were grown. On some land of that description the tithes amounted to 40s. an acre, which was more than the rent. If the commutation were formed upon the present value of the crops of such land, a charge would be perpetuated on it, which at some future period, it might not be able to meet. All these and other difficulties ought to be looked at carefully, and without bias or prejudice. There must be some provision in the Bill for existing contracts; an alteration in the Corn-laws for example, or some other legislative measure, might have the effect of entirely throwing out of cultivation land which was at present in tillage. Some regulation must be introduced in the Bill with respect to such land; for, if it were subjected in perpetuity to the tithe which it at present paid, the landholder might, at some future period, be deprived of the whole of his property. At all events, it was exceedingly desirable that the question should be settled, for the greatest misapprehensions were at present entertained in the country with respect to it; even to the extent that no clergyman was to have more than 400l. a-year, that the surplus of tithes, which would be saved to the nation was 4,000,000l. and that taxes to the amount of 8,000,000l were to be repealed.

concurred with his hon. friend that it was desirable the question should be settled. In answer to the observations of the hon. member for Essex, that if the present payments were taken as the basis of the future arrangement, the parishes where the tithes were now screwed up to the highest pitch would henceforward have to pay too much, and the parishes where the tithes were now less than the fair amount, would henceforward have to pay too little, he observed that the objection had struck his Majesty's Government; but that, after much consideration, it appeared to them, that any other course would be still more liable to animadversion. If the whole of the tithes were taken, and an average estimated from every parish, the result would still be hard and unequal. A provision, however, might no doubt be introduced into the Bill, in some degree to meet the objection of the hon. Gentleman. He considered tithes to be one of the greatest grievances in the country, whether they were in lay or ecclesiastical hands; more especially the latter, as they constantly tended to produce ill will, where only good will ought to exist.

congratulated the House and the country on the proposition for a commutation of tithes, the effect of which would be, that the revenue of the Church would no longer be, as it now was, a tax on capital. He trusted the proposition would give general satisfaction; as he was convinced that, with some modifications, it would be an admirable improvement on the present system.

concurred in the plan of Government, and if he could have his way it should go much further. A great advantage would arise from a commutation of the tithes, for he knew in several parishes where it had taken place, that the best effects had followed it. At present a law existed for the commutation of tithes, but it had a directly contrary effect, inasmuch as the appointment of the valuator was placed by it in the hands only of the landowner and the Bishop. He should like to know if by the plan now proposed, the valuation was to be made on a given quantity of produce in one year, or was it to be taken on an average of three, five, or seven years (on an average of years)? He would give the principle of the Bill his best support.

approved of the measure, but thought great difficulties would arise with respect to its details. All that could be done upon the subject, however, was to enter upon it with an earnest desire to conquer those difficulties if possible. One of the greatest of those difficulties would be to simplify the measure, and at the same time to do equal justice to all parties. Sensible as he was, however, of the great importance of the proposition, he was not disposed at present to dwell on the objections to it.

expressed a hope that no new valuation of the land would take place under the proposed plan of the noble Lord; for if that were to occur, the tithes would be raised in some places, would be reduced in others, and would end in general dissatisfaction. There were many difficulties attending the subject which he hoped might be removed in Committee; and to the general principle of the plan he would give his support.

wished to know if the tithes on hay and wood, in general, and what were called small tithes, were included in the plan of the noble Lord?—[Lord Althorp said "All."]—There was considerable difficulty in settling the tithes of sheep, lambs, wool, &c.; for if a farmer had lands in different parishes, and he drove sheep from one farm to another in different parishes for lambing, or for shearing, the tithe would be taken in that parish where the shearing or the lambing might take place, and not in the parish from which the sheep had been just driven for greater convenience to the farmer. How was this to be remedied? He thought the best way to obtain a fair valuation of tithes would be to lake the average value of a number of years. Those clergymen who had insisted upon getting their whole legal rights had been designated extortioners and oppressors; but were they, sitting there as legislators, justified in asserting, that demanding the payment of a legal claim was either extortion or oppression? Such conduct on the part of Members of that House would be most unfair and improper. Instead of rendering a remission of tithes compulsory, he submitted, whether it would not be better to leave the question of reduction to the discretion and good feeling of the clergy themselves; and if that were done he was satisfied that the Bishops and beneficed clergy would speedily meet the wishes of the tithe-payers. Another subject that deserved their maturest deliberation was the mode in which the payment of tithes was to be secured, and whether making it a charge upon the land would not bear oppressively upon the landlord. Before he sat down he was anxious to know from the noble Lord whether the measure had been introduced with the consent and approbation of the heads of the Church, or whether its introduction had been determined upon without any reference having been made to them? He wished to have this question answered for the satisfaction and information of the clerical body, who, being excluded from the House, had no direct means of ascertaining the fact themselves.

feared the proposed arrangement would prejudice the landowner, and that the way in which the remission of tithes was to be made would prove alike unequal and unjust. He thought that it would be most advisable to allow clergymen, wherever it could be effected, to commute their tithe for land.

in reply, said, that the heads of the Church had certainly been communicated with upon the subject of this measure, but that he was not authorised to say whether it was their intention to give it their consent or to oppose it. His Majesty's Government felt, that they should not be justified in bringing forward such a measure without first communicating with the Bishops; but although that course had been taken, he was bound to observe that the Bishops were not in a situation to pronounce any opinion upon it, as it affected the beneficed and parochial clergy rather than them. The hon. member for Middlesex (Mr. Hume) had spoken of the propriety of equalizing tithes; but, however desirable the equalization of tithes might be, the hon. Member ought to have recollected, that it was an object which could not be accomplished without very great difficulty. The attention of the Government had been applied to this and to other Reforms in the Church, but, at present, they were unable to determine on the exact course they should pursue, or to give any pledge as to what should or should not be done. He admitted that there was great difficulty in the mode of collecting tithes, and fixing the amount to be remitted and he had therefore stated, that he intended to allow the valuators to enhance or lower the value during the last seven years, from five to ten per cent, as one mode of meeting that difficulty, but without of course, intending to say that his suggestion would obviate it altogether. But the subject was one fraught with so much difficulty, look at it how you would, that it would be presumption to hope that any measure of this description could be brought forward which would not be open to many and serious objections. To deal with the matter at all, the advantages and objections must be weighed one against the other, and the way in which the valuation was intended to be made was, he believed, likely to produce less dissatisfaction than any other that had hitherto suggested itself to his mind. The advisable course was first to make the valuation, and then determine on the reduction to be made: and if any other plan were adopted, he feared it would be open to the charge of spoliation, which had already been advanced against the pro posers of the alteration. So far as the present possessors were concerned, the charge of injustice to them would be got rid of, inasmuch as they were not to be disturbed. But the hon. member for Middlesex objected to the valuators being appointed by the Sessions. That was a subject the Government had considered; but thinking it by no means desirable to leave the appointment to Grand Juries, they had suggested the other mode as the preferable one. It was not intended that the tithe rent should vary otherwise than as it might, in common with all other incomes, be affected by the value of money; and it was proposed that the prices of grain, by which it was to be regulated, should be settled every ten years, and that the average of the year immediately preceding should regulate its amount. Some hon. Gentlemen thought there would be difficulty in commuting a part and leaving a part un-commuted. This was not the fact, as the system of partial commutation existed at the present time. It could, he was satisfied, occasion no inconvenience whatever. Although he did not intend to object to the partial commutation of tithe for land, he could not believe that it would be desirable to place in the hands of the clergy land to any extent. He had now answered all the observations that had been made, and he must say that the reception the measure had met with had given him unfeigned satisfaction. The difficulties with which it was pregnant could be discussed more at length when they entered upon the details; but he trusted that the result would be a measure which would do injustice to no man, and be extremely beneficial to a large class of his Majesty's subjects.

said, that in rising to submit to the House the motion of which he had given notice relative to sinecure offices, or offices executed by deputy, in naval, military, civil, or colonial service, he was anxious to guard himself against being misunderstood, or having a wrong interpretation put upon the motives by which he was actuated. He had, in the early part of the present Session, introduced two motions for the abolition of offices to which no duties were attached, and he had done so with a view to save the country the amount of the salaries attached to these offices. Objections had been taken to the manner in which he had introduced both his first and second motions. By some hon. Members it was urged that he had not sufficiently explained his meaning or objects; while others stated, that, however justified he might be on principle, he had not chosen the proper time for proposing the reduction. He was not aware that he had committed any error, cither in the one ease or the other, although it might perhaps have happened that he had not made himself so clearly understood as he was anxious to do on both occasions. The motion to which he was now anxious to call the attention of the House was one founded on a broader basis than either of his former ones, and his Majesty's Ministers might, as they pleased, admit or deny its propriety; in either case he would leave the result to be judged by the country. He had received several communications from persons in different districts in the country, to whom their respective Representatives had assigned the grounds upon which they had voted against him on both the occasions alluded to; and he felt bound to add that the constituency almost universally regretted that their Representatives had not taken a right view of the question. It was not his intention to detain the House by going back at any length into what had taken place at former periods, but he would observe that when, in 1808 and 1809, the House was pressed to lessen the expenses of the country, a Finance Committee was appointed to inquire how far the burthens under which the people laboured could be reduced. That Committee was composed, for the greater part, of officers belonging to Government, and after a laborious and extended inquiry, they came to a decision that a reduction ought to take place with respect to persons whom they divided into three classes:—1, persons holding actual sinecures; 2, persons holding offices in the nature of sinecures; and 3, persons holding offices which were executed by deputy, and where, though there was some work to be done, it was not of a nature or extent to warrant the salary. That Committee afforded the best account of sinecures and sinecure offices that had been laid before the House. In the following year it published an amended report (that of 1809) to which he would refer hon. Members, in order to see how those sinecures had been arranged. He sincerely hoped and trusted that they had now arrived at a period when this oppressive system of sinecures would be altogether done away with. The first schedule he found was the Court of Chancery, where sinecures existed to the amount of 20,985l. per annum. In the next he found that in the Court of King's Bench, the Court of Common Pleas, the Court of Exchequer, and the Prerogative Court, there were sinecures to the amount of 106,616l. There were other sinecures in the Courts of Law in England, amounting to 50,000l., and in the different colonies and colonial departments, amounting together to 1,56,000l. In short the Committee were so sensible that they must meet the public eye, that they came to a resolution which he would read, but he must first observe that they had pointed out altogether sinecures in England and the colonies to the amount of 199,137l.; exclusive of 30,000l. in Scotland, and 74,000l. for Ireland, of which, sinecures to the amount of a sum of 31,000l. were in Courts of Law. A motion had been made last year with a view to show the amount of sinecures and sinecure places existing in this country. That motion had not been carried as it would have shown the extravagant amount to which those sinecures had extended. He therefore, wished the House to understand that in introducing this Motion he was actuated more by principle in the abolition of sinecures than in the actual amount of their reduction, although he felt that that reduction would be productive of great good to the country; and if he was able to satisfy the House that no portion of the public money ought to be given where no service was performed for it, then, he trusted, that he should have made out a case that, in a time of pressure like the present, with our large debt and heavy burthen of taxation, with the weight of our army, naval, and civil establishments pressing upon us, we ought to be relieved from all superfluous and unnecessary expenditure. It should be known that while the people were anxious to pay so far as they were able, and under every privation, all that was required for the service of the State, they had a right to expect to be delivered from the pressure caused by those who received large sums of the public money without performing any single act of service for it. The House would, perhaps, feel astonished if he were to state that the amount of sinecures and pensions within a comparatively short period had been the means of adding at least one-half the present amount of the national debt. Taking the amount of sinecures and pensions themselves, and looking to the manner in which, by corruption and corrupt influence, they had been the means of perpetuating abuses, and supporting extravagant and expensive Governments, it would be found that former Ministers had maintained their influence, and increased the debt by means of sinecures, at least to the amount he had mentioned. Thus it was, that laws were passed by which the people were oppressed, and their pockets drained of their last shilling. He was aware that many hon. Members might question his statement, and inquire the grounds upon which it was made. He would quote a parliamentary document, laid upon the table of the House in 1816; but, independent of that, the House must perceive that if all the money expended in useless places and pensions—in short, if every unnecessary shilling laid out since the time of William 3rd, had been placed at compound interest, the amount would go near to paying off the national debt. By the parliamentary document, published on the 3rd of April, 1816, signed Henry Goulburn, it appeared that there were thirty-three places in eight of our islands, the holders of which were nonresident, and discharged the duties by deputy, the salaries of which amounted to 53,000l. a-year. As a specimen he would mention the case of an honourable Mr. Percy W. Wyndham, who had held a situation in Jamaica of 4,000l. a-year (filled by deputy), from the year 1763; so that, counting up to 1816, he held it fifty-three years. He had during that long period been a receiver of the public money; he had received with interest 238,500l. of the public money, while every one of the duties attached to his office was executed by deputy. Another person holding an office in the same island, was the honourable T. C. Wyndham, who had received 34,000l. of the public money; so that these two Wyndhams had pocketted no less than 272,000l. of the people's money for doing nothing. Lord Braybrook held the situation, which he executed by deputy, of Provost Martial in Jamaica, and received for it 2,100l. a-year. He was quite a child when he received the appointment. Sir Edward Nepean had held a place in the same island, from which he had received altogether the sum of 169,000l. Mr. Charles Greville had also received a large sum from a sinecure place abroad. A Mr. Augustus Sullivan had received 68,000l.; a Mr. King, 39,000l. According to his calculations, these seven persons had received no less than 1,620,000l. of the public money, from the period of their appointment to those offices down to 1816, and yet this formed but a small part of the sinecure places and pensions which existed in the country, and this sum represented but a small part of what was paid for no services whatever. The Committee of the 13th of June, 1809, agreed to a resolution to the following effect:—"That it is the opinion of this Committee that sinecure offices, and offices the duties of which are discharged by deputy, are unnecessary and inexpedient as a means of rewarding public services." And, be it observed, that this was the opinion of a Committee consisting, for the greater part, of Government officers and their supporters. A Motion, founded upon the report of that Committee, was submitted by Mr. Davies Gilbert Giddy, which was negatived; and since that period the question had never been fairly brought under the consideration of the House. The only defence that he had heard set up in favour of those sinecure places was, that his Majesty ought to have it in his power to reward the services of persons who had deserved well of their country by long and meritorious exertions. From this it would appear as if those places were paid at once out of the Exchequer; but such was not the case. The fact was, that most of those emoluments were raised in the most objectionable manner. They were, in a great measure, raised out of fees and exactions which clogged the wheels of justice, and to which suitors in our Courts ought never to have been subjected. He would mention a few of those persons who profited by those fees, and he begged the attention of the House to them for a moment. In one schedule he found an office which he understood was to be abolished—it was that of Auditor of Land Revenue (Sir W. G. Cooper), 3,300l.; then there was the auditor ship held by Lord Grenville, with a salary of 4,000l. Then there was the office of the Teller of the Exchequer, with regard to which he could not let the opportunity pass without observing, that there was an individual who had, on one occasion, stood forward to meet the call of the country; Lord Camden had resigned fees which he then received, to the amount of 23,115l. a-year. Where was the justification for any of these sinecure offices? Every device had been employed to establish offices of this kind, and to impose fees, so that those who had influence enough to get the offices created might enjoy the emoluments. In 1782 the Court fees had been regulated; but, he believed, fees to the amount of nearly 300,000l. remained; and if those fees had been abolished forthwith, what an amazing saving would have been made to the country. He had always desired to put an end to the existence of these fees, and he thought it was a reproach to any liberal Government that the country should now be paying 33,000l. in the army Estimates for paying our own money to our own troops. The objection was not the loss of the money alone, but the delay that was needlessly occasioned—many days were lost in attendance at offices to pay public money, and pass public accounts. In the Court of Chancery here there were several useless offices. There was one office held by Lord Bathurst, who received 1,610l. a-year; the Clerk of the Patents received 1,610l. a-year; the Clerk of the Pipe 968l. a-year. Then there was the Clerk of the Idiots—if there was such an office in the House of Commons, to punish them for allowing such a system, it would not be very objectionable—there was a Clerk of Idiots, an office held by Lord Thurlow, who received 963l; and then there was the Secretary to the Bankruptcy office, who received 5,720l. a-year, an office also held by Lord Thurlow. Again, in the Chancery offices, there was an office held by Mr. Buller, who received, in fees, 793l. a-year; there were twenty-one Cursitors, all of whom performed their duties by deputy, and who received 6,404l. a-year; the Clerk of the Hanaper, an office held by two young ladies, the daughters of a noble Earl, who received 2,070l. a-year; the Messenger of the Great Seal, who received 994l.; and then there was Lord Ellen-borough, the Chief Clerk of the Court of King's Bench, who received 7,905l.; then the office of Custos Brevium was held by Lord Kenyon, who received 4,986l.; and the officer of the Seal-office in the Common Pleas (the Duke of Grafton) received 2,286l. Now, the question for consideration was, whether the country was to continue to be oppressed and borne down by the payment of these and other enormous sinecures? The time would soon come when, upon an explanation of the finances and resources of the country, they would be called upon to reduce the number of poor industrious persons employed under Government—were they, he would ask, at the same time to continue this list of idle, and useless, and expensive pensioners? But he had not yet got through his list. The Chancery in Scotland was in a similar state. The Earl of Rosslyn held an office there, and received 1,712l. a-year; there was the Clerk of the Chancery, who held the office as trustee for the children of the noble Earl, and who received 925l; there was the Comptroller of Customs (Lord Leven), receiving 405l.; there was a Sir S. Grant, holding an office which brought him in 608l. a-year; Lord Frederick Campbell received 1,200l. a-year; and Lord Melville, us keeper of the Privy Seal, had 2,000l. a-year. Surely it was time that these matters were inquired into. He was of opinion that such a wasteful expenditure ought not to be tolerated one moment longer, and that at a time of such dreadful distress and suffering, not a shilling of the public money ought to be unnecessarily expended. One of the Resolutions of which he had given notice was, "That on all future vacancies of sinecure offices, or offices executed by deputy, in the naval, military, civil, and colonial service of the country, no new appointments shall be made, nor any salary, allowances, or emoluments granted." What he intended by this was to save the salary attached to useless offices; but where offices were of an honourable nature he had no objection that the office itself should remain, as was the case with the office of Admiral of Scotland, the salary of which had been abolished, but the right was preserved to the Crown of filling up the situation. A suggestion had however been made to him that it would be better to make his Motion more general, and to leave out the words "naval and military." He intended, therefore, to put it in this shape—" That on all future vacancies of sinecure offices, at home and abroad, no now appointment shall be made, "&c. His second Resolution was," that no person shall receive any salary, fee, or emolument for any office to which he shall hereafter be appointed, the duties of which are or shall be executed by deputy." The principle of that Resolution was adopted by the House, in 1822, as to the Receivers-General and their deputies, and a saving of 170,000l. a-year was effected. He therefore wished that the principle then acted upon should be applied to all offices, and that the public should pay no more for the discharge of the duties than their deputies were capable of doing them for.—The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his first Resolution.

said, that with respect to the substance of the Motion of the hon. Member, he had no objection to it. The principle indeed had not only been recognised in that House, but acted upon in a great many instances. Indeed in saying this, he must take the opportunity of observing, that several of the offices mentioned by the hon. Member as indicated in the Report made in I816, had been entirely abolished since that time. He could not at this moment follow the hon. Member through all the instances to which he had referred, but he would mention one or two. He was surprised at the reference to the office held by Lord Thurlow in the Bankruptcy-office, for in the Bill of the year before last it had been abolished. It was nearly the same with the case of one of the offices quoted from the Courts in Scotland, the office said to be held by Lord F. Campbell. That nobleman had been dead for a great number of years. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not think that all the offices referred to by the hon. Member yet remained in existence. Some few indeed remained, but most of those were to be abolished at the death of the present holders. As to the second Resolution which the hon. Member had read, if it were confined to civil and colonial offices, he would make no objection to it; and, as his noble friend behind him (Lord Ebrington) had given notice of a motion for a Committee to inquire into military offices, the hon. Member had perhaps better not include them in his Motion, the more especially as he believed that the Committee would not be opposed by the Government. He should, indeed, suggest to his noble friend to add Naval Offices to those respecting which he was about to move for a Committee of Inquiry.

said, that as the noble Lord had treated his proposition so very fairly, he should certainly adopt the suggestion now made of omitting naval and military officers from his Motion.

observed, that the very fair manner in which the noble Lord had met this Motion would tend most powerfully to restore and increase the confidence of the country in the present Government. He thought there was one point which had been overlooked by both parties, and that was, an Act of Parliament (the 22nd Geo. 3rd, c. 75), by which it was intended to prevent the future grant of any patent offices for any longer time than they should discharge the duties thereof in person. The preamble of the Act was this:—'Whereas, the practice of granting offices 'in his Majesty's colonies and plantations 'in America and the West Indies, to persons resident and intending to reside in 'Great Britain (in consequence whereof 'such offices are exercised by deputy, and 'have frequently been farmed out to the 'best bidder), hath been long complained 'of as a grievance by his Majesty's loyal 'subjects in those parts, who have been 'thereby exposed to exactions and oppressions, as well as to inconveniences arising 'from neglect of duty; may it please your 'Majesty that it be enacted—And be it 'enacted by the King's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent 'of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and 'Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the 'same, that, from henceforth, no office 'to be exercised in any colony or plantation, now or at any time hereafter, belonging to the Crown of Great Britain, shall be granted or grantable by patent, for 'any longer time than during such time 'as the grantee thereof, or person appointed 'thereto, shall discharge the duty thereof 'in person, and behave well therein.' In the Act there was this clause:—'And be 'it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that if any person or persons holding 'such office shall be wilfully absent from 'the colony or plantation wherein the same 'is or ought to be exercised, without a 'reasonable cause to be allowed by the 'Governor and Council, for the time being, 'of such colony or plantation, or shall neglect the duty of such office, or otherwise 'misbehave therein, it shall and may be 'lawful for such Governor and Council to 'amove such person or persons from every 'or any such office; and in case any person 'or persons so amoved shall think himself aggrieved thereby, it shall and may be 'lawful to and for such person or persons 'to appeal there from, as in other cases of 'appeal, from such colony or plantation; 'whereon such a motion shall be finally 'judged of and determined by his Majesty 'in Council. If such were the law, how happened it that so many persons were allowed to hold sinecure offices in the colonies without residence? How happened it that Mr. Percy Wyndham was in the possession of two offices in the West Indies, of the annual value of 4,600l., from the period of 1763 to 1816, without having been compelled to reside in the West Indies, or to give up his places? Then, again, there was Mr. Sullivan, who received 1800l. a-year as Registrar and Secretary of Demerara, and was allowed to reside in England. Again, as to the case of Mr. Greville, Clerk of the Council at Tobago, with a salary of 400l. a-year, that gentleman did not reside in the colony; and yet no steps had been taken to abolish this office. There was also the case of my Lord Braybrooke, who was appointed to the office of Provost Marshal of Jamaica, with a salary of 2,100l., when he was only six years of age; and who did not visit that colony until he had attained a very advanced period of life. Now, if the law he had quoted had been enforced, Lord Braybrooke would not have received one shilling until he went to Jamaica. Again, there was the case of Lord Chatham, as Governor of Gibraltar, who, though he never went near the place, received 3,400l. a-year. All these cases were contrary to the Act of Parliament, and yet no steps were taken to enforce it.

with reference to the ob servations of the gallant Colonel, remarked, that in the first case to which he had alluded—that of Mr. Wyndham—the appointment was made before the Act was passed, and therefore was not affected by it; in the next—that of Mr. Sullivan, at Demerara—the office had been abolished by the present Administration; and as to Mr. Greville, that gentleman had held two offices—one of these had the salary paid in London; the Government, acting on the principle referred to by the hon. member for Middlesex, and on that of the Act in question, had stopped the payment of the salary. It was true that the gentleman had been absent from the personal discharge of the duties of the other office, but then he was absent on leave regularly obtained.

expressed his satisfaction at the manner in which the Government had met this question. All that the army wanted was such honours and rewards for actual services as the country thought fit to bestow. The military profession asked for neither sinecures nor unmerited pensions. Indeed, the taunts which were sometimes thrown out against the army, charging them with plundering the people of their money and luxuriating in sinecures, were far more hurtful to the feelings of honourable men, who had spent their lives from their youths upwards in the arduous service of their country, than could be compensated by any emoluments, however large. In the army there were but few prizes, and to have those prizes tarnished made them worse than valueless. All that the army desired was a fair and just and honourable inquiry. If they were entitled to nothing, let them have nothing; but if, on the contrary, the country felt that the men who had spent their strength and risked their existence for the maintenance of its honour, the extension of its glory, and the security of its commerce, were entitled both to honour and to pecuniary reward, let it not be bestowed with taunt and contumely, but in a spirit which became a nation worthy of such services. The officers of the army wished not to be confounded with those, if such there were, who had distinction and public money for doing nothing. Better would it be for the army, rather than be so mixed up, to be deprived of all reward, whether honorary or other—better, far better, for the army to make any pecuniary sacrifices than to lose its name and its fame from being shown under false colours, and mingled with those who had neither worked for what they had got nor suffered for what they had received.

observed, that the navy had no fear of inquiry, but was anxious to be placed in a fair position before the country, and to have its claims examined. He had no doubt that the noble Lord would deal fairly by the navy as well as by the army; but he was sure that if rewards were to be doled out by the House of Commons, they would be conferred in a more lavish and a more expensive manner to the country than if they were left in the hands of the Crown, for a popular assembly like that was more likely to be acted upon by strong feelings, whenever a case came before it well and eloquently represented. He wished the navy, in respect to sinecures, to be treated in the same way as the army.

then addressed the House with reference to Colonial appointments, most of which were served by deputy, and were thus sinecure offices. Besides this, no person in this country knew anything about even the vacancies in the Colonial Department till he heard of their being filled up, and most generally it turned out that the persons appointed were so totally unfit or unworthy, that, had sufficient time been allowed, by previous notice of the intended appointment, to consider its propriety, the appointment would infallibly have been negatived. It appeared to him (Mr. Hume), that the intended appointment ought to be gazetted, so that every opportunity might be given for examining into the claimant's efficiency. The hon. Member, after some further observations on the system of Colonial appointments, moved his second Resolution, "That no person should receive salary or emoluments from any place which he fills by deputy."

confirmed the statement of the hon. member for Middlesex, as to the unfitness of many persons for the appointments which they received. Sir George Murray had stated, and from his connexion with a former Administration, he well knew, that many persons were sent out to Canada who were altogether unqualified for their situations. He hoped the suggestion of the hon. Member would be adopted.

said, he should not object to the Motion. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. member for Middlesex, he would not pledge himself to its adoption, but he thought it worthy of consideration.

said, he wished to say a few words in explanation of the next Motion which he had to propose. The noble Lord opposite, had, on a former occasion, said, that as it was not delicate that his Majesty's Ministers should inquire into their own salaries and those of their colleagues, the duty should be delegated to a Committee, and that it should be the duty of Ministers to act with respect to the salaries as the Committee should suggest. Now, he wished to ask the noble Lord, whether there was any regulation by which all appointments should, in the same manner, be viewed as subject to qualification and alteration as to their duties and emoluments? If any such regulation had been adopted, his present Motion would have been unnecessary; but if not, he thought it was proper to mark the intention of the House to follow up the example which his Majesty's Ministers had shown with respect to their own salaries, and that individuals who held situations should hold them subject to such alterations as should be deemed expedient, as had been the case with respect to the Bishopric of Derry. He moved "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, by the advice of his Ministers shall make, without the persons so appointed having any claim for compensation or allowance for such alterations."

objected to this Motion, because he considered it not only unnecessary, but as calling into question the existent powers of Government, who, as it was, had power to make every deduction and modification they thought advisable; and he himself had acted upon this power in several important instances. The hon. Member's suggestion assumed, that Government had not that power with respect to offices now in existence.

if the power was now existing it was unnecessary; and, if not, he objected to giving such an arbitrary new power to the House. It would be impossible to say to what extent it might be carried. In either case he hoped his hon. friend would withdraw his Motion.

was happy to hear the statement of the noble Lord. He would just put one question to him, and if the answer were equally satisfactory, the Resolution should be readily withdrawn. This was with respect to the patent offices. Suppose one of the Judges was, by Act of Parliament, allowed a salary of 5,000l. a-year, would the noble Lord say, that this could be influenced other than by Act of Parliament "If the answer were in the affirmative, he would gladly withdraw his Motion, perfectly satisfied, with the hon. Member, that it would then be unnecessary.

said, that the hon. Member must be aware the Judges' salaries were fixed by Act of Parliament.

said, that the discussion of the principle of this Bill had been postponed on the understanding that it should be taken on the question of going into Committee He therefore hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would give his reasons for proposing this measure.

acknowledged that what the hon. and learned Gentleman said was true, and he should endeavour, however imperfectly, to assign reasons why this Bill should pass. The Government asked for this Bill on the same grounds as those which induced the House to pass the late Coercion Bill as it had been called, but which he would call Pacification Bill, for it was a Bill to tranquillize Ireland. This was not a new measure, for a similar Act had passed in the reign of George 3rd, and the preamble and many of the clauses of the present were the same as in that Bill, He thought it was hardly necessary for him to enter into particulars, for the elaborate speech which had been made on the state of Ireland by his predecessor must have fully satisfied the House that justice could not be impartially administered in Ireland. Such a thing as a fair trial was probably unknown. The Bill, therefore, proceeded upon the impossibility of obtaining a competent and fair trial for offenders. He held in his hand a list of Jurors who had been deterred by intimidations from the discharge of their duty. One person connected with a newspaper received a notice that if he served as a Juror in the county of Kilkenny, and a single White boy was punished in consequence of his verdict, he must prepare for death.

When was this notice served on the party?

On March 19.

Do you go back to March, 1819, for cases?

Certainly not. The case he referred to occurred on March 19, in the present year. He was not so ignorant of events that had lately happened, and of the hon. and learned Member's own exploits, as to refer back to so distant a period as the year 1819. He held in his hand a list of a variety of similar cases which he would mention if the House desired it. The right hon. Baronet accordingly proceeded to mention several other cases similar to those of which so many were quoted by Lord Althorp and Mr. Stanley, on introducing the Suppression of Disturbances Bill, for the purpose of showing the system of terror and intimidation which still prevailed in Ireland, and the effect of which was entirely to prevent the administration of justice in that country. He learned, by a communication he had received from Ireland, that the present plan of the Whitefeet was not to deter witnesses from coming forward, but to order them to attend at the Assizes for the purpose of giving such evidence as they (the Whitefeet) might think fit. He had also an affidavit to the effect that money had been collected for the purpose of obtaining the acquittal of persons charged with outrages, and that Mr. Maurice Reid, a Magistrate of Kilkenny, had received so many threatening letters that, in compliance with the wishes of his friends, he had left Ireland, and was now residing in England. In addition to these, it was a well-known fact that many Petty Jurors were under the necessity of carrying arms in self-defence. In Westmeath, thirty persons had been bailed by respectable persons, who had been forced to such a measure, in order to protect themselves against the attacks of the Whitefeet. The case was the same in Tipperary; but he was quite sure it was unnecessary to multiply instances. These were the circumstances which made it absolutely necessary to pass the present Bill, in which there was nothing to which any body, who had the substantial ends of justice at heart, could object. It was not proposed to give the power of changing the venue either to the prosecutor or defendant in any case, but to the Court before which the cause came to be tried; and there were certain clauses to be introduced for the purpose of providing for the payment of the expenses of those parties whose trials were removed to a distance from their own counties. If any further justification of the measure were wanted, he might mention that it had received the approbation of Lord Cloncurry, than whom Ireland did not boast a better patriot, nor ever a better friend.

denied, that any case had been made out to justify such a Bill, and he would move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, in order to ascertain if it were necessary that it should be passed. After the change which had lately taken place in the Irish Secretary ship, he had hoped that he should not have any occasion to reply to personal attacks; but this expectation, he was sorry to say, had been disappointed. The right hon. Baronet had talked of his (Mr. O'Connell's) exploits. Now he begged to tell the right hon. Gentleman, that they had not been shifting and changeable, but consistent and of a uniform character. But dismissing this topic, he would ask the House whether there had ever been made such an attempt to trample on the constitutional rights of Ireland as had been ventured on that night? Were they prepared, on the strength of such documents as had been produced by the right hon. Secretary, on his simple allegation indeed to interrupt the usual course of justice in Ireland? If there had not been the utmost readiness on the part of the House to pass such a Bill, it would never have been introduced. Never before had such a measure been brought forward upon such grounds, or supported by such facts? The right hon. Baronet talked of doing justice to the people of Ireland, and yet he took the Irish peasant from the place of his birth, and carried him to a place far distant from where alone he could procure evidence to his character and means of his defence, to be tried, and of course punished. The very fact of an application on the part of the Crown to change the venue was sufficient to prejudice any man's case. These Jurors would naturally say—this is one of the Whitefeet, who have terrified the Magistrates and Jurors of his native country; but we will show him that we are not to be so intimidated. He had had more experience in criminal cases than almost any man in Ireland, and he could assert, that from many difficulties in procuring witnesses, a man's fate depended more upon his character than upon anything else. This was often owing to the conduct of the Counsel on the part of the Crown, and yet this Bill would remove an accused person from the only place where he could establish his character. One of the clauses to be introduced, it was true, provided for the payment of the expenses of a prisoner's witnesses, and he should therefore say no more upon this part of the subject at present, but he would assert again, that no grounds whatever existed for passing the Bill. He defied the right hon. Baronet to bring forward a single instance where the course of justice had been impeded by injuring Jurymen. The Report of the Committee of 1832, of which Sir Henry Parnell had been Chairman, had set forth that no Juryman, up to August in that year, had ever received any notice whatever. He (Mr. O'Connell) would go further, and say, that in the prosecution of the Whitefeet, forty-eight out of forty-nine had been convicted, and in every instance the Jurymen had returned to their places of residence without any interruption or molestation whatever. There was no reason for making such an inroad on the Constitution of Ireland. In the years I766 and 1776, Jurors had been injured, and outrages had been committed; but nothing of this sort had occurred recently, and therefore the Bill was totally uncalled for. The right hon. Secretary had referred to a similar Bill which had formerly passed; but was he aware that the Act to which he alluded, and which was directed against the north of Ireland; was a complete failure? The Government even shrunk from carrying it into effect but it was a bad precedent, worthy to be followed on the present occasion! All he asked for was, that a Select Committee should be appointed, with a few friends of Ireland among its members, and he would answer for it that they would prove that no necessity existed for the Bill. He begged Ministers to reflect upon the effects which their treatment of Ireland had upon their foreign policy. For the sake of Poland they dared not interfere, for Russia would point out to them the state of Ireland. They dared not quarrel with France until they had conciliated Ireland. He warned them, as he had frequently done before, unfortunately without effect but not without the results which he had predicted having arrived, that the measure would have the most fatal effects on the feelings of the Irish people. The hon. and learned member concluded by moving his Amendment.

had no hesitation in opposing the Amendment of the hon. and learned member for Dublin. What was it which the hon. Member had so much reprobated? It might be supposed that it was the most tyrannical code ever proposed for enslaving an unfortunate people. From the learned Gentleman's observations, one would really imagine, that it was proposed that the inhabitants of Ireland should be shipped off and tried in some remote corner of the globe. But what did the Bill amount to? To this, and this only:—that if it should appear to the satisfaction of the Judges of the Court of King's Bench in Ireland, the regular constitutional tribunal of the country, that there could not be a fair trial in the county in which an offence was committed, they might direct the trial to take place in the next adjoining county, or in the city of Dublin. Application for the removal of the trial might be made either by the accused, or the prosecutor; and every expense incurred by the prisoner, in the conveyance of his witnesses to the place appointed by the Court, would be paid. It seemed to him, then, that this Bill, so far from prejudging the case of a prisoner, tended only to give him a fair and impartial trial; and for that reason he should give it his decided support. The Bill which lately passed the House he felt himself compelled to support, most reluctantly, because it went, in certain cases, to supersede the Trial by Jury, and to establish unconstitutional tribunals. But the present Bill would tend to make those unconstitutional tribunals unnecessary, and would continue the Trial by Jury, according to the ancient law of the kingdom. The hon. and learned member for Dublin told the House, that, if this Bill passed, England would not dare to go to war with France, because Ireland, as he insinuated, would immediately join with the latter, and throw off" its allegiance to the British Crown. And why was Ireland to do that? Because the British Legislature proposed that, if there were not a possibility of procuring a fair trial in a county in which an offence took place, the trial should be transferred to the next county, or to the city of Dublin! The hon. and learned Member contended that there could be no freedom in a country where such a system was allowed to exist. He thought Scotland, where he was born, was free; and yet, the hon. and learned Member must know that this system existed, and had been the law of Scotland for many ages. In every case, at the discretion of the public prosecutor in that country, the trial of an offence might be removed from the place in which it was committed to the city of Edinburgh; and in the whole course of his life he never heard a complaint whispered against the power so exercised. But this was not only the law of Scotland, but the law of England also; because, wherever it was apprehended that a fair trial could not be had in the county in which an offence had taken place, the trial, on the application of cither of the parties concerned, to the Court of King's Bench, might be removed to another county. But if the hon. and learned Gentleman be dissatisfied with his authority, he would give him that of Blackstone, who said, that "as the jurisdiction of the King's Court is co-extensive with the kingdom, there surely, can be no impropriety in departing from the common rule, when the great ends of justice require it." In addition to this, Lord Mansfield said, "that where an impartial trial cannot be had in the county in which an offence has taken place, the case shall be tried in the next county. This is the ancient and general rule, wherever the Court has jurisdiction." So that it appeared by the testimony of these two weighty legal authorities, that that which the hon. and learned Member represented as most unconstitutional; and as so despotic and tyrannical, as to warrant the people of Ireland in throwing off' the allegiance of the British Crown; was the ancient and general rule of England, and had always been the law of Scotland. Within his own experience, he had known many instances in which the Court of King's Bench had changed the venue upon its being shown that a fair trial could not be had in the place in which the offence was committed. He remembered particularly a case which was tried at Gloucester for an offence committed at Stafford. In that case, the application for the change of venue was made on the part of the defendant, and, he as counsel for the prosecution, opposed it. As it was proved, however, to the satisfaction of the Judges of the King's Bench, that a prejudice existed against the defendant in his native town, they directed the trial to take place at Gloucester. Again, there was the recent case of the Magistrates of Bristol, whose trial took place in Westminster Hall before a Jury brought from the county of Berks. The case of the King v. Thomas "was, perhaps, more in point than any that he had cited. The city of Rochester was a county by itself, having a separate jurisdiction from the county of Kent. A bill of indictment was found againt Thomas, an excise officer, for murder within the liberties of the city of Rochester. In the common course of law, the trial would have taken place there; but, upon an application on the part of the prisoner to the Court of King's Bench, the trial was ordered to be removed to the county of Kent. The venue was changed accordingly; the trial took place at Maidstone, and the prisoner was acquitted. Such a prejudice existed against him in the city of Rochester, that, had he been tried there, the probability was, that he would have been convicted. This showed, that where a prejudice was known to exist, or where warm feelings were excited, it was as much to the benefit of the prisoner as of the prosecutor, that the venue should be changed. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. and learned member for Dublin would not tell the people of Ireland that this was a Bill which carried with it 50 great an infraction of the common and recognized laws of the United Kingdom as to justify them in shaking off their allegiance to England. In point of fact, when this Bill should become law, Ireland would only be placed in the same situation, as regarded the liability to change of venue, as England and Scotland now were, and for many ages had been. If the Trial by Jury in the ordinary form of law could be continued with any hope or any probability of obtaining justice between the accuser and the accused in Ireland, the late Act which, in many instances, provided for the establishment of Courts-martial in lieu of any form of Trial by Jury, would never have been agreed to by so large a majority of the House. The statement of the right hon. Secretary to-night proved that the system of intimidation still prevailed, and, therefore, he was at a loss to conceive upon what grounds, or upon what principle, the hon. and learned Member objected to a Bill, which would extend, as far as possible, to the people of Ireland, the benefit of the Trial by Jury, instead of subjecting them to the more summary and severe process of a Court-martial. The hon. and learned Member had before referred to the proposition made during the American war, to bring culprits to trial from America to England; but what parallel was there between the two cases? The operation of this Bill was confined to the jurisdiction of the courts in Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman had complained of the hardship of trying a man before strangers; but were the inhabitants of Dublin strangers? Were they foreigners? Were they not Irishmen, and had they not the sympathies of Irishmen? This must be so, and he was sure the hon. and learned Member did his constituents injustice. He would only remind the hon. and learned member for Dublin, before he sat down, that many Irish Members who opposed the Suppression of Disturbances Bill, supported this Bill. The hon. and learned member for Monaghan, for instance, highly approved of it, and considered that it might have an excellent effect, and render it altogether unnecessary to call into operation the powers of the Coercive Bill; for even when a district was disturbed, it did not necessarily follow that Courts-martial shall be established.

said, he knew of no case in which the venue was changed except at the desire of the prisoner. There was no instance of its being changed on the part of the Crown. He regretted that the Court-martial clause had passed at all. Such a Bill as this might have rendered it quite unnecessary. He was prepared to oppose the changing of the venue to the city of Dublin, on account of the manner in which Juries were appointed.

said, he had no doubt that upon application the venue would be changed at the desire of the prosecutor.

said, there was a statute which enabled the prosecutor to have a trial in the next county.

said, he did not mean to oppose the Bill. He believed there was no instance of the venue being changed in cases of felony at the suggestion of the prosecutor. At the same time, he did not mean to say, that a power to do that should not be given to the prosecutor in Ireland, subject to the approbation of the Court of King's Bench.

supported the Bill. He might be disposed in the Committee to vote against the venue being changed to the city of Dublin.

supported the Bill. He was a friend to Ireland, and as much disposed as any man to maintain her liberties. He heard nothing which could induce him to vote against the Bill.

said, that for three hundred years this parrot cry of friendship to slaves was repeated in the West Indies, as it was now with respect to Ireland Such professions of friendship were nothing but slang and cant. The friendship of England to Ireland had invariably shown itself in coercion. Not a single case of intimidation had been produced to justify this Bill, except one, founded upon anonymous information. He admitted that as fair and impartial a Jury might be had in Dublin as in any part of the empire if the Juries were struck in a different manner.

thought it quite improper in the member for Tralee to charge his hon. friend (Mr. Sinclair) with the use of cant and slang. He protested against the use of such language in that House.

spoke generally of professions, which he must consider, looking into the result as hypocritical; and he meant nothing personally offensive to the member for Caithness.

expressed himself satisfied with the explanation.

opposed the Bill, and expressed his astonishment at a proposition to subject all Ireland to Dublin Juries. The Jury system there was full of vices. An instance in point was this: an Alderman was using insulting language to the King, and, on being remonstrated with, replied, "you may prosecute me if you like, but if it was even for treason, I am sure of getting a Jury to acquit me." Indeed, when it happened that the Attorney General had a quarrel with the Corporation he could get no conviction whatever.

thought the last speaker had given an undeniable reason for passing the Bill, for if it were a law, and an Alderman should speak treason, or the Attorney General have a quarrel with the Corporation, the venue might be changed, and the Alderman might find the experiment hazardous, and the Corporation might find it dangerous to obstruct the course of the law. His object, however, in rising, was to express the feelings he entertained at hearing the hon. and learned member for Dublin, and those who supported him, constantly throwing out irritating expressions against English Members; who, whatever might be said of their justice, certainly deserved great credit for their patience. He would put the claims of English Members as low as they could be put, by the ingenuity—he did not say ingenuousness—of the hon. and learned member for Dublin, he would suppose that if anything were to be gained, that if one single sixpence were to be put into the pockets of English Members by oppressing Ireland, they would so act, But if they could have no such motive, what was meant by the charge against them? The hon. and learned member for Tralee had compared them to negro slaveholders; but he would beg the House to recollect that there was this material difference between the relation of England to Ireland, and of masters to their slaves. Negroes were the property of their masters, and worked for their benefit; the masters gained their livelihood from the sweat of the negroes' brow; but it would puzzle hon. Members from Ireland to show how English Members profited by the labour of the people of Ireland. He would claim nothing for English generosity, which, in the abstract, the hon. and learned member for Dublin praised every night, but which he never allowed in any particular instance; but he would simply put the question as one of interest—and ask the hon. and learned Member, what benefit English Members could derive from the oppression of Ireland, any more than from the oppression of Scotland, of Wales, or Cornwall? What motive did he imagine could actuate the English Members? Did they do evil for the sake of evil? Were they demons? The hon. and learned Member was continually alluding to times past, and he went with him in those allusions. He knew that Ireland had been oppressed, that even his eloquence was not fervid enough to describe the oppression Ireland had met with—not, however, from England, or the English people—hut from the English Government; but had not that Government oppressed England also? [Mr. Connell: No!] Had the hon. and learned Member then expended all his faculties upon Irish history, and not read a page of English history? Were the Members of a Reformed Parliament, to say, that in times past, the English people had not been oppressed. Had the Government of the people of England always been just, and had they not suffered from the same causes as the people of Ireland? Had the people of England been duly represented in Parliament? Had they had a proper control over their own revenue and expenditure? Had not the people of England been subject to the domination of the faction which laid an equal hand of tyranny upon both countries? The hon. and learned Gentleman objected to this Bill as imposing hardships upon Ireland which did not exist in England; but the principle of the Bill had long been received and acted upon in England. The Act which had introduced it, gave power to any prosecutor on his own mere Motion, without asking the leave of any court whatever to prosecute a criminal in any adjoining county to the local jurisdiction in which the offence was committed; and it was only the year before last, that a murder committed in the county of the city of Coventry was prosecuted in the county of Warwick. The murderer was convicted, and taken back to the county of the city of Coventry to be executed. An important measure like this, however, ought not to be defended on mere law precedents; but when the hon. and learned Member spoke of this as an innovation, he certainly forgot his learning. If the hon. Member attacked the Bill upon principle, he would meet him upon principle, and would say boldly, that the principle of the Bill was so good, that he, for one, supposing it ever to be wanted, should, with proper checks, be just as ready to extend it to England as to Ireland. Nay, he thought it would tend to the advancement of justice, if a Bill of this kind was introduced into England. He was willing indeed, to concede, that, upon the evidence which the right hon. Gentleman had brought before the House, he could not conscientiously vote for the Bill. But he believed it to be good in principle, and should be ready to vote for it if the right hon. Gentleman had not produced any evidence whatever Juries appeared originally to have been not only Judges but witnesses, and were, therefore, obtained from the very place where the offence was committed. What they gained in knowledge by dwelling in the vicinage, they lost however, in impartiality; and, therefore, a very ancient change was, to bring the Juries from the hundred at large, and not from the immediate vicinity of the place where the offence was committed. A subsequent change was, to bring the Jury from any part of the county; which was the state of the law now. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say, that generally speaking, Juries drawn from a county knew anything of the witnesses or character of the parties accused? Such things occasionally happened, but they were by no means favourable to an impartial decision. Generally speaking, county Juries knew as little of the parties they tried, as if they lived a hundred miles off. What did it matter, then, whether a man were tried in his own county, or in a county at a considerable distance? When a Jury was ignorant of the criminal and the witnesses, it mattered not whether the trial took place in their own county or 200 miles off. The only difference was, that the prisoner would have the public to pay the expense of his witnesses when he was taken out of the county. That was an advantage all accused persons, he trusted, would shortly have, under proper checks, both in England and Ireland; for there was often great failure of justice from the incompetency of accused persons to bring from a distance witnesses who could prove their innocence. That advantage was given by this Bill, and therefore it ought to be received as a boon, instead of being made the subject of another charge against the English Parliament. With respect to Dublin Juries, as it had been proved, that the Sheriffs of Dublin were partisans, he should refuse his assent to that part of the Bill which went to place in their hands the power of appointing the Juries who were to try parties under this Bill. He saw no reason why a clause should not be put into the Bill, taking from the Sheriff of Dublin the power of choosing Juries, at least for the purposes of the Act. Surely, the officers of the Court of King's Bench might be intrusted with the power of selecting Juries. [Mr. O'Connell: The abuse was in making up the panel.] Well, they might make up the panel also; and at any rate Dublin could not be so deficient in honest men, as that one man could not be found in whom this power might be placed, even to the satisfaction of the hon. and learned member for Dublin himself. He should certainly support the Bill, but not the particular clause of it to which he had just referred.