Mr. Courtenay contended at some length, that the decree mentioned in the act of the 37th of Henry VIII. had been enrolled, and that in consequence the house would, in passing the bill, be interfering most unwarrantably with the disposal of the property of the church.

Mr. W. Smith approved of the bill, as well as the arrangement which the parish had at all times evinced a readiness to make; and when they considered that the incumbent was getting from 1,8007. to 2,000l. a year for what was not previously more than 500l., surely the church at least ought to be satisfied. He deplored this connexion between pecuniary affairs and the duties of the clergy, and thought that the stability of the church was more endangered by such contests, than by any thing else to which it could be exposed.

Mr. Peel thought that as the matter involved a grave consideration of law, it ought to be left to the court of king's-bench to decide, instead of being considered in parliament, where it might introduce a most dangerous precedent of interference in private property. The arrangement proposed by the parish might be liberal; but as it was permanently to affect the property of the church, the consent of the bishop of London ought at least to be obtained for the compromise. As it now stood, the consent of one party alone had been had, for the rector had withdrawn his consent on finding the bishop's withheld. He thought when the parish agreed to give the allowance of 1,800l. a-year, it was a strong admission of the other party's legal right. At all events, he thought the subject had better

be considered in the court of king's bench than in the house of commons, unless they meant to set a bad precedent, which would apply as well to the Duke of Bedford's toll in Covent-garden as to the party in this case. The parties might arrange a bill next session better adapted for the purpose.

Mr. Alderman Wood denied that the parishioners believed the law to be against them; but they preferred an amicable adjustment to this continuance of litigation. And those who were interested in church property ought to recollect that this was not like a parish in the environs of the metropolis, which might increase in value, but was one where the tithes must decline, and particularly if the St. Catherine's dock were constructed, which would necessarily diminish the number of houses.

Mr. Alderman Bridges supported the bill.

Mr. Calcraft begged the house to recollect, that the whole business for which the parish was willing to pay 1,800l. a-year was performed by one curate for 100l.; that it was the cause of parish disputes, which (and he was sorry for it) had kept the parishioners from attendance at the church, and this bill would heal them all.

Sir John Nicholl said, that though the parish offered to pay the present individual 1,800l. ayear, they provided that his successor should have only 1,2007.

The house divided on the second reading of the bill, when the numbers were--For it, 55; against it, 36; majority, 19.

Mr. Hume had a petition to present which was of some importance. It related to the practice of the burning of Hindoo widows

in

the practice. He mentioned several instances in which the sacrifices had been prevented by the determined interference of the local authorities, which had given great satisfaction to the native population.

Mr. Trant said, that having had considerable experience in this matter, from a long residence in India, he could not refrain from giving some expression to his sentiments on this occasion. He observed that, as the south was more remarkable than the north of Hindostan, so Bengal, perhaps, exhibited a greater number of these sacrifices than any other province of India. It was, in fact, the chief seat of Hindoo superstition. Why it was so, he did not pretend to determine. But upon one point his mind was made up-that it would be highly dangerous and improper for the British government to interfere with a violent hand in any thing which concerned the religious rites of the Hindoos. He had himself known a native of that country, the most enlightened man of all the Asiatics whom he had met with. person saw enough of the superiority of European education to make him resolve to have his children brought up in these schools, In a conversation which he had with this person upon the atrocity of these burnings, that man, clever as he was, and so well inclined to Europeans and their manners, justified the practice, and said, "that is a point of our religion, and your government must not interfere with it." Upon which he made up his mind immediately that the British government could not properly put down the practice by the strong arm of authority. If they

This

were to do so, it was plain that this individual would have quitted all his inclinations towards the manners, religion, and education of the English, to defend the rites of his own religion.

Mr. Wynn was afraid that the steps which had been taken to put down the practice had tended to its increase. Doubtless it was the duty of government to do all in its power, which could be done with safety, to do away with it, or to lessen the instances. But he was convinced that the British parliament could do nothing in it with any propriety. No general mea sure could be adopted which would not imply the most alarming dan ger. It was not a subject for British legislation. They could not make laws for so vast a continent as they might for a limited territory, inhabited by people of one religion and one common sen→ timent. They were to consider the varieties of population and feelings, and other circumstances which must belong to a country measuring 2,000 miles from north to south, and the same from east to west. The task of suppressing the practice must be left to the discretion and firmness of the local authorities, and the directions which they would receive on that head from the board of directors.

Sir C. Forbes said that it was continually to be lamented that the British government had not, at an early stage of the conquest, peremptorily abolished the practice. When Lord Wellesley was in India, 20 years ago, he might, with one stroke of his pen, had he not been restrained, have put an end to it. He highly applauded the government of that great man in India, which was nearly as pers

fect

fect in mildness, wisdom, and firmness, as could be expected from the known and general defects of our common nature. But that nobleman had shown his power by the peremptory suppression of infanticide, which was as stoutly defended on the score of superstition as this horrid practice of burning widows. The case had materially altered since then. The natives would have received with gladness so salutary a proof of the firmness of the British government. Since then their religious jealousies had been awakened. A formidable church establishment had been founded amongst them, Shoals of missionaries had been allowed to go in among them, and their feelings had taken a posture of hostility which before they would not have experienced. Still he was of opinion that the British government would do well to compel the directors, and through them the local authorities, to interfere. It was absurd to suppose that the love of life was less in the bosom of a Hindoo woman than in any other person. The sacrifices were not voluntary. In every case they were the effect of persuasions from the Brahmins and the relatives of the women. The miserable victims would be happy to take refuge from these cruel suggestions under a law of the British legislature, making it murder for any one to aid or abet these sacrifices. Until something of this kind were done, it would be in vain to expect from the local authorities any efficient means for suppressing the abominable rites.

Sir Hyde East was convinced not only of the impolicy and harshness of this legislature interfering,

but also that the sacrifices themselves were considerably increased by the repeated discussions which were agitated in parliament upon the subject.

Mr. W. Smith said, that so far from being convinced by those gentlemen who affected experience in India affairs, that parliament ought not to interfere, he felt convinced that nothing effectual would be done in quashing this abominable and bloody idolatry by the local authorities until they were denounced by law.

Mr. Hume, on moving for the printing of the petition, said that the hope of effecting the extirpation of these cruel rites by the mere disposition of the court of directors, and their instructions to the local authorities, might be judged of from this fact-that from 1787 down to the end of 1820, there was not one letternot one line-not even a word of disapprobation expressed by the directors to those authorities. The first movement of the kind took place in consequence of the motion of his hon. friend the member for Weymouth. He was convinced that the business must be effected by a committee of that house. No half measures would do here. All that the government and the court of directors had hitherto done, had only had the effect of legalizing the murders in the eyes of the natives. They ought first to inquire in a committee as to the safest and most efficacious means of suppressing them; and then to adopt a law for the peremptory enforcement of those means.

Sir 1. Coffin said that the readiest way to lose India would be to interfere with the superstitions of the people.

Sir Hyde East applauded the local authorities for their successful efforts in reducing the number of sacrifices.

Mr. F. Buxton was obliged to the hon. member who spoke last for doing away in his second speech with the charge which he had made against him in his first. He had first charged him with increasing the number of Suttees by raising discussions in the house; in the second speech, so far from their having increased at all, their numbers were said to have declined considerably.

Mr. Money said, that it was in the power of the government to suppress the practice without offending the native population. He referred the house to several instances in the reports, wherein local magistrates, faithfully intent upon the discharge of their duty, had, by mere persuasion, prevented the burnings. Whatever might be said, the Hindoo was attached by the love of existence like other creatures. In one province it had been prohibited, and the natives rested satisfied; nor were they known in a single instance to have sought an opportunity of eluding that regulation, though they had only to cross a river and enter the Mahratta territory, where they would be entirely free from it, and at full liberty to effect the cruel sacrifices.

The petition was then ordered to be printed.

The Mauritius trade bill went through a committee.

The colonial intercourse bill was read a third time and passed. The Duke of Cumberland's annuity bill went through a committee.

House of Lords, June 7.-The

Earl of Liverpool rose to move the second reading of the law of merchants bill. In the first place, he wished to call their lordships' attention to a petition in favour of the alteration in the law now proposed to be made, which he some time ago had the honour of laying on the table. That petition was signed by almost all the respectable merchants of the city of London--by men engaged in every branch of commerce. signed by general merchants, East India merchants, West India merchants, North and South American merchants, those who traded to the north of Europe, Spain, Portugal, and the Levant-in short, by persons who represented every kind of commercial interest; so that there never had been among merchants a more general concurrence in support of any mea

sure.

It was

It was now his duty to call their lordships' attention more particularly to the question which this bill involved. The subject was somewhat abstruse, and to a person who, like himself, was little acquainted with the details of commerce, presented some difficulties. He should, however, endeavour to state as briefly as possible the general grounds on which he wished to recommend the bill to their lordships' consideration. It was to be expected, in the sent state of the trade of this country, that many cases would arise, in which the operation of laws enacted at an early period, would prove embarrassing-laws which, however proper and politic in their origin, might become totally incompatible with the present complicated state of commerce and society. Nevertheless, in any alteration of the law, their

pre

lordships