Sir Charles Monck said, that as the right hon. gentleman had referred to Dr. Burn's authority, to show the propriety of reverting to the ancient law, he must remind him that the ancient law was not that three years constituted a settlement; but that, if the pauper had previously resided in another parish for more than three years, for five or six years, he should be removed to that parish; but this was rather a matter of curiosity. Such an alteration in the law of the land as was now proposed must occasion injustice. They could not sweep away laws once existing, whether good or bad, without gross injustice. The proposed law in this case did not seem to meet the evil. It did not prevent litigation, as to which of several parishes was under the stronger obligation to support the poor, in cases where the residence had not been three years in any one of them. A. B. and C. are equally bound, as far as residence is concerned, to maintain a pauper. Which of them is to be liable? This was the great difficulty to be removed. The law of maintenance was sufficiently clear-the pauper must be maintained. But the question respected the law of settlement, who was to maintain this pauper? There was another provision which he considered liable to objection. The acquisition of settlement was to be vitiated by any crime committed by the pauper. If the pauper committed a crime in one parish, why should another parish be therefore punished? The parish in which the crime was committed ought rather to be punished. It was agreeable to the law of the land, and the ancient custom of England, that the neighbourhood should be responsible for crimes committed amongst them.

Lord Castlereagh rose to deprecate going into a discussion on the measure in the present stage of the question. It would be more satisfactory to wait till the bill should be printed.

Sir S. Romilly said, he was certainly not prepared to discuss the principle of the bill, but he did not see why an opinion should not be now given upon the measure. At the same time he felt by no means disposed to make any objections to the proposed measure. He conceived it to be a great improvement, and one that would prevent much inconvenience, much expense, and much suffering. This opinion he now gave, having had considerable experience in former years of the

operation of the poor laws. The distress occasioned to the wretched paupers by sudden removals, and to a great distance, was extremely painful to every mind of reflection and humanity. It was monstrous to suppose that it was a matter of indifference to the pauper where he should be maintained. It was often of the utmost importance to him. On a sudden illness, depriving him of the power to work at his employment, he was removed to another parish, perhaps far distant, where, when he recovered, no employment was to be found for him. He had known a journeyman printer to have been so removed to a place where no printing was done, and where he could consequently obtain no employment. He, therefore, thought the proposed alteration most beneficial, most advantageous in its consequences, and altogether the most beneficial regulation on the subject during the present reign. He had often viewed it as the greatest cruelty to an unfortunate pauper to be, on account of a temporary illness, removed to a place where he would be surrounded with strangers, and where, if he recovered, no employment could be found. The distress to the pauper was very great, the expense of removal was great, and the ultimate burthen to the public was often much increased by this cruel law. He would take another opportunity of considering the details of the measure, but he could not now avoid saying that he thought it the greatest improvement that could possibly be made.

Mr. Lockhart stated instances of the increase of litigation which he had lately remarked at two quarter sessions. In one instance, the increase was from 1 to 20; in another from 1 to 16. He also mentioned instances of fraud and imposition by paupers having apprentices, and by men having property in one parish and removing to another parish, and taking houses rented so low as to come under the law of settlement. These evils required correction, and he hoped the measure proposed would be effectual. He apprehended, however, that by this measure a greater proportion of paupers would be thrown upon the towns.

Leave was given to bring in the bill.

NEW CHURCHES BUILDING BILL.] The House having resolved itself into a committee on this bill,

Sir Frederick Flood said, he had heard that, for the purpose of building the new

churches, the sum of one million was to be raised from the consolidated fund of England and Ireland. This, according to the proportion settled at the Union, being two-seventeenths for Ireland, would throw upon that country a part of this expense amounting to 120,000l. If such was the case, he hoped that Ireland would partake of the advantage. He was as desirous as any man to see new churches built for the accommodation of the established church. Ireland required such accommodation as much as England, for the population had greatly increased there, and was becoming more numerous every day. There was not a country in the world more productive of population. The Protestant religion, too, was advancing as fast as any other description of religion. It could not be denied that Ireland was very much indebted to England, but it should be remembered also, that England was very much indebted to Ireland; and it was the interest of every Briton to support her. Her officers and soldiers always fought gallantly. Not one of them deserted their standard. In the time of Mr. Perceval, 50,000l. was granted for repairing churches in Ireland, and the same for first fruits in last session. They were not able to bear this. The right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer could not but see the distress of the country when he was last there. It was apparent; particularly in Dublin, the finest metropolis in the whole world. He must have observed the wretchedness of the place some of the houses deserted, and a great part of the windows stopped up to avoid the tax. There were palaces there no doubt there was the lord lieutenant's palace-but they were deserted; they were not frequented as formerly by the gentry and nobility, because their parliament was taken away from them. In the part of the country with which he was acquainted, he often saw people leaving the churches for want of room. He hoped, therefore, the benefit of this measure would be extended there.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer believed he could remove the difficulties and satisfy the objections of the hon. baronet. This measure would not be attended with any injustice to Ireland. Of that he hoped they would never be guilty towards her, for they were fully sensible of the merits of their Irish fellow-subjects. The hon. baronet was mistaken in all the points to which he had alluded. In the first

place, this was not to be a grant from the consolidated fund. In the second place, the proportion of two-seventeenths, established at the Union, did not now exist. It was done away two years back, when the exchequers of both countries were consolidated. As to the grant of 50,000l. alluded to, a similar one was voted every year since 1810, not for the repair of churches, but for the commission of first fruits. Last year it was only 30,000l. If more accommodation was necessary for the congregations in Ireland, which he was happy to learn were upon the increase, the House, he had no doubt, would provide it most cheerfully.

Sir W. Scott objected to the clause which entitled twelve well-disposed persons to build a church, and appoint a minister with the consent of the bishop, as tending to disturb the tranquillity of the church by the introduction of dogmatical sectaries, and by infringing on the rights of patrons. It was unworthy, too, in the church, to depend on private funds for its increase or support. He objected also to the language of the clause: the expression "well disposed" was loose in the extreme, and no certain construction could be put upon it. Their being householders of the parish was no protection; for strangers who did not belong to the parish might join with them; and if the bishop refused his consent, he would be exposed to a degree of odium he might be very unwilling to encounter. A clause of this nature could not fail to encounter opposition in another place, and might endanger the success of the bill altogether. He, therefore, moved its rejection.

He

The Chancellor of the Exchequer defended the clause, and thought that the church should avail itself of all sources of assistance from private liberality. could state, in answer to an apprehension that had fallen from his right hon. friend, that this clause would not endanger the bill in another place. Those who were most interested had been consulted, and had expressed their acquiescence in it. The clause would not enable strangers to introduce sectarians; it mentioned only that twelve well-disposed householders of the parish, and others, might build, and have two presentations. As the law stood already, nothing could prevent parties from building and preaching as long as they liked, doctrines the most opposite to those of the church. to patrons, the clause did not interfere

With respect

with their right of presentation; and as to its being unworthy of the church to profit by private munificence, the right hon. gentleman must be aware, that a great proportion of the churches at present existing had been founded by private patrons. He could not, therefore, consent to abandon the clause.

Mr. Wrottesley opposed the clause as likely to make a serious inroad on the rights of the established church. If this proposition were to be pressed, he hoped it would be made the subject of a separate bill, that the present measure which was so generally approved, might not be clogged with that which appeared so objectionable.

Mr. Bathurst was willing to give both of the clauses his support, because he did not wish to endanger the success of the bill, but he would consent to them only with some modification. One of the clauses allowed twelve persons, who might provide the necessary funds for the building of a church or chapel, to apply to the bishop for the purpose, and having obtained his consent to proceed in the erection of the said church or chapel. The subscribers were then to have the right of two presentations, through trustees appointed by the majority. Now it might so happen, that the greater part of the funds might be raised without the parish, and of course that the nomination might rest with people not belonging to it. To the clause, as it thus stood, he could not agree. He could not consent to the nomination being placed in the hands of extra-parochial subscribers. He would therefore propose, when the proper time came, some modification, making it necessary for the majority of the subscribers to be resident parishioners. No person unconnected with the parish could have a personal interest in appointing a Christian instructor. General subscribers should not therefore be allowed to exercise the right of presentation. He did not wish to check the liberality of individuals which came in aid of the liberality of parliament to promote so laudable an object as the erection of places of worship, but he did not see how the limitation he proposed could have that effect. The society which had been formed for promoting this object had subscribed without any condition, and had even gone before parliament in raising funds for the purpose. As no plan had been laid down by the legislature on which to proceed, and as no faith had

been pledged, there could be no faith broken with them under whatever regulations they were allowed to expend their subscriptions. In the case of parishes which received the aid of parliament, that aid could be extended on any conditions parliament chose; and one of those conditions ought to be, to limit the right of presentation, which might be given once or twice as an inducement to co-operate to a majority of resident subscribers.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that there was not such a difference between himself and his right hon. friend as might at first sight appear. It was to be supposed that the majority of subscribers would be resident parishioners, and a discretion was allowed to the bishop to grant or withhold his consent, as he saw how the funds were raised. The incumbent and patron likewise were to be consulted, and it was not likely that they would agree to any proposition by which an extra-parochial influence would be created. The incumbent himself might be a subscriber. He would not object to the introduction of some words by which the evils apprehended might be prevented, and the objections stated obviated.

Mr. Bathurst said, that the objection was not answered by referring to the power conferred on the bishop by the bill. The bishop was only allowed to judge of the expediency of erecting an additional place of worship, and of the sufficiency of the funds raised for the purpose. He had no right to inquire whence those funds came, or into whose hands the right of presentation might devolve.

Mr. Peel expressed his entire concurrence with every observation which fell from his right hon. and learned friend. The objectionable clauses did not seem necessarily connected with the rest of the bill, and might easily be detached from it, to be made the subject of a separate discussion. They, therefore, ought to be introduced in a separate bill, and determined on their own grounds. If right, they might be voted by themselves; if wrong, they ought to be rejected without injury to what was right. The consent of the House ought not to be purchased to an objectionable measure by its union with what was desirable, nor ought the regulation of the latter to be hazarded by being coupled with the former. The bishop was not allowed to judge by the bill of the source from whence the funds

arose.

If twelve well-disposed persons | agreed to raise the necessary funds, they might apply to him, and have his consent to the erection of a place of worship, to which the trustees elected by the majority of subscribers, wherever they resided, would have the right of presenting twice. This description of persons appeared to him to be as indefinite as the result of their operations might be injurious to the rights of the church. What was meant by well-disposed persons, when the term was introduced into an act of parliament? Crime was defined by law, but he never yet heard of a definition of morality in a statute. How were we to measure good dispositions, or ascertain the character of well-disposed persons by an act of parliament? He was confirmed in his objections to this clause of the bill by the very concessions that had already been made, and the amendments introduced. In the original proposal of the measure, the subscribers were to have the right of nominating thrice. His right hon. friend, the chancellor of the exchequer, had now reduced this right to two turns of nomination, and another right hon. friend (Mr. Bathurst) spoke of one. Why was the original proposition abandoned, if it were right? In the bill there was no description of the kind of fabrics to be raised, and no provision made for their repairs. They might only be of a kind to last so long as the original subscribers had an interest in the nomination of the clergyman; and might devolve to the patron or the incumbent when unfit for use. He opposed the clause, and wished it separated from the bill.

Dr. Phillimore said, it became the House to consider the want of churches, and whether the legislature would not relax in certain rights to enable the zeal of individuals to concur with the wishes of parliament. It was true, indeed, that law was unbending, but this was not the case with legislation. If there was a real want of churches, he had rather that churches were erected by sectarists, than not built at all. He was not for separating the measure from the bill. Notwithstanding the anxiety he felt to maintain the ascendancy of the church, he confessed that he wished to see the present clause carried. It would, however, be recollected, that the bishops still retained the power to repel all abuses of the bill.

Sir M. W. Ridley felt it his duty to object to the clause, and doubted much if

the bishops had a power to prevent the abuses of it. He hoped it would finally form a separate bill.

Lord Castlereagh would shortly state the grounds upon which he should support the clause. He much doubted, in the present state of the growing population of the country, whether the amazing void of religion could be supplied without some collateral aid. He had rather not tempt men into the church; and if this measure could have that effect, he wished it put under guards. It would still be open to the incumbent and the bishop to control the appointment of the minister of such church or chapel. He believed it would benefit the common cause, if the people had the pointing out of their ministers; this would accelerate the establishment. This being his general impression, he would vote for the clauses. At the same time, he was not prepared to say that they should not be separated, though they were members of the same system.

Mr. V. Fitzgerald regretted that he was compelled to vote against the measure proposed by his right hon. friend: he feared that the bill would be endangered if the clause were introduced.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not concur in the idea of excluding private liberality from assisting the services of the church. When they saw the land covered with dissenting meetings by private liberality, he wished to afford the same means to the established church, and was confident of its success.

The House then divided:-For the clause, 22; Against it, 47: Majority against it, 25. The chairman then reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Friday, May 1.

FORGERY OF BANK NOTES.] Sir C. Morgan presented a Petition from several inhabitants of Birmingham, setting forth,

"That the Petitioners observing, with feelings of deep concern, the increasing number of prosecutions arising from and out of the forgery of Bank of England notes, are of opinion that a due regard to public morals, as well as public credit and security, requires that the utmost endeavours should be made to diminish the evil; that it appears to the petitioners that some of the principal causes of the frequent commission of these crimes are to be found in