several British Ports, in the year ending 5th January, year. On the Motion of Sir THOMAS FREEMANTLE, Copies of Reports relative to the Price of Corn in Foreign Countries, made by his Majesty's Consuls abroad, and not yet before Parliament. On the Motion of Mr. HUME, Droits of the Crown and Perquisites of the Admiralty, since the Commencement of the present Reign, with the Amount of his Salary and Allowance.--On the Motion of Mr. O'DWYER, the Barristers appointed by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, under the Irish Reform Act, for the Registry of Voters, &c. 1833; and of such as have been mortgaged in the same the Amount received by the Receiver General of the Bills. Read a second time:-Savings Banks; Annuities; Banks; Customs Bounties; British Possessions; Registry of Vessels'; Customs Duties; Customs' Management; Isle Mr. SINCLAIR, Mr. ETWALL, Mr. C. K. TYNTE, Mr. By Mr. BELL, Mr. TYRRELL, Mr. PIGOTT, Mr. MACAU- Mr. ETWALL, Mr. BARING, Mr. ANDREW JOHNSTON, Mr. TAYLEURE, and Mr. LANGSTON,-against the Assessed Taxes.-By Mr. MACAULAY, from Leeds; and Mr. TAY- Mr. PIGOTT, and Mr. BARING, from Worfield, and HAWES, Mr. WIGNEY, Mr. VIVIAN, Mr. MACAULAY, borough, and praying inquiry into the subject. As an instance of the deficiency on the score of respectability, he would mention that the gamekeeper of the Duke of Northumberland had been appointed an Alderman, thereby presenting the singular junction of a preserver of game and an administrator of justice. Notwithstanding the intention of the Reform Bill had been to diminish the interest of the noble Duke in Launceston, yet it was notorious that attempts had successfully been made to regain that influence, and Launceston was now as much a nomination borough as it was before the passing of the Reform Bill. He had felt it his duty to state thus much, as the petitioners felt deeply on the subject, and begged to move that the petition be referred to the Committee on Corporations. Sir Henry Hardinge, after thanking the hon. Baronet for his courtesy in having communicated to him his intention of presenting this petition, observed, that though the petition stated amongst other things that the law had fallen into disrepute Owing to the want of respectability of the Aldermen of the borough, yet not one fact or one instance of misconduct in any of the Aldermen was brought forward to prove the statement. The hon. Member had indeed said, that the Duke of Northumberland had appointed his gamekeeper to the office of Alderman; but he must inform the House that the individual alluded to was a person possessing considerable property in the borough, whose father and grandfather had both filled the office before him, and whose only crime was, that, being fond of shooting, the noble Duke had given him a deputation to shoot over his grounds, but Faith in Ireland.—By Mr. A. JOHNSTON, from Cupar, the individual did not receive one shilling for imposing the Laws relative to real Property in Scot- for his services. The petition also alleged, land. By Mr. C. BULLER, from Burton-upon-Trent, for that the corporate funds, which were conLeith, for a Repeal of the Duty on Stamps for Receipts. siderable, had been misapplied, but not a -By General SHARPE, from Dumfries, for Poor Laws single instance of misapplication was stated. for Ireland. By Mr. LAMBTON, from the Roman Catholic He did not believe the assertion, for, in the Clergy of Durham, for a Law to enable them to perform valid Marriages in their Churches.-By Mr. T. ATTWOOD, year 1831, when complaints were made in from Atherstone, for a Reduction of Taxation; from this respect to the Corporation, that body several Places, for Vote by Ballot; from a Political Union, submitted to a full inquiry for any period for an equitable Adjustment of the Claims of the Fundthat the parties thought proper. That inholders; and from Walsall, for a Repeal of the Taxes on Knowledge.-By Sir H. HARDINGE, Mr. BROTHERTON, quiry was gone into by Mr. Pearce, an and Mr. T. ATTWOOD, from Salford, Hertford, and attorney, whose name appeared first to this the total Abolition of Tithes.-By Mr. MURRAY, from Walsall, for a Factories' Regulation Bill. BOROUGH OF LAUNCESTON.] Sir William Molesworth presented a petition from the inhabitants of the borough of Launceston, complaining of corporate abuses, and of the want of respectability in the persons composing the body of Aldermen in the petition, and another gentleman; and though they went back into the accounts for a period of upwards of twenty years, the result was that not a single instance of misapplication or abuse could be found. The petition was got up to serve electioneering purposes by Mr. Pearce, who had been the agent of the defeated candidate at the last but he was now sorry to admit, that the election. Mr. Pearce had formerly been greatest injuries and mischiefs had arisen a Tory, but changed his politics on the from the system. He had received letters passing of the Catholic Relief Bill, and had from Lane-end, and from Hanley and been disappointed in his wishes to obtain Shelton-most populous districts in the the Alderman' gown for himself. He county with which he was connected, which considered the great part of the petition a placed in most striking light the mischiefs most contemptible libel on the Corporation which had resulted from the Beer-shops. of Launceston; and though he protested One correspondent, the rev. Mr. Temple, against the accuracy of the statements it of Lane-end, stated, that, in the year 1825 contained, he should not object to its being a meeting of the Magistrates was held to referred to the Committee on Corporations. consider what increase of public-houses Mr. Charles Buller regretted that the should be allowed, and the result of their gallant General should have thought it ne- deliberation was, that five should be the cessary to attack a respectable gentleman number. It appeared, however, from this like Mr. Pearce, who was not present to letter, that in the first month after the defend himself. The only charge that he Beer Act had passed, forty-two houses (Mr. Buller) knew against Mr. Pearce was, were licensed, and that there were now that he had once been a Tory, but that no less than seventy-two houses of this stain he had wiped away by two or three description. In Hanley, it appeared that years constant opposition to that party. the population in 1795 was 6,000, and the With respect to the gamekeeper he had him- number of public-houses thirty-five;-that self inquired into the circumstance, and had the population is now 16,000, and that learned that the individual who had been since the sale of Beer Act came into operaalluded to received 50l. a-year from the tion, there had sprung up 110 licensed Duke of Northumberland, and that this beer-shops. In these very populous diswas his chief means of subsistence. He tricts it was quite impossible for the conhad been so informed by the opponent of stabulary to exercise a control over the the gallant General at the last election. He beer-shops, which were frequently situated could also add, from the complaints which in remote places, where there was no means had reached him, that the Corporation of of seeing how they were conducted. Launceston was the worst in Cornwall as He hoped under these circumstances that to general character, and that there had the noble Lord (the member for Buckingbeen more complaints made against its hamshire) would press forward the motion honesty than against any other in the same on this subject of which he had given district. notice. Sir Henry Hardinge held letters from most respectable persons in Launceston, which corroborated his statement as to the respectability and property of the alleged gamekeeper; and he again repeated, that the petition did not contain a single fact against that body, either as magistrates or corporators. Petition referred to the committee on Municipal Corporations. Mr. Roebuck denied, that the existing demoralization was to be attributed to the beer-shops, or that demoralization had increased since the passing of the Beer-bill. He should oppose any attempt to change the system, which had so much benefitted the poor classes. Mr. Ruthven considered that demoralization and crime originated rather in the use of ardent spirits than from the beer-shops, which were the means of relief and recreation of the poorer classes. He should be glad to see a measure introduced for the regulation of gin-shops. SALE OF BEER.] Mr. Fysche Palmer presented a petition from the mechanics and operatives of the borough of Reading, in favour of the sale of Beer Act, and Mr. Thomas Attwood was surprised to praying the House not to alter a measure hear from the hon. member for Bath that which had been productive of much com- demoralization had not increased; for, in fort and advantage to the petitioners with-fact, within the period of sixteen years, the out great consideration. Mr. Edward Buller had supported the Beer Bill on its introduction, in the hope it would be productive of great benefit to the poorer classes, by destroying monopolies, and giving them a good commodity, amount of crime had quadrupled. Notwithstanding this, he thought on inquiry it would be found that the increase was not to be attributed to the beer-shops, but to the difficulties, distress, and embarrassments under which the people had so long self to one or two of the main arguments that were urged against it. The chief principle on which he called on the House to remove those disabilities— laboured, and he hoped care would be taken by the House not to deliver up the beer-shops to be destroyed, as the publicans had been, at the whim or caprice of the Magistrates, without Judge or Jury. He had seen publicans, who had paid 300l. or 400l. for the good-will of a house, destroyed by the mere whisper of a lie in the ear of a Justice of the Peace; and he thought it was a tremendous power to invest any man with, which would have the effect of converting honest and brave Englishmen into miserable slaves within a very short time. Petition laid on the Table. The Speaker suggested whether it would not be for the convenience of the House to know distinctly what course the hon. Gentleman meant to adopt. If he intended to move a resolution in a Committee of the whole House, it was to be considered, whether he would move for a Committee of the whole House at once, and then open his case in that Committee, or whether he would open his case now, and end with his motion for a Committee. The difference of the two modes was this-that if he took the latter course, the debate would, in the first instance, be taken in the House, and afterwards in the Committee; but if the House went into Committee in the first instance, the case might then be opened, and a single debate would suffice on the Resolution. Mr. Robert Grant thought the latter course was decidedly the best for him to adopt. He should therefore move, "That this House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to consider the disabilities affecting Jewish subjects." In the Committee he should state his Resolution. Sir Robert Inglis thought it would be better to open the case in the whole House, and not in Committee. If the debate were proceeded with, there might be an understanding, that the proposition about to be submitted to the consideration of the House should not be again discussed in Committee. EMANCIPATION OF THE JEWS.] Mr. Robert Grant said, that before he proceeded with his intended Motion on the subject of Jewish disabilities, he was prepared to state to the House, in contradiction to what had already been asserted there,-namely, that the Jews did not feel those disabilities,he was prepared to state that he had received letters signed by the most respectable of that class of his Majesty's subjects, declaring the interest they felt in the question, and regretting that it had not been yet settled. The case of the Jews was so strong, that he thought he might, without offering a single remark, submit their grievances to the House of Commons, with a full confidence of success. The whole body of persons of that persuasion, except a few who were too insignificant to merit attention, took the deepest interest in what he was about to propose. On a former occasion, in the late House of Commons, he moved for leave to bring in a bill for the removal of those disabilities which affected Mr. Robert Grant should be glad to Jewish subjects; but, in conformity with assent to the arrangement proposed by the precedents, and in accordance with the hon. Baronet, if he represented any one but opinions of the friends of the measure, it himself on this occasion; but the hon. Barowas now thought better to move the House net could not answer for the course which for a Committee of the whole House to other hon. Gentlemen might think it expeconsider those disabilities. In that Com-dient to pursue. If they adopted the mode mittee he would move a Resolution on the subject. His object was to place the Jews on the same footing with that class of separatists from the Established Church-the Roman Catholics-whose civil rights were now recognized by act of Parliament. On a former occasion, when the subject was less considered by the public than it had been since, he had felt it necessary to observe and make remarks upon the whole ⚫ case. He did not now deem it necessary to take that course. He would state first the principle on which he rested his case, and he should then very shortly apply him of proceeding which the hon. Baronet recommended, the House might be exposed to the risk of a double debate, which, he imagined, in this stage of the proceeding, to be wholly unnecessary. The Speaker suggested, that the consideration of the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman in the Committee of the whole House would be the regular course of proceeding. If the hon. Baronet would refer to the old practice of Parliament, he would find that the rule was, or at least that it was customary, before the House enter tained a new measure of this nature, to regulate the salaries of stewards or bailiffs? of their legal claim. Let the ground of It has however regulated the stipends of right be abandoned, and if any position curates; and why, but because the latter at all be taken, let it be that of expediency were servants of the public, and the re-alone. Once more I assert that the venues of the Church were at the disposal emoluments of livings are mere stipendiary of the people. But the Legislature has payments, precisely the same as the salary thought proper to increase the emoluments of an exciseman or of a custom-house of the clergy; for to the eternal disgrace officer; and for this assertion I have the of a former Parliament during the reign sanction of the Judges, it having been deof George 3rd, a sum of one million six cided that the profits of a living did not hundred thousand pounds was granted pass to the assignees of an insolvent for the augmentation of small livings. parson, but that his case was analogous Oh! 'tis a delightful thing to get hold of to that of a half-pay officer. Thus a the public purse! Now, at the time this clergyman may get into debt, go to jail, grant was made, we had Bishops in the cheat his creditors, get discharged and possession of twenty or thirty thousand a enjoy the emoluments of his living after year; and if nothing else be done, I think all; and this, to be sure, is perfectly comthis sum must be returned. But the clergy patible with Christianity. I ask, then, are under great personal restraints from have not the revenues of the Church which other men are free. By the 13th of been always subjected to Legislative Elizabeth, it is enacted that if an incum-enactments? Have not those revenues bent be absent above eight days in a-year, he shall lose one year's profit of his benefice, to be distributed among the poor, Have landlords been thus restrained? What would the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) say, if I were to move for leave to bring in a bill to confine him to his country residence under a similar penalty? But if the revenues of the Church be private property, or the clergy anything more than the servants of the public, this is the most tyrannical act that was ever passed, and ought to be torn out of the Statute Book. Several other Acts, with which I will not trouble the House, have since been passed, relating to the residence of the clergy. Again, it is worthy of remark that clerical benefices cannot be alienated; and his Majesty's law-officers are aware that every disposition of a living by rent-charge, annuity, or otherwise, is absolutely void. I do not say, indeed, that the parson would not be liable upon his covenant to repay the money lent; but I do assert, without fear of contradiction, that the grant itself would be void. What, then, becomes of the doctrine of private property? To me it is a matter of astonishment how some honourable members can talk as they do about legal rights and vested interests. To be sure, a tenant for life cannot sell or charge the remainder or reversion; but he can, at his own discretion, sell or charge his life-estate. Not so, however, the parson. He is incapable of charging his living to any extent; and I hope we shall hear no more been increased by the legislature? Are not the clergy under personal restraints from which other men are free? Are they not restrained from alienating their benefices? And are not the emoluments of a living mere stipendiary payments? No man will deny these facts. I come now to the last proposition contained in the resolution which I shall have the honour to submit to the House; which is, that the greater part, if not the whole, of the revenues of the Church, ought to be appropriated to the relief of the nation. I say the greater part, because there may be some doubt as to whether the clergy were not at one time entitled to one third of those revenues; but I do not think, that, under existing circumstances, the benefit of that doubt would be great. And here let me ask hon. Members what the state of affairs was before the Protestant Reformation? By the canons of Elfric, it appears that "the holy fathers had decreed that tithes should be paid into God's Church, and that the priests should divide them into three parts; one for the reparation of the Church a second for the poor, and a third for God's servants who attended the Church." Now, if further information be required on this point, I beg to refer the House to Archbishop Egbert's Excerptions, 15th Richard 2nd, and the 4th of Henry 4th. And the fact, that all the revenues of the Church were derived from our Catholic ancestors is by no means unworthy of attention. That the whole of these revenues were ever intended for the purpose of affording religious instruction, I posi- | pomps and vanities of this wicked world. tively deny and challenge contradiction; They tell us that the love of money is while it is clear that such part of them as the root of all evil-that those who will was to be applied to that purpose was given be rich fall into divers snares and temptato promulgate doctrines and to inculcate tions which drown men in perdition; and a faith from which our Church now dissents, that it is easier for a camel to go through and which the clergy declare to be damu- the eye of a needle than for a rich man to able. I ask, then, would they like to enter into the kingdom of heaven; and account for by-gone rents and profits, then again they declare that they are and to hand them over to the popish moved by the Holy Ghost to take the priesthood? Probably they have no in- cure of souls. clination to do that. Let them acknowledge, then, that they are indebted to Acts of Parliamentfor their present possessions; and with that acknowledgment let an admission be made that the Legislature has as great a right to dispossess them as a bloody-minded King and his rapacious courtiers had to dispossess the Catholics of old. But there are other and perhaps more substantial reasons for appropriating the revenues of the Church to the relief of the nation. It is a decidedly Antichristian institution-an institution which I believe to be no less an abomination to God than it is injurious to man. From our very infancy, we, as Protestants, were taught to rail against the Church of Rome, and to regard it as "Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth." That may be all true enough; but if the Romish Church "mother of harlots," it is natural to suppose that she is not childless. Where, then are her daughters? To hunt them all out is a task which I am not disposed to undertake: but, in pointing to the Establishment of this country, I present to the notice of the House a harlot having all the features of her apostate and adulterous mother. When some men talk of religion and a Christian Church, they seem to forget that there is such a thing as the New Testament. To that I refer honourable Members, and ask them, whether they find therein anything bearing the least resemblance to our religious Establishment, Christ was not rich; the Apostles did not fare sumptuously every day; they did not ride in splendid carriages; they took no part in legislative affairs, neither did they "eat the fat and clothe themselves with the wool of the flock;" but, on the contrary, they fed that flock with spiritual food, working with their own hands in order to supply their own bodily wants. Not so, however, the clergy of our Established Church. It is true they caution us against the be a Now, all this is very proper; but, unfortunately, they appear to contradict in practice what they profess in principle, They make a pompous and vain show, and take especial care of that which they declare to be a deadly evil; while as to the motions of the Holy Ghost in taking the cure of souls, they sometimes leave those souls to the cure of a half-starved curate, and move off to Paris, Rome, or some other place of fashionable resort, where they consume in indolence a great portion of the substance of their flocks. Now, I am disposed to take them at their word, to ease them of a little of that which they say, and which I believe, is pernicious to their souls, leaving them to the full benefit and enjoyment of their religion, to which I am sure there can be no reasonable objection on their part. But I have heard several hon. Members talk about respectability, and contend for the necessity of maintaining that of the clergy. I quite agree with them in point of terms; and yet there seems to be a substantial difference between us, for it is evident that by respectability they mean large parcels of money, Now I do not think that wealth has much, if anything, to do with respectability. A man may be a rich fool, or a rich rogue; while experience is sufficient to convince us that respectability is by no means incompatible with poverty. At any rate, our Saviour was not rich, neither were his Apostles; and yet who will venture to say that they were not respectable? If, indeed, it be necessary for a minister of religion to be in affluent circumstances in order to render him respectable, then we must cease to reverence the first teachers of Christianity; but God forbid we should do that. But this Establishment has been a great national evil. What have the clergy done? Why, instead of applying to their own purposes only one-third of the tithes, they have grasped the whole, and thrown the burthen of the poor and the expenses of the churches on the people. |