bers as being an encroachment on the freehold property of the church, and an invasion of private property, and defended by others on account of its necessity. The committee was then formed, and a elause was introduced on the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for empowering the bishop to deduct a part of the curate's salary for keeping the parsonage house in repair.

On July 8th, the report of the bill being taken into consideration, a debate ensued, in which the former arguments on each side were repeated, and the motion for the third reading was carried by 37 votes against 7. This took place on July 13th, after a division in its favour of 66 to 9; after which some new clauses were added by way of rider, and the bill passed into a law. (For its principal enactments, see our Abridgment.) In the parliamentary report of the last year it was noticed that Lord Folkstone having moved for a committee to inquire into the state of the jurisdiction of the inferior ecclesiastical courts, he withdrew his motion upon the engagement of Sir William Scott to bring in a bill for that purpose. The right hon. and learned gentleman in consequence introduced a bill, which the dissolution of parliament prevented from being carried through in that session.

On April 9th, Sir Wm. Scott rose in the House of Commons to move for leave to bring in a bill "for the better regulation of the ecclesiastical courts in England, and for the more easy recovery of church rates and tithes," which he stated to be a revival of that which

he had brought into parliament in the last session. Leave was accordingly granted.

On the order of the day, May 21, for going into a committee on this bill, the mover proposed several alterations, one of which was to continue to inferior ecclesiastical courts the power of excommunication, in consequence of the difficulty he had found in accommodating that part, as it originally stood, to all the variety of local circumstances throughout the kingdom. As abuses of this power, were what first called the attention of members to the subject, the proposal of continuing it naturally occasioned disappointment; and Sir Samuel Romilly said that he thought such an alteration of the bill was depriving it of its chief value. He also wished that the bill had gone much further. He could see no good reason why. spiritual courts should take cognizance of defamation; and he knew that great abuses existed in this part of their jurisdiction.

Sir Wm. Scott regretted the hon. gentleman's disappointment, but he had deliberately weighed the subject, and was convinced that the greatest inconveniences would result from retaining the clauses as they now stood. He acted from an overwhelming necessity, and did not think it worth while to incur so much practical difficulty as would ensue from them. The amendments and alterations were then agreed to.

When the report of the bill was brought up for consideration on June 16th, Mr. Western said that it appeared to him not to accomplish the object which it was un

derstood

derstood the right hon. and learned gentleman had in view. He observed, that it had originated in a motion made by lord Folkestone, in consequence of a number of grievances to which persons were Jiable from the proceedings of the ecclesiastical courts; and a particular instance was given in a case of defamation. In this case the defendant had been acquitted before the commissary court of Surrey, but was afterwards found guilty in the court of Arches, and condemn ed to do penance; and then came a dispensation for performance, for which he had to pay 951. The bill provided no remedy against the recurrence of such a circumstance, nor did it take away the consequences of an excommunication.

Sir W. Scott made some remarks in defence of the ecclesiastical courts; and after some other members had spoken on each side, the House resolved itself into a committee, when Sir S. Romitly proposed two new clauses; one, that no person should be appointed a judge of any consistorial court, who had not practised as an advocate in the court of Arches, or, if a barrister, had not practised three years in Westminster-hall; the other, that after passing the bill, no action for tythes should be brought, or suit instituted in any civil court, unless brought within six years after such tythes should have become due. Both these clauses were agreed to.

On July 1st, the order of the day in the House of Lords standing for a committee upon this bill, the Bishop of Chester objected to the clause above-mentioned respecting judges in the consistorial courts, contending that it conveyed an un

deserved imputation on the bishops with regard to these appontments; . and that it was impracticabley inasmuch as persons of the description there stated, could not be found to undertake the office. He therefore moved to strike out the. clause.

The Lord Chancellor spoke in defence of the clause; but the. arguments of the bishop were supported by Lord Ellenborough, who, after instancing several eminent churchmen who had acted as chancellors of dioceses, or had been the authors of valuable works on ecclesiastical law, affirmed that the clause would confine the appointment to advocates in the court of Arches, who would not be qualified to render bishops that assistance which they ought to derive from their chancellors.

The clause was in consequence struck out; and nothing material further occurred with respect to the bill, till its passing into a law.

In the discussions on the Catholic bill, though several members had manifested an intention to support all those exclusions from place and power which the Constitution had enjoined against separatists from the established church, yet the most extensive and liberal principles of toleration had been generally professed. Hence, probably, the time was chosen for an attempt to relieve from the pains and penalties still legally impending over them, those christians who impugned the doctrine of the Trinity.

On May 5th, Mr. William Smith moved for leave to bring in a bill for this purpose. Its object, he said, was solely to remove certain

penalties;

penalties imposed upon persons who denied the doctrine of the Trinity; and who were not included in the Act of king William, commonly called the Toleration Act. In the 19th year of the present reign an act had passed for the relief of those persons, by which they were exempted from the necessity of subscribing the 39 articles of the church of England, and a declaration of belief in the holy scriptures was substituted. The acts of king William, however, had not been repealed, by which persons, who in conversation or writing deny the existence of any of the persons of the Trinity, are disabled on conviction from holding any office, civil, ecclesiastical, or military; and if a second time convicted, are disabled to sue or prosecute in any action or information, or to be the guardian of any child, and are liable to imprisonment for three years. He therefore moved, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to grant further relief to persons differing in opinion from the church of England, with respect to certain penalties imposed by law on those who impugn the doctrine of the holy Trinity."

Lord Castlereagh said, he certainly did not see any reason to object to the principle of the bill; and the House, on the suggestion of the Speaker, going into a committee, leave was obtained to bring in the bill.

No further proceedings concerning it are reported in the House of Commons.

On the third reading of the bill in the House of Lords, July 30th, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Chester each said a few words, not with any intention of opposing it, but affirming that it had not been called for by any attempt to inflict penalties upon, or to impede the worship of, the Unitarians. The bill was then read a third time and passed.

That no voice of bigotted zeal was heard in either house on this occasion, may be deemed a pleasing proof of the progress which the principle of religious toleration has made within a short course of years. It is also affirmed upon good authority, that the positive determination of the ministry, that no opposition to the bill should meet with encouragement on their part, came in aid of the general spirit of liberality.

CHAPTER

TH

HE great business of the East India Company's Charter, concerning which so many petitions had been presented to parliament, was brought regularly before the notice of the House of Commons on March 22d, when that house resolved itself into a committee to consider of the affairs of the Company.

Lord Castlereagh introduced the subject with observing, that as the East-India charter was on the eve of expiring, it fell to the lot of parliament to decide on the future government of a country containing threefold the number of inhabitants existing in this kingdom. He said, that if he and his colleagues had conceived that the arrangements they had to propose would shake a system which had unquestionably answered all the great purposes of government, they should have hesitated before they had suggested them; but his proposition would not only abstain from touching the principle of that system, but would render it more applicable to the circumstances of the times. He then spoke highly in praise of the government of the Company in India, and of the persons who conducted it; and he assured the committee of his readiness to change his opinions on the subject, though they were the result of mature consideration, if they should be convicted of error.

There were three propositions in this question which his Majesty's ministers had to consider; Whether the existing government in India should be allowed to continue in its present state-whether an entire change should be effected in it-or whether some middle course could be adopted that would be satisfactory to all parties. With respect to the first, he was strongly impressed with a conviction that the present system could not be properly persevered in by the legislature. There was no reason for tying up, during the period of another charter, the commerce of the country from half the habitable globe, by placing it under the administration of the Company alone, and excluding all other persons except foreigners. The commercial sphere was become too extended for the limited powers of a chartered company, and it was the duty of parliament not to consign the private trade to the controul of their shipping system. The noble lord said, he was prepared to contend, that the Company had taken a burthen on their shoulders beyond their power to administer with justice to their own interests and to the public; and that the evil rising from a want of capital, compelled them to withdraw from branches of commerce which it would be most beneficial for them to exercise, and to engage in other transactions

transactions attended with clear loss. He gave some examples of these facts, and inferred that it was highly expedient that the national capital should be let in to the relief of the Company, upon the principle of the regulations of 1793, or the improved system adopted in 1802. The other alternative, of abolishing the present system, he was certainly not disposed to admit, unless all arrangements between the company and the public should appear impracticable. Dismissing therefore the two extremes of the question, he would proceed to state those modifications of the existing system which were the subject of certain resolutions to be laid before the committee. After opening the nature and purpose of these resolutions, they were handed to the chairman of the committee, and read. They commenced with a declaration, That it is expedient that all the privileges, authorities, and immunities, granted to the East India Company, shall continue and be in force for the further term of twenty years, except as far as the same may hereinafter be modified and repealed. The 2d resolution was to continue the present restraints to the commercial intercourse with China, and the Company's exclusive trade in tea. The 3d contained a permission to any of his Majesty's subjects to export to, and import from, all ports within the limits of the Company's charter, such goods, wares, &c. as are allowed by law, under certain enumerated provisions. The 4th regulated the application of the rents, revenues, and profits accruing to the Company from their territorial possessions in India; and

the 5th regulated in like manner the application of the proceeds from their sales of goods, and the profits of private trade. The 6th directed the application of the surplus revenues of the Company after the reduction of their debt inIndia to ten millions sterling, and that in England to three millions. The subsequent resolutions declared the expediency of allowing British ships built in the East Indies to import goods, &c. from that country during the present war, and to an assigned period after it- of making provision for further limiting the granting of gratuities and pensions to officers of the company-of continuing the power in the court of directors to supply vacancies occurring in the chief offices in India--of limiting the number of king's troops in future to be maintained by the Company in India and of placing the church establishment in the British territories in India under the superintendance of a bishop and three archdeacons.

It is unnecessary to give the particulars of the conversation which ensued in this early stage of the business. Several of the speakers urged the propriety of hearing evidence at the bar respecting certain points, which was agreed to by lord Castlereagh.

On March 30th the examination of evidence commenced in the House of Commons before a committee of the whole house, with that of Warren Hastings, esq. and was continued through a number of meetings, in which a great many individuals who had served in high stations in India were examined. On April 13th, so much of the time of the House