The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-05-18 00:00:00

an insurmountable difficulty in that. Protestants and Catholics I
were separated and divided on that no less than oa other subjects. I
On the question of marriage there were equal difficulties : a Popish
priest would not period the marriage of a Protestant and Catholic
without a pledge that the issue of the marriage should be all edu-
cated in the Roman Catholic religion. Was this to be tolerated
Then on the subject of excommunication they all must know the I
dreadful power of that terrible engine in the hands of the priests.
And was not this an influential religion, and the power of the
priests paramount over
their flock. It had been proved to be NJ by .
the evidence of every witness examined on the state of Ire-
land. The power of the priest operated politically : all
who had been interrogated on the subject, that in
screed cs‘e of a county election, if, the priests were to take up
I the cause of one of the candidates, the proprietors might
whistle for their influence, for the priest would carry the day.
The Catholic religion insinuated itself into all the civil relations of
life, and gave a greater power to the Priests than any institution
which had ever been devised could give. The Noble Lord oppo-
site (Marquis Lanmlown) asks what evils ran result from conrili-
ation. lie might retort the question, and say to him, " You
I call on us to introduce alterations in the Constitution of the
country—show me what good is to result from these inno-
va.ions before we consent to them ; but no, he would put
the question fairly, and undertook to prove, that all the
good of the Noble Lord's. own showing fell to the ground.
They all held—the very Bill on their Lordships' table held, that
the Constitution was essentially Protestant, that the foundation of
their system was Protestant. Let them but grant the concession
then demanded, and their Protestant foundation was not worth one
farthing. (Hear, hear.) As long as the Constitution was Protestant
the King must necessarily be so. Was it, he would ask, to be I
listened to that the King of this country, or the eventual '
King of it, was the only individual who was not to
have freedom of consedence ? (Hear, hear, hear.) He claimed
for him merely the same right that the meanest revenue officer in
the realm possessed. Was the King not to have conscientious
scruples? Was he not to believe in transubstantiation, in purga-
tory, or the invocation of saints ? Was it not possible that he
might entertain a belief in such doctrines as these. and yet not be
allowed to act on them ? (Hear, hear.) The advocates of the Bill
say it is hard that Catholics should be excluded from the Chief
Jueticeship of the King's Bench ; and yet the Bill itself excludes
them from the office of Lord Chancellor. Yet he (Lord Liverpool)
saw many reams why they should be eligible to tae former rather
than to the latter situation. For instance, the Lord Chancellor was
removable at the will of the Crown ; the Chief Justice was not.
It was possible that a certain numer of the Catholics may be
Privy Councillors. They may get in their hands all the patronage
of the Church of England. Still the King was excluded from be-
coming& Catholic. lie entreated their Lordships to consider what
may be the future consequences of such a slate of things. !day it
tat one day involve the country in a war ? They ought to meet the
question fairly and fully—they ought not deceive the people
or keep them in the dark ; but tell them at circa that the
j Constitution was now Protestant, and that if the present 1111
I passed, it was Protestant no more--(cries of " Hear, hear")
—that it was Protestant now, and may be Catholic hereafter.
(Hear, hear.) The first evil which he apprehended from the mea-
sure he did not fear as one to come on immediately ; it may come
on at a future period ; it was therefore proper to guard against it.
It was ohis, and he had no difficulty in sating it, that the
Church Establishment must be greatly endangered. (Hear,
hear.) Let Noble Lords look to the evidence before the Committee.
In his heart:he believed that the Catholic., did not entertain a detet-
mination4either now or hi Moro, of seizing on the Protestant pro-
perty. (hie of the witnesses, when asked "Do you not look for-
ward to the destruction of the church property ?" answered " No."
'• Or to diminish it ?" Yes ; but Ido that as an Irishmen, and
not as a Catholic Priest." They spose, he was sure, lionesiy—
they knew the best and least inviduous way was not to take it, but
to give it to the people. (Hear, hear, 'hear.) The question, they
say, is which church is to sink or swim ; and if the property of the
Protestant Church be diminished or destroyed, the Catholic Church
must ntcessarily rise. Ile knew that if they !pelted on their own
religion as the superior one, it must be legitimate fur them to
maintain such doctrine?--they must wish to destroy the Protestant
Church—their oath, duty, and interest bound them to such a course.
Ile had more immediate objections to the BiU. Its preamble set
forth that it would promote concord and happiness," so that all his
slajesty's subjects may grow into one nation." He trusted that he
had shown the difficulty of such a consummation. by what he said
on education, and also from other causes ; and further on it said
that conciliation must lead to an " utter oblivion and extin-
gujsSment of all former dissensions and discords." The ques-
Idon then was whether conciliation would remove the dis-
cords and dissensions, or whether it must not naturally tend to in-
crease them : it leaves the parties where they were, except that it
gave increased power to the Catholics. He would ask the Noble
Lords whether when they brought the parties nearer it was not rea-
sonable to expect that increased opposition would be excited ? The
effect would be not to allay-but to Increase ; not to put down but to
excite dissensions. Ile next came to consider what wits the good
hoped for from the Bill ; he could not but think that Noble Lords
went 100 far when they went to expect such mighty results'
or talk themselves into the persuasion, because they have seen Ire-
land in a disturbed state, that therefore the Insurrection Act grew
out 'of the Catholic disabilities. Now he did maintain that the
disturbed state of Ireland had nothing to do with the Catholic
Question. In the lam 2,i years the Insurrection Act had never
been carried into effect in the province of Ulster, although it was
well known that province was, more than any other, torn by religious
dissensions. The division of property had caused the dis-
turbances, and that evil is remedying its.lf. He agreed with
the Right Reverend Prelate, that if this was a measure
of strict justice to the Catholics, but there were circumstances
connected with this counter that rendered restrictions more
necessary than in an absolute monarch). The Catholics, he
would maintain, possessed more liberty than any other Dissenters
in Europe ; but these people, so jealous of civil rights, bring in a
Bill to benefit about 40 or 50 persons, and, with the same breath,
bring in another Dill' to take away the civil rights of thou-'
sands. The Constitution sought to be founded ou this Bill
was not that he wished to see established here, for the Consti-
tution of England, it ought to be granted, notwithstanding the
obloquy that had been endeavoured to be cast upon the term, was
essentially Protestant. There was another measure connected
with this subject, which lie would now advert to. lie found
by a Resolution of the, 29th of April, of the other House of
Parliament, to the following effect:—" That it is expedient for
this House to adopt some measure for making a legal prod.
lion for the Roman Catholic Clergy of Ireland." Now, really
this appeared to him so extraordinary a proceeding, and so
full of danger, that he looked upon it with as much jealousy
as the great question now before their Lordship. 'The con-
stitution of the Church of England and that of the Church
of Ireland materially differed, which was a strong reason for
I pausing, both as to the Bill before the House, and the Resolu-
tion to which he had referred. Ile considered the Coronation
Oath as purely a religious °Silgado?), and therefore it was
incompatible with the concessions sought by the Catholics.
The conduct of the Catholic Church in Ireland was also remark-
able; it aimed at a divided power with the Protestant Church.
They had the same missionaries, the same parishes, the same
priests. The contrast between the conduct of the Catholics a Eng-
: land and of Ireland was particularly conspicuous. In the latter
country they even refused to acknowledge the Protestant Bishops ;
and he had letters in his possession in which it was stated that the
priests would not address those Prelates by their titles, denying
that they were entitled to the rank they assumed. He would there-
fore warn their Lordships of the consequences that would ensue to
this country if the Bill passed into a law. Ile would caution them
that they had a most serious and perilous ground to legislate upon ;
and he would put to the House whether it was possible that they
could unite these two conflicting Chinches, consistently with the
rights, privileges, and immunities of Church of England. He had
argued this question upon narrow grounds; it admitted of a much
more extensive field, but from the present exhausted state of his
health he could not go further into it. !le repeated, that his argit.
nienta had been upon the narrow grounds which the question
offered, and he had endeavoured to show—first, that the present
Bill was inconsistent with the principles of the Constitution,
and, in the secoud place, that it would be attended with very
serious evils to the established religion, without in any degree
contributing to produce that conciliation with the Catholics of
Ireland which the advocates of the measure so sanguinely ex-
pected to result from it. Whatever might be the feeling first
produced by it on the minds of the Roman Catholics, when pleased
and elated at the achievement of their object, lie was convinced that
this Bill, if passed, would eventually lead to a dissolution of the
two countries. The Catholics would endeavour to implant in the
minds of the rising generation all those principles upon which
their religion was built, and would inculcate in them the feel-
ing of irreconcileable opposition to the Protestant Church.
Their Lordships had been told that the Reformation of
16811 did no good, that King James 11. fell in the glorious cause
of the reformation, and that lie fought not to perpetuate or eats.
blish the Catholic Church, but to erect a universal tolerance, and
that he was the martyr of religious freedom. Ily this species of rea-
soning had they been addressed by the Rev. 1)r. Doyle, who was
the champion of the Catholic cause. But there was one powerful
answer which could be given to this, and which was turnished to
us by the page of history. There was this undeniable fact, that we
had had for a period of the last 130 years religious peace, and that
period was preceded by 100 years of religious convulsions; this was a
powerful and irmistibleurgument,and which he believed had grown
out of the law of the country • that law allowing a large and ex-
tended toleration to all other religions, yet, at the same time, giv-
ing a moderate and reasonable preference to one religion above
the rest, and which thereby constituted it the religion of the
State. But now their Lordships were called upon to alter all
dine laws which had thus secured the country from religious dis-
sensions, and they were about to place men of an religions upon
an equality. lle begged of their Lordships to pause before they
ventured upon this experiment; they had experience to warn and
to guide then). For his own part he could not contemplate the
attempt without much serious apprehension both fir the safety of
the Church and the existence of the State.
The Earl of HARROWBY felt extreme unwillingness in offer-
ing himself to the House at the present moment; but if lie
did not do so now, he was afraid he should have no future op.
portunity of doing so. lie felt peculiar unwillingness in offer-
ing himself in direct answer to the Noble Lord who had just
sat down, not from any fear that he should disparage himself by
the comparison which he should afford between arguments
urged with such considerable talent, ability, force—anti arguments
which must be urged with very inferior talents, for he would not
entertain such a feeling. But his Noble Friend had applied his
mind to the subject for so long a period, that it was hardly possible
that he (Lord II.) should be able to reply to him. The Noble
Lord had argued the question so ably, and with so much talent
and candour, that if he (Lord H.) did venture to offer blanch. ht

TH

ITISH PRESS.

•
opposition to him. it could only be upon the ground that those
t arguments had 111114 C no impression upon his own mind, and from
the hope that they had not done so upon the minds of their Lord.
ships. It appeared that we were not to be told that it was
the doctrines of the Catholic Church on certaits mysterious
points, that where the grounds now assumed for opposing the Roman
Catholic subjects from participating in the high offices of State. and
being &emitted to a seat in Parliament, but his Noble Friend had
rested his arguments upon the exclusive ground of a divided
allegiance. His Noble Friend had said that it was impossible the
Catholics could hold two allegiances, the one to a temporal Prince
and the other to a spiritual one, each of whose powers were opposed
to the other ; but the Catholics themselves declared they
could distinguish between these two kinds of allegiance, and
could make them perfectly consistent with each other. But in
his opinion the argument proved too mach, for if they
pushed it to its extent it must prove that no Roman Ca-
tholic could hold tires allegiance to any Catholic Prince
in the world. But supposing it could be proved by the most logical
deductions that all the Catholics had been wrong, what should we
gain? Not that the Catholics were not good subjects, but that
they were bad logicians. He considered that history would show that
the allegiance of persons differing from the religion of the State
was perfectly good fur any purposes for which alleiOance was rc-
mined, It was impossible for the Roman Catholic Church to con-
tradict, in direct terms, that which had been asserted by what that
I church considered to be a competent authority, yet if their Lord-
ships would be content with aught but that (and which he thought
they should) then every thing they could have was already, pos.
sensed by them. Was it nothing that when certain questions were
I put to all the Universities of Europe, about thirty years ago, as to
I the doctrines of the Catholic Church, that they should all enequi•
vocally express their surprise that at that time of day
such questions could be serioasly propounded to them ? But
it was objected that the book of practice contained those
doctrines: but which of the two was most likely to influence
the minds of practical men—the opinions promulgated by mien of
the present day, or those promulgated by persons who lived at a
remoter period ? The next argument of his Noble Frieud was.
that the Roman Catholic could not be a good subject, on account
of the practice of his Church in the article of confession. Ile ad-
mitted that et first it appeared to him a frightful end monstrous
thing to suppose that a Mall might know even of murder being in-
tended to be committed, and not be at liberty to give the person
who was to be murdered the haat inti•nation, in order that he might
save his life. But the guts; ion was, in what way did this doctrine,
If true, make iteappear that a Roman Catholic could not be a good
subject? It might make the priests liable to something like mis-
prision of treason; but it did not perm that a Catholic was in-
capable 6frbeing a good subject. If the man did not believe that
the prime was restricted front retreating the fact, it would never be
revealed to him, and therefore Ate country had just the same secu-
rity as if there were no such thing as confession. The Noble Lord
(Earl of Liverpool) had argued that the Catholics opposed educa-
tion, and were adverse to the circulation •of the Bible ; but were
they to be deprived of their civil rights on that account?—
What would their Lordships then say of thole among themselves,
(of course he did not mean to ullude to the Right Reverend
Bench on his left) who objected to the circulation of the Bible, un.
less accompanied by the Player Book ? He would submit then to
their Lordships whether•the-Catholics were likely to be less dan-
gerous toAtie dwelt, being separated from Min than by being
takenidtdene‘prottetien and allowed to share and enjoy an interest
in all its betteffis ? If they were not to be admitted into the en-
joyment of their civil privileges on account of the.r embracing the
various doctrines imputed to them, he would ask with what safety
had weatready admitted them to those privileges which they now did
enjoy ? If their Lordships really believed that the reposing
of these doctrines made retains unht to be admitted into the State,
we had gone too far already, and what was more, had tegun at the
wrong end, lie thought it 'would have been safer to have admitted
the Catholics into Parliament than Into the higher offices of
State which.' they were at. this moment allowed to hold.
There was another topic on which lie wished to say a few words.
Ile was persuaded that all the influence wheel the Pope exerted in
Ireland could not be entirely loosened, but he doubted but that
such arrangements could be entered into with the See of Rome as
would prove a sufficient security in making concession to the
Roman Catholics. Though such concessions he believed would
not tranquillize Ireland, yet without it no extensive or useful
coulee of policy could be pursued. It was feared that the constant
conflict+ which would arise front the desire to return Roman Catholic
Members would have the effect of keeping the country in a state of
constant political excitement; but were eat all these evils at pre-
sent in full operation in consequence of the desire to return Mem-
bers to Parliament who should, wider their existing disabilitisa,
support their claims for relief: It was perfectly natural that
the Roman Catholic should think, for instance, that he ought
npt to be excluded from the office 'of Chief Justice. The
ground of political expediency excludes Roman Catholics from the
Throne, and why should not the same cielsidetation admit Roman
Catholics to such offices as they might without danger fill ? They
dischein any intention of transferring the property of the Church
into their own hands: and tt' the bare apprehension of danger have
drawn forth such a strong expression of public feeling on that
point; what would be the result of an actual attack upon the pro-
perty of the establishment ? Look back to the reign of Charles
the Second, nod ace what securities our ancestors provided.
Did they not provide abundantly well for the emergency ? and
when it arose ? And surely it would be much less difficult for the
present generation, or for posterity, to guard the integrity of the
church and constitution by sufficient securities. If the higher classes
of the Roman Catholics have the course of honourable ambition
opened to them, what motive could they have for becoming faithless
subjects 2 And even granting that a rebellion did take place in
Ireland, no man would venture to assert that England could not at
once crush it ; but at the same time Ireland can never be happy
unless the Catholics be in that state of tranquillity which will allow
of Great Britain ceasing to employ for the Government of Ireland
a large proportion ef its disposable tuilitary forte.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then rose to address the House,
but fur a considerable time was so inaudible below die bar, that
his' opening observations were consequently lost. So soon as his
Lordship could be heard he was under to say that there were
one or two points to which he found IrWecessary to allude. Ile
could not understand how the Bill cause before their Lordships in
that shape or form. • They could collect that there was passing
elsewhere proceedings respecting a measure—respecting the dis-
franchisement of certain freeholders in Ireland, as also that a vote
had passed relative to salaries fur the Roman Catholic priesthood.
No man could be aware of these circumstances without seeing that
there was a connexion between the Bill then before their Lordships
and the two other measures to which he had adverted ; and yet, in
ignorance of the principles and details of these other proceedings,
they were called upon to decide a Bill which obviously had the
closest possible connexion with them. lle had heard
great deal of pledges said to have been given at the time
of the Irish Union, but he could say (as we understood hint) that
a Noble Friend near the Woolsack had assured him that net such
pledge had been given, though strong expectations were en-
tertained. A distinguished Minister, now no more, with whom
he had been in frequent habits of intercourse, was, he felt con-
vinced, determined never to give his consent to acknowledge the
claims °Mho Roman Cathohee. antes, security were given suf-
ficient for the safety of- he Established Church, but what the
nature of that contemplated security was he never could learn.
There was as little security now as at any former time. He
begged next to call the attention of their lordships to the pre-
ambles of the several Roman Catholic Emancipation Bills, as
they were called. They all set out by declaring that the invio-
lability of the Church should be preserved; but by the Bill
itself they destroyed that inviolability which they pledged they
would retain. Sa much for one pan of the preamble. 'The Bill
proposes next to unite the hearts of all his Majesty's subjects,
and to knit them into one nation ; but a different opinion
seemed to prevail towards the tendency of this Bill, for the terms
of this Bill could hot be agreed upon, whereby it would ap-
pear that instead of knitting. the hearts of the people together,
the Bill was calculated to set them all by the ears.
A Commission had been proposed an a security, but that amounted
to no security in his mind, as this Commission was to be composed
of Roman Catholic Prelates, and neither the Sovereign not the
Government was to have any direct interference whatever in
the appointments which they might think proper to make.
He for one could never agree to this Bill, tin lie had repeatedly
here and elsewhere declared that no foreign Prince or Potentate
hall or ought to have any jurisdiction in this country. Two emi.
nent lawyers, one a distinguished lawyer from Ireland, and another
of this country, aided by a Mr. J. K. L. (a great friend of the
church no doubt—so great • friend that he would gladly pull it
down in order to build up a new one)—(Hear and a laugh)— I
those Gentlemen explained away the spiritual jurisdiction by say-
ing that this jurisdiction meant a jurisdiction not recognised by
law. This was certainly a very subtle and jesuitical distinction,
but was not one by any means satisfactory to his mind, or one that
would induce him to dispense with the qualifications which were
at present requisite to be taken, and in the sense in which they
were taken, as qualifications to places of political power.
The oath of allegiance originally included in its meaning the oath
of supremacy, and the oath of supremacy was only a moderate ad-
dition annexed, to satisfy the consciences of scale persons who put
a different construction on the oath of allegiance than it originally
bore. The oath of supremacy did not therefore create anything,
but °My restored that which before existed in the oath of lateen.
ance. It was idle to speak of power purely spiritual—spiritual
power necessarily created temporal power. This was evinced in the
marriages and excomm unicat tons as exercised in the f;sithol ic church.
Marriages contracted by law in this country were annulled by the
jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic Church, and the husband and
wife lived separately. Again, excommunication was frequently re-
sorted to ; and for the ill-treatment which a person received in
consequence of this excommunication, he would, in his (the Lord
Chancellor's) opinion, be entitled to bring an action in a Court
of Law, as for a civil injury. Vet this was the consequence
of this jurisdiction. It was idle, therefore, to say, that there was
no necessary connexion between spiritual and temporal jurisdiction.
As to the proposed stipends to the clergy of Ireland, why
not extend them to the same species of hierarchy in England.
And in referring their Lordships to the petitions—the un-
fortunate petitions, he wield call them, from the manner
in which by some persons they had been treated;—but lie
would refer them to these petitions to determine whether a
payment of the Catholic clergy of England could be adopted
with the peace of the country. America had been alluded to ;of
that allusion he would take no farther notice than to. say, that he
hoped the not having an established religion io Ameriea may as
much contribute to the happiness of that country as the estab-
lishment of a religion has contnbuted to the happiness of this
kingdom. (Hear, hear, hear.) As to the Elective Franchise
Bill, if it were a part of this measure they ought to have
it before their Lordships, together with the present. The
advantages to be derived from this Bill, it was said, were only to

lOW

•_;z., •
be the admission of a few persons to certain liiglt office's. This was
not in his mind a suffictent reason to deprive persons of certair.
rights which had been thought proprr to concede to them, and
which they ought not on light or insufficient giininds to be deprived
of. !le had beer. asked if he had become a Reformer? He could
answer he had not. He had lived tyl long to value any popelarity
that might arise from the adoption ut ineasuree of uncertain advan•
tage. Ile would only advert to one other topic, which was the
frequent assertion that this measure was not agninst the feeling of
the public. He would refer to the petitiofs, which were in a pen._
poraen of ten to one against -the Bill, and he was sstisfied that if
the sense of the country was canvassed, it would be (u-,td to be
against it. Ile remembered the celebrated East India Bill, whidi
was certainly a great change. At that time it was said that the
House of Commons spoke the sense of the country, and that tite
petitions to the House upon the subject did not. But a disso-
, lotion took place, and it was fou.-d that a total difference
had taken place, and that the former delusion was quite a delusion.
At that late hour in the night—he meant the mooting—be would
not trespass further on the attention of the !louse; but as he had
always done, would give his decided opposition to the second
reading of this Bill.
After a few words from the 31arquis of LONDONDERRY and
Earl FITZWILLIAM—
ThoHouxe divided, when there appeared—
Akainst the Bill . . 11$
Proxies - . - 65
. .

Total against it 178
For the the Bill - . . - 84
Proxies
Total for it - - 130

Total Majority against the hill . 4U
The House then Adjourned at liwiEr-PAST Ftt•t: o'CLoca
Tuts Moastso.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, TUE•DAY, My 17.

ST. ()LAVE'S TITHES.
Dr. PHILLI3IORE presented a petition from the Rectar of
the parish of St. Olave's, the Rev. Dr. Owen, against this Bill.--it
was ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. COURTENAY presented a similar petition from Mr. Gil.
burst, the lay impropriator of the parish.
lA)NDON TI THE BILL.
Mr. Alderman WOOD then moved the second reading of this
Bill. The principal object of the parishes was to obtain a defini:e
settlement. It could not be said that any proof existed of the enrol.
went of the deed by which these tithes were claimed.
Mr. COURTENAY thought that this was r Bill which ought
not to pass. By an Act of henry V 111. it was decreed that cer-
tain sums should be paid in a certain manner. Upon- this Act a
decree was issued, by which 2s. in the pound was raised. This
was at present. enjoyed by 31r. Gilhurat, the lay impropriator.
Now, was he to.bc deprived of his rights because they might be of
greater extent than the parishioners chose to pay ? The right of
3lr. (Win:lst-had ezisted by law for MI years. The next question
was, whether the decree was enrolled ? Because there was no me.
mmial of such enrolment, it did not follow that the right did no:
exist. In all the decrees which had from time to time been made
on the subject, the right of the impropriator was acknowledged. In
1647, a decree was issued which enforced this right. In 1617. a
suit was tried on this subject, in which it was decided that the claim
was legal. Now, would the House entettaia a Bill which rested
merely on the assumption that this deed had never been enrolled ?
The passing of this Bill would be the great st injustice to ahe lay
impropriator. The lion. Member concluded by moving, that the
Bill be read that day six months.
31r. Aldermau BRIDGES supported the Bill.
.Mr. W. WYNN seconded the motion for the rejection of the
Bill. It might
.as well be asked why a man raised his rents, as
why the lay i-ipropriator had increased his rent charge. It was
sometimes necessary to interfere with private property for public
benefit, but then a full and ample compensation was awarded. The
present proprietors bought the land subject to this charge, and
with what face could they now ask to have it reduced ?
Mr. J. S3IITII said a few words in opposition to the Bill.
Mr. CALGRAFT said due in the trials that had been alluded
to the enrolment was never, questioned, and that it would not,
therefore, be unjust to grant an issue to try whether this enrol-
ment reully did take place. Not that he was not aware of the deli-
cacy of the ground on which he stood, in speaking of ancient
documents, and would not therefore be thought to wish to stir up
inquiry into all sorts of titles. There was, in his opinion, no
proof that the enrolment had ever taken place. If Parliament
could deal with the clergy for their own benefit, as had before hap.
pened, they could also do it for the benefit of their parishioners.
A Bill was broug!a. in last year, by which a stipend was made for
the clergyman of St. Andrew's. 'I his was a liberal allowance, he
believed 1,200/.; but still less than he might have exacted. He
must again say that he thought the question of the enrolment
might be tried, and that by that means the difficulties would be
set at rest for ever.
3lr. COURTENAY referred to a case in which the enrolment
was virtually acknowledged.
Mr. PELL thought that the enrolment was sufficiently proved to
make a legal right. If such documents were rot allowed as had
been brought forward, there would be touted a great deal of private
property in a very insecure state. Besides, even if the decree tin-
der the Statute of Henry VIII. was not enrolled, there was a prior
law by which they were entitled to the times. The question was,
whether a legal claim existed now P Here there was such a claim,
and the House of Commons had no right to come down and inter-
fere. The case of St. Andrew's, Holborn, had been alluded to, but
they must remember that the arrangement there made was agreed
to by the Rector, whilst no such agreement had here been made,
and the House could not therefore interfere.
Mr. W. S3IITII came into the House to vote for the second
reading, but from what he had heard from the Hon. Member for
Exeter (Air. Uourtenay) he now thought that they could not do it '
with justice.
3lr. Alderman WOOD still insisted that there was not a single
document in which the decree was enrolled upon which the claim
was founded.

After a few worth from Mr. BURROUGH, the question was
put, and the Bill was rejected without a division.
JUDGES' SALARIES.
Mr. BROUGIIAM gave notice, that he should make • motion
next Thursday to secure the independence of the Puisne Judges.
Since they were to have as large salaries as a Lord of the Treasury,
he should move that they be rendered incapable of ever becoming
Chief Justices.
Sonie conversation ensued upon this between Mr. Brougham and
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after which the subject was
dropped.
After a few words from Lord LOWTHER, Mr. CALCRAFT, Mr.
Byxo, and Mr. R. COLBORNE, the order WAS discharged.
A petition was presented from the freeholders of the county of
Elgin. against any alteration in the Coru Laws.---Ordered to lie on
the table.
Mr. SYKES presented a petition from the mechanics of Hull
against the Combination Laws.—Ordered to be referred to the Com-
mittee on the Combination Laws.
Mr. SYKES presented a petition from the merchants of Hull,
praying that the duty on rapeseed should not be taken off.—laid
on the table.
COURT OF CHANCERY.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS postponed his motion respecting delays
in the Court of Chancery, to the 30th May.
31r. BRIGHT presented a petition from Bath against the revi-
val of the Combination Laws; also similar petitions from York-
shire and Derbyshire.—Ordered to be referred to the Committee on
the Combination Laws.
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE.
Mr. CURTEIS presented a petition from certain freeholders of
Rye, complaining that they are improperly deprived of exercising
the elective franchise. The petition stated, that the Corporation
were under the influence of an individual who had for many years
appointed the Members, that the revenues of the Corporation were
squandered, and that the petitioners labouredunder many grievances.
—The petition was ordered to be printed.
Sir I'. BURL Erf presented a petition from the inhabitant
householders of Westminster, against the repeal of the House and
Window Tax—Ordered to be printed.
REPEAL OF THE WINDOW TAX.
Mr. HODHOUSE, in pursuance of • notice previously given,
rote to move the repeal of the Window Tax. Having formerly ex.
pressed his opinion at great length on this subject, he said lie should
not now rind it necessary to trouble the House at any great length.
The Right Hon. the President of the Board of Trade must have
perceived that his financial operations did not meet the full concur.
rence of the public. Notwithstanding the general approbation given
by the House and the country to the financial plans of his Majesty's
Ministers, a general dissatisfaction was felt that a greater relief had
not been given in the removal of the Assessed Taxes. Those who
recollected the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer's
speech, upon opening his Budget, could not forget that he went
over the ground nimbly, and with that ease which was peculiarly
his own, until became to the subject of the Assessed Taxes. Then
it was his difficulties seemed to commence. Not content with prose
he turned to verse, and not content with English he quoted to Latin.
His appropriation of the verse and the Latin befitted his character
as • scholar and • man of taste; but yet it was clear that he felt
himself treading upon delicate ground, and was labouring to
make the House believe that which he could not convince
the country, that after the great struggle and sacrifices which had
been made, the public was not entitled to any sensible relief
in the removal of the assessed taxes. The Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer's speech wan memorable, because of the disappointment
which it had created. In that memotable speech the Right Hon.
Gentleman adverted to many topics which he (Mr. Hobliouse) con-
ceived were quite unconnected with the subject ; he alluded to what
lie called metaphorically " the giant smuggler," and stated, that if
the direct taxes were diminished smuggling eeuld not be put down.
The Right Honourable Gentleman also referred to Ireland. The
revenue of that country, he said, would be doubled in a certain
nuniber of years, and he called upon the House, for the sake of Ire-
land, to consent to a liberal system of taxation. He (Mr. Hob-
house) believed that the feeling in this country was strongly in
favour of Ireland,and that the people of England would be willing to
do anything which would !chum that country from distress. When
nearly four millionsof money were already annually paidby England
for the misgovernment of that country, it was a great hardship to
say. that because Ireland was distressed this tax should not be re•
moved. It was a curious fact, that such were the claims of that
sriuntry, and such the clamour of its inhabitants, against what they
properly called the fever-tax, that the Ministry (and not so comply.
tag a Ministry as the present) were forced to yield to their com-
plaints, and Ireland has been for some tame relieved from the
burthen of the window tax. This tax produced not only
moral but physical evils; health was destroyed and comfort dimi-
nished by its operation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted

of an
calcu

thlt
ther

p 12.0.

had
for hts
to those

all that

The

many
view

of tliis
all the
In the

aie..

nion,

to the
on by

liberu

neve

that the assessed taxes were productive of much evil ; but when '.:n
reduced the duties on various commodities, and left the direr.
taxes untouched, he said that he had only made a choice of evils.
Here the Right Honourable Gentleman was not only supporred by
Iris Colleagues, but many of the political econornista in that House
agreed with him, that under the ciecumstarers it was inetpedient
to remove the lh-indos Tax. This was not the feeling of the
country, however. The assessor and the tt'a collector were looked
upon as things unused, and when the printed miner is delivered
by them, u is received with much the some kind of feeling that a
Pacha receives an order to having his head taken off: Every mar
rho paid this tan considered it a greater grievance than paying a
high price for commodities. The country, after its sacrifices aed
struggles, ought to be relieved from this Hill of Paine and Penalties.
On luoking at the paper delivered to the householder, disgusting
and unpleasant detnils meet the eye, and at the top. the middle,
and the end, is to be seen a penalty of MU. Whilst such a mode of
taxation is persevered in, Ministers had no right to boast of the
prosperey of the country. Ainotiest the many oleerions to this
tax, i'•ere was one which Ought rester to be lost sigh": of. It made
the Liyernment hateful to the country, because it brought the
Goverment in contact with the country. fierce, individuals dis-
honestly resorted to subterfuge to evade the tax, who would not
have acted dishorestly under any other circumstances. Froth the
vexatious character of this tax, more petitions were presented
against it than tmainst any other tax. Petitions were often pee-
-1 se/inontednuaragbalienstYie t from the
o et
same
the eplagoasrd of Trade,
ev"altim
although
thheoußight
Toted against the repeal, had himself presented twopetitions against
this tax from Liverpool. lie urderitood it was the intention of
the inhabitants of that town to present the Right Honourebia
Gentleman with a piece of plate, which would do hononr
alike to those that gave and him who received it. He
hoped Liverpool wculd have to present' the Right Honourable
Gentleman with a second piece of plate fur his vote that evening.
His (Mr. Hobliouses) motion did not attack the financial arrange.
meats of the year, and therefore he had some hopes of receiving
the Right lion-Gentleman's support. In a letter to his constitu,
enta respecting this tax, site Right Hon. Gentleman stated that ft
was not an inquisitorial tax. Twice a year the inspector enters the
house, anti if there be any suspicion of fraud it is liable to be en-
tered at other periods. The expectation of those two annual eisits
gives tide tax a most inquisitorial character. But it was stated that
the direct taxes of the country are small compared with the inch.
'reel taxes. This was true, because the indirect taxes were so
enormous, and levied with so much facility. But the window
Tax was given in lieu of other taxes, and was orig nally expected
only to be levied wider very peculiar circumstances. He would ask
whether the reduction of the duty on wines, was so direct a
relief to the country as the repeal of the diem taxes would
have been. 'True, the window :at had been reduced. The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer had stated, that by his new arrangement
he had relieved 635,936 persons from the burden of the window
tax, and that these persons consisted of the poorer classes. In his
(Mr. liobhotee's) opinion the Right lion.tientleman was mistaken.
It was not the poorer classes who were relieved. The persons wit,
formerly paid this tax were the landlords of small poor houses, art
not the tenants. The relief was to the landlords, therefore, and not
to the poorer classes. It did not relieve the poor householders and
shopkeepers, who wanted relief most, because they felt the bur.
dens of taxation the heaviest. It was a strange fact, that when
any relaxation took place in the direct taxes the asseasos instantly
became more severe, and the public enjoyed no relief. The Right
lion. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had recom-
mended this tax upon the grsand of its antiquity. This tax was
the same in principle as the hearth tax, which was passed in the
131 h and 14th of Charles I 1., and eveo at that time it excited consider..
able disapprobation. In the first year of William and Mary the
House of .Contmons petitioned to have it abolished, and stated it
to be a most oppressive, slavish, and burdensome impost_
What was the case in 1784? In that year Mr. Pitt persuaded the
people to give up their money to pay fur windows because they
would gain as muzli on the article of tea. In a few ye: s after.
Itrards the tax was raised one hundred per cent., and to justify
/Mother great augmentation, in 1797 it was alleged that the watch.
mod clack makers could not otherwise be relieved from burdens
drat pressed on diem. In 1802, by a similar cajolery to that used
at present, they were told that they must pay the sindow tax for
die sake of having their coffee, wine, and spirits cheaper. In Point
faet it was no; the classes that used these commodities who most
suffered by the window tax. To show the inequality of its opera
tion, he said that the inhabitant of a house in Toiliill-street, West..
minster, with twenty windows, would be compelled to pay as
much as the owner of a house in Lombard-street having an equal
number of lights, though the former might perhaps be wor.h rot
MI. a year, while the income' of the latter might perhaps exceed
3,000/. per annum. The occupier of the (Me house will then pay
one-seventeenth of his income, while the other scarcely contributes
one-seven hunredth part. No:hine could be more unequal in its
operation. It was particularly injurious to many of the working
classes. for, as iris well known, there were many of the mechanical
tradeswhich required an extra number of lights. In another way
it also operated injuriously ; he meant as regarded the business of
building houses, and brought disgrace upon this age of architecture
by their unsightly appearance. There was one mansion in Picea.
dilly, recently erected, which was peculiarly liable to this objection
it was all wall—it was shapries in the extreme—
Monstrum horrendum ingens cui lumen ademptiun.
A foreigner, astonished at its appearance, had inquired what milt
have induced the owner to raise such a tasteless mass lie would
not now more particularly allude to that irdividual than to say,
that he was one of the Committee of Tsste for the improvement of
Windsor Castle. Jr might be asked, if this tax were repealed what
would he propose to substitute for it. To that he would reply,
that he and those who thought with him did not sees necessity (or
making any such substitution. It was incise absurd to say that it
would be required by the necessities of the war in India. lie
thought the ainki g fund a mere delusion; but at sore who
agreed with him respecting the window tax, differed from him o t
this point, he would not now dwell upon it. lie then adverted t
the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the beginning
of the Session, and that, as well as reference to official &cu.
menu, showed that the amount of annual surplus would generally
speaking, be not less than eight or nine hundred thousand pounds
and as the window tax was little more than a million, the means oft
removing dust tax might thence he derived. Those Members who
by voting fur the supplies had sanctioned the intended expenditure
of the year, might tnen have a difficulty in agreeing to areduction
of the means by which those expenses were to be defrayed ; but
that-difficulty would be removed by his simply stating that the
resolution which he intended to propose did not contemplate any
reduction for the current year, but a reduction to commence io the
month of April next. Of course if any great emergencies arose,
such as a foreign war, or a rebellion in any of our distant possessions,
the proposed pledge was not tb be considered binding. In making
this proposition he did not ask any thing equal to what the petition,
on their table prayed for, and he would call upon Hon. Mem-
bers not to trifle with the just claims of their constituents. They
in their capacity of 3lembers were at the oint of death, and surely
their friends would not think the worse of them that in the eleventh
hour they were alive to their duty ; and that, unlike the man at-
tended in his last moment, by Dean Swift, they would not " make
a stcrifice to God of the devil's leavings." In that the tenth year
of peace they hid a right to look for relief from this intolerable
burden.—lle then moved a resolution to the effect that the petie
dons which hail been received on the subject of the window tee
ware deserving of attention, and that that tax ought to cease and
determine from the sth of April, 1826.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, although he
did not mean to say that lion. Gentlemen having voted for the pay-
ment of such sums as the public service required, were therefore in-
capacitated from acting with perfect freedom on that occasion, yet
the House could hardly think that it had not already in substance
decided the question which the lion. Member for Westminster
then brought under its consideratiou. The difference between
the resolution which he moved with regard to that tax differed from
the motion of the lion. Member for Abingdon i Mr. Maberly) iv
this only, that the latter proposed the immediate removal of the
tax, and the former urged its repeal at a future period. Any one
who recollected the principle on which he recommended the reduc-
don of 1.500,000 L of taxes during the present year, would see that
.
be had Pro''"
which
the •

at the ,
House
financial

in imp.uta.
inconinsteni
other -•
been

■ion
Goverami

~r~

City
withstandi
ed on thin
themselves
vidual
t

'r
I

,i

S~~

a
41 I

I 1
44

I
had proceeded upon a quite different principle from that
ich the Honourable Gentleman now proposed 1.250,000 i,
amount of the window tax. He had not formed his esti.
to of the surplus revenue of the country u7ion the produce
in y one year ; not from the last year or the present, but from
:illations founded upon the probable state of our finances,
the termination of the years 1825, 28, and 27. I:Hers the •
use was prepared to sanction an entire alteration in the whole
incial system of the country, it could not agree to give a pledge.
t in addition to the reduction (1,500,0..)N already made, a fur-
r reduction of 1,250,0001. would be effected on the sth ot April.
O. Great stress had been laid on the numerous petitions which
I been presented to the House for the repeal of that tax; and he.
his part, was perfectly ready to give due weight and importance
1 . :
:hose expressions of individual or collective opinion ; but they-
t not, as matter of course, to listen with implicit submission its
that might be suggested in petitions presented to that House..
ey had heard much of the ingenious artifie: o said to have been
din getting up such petitions ; and though' he did not concur
mputing those artifices yet he could not but think it extremely
3nsistent with what he had been in the habit of hearing from the
er side, to attach much importance to the petitions which had
n adverted to.
Mr. HODUOUSE denied his having undervalued any petitions.l
Che opinions of the Hon. Gentleman then formed a creditable
option to sentiments which very generally prevailed. But to
at of these petitions more particularly, he must observe that
ny of them were presented before he had stated to the House the
w which his slajesty's Government took with regard to the re-
]of taxes during the present Sesenm. It did not appear, how-
r, that the petitioners were particularly anxious the the removal
his particular tax. Many of them prayed for the total repeal ot t
the assessed taxes; and many more for uveral individual taxes.
the reductions which I propose, I proceeded on the contictiotl i
t it would be very desirable to if relieve, as extenettay as peg-
le, the poorer lasses of his 31ajeaty's subjects ; but, in his opi-
n, the proposition of the Honourable Gentleman opposite would
operate specially ter their relief. Very soon after his statement
he House for the current year, he had the honour of being welted i il•
by a deputation from the city of London ; and though tie could
flatter himself that the communication which he (ekt man& u
rty to make could give them entire satisfaction; yet he Uhl be-
e that they departed from the interview with a stronglmpees.
I that they had no great risht to find fault with thekttentions at .
rernment in reference tothe window tax. Thew n frau the
r of Westminster bed something about it very
,eityitrus, fby toter
standing all the discontent which it was sold hill been etymon._
in this subject, so little touched did the ponple elhat city 44
twelves by the tax adverted to, that one very notorious ladle i
sal scouted the Honourable Baronet and his colleague, hors,
foot, from the meeting. If the witiflow teA woe so deo a
4
. ~
li
•
,
_ .