Page images
PDF
EPUB

This, he conceived, completely did away with the argument of the noble lord. He did not know in what school the noble lord had studied his political tactics; but he would tell him, that venting sarcasms against the clergy was an artifice to which the enemies of pure religion (amongst whom he did not mean to class the noble lord) had had recourse in every age of Christ's church. He was satisfied that these sarcasms would not be attended with any success in that House; but it was impossible to hear them repeated night after night, and remain silent. If these personal attacks upon the bishops were parliamentary, it was time that the rules of parliament should be changed; but, if they were not parliamentary, then he called on the House to protect them from such missiles by the shield of its authority. They held their seats in that House by a tenure which was both legally and morally not less strong, than that by which the noble lords opposite held theirs; and they belonged to a body of men whom their lordships would find out one day, as their ancestors had found before them, that they ought to treat with respect, and not with contumely [hear, hear].

Lord King said, that the right reverend prelate had charged that side of the House, and himself in particular, with a spirit for taking to pieces the petitions of the clergy, which was quite unprecedented. But if this was not done formerly, it was because their petitions were not filled with such sentiments of bigotry and intolerance as those of the present day. The right reverend prelate had insinuated that he was not a friend to the church of England. He was not a friend to the church of England, whilst it encouraged intolerance, and pluralities, and non-residents, and all the other abuses which at present existed in it. Out of 11,000 parishes in England, upwards of 7,000 were held by non-residents, and only somewhat under 4,000 by resident clergy. And, it was because they were conscious and ashamed of this circumstance, that the annual returns on this subject were kept back, or at least he was unable to find them. He wished that those champions for the almost apostolic purity of the church

The Duke of Newcastle rose to order. He was not aware that there was any question before the House regarding the purity

of the church.

Lord King admitted that there was not a question before the House on that sub

ject; but there was a petition from the clergy before it-his observations upon the language of which, had been met by an assertion of the purity of the church; and he contended, that that assertion could not be maintained, while those abuses which he was pointing out were unremoved.

The Earl of Liverpool would put it to the candour of the House, whether there ever was a period when the duties of the church were more purely administered than at present, and whether a most im portant change for the better had not taken place in the administration of those duties? Without going into details on this subject, he felt himself called to say thus much, in consequence of the observa tions which the noble lord had thought proper to make.

The Bishop of Chester wished to say one word in explanation. He did not mean to insinuate, that the noble lord was an enemy to the church of England: what he bad said was, that when he indulged in sarcasms against the clergy, he was unconsciously using the very means by which the enemies of religion en deavoured to overturn it. While he was on his legs, he would take that opportunity of informing the noble lord, that the annual returns of the resident and nonresident clergy had been made to the privy-council. He might, therefore, see them, if he pleased; or if not, it was by the privy-council that they were kept back. It was a notorious fact, that the residents were greatly on the increase. Out of 670 parishes in his diocess, there were only 40 in which the incumbents did not reside; and they did not reside in these because it was impossible for them to do so. For this state of things the merit was due, not to him, but to his predecessor, the present bishop of Bath and Wells.

Lord King asked, if it was not a fact, that there were many parishes with nonresident clergymen?"

The Bishop of Bath and Wells answered no, as to his diocess. He had visited every parish in it, and out of between six and seven hundred, there were but seventeen which had non-resident clergymen.

Lord Holland agreed with the noble duke that this discussion was not regular. The motion before the House was, that the petition should lie on the table; but the discussion was occasioned by remarks upon an observation made in a former

debate, and was, therefore, the natural | should discharge his duty, if he did not consequence of a deviation from order. enter his protest, in as strong a manner He could not help thinking that the merits as possible, against the practice of making of the church of England, and particularly observations of this nature on petitions its comparative merits with those of any being presented from the clergy, who other church, were not necessary to be had a right, under the constitution of the discussed, in order that their lordships country, to petition their lordships on the should decide, whether or not this petition subject of any measures before them. He was to lie upon the table. He should be did not want to have petitions from the extremely sorry that the question, reverend bench of bishops, or from any whether or not their lordships would con- individuals of that House, but from the cede constitutional rights to the members clergy and the laity at large. They ought of another church, was to be decided by to be, of course, couched in decent lanthe result of a comparison between it and guage; but, if their lordships were to obthe church of England; for in that case it serve upon every term contained in each would be impossible for any Protestant to petition, they would subject them to a doubt, for a moment, which way he was trial which, not even their own debates, to decide. He had always considered if dealt with in the same way, could bear. this, not as a religious but a great political With respect to the measure alluded to question, upon which they were bound to in the present petition, he would take the decide only with reference to the welfare liberty of saying for the clergy, that whatof the community to which they belonged. ever faults some individuals might find He deprecated the idea that the introduc- with them, they had done their duty in tion of this measure was to be considered giving their opinions upon this measure. as an attack upon the church of England, A noble lord had complained, that he on the one side; whilst he wished it to be was said to have changed his opinion understood, that the noble lords who op-respecting the Roman Catholic religion : posed it on the other side, were not defending the merits of the church of England, but were advocating the continuance of a monopoly of power (he did not use the phrase in an invidious sense) to themselves. He wished this distinction to be clearly understood, both in doors and out of doors.

The Earl of Liverpool wished to remind the House out of what this discussion had arisen. It had proceeded from the unusual course adopted by noble lords of entering upon a debate on a petition: not on its merits, but on the particular terms in which it was drawn up. He was far from saying, if a petition were presented to their lordships which was couched in indecent language, that he would not object to its being laid upon the table; but he contended, that if the terms of every petition were to be discussed in this manner, it would, in its consequences, be extremely detrimental to the right of petitioning. With respect to the allusions which had been thrown out to the prejudice of the clergy, it was not for him to say (considering the quarter from which they had proceeded), that those who made them were enemies to the church; but he could not help observing, that, in making them, they did not manifest much friendship towards it.

The Lord Chancellor did not think he

he (the Lord Chancellor) had to complain of communications having been made, in which he was said to have changed his opinion upon this question. He, therefore, took that opportunity of saying, that, so far from having changed his sentiments upon the subject, every successive event served to confirm him in the persuasion, that every man who wished to support the constitution in church and state, should go along with him in opposing the measure of Catholic emancipation.

Ordered to lie on the table.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, March 29.

WEST-INDIA COMPANY BILL.] On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,

Mr. Fowell Buxton opposed the motion. He said, he did not object to this Company because it was a Joint-Stock Company, but because its object was to deal in men. Other companies were for canals and rail-roads, but in this company the capital raised was to be embarked in mortgages on our fellow creatures. Under the operations of this bill, men were to be bought and sold. Being of opinion, in common with a large proportion of the people of England, that all dealings in men, of whatever description, were in

themselves so many crimes, he could not give his consent to the creation of this company. West-India property consisted of land and the labour upon that land; the slaves constituted its value, and on them the security would depend. When the funds of the company were invested, the company would have procured to itself 40,000 negroes. He would therefore move, "that the bill be read a second time this day six months."

was, he hoped to see tripled and quadrupled; as the infallible result of so extended a spirit of commercial enterprise must be, to encourage industry and diffuse employment. Attempts were making to bring the companies into discredit, by stating that they came within the Bubble act. He denied that they did so; and with respect to the act itself, he knew that its authority was considered obsolete in the highest legal quarters. Besides, bubble schemes could not in these days be maintained; because, if the people did not approve of them they could not be supported. Hence, no legislative enactment was wanted for their suppression, He had himself the honour to belong to some of these companies, and he pledged himself that there was as much integrity in their views, as in those of the company of the Bank of England itself. He called upon the chancellor of the Exchequer to protect these companies; for they conMr. Alderman Thompson did not see tributed a good deal to the revenue, as what objection there could be to the pre-every transfer of stock was liable to a sent bill. It merely went to enable the company to sue and be sued.

Mr. Robertson supported the bill, and expressed his surprise that the hon. member for Weymouth, who was the great champion of all sorts of Joint-stock companies in that House, some of them calculated to bring ruin on our fellow sub. jects at home, should oppose the present measure, which was likely to afford great assistance to the colonial interest, on the ground of his feeling an excessive sympathy for the negro population of the West Indies.

Mr. Hume supported the bill, as calculated to benefit the colonies.

Mr. W. Smith said, that the object of the bill was to create a monopoly of a most dangerous kind.

heavy stamp duty. It was not his wish to provoke a discussion at that stage of the bill; but he hoped the question would be fully gone into at the second reading; and any assistance which he could give in defining the law, he would gladly afford. At the same time, he had no hesitation in saying, that he courted the fullest inquiry into every speculation with which his name was connected, and he was au

After a few words from Mr. Ellice, sir M. Ure, and Mr. Manning, who complained, that the conduct of the hon. member for Weymouth and his friends had para-thorised by the directors to state, that if lyzed the whole of the transactions between Great Britain and the West Indies, the bill was read a second time and committed.

JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES REPEAL of the Bubble ACT.] Mr. Peter Moore, in pursuance of notice, rose to bring for. ward a proposition for defining and ascertaining the law relating to Joint-Stock Companies. He stated, that at present the law in respect to these companies was very obscure and ill-understood; the common law, from its antiquity, being but little applicable to them, and the statute known as the "Bubble Act" being so full of penalties and contradictory enactments, that it was, in fact, a dead letter. The necessity of settling a question of so much importance was placed beyond question, by the amount of capital which was daily investing in these speculations, and which he would be safe in estimating at upwards of 160 millions. This sum, large as it

any deception appeared in any part of their proceedings, they were willing to withdraw the scheme altogether. Upon all these grounds, he hoped no objection would be made to bringing in the bill; that the fair dealers might be distinguished from those who had improper views, and that a question might be settled, in which so many persons, and so much property, were interested. He concluded by moving, for leave to bring in a bill "to repeal the 6th of George the First, called the Bubble Act."

The Attorney-General, having been called upon by several members, said, that the act which it was proposed to repeal, referred to a great variety of objects, other than Joint-stock companies, to which the hon. member's bill was addressed. If he recollected rightly, the incorporated rights of two great commercial companies in the city of London were secured by that act. This subject, therefore, required much more consideration than the

hon, member seemed disposed to give it; and he should, therefore, feel it his duty to oppose the motion.

Mr. Grenfell said, he would support any motion for settling the law upon the subject of Joint-stock companies. If there was an indisposition to concede the repeal of the whole of the Bubble act, why not repeal part of it? It was absolutely necessary, considering the amount of capital embarked in these speculations, and the anxiety prevailing as to the law, that some definite rule should be laid down. The Bubble act was a dead letter; since, from the severity of its penalties, it never could be put in force in the present state of the country. No one would have the boldness to propose the application of this act to the schemes that were now afloat. It was only last week that he saw the prospectus of a new speculation, to which the name of a prince of the blood was attached. He imputed nothing improper to this royal personage; but, would it be said, that he was a fit object for the application of the Bubble act? He had seen another prospectus, containing the name of a high individual, for whom he had the highest respect; namely, the archbishop of Canterbury, and he believed the whole bench of bishops were parties to the undertaking. He did not quarrel with these reverend persons for thus embarking in an adventure; but, who would think of attaching to them the pains and penalties of a premunire? He hoped, therefore, that the subject would be considered, and that the law would not be suffered to remain, which subjected the highest personages to such penalties. The public were already led to expect some alteration in the law from the highest authority in the country. He did not offer a word, as to the policy or impolicy of the Bubble act; but he thought it highly necessary that the law should be rendered intelligible.

Mr. Robertson wished the subject to be set at rest for the sake of the public at large; who were quite as much entitled to protection, as any of the princes of the blood, or the archbishop of Canterbury.

Mr. Ellice said, he had heard with satisfaction the proposition of his hon. colleague, for setting at rest the law affecting Joint stock companies. He did not pledge himself to go the whole length with him, of repealing the act of George 1st.but he should decidedly vote for bringVOL. XII

(1282 ing in the bill, that the question might be discussed, and some steps taken to define the law. For the Bubble act, he had no great respect; for the history of that measure was this that it was made to support two great bubbles, and to suppress all others. He was anxious to elicit some legislative decision upon these companies; because, from the passive silence of parliament, a great deal of inconvenience was produced out of doors. There was evidently an indisposition on the part of ministers to entertain the subject: and they had even held the most liberal opinions in that House, stating that the public were at liberty to introduce whatever schemes they pleased, but that existing laws were sufficient to punish any frauds which might be committed. But, whilst this language was held in that House, an alarm was sounded elsewhere; and every opportunity was taken to warn the public against embarking in speculations, which he (Mr. E.) believed to be a more beneficial mode of employing the superabundant capital of the country, than in lending it to the sovereigns of Europe, who had so often become bankrupts. But, so it was, that the public were in a state of distraction between opinions so much at variance with each other, and both professing to come from authority. He recollected the same game being played, in the case of the Spanish colonies in South America; for whilst the independence of those states was treated in the speeches of the ministers in that House as partly recognized, the court of Chancery was labouring to warn all persons from embarking in any transac tions connected with them. This was unfair treatment of the public; and, if persevered in, might have the worst effects. It was due to them to make something certainly known as to the law of the case. He therefore voted for the intro duction of this bill, in the hope that the discussion upon it would lead to some beneficial result. Possibly, the right hon. president of the Board of Trade would then state, whether it was the intention of government to interfere, and the public would be in a condition to judge whether the Bubble act might not be wholly repealed, or at least considerably modified.

Mr. J. P. Grant thought that, under the terms of the hon. member's motion, nothing short of a repeal of the 6th of George the First could be now introduced. If his object was to amend and alter parts 4 N

of that act, it should be made the subject of a motion distinct from this. It was, however, a question of the greatest delicacy and importance; and, even if the Bubble act were repealed, he was not prepared to say, how far the subject would be affected by the common law. The act in question was very loosely worded; and, from the circumstance of the infrequency of its application, it had not received much interpretation from courts of law. But he believed it was quite clear, that the act referred to many other objects than those to which this motion extended; and, under such circumstances, he would recommend his hon. friend to withdraw this motion, and wait for some other opportunity. At the same time, he was bound to hint to him, that the subject which he had undertaken was more extensive than he perhaps imagined, and that from the number of subjects which would necessarily be implicated in it, he would find it difficult to frame such a bill as would meet his views, and not violate any in

terest.

Mr. Secretary Peel said, that the Bubble act contained twenty-nine clauses, the first seventeen of which had no reference whatever to Joint-stock companies. Did he understand the hon. member, then, to call upon the House to repeal those clauses? He was at a loss to see what benefit could be derived, even if this motion was acceded to. It was quite impossible, in a bill, brought in for the purpose of repealing an act of parliament, that seventeen clauses should be left untouched, as they necessarily must, since they had no relation to the subject. He would advise the hon. member to withdraw his motion.

upon. Something, certainly, ought to be done-whether by merely introducing a system of registration, and thus enabling every one to judge of the parties he trusted; or by introducing the continentalsystem of authorizing parties, on actual deposits so registered, to limit their responsibility, he was unable to say; but he was much inclined to think, that the latter would be of very useful adoption. It had been argued, that the great and increasing capital of the country had forced men into the species of speculation now afloat, for its investment; but, the fact was, that the greater number of these schemes were projected by persons having no capital whatever, who carried their shares immediately into the Bubble-market, the first instalment to be paid bearing little proportion to the nominal capital-speculating on selling, on the first rise of price, to those who will allow themselves to be cheated; advertising their projects under the names of known persons, as trustees and directors; and, having themselves advanced next to nothing, looking to realize on an amount which was purely fictitious, at the expense of the public.

Mr. Peter Moore said, he should be extremely glad if his majesty's ministers would take the affair out of his hands. He had been waiting in expectation that the matter would be taken up by high authority. If a bill respecting it were brought forward in any shape, he should be most happy. But, as things were, the various Companies, possessing, a capital of 250 millions, were left at sea, without rudder or compass, not knowing whether they were acting right or wrong. What they wanted was, to act right. Upon his honour, he believed that not one of the Mr. Hudson Gurney regretted, that this Stock Companies, with which he was conmeasure had not been brought forward nected, had less probity or less stability by government, as the state of the law, than the bank of England itself. He as regarding Joint-stock companies, was would never connect himself with any one such as obviously required alteration. He of which he did not entertain that opinion. wished the right hon. gentleman opposite, What they wanted was, to understand the the president of the Board of Trade, law. It was said, that the Bubble act did could be prevailed upon to take the task not apply to them, yet they had been of legislation into his own hands. It was threatened with its operation; and that impossible that the common law, originat-threat had operated upon them most ining in another state of society, could meet all the exigencies of the present commercial situation of the country; and the Bubble act, which the hon. gentleman now moved for leave to bring in a bill to repeal, not only left the law in great uncertainty, but contained provisions which it was impossible ever could be acted

juriously. Full discussion was what he wished for. Might he be allowed to change the word "repeal" the act, for the words "amend and alter" it? In a case in which so much property was afloat, let the matter be settled. Could the two clauses of the act which affected that property be alone considered? He believed

« PreviousContinue »