THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES:
FORMING A CONTINUATION OF THE WORK ENTITLED
THE PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY OF ENGLAND,
FROM THE EARLIEST PERIOD TO THE YEAR 1803."
PUBLISHED UNDER THE SUPERINTENDENCE OF
T. C. HANSARD.
New Series;
COMMENCING WITH THE ACCESSION OF GEORGE IV.
V O L. XVII.
COMPRISING THE PERIOD
FROM
THE TWENTY-THIRD DAY OF MARCH,
TO
THE SECOND DAY OF JULY, 1827.
LONDON:
printed by t. c. hansard at the pater-noster how press,
FOR BALDWIN AND CRADOCK; J. BOOKER; LONGMAN, REES, ORME, AND CO.;
J. M. RICHARDSON; PARBURY, ALLEN, AND CO.; J. HATCHARD AND SON;
J. RIDGWAY; E. JEFFERY AND SON; J. RODWELL; R. H. EVANS; BUDD AND CALKIN; J. BOOTH; AND T. C. HANSARD.
1828.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NEW SERIES.
I. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
II. REBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
III. KING'S SPEECHES.
IV. KING'S MESSAGES.
V. PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS
VI. PETITIONS
VII. LISTS.
I. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
1827.
Mar. 23. Roman Catholic Claims
1
26. Breach of Privilege
34
Petition of the Vauxhall Coiners
35
27. Roman Catholic Claims—Select Vestries in Ireland
82
Grant to the Duke and Duchess of Clarence
86
28. Roman Catholic Claims
111
29. Corn Laws—Lord Redesdale's Resolutions
120
Poor Laws in Ireland
128
30. Fees on Private Bills
152
Appeals from India
152
April 4. Spring Guns Bill
235
5. Spring Guns Bill
239
6. Spring Guns Bill
265
Game Laws Amendment Bill
268
9. State of the Ministry
293
Spring Guns Bill
295
11. Corn Laws
387
May 2. New Administration—Exposition of the late Ministers
448
4. New Administration
548
7. Catholic Emancipation
562
New Administration
564
Catholic Question
571
May 7. Appeals—Deputy Speaker of the House of Lords
573
8. Corn Laws
665
10. Affairs of Portugal
706
New Administration—Corn Laws
707
11. Game Laws Amendment Bill
733
14. Vote of Thanks to the Army in India
766
New Administration—Foreign Missions
774
15. Turner's Divorce Bill
787
Corn Laws—Lord Redesdale's Resolutions
789
17. New Administration
853
Case of Miss Turner
876
18. Portugal
901
21. Catholic Emancipation
923
23. Sale of Game Bill
980
25. Supply of Water to the Metropolis
984
Corn Bill
984
June 1. New Administration
1083
Corn Bill
1086
7. Secret Service Money
1136
Corn Bill
1139
8. King's Message respecting Portugal
1160
11. Supply of Water to the Metropolis—Grand Junction Company
1195
12. Corn Bill
1217
13. Corn Bill
1258
Criminal Laws
1261
14. Sale of Game Bill
1302
22. Corn Averages Bill
1372
23. Warehoused Corn Bill
1380
26. Foreign Office
1399
Dissenters' Marriages Bill
1407
29. Free People of Colour
1424
Dissenters' Marriages Bill
1426
II DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Mar. 23. Breach of Privilege
3
Court of Chancery Bill
4
Penryn Election—Commitment of John Stanbury
6
Galway Election—Breach of Privilege
7
Corn Laws
7
Protestant Dissenters—Test and Corporation Acts
12
Spring Guns Bill
19
26. Tobacco and Snuff Duties
36
Foreign Relations
39
Financial State of the Country
67
Corn Laws
78
27. Writ of Right Bill
88
Mar. 27. Corn Laws
95
Spring Guns Bill
106
Turnpike Act Amendment Bill
108
28. Game Laws
117
29. Corn Duties Bill
132
Orange Processions—Magistrates of Lisburne
133
30. State of the Administration
157
Writ of Right Bill
172
April 2. Corn Duties Bill
174
Sussex County Elections Bill
199
3. Carlisle Election—Interference of the Military
206
State of Churches in Ireland
208
Imprisonment for Debt
223
5. Emigration Committee
241
Mode of taking the Poll at Elections
241
Irish Miscellaneous Estimates—Motion for a Select Committee
243
Court of Chancery
253
6. Roman Catholic Claims
270
Change of Ministry
280
Breach of Privilege—Threatening Letters sent to Mr. Secretary Peel
282
Corn Duties Bill
286
9. County Courts
297
Devon and Cornwall Mining Company—Petition complaining of Abuses
299
Breach of Privilege—Mr. H. C. Jennings reprimanded
343
Corn Duties Bill
345
10. County Fire Office—Revenue Inquiry
349
Arrest for Debt upon Mesne Process
384
12. Oaths in Courts of Justice—Forged Petition—Robert Taylor
389
Change of the Ministry
390
Corn Duties Bill
391
May 1. New Administration—Mr. Peel's Exposition
393
2. Catholic Question—New Administration
498
3. New Administration
504
Shipping Interest
547
4. New Administration
553
7. Catholic Emancipation—New Administration
576
Consolidation of the Criminal Law
591
Shipping Interest of the Country
592
8. Vote of Thanks to the Army in India
667
Elections Regulations Bill
676
Borough of Penryn
682
9. Transubstantiation—Petition of General Thornton
703
Sussex Election Bill
704
11. New Administration—Test Act—Supplies
743
14. Reported New Creation of Peers
783
Salmon Fisheries Bill
786
May 15. Trade with India
814
Cornwall and Devon Mining Company
845
17. Administration of the Cape of Good Hope
883
Spring Guns Bill
895
18. Penryn Election Bill
903
21. Emigration
927
New Administration
930
Criminal Justice
934
22. Court of Chancery—Jurisdiction in Matters of Bankruptcy
939
Coventry Magistracy Bill
974
23. Small Debts' Bill—Arrears upon Mesne Process
981
Roman Catholics' Land Tax
982
Registration of Freeholds
983
25. Supply of Water to the Metropolis—Petition of the Western Portion
1026
New Administration—Committee of Supply
1028
28. Wool Trade
1035
Penryn Election Bill
1042
Election Expenses Bill
1057
30. Regulation of Wages—Petition from Norwich
1060
31. Publication of Libels—Motion for Repeal of one of the Six Acts
1062
June 1. The Budget
1098
Frivolous Arrests' Bill
1130
Arrests upon Mesne Process Bill
1131
Coventry Magistracy Bill
1132
6. Turner's Nullity of Marriage Bill
1133
Grand Jury Presentments of Ireland
1135
7. King's Message respecting Portugal
1144
Corporation and Test Acts
1145
Bank of England—Circular respecting Country Banks
1149
Penryn Election Bill
1155
8. Cape of Good Hope—Petition for a Representative Government
1168
King's Message respecting Portugal
1175
Coventry Magistrates' Bill
1191
11. Supply of Water to the Metropolis—Grand Junction Company
1197
East Retford Disfranchisement Bill
1200
12. Rate of Wages—Petition of Spital-fields Weavers
1241
People of Colour in the West Indies
1242
Poor Laws
1256
13. Pauper Lunatics of Middlesex
1262
14. Distresses of the Commercial Industrious Classes of the Community
1265
Preston Borough Election Bill
1300
18. Corn Trade
1302
Coventry Magistracy Bill
1339
19. Private Bills
1342
Dissenters' Marriages Bill
1343
20. Royal College of Physicians
1346
June 20. Small Debts Recovery Bill
1350
21. Real Property in India
1361
Naval Promotions
1368
Warehoused Corn Bill
1371
22. East Retford Disfranchisement Bill
1375
Abuse of Corporate Funds to Election Purposes
1379
Cape of Good Hope—Conduct of Lord Charles Somerset
1427
East Retford Disfranchisement bill
1438
III. KING'S SPEECHES.
July 2. King's Speech at the close of the Session
1444
IV. KING'S MESSAGES.
June 7. King's Message respecting Portugal
1144
V. PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
Convention between his Majesty, and the Emperor of the Brazils, for the Abolition of the Slave Trade. Signed at Rio de Janerro, November 23, 1826
40
Convention between his Majesty and the United States of America, for the final Settlement of certain Claims of the United States, arising out of the Convention concluded at St. Petersburgh, July 12, 1822. Signed at London, November 13, 1826
42
Correspondence relative to Commercial Intercourse between the United States of America and the British West-India Colonies, August, 1826, to January, 1827
44
Lord Redesdale's Resolutions respecting the Corn Laws
120
Finance Accounts for the year ended the 5th of January, 1827
Appx. i
VI. PETITIONS.
Mar. 26. PETITION of the Vauxhall Coiners
35
April 9. from Brighthelmstone, on the Abuses of the County Courts
298
10. of the Directors of the County Fire Office, complaining of the Commissioners' of Revenue Inquiry
360
May 25. of the Inhabitants of the Western Portion of the Metropolis respecting the Supply of Water
1026
June 11. of the Grand Junction Water Works Company
1197
20. from Birmingham, praying to be represented in Parliament
1438
VII. LISTS.
Mar. 27. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Resolutions respecting the Corn Laws
105
29. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. Brownlow's Motion respecting Orange Processions, and the Conduct of the Magistrates of Lisburne
151
30. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. Tierney's Motion for postponing the Committee of Supply
171
April 2. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Second Reading of the Corn Duties Bill
199
5. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Sir John Newport's Motion for a Select Committee on the Irish Miscellaneous Services
252
of the Minority, on Mr. D. W. Harvey's Motion respecting the Court of Chancery
265
May 22. of the Minority, on Mr. M. A. Taylor's Motion respecting Jurisdiction in the Court of Chancery, in Matters of Bankruptcy
974
28. of the Majority, and also of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Penryn Election Bill
1055
31. of the Minority, on Mr. Hume's Motion for the Repeal of one of the Six Acts, respecting Blasphemous and Seditious Libels
1083
June 7. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Penryn Election Bill
1160
12. of the Majority, and also of the Minority, in the House of Lords, on the Corn Bill
1238
PARLIMENTARY DEBATES.
During the
of the
of the United Kingdom of
and
appointed to meet at Westminster the 14th of November, 1826, in the Seventh Year of the Reign of His Majesty King
1
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, March 23, 1827.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.] Lord King
had several Petitions to present from that people, who stated themselves to be the most wretched, the most ill-used, and the most oppressed, people in Europe; namely, the Irish Roman Catholics. Wretched, however, as they were, he did not think there was any hope of removing their grievances; for, as the noble and learned lord on the wool-sack had really stated, this House had repeatedly rejected every specific proposition, and the other House had come to a sweeping resolution not to listen to or consider their complaints. It had been stated that there was a great deal of harmony, good-will, and friendly feeling in Ireland. Yes, he believed there was just as much harmony and good-will as there was between oil and vinegar. The antagonist principle was in great force in that unfortunate country. Landlords were set against their tenants. The population were against the property of the country. The parsons were against the priests; and hatred existed in every possible shape. He did not know what was to be the future plan of government with respect to Ireland. No one had ventured to point out what government intended to do; but when they should bring forward a plan, what was to be "the instrument?" to use a Cromwellian phrase. The instrument of government, he believed, would be the cannon, that
ultima ratio
2
The Duke of Buckingham
said, he gave the noble lord credit for the sincerity of his efforts, but he could never admit that the manner in which he made those efforts was at all calculated to allay the feeling of irritation, or to produce the effect which he wished to produce. He never could hear it quietly stated, that there was no hope for the Roman Catholics. He not only hoped, but was convinced that the measure which was the object of the noble lord's efforts must, at no distant day, be granted.
Lord King
said, he had not stated any thing with regard to the hopes of the Catholics. All he had said was, that he himself entertained no hope whatever of their cause. if he looked to the late decision of the other House, he should find it far less conciliating than any thing that had fallen from him on this subject.
3
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, March 23.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.] Mr. Hart Davis rose
to call the attention of the House to a subject, which was connected, in some measure, with its privileges. The hon. member held in his hand "The Times" paper of this day. He said, it was therein stated, that in the course of the debate of last night, a gallant colonel opposite had said, that "if he had been so disposed, he could have placed before the House some transactions in which he (Mr. H. Davis) had been concerned, which might bring a blush into his check." These, if not the exact words, were very like those used by the gallant colonel. Now, either the gallant colonel was acquainted with some circumstance of his life which deserved the terms in which he had spoken of him; or he had used those terms in consequence of the excitement to which debates in that House sometimes gave rise. He hoped, in the former case, the gallant colonel would, in justice to himself, state if he knew any such disgraceful facts; and if not, he trusted the gallant colonel would say that he had been betrayed, by the warmth of the debate, into expressions which he would not otherwise have made use of.
Mr. Calfraft
objected, that the contents of a newspaper should be quoted as an authority upon such a subject in that House.
Mr. Hart Davis
said, he was obliged to take some steps in the matter, and he should, therefore, move that the printer of "The Times" be ordered to attend at the bar of the House.
Colonel Davies
said, he was ready to admit that he had used the words attributed to him, under very considerable excitement. That excitement was caused by what he considered a very irregular mode pursued by the hon. member, in alluding to circumstances wholly foreign to the matter then before the House. He had now no hesitation in saying, that any thing which might have fallen from him in the heat of debate was not intended by him to hurt the feelings of the hon. member, and he trusted that what he now said would be perfectly satisfactory to the House and to every body else.
Mr. Hart Davis
expressed himself satisfied with the explanation, and offered to withdraw his motion.
4
The Speaker
said, that the motion not having been seconded, this was not necessary. He was extremely glad of what had now been stated by both the hon. members. Of all the breaches of privilege which the House were called upon to punish in persons out of the House, none were so difficult to deal with as those which arose from a breach of the rules within the House. He thought the matter would rest very well as it now stood; but he trusted the House would permit him to remind it, that any deviation from the rules of debate was liable to produce misunderstandings, and to give offence often when it was by no means the intention of any party that offence should be given.
COURT OF CHANCERY BILL.] The Master of the Rolls
moved the further consideration of the report of this bill.
Mr. Abercromby
hoped the right hon. and learned gentleman would not press the proceedings on this bill in the absence of so many hon. and learned gentlemen, now on the circuit, who had taken a deep interest in the measure, and who were best qualified to judge of its practical effects.
The Master of the Rolls
said, he had no desire whatever to press the bill in the absence of those who might wish to express their sentiments upon it. If, however, the second reading was deferred until after Easter, he feared it would be too late in the session to forward its necessary stages through the other House.
Mr. Abercromby
could not see that there was any ground for apprehending such a result. Ample time, he conceived, would be afforded to the bill, if the second reading was deferred until after the holidays. He did not think that his learned friends, now attending their duty elsewhere, would be fairly treated, if they were not allowed an opportunity of expressing their opinions upon this bill before it passed into a law.
Mr. M. A. Taylor
hoped that the right hon. and learned gentleman would yield to the suggestion thrown out, and consent to postpone the measure.
The Master of the Rolls
said, that the only object he had in view, was to render the bill as perfect as possible, and that every information should be given upon the subject. He had no wish to derive any benefit from the absence of any hon. members; but he thought that, on other grounds, he ought to be acquitted of all
5
6
Sir J. Newport
was surprised to hear any apprehension expressed respecting the probable fate of that bill in the other House.
Mr. M. A. Taylor
said it was immaterial whether the measure was postponed or not, as he doubted whether any benefit would result from it. Those who were at all acquainted with the business of the court of Chancery, knew right well that this bill was made use of as a tub to catch the whale. After the very little that had been done heretofore, he hoped hon. members would not place much reliance on any promises that might be made with respect to the effect of this bill on the proceedings of the court.
PENRYN ELECTION—COMMITMENT OF JOHN STANBURY.] The Speaker
said, he had to acquaint the House that the serjeant-at-arms had taken into custody John Stanbury. Mr. Wynn moved "That the order of the House of yesterday, on this subject, be discharged." The clerk then read the order of the House, that an Address be presented to his majesty, praying him to issue his proclamation for the apprehension of John Stanbury. The order was discharged.
Mr. Wynn
moved, "That John Stanbury, having absconded in order to avoid being taken into custody, pursuant to the order of the House, be for the said offence committed to his majesty's gaol of Newgate, and that the Speaker do issue his warrants accordingly."
Mr. Hume
thought that, previously to coming to any such resolution, the individual should be called in, and heard, if he had any valid excuse to offer.
Mr. Wynn
said, that a report of an election committee had already declared, that he had absconded to avoid being served with a process to attend as a witness before that committee; and he had again absconded to avoid being taken into custody. There was a precedent for this course in a case that occurred six or seven years ago. If he had any explanation to offer, the regular way would be to do so by petition.
Mr. Hume
said, that the evidence on which the warrant was issued was
ex parte,
7
GALWAY ELECTION—BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.]
On the motion of Mr. Wynn, the order of the day was read for the attendance of Mr. French and Mr. Lambert at the bar. The right hon. gentleman suggested, that, as a charge had been made against Mr. French, that gentleman should be first called, that he might have an opportunity of explaining. Mr. French having been called in,
The Speaker
addressed him as follows: "Mr. French, I have to acquaint you, that yesterday a petition was presented to this House on the part of Mr. Thomas Lambert, complaining of conduct on your part towards him in the lobby of the House. The House is anxious to know whether you have any observations which you wish to offer to its consideration with reference to this subject?"
Mr. French
said, that some of his friends had already informed him that he had said that which was considered offensive to the House. If he had done so, he assured the House that he was sorry for it, and that it was under the influence of very strong feeling. Here the hon. gentleman paused for a moment, evidently much affected.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he believed the gentleman at the bar did not fully understand the object of what the Speaker had addressed to him. The object was, that he should state the facts as they occurred to him and not to offer any apology.
Mr. French
then proceeded for a few minutes, but not a word of what he said was audible in the gallery. He appeared to be very much affected, and at last was unable to proceed.
Mr. Wynn
said, that, under the feelings which the gentleman had evinced at the bar, he hoped it would be deemed that sufficient had now been done. At the same time he trusted that what had been done would be an example to others, that the House would, upon all occasions, be ready to extend its protection equally to all persons whom it might call before it witnesses. He then moved, "That Mr. French and Mr. Lambert be discharged from any further attendance."
CORN Laws.] Mr. C. Grant
moved the order of the day for bringing up the
8
Lord Althorp
said, that a mistake had gone abroad, arising out of a misrepresentation of what had fallen from him during one of the early discussions on this subject, which he was anxious to correct. It would be in the recollection of the House that on the second day of the discussion, he had stated that he was happy to inform the House, that, at the last market-day in Northampton, his constituents had generally expressed themselves in favour of the propositions of ministers with respect to the Corn-laws. This was what he had said; but he had been represented to have stated, that at a meeting of his constituents at Northampton on the last marketday, they had agreed to resolutions approving of the proposition of ministers on those laws. This he had not said; for nothing of the kind had happened. He had only stated what he had understood to be the opinions of his constituents; but it was fair to state, that their opinions on the propositions of ministers had since undergone a change on this subject, because, in all the discussions they had not been made acquainted with the real merits of the question.
Mr. Denison
wished to put a question to the right hon. gentleman, which he had asked on a former occasion, but which had not received an answer. He wished to know, whether the singular anomaly of taking the averages in the Winchester measure, and buying and selling according to the Imperial measure, were still to continue?
Mr. C. Grant
assured the hon. gentleman that his not having answered his question proceeded from no want of courtesy to him, but was wholly accidental. With regard to the measures, the Winchester measure was that in which the averages were already taken by the existing acts; and, as no mention was made of any other measure in the resolutions before the House, it would of course continue.
Mr. Denison.
—So that you take the averages with one kind of measure, and buy and sell with the other.
Mr. C. P. Thompson
was anxious to call the attention of the House to the strange anomaly which this course would involve. In Mark-lane and other markets the imperial measure was generally used for buying and selling corn, Why, he
9
The Chancellor of the Exchequer begged
to remind hon. gentlemen, that it was impossible, from the prescribed forms of the House, that any alteration could be made in the measure at its present stage. It was in the committee that any proposition to that effect must be originated. Any discussion, therefore, upon that point, must at present be premature and irregular.
Mr. Baring
thought that the law ought not to be framed on the Winchester measure, whilst the averages were to be calculated by the Imperial measure, inasmuch as it would lead to infinite confusion and inconvenience. He repeated the recommendation which he had suggested on a former night; namely, that it would be better to raise the standard price to 62
s
s
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
denied that any inconvenience would arise from the system embraced by the resolutions. As a proof of what he said, he referred to what had occurred since the issuing of the orders in council of the 1st of September last. Since that time a million of quarters had been imported, and the practical men had felt, no inconvenience from calculating the duty upon it by the old measure.
Mr. Calcraft
contended, that the inconvenience of the system would be felt in the home and not in the foreign trade. He thought that it would be best to revert to the Winchester measure. If the standard were taken by the Imperial measure at 62
s
Sir G. Clark
differed from the hon. member for Wareham, upon the question of making 62
s
s
10
s
Mr. Davies Gilbert
also made some observations on the confused state in which the commissioners had found the measures in the Exchequer. He agreed that no inconvenience might arise from departing from it among merchants who had large dealings; but he was afraid that inconvenience would arise among uninformed persons, who were not so well able to calculate the difference between the Imperial and the Winchester measure. He thought that 62
s
Mr. C. Grant
thought that no practical inconvenience would arise from adopting the system marked out in the resolutions.
Mr. Baring
expressed his determination of taking the sense of the House on the suggestion which he had thrown out, on the very first opportunity which the forms of the House would allow him. The hon. member insisted very strongly on the gross inconsistency of calculating the duty upon one measure, and the price upon another.
Sir J. Sebright
said, that, if calculations were made upon the Winchester bushel, the common people would think that the Imperial measure was abandoned. He wished an uniformity of measures to be established throughout the country, and preferred the Imperial to the Winchester
11
Sir J. Wrottesley
remarked upon the inconvenience arising in his neighbourhood from the confusion of the measures. He was obliged to sell by the Winchester bushel of thirty-two quarts, and bought in one market town at the rate of thirty-six quarts, in another at the rate of thirty-eight quarts, and in another at the rate of forty quarts.
Mr. Warburton
recommended, that the averages should be calculated not by the old, but by the scale of the Imperial measure.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that if an alteration was made in one instance, it would be necessary that it should be pursued with respect to every species of grain. The calculations now before the House were made,
bona fide
s
s
Mr. D. Gilbert
said, that the fraction might, when grain was at a high price, be allowed to the importer, and when at a low price, to the grower.
Lord John Russell
did not think there was any magic in the numbers sixty and twenty, which should induce the right hon. gentleman to adhere to them, which would be the means of continuing the old standard, when a new one had been provided. It would be better to go through the calculations, and to make the Imperial measure the general standard. It was the measure recognized by the legislature, and it would be wrong to call on the country to adopt the old measure, after it had been, in a great degree, given up.
Sir G. Clerk
thought there could be no difficulty in adopting the proposition of the hon. member for Bodmin. There would then, when wheat was above 60
s
s
12
Mr. C. Grant
consented, as he saw there was a feeling in the house in favour of the adoption of the Imperial measure, to have the Resolutions recommitted.
PROTESTANT DISSENTERS—TEST AND CORPORATION ACTS.]
On the order of the day for the commitment of the Annual Indemnity bill,
Mr. W. Smith,
before the Speaker left the Chair, observed, that he should not oppose the bill, though he considered this annual measure as an instrument of great injustice to the Protestant Dissenters, of which body he was himself one. For that reason, he was unable to hold any office, however insignificant, under the Crown, or to sit as a magistrate in any corporation, without violating his conscience. This was an exclusion hard, unjust, and unnecessary; and when he complained of it, he was told that he found his relief from all his grievances in this bill of Indemnity. This bill was the stalking horse, by means of which the Test and Corporation acts had been continued in existence for a century. If this bill had not been passed yearly, both those oppressive acts must long ago have been repealed.
Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, he could not conceal his astonishment at the contrast which marked this bill, and the course pursued, as it regards the Catholic claims. For nearly forty years the Indemnity bill, which he characterized as a measure of the most barbarous legislation, had been allowed to steal silently through the House, without provoking a syllable in explanation of its objects, or in justification of the continuance of those penalties against which it professes to be a security. While the claims of the Catholics are urged, year after year, with the vehemence of party, enlisting in their support the mightiest powers of energy and eloquence; the real and substantial claims of the Protestant Dissenters, whose claims are founded in the immutable principles of the rights of conscience, and the inviolability of private judgment, are entirely disregarded. It was both false in fact, and injurious in its influence, to confound Catholic concessions with religious freedom; they had no connexion with that hallowed feeling. The claims of the Catholics rested altogether on the policy and expediency of them, and were remote from any sentiment connected
13
14
Lord John Russell rose
to defend himself and the great portion of his friends from the imputation made upon them by the hon. gentleman who had just resumed his seat—namely, that, for the purposes of party, they brought forward the question of Catholic emancipation, while they did not equally insist on the restoration of freedom to the Protestant Dissenters. He was ready to declare, for himself, and on behalf of the great body of his friends, that, on the principle of general religious liberty, without any compromise or exception in favour of any one sect, he would give his support to any question that might come before the House. He would further state, that, on the subject of the Test and Corporation acts, some very respectable persons, Protestant Dissenters, had applied to him—an humble individual, undoubtedly, in that House—to bring it forward. He was asked, whether he was ready to move the repeal of those acts? He answered, that undoubtedly he would; but he added, that it was a question for them to consider what was the proper time for that purpose, and in whose hands they would place it. A noble friend of his, in the other House, had, in like manner, always stated his readiness to bring forward the question, when the aggrieved body deemed it expedient and politic to have it
15
Sir Robert Wilson
said, that the hon. member for Colchester, had put the saddle on the wrong horse. The reason why the claims of the Dissenters had not been discussed was, that they had not asked for relief. If they had been practically excluded from the pale of the constitution, there would have been as many petitions from them as from the Catholics. He confessed, however, that he thought it ungenerous in the Dissenters to withdraw their auxiliary support from the Catholics. The main body of the Dissenters were certainly more opposed to the Catholic claims than even the members of the
16
Mr. Van Homrigh
addressed the Speaker, but the impatience of the House rendered him inaudible. He complained of this inattention. He remarked, that he might have made a few observations to the House before, but this was the first time he had formally addressed them. He was sure, more loyal subjects than the Catholics of Ireland could not be found, and they had been so from the earliest days of antiquity. At the time of the Revolution they had sworn allegiance to a king to whom they faithfully adhered. It had been his fortune to see the descendants of those men who fought at the memorable battle of the Boyne, collected together on the same spot, to offer the demonstrations of loyal attachment to their present king; and he was sure that his majesty would, if he were asked the question, be ready to declare that a more loyal body of men than his Irish Catholic subjects did not exist. It was quite ridiculous to say that the Catholics were not worse off than the Protestant Dissenters. Let them be placed on the same footing—let them have an annual Indemnity bill likewise, and they would ask no more. The true way to judge of the Catholic, at least the way he judged of them, was by his own feelings. "If I were a Catholic," concluded the hon. gentleman, "I declare I would never be satisfied until I had completely succeeded in vindicating my claim to equal rights with the rest of my fellow-subjects."
Mr. Warburton
reminded the hon. member for Colchester, that the removal of disabilities from one class of subjects, did not necessarily imply the propriety of removing similar disqualifications from another class.
Mr. W. Smith
trusted that the hon. member for Colchester's representation of the Dissenters would not be taken as a just or fair view of them. He was willing to believe the statement of the gallant member for Southwark, as far as it was the
17
Mr. Hume,
seeing the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, very attentive to the debate, wished to put a question to that right hon. gentleman, for whose sincerity he had the highest respect. In the course of the late discussion upon the Roman Catholic claims, the right hon. gentleman had stated, that he was a sincere friend of toleration and of civil and religious liberty, and that he was willing to concede every thing, save and except political power. Now, the right hon. gentleman was aware that the Test and Corporation acts were repealed Ireland, and that Protestant Dissenters were permitted to sit in that House. He wished to ask the right hon. gentleman whether he would give his support to a bill for annulling. those tests altogether?
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he thought it rather hard that he should be punished with a question, because he happened to be paying attention to the debate. In the first place, he would say, in answer to the question put by the hon. member, that during the debate upon the Catholic claims, he had not said one word on the subject of the Protestant Dissenters. What he had said upon that occasion applied to Roman Catholics, and was to this effect, that he would resist any measure for giving them political power, but that he was willing to admit persons of that belief to the enjoyment of all the privileges to which the law entitled them; and that in such cases he would make no distinction between them and Protestants, each having equal qualifications as to moral character, and professional skill. He did not think it necessary at present to say a word respecting his opinion of the tests, as they affected Protestant Dissenters—sufficient, for the day was the vote thereof; and that evening he intended to vote for the bill, which he looked upon as a measure of relief. He could not agree in what had fallen from the hon. member for Southwark, that a measure of relief ought not to be granted to the Dissenters, because they had not presented petitions in favour of the Roman Catholics. Such a ground for refusing to afford the Dissenters relief,
18
Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, that as the hon. member for Bridport had made some allusions to his constituents, he must beg leave to offer a few observations. The greater part of his constituents were Protestant Dissenters; and he was of opinion that not only they, but the great body of Protestant Dissenters in England were opposed to the Roman Catholic claims, from a firm conviction that the conceding of those claims, would be injurious to civil and religious liberty. Whoever cast his mind back to what took place when those acts were passed, would find that the Protestant Dissenters of that day, had placed themselves under the thraldom of those acts, for the purpose of saving to the country the benefits of Protestant principles and Protestant liberality; and, at that period, it was understood, that the Dissenters were to be relieved, as speedily as possible, from the operation of those acts. Among those of the Protestant Dissenters, who opposed the Catholic claims upon the ground already stated, were to be found men whose general information was such as entitled their opinions upon such subjects, to considerable respect.
Sir R. Wilson,
in explanation, observed, that what he had said had been misunderstood by the right hon. Secretary. What he had said, and what he now repeated, was, that the Protestant Dissenters were satisfied to remain in an inferior situation, provided, by doing so, they could prevent their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects from enjoying the privileges of the constitution. Of the minority of two hundred and seventy-two, upon the late
19
Lord Rancliffe,
in answer to what had fallen from the hon. member for Colchester, must say, that among his constituents, whom he had now represented in three parliaments, there were many Protestant Dissenters who had given him their votes upon the ground, that he was the friend of religious liberty to the fullest extent. No question had ever been put to him by any of his constituents, as to the vote which he intended to give upon the Catholic question; and, he would say, that he had, by his vote in support of the motion of the hon. baronet, the member for Westminster, supported the cause of civil and religious liberty.
Lord J. Russell
said, he had a decided opinion upon the Test and Corporation acts, and should bring forward a motion upon those acts, if the Protestant Dissenters should think it to their interest that he should do so; but, otherwise, he did not intend to make any motion upon the subject.
SPRING-GUNS BILL.] Mr. Tennyson
moved the order of the day for a Committee of the whole House upon the bill for prohibiting the use of Spring Guns. Having, he said, on former occasions, stated the grounds upon which he had recommended this measure to parliament, he should not now enter into an elaborate exposition of the principle, or dwell upon the mischiefs ensuing from the practice, against which the bill was directed. Those mischiefs were perfectly notorious. Since the last discussion on this subject, a multitude of dreadful accidents had occurred. He concluded that the object of those who set Spring-guns was to destroy and maim mischievous trespassers—but he could not accommodate the patrons of these machines by stating, that even in one of those instances this end had been answered; for the death or mutilation inflicted in all the cases which had come to his knowledge, had fallen to the lot of in-
20
castigare
audire
any
21
22
23
Sir J. Shelley
contended, that the hon. and learned gentleman's measure was, in fact, an attack on gentlemen who wished to preserve their plantations and woods. The words of the bill went to prevent the
24
25
Lord Blandford
thought the House would not act wisely, if they removed the protection afforded by the salutary terror which the setting of Spring-guns occasioned. If this measure were agreed to, armed bands must be marshalled against the midnight invaders of property, and the conflicts of the two parties would produce much more human suffering than ever had resulted, or ever could result, from the setting of Spring-guns. He had himself, for several years, made use of these instruments for the protection of his property; and, as he considered the objections urged against them to arise from a kind of morbid sensibility, he was determined to give the present bill his decided opposition. Looking at the question, indeed, upon the point of humanity, he felt convinced that the aggregate amount of human suffering would be, under the provisions of that bill, if it received the assent of the House, infinitely greater than any that could be produced from an occasional casualty under the existing system.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that, although he approved of the principle of the measure, as he would show by the vote he intended to give that night, he nevertheless felt himself bound to express his very strong doubts with regard to the practical consequences likely to be produced from carrying the principle into effect. He was by no means satisfied that the taking away the protection afforded by Spring-guns would not have the effect of increasing the tendency to commit crimes, by increasing the temptations to incroach upon property. Resistance would then ensue, and conflicts would be the consequence, to an extent as great, perhaps, or greater than before. In a society, constituted like the present, he thought they ought never in that House to discuss a question on mere theoretical principles, without looking at the effects that were likely to flow from their adoption. Agreeing, therefore, as he would, with the prin-
26
27
Mr. P. Mildmay
was sorry that he could not arrive at the same conclusion as the right hon. gentleman. He was convinced that, so far from diminishing the amount of crime, the repeal of the Game-laws would have the effect of increasing the crime, and those conflicts which produced such unfortunate results, in a most alarming degree. Some hon. gentleman had stated, that the offence of poaching, and the committals for stealing game were much fewer in those counties were Spring-guns were not placed, than where they were in general use. Now, he had moved for some returns on the subject, which showed, that in those counties where Spring-guns were not used, the committals were much greater than in others. He was convinced, indeed, that great mischief rather than benefit would accrue to society, from any change of the laws respecting the protection of game, and he therefore felt himself bound to oppose the committal of the bill.
Mr. Charles Barclay
said, that in a great part of Suffolk, the county with which he was acquainted, there were no Spring-guns used. In Norfolk, the owners of the largest estates, Mr. Coke and lord Suffield, adopted no such means of security, and yet their property was protected. The question seemed to him to resolve itself into this: whether they were entitled to set Spring-guns to destroy a man for the purpose of preserving a pheasant or a hare? He himself had set Spring-guns, and did now; and he would tell the House the result. The very first person who came in contact with one of the wires, was his under-keeper, who, in chase after a woodcock, quite forgot what had been set. The gun went off; the man stumbled over the wire and fell. As he thought himself shot, he did not attempt to stir, but laid still, expecting to die every minute; finding, however, that he was still alive, after a little deliberation, he turned round, and finally called out to his companion not to be frightened, for that he was not dead. It was not, however, so improbable a thought; for the man had seen the guns loaded with an immense quantity of powder and shot,
28
Mr. J. Grattan
said, that Spring-guns were nearly unknown in Ireland.
Mr. W. Smith
said, that the hon. baronet who had argued the most strongly for setting Spring-guns, had acknowledged that he himself had never set them—a fact which was better than a thousand arguments. If a street was said to be continually infested with thieves and housebreakers, was that a reason why a cannon should be discharged down the middle of it by way of clearance? This was, however, the principle on which Spring-guns were defended.
Colonel French
said, he was determined to oppose the bill, not only because he felt that its principles were founded upon a feeling of morbid sensibility, but because he thought that the favourers and supporters of the new system of philosophy and of political economy seemed to forget, that the honest English country gentleman, though he might not have the same knowledge of philosophy and political economy as they had, yet formed in himself the very subject and essence of the English character. He would propose, whatever became of the bill with regard to England, that Ireland and Scotland should be left out of the sphere of its operation. In the first place, there was little or no game in Ireland; and in the next, the arms which must be put into the hands of the keepers, in the event of Spring-guns becoming illegal, would form a temptation to the commission of murder, in order to get possession of them. It was usual in that country to plant many thousand acres with young trees; and he knew many instances in which parties of one or two hundred persons had gone into one of these plantations, and destroyed the greater portion of the trees: Spring-guns had, however, been placed in these plantations, and no individual had ever since ventured to commit a trespass.
29
Mr. Saunderson
shortly opposed the bill, and moved as an amendment, that it be committed on that day month. He did not object to all its details, but he would prefer considering its provisions as an amendment to the bill on the Game-laws, which it was probable they would have to consider when it came from another place.
Sir R. Heron
had no objections to Spring-guns, when placed in houses and gardens, and other places where such a protection was necessary; but he contended that they ought not to be placed in fields or woods, where a man might happen to go for very justifiable purposes. He would, however, rather relinquish the protection afforded by Spring-guns, than be a witness to the consequences which resulted from their indiscriminate use.
Mr. W. Duncombe
opposed the bill, but had no objection to the use of Spring-guns being prohibited between the hours of sun-rise and sun-set. By the adoption of that amendment, he thought the objections to the use of Spring-guns would be rendered nugatory. It was very well for hon. gentlemen to say that other means might be resorted to for the protection of game; but it ought to be recollected, that every man could not, like lord Suffield or Mr. Coke, afford to keep an army of twenty or thirty game-keepers to keep his preserves. That House, in legislating, ought to look at the condition of the middling class of landowners as well as the higher; and consider what was necessary to the preservation of their property. Spring-guns were, however, to be defended upon a principle of humanity. They prevented the frequency of those deadly conflicts which must result from a withdrawal of the protection hitherto afforded the preserves of game; and upon that ground he would oppose the bill.
Lord Sandon
said, he had that night heard two arguments adduced against this bill, which, he trusted, he should never again hear mooted upon any occasion. The first literally went to support the use of Spring-guns, on account of their superior cheapness, in sacrificing human life, and shedding innocent blood. And the second, the absolute necessity which would be imposed upon gentlemen who had preserves, of maintaining additional game-keepers, if these instruments were dispensed with. To the first argument,
30
Sir Edmund Carrington
said:—I hold myself bound, by the law of England, to support this bill. On the legality of the act of setting Spring-guns or man-traps in woods or plantations, to preserve them from the apprehended invasion of poachers, or of other trespassers, there is no express statute; but all the analogies of law, as well as all the feelings of humanity, are in opposition to the practice. The poacher is a mere trespasser, and liable only to be dealt with and punished for a trespass; could the proprietor of the soil, if he met the poacher, even armed, and at night, presume at once to shoot him through the head, or to maim, or to disable him? Could he presume to delegate such an authority, or to issue such a mandate to his keeper, or his woodman? Would he venture, even on the notice which warns all invaders from his territory, to add the threat, that his keepers had orders to fire upon, or to despatch the trespasser? Would such a notice be endured for a moment? And shall he delegate to accident a power which he neither dares to execute in person, or to delegate to any moral agent? Shall he make chance his proxy, for the purpose of murder, or of man-slaughter, or of mayhew? But, Sir, by the law of England, as in all manly and consistent reasoning, where the direct performance of an act is forbidden, its execution by indirect means is forbidden also. If, therefore, the setting these engines of destruction be an unlawful act, what is the situation, and what the peril, in which a gentleman places himself by authorizing or commanding the resort to so desperate and so forbidden an expedient? Admitting that he is absent at the time, that he is ignorant of the explosion of the instrument, yet, by the very orders he has issued, he becomes a principal in the offence; for, by having laid the means of destruction, which have taken effect in his absence, and without his specific knowledge, he is constructively present, and personally responsible to his country for the offence of which he was the cause, and of which it was his duty to foresee
31
Mr. Ridley Colborne
observed, that if the bill had only gone to restrain the setting of Spring-guns to the night season, and to making the setting of them by day illegal, it would have had his full and entire concurrence. Another principle on which he was disposed to support, to a certain extent, the use of Spring-guns, was this—that it was much better to employ them than to resort to the only other alternative which their disuse would leave for the protection of property; namely, the increase of that numerous armed force which was at present scattered over the country for its security. If there was one part of our existing system of Game-laws which more disgusted him than another, it was this extensive force; and the direct operation of the hon. gentleman's bill would be to increase its extent, and to multiply those murderous conflicts which were already too frequent. He could
32
Mr. Wynn
declared his firm belief to be, that if they should continue to make it legal to set Spring-guns by night, they would continue to be set also by day. He had never known an instance where accidents had happened in the day time from Spring-guns being unawarely trod upon by unoffending parties, in which it did not appear that the keepers had promised to take them up in the day time, and to keep them down only at night: and there could be no doubt that gamekeepers would always contrive to employ them as much as possible. Then, as to the principle of their employment at all, it should be remembered, that the offence against which they were meant to guard was but a trespass on a certain description of property. Now, however excessive the degree of punishment, as compared with the nature of the offence, might be, which these Spring-guns inflicted, there would be something in the argument, as to the necessity of their employment, if the guilty only suffered by them. The contrary was, however, notoriously the fact; for hardly an instance could be cited in which the offender was the victim. But then it was contended, that the knowledge of their being set in grounds operated to deter the guilty from trespassing; but if the innocent were to suffer, in order that the guilty might be alarmed, that House would never sanction the use of such weapons. This argument, therefore, fell to the ground. Some hon. gentlemen had supported the use of Spring-guns, by the example of flogging, of which they observed, that though it was not very pleasant to any party who was subjected to it, it might, and did, undoubtedly, deter others from committing offences, for which they would be amenable to the same penalty. Now, this attempted analogy appeared to him to rest on no better grounds of reason, than the ancient practice in this kingdom, according to which, the tutors of princes never punish-
33
Mr. Denison
protested, that no person was more convinced than himself of the utility, and, indeed, essential necessity to this country, of country gentlemen living upon their estates, exercising a generous hospitality, and maintaining with their tenantry every sort of reciprocal good office. It was with this conviction that he rose to vindicate the country gentlemen from the imputation which had been very freely cast upon them, in the course of the debate, that they were obliged to have Spring-guns and armed bands, both of them frequently destructive to human life, for their amusement. For himself, he could only say, that he had never used the one or the other; and yet if any hon. gentleman would do him the favour to visit him in the season, he would show them as much sport as if he had been one of the strictest preservers. If, however, there really were country gentlemen, who could not reside upon their estates without Spring-guns and bands of armed men for their amusement, the sooner they left the country the better. They had much better come up to town at once, and put themselves under the protection of the watchmen, who were the armed keepers of Berkeley and Grosvenor squares.
Sir R. Fergusson
said, he would give
34
Lord Althorp
observed, that, singularly enough, the whole discussion upon this motion had turned, not so much upon the question of the expediency of employing Spring-guns, as on the necessity of preserving game. Now, fond as he was of field sports, and disposed as he might feel, under other circumstances, to preserve game, God forbid that, while the punishment of offences against this property was so excessive as that which the use of Spring-guns entailed, he should sanction the preservation of that species of property! He thought the setting of Spring-guns was at variance with the sound principles of English law. One of those principles was, to establish a due proportion between the punishment and the crime; but here a punishment of mutilation, and in some instances of death, was proposed to be substituted for what was nothing more than a trespass. He hoped, therefore, that instruments would be no longer permitted, which gave a sanction to inordinate punishment for a minor offence.
Sir H. Vivian
said, that, in his opinion, this was a question between the employment of Spring-guns, and the employment of a great additional force of gamekeepers; and as his mind was made up as to the alternative, he should oppose the bill.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, March 26.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.] The Lord Chancellor
said, he thought it his duty to call their lordships' attention to what he
35
The Earl of Rosslyn
said, that the individual had no right to bring an action at all; and that bringing an action would of itself have constituted a breach of privilege.
PETITION OF THE VAUXHALL COINERS.] The Earl of Carnarvon rose
to present a curious Petition to their lordships. It was the Petition of Shadrach Walker and Jeremiah Andrews, who had been committed to prison on a charge of coining. The petitions represented to their lordships, that they had only been manufacturing money, and that this manufacture was allowed by the 59th of Geo. 3rd. The prayer of the petitioners was even more strange than what he had already stated; for they prayed that the offence of coining might in future be made capital against all those who should follow their example. The petition was read as follows:
36
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, June 26.
TOBACCO AND SNUFF DUTIES—PETITION OF R. M. PRICE.] Mr. Calcraft
said, he rose to present a petition upon a subject of great importance to the revenue. The petitioner was a Mr. Robert Morgan Price, residing in the Vauxhall road, a gentleman well versed in the business connected with the petition. He had formerly laid before the lords of the Treasury a plan for preventing the smuggling of tobacco, and had been referred to Mr. Carr, the solicitor of Excise, with whom he had had several interviews. But as soon as Mr. Price proposed the repeal of an act which had been passed at Mr. Carr's suggestion, that gentleman would have nothing more to say to Mr. Price's scheme. It must be admitted, that Mr. Carr's office was largely paid, by fees
37
l.
l.
d.
d
d.
l.
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he did not mean to deny the respectability of the petitioner, but he thought the hon. gentleman attached too much importance to the petition, and he did not think that the facts were fairly stated. So far from the plans of Mr. Price having been rejected as unworthy of consideration, he himself had had interviews with that gentleman on the subject, and had read over with attention a variety of papers submitted by him; but he protested he could
38
Sir John Newport
recommended the right hon. gentleman to pay attention to the subject matter of this petition. In Ireland 400,000
l.
l.
s.
d.,
39
The Chancellor of the Exchequer rose
again, merely for the purpose of repelling the imputation attempted to be cast upon Mr. Carr, who had repeatedly told him that, in his opinion, a low duty upon all commodities that were in constant request among the people, would prevent smuggling more effectually than any other mode that could be resorted to.
Mr. Maberly
thought that the best way to prevent any imputations from being cast upon Mr. Carr, was for the right hon. gentleman to carry into effect the recommendation which had been given with respect to that gentleman's office, and to give him a permanent salary.
FOREIGN RELATIONS] Mr. Secretary Canning
said, he had some papers to lay upon the table of the House. The first of these was a Treaty entered into between his Majesty and the Emperor of Brazil, for the final and total abolition of the African Slave-trade. This treaty had lately been signed, and its object was to be effected in three years after the exchange of treaties; and, during the interval, the Brazilian slave system was to be subject to the same impositions and duties as the Portuguese slave system was at present. The second of these papers was a Treaty between the United States and this country, regarding a dispute which had existed ever since the war, and which had been the subject of much discussion. That dispute related to the claims made by American citizens, in respect of slaves taken from their owners and proprietors during the war. The House were aware that this subject had been referred to the arbitration of a third power—he meant of the emperor of Russia, who had decided it unfavourably for his majesty. Since then the discussion had been renewed, principally with regard to the amount of compensation claimed; and two years ago he (Mr. Canning) had come down to the House, and had obtained a vote of 200,000
l.
40
Mr. Hume
asked, whether the letters now to be laid before the House finished the correspondence, or whether it was still in continuation?
Mr. Canning
said, he considered it finally closed, for he had had the last word.
41
42
mutatis mutandis,
(L.S.) ROBT. GORDON.
(L.S.) MARQUEZ DE S. AMARO.
(L.S.) MARQUEZ DE INHAMBUPE.
AMERICA.—Convention between his Majesty and the United States of America, for the final settlement of certain claims of the United States, arising out of the convention concluded at St. Petersburgh, July 12th, 1822. Signed at London, November 13th, 1826. Presented to both Houses of parliament, by command of his Majesty, 1827.
43
44
(L.S.) WILLIAM HUSKISSON.
(L.S.) HENRY UNWIN ADDINGTON.
(L.S.) ALBERT GALLATIN.
AMERICA.—Correspondence relative to commercial intercourse between the
45
Mr. Secretary Canning to Albert Gallatin, Esq. Foreign-office, Nov.
46
Mr. Gallatin,
after having objected, in the beginning of his note, to the use of the word "right" as applied by the undersigned to the colonial trade of Great Britain, applies the same word himself (inadvertently, perhaps,) in a subsequent part of his note, to the interdiction by the United States of a trade in British ships between the United States and the British West-India colonies.
47
48
Mr. Gallatin
has yet another ground on which to rest this claim of the United States to a participation in the colonial trade of Great Britain:—
49
50
Mr. Gallatin
speaks of a "permanent exclusion of the United States by Great Britain, from a trade open to the rest of the world," as a measure different in character from a general exclusion of all foreign nations.
51
Albert Gallatin, Esq. to Mr. Secretary Canning. Upper Seymour Street, Dec.
52
Mr. King
was, in 1825, empowered to treat on all the subjects of the previous negotiation. He was instructed, in the first instance, as being a subject of more pressing urgency, to call on the British government to remove the impediments which prevented the execution of the St. Petersburgh convention. If his instructions on other subjects were not forwarded to him, it was because he was engaged in discussions respecting that convention, and it was believed that the state of his health did not admit of his entering at that time upon the more arduous
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
(Signed) ALBERT GALLATIN.
60
(Enclosure in No. 5.)—
The hon. H. Clay to the hon. C. C. Cambreling, H. R. Department of State, December
61
(Signed) H. CLAY.
The Hon. C. C. Cambreling, &c.
No. 6.—
Mr. Secretary Canning to Albert Gallatin, Esq. Foreign-office, Jan.
Mr. Gallatin
complains that the act of Parliament of 1825 was not officially communicated to the government of the United States.
62
63
64
65
Mr. Gallatin
accounts for the rejection of the resolution, proposed to the American legislature, by the persuasion which, he says, the government of the United States entertained, that the negotiation on the subject of the commercial intercourse between the United States and the British West-India colonies would be renewed.
66
67
GEORGE CANNING.
FINANCIAL STATE OF THE COUNTRY.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer
moved the order of the day for the House resolving itself into a Committee of Supply. On the question, that the Speaker do now leave the chair,
Mr. Maberly
said, he should not have risen to oppose the motion for the Speaker's leaving the chair, had he not felt it to be necessary to call the attention of the House to the state of the finances. He supposed the right hon. gentleman intended, when the House was in a committee of supply, to move for a vote on account. Now, he thought that the House ought to come to a resolution to vote, at the commencement of the session, small sums on account of the several branches of the public service, and to defer the voting of large sums until it was made acquainted with the sources from which the money to make them good was to come. Last year, the right hon. gentleman had told the House, that he had a sinking fund of 5,000,000
l
l.
68
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the hon. gentleman had declared that
69
70
71
Mr. Maberly
said, he wished an estimate of the supply and of the ways and means to be laid on the table.
Sir J. Wrottesley
said, that 20,000,000
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that only 16,000,000
l.
Sir J. Wrottesley
was of opinion, that not much less than 20,000,000
l.
72
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Hume
protested, on the part of the public, against the procrastination of business of so important a nature. He had heard nothing from the right hon. gentleman, but that particular circumstances had prevented him from bringing forward his annual statement. But what those circumstances were, he did not know. It was pretty evident, however, that if there was no government, as was in some degree the case at present, no business of importance could be brought before the House. The hon. member for Callington
73
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, the estimate of the civil contingencies for 1827 was 290,000
l.
l.
Mr. Hume
said, he always had, and always would, object to this mode of voting money; and he would take that opportunity of calling the attention of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to one or two items in the accounts of civil contingencies. Some gentlemen in this new parliament were not, perhaps, aware of the expense of the diplomatic service. They ought to know, that 226,000
l.
74
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
75
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
l.,
l.
l.
76
l.
l.
l.
s.
l.
l.
s.
l.
s.
l.
s.
l.
s.
l.
Mr. Secretary Canning
(who spoke in an exceedingly low tone) was understood to say, that the vote which the hon. member opposed, and all the items which he had submitted to so minute an examination, had already received the approbation of the House; inasmuch as they were included in the estimates, not of the present, but of the preceding year. Under these circumstances, it might not have been necessary more particularly to notice the hon. member's objections, had not names been alluded to in the course of his speech, which every one in that House must know were entitled to the utmost respect. The hon. gentleman had said, in reference to the mission of a noble duke to a foreign court, that he had been informed that the embassy had been intrusted to that noble person, on the condition, and with the understanding, that its prosecution should be attended with no expense to the country; and further, the hon. member appeared to suppose, that some such arrangement, expressed or implied, had been, on a former occasion, alluded to in that House. Now he was at
77
l.
Mr. Hume
said, that the right hon. Secretary had taken no notice of the repairs of the English Ambassador's palace at Paris.
Mr. Canning
said, it was really useless to give explanations to the hon. member, for he went on repeating his objections, as if nothing had ever been said to enlighten him. He had, on a former occasion, told the hon. member, that he had no more to do with the purchase of the palace in question, than the hon. member had. Two years ago a question arose as to whether it would be better to sell the palace or re-
78
CORN LAWS.]
The House having resolved into a committee to consider further of the Corn Trade acts, the report was recommitted.
Mr. C. Grant
said, that in compliance with the wish expressed by the House on a former night, he had altered the resolutions, in order to accommodate them to the imperial measure. It was not necessary to state the grounds on which he had made his calculation, but would only state the result at which he had arrived. The duty proposed to be payable upon wheat per quarter Winchester measure was 20
s.
s.
s.
d.,
s.
d.
s.,
s.
d.
s.
s.
s.
d.,
s.
s.
s.
s.
d.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
d.
79
Lord Althorp
wished to call the attention of the House to one point; namely, whether the duties ought to be taken according to the average prices of one week, or from the averages of several weeks together. He knew there were many advantages in favour of the former system, but he thought the disadvantages were greater, seeing that it would enable persons of large capital to affect the duty to a very material extent. He preferred that the duty should be taken according to the estimate of six weeks instead of one.
Mr. Irving
believed that the House was mistaken, with respect to the power of the corn merchants. In former times, there were a few individuals who, possessing large capitals, were able to control the market; but now it was quite otherwise. The inducements to men of great capital to continue in the corn trade had long ceased; and in that, as in many other trades, the capitals of the middle-men had been lost. There was, therefore, little reason to fear any combination that could materially raise prices; more especially when the House considered, that it was absolutely necessary, in purchasing up the corn in the home market, that the money should all be laid down.
Mr. Alderman C. Smith
said, that such a combination might take place, and therefore, it would be well for the House to guard against it. The safer course would be to take the average of six weeks, instead of one.
Colonel Wood
also thought it desirable that this course should be pursued, to guard against the possibility of danger, arising, not only from speculation, but, from bad seasons. The House would recollect, that in 1817, in consequence of severe rains, and the apprehension of a bad harvest, wheat, within the space of ten days, had risen to 100
s.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that although it was true that the price of corn had risen as high as had been stated by the hon. member, yet, the circumstances referred to by him, had no connection with fraud; and did not, therefore, bear upon the argument. His own
80
à priori
Mr. Baring
admitted, that the authority of the hon. member for Bramber was very strong in favour of the weekly average; but he could not help thinking, that some period longer than a single week would give more security against the dangerous effects of speculation. It might be quite true, that no one great House could command the corn trade; but the House should recollect, that they were legislating not for a particular year, but for a series of years. He confessed he was apprehensive that the corn merchants might meet and combine at little expense to raise the price for a week. He was not, however, for adopting the period of six weeks. He thought that if the averages were taken every four weeks, the possibility of mischievous combinations would be prevented.
Mr. Littleton
argued, that if the period were limited to three weeks or a month, the security would be greater.
Mr. Whitmore
said, he had consulted some authorities to which he attached great importance, and they concurred in assuring him, that the weekly average was decidedly better than the quarterly. From the same sources, he had learnt also, that the practice of fictitious sales had never prevailed to any considerable extent. If it had been possible, undoubtedly it would have been extremely dangerous; as the Corn-market would, at any moment, have been liable to a sudden rise.
Sir J. Newport
expressed his surprise at the hon. gentleman's statement. No man could doubt that fictitious sales were made continually. The same wheat was notoriously sold over and over again, on the same day, in Mark-lane. The public, he thought, therefore, would have no security against combinations, unless the term of the averages was at least four weeks.
Mr. C. Grant
said, that whatever the right hon. baronet might think, there was a great diversity of opinion with regard to the extent and effect of fictitious sales. He believed that the practice prevailed equally on both sides of the question;
81
Mr. Baring
reminded the House that they could not fairly judge what would take place under the new law, from what had taken place under the existing law. Under the system of weekly averages, the struggles of speculators would be much more frequent. Now there was a bustle, only when the averages approached the opening price.
Mr. Curteis
suggested that one precaution might be, that the same corn should not enter into the average, if sold a second or third time the same day. He had known it sold ten times over; and he was sure there were constant frauds practised in the corn-market.
Sir J. Wrottesley
was adverse to the period of four weeks for taking the averages. Fraudulent speculations would thereby be greatly assisted, as the price might be raised considerably every week. He was favourable to the shortest period possible beyond a single week; say two, or at the utmost, three weeks.
Mr. Irving
said, that combinations to raise the price of grain were already a misdemeanour at common law. His right hon. friend might introduce some additional penalties into the bill, which would effectually suppress the practice, if it really existed.
Mr. Warburton
said, that much of the irregularity and uncertainty in the taking of the averages, originated in the system of selling by samples, in the country, by which, neither the farmer nor the purchaser being bound, those sales were frequently not carried into effect, yet were always taken into account, as actual sales. The practice in London, of selling by tickets, by which both parties were bound, ought to be made universal.
82
Sir E. Knatchbull
denied that combination or fictitious selling took place among the agriculturists. They had no opportunity for such acts; nor were they people of a character or inclination to commit them.
Mr. N. Calvert
put no particular faith in the character or inclination of the agriculturists; but he thought it pretty nearly impossible for them to combine.
Mr. Whitmore
believed it was already the custom of the receivers of averages in country towns to leave out any contracts which bore very decided marks of fraud.
Mr. Charles Barclay
would not deny the claims of the farmers to the character for probity which the hon. baronet had given them; but he would remind the committee, that since the year 1815, the importation of foreign oats had been prevented by some combination or other, which was effected, he believed at Boston. Precaution was therefore necessary.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, March 27, 1827.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS—SELECT VESTRIES IN IRELAND.] Lord Holland
said, he held in his hand two Petitions, which had been sent to him to be presented to their lordships, one of which came from the Roman Catholic Inhabitants of the parish of St. Peter, in the county of Drogheda, and the other from the parish of Naas, in the county of Kildare. The prayer of both the Petitions was to the same purport; namely, that their lordships should repeal an act of the present king, which had been passed in the last session, respecting Select Vestries in Ireland. With respect to the allegations contained in the petitions regarding that particular act, he was not able to say any thing; as he had no local knowledge of the circumstances. He believed that act was passed with a view to lessen the evils which were complained of; but it had, as the petitioners stated, greatly aggravated those evils; and, if only half of the statement of the petitioners were true, concerning which he begged to be understood as not saying any thing, he had no hesitation in declaring, that the act ought to be immediately repealed. He wished to be understood as delivering no opinion of his own on the subject; as he was not very well acquainted with the circumstances of the cases
83
84
The Earl of Longford
said, he had not intended to offer a word on the subject, knowing how inconvenient to the House such conversations were; but when their lordships heard such remarks as the noble lord had just made, brought forward from day to day, he could not let them go forth to the country without some observations, and in doing so he should confine himself to the last remark of the noble lord. The arguments for granting
85
Lord Holland
said, the noble lord was mistaken, if he supposed the petitions referred to the repeal of the Roman Catholic restrictions.
The Earl of Longford
said, he had not intended to advert to the petitions, but to the observations of the noble lord; and when the noble lord stated, that the responsibility was upon those who rejected the claims of the Catholics, he must say, that the responsibility was upon these who would do away with restrictions, which were so necessary to the security of the country, and who would tear away the bulwarks of the constitution.
The Earl of Belmore
presented two petitions from the Roman Catholic inhabitants of parishes in the counties of Fermanagh and Tyrone. He would not enter into the general merits of the question at present, but would take the liberty of remarking, that not only the noble lords who were of the same opinion as himself on the subject of the Catholic claims, but also those noble lords who were of a dif-
86
GRANT TO THE DUKE AND DUCHESS OF CLARENCE.]
On the order of the day, for the second reading of the Duke and Duchess of Clarence's Annuity bill, being moved by earl Bathurst,
Lord King
said, that the noble earl, who had just moved the second reading of the bill, had thought proper not to say a word to their lordships on the subject. He should have thought that, in such a case as the present, the noble lord would have stated some reason for the additional grant. From
87
Earl Bathurst
stated, that his noble friend, the earl of Liverpool, in moving an address in answer to the message of his majesty, proposing an increase to the provision of the duke and duchess of Clarence, in consequence of their present situation, had stated what would be proposed as the amount of that additional increase. His noble friend had stated, that an income of 3,000
l
l
l
l
88
l
l
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, March 27.
WRIT OF RIGHT BILL] Mr. Shadwell
moved the order of the day for the second reading of this bill.
Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, he earnestly hoped that the hon. and learned member would not press the second reading of this bill; for, though he did not intend to divide the House on it, he felt justified in characterising the proposed measure as the rudest and crudest specimen of modern legislature. The design was good, and that was all. The execution had not the merit of being even harmless, for it could not fail to prejudice the great plan of improvement which was in contemplation, in respect to the entire code of laws touching real estates. The bill before the House
89
90
Mr. Bernal
said, he should be very sorry if the hon. and learned gentleman abandoned this bill, as he was persuaded that it would be very useful. On the one hand, it went to regulate matters of dower; and, on the other, proceedings in writs of right. In both these cases, its provisions would tend to save much needless expense, especially with respect to the antiquated forms of writ of right, which were so very tedious in their nature, and ought to be abolished. It was little less than ridiculous to see such things existing in the year 1827; and he thought they were such as required the attention of the right hon. Secretary, who had done so much, and so well, in the reform of the other part of our law. As the law at present stood, a man who possessed real property, and was anxious to dispose of it by will, could not do so, unless his will was witnessed by three persons. Such were the restrictions upon the disposition of his freehold property, even though it should be ever so small; while, on the other hand, if the same person was possessed of 10,000
l
l
91
Mr. Secretary Peel
admitted, that he had intimated such an intention, and had used, in the discussion on the Chancery bill, some expressions indicative of his opinion as to the necessity of an alteration in the forms restricting the transfer of real property. That opinion he had not abandoned, but at the same time he could not undertake the adjustment of a question of so much importance. Of this he was convinced, that those who were most willing to see a reform of the laws would, of all things, not wish any measure to be prema-
92
Dr. Lushington
congratulated the House and the country on the prospect of their obtaining some amelioration is the practice of transferring real property. He thought there was no subject that required a more close or accurate investigation. The proceedings that were at present necessary to create a title in any person, or to transfer that title from himself to another, were productive of infinite expense at the moment, and of infinite litigation afterwards. As a proof of the enormous expense attendant upon the present practice, he might mention, that in one instance an abstract of a title laid
93
Mr. Ferguson
said, that as this bill involved the vital principles of every species of landed property in the country, the House ought to proceed in it with every degree of caution. If a commission should be appointed to inquire into the state of the laws affecting real property, he trusted that the hon. and learned gentleman who had originated this bill would be appointed a member of it. He thought the country was greatly indebted to Mr.
94
The Attorney-General
said, he did not object to the abolition of the circuitous forms which at present attended the transfer of real property. He admitted that the existing law might be amended, but he must remind the House, that the greatest caution ought to be observed in any attempts which they might make to amend it. Whilst they were simplifying forms, and putting an end to the unmerciful consumption of parchment which now took place, they must take care that they did not injure the vital rules and principles of law. He was ready and willing to lend his humble assistance towards the improvement of the formal and instrumental modes of conveyancing.
Mr. Peel
repeated, that he did not mean to pledge himself to the appointment of a commission. He wished the inquiry into this branch of the law of England, whenever it took place, to be conducted by persons whose experience would carry with it a warrant to the public, that any measures which they might propose would be judicious. He pledged himself that the subject should shortly be taken into consideration, and that no measure should be taken upon it without its undergoing the minutest inquiry.
Mr. Shadwell
said, he would gladly give his assistance to such a commission as the right hon. Secretary had spoken of; but as some time would necessarily occur before the recommendations of that commission could be carried into execution, he thought that his bill ought to be in operation during the interval. It appeared to him to be the more rational plan to remove, as soon as possible, a portion of an evil, the existence of which was universally acknowledged, than to suffer it to continue with unabated force. He was therefore of opinion, that even supposing that this bill afforded but a partial remedy, more good would be done by permitting it to pass now, than by postponing it to an indefinite period.
95
CORN-LAWS.] Sir A. Grant
brought up the Report of the Committee of the whole House on the Corn Trade Acts. On the question, that it be read,
Mr. Hume
said, he wished to take that opportunity of delivering his opinion on the general policy of the Corn-laws, which opinion, in some respects, was different from that of any hon. gentleman who had yet spoken on the question. He began by recapitulating some of the points urged by the Secretary for Foreign Affairs,when he first brought forward the subject, and dwelt particularly on the claim put in by the agricultural interest, and admitted by the right hon. Secretary, to protection. Ministers had professed to adopt a course between the two extremes: but, at the same time, taking the average price at 60
s
96
97
s
d
s
s
s
s
98
s
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
99
l
l
l
100
s
Mr. Marshall
seconded the motion, and stated that a great part of the very numerous and intelligent population which he represented, were not satisfied with the arrangement which the ministers had proposed on the subject of the Corn-laws, from which they expected no substantial relief.
Mr. Irving
began by paying personal compliment to the hon. gentleman who had preceded him, but to whose opinions on this subject he was diametrically opposed. The price of food, he contended, was of little importance to the welfare of the nation, compared to the greatness of its capital. He totally differed also from the hon. gentleman who had brought forward the amendment, and who, in support of it, had argued, that if the land paid no rent, the country might prosper as well as ever. Did that hon. gentleman not see, that if such a state of things existed, the occupier of the land would be in effect, the proprietor? This, however, was not entirely a question of conjecture
101
102
Sir Henry Parnell
said, that the more this subject was investigated, the more evident it would appear, that the policy of forcing a home supply, by restraining importation, was injurious to the public interests. There was no doubt that, in the produce of manufactures, capital might go on to be applied almost unlimitedly, and that the result would be a continued reduction of the article produced, in price; but the case of agricultural produce was entirely different. The extent of the fertile land which we had to cultivate, must determine the extent in which capital could be applied to cultivation with advantage. Up to a certain point—so long as we worked only upon fertile lands—the application of capital tended to produce increased cheapness of price; but when the continued application of capital led us into cultivating poor soils, then the effect of that course would be a rise of price; the quantity of labour, &c., requisite to make those soils productive, was greater than that which we had been accustomed to apply before. If we cultivated poor land, while land of a superior quality was at our disposal, we in fact paid so much more than we need do: it was so much labour or capital thrown away; and this was exactly the effect of our refusing to take corn from foreign countries. To look at this system, therefore, as it affected the manufacturing interest, the quantity of corn consumed annually in this country was about fifty millions of quarters. If, by any law or arrangement, all that corn was purchased at the rate of 10
s
l
s
l
103
l
s
104
Mr. Whitmore
said, he could not concur in the amendment of his hon. friend; but his dissent arose, not upon the amount of duty proposed by his hon, friend, but
105
s
s
Mr. Cripps
said, he could not forbear expressing his opinion that we ought not to expose ourselves to a foreign market, because the cultivation of poor land might cost a little more than that of rich land. For his part, he had not the good fortune to possess much land, but he thought the corn question had been fairly settled, and he should therefore oppose the amendment.
Mr. Warburton
did not think that the single inconvenience which had been Pointed out by the hon. member for Bridgenorth was a sufficient argument against the amendment of the hon. member for Aberdeen. He thought, that a greater inconvenience would result from regulating the duty inversely, than from a fixed duty. He looked upon the question as a choice of difficulties, and as that of the hon. member for Aberdeen appeared to him to be the lesser one, he should vote for it.
List of the Minority.
Bernal, Ralph
Cave Otway
Birch, Joseph
Davies, col.
106
Folkestone, lord
Nugent, lord
Harvey, D. W.
Rancliffe, lord
Howick, lord
Thompson, C. P.
Lushington, Dr.
Wood, ald.
Maberly, John
Maberly, W. L.
TELLERS.
Marshall, John
Hume, Joseph
Monck, J. B.
Warburton, Henry
Lord Belfast rose
for the purpose of moving that a clause be added prohibiting the extension of the principle of the bill to Ireland. The noble lord began by observing, that Ireland was unhappily not so far advanced in civilization as England; and that therefore those measures of legislation, which might be perfectly justifiable when applied to this country, were, in some cases, by no means fitted for the state of society in the sister kingdom. If a man went into a wood there, it was not so much for the purpose of poaching, as with an intent to destroy or steal the timber. If a thief broke into a dwelling-house, it was not so much for the purpose of taking money, as of carrying away fire-arms. Much additional protection was therefore necessary to the inhabitants of that country; and he certainly thought that the government were culpably negligent in not providing more effectually for the safety of those whose interests were committed to their care. The noble lord then alluded to a circumstance which had occurred in the county of Tipperary, on that very night week; and which, he contended, shewed clearly the necessity of a continuance of the protection of Spring-guns to Ireland. About ninety acres of land had been ploughed up by the nightly legislators in the neighbourhood of Thomastown. Between four and five hundred attended; several hundred shots were fired, and an incessant discharge of fire-arms kept up during the whole night. On the next day a notice was served on Mr. Smithwick, the owner of the land, to the following effect—" Notice is hereby given to Black Jack Smithwick, if he does not immediately give the wood and road-fields to the distressed poor for potatoe ground, at a moderate rent, he will meet with the fate of Baker, and Farrel's wife. Any person who stops up those sods, will meet with the loss of his life; and if you do not comply with this, we will shoot your stock, burn your dairy-house, men, and milk-women. This is enough—Given at
107
Mr. J. Grattan
certainly did not expect to hear, among the charges brought against the government of Ireland, that it had failed in its duty, from neglecting to plant Spring-guns. He could not agree with the noble lord, that Spring-guns could be any protection to woods in that country. On the contrary, he thought it very probable, that if it was once known that there were Spring-guns planted in a wood, the fact would be an incentive to the people to set fire to that wood, and destroy it altogether. In the county of Wicklow, where he resided, there were very extensive woods; and he could say with safety, that they were never injured in any way, although no Spring-guns were planted in them. The people of Ireland were, he was sorry to say, guilty of great negligence in the performance of the ordinary duties of life; and he was convinced that, from forgetfulness and other causes, the use of Spring-guns to any extent in that country would be productive of the most lamentable results to the innocent, as well as prove a means of adding greatly to the outrages already too prevalent.
Mr. Spring Rice
also opposed the clause, and contended, that so far from declaring, as the noble lord would by his motion wish them to declare, that Spring-guns should be used where they had not been used before, they should rather do every thing in their power to abolish the practice altogether.
108
Mr. Secretary Peel
hoped the noble lord would not press his notion. The effect of it would be to make that House declare itself as permitting the use of Spring-guns in certain cases, at the very time when the legality of the use of them in any case was more than questionable.
Lord Belfast,
as there appeared to be a feeling in the House hostile to the clause consented to withdraw it.
GENERAL TURNPIKE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.] Sir T. Lethbridge
moved the Order of the Day for the further consideration of the Report upon the General Turnpike Act Amendment bill.
Mr. Baring
declared himself hostile to the principle of the bill. Nothing could be more monstrous than the powers which it proposed to give the commissioners, to sell and exchange, and barter and dispose of, the property of parishes to suit their ideas of convenience or propriety. The commissioners of Turnpike Trusts had too much power already, and he must, unless some very strong ground was shewn, oppose any attempt to give them more. He had given himself the trouble to inquire rather minutely into the circumstances under which the bill came before them, and he understood it arose solely from the failure of an attempt to shut up an old road near the hon. baronet's country residence. His informants were very respectable men; and their testimony had been corroborated by the hon. baronet's colleague before whom the matter came, as a magistrate, at quarter sessions. He believed, indeed, that but for that failure the House would never have heard of the hon. baronet's attempt to amend the Turnpike-laws.
Sir T. Lethbridge
repelled, with some warmth, the insinuations of the, hon. member, that he was actuated by any selfish motives in bringing the bill under the consideration of the House. He was surprised that the hon. member, who seemed to have taken his instructions from a paper which had been circulated pretty freely in the vicinity of the House, could lend himself to such charges, without first making himself better acquainted with their truth. The paper to which he alluded he could trace to a party, whose conduct he did not hesitate to pronounce base and scandalous, and whose assertions he could prove, if he thought it worth his while, to be mean,
109
Mr. Baring
expressed himself very unwilling to give offence to the hon. baronet, and very sorry if he had stated what was not true; but he had received his information from some of the most respectable men in Somersetshire. The hon. baronet did not deny that the matter had been before the quarter-sessions. The fact was, that the commissioners having made a new line of road over the hon. baronet's property, wished to shut the old one, but the inhabitants resisted that measure, on the ground that there were a great many avenues from that line to various farms and grounds, which must be consequently shut up too: and the quarter-sessions, upon being appealed to, confirmed the propriety of the resistance. The hon. baronet said, the act gave no new power: he was not well versed in such things, but he found on referring to the old act, that it gave a power, in the case of making a new line of road, to sell or break up
110
Mr. Criers
agreed with the hon. member, that it would be better to withdraw the present bill; which could only be said to add another to those statutes which were already too voluminous. By the labour of a committee, he thought he might very well be in a situation to submit a proposal after Easter, for the consolidation of the whole of the Turnpike-laws.
Mr. R. Gordon
did not think it right, that the House should govern its opposition or consent to any measure by a reference to the hon. baronet's disputes with his neighbours in the country. He would recommend him to withdraw the bill, and move for a committee. if that committee examined the subject as it ought, he hoped that it would take into its consideration the expense of Turnpike-acts, and adopt some measure by which they might be made public instead of private bills. At present they were private bills, in force for a term of only twenty-one years; so that at the end of that time the whole of the enormous expense attendant upon their enactment was to be incurred anew.
Mr. F. Lewis
strongly recommended, in preference to the present measure, the consolidation of the laws on the subject. The system of Turnpike-roads in this country became every day more and more important. When it was considered that the commissioners of the roads were empowered to tax the people to the amount of a million and a half annually, and that until the recent act of parliament they could not be called to account for the manner in which they expended the money, it was evident that the whole was a tremendous machine, which called loudly for legislative regulation. The proper nature of that regulation, however, so as at once to render the system one of greater facility, and to check the abuse of it, could be considered only in a committee above
111
Sir T. Lethbridge
said, that with the understanding that the hon. gentleman would next session move to refer all the laws on the subject to a committee above stairs, he was quite ready to withdraw his bill.
Mr. F. Lewis
observed, that it would be impracticable to attempt to do any thing in the present session.
Sir T. Lethbridge
then intimated, that he would withdraw his bill.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, March 28.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.] Lord King,
in presenting a petition from the Catholics of Ireland, relative to the Test Oaths, said, that the petitioners complained, and he thought most justly, of the cruel slanders cast upon them and upon their faith, by that law which requires every person called upon to take a seat in the legislature, or to perform the duties of a public office, to take certain oaths, by which every judge, bishop, or sheriff, was obliged to declare the Catholic religion was an execrable superstition, and the Catholics themselves to be base idolators. This proceeding, the petitioners considered most unjustifiable, and he entirely concurred with them in the opinion. Many petitions had been presented to their lordships against these calumniated Catholics by the right reverend bench, and great numbers had also been presented from bodies of the clergy, who evinced any thing but what was likely to create among their fellow-Christians charity, harmony, and good-will. He had lately read an extract from a German paper, and he could not help contrasting the conduct of our clergy with that of the king of Prussia, who had expressed his approbation of the manner in which a Catholic priest and a Lutheran parson had exerted themselves, in bringing about harmony and union between parties not professing the same faith. He could not help exclaiming on the occasion:—"Oh, happy people, and happy country! where nothing is to be gained by the profession of bigotry
112
113
Earl Stanhope
observed, that his noble friend, in the observations he had made with respect to the state of religious sects in Prussia, and the treatment they received from the state, entirely overlooked the fact, that in Germany there were no popular constitutions. if there were no elements of a popular constitution in this country, he would be as willing as the noble baron to concede to the Roman Catholics the whole of their demands; but in a country where all the institutions were decidedly and entirely Protestant, he was convinced that no further powers could with safety be granted to them. He could not help observing, that some remedy must be applied to the condition of Ireland, which would strike at the root of those evils under which that country at present suffered.
The Bishop of Chester,
notwithstanding the very strong language and the direct personal allusions of the noble baron opposite—allusions which he had made in language extending far beyond the usual parliamentary licence—would have been contented to listen to the noble lord's observations in silence, and to have practised that lesson of Christian charity which the noble lord seemed not yet to have learned—a lesson which taught him never to apply hard words to the innocent and unoffending, had he not felt the subject which gave rise to those observations to be of paramount importance. The noble lord had alluded, with something like contempt, to what he had said on a former evening with regard to the progress of the reformation in Ireland. Now he was quite sure he had on that occasion uttered no sentiments which were inconsistent with Christian charity or Christian kindness towards persons of all religions whatever. If they were to believe in reformation at all, or in the accounts of those events by which the most remarkable reformations were preceded, they must be prepared to admit, that some signs must be shown when Ireland was to be enlightened; that some symptoms must be manifest to point out the time when the work was to be undertaken. And if there were at present in Ireland some of those symptoms, was it not, he would ask, the duty of a Christian teacher not to cast reproach and rebuke upon those appearances of the reception of truth, but rather to foster and encourage them? With reference to
114
Lord Holland
said, he did not wish to prolong the present conversation, which he thought could not tend to any useful purpose, which he knew was irrelevant to the petition before the House, and which was altogether unconnected with the great question upon which they had been so frequently called to decide. He could not, however, suffer the matter to terminate, without observing, that the right reverend prelate who, if he would permit him to borrow one of his own phrases, was one of the most polished weapons of the ecclesiastical armoury in that House, had begun by rebuking the noble lord for having introduced his petition by the use of hard words, while the right reverend prelate seemed to have forgotten, that the whole proceeding was founded on the use of hard words, and that the very matter of complaint, on the part of the Catholics, was the application of those hard words, which it was contended ought to be exercised against those who used them in return. The whole matter reminded him
115
The Bishop of Chester
said, he had not
116
Lord Holland
continued. Well, "when that reformation began," was a saving clause certainly. But in whatever way the woe might be applied, he apprehended there might unhappily be found some who were not unwilling to use it. But there was another point to which he wished to call their lordships' attention. When the question of Catholic emancipation was discussed in that House, he recollected perfectly well, that the merits and demerits of the Catholic religion formed, with some learned and reverend lords, one of the most prominent topics. The merits of the Catholic religion discussed among Protestants, and where none but Protestants were present! He would not say how such a proceeding might be considered in that House; but, in private society, the discussion and the decision of a question in which two parties were interested, and only one was present, would be considered ungentleman-like and uncharitable. He recollected, too, that one of the topics dwelt upon as a ground of hostility to the claims of the Catholics, was the anxiety to make proselytes, which characterized those who professed the Catholic faith. Now, he would say that the House must make choice of one of two things. They must either say that it is not right to blazon forth the deeds done in the cause of reformation, and to harangue upon the interposition of God on behalf of the purer and better faith, or they must admit that they, the Catholics, are also to be commended for their zeal to produce reformation. And they must, perhaps, even go further, and judge of both by the effects of their labours, declaring that religion to be the purest which produced the most abundant proofs of the truth of their faith. He would ask, was any man disposed to go thus far, and place the truth of the faith of Protestants upon such a trial, and the purity of its doctrines, and its favour and acceptance with the Supreme Being, upon a constant alternation of temporary triumphs? He concurred in opinion with the just and exemplary archbishop of Cashel, whom he was sorry not to see in his place, and whom he would be proud to have the pleasure of knowing personally, and whose near relationship to the wise and comprehensive-minded Dr. Law-
117
Lord Carbery
said, that noble lords opposite seemed to think, that all the hard words ought to be used on the one side, and none on the other. The Catholics were, he contended, more inclined to make use of strong expressions than the Protestants, and went so far as to declare that no Protestant was entitled to salvation.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, March 28.
GAME-LAWS.] Mr. Littleton
said, he had to present a petition from a most respectable portion of the inhabitants of Wolverhampton, praying for an alteration of the Game-laws. The petitioners stated, that they paid very heavy poor-rates, a portion of which went towards the support of poachers in prison. Now, the petitioners said, that such portion of their rates ought not to be so expended, since they had a right to buy game. The hon. member said, that, in a former parliament, he had given his support to a measure, having for its purport, an alteration of the Game-laws; and he now wished to see those laws altered, as he thought much good would accrue to society from a judicious alteration of those laws, which, in their present shape, were so injurious to it. He could not, however, agree with the petitioners, when they said, that poachers were the victims of those laws. He did not think so; and he would not vote for any alteration of them, which would not give protection to landed proprietors for the preservation of the game on their grounds. The landed proprietor had as good a right to have the game on his land protected, as the merchant had to have his wares protected.
Sir J. Sebright
concurred with his hon. friend in the necessity of protecting the landowner; but he also concurred with the petitioners in terming the persons imprisoned in consequence of the Game-laws, the victims of those laws. They were the
118
Sir C. Burrell
said, that the persons who were imprisoned for offences against the Game-laws were victims, not of those laws, but of their own imprudence in violating them. He agreed with the hon. member for Staffordshire, in the necessity of preserving the game. With respect to the alleged hardship suffered by the tenants in not being allowed to kill game on the land which they occupied, it ought to be recollected, that when they obtained their leases, they were aware of that circumstance.
Mr. Estcourt
said, it could not be denied but that those laws tended to the demoralization of the people. He would state to the House a fact, which had come within his own personal knowledge. In one of the prisons in Wiltshire, there were lately confined no less than two hundred and thirty prisoners. Now, the House would be surprised to hear, that out of that number, one hundred were incarcerated for breaches of the Game-laws. The House, knowing that fact, must, he thought, see the necessity of altering those laws.
Sir J. Wrottesley
said, he agreed in the prayer of the petition; and, after the statement which the House had just heard from the hon. member for the University of Oxford, they could not, he thought, defer any longer the devising of some measure, to check the evils of laws which assumed such an enormous magnitude. Something should be done; and he thought the first step ought to be the repealing of the laws which prevented the sale of game. A bill had been introduced into that House, about three years ago, by an hon. member, now a member of the other House. It contained a provision to legalize the sale of game; but there was so much other matter mixed up with it, that he could not approve of all the provisions of the bill. He thought that if the hon. member who spoke last would bring in a bill to legalize the sale of game, disencumbered of the objectionable provisions of the
119
Mr. Littleton
said, he must dissent from the opinion of his hon. colleague. He thought that making game saleable would be the reverse of an improvement of the Game-laws.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he thought it desirable to try the experiment by a partial operation, and to ascertain the effect of making game a saleable commodity. He was far from meaning to say, that if game were made saleable, the Game-laws ought to continue in their present state. He had long felt that a change had taken place in society, which absolutely required that those laws should be revised, and placed upon a different foundation. He had no wish to interfere with the privileges of private property. The owners of estates, and of game preserves, would naturally defend their rights. All that was desirable was, not to withdraw the protection from game, but to put the Game-laws upon a better and more practicable foundation. At present, the sale of game was confined to poachers, and it was desirable to let the owners of game come in competition with them. In Scotland, the laws relative to game were of a much better description than those of England. As to an alteration of the laws now in force in England, it appeared to him an easy matter. It could not be difficult to legislate in such a way, that persons who were now entitled to kill game should have an advantage over those who had not such a description of property; but in doing this, he should certainly wish that the qualified person should not have the exclusive privilege of selling game. He wished, too, that something might be done to withdraw the ground of quarrel which frequently took place between the small and the large landed proprietors residing in the same neighbourhood. He did not at all enter into the fears of those who thought that if the right of shooting was extended, the Man of three acres would materially diminish the game of his neighbour possessing three thousand. On the contrary, a compromise would generally take place, in which the person of such small property would be glad, for a trifling sum, to agree not to shoot at all. To say that the man whose few acres contributed to the food of the game, should not have the privilege of killing the very birds that devoured the produce of his field was monstrous. Gen-
120
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, March 29.
CORN LAWS—LORD REDESDALE's RESOLUTIONS.]
The following is a Copy of the Resolutions on the Corn Trade, printed and circulated by lord Redesdale:
. "That the wealth and strength of Great Britain originated in the cultivation of its soil, and must always be dependent on that cultivation, whatever other advantages the country may possess.
. "That the cultivation of the soil of a country is a trade and manufacture, and is so far the most important trade and manufacture in every country, as every other trade and manufacture must depend upon it.
. "That though the production of corn for the food of man is in Great Britain one of the most important objects of cultivation, yet the means of obtaining the production of corn, the quantity purchased, and the profit to be derived by the cultivator from the production, are all dependent on many other objects of production, and especially on the production of animals, and of food for animals, and on the further produce or other benefit derived from such animals; and the general profit of the cultivator is the result of the combination of all the several articles so produced, each article contributing, to the more profitable production of the rest, the amount of the whole production at the same time greatly depending on the capital and skill employed in fitting the land for the purposes of cultivation, and on the capital and skill employed by the cultivator; and it is the combined effect of all these operating causes which gives plenty from cultivation, and renders cultivation profitable.
. "That the laws now in force regulating the importation of foreign corn, are founded on the principles expressed in the foregoing Resolutions, having in view the extension and improvement of the cultivation of the country, the increase of its. productions, and insuring to the improvers
121
. "That under the encouragement proposed by the said act of the fifteenth of King Charles 2nd, and many other acts since made, in conformity to the principle expressed in the preamble to that act, great quantities of land, which were in the fifteenth of King Charles 2nd lying waste and yielding little, have been improved with great cost and labour, and much more corn has been produced, and great numbers of people, horses, and cattle have been employed, and a population very greatly increased in number, and consuming a much greater quantity of corn in proportion to their number, has been provided with food by means of the improvements so made, and the produce of the country has thereby become equal to provide for such increased population, both with corn and other food, in great abundance; unless, by the dispensation of Providence, the extraordinary inclemency of a particular season should happen to render the production of that season considerably less than the production of an ordinary season
. "That under the apprehension of the possible occurrence of such an extraordinary season, and the consequent failure of crops, provision has been made in the said act of the 15th of Charles 2nd, and in all the subsequent acts respecting the importation of foreign corn, to prevent the scarcity which might be produced by inclement seasons, the importation of foreign corn being allowed whenever the prices of home-grown corn, estimated according to the value of money at the several times of passing such acts respectively, should indicate so great a failure of crops, as to raise just apprehensions that the produce of the country might be insufficient for the consumption of its inhabitants; but at the same time allowing to the home-growers of corn the benefit of a rise in the prices of corn, corresponding with the deficiency in the quantity produced, and thereby compensating to them, by increase of price, the loss which they would otherwise have suffered by deficiency in their crops, whenever that deficiency did not, by an extraordinary rise in price, indicate the danger of distressing scarcity.
. "That considering the present value
122
s
s
s
s
. "That the continual and great variations in the prices of different sorts of grain during the course of above one hundred and fifty years, of which there is clear evidence, demonstrate that, assuming certain prices for each or any species of grain, as the prices, or nearly the prices, for which such grain may be sold with advantage to the producer in every year, is an attempt to do that which is impossible; and, on the contrary, that the fair prices of each year must depend on the amount of the produce of each year, which may vary so greatly from year to year, as to make the fair prices in one year greatly exceed or greatly fall short of the fair prices in another year.
. "That to allow the importation of foreign wheat into Great Britain at all times, without payment of any duty on importation, and to permit such wheat afterwards at any time to be entered for sale on payment of a duty of 20
s
s
s
s
s
123
s
s
s
s
. "That in like manner the importation of barley, oats, and other sorts of grain, under the same circumstances, to be entered for home consumption on payment only of several duties bearing a like proportion to the prices of those articles as before mentioned, would operate indirectly as a law limiting the prices of such several articles as the sums proposed as the average prices on which the rise and fall of duties should take place, and would compel the sale of barley, oats, and such several sorts of grain, always at prices rather under than above the medium prices at which such duties should take place.
. "That limiting the prices of wheat, barley, oats, and other sorts of grain to the several prices before mentioned, at all times, however unfavourable the seasons might prove, must have the effect of compelling the growers of such articles to sell the same at great loss whenever unfavourable seasons may cause any material failure of their crops; and by taking from them all profit, must gradually deprive them of the means of cultivation, and render the tillage lands of Great Britain gradually less and less productive, without further diminishing the actual price of corn; until, by the ruin of the agriculture of the country, the cultivated land should become so far unproductive as to be very unequal to the support of its population: and then, unless foreign production should be imported to an enormous amount, the deficiency of supply to answer the demand would again raise the price of corn, and the country would at the same time pay a high price for the corn consumed in it, though in great part foreign corn, and would become dependent on, and tributary to, other countries for its daily bread.
. "That the idea of fixing a certain, or nearly a certain price at all times for grain of any description, in any country, with any regard to the welfare of the cultivators of the soil, is extravagant and absurd, as demonstrated by the experience of all countries, and by the evidence before
124
. "That the foreign corn hitherto imported, has always been, and the foreign corn hereafter to be imported, probably will always be, paid for in money, and not by a corresponding export of British manufactures, or other commodities, to the places from which such corn has been, or shall be brought.
. "That at all times when the quantity of wheat produced in Great Britain, together with the wheat imported from Ireland, shall be equal to the demand for consumption in Great Britain, the importation of foreign wheat in addition to that quantity must be useless, or must have the effect either of excluding from the market and rendering useless an equal quantity of home-grown wheat and Irish wheat, or a quantity of wheat consisting of foreign and home-grown and Irish wheat, Equal to the quantity of the foreign wheat imported, and that quantity must remain in store, without any other effect than that, by occasioning a glut in the market, the importation of foreign wheat might reduce the prices both of foreign, and home-grown, and Irish wheat so low, as to discourage the growth of wheat both in Great Britain and Ireland in succeeding years, and thereby reduce the quantity of land cultivated both in Great Britain and Ireland.
. "That in like manner the importa-
125
. "That if a million of quarters of foreign whet should be purchased in the Baltic, or elsewhere, at the price of 26
s
s
s
l
l
. "That if (of which there is no prospect) such million of quarters should be distinctly paid for by the export from Great Britain of manufactures or other commodities, and not in money, yet the value of such exports would be only to the amount of 1,300,000
l
. "That the state of the currency of the country must at all times affect the
126
. "That the effect of the importation of foreign corn at duties so low as to operate as a restriction on importation, may be judged of by the effect of the importation of foreign wool, by which the price of the home-grown wool, and especially of short wool, has been greatly reduced, and great quantities of such wool remain in the hands of the growers, driven out of the market by the importation of foreign wool; and the importation has greatly increased since the reduction of the duty, whilst the export of woollen manufactures has decreased instead of being increased; so that the home-growers of short wool are now suffering an annual loss of great amount, great part of which amount has been paid to foreigners for foreign wool, without any adequate benefit to this country; and further loss has been sustained by the importation of foreign tallow, hides, skins, and other articles.
. "That by importation of foreign wool, tallow, hides, and skins, and of other commodities, the produce of agriculture, the cultivation of the country, and all persons interested in the lands of the kingdom, and particularly the cultivators of tillage land, have suffered great injury, inasmuch as the profit derived from those articles enabled them to adopt that system of husbandry which has so much increased the productive powers of tillage land, by a regulated course of crops, to which the profits arising from wool, tallow, hides, skins, and other offals of animals is essential, and the price of meat as well as the price of corn must eventually be greatly affected by depriving the cultivators both of tillage lands and of grass lands of those profits, which are important parts of the profits derived from the breeding and feeding of animals bred and fed for the purpose of producing meat for the food of man.
."That much as the island of Great
127
. "That the employment of capital is essentially necessary to the proper cultivation of any country, but the importation of foreign produce has already destroyed a large proportion of the capital which was employed in the cultivation of Great Britain, and the constant importation of foreign corn will greatly reduce the capital still employed; and such importation must prevent that increase of agricultural capital in Ireland, which is essential to raise that country to the high state of cultivation of which it is capable; and the same causes will prevent the improvement of vast tracts of land in Great Britain, which are still capable of great improvement.
. "That the constitution of the government of the United Kingdom, in all its parts, and the symmetry and security of the whole, are founded and depend upon landed property, and cannot subsist in their present form if the value of such property shall be materially diminished, and its due weight in the government of the country shall be thereby destroyed; and any material injury to that property, by destroying the just balance of the constitution must lead to the overthrow of the existing form of government, and the substitution of some new form of government, unless the misery of general confusion shall bring the country back to that form which has produced its happiness and prosperity for so many years.
. "That the experience of many years has proved the wisdom of those laws which have been founded on the system adopted on the Restoration of Charles 2nd, and on which the existing laws regulating the importation of foreign corn were founded.
128
. "That a general system of free trade is incompatible with the present condition of the world, and particularly with the condition of this country, burthened with enormous taxes and charges of various descriptions, and loaded with an enormous national debt, which renders all the rest of the inhabitants of the country tributaries to the public creditors, who are maintained in idleness by the industry and at the charge of others, through the medium of burthens imposed on many articles of production, and most especially the productions of cultivated land, which are loaded with charges far exceeding the burthens imposed on other productions, and cannot therefore be brought into the market on equal terms with the productions of countries not so burthened; and the unequal burthens thus imposed on cultivated land could not now be sustained, if a portion of those burthens were not borne by the rest of the community, through the medium of the prices paid for the commodities raised by the cultivation of land.
. "That a general system of free trade can only be founded upon the establishment of universal and constant peace, and universal and constant goodwill of man to man, and is utterly inconsistent with the present condition of mankind, divided into various states, under various governments, founded on various and conflicting principles, jealous of and hostile to each other, and particularly jealous of and hostile to the internal and external prosperity of this country, and its extended dominions in the eastern and western world, all of which are objects of the ambition of other nations, and for the protection and management of which it has hitherto been found expedient to maintain a large armed force, both naval and military, and other large establishments, creating a necessity for the continuance of a large portion of those heavy burthens with which this country is charged, even if its national debt were annihilated."
POOR-LAWS IN IRELAND.], The Earl of Darnley,
seeing a noble lord in his place, who had paid great attention to the subject of the Poor of Ireland, wished to know from him whether it was his intention to submit any motion to their lordships on this subject? At present, the poor of Ireland were suffering very peat distress, and many of them had, he believed, perished of hunger. If it was not the noble
129
The Earl of Carbery
said, that he had, on former occasions, moved for returns relative to the poor of Ireland, which were then on their lordships' table; and though he did not at present intend to submit any motion to their lordships, he had a petition to present on this subject, and when he did present it, he should explain his views. He wished it, however, to be understood, that he did not suppose that the English system of poor-laws could be introduced into Ireland; though he felt that the poor of Ireland could not be left in their present situation.
The Earl of Limerick
having been alluded to by the noble earl, could assure him that he was mistaken, in supposing that he entertained more serious apprehensions on the subject of introducing the poor-laws into Ireland, than any other person. He saw many noble lords near him, who felt quite as apprehensive on the point as he did, and were convinced, that of all mischiefs, none could be so great as that of introducing those laws into Ireland. was there not, he would ask, misery enough in Ireland already? Would their lordships call more into existence, by telling the lower classes, already prone to sedition, that they were starved by the upper orders? He called on their lordships, to take care how they employed their talent in making speeches, which he admired as much as any man; but he conjured them to choose some other subject for display than the one before their lordships. They could not choose a measure which would inflict more suffering than the poor-laws would do in Ireland.
130
The Earl of Darnley
said, he agreed that the poor-laws, as they existed in England, could not be introduced into Ireland; but he could not agree, that in a civilized country, the poor should be left to die without any notice. It was not to be tolerated—though their lordships might not be able to find any remedy for the evil—that it should not be inquired into. He hoped the noble lord, when he presented the petition he had mentioned, would make a specific motion, and that his majesty's government would take the subject into consideration.
The Earl of Limerick
said, he had read of people perishing from want, but he did not give credit to every thing which appeared in the newspapers. And did not people perish of hunger in other countries as well as in Ireland? It was, he thought, not very likely to occur, for the peasantry of that country, with all their faults, were as charitable and humane as any in the world.
Lord Holland
was of opinion, that before their lordships instituted an inquiry into what ought to be done for the relief of the poor in Ireland, they ought to ascertain what had already been done. He was not lawyer enough to know what was the state of the law for the relief of the poor of Ireland; he had not any particular acquaintance with that part of the country; but he could not believe that the government could have so long existed, without some law which tended to the relief of the poor. The first inquiry should be into the state of the law on this point.
The Earl of Enniskillen,
thought, that a great deal of mischief might be done by proposing to introduce the poor-laws into Ireland. It would excite hopes among the people which could never be gratified. The poverty of the people in Ireland was caused by a succession of bad crops, by over-population, and by the non-residence of the landed proprietors.
Lord Redesdale
said, that in the neighbourhood of Dublin there were collections made at the churches for the poor, and by that means they were relieved. The whole body of the people were in such a state of poverty, that what they could contribute was not much. He was afraid, however, that if a system. of poor-laws were introduced, it would destroy all industry among the people. The best mode of relieving the poor of Ireland, would be to introduce a better system of farming; to,
131
Lord Ellenborough
deprecated the introduction of the poor-law system into Ireland. The noble lord who had spoken first, insisted on the necessity of doing something; but he entreated their lordships to take care, if they consented to make any compulsory regulations, that they were not led further than they intended to go. Let their lordships recollect how the English poor-laws had been twisted from their original form, and consider, if a compulsory system were introduced into Ireland, whether it would not be twisted in the same manner. Some inquiries had already been made on this subject; and he was of opinion, that organising a system of voluntary collection
132
The Earl of Darnley
said, he had no intention of proposing any compulsory laws; but, in the present state of Ireland, the subject urgently required the consideration of their lordships.
The Earl of Belmore
said, that though there was no statute law in Ireland for the relief of the poor, there was a common law, which was stronger than any statute law. There was also a common right, which was considered so by the pauper, and acknowledged to be so by those who never failed to give them relief. If a law were to make it compulsory to provide for the poor, that law would diminish the means which at present existed.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, March 29.
CORN DUTIES BILL] Mr. C. Grant,
in bringing in a bill founded upon the late resolutions with respect to the Corn-laws, said he wished shortly to state what it was intended that this bill should do. It was a measure which had grown out of the resolutions lately adopted by the House. It was intended to divide the new regulations upon the Corn question into two bills: the one having for its object the regulation of the importation duties; and the other to direct the mode of taking the averages, and the other machinery of the measure. He now proposed to introduce. the first bill; and he hoped in, a few days to be able to introduce the other, which was meant to compass the objects which he had already described. This bill enacted, that the averages by the imperial measure were to be struck weekly, and that at the end of every month they should be published in the Gazette, and also an account of the quantity of corn entered and warehoused in each month. It was intended, that this act should take effect from the period of its passing into a law; but not to affect any importations allowable under the present act, if any such should be allowable, upon taking the averages on the. 15th of May. But those species of corn not admissible by the existing law were to-be subject to the provisions of the new bill.
133
ORANGE PROCESSIONS—MAGISTRATES OF LISBURNE.] Mr. Brownlow
said, that after considerable delay, he was at length happy to bring this subject under the consideration of the House; and he was the more anxious to do so, because he felt it to be one of great importance to the interests of Ireland. If hon. members would but condescend to listen to him for a short time, he felt assured that they would coincide with him in this opinion. The object of this motion was, to induce the House to place upon their table, papers containing the correspondence between the magistrates of Lisburne and the Irish government, relative to a recent transaction which had there taken place. In introducing any question relative to Ireland, he felt the difficulty under which he laboured. Things which were mere matters of fact in that unhappy country, were looked upon as the fictions of romance throughout the other parts of the united empire. It had been said, that if any complaint existed in Ireland, it was sure to find its way to the government of the country. Now, he was anxious to furnish the House with at least one sample of that bad article which was called government in Ireland. It was needless to go back to the history of former ages. They saw in Great Britain, in this boasted age, the greatest, the most flourishing improvements in every branch of agriculture, manufactures, and commerce—improvements so great, that, if the great lord Chatham were to arise and open his eyes, he must feel as if in a strange place, and gaze with wonder and astonishment upon them. But, if he should look to Ireland, there too would he find equal cause of wonder and astonishment. He would there see, that from the reign of Henry 6th down to the present period, there had been continued, with little variation, the same system of favouritism, and monopoly of places and power, on the one hand, and the same continuance of bars, barriers, and exclusions towards the great mass of the people. This was an evil to be measured only by the discontent and alienation of feeling which it had produced in that country. The great question for their consideration, as legislators, was this:—Had they so acted as to unite and enlist the hearts and hands of the Irish people in the cause of the empire? He had put this simple question to every English gentleman whom he had met—
134
primâ facie
135
136
137
138
Mr. Goulburn
said, that if the object of the hon. member, who had just concluded a long address to the House, had been to repress that party spirit which had been, and still was, so injurious to Ireland, he had adopted a very strange method to bring about such an end; and if he thought that the welfare of that country depended, in any degree, on the existence of harmony and good will between magistrates of different sentiments, on the one great subject, he had, indeed, taken a strange mode to promote such an object, by listening so totally to the one side, and dropping so completely the defence of the other. It was the duty of the Irish government, and was, surely, equally the duty of each individual member of that House, when bringing forward and discussing charges of a personal nature, to take the pains to inquire into the origin of those charges, and to ascertain the grounds upon which they were made. Now, he would first of all declare, that the government of Ireland, though formed of those who differed upon the one great question, uniformly acted with the greatest impartiality; and that, though there were many persons in it, who thought that concessions to the Roman Catholics ought to be granted, and others who felt and contended, that they ought to he withheld, whenever questions came before it, with reference to the existing law, there was no difficulty in the government being perfectly agreed upon that law, whether it affected an Orangeman, or a Catholic, or any other class of the community. In all cases, the strictest justice was given, and the law most impartially administered. To the case now before the House, he was prepared to show that a proper consideration had been given, and that a decision upon it had been formed—not by the lord lieutenant in one way, and by the lord Chancellor in another; not by the Secretary for Ireland after one fashion, and by the Attorney-general for Ireland after another—but that, whether the decision had been right or wrong, no difference of opinion
139
140
141
142
Mr. Spring Rice
said, he would put it to any member to declare, whether the production of the papers that had been moved for could, by possibility, do more injury than had been done by the debate. The House was now in possession of all that could be said, both on the one side and on the other; and the motion was merely to put it in possession of documents on which it might hereafter act. The question at issue was, whether lord Manners, in writing the letter referred to, was justified or not? in considering which, it was necessary to recollect, that Mr. Johnston came into the town of Lisburne, in his character of a magistrate—in his character of a clergyman—decorated with Orange emblems; and, forgetting every thing but his passions, lent the sanction of his name and character to the proceedings of the Orange-men there assembled. By the letter in question, lord Manners stood convicted of not having carried the law into effect. The hon. gentleman proceeded to enforce the arguments of the hon. mover; contending, that if ever there was a case which called for the application of that power with which the lord Chancellor of Ireland was clothed, the present was that one. The right hon. gentleman had said, that the Attorney-general for Ireland had approved of the letter of lord Manners. But, what was the fact? That when the case was laid before him, he merely said, he saw no cause for striking Mr. Johnston out of the commission of the peace. The hon. gentleman here pronounced a warm eulogium upon Mr. Brownlow, whose frank, honest, manly, candid, avowal of former errors, gave the very best proof that the alteration in his opinions was sincere. He had earned and received the blessings of the independent portion of his country, and had only taken that course freely and liberally, which others, less prudent as well as less candid, would hereafter find themselves compelled to adopt.
Sir William Plunkett
said, the House would feel that he could scarcely give a silent vote upon the present occasion. He did not agree with those hon. gentlemen who treated the question as one merely of fact. The fair question, he thought, was this: whether the hon. member for Armagh had made out such a
primâ facie
primâ facie
143
144
145
146
Sir J. Newport
said, he never expected to see the day, when his right hon. friend would admit an identity of principle with the lord chancellor of Ireland.
Sir W. Plunkett
begged pardon for interrupting his right hon. friend. Every man who heard him knew that, upon the great political question that divided the country, and upon several others, his opinions were,
toto cœlo
Sir J. Newport
said, he would repeat his regret, that, in the particular transaction then under discussion, his right hon. friend had condescended to identify himself with that learned lord, who, in a question respecting the conduct of the magistracy of Ireland, had acted in the manner which had that night been described, and which could not be justified. He felt proud of his connexion with his right hon. friend; but a sense of public duty compelled him, and, were he his brother, would compel him, to state his opinion of his conduct. Instead of exhibiting unity of sentiment and of action, the transaction in question, beyond any other that could be adduced, displayed the consequences that resulted from a divided government in Ireland. The
147
148
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he should confine his observations to the single question before the House; namely, whether any parliamentary grounds had been adduced for the production of the papers. He would not follow the example of the hon. gentleman who had occupied the greater part of the time during which his speech lasted with debating the Catholic question. When called upon to pass an opinion upon high public authorities, he was sure that the House would not mix up with that the question of the Roman Catholic claims. Though he did not believe the hon. gentleman had introduced this topic for the purpose of influencing the House upon the present question, he must say that he thought the introduction of it at all any thing but fair. The right hon. baronet had said, that the conflicting statements which had been made were a sufficient ground for the production of these papers. He could not admit the extent of the right hon. baronet's reasoning. He thought that the question upon which the House had to decide was this—Had such a
primâ facie
149
150
151
Dr. Lushington
said, that the right hon. gentleman had promulgated the doctrine, that the best way to judge of Mr. Johnston's motives, was to refer to that gentleman's own statement. For his part, however, he thought the facts of the case would be a much surer guide to this point. The state of it was this: there were the opinions of the two legal officers of the Crown upon a certain point of law; and the rev. Mr. Johnston, a person altogether unacquainted with the law, thought proper to differ from them, and to act upon his own opinion. It was stated, that One of the parties, which formed these processions, marched under his immediate guidance and direction; and, if this were true, he thought that the person who had so prostituted justice ought not to be allowed to remain in the commission.
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Heneage, G. F.
Althorop, lord
Heron, sir R.
Baring, A.
Honywood, P.
Baring, F.
Howard, hon. H.
Bentinck, lord W.
Howick, lord
Buxton, T. F.
Hume, J.
Calcraft, J.
Hutchinson, H.
Clifton, lord
Jephson, O.
Colborne, Ridley
Kemp, T. R.
Davies, colonel
Kennedy, T. F.
Dawson, A.
King, hon. R.
Denison, W.
Labouchere, H.
Du Cane, Peter
Lombe, E.
Easthope, J.
Lushington, Dr.
Ebrington, lord
Maberly, W. L.
Fazakerley, N.
Macdonald, sir J.
Fergusson, sir R.
Marjoribanks, S.
Fitzgerald, John
Martin, R.
Fortescue, hon. G.
Marshall, W.
Maule, hon. W.
Gordon, Robert
Graham, sir J.
Monck, J. B.
Grattan, H.
Morpeth, lord
Grattan, J.
Nugent, lord
Harvey, D. W.
O'Brien, Lucius
Heathcote, G.
Parnell, sir H.
152
Ponsonby, hon. G.
Sykes, D.
Ponsonby, hon. F.
Tomes, J
Robarts, A. W.
Tierney, right hon. G.
Robinson, G.
Warburton, H.
Russell, lord J.
Western, C. C.
Russell, lord W.
Wood, alderman
Rumbold, C.
Wood, Charles
Smith, W.
TELLERS.
Stanley, hon. E.
Brownlow, C.
Stuart, Villiers
Rice, T. S.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, March 30.
FEES ON PRIVATE BILLS.] The Earl of Hardwicke
presented a Petition from himself and several other proprietors of land, in the Bedford Level, complaining of the great expense of passing Private Bills, and praying their lordships to institute a committee to inquire into the matter. The petition was presented in consequence of a bill then on its way through parliament for underdraining the South Level. It was of some importance, that undertakings of such a description, which materially benefitted the community, should not be exposed to any unnecessary expense. In this case the petitioners complained, not merely of the amount of the fees levied, but of the uncertainty of what that amount would be. On this bill there were no less than fourteen sets of fees to be paid; so that the parties could not know what the expense would be. In his opinion, such things ought to be a matter of notoriety, so that persons bringing a private bill into parliament, should be certain beforehand what it would cost. In a case which recently occurred to the bishop of Exeter, it was necessary, in order to improve the cathedral, to pull down some houses, and the act of parliament enabling the dean and chapter to purchase the houses to be pulled down cost more than the property was worth. It had been stated by a noble lord, that the expense of passing private bills had been much increased by the practice of appointing agents; but this he did not believe was the case. The agents saved the parties a great deal of trouble, and transacted that business by correspondence, which persons must otherwise come from a great distance to transact.—The noble earl concluded by moving for the appointment of a committee, to inquire into the subject, which was ordered, and the committee appointed.
APPEALS FROM INDIA. The Marquis
153
of Lansdown rose,
in pursuance of the notice which he had given, to call their lordships' attention to the subject of Appeals from India. He proposed by his motion to put their lordships in possession, by the information it would cause to be laid on their table, of some circumstances which would show them that a great practical grievance was suffered by that portion of his majesty's subjects who constituted that distant part of the empire. He hoped their lordships would think no apology necessary from him for bringing before them a question, concerning which he did not pretend to have any local information; but it must happen, while the government of countries of vast extent, and at a great distance, was under our sway, that such questions should come before their lordships, and it was their duty to collect as much information as possible on all questions in which the welfare, the happiness and, above all, the administration of justice in that distant country was concerned. He did not mean to say from what cause the difficulty had arisen; but the fact would be proved to their lordships by the papers, for which he meant to move. Ever since the year 1773, when, by the act of parliament for regulating the judicature in India, the duty had been cast on the privy council, of hearing and deciding appeals, a large number of them lay, not merely not decided, but on which no proceedings had taken place at all. The number of these appeals, from one court, amounted to forty or fifty, on which no proceedings whatever had taken place. In one instance, there was an example of appeal, in which the property of the whole Zemindary of Ramnad was concerned; which was an extensive district, containing many square miles, and many thousand inhabitants; and, during the time the appeal was pending, on which no proceedings had taken place, no man could tell what were his rights in the district, and the people were ignorant to whom they ought to pay their rents. He did not mean to impute blame to any person, or to say that these causes had been put off or delayed by any one man's conduct; because he was induced to suppose that the machinery was defective by which appeals were sent from India to England, so that they were not brought under the consideration of the privy council. No man who knew the zeal and ability of his noble friend, the
154
155
The Earl of Harrowby
said, he did not rise to oppose the motion, to which he could have no objection under any circumstances. His noble friend, who had frequently called their lordships' attention to many important subjects, had undoubtedly a right to call their attention to this; and had he even done it in a manner different from what he had, no feeling of soreness could have arisen in his mind.
156
157
primâ facie
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, March 30
STATE OF THE ADMINISTRATION.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer
moved, that the Report of the Committee of Supply be brought up. On the question being put,
Mr. Tierney
said, he wished to suggest to the House the propriety of postponing this vote of supply till the last day of April. He had two objections to the vote: one was the large amount of it; the other arose from the existing state of public affairs. As some gentlemen might not be aware of the nature of the vote proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he must trespass for a short time on the patience of the House, whilst he gave a brief explanation of the course of proceeding in such cases. The elder members were aware that about five and twenty years ago, a question had been agitated in the House respecting the arrears of the civil list for some time previous. These arrears occasioned the attention of parliament to be directed to a consideration of some remedy for the evil, and the means of preventing a recurrence of it. In 1815, an act came into operation, by which the civil list got rid of a great number of payments by which the arrears had been occasioned. These had amounted to a large sum in the years immediately previous to 1815. This formed the estimate of the outgoings of the civil list; and it became the duty of the House to prevent an improper application of the public money so granted. The mode of proceeding was for the ministers to present an estimate of what was necessary, and next year to produce a statement, to show what had been done with the money voted upon it. This year the statement was 296,000
l
l
158
l
l
l
l
159
160
161
162
163
164
Mr. Secretary Canning
then addressed the House; but in a tone of voice so indistinct, as to be only partially heard in the gallery. However, he said, he might differ from the motion which the right hon. gentleman had just submitted to the House, he still agreed in one proposition which the right hon. gentleman had laid down in the course of his speech; namely, that the government had no reason to complain, either of the House in general,
165
166
167
168
169
Mr. Tierney
said, that the right hon. Secretary misunderstood the object of his motion, if he supposed that it was to pass a censure upon the administration. The motion of the right hon. gentleman opposite was a motion which, if granted, must be granted on confidence; and there could be no confidence until it was known in whom confidence was to be placed. He could not see in what the difficulty of acceding to his proposition consisted. He was happy to hear from the right hon. Secretary, that we were at last upon the road to a new administration. He was happy to have gained that piece of information, and should have been still happier if he could have gained more. He was willing to dispose of the present question in an amicable way, if it could be so managed; though he thought that this particular vote was not such a one as the circumstances of the country warranted.
Mr. Canning
said, that the right hon. gentleman had expressed himself satisfied with the declaration which he (Mr. Canning) had made that evening. Now, he would tell the right hon. gentleman, that he came down to the House on Monday last, expecting that the very question which had just been put to him would have been put then, and prepared to give to it the same answer which the House had just heard. No opportunity had been afforded him on the occasion to which he alluded to give that answer.
Mr. Tierney
said, he did not wish to divide the House on his amendment, if he could help it. He would withdraw it, on the understanding that such steps were now taking by those in authority, as must, previously to the holidays, lead to some definitive arrangement with respect to the administration. He thought that the present grant was objectionable on many
170
Mr. Canning
said, that he must refuse to give any such pledge as the right hon. gentleman wished to extract from him.
Mr. Tierney
said, he felt himself placed in a very awkward situation, in consequence of what had just fallen from the right hon. Secretary. The House was now informed, that the formation of a new administration was at present in contemplation; but the communication of that necessary piece of information came to it unaccompanied by any pledge, as to the time in which that formation would be completed. The government of the country was, therefore, still to be left in a state of abeyance. His object in proposing an amendment to the original resolution, was to prevent any further grant of money from being made to the government, until it was known in whose hands the government was placed. He was driven, by the course pursued by the other side, to the necessity of persevering in his amendment. He was told that the formation of a new administration was in a train of proceeding; but he was left entirely in the dark as to the rate, whether quick or slow, of that proceeding. He repeated, that until an administration was formed in which the House could put confidence, it ought not to vote one farthing away on confidence. He should, therefore, press his amendment.
Mr. Whitmore
concurred with the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down, that not the slightest pledge had been given to the House, by the right hon. Secretary, as to the time within which a new administration was to be formed. Now, considering the alarming situation of the country, and the delay which had occurred already, he thought the House would not discharge its duty to that country, if it did not concur in the proposition laid down by the right hon. gentleman near him, and if it did not express by its vote, that the time was at length come when it was incumbent that some progress should be made in forming a strong, an efficient, and a united, administration. Such was the feeling of the whole country. He had never yet spoken to any man out of the House, who did not view with alarm
171
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he concurred with the hon. member for Bridgenorth, and also with the right hon. member for Knaresborough, in thinking that the time had at length arrived, at which it was the duty of the constitutional advisers of the Crown to state to his majesty, that the public exigency required the formation of a new administration. That assurance had already been given to the House by his right hon. friend, the foreign Secretary, and he fully concurred in the propriety of making it public. He must be permitted, in that stage of the discussion, to recall to the recollection of the right hon. gentleman opposite, who said that the House ought to accede to no money-vote until an administration was formed in which it could place confidence, that in moving for this grant on account on a former night, he had said, that it was only such a grant as would enable those who might hold the helm of government to carry it on till after the recess, and that he would not presume to call for a further grant until an administration was formed. He assured the House, that there was no intention to call for any other sum at present on this account. He was prepared to admit, that if, in the present state of things, he had called for a larger grant, it would have been the imperative duty of the right hon. gentleman opposite, and his friends, to have given their strenuous opposition to such a grant.
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Dawson, A.
Althorp, viscount
Denison, W. J.
Baring, A.
Du Cane, P.
Baring, sir T.
Dundas, Sir R.
Baring, W. B.
Dundas, G.
Baring, F.
Easthope, J.
Bentinck, lord W.
Ebrington, viscount
Bernal, R.
Fazakerley, J. N
Birch, J.
Fergusson, sir R. C.
Clive, E. B.
Fortescue, hon. J. G
Colborne, R.
Graham, sir J.
Davenport, E. D.
Grattan, H.
172
Grosvenor, general
Protheroe, E.
Grosvenor, hon. R.
Pryse, P.
Heneage, G. F.
Ramsden, J. C.
Hill, lord A.
Rice, S.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Robarts, A. W.
Honywood, W. P.
Robinson, sir G.
Howick, lord
Russell, lord W.
Hughes, W. L.
Russell, lord J.
Hume, J.
Russell, lord G. W.
Hutchinson, J.
Russell, J.
Kennedy, T. F.
Sefton, earl
King, hon. R.
Smith, W.
Knight, R.
Stanley, lord
Labouchere, H.
Stanley, hon, E. G. S:
Lamb, hon. G.
Stuart, V.
Langston, J. H.
Sykes, D.
Maberly, J.
Thompson, C. P.
Maberly, W. L.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Macdonald, sir J.
Tomes, J.
Marjoribanks, S.
Waithman, alderman
Martin, J.
Wall, C. B.
Marshall, J.
Warburton, H.
Morpeth, viscount
Western, C. C.
Nugent, lord
Whitmore, W. W.
Ord, W.
Williams, O.
Parnell, sir H.
Williams, T. P.
Ponsonby, hon. F.
Ponsonby, hon. G.
TELLERS
Portman, E. B.
Duncannon, visc.
Price, R.
Normanby, visc.
WRIT OF RIGHT BILL.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee upon the Writ of Right bill,
The Solicitor-General
said, that he intended to propose a clause in the bill, by way of guard to the rights of infants, married females, and persons who, from being beyond the seas, or from other causes, might be supposed to labour under temporary disability, as to the prosecution of their claims. This was only following the spirit of the statute upon which the law was founded—the act of Henry the 8th, which contained clauses for securing the rights of individuals so circumstanced, beyond the ordinary regulations of the law, and was entitled "The Statute of Limitations, with a proviso." It had been deemed necessary to adopt this precaution, even though the time allowed for prosecuting claims extended to sixty years.
The Attorney-General
said that the bill required licking into shape, before it was possible to discuss it. For himself, he deprecated any rash or hasty interference with those laws which governed the whole landed property of the country.
Mr. Ferguson
intimated, that the bill must undergo great alterations before he should be able to give his support to it. He did not think thirty years was a sufficient time; he could not consent to
173
Mr. Bernal
thought some general reform most necessary in the monstrous system of the property-law of the country. He thought that twenty years of abeyance was enough to allow to any claim, unless under peculiar circumstances. The looking further only multiplied enormously the expenses of conveyancing.
Mr. Baring
observed, that it would be of great benefit to the country at large, if gentlemen in the profession would give their attention to matters of this kind. As the law at present stood, immense trouble and expense were incurred in proving the remote parts of a title. He had himself bought some property of a poor woman, and the expense of making out a title had been 160
l
Mr. Shadwell
said, that the statute of Henry 8th made no allowance, beyond the term of sixty years, for future disabilities; it only made the commencement of that term prospective; not barring the claims of persons whose rights had already existed sixty years, where any peculiar circumstances had prevented them from asserting them. At present, he was inclined to limit the indulgence given to the peculiar disabilities, because the changed state of society—the more rapid circulation of intelligence, both within the empire and beyond seas—since the time of Henry 8th, made most of them far less cogent than they had been. There was scarcely any part of the world with which we could not now communicate, and receive an answer within two years. One reason why he was decidedly disposed to change the term of limitation from sixty years to thirty, was, that the House of Lords, sitting at a court of equity, had refused, in the late Cholmondeley case, to give relief upon a right of more than twenty years standing. As he believed the fact to be, that more than one-half of the landed property of the country was in that situation (from the existence of mortgages and other encumbrances), that titles to it could only be enforced by the interference of courts of
174
Mr. Horace Twiss
thought it decidedly necessary to introduce into the bill those guards for persons under peculiar disabilities. Infancy, for instance, was just as much a disability at the present moment as in the time of Henry 8th.
Mr. A. Dawson
thought it better to take even the hazard of occasionally doing injustice, than to carry securities to a length which were ruinous to the public in general.
Mr. Shadwell
said, he was desirous to have the bill reprinted
pro forma
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, April 2.
CORN DUTIES BILL] Mr. C. Grant
moved the order of the day for the second reading of this bill.
Sir T. Lethbridge
wished, before he proceeded to state his opinion on this important subject, to ask one question. He begged leave to ask the right hon. gentleman whether, under all the circumstances attending this measure, not only in that House, but elsewhere, especially as fresh information had been obtained through the medium of papers which had lately come to hand, he would consent to postpone the second reading of the bill until after the recess, to the 3rd of May? [a laugh.]
Mr. C. Grant
said, that so far as he was personally concerned, he felt no disinclination to accommodate the hon. baronet; but he doubted very much, whether, if the hon. baronet's request were complied with, it would be doing any favour, or affording any accommodation, to the House. The measure had been fully considered, and he felt it to be his duty to proceed with it.
Sir T. Lethbridge
said, he rose to oppose the second reading of this bill. He knew it was a very arduous task to resist the progress of a measure which had been adopted by his majesty's ministers after mature deliberation; and he feared that he should prove but an indifferent advocate for a contrary line of policy. Convinced, however, as he was, that this measure was fraught with considerable
175
176
s.
s.
s.
l.
l.
177
Mr. Curteis
seconded the amendment. He said, that the objections of the agriculturists to the bill were acquiring additional force every day, and he was sure that a storm was gathering in another place which would annihilate it. On all sides the agriculturists complained that the bill afforded them no adequate protection. The bill of 1822 had been condemned unheard as it were, for it had never come into operation. The new measure, he thought, arose out of the doctrines of
178
Mr. C. Grant
said, that the hon. member who had just addressed the House carried his apprehension of the mischiefs likely to result from the bill even further than the hon. baronet himself; for he had added to the long catalogue of evils mentioned by the latter, the destruction of the aristocracy and the liberties of the country. However, notwithstanding all the fatal prognostics of the hon. members, he trusted that the House would not consider it presumptuous in him to oppose the amendment. He agreed with the hon. baronet, that the question which the measure involved was one affecting the dearest interests of the country; and he joined with him in the appeal which he had made to the House, to decide upon it with reference to its own merits alone, and not under the influence of party, or other Considerations. He made this appeal in the full confidence, that the good sense of the House would answer it. In approaching a change of law on this subject; namely, the trade in corn, there was one circumstance which afforded him some gratification—there was no necessity for combating ancient prejudices which always hung round the old law of the country. The act which it was proposed to change had been in existence only eleven years, and therefore the House was at liberty to deal with it on its own merits, without running the risk of shocking any old English feelings in its favour. The hon. baronet had asked, why it was wished to change the existing law? His answer to that question was this—because the existing law was, in his humble opinion, erroneous, and had, moreover, failed, grossly failed, in practice. What were the objects of the existing law? What did it profess to effect? From the reports of committees of the House, at the period when it was framed—the debates in parliament—and from general impression on the subject—he was justified in saying, that it was proposed to effect three objects, by the existing law; namely, uniformity of
179
s.
s.
s.
s.
180
181
s.
s.
182
s.
s.
l
l.
l
l
183
s
s.
s
s
s
184
s.
185
Mr. Western
wished to offer some observations upon what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman; but, as he was conscious of his inability to reply to him with the same force and effect, he entreated the indulgence of the House. The right hon. gentleman had anticipated that this bill, if passed into a law, would have the effect of extinguishing the animosity which existed between the two great interests; but he could not concur with him that the bill would have any such effect. He had thought that the common sense of the people of this country, of the manufacturing, portion especially, would have been satisfied with the effect of the law of 1815. Had not his majesty's ministers, and the honourable gentlemen around him, from time to time, indulged in invectives against the operation of that law, the people would not have thought of complaining of it. It was not that law, but very different causes, which had produced the pressure of distress which they had lately experienced. Had not the people been misled, their common sense would have told them, that corn had been sold at as low a price as it could by possibility be afforded. They would have seen that the distress of the farmer had been, and was equal, if not greater, than that of the manufacturer. It was the notions of theoretic improvement which had been instilled into the people by the honourable gentlemen around him, which had made the people dissatisfied with the act of 1815. But their distresses, and the variations in the price of corn, were to be attributed to a very different cause. He did not mean to enter at length into the question of the currency; but it was his opinion, that the act of 1819, restoring the gold currency, was the origin of the fluctuations in the price of corn which followed. In fact, it was the value of money which fluctuated, not the price of corn. This was a fact which could not be denied. He asked, why had the right hon. gentleman left such a fact out of the question? It was in contemplation in 1814 and 1815 to pass the bill of 1819 in 1816, and in consequence of the preparations made for that purpose, and the subsequent postponement of the measure, a great fluctuation ensued in the
186
s
d
s
d
s
s
s
d
s
d
s
d
s
d
s
d
s
d
s
d
s
d
s
s
d
s
d
s
d
187
s
s
s
s
bonus
188
189
l.
190
s
d
s
d.
s
d
s
d
s
d
s
d.
s
s
Captain Gordon
begged to say a few words upon a question deeply affecting the interests of the agriculturists in the part of the country with which he was connected. After the utmost attention he had been able to give to this question, he thought, without pretending to any knowledge of political economy, that the object of the legislature should be to promote the employment of the labouring classes, so that their wages might be adequate to the means of obtaining the necessaries and comforts of life. At the present moment numbers of the labouring population, particularly of the manufacturing population, were out of employ; and the question was, whether the admission of foreign corn would have the effect of increasing the demand for labour throughout the country? He had heard it stated by high authority, in the year 1815, that this country was then in a condition to grow a sufficient supply for its own consumption. At another time, when the agricultural interest was in a distressed state, he had heard, from the same high authority, that the distress was occasioned by over-production; and now he was told, that it was necessary to apply to the foreign market to assist us. The annual consumption of corn in this country amounted to twelve or thirteen millions of quarters, and if one million quarters were supplied from the foreign market, a quantity of labour equal to the growth of that quantity of corn must be displaced in this country. Now, unless there was a demand for our manufactures sufficient to indemnify us for that displacement, the
191
Mr. R. Palmer
of Berkshire, declared himself willing to go the whole way with the right hon. gentleman, as to the opinions he had expressed upon the principle of the law of 1815. Whatever, however, might be his opinion, either on that law or on the system which the bill before the House proposed to establish, he could not forget that he represented a very large class of persons engaged in agricultural pursuits, and that it was their firm belief, that a great part of the poor lands must be thrown out of cultivation by the permission to import foreign corn. Feeling it, therefore, his duty to oppose the bill in its present shape, he trusted he should not be accused of any illiberality to either classes whose interests were supposed to be connected with he question; for it was solely from a conviction of the ruin which must fall upon the agriculturists, that he was induced to adopt that course.
Mr. Whitmore
said, that as he had so often delivered his sentiments upon this subject he did not feel himself justified in trespassing long upon the attention of the House. He could not, however, refrain from offering a few observations upon one or two points. It had been said, that the result of this measure would be, to throw lands of inferior quality out of cultivation. No such thing would take place. No
192
s
d
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
193
Mr. G. Philips
said, he did not approve of the bill before the House, but he should nevertheless vote for the second reading, because he thought it an improvement upon the former system of our Corn-laws. He could see no more reason why the legislature should be expected to calculate the expenses of producing corn, and to fix a
minimum
minimum
194
Mr. Wodehouse
said, that a small difference in the price of grain was of little consequence to the consumer, but of vast importance to the grower. The trade in corn, too, between Great Britain and foreign countries was ardently desired by foreigners; and he thought there still remained a great deal of doubt and darkness about the price at which foreign grain could be imported. The hon. member entered into a detail of the prices of corn in England, from 1816 to 1824, and compared the amount of imports from 1801 to the present time, with a view of deprecating any rash alteration that might be injurious to the interests of the cultivators of the soil.
Sir T. Acland
said, he was desirous of explaining to the House the sentiments he entertained upon this difficult and delicate question. He had been taught to believe, and had come to the conviction, that the best market for the English consumer was that of the grower on his own soil. The only difficulty he had ever felt was the quantum of protection to which the agriculturist was entitled. He was unwilling, however, to run the risk of wholly rejecting this bill. By a former vote he had shown, that his opinion was in favour of 64
s
195
s
s.
s
Mr. Bankes
thought it was much better for the country to stand by the law of 1822, than to trust to the experiment of the bill now before them. From 1822 to the present time, the price of corn had been remarkably steady; and if the law had not been tampered with, it would have produced a fair rumunerating price. The universal prayer of the farmers was, that the House would let them alone. He did not see what security there was in the present experiment; for experiment it was, as no person could tell what would be the operation of the measure at the end of the next twelve months. He would ask, what was the immediate cause of this measure? Was it any apprehension of a sudden rise, or high and injurous prices? It was impossible to observe an invariable steadiness of price. But prices, since 1824, had been more steady than was usual. Indeed it would be found that this week prices were lower than in 1793, and within a shilling of what the averages were from 1790 to 1799. He observed the great agitation upon this subject which existed throughout the country, and he knew that some gentlemen apprehended danger, unless the petitions were granted of those
196
Mr. Portman
wished to explain the reason why he should vote for the second reading of this bill. He had heard fears entertained, that great mischief would ensue if the resolutions proposed by ministers were adopted. In those fears he did not participate. He wished for a change in the Corn-laws, because he was persuaded that the system heretofore pursued could not be maintained any longer. He did not like the resolutions of his majesty's ministers; but, objectionable as they were, he preferred them to the existing state of the law. The country considered that the question of the Corn laws was disposed of; therefore, if the House rejected this bill, the country would be placed in considerable alarm. Under these circumstances he gave it his support.
197
Sir E. Knatchbull
said, he had seen no reason to change the opinion which he had expressed before with respect to the resolutions proposed by his majesty's ministers, which he now felt it his duty again to oppose. The hon. baronet complained, that those who composed the majority by whose vote the resolutions were carried on a former evening, were members in the interest of Government, aided by members who composed what should be the opposition. His majesty's ministers in proposing the present bill, seemed to act upon the principle, that the system of free trade was good for the country. Now, he was one of those who thought that free trade might be carried too far; in which case, it was a system the most unwise for a country to pursue, unless, indeed, a reduction of taxation were to follow it, without which, the principles of free trade could never be enforced. When the chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward his financial statement, the House would see how far the resources of the country would warrant a reduction in the taxes. If the price of corn was reduced, it ought inevitably to follow, that the price of every thing else should be reduced in the same proportion. Were his majesty's ministers then, willing to reduce the taxes? Were they willing to propose, that every description of foreign commodities should be imported at a reduced duty? Were they willing that all departments of the state, civil and military, should be placed upon a less expensive footing? But the country would judge whether or not this was a time to reduce the army and navy. He believed it to be quite impossible to reduce those establishments at present consistently with the welfare and safety of the country. Under these circumstances, he was of opinion that these resolutions would produce, if any, only a partial good; and unless the government was prepared to reduce the public establishments, to lessen the duties on foreign goods, and to reduce taxation, the passing of the present bill would produce no relief to the country.
Sir W. W. Wynn
said, he had given his cordial support to the resolutions proposed by ministers, and should, therefore, vote for the second reading of this bill. He denied the truth of the observation of the hon. baronet, that the resolutions proposed by ministers were carried by their friends,
198
Sir Thomas Gooch
said, that, although many honourable members had changed their opinion on the present measure, he was not one of them. He had listened with the greatest attention to the arguments in favour of the bill, but they had failed to make any impression on him. It had been said, that both his majesty's ministers and his majesty's Opposition had combined to form the late majority. He did not attribute to either any hostility to agriculture. But there were others who had contributed to swell that majority, whose protection he did not much value. He meant the advocates for free trade; and, worse than all, the political economists. The hon. member for Bridgenorth had given the House a detailed essay on political economy; but he had heard so much of political economy as connected with the corn question, that without any objection to the men, he was heartily sick of political economists altogether, and he wished them no further harm than that a clause should be inserted in the present bill, enacting that every vessel laden with foreign corn destined for this country should take back, instead of ballast, a cargo of political economists. It was all very fine for his hon. friend to talk of the benefit which the country would derive from cheap bread; but, if his hon. friend were in a country where the bread was only 3
d
199
List of the Minority.
Alcock, T.
Kavanagh, T.
Antrobus, G. C.
King, sir J. D.
Arbuthnot, hon. H.
King, hon. R.
Ashurst, W. H.
Lennox, lord G.
Balfour, J.
Lopes, sir M.
Bankes, H.?
Macqueen, T. P.
Bastard, E. P.
Maitland, lord
Bell, M.
Maitland, hon. A.
Blandford, lord
Manners, lord C.
Brudenell, lord
Morland, sir S. B.
Buxton, J. J.
Northcote, S.
Chandos, lord
Palmer, R.
Chaplin, T.
Pelham, C.
Chichester, A.
Philips, R. B.
Clinton, C. F.
Pitt, J.
Clive, lord
Pollen, sir J.
Clive, hon. R.
Powell, E. H.
Clive, H.
Pryse, P.
Curteis, E. J.
Rickford, W.
Davenport, D.
Rogers, E.
Dundas, C.
Sibthorp, col.
East, sir E. H.
Smith, hon. R.
Egerton, W.
Smith, C.
Fane, J.
Smyth, sir G. H.
Fellowes, W.
Sotheron, admiral
Fleming, J.
Talmash, F.
Foley, E.
Tennyson, C.
French, A.
Uxbridge, lord
Gooch, sir T.
Vaughan, sir R.
Gordon, hon. W.
Webb, E.
Gordon, R.
Wells, J.
Guise, sir B. W.
Wemyss, capt.
Harvey, sir J.
Western, C. C.
Hay, lord John
Wodehouse, E.
Heneage, G. P.
Wood, T.
Heron, sir R.
Wyndham, W.
Honywood, W. P.
TELLERS.
Hotham, lord
Houldsworth, T.
Knatchbull, sir E.
Ingilby, sir W.
Lethbridge, sir T. B.
SUSSEX COUNTY ELECTIONS BILL.] Mr. Curteis
presented five petitions from different parts of the county of Sussex, praying that a bill might be brought in to fix the holding of elections for knights of the shire for Sussex at Lewes. The hon. member then moved, pursuant to notice, for leave to bring in a bill to alter the place of holding county elections to Lewes, which, he observed, would be a great convenience to several parts of the county.
Mr. D. Gilbert
seconded the motion.
Lord G. Lennox
said, that whenever the bill was brought forward, he would give it his decided opposition, as a measure most injurious to the town of Chichester, and the western parts of Sussex.
Sir C. Burrell
said, he would not oppose the motion for leave to bring in the bill, but he would by no means pledge himself to a concurrence in it when brought in.
200
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, April 3.
CARLISLE ELECTION—INTERFERENCE OF THE MILITARY.] Sir James Graham
said, he was anxious to call the attention of the House to two petitions, which he held in his hand. The one was from Richard Pattinson, and the other from certain freemen and inhabitants of Carlisle, complaining of the unconstitutional introduction of a military force at the last general election for that city, by which some persons lost their lives, and others were severely wounded. He would admit that the ordinary squabbles which took place at elections were beneath the notice of that House; but, when the right of election was interfered with, and the free exercise of the elective franchise prevented by the interference of a military force, he thought he should not perform his duty if he allowed any personal feelings to prevent his bringing it before the House.—The hon. baronet then proceeded to give a detail of the circumstances attending the contest at the late general election, the particulars of which will be brought within the recollection of our readers by the following outline:—Soon after the arrival of the writ, there was a meeting; at which the hon. bàronet opposite (sir P. Musgrave) was questioned as to his opinions on several political points; and perhaps the system of "badgering" a candidate, which the chancellor of the Exchequer thought so wholesome on some occasions, was, in that instance, carried somewhat to excess. There was first some hooting, and afterwards some less equivocal symptoms of popular disapprobation, from which the hon. baronet found it expedient to retire, and from prudence or necessity, to shelter himself in a house in one of the suburbs. Thither the crowd followed, and beset the house. The mayor and two constables went to his assistance; but they were pelted, and not being more popular than the hon. baronet, were also obliged to seek for shelter. Soon after, one of the county magistrates, who had experienced the displeasure of the House for calling in the aid of the military in 1820, felt it necessary to swear in some three hundred special constables; but another magistrate went for military aid, and the two forces approached the place together. The former magistrate, remembering the rebuke which
201
202
Sir P. Musgrave
said, the hon. baronet had exercised a sound discretion in not referring this case to the committee of privileges. The interference of the military was, he contended, called for by the circumstances of the case. The hon. member then detailed the occurrences of the day in question, and observed, that he had felt it necessary to take shelter, confident that, if he had not done so, his life would have been endangered. He denied that there was, at first, a sufficient force of constables to assist. There were, afterwards, about two hundred and forty special constables sworn in; but they were weavers of the very lowest class, and such as could not be relied upon for rendering any effectual resistance. In fact, it could be proved, that several of them had joined the rioters, and were identified as encouraging the disturbance. It was agreed between Mr. Ferguson and the mayor, that it would not be safe for them to proceed amidst a crowd so riotously disposed, with such a body of special constables, as they would, by so doing, be placing themselves between two fires. They, therefore, declined proceeding with the special constables sworn in by Dr. Heysham. They went down, however, with the usual civil power of the town, to the place where the rioters were assembled. They read the Riot act to them, and had no sooner done so, than they were pelted by the crowd, and obliged to take refuge in a house near to that in which he himself was shut up. Mr. Ferguson shortly afterwards made his
203
204
gravamen
205
Mr. Secretary Peel
deprecated, in the strongest terms, any unnecessary calling in of the military, to assist the civil power. At the same time, he felt himself compelled to say, that so long as the city of Carlisle remained as it did at present, without any efficient civil force, the military must occasionally be called in, to preserve the public peace. The whole civic force of Carlisle at present was two constables. It was not surprising, therefore, that the law was not properly administered, considering that these two men had to superintend and to check all the offences committed by a population of thirty or forty thousand persons. He knew that a bill was now before the House for the specific purpose of giving an efficient police to the city of Carlisle; and he made no hesitation in saying that some pecuniary sacrifice must be made by the inhabitants to carry it into execution. It might be a good system, four or five hundred years ago, to trust to the exertions of a party of shopkeepers and special constables; but now, when the population was so much greater than it was, and so many artificial wants were introduced among them, he thought they ought not to trust to a corps of volunteer constables, but to a well-paid and united police. He did not know whether he should have taken any share in the present discussion, had it not been for the charge of remissness which the hon. baronet who presented the petition had brought against himself. He thought that he could satisfy even the hon. baronet himself, that the charge was totally without foundation, The first riot took place at Carlisle on the 6th of June. On the 7th the mayor wrote to him informing him of it, saying that he had called in the military, and hoping that he would sanction, not merely their being called in, but also their being retained in the town. He received that letter on the 9th of June. On the same day he wrote an answer to the mayor, saying, that he could not approve retaining the military force in the town during the time of the election, unless there was a clear and undeniable necessity for it; and that the sex of the
206
207
Sir J. Graham
said, that the opposition to the bill, to which the right hon. gentleman had alluded, did not come from his friends at Carlisle, but from the members of the corporation; who were the very parties who had acted in the improper manner of which the petitioners complained. If the hon. baronet on the other side of the House would move for a committee of inquiry into the subject of these riots, he would be prepared to substantiate before it all the allegations contained in the petition. The hon. baronet had said, that it was impossible to find a single respectable special constable among the seventeen thousand persons who constituted the population of Carlisle. Now, it was quite impossible to believe that to be the fact. The hon. member then proceeded to recount the circumstances of the riots on the 5th and on the 9th of June. With regard to the events of the last day, he had himself been an eye-witness, and therefore could speak with some degree of authority. Never did any election proceed more quietly than did the election on that day, up to the time when the people discovered that the military were called in. On the knowledge of that circumstance reaching them, he admitted that a scene of riot and confusion did ensue. Chaos appeared to be let loose; but then the tumult originated from the indignation which British electors naturally felt at seeing the freedom of election violated. As soon as it was known that the troops were to be withdrawn to their former cantonments, the riot subsided, and the town became quiet. He had not blamed the mayor for calling in the cavalry instead of the infantry. He blamed the mayor on
208
STATE OF CHURCHES IN IRELAND.] Sir John Newport
rose, in pursuance of notice, to bring under the view of the House the state of the law for Rebuilding and Repairing of Churches in Ireland. He hoped that the House would favour him with its attention, as his motion related to a class of individuals who were now visited by the law with certain penalties and exclusions which ought never to have been inflicted upon them. In consequence of the reformation in Ireland being subsequent to that in England, it was not until late in the reign of queen Elizabeth that the churches of Ireland were transferred from the care of the Roman Catholic to that of the Protestant clergy. In that state they remained until the 12th of Geo. 1st, when an act was passed for the purpose of putting those of them which had fallen into decay into full and complete repair. The hon. baronet called the attention of the House to the preamble of that act, in which it was alleged, that the reason of the churches falling into decay was, that the Papists outvoted the Protestant parishioners at all vestry meetings. It was therefore enacted, that from that time henceforward, no Papist should be qualified to vote at any vestry meeting. What had been the result of that enactment? Had the churches been prevented from falling into decay by it? No such thing. Though an unlimitted power of taxation was flung into the hands of the Protestants, the churches—nay, in some cases, the very cathedrals—were still permitted to sink into ruin. Being in this lamentable situation, it was found necessary to rebuild them. And, at whose expense did the House think they were to be rebuilt? Not at the expense of the episcopacy, who were bound to look to their preservation; not at the expense of the Church of Ireland, which had immense revenues at her disposal; but at the expense of the Roman Catholics, who were shut out from the vestries, and derived no benefit from the churches when rebuilt. The right hon. baronet then mentioned the
209
l
l
l
210
l
l
211
212
Mr. J. Grattan,
in seconding the motion, took occasion to pay a handsome tribute to the zeal and perseverance of his right hon. friend, the member for Waterford, in pressing on the House the necessity of an extensive amelioration in the system of exaction which the Catholic was compelled to undergo, for the sustentation of Protestant edifices of worship in Ireland. The subject had been repeatedly mooted in that House, and it so happened, that whenever any success was obtained by his right hon. friend, and he brought forward a practical measure on any particular case, the benefits of that measure were counteracted, and its enactments turned to mischief, by the interposition of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Secretary had brought in a bill, the Vestry-bill, purporting to be a measure of relief, but it only aggravated the former grievance; and, indeed, so equivocal were the proceedings of the right hon. gentleman, that it would have been better to have suffered things to remain as they
213
Mr. Goulburn
said, that the observations of the hon. member for Wicklow, as they were personal to himself, demanded his primary notice. That hon. gentleman was pleased to say, that he was actuated, in his policy towards Ireland, by a spirit similar to that which animated those who originated the penal enactments of Ireland; and it was upon a reference to the Vestry bill, which he had introduced, that the hon. gentleman had principally founded his imputation. Now, he would say that any gentleman who had looked into that bill, must at once see that its object and tenor were of a description utterly at variance with a supposition of such a nature. Any gentleman must see that the imputation against him grew out of a totally erroneous view of the measure; and in charity he must suppose, that the hon. gentlemen had never looked into the bill. To those who had seen, and who understood the provisions of the bill, he would appeal confidently, and ask them if it was not a measure, which was characterized, so far as it went, by a principle of amelioration? The right hon. gentleman then explained the nature of the Vestry bill. What, he asked, had been the evil complained of heretofore? What was it that the hon. member for Limerick had made the frequent burthen of his remonstrances to that House? Was it not that the
214
215
Sir J. Newport.
—Without interest? Is that so? I understood that payments were annually made.
Mr. Goulburn.
—Yes, by way of instalment; but, on the principle advanced no interest was required. It had been found that the expense of raising churches had been 1,400
l
216
l
l
l
l
l
s
l
l
l
Mr. John Smith
said, that the present system of building churches by a tax imposed by half a dozen Protestants on the
217
218
Sir William Plunkett,
in rising to support the amendment, disclaimed all intention of following the hon. gentleman who had just sat down through the digressive allusions in which he had indulged. He put it to the good sense of the House, whether upon a motion relative to the building of churches in Ireland, he was expected to go at large into a defence of all the measures which had been taken by government with respect to that country? He would ask, what had the mode of collecting debts in Ireland to do with the present question? He declared, that up to this time, he was not aware of any serious complaints having been made of the administration of the law on that particular; and most certainly, he was not likely to be prepared for such a communication by the terms of this notice, or the opening speech of the right hon. baronet. Last year, he believed, some complaints had been made respecting the collection of debts in Ireland; but there had been a public inquiry since; and was he to understand, that any new ground of dissatisfaction had arisen since the presenting of the report of the commission to which he alluded? The House was aware that the right hon. Secretary had given notice of his intention to bring in a bill relative to the collection of debts in Ireland; and the hon. member might have waited the result of that measure. With respect to the resolutions before the House, he should say, that as to that part of the complaint which related to St. George's church, it was chargeable, as the right hon. baronet
219
220
Mr. Spring Rice,
in giving his support to the motion of his right hon. friend, disclaimed all hostility to the Protestant church. He and those who acted with him were as much attached to that church as any right hon. gentleman. They only differed as to the mode of showing their attachment, and the difference was this, that when an abuse was discovered with them, it was a signal for a remedial measure; whereas with the gentlemen opposite it was a signal for resistance. The gentlemen opposite, in fact, admitted the insufficiency of their measure, when they tendered their assistance to his right hon. friend in the framing a new one. Now, when in England we refused to confide in parochial vestries to tax the parish for the building of churches, on what principle could we give this confidence to parochial vestries in Ireland? He was not surprised at the irritation which existed in Ireland respecting the church; but this was not a feeling against the doctrines or against the parochial clergy; for, although he could not support the opinion as to their poverty, he was willing to bear testimony to their worth. He would give his assent to the
221
Mr. Secretary Peel
expressed his readiness to give the hon. gentlemen opposite the fullest credit for their declaration, that in supporting these resolutions, they were desirous to promote the real interests of the established church; while, at the same time, he claimed for himself and his colleagues the same credit for meaning to exempt, as far as possible, the Catholic tenantry of Ireland from undue burthens. He hoped, therefore, that this question would be discussed upon its own intrinsic merits, and without reference to the diversity of opinion which prevailed between them upon what was called the Catholic question. He must defend his right hon. friend from the sarcasm which had been thrown upon him for his bill of last year; a bill which had materially benefitted that part of the Catholic population to which it applied. The attack upon the vestry bill was, therefore, uncalled for; and the assistance which his right hon. friend had given in the tithe composition bill ought never to be forgotten in the sister kingdom. With reference to the present question, the course of proceeding by resolutions was extremely objectionable; for it precluded that discussion, either of principle or of details, which was practicable in the introduction of a specific bill. He was sorry that this discussion had been embarrassed by allusions to cases of peculiar grievance in the levies on some parishes, and particularly the local act for St. George's parish. It ought to be remembered, that the latter was altogether a private act; and if it had inflicted a grievance, the remedy was by a repeal of the objectionable clause, and not by the introduction of an irrelevant measure. It was equally wrong to mix up cases of spoliation and outrage with the present consideration; for these ought to be punished and repressed, without reference to any of the larger topics which had been introduced into this discussion. He could not concur in the broad proposition which had been laid down by the right hon. baronet; namely, that the Roman Catholic peasant ought not to be burthened with any share of the expense for repairs of Protestant churches. If that principle were good for Ireland, why was it not equally so for England? Let the House see the length
222
223
Mr. H. Grattan
supported the resolutions, observing, that the real question at issue did not so much regard the church establishment of Ireland, as the connection of that country with England. The vestry cess was of a grievous character. It had countenanced the most extravagant and superfluous ornaments in churches, almost wholly unfrequented by those who had to pay for such extravagance. Since the year 1820, there had been levied 1,623,000
l
Sir J. Newport,
in reply, said that he should withdraw the resolution, and simply move for leave to bring in a bill, "to amend the laws for building, re-building, and repairing, Churches, and for relieving the occupying Tenants of Land in Ireland from the burthen of Church Rates in certain cases."
IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.] Mr. Hume,
pursuant to notice, rose to bring forward a motion on a subject of the greatest importance. He hoped the House would indulge him with a patient hearing, while he trespassed on them with some details, which he deemed it right to adduce in support of his motion. Having submitted these details, he should leave it to the House to determine, whether the inquiry which he proposed ought not to be instituted—to say whether a state of things ought any longer to continue, which he considered a reproach to the justice of the land; or whether the evils which existed ought not long since to have been remedied. The subject of his motion was connected with every interest in the country. The law, as now practised, authorising imprisonment for debt, occasioned the most serious mischief; and the question would be, whether it ought to continue under I such grievous circumstances as he should
224
l
l
l
l
225
s
d
s
s
d
s
d
l
l
226
l
s
l
l
l
s
s
d
227
l
l
l
228
Mr. Hobhouse
seconded the motion. He said, he thought it was too large, and might be advantageously divided into two. The inquiry would not be so easy as the hon. member seemed to think; but he hoped that the other side would not deem
229
The Attorney-General
said, it was not his intention, at that late hour, to follow the hon. member for Aberdeen through the long speech which he had addressed to the House. Upon the subject of arrest and imprisonment for civil debt, many eminent men had written. It was a subject which had engaged Dr. Johnson, who had made it the theme of one of his papers in the Rambler. The opinions there set forth were afterwards maintained by many eminent persons. About thirty years ago, the late marquis of Hastings introduced a bill for the relief of insolvent debtors. That bill was periodically introduced; but at the present moment a regular Insolvent act was passed, which was considered an improvement on that measure. He would not travel through the speech of the hon. gentleman who had introduced the motion, but there was one point upon which he must offer a few words; he meant as to the hardships which the hon. member seemed to conceive the debtor was under, on being arrested upon the allegation of a creditor. If the creditor falsely represented that another was indebted to him, could he not be indicted for perjury? As to the law of Arrest, it had prevailed in England for a century and a half. The individual, in the first instance, was not positively cast into prison, but was merely confined, to compel him to procure bail to have the trial carried on. The hon. member, he apprehended, did not object to imprisonment for debt after trial, but only before trial.
Mr. Hume.
—My objection is to imprisonment at all for debt, whether before or after trial.
The Attorney-General.
—That was an extraordinary proposition indeed. No person conversant with trade would listen to a proposition that imprisonment, after process, should be abolished. With respect to the sufferings to which persons who were imprisoned were subject, no man endued with sentiments of humanity but must feel for the deprivations of those thus unfortunately circumstanced. Adverting again to the Insolvent Debtors' act, he was inclined to believe that, by that act, too much relief had been given to persons imprisoned for debt. He would go the length of the hon. member in lamenting that sufficient accommodation was not afforded to women who were in-
230
Mr. Calcraft
conceived that his hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen, had made out a case for inquiry as respected the state of the prisons. Having said this, he would add, that he did not believe, in the present state of society, and in the condition of the country, that it would be prudent or proper to abolish imprisonment for debt. The object, too, of his hon. friend would not be answered if the committee were formed; for the subject was so very extensive, that it would be impossible to embrace all the branches. The law of arrest had been much softened by the Insolvent Debtors' act. That act had
231
Mr. Secretary Peel
was not prepared, when he read the notice of the motion, to anticipate that so many subjects would be mixed up with it. The hon. member's motion extended to an inquiry into a most important branch of the judicature of this country; as one of the propositions was, that a committee should be appointed to inquire whether imprisonment for debt should be abolished. To this proposition he most decidedly objected. But what remedy did the hon. gentleman propose? He had not suggested a single one to the House. It was not, surely, his intention to hold out to the creditor, that he should have no remedy against the debtor? The hon. member had stated the evils to which a person was subject who was cast into prison for debt; and he was perfectly willing to admit that such evils existed. But, in stating such an opinion, the hon. member had left out of his consideration the evils to which the creditor was subject. The privations of the debtor, the evils to which he was exposed, would operate to deter many persons from running into debt.—As to the subject of the inquiry into the state of prisons, it was a difficult thing to resist it, without having it supposed that there was a desire to screen individuals. In the present case he would readily concur in that part of the motion which sought an inquiry into the state of prisons, but not into that part which went to investigate the subject of imprisonment for debt. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. member for Aberdeen, respecting the want of a medical gentleman in the Fleet prison, he begged to say, that he had appointed a surgeon, a Mr. Cooper, with a. salary of 200
l
232
l
l
233
Sir Robert Wilson
instanced, as an example of the mischief of the system of arrest for debt, the case of a gentleman who was arrested, and in consequence of his inability to procure bail for 10,000
l
Mr. John Smith
said, that when he was last in France, he had an opportunity of ascertaining that the prisons of that country were filled with persons confined for debt. The gallant general was also mistaken in supposing that arrests were not permitted by the law of France in the first instance; for in acting on bills of exchange, the creditor might throw his debtor into prison before the subject in dispute came to be tried. If the hon. member for Montrose went to a division, he would support it; because he believed the state of the prisons ought to be inquired into, and the law of arrest, particularly respecting the frauds practised by means of what were truly called sponging houses.
Mr. Alderman Wood
supported the motion, and complained of the shameful state of the Fleet prison, which required immediate alteration. The unclaimed fund in the court of Chancery might, he thought, be employed for that purpose.
Mr. Monck
recommended his hon. friend to leave to the Secretary of State for the Home Department that part of his proposition which related to an inquiry into the state of the gaols; but he hoped his hon. friend would not abandon the other very important branch of his motion; namely, the state of the law of imprisonment for debt. There were at present no fewer than seven hundred persons in prison in London, for debts under 20
l
234
l
The Solicitor-General
conceived, that great benefit would arise from the renewal of a law which expired some short time since, prohibiting arrest for any sums under 15
l
Mr. D. W. Harvey
suggested to his hon. friend, that, owing to the advanced period of the night, and the empty state of the House, it would be prudent to withdraw his motion for the present, as that part of it which he wished to press was of such importance, as to require a more deliberate discussion than could now be given to it,
Mr. Hume
said, that owing to the departure of the right hon. gentlemen opposite, he had no other course left than to withdraw his motion for the present. The Secretary for the Home Department did not deny that the state of the prisons called for revision, and as the right hon. gentleman volunteered to undertake the subject, he was quite willing to leave it in his hands. But he must deny that he wished to establish a system which would facilitate fraud, and injure public credit. He had no such object. His only wish was, to obtain information, by which he was confident he should be able to prove, that imprisonment for debt was cruel and impolitic; that it tended to facilitate fraud and to increase the number of debtors. It was not fair for the right hon. gentlemen opposite, if they did not choose to perform certain tasks themselves, to throw obstacles in the way of those who had the disposition to do it, even if they were not endowed with the same abilities. The right hon. gentleman had referred to the chief justices of the King's-bench and Common Pleas. Now, those learned individuals had been, for the space of ten years, with the instructions of the commissioners before them, containing twenty specific improvements of the law; and they had not yet taken a single step towards the realization of one of those suggestions. He left the measure in the hands of the right hon. gentleman; but with the declaration, that if there should be nothing done, he would again trouble the House upon the subject.
235
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, April 4.
SPRING-GUNS BILL.] Lord Suffield rose
to move the order of the day for the second reading of the Spring-guns Bill. His lordship said, that in proposing the second reading, it would not be necessary for him to detain their lordships by entering into any arguments on the principle of the bill. He only wished to call to their lordships' recollection the bill which he had submitted to them on this subject two years ago. The present bill was exactly like the bill as he then brought it in, but not like the bill as it was amended by their lordships, and sent to another place. He wished to state, but only as a matter of history, that his motives for introducing that bill, prohibiting the setting of Spring-guns in woods and plantations, was to meet and remedy a practical evil. Several accidents had occurred from the use of spring-guns, but they had occurred principally in woods and plantations; and he had not then heard that any such accidents had occurred from setting Spring-guns in gardens. Since then he had heard of such accidents; and no longer ago than yesterday, a case had been mentioned to him, in which a gentleman had shot his own father. He would not mention any names; as the sufferings of the family had been sufficiently great. This was, in his opinion, a reason for prohibiting the setting of Spring-guns in gardens as well as in woods. Such instances were very few, and the great mass of the accidents arose from setting Spring-guns in woods. He was, however, bound, by the principle on which he had opposed setting Spring-guns in woods; and he would not object if any noble lord should propose to extend the principle of the bill, and prohibit the use of Spring-guns in any place. He had always contended, and by this principle, he would stand, that it was not legal for any man to do that
per alium
per se
236
237
The Lord Chancellor
did not certainly mean to object to going into a committee on the bill, but there was one point in it to which he wished to call their lordships' attention. He had not had an opportunity of examining the bill very closely, but he observed that it made it a misdemeanour to set Spring-guns, and other engines of this description, in particular places; and he did entertain a doubt, whether from this it would not be inferred, that it was not illegal to set them elsewhere.
The Earl of Malmesbury
was of opinion, that prohibiting the setting of Spring-guns in particular places would have the effect of legalizing the setting them in other places. If the bill was founded on a just principle, as he thought it was, it ought to be made general. Setting Spring-guns was altogether objectionable; as it was not, under any circumstances, proper to destroy life by their means. The present bill was, in his opinion, imperfect in principle, and odious in operation. It was directed against one class of persons and one description of property. By another bill before their lordships, game was to be made property; and why was it not to be protected as well as other property? By what possible argument, also, could it be proved that woods were not to be protected? It was not more unjust and inhuman to shoot persons for breaking and stealing trees, than to shoot them for stealing codlins; and yet, the bill went to legalize one, and make the other penal. On the understanding, that the principle of the bill would be extended in the committee, he would not oppose the second reading. Two years ago, a bill had been passed for the protection of gardens; and if this bill were also to pass, the owners of gardens would have the power of shooting men, added to their
238
Lord Wharncliffe
was also of opinion, that the bill ought to be extended. It would not go to the root of the evil, if it allowed Spring-guns to any situation. At the same time he believed, if the game-laws were not altered, that the bill would not be a benefit to humanity. The noble lord was quite mistaken if he supposed that no conflicts had arisen before Spring-guns were employed. He had had one of his keepers murdered before he had used Spring-guns. He had afterwards used them; and never since using them had he had any conflicts. The same had happened to other persons. He thought the bill ought not to be entertained, unless it was made general. If it was to be confined to woods and plantations, he should certainly oppose it.
The Earl of Carnarvon
did not mean to oppose the second reading of the bill, but he wished, before their lordships proceeded to legislate, that they should know how the law stood at present. One judge was in favour of the legality of setting Spring Guns; another was supposed to entertain a very different opinion. Whether setting guns was at present justifiable, or whether the person setting them, and causing death by them, was guilty of manslaughter or murder, neither any unlearned nor learned person could give them any positive information. If in legislating on this subject, they declared that Spring-guns should not be set in some particular places, and left the law in its present state of uncertainty as to other places, their lordships would not do their duty. He wished that either the setting of Spring-guns should be declared unlawful at all places, or the exceptions specified. He, for one, was quite ready to prohibit the use of Spring-guns altogether. Or, if they were allowed in any place, he would confine the use of them to places within walls, and having locked gates, but not where occasional trespassers came. He hoped the question would be so disposed of, as that no person would be liable accidentally to suffer from others using Spring-guns.
239
Lord Suffield
explained, that he had not originated this bill. It came from another place, and he had no power to alter it. He would willingly adopt the alteration suggested, of extending the principle of the bill; but he was not competent to alter it except by proposing amendments in the committee.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, April 5.
SPRING-GUNS BILL.] Lord Suffield
moved the order of the day for going into a committee on the Spring-guns Bill. Their lordships immediately resolved themselves into a committee. The noble lord said, that, in consequence of what had passed yesterday, he should propose to make the bill general. With this view he should move, as an amendment, that the words "woods and plantations" be excluded from the bill. He should also propose that the word "declare" be added, in order to make the law declaratory as well as enacting.—These amendments were agreed to.
Lord Ellenborough
objected to the use of the word "engine" as too general.
Lord Suffield,
in justifying the use of the word, said, that their lordships were not aware of the numberless contrivances employed to protect game. It was customary with poachers to drive cattle before them into the woods, or shove long poles before them, by which they discharged the Spring-guns, without running the risk of injuring themselves. They then took away the Spring-guns. A friend of his, a very ingenious gentleman, who had been served in this manner, contrived to attach a shell to the Spring gun, so that those who took up the Spring-gun, after it had been discharged, without knowing the nature of the contrivance, discharged the shell, and were blown to atoms. He had also contrived a shell to be attached to the bough of a tree; which went off under certain circumstances, and injured those who were near it. Their lordships were aware that it was customary in some places, to fix a wooden pheasant to the bough of a tree, with a view to attract the attention of the poachers. They fired at it frequently; which gave the keepers time to come up. This gentleman, how-
240
Lord Suffield
objected to the amendment, as going to destroy the bill.
Lord Holland
thought it would be excessively difficult to convict any person, if the crime was made to consist in the intention. If the words were left out, the object proposed by the bill would be lost. He was prepared cordially to support the bill, understanding that it was intended to visit with legislative condemnation the practice of placing such diabolical engines in any man's grounds.
The Marquis of Lansdown
expressed his hope that in the progress of the measure, the noble lord would introduce a clause to exempt from its operation Spring-guns set in dwelling-houses; and that on a principle similar to the general principle of the bill. The general principle of the bill was, that no man was justified in doing that by a machine or engine, which he would not be justified in doing personally; but any man was justified in personally shooting a housebreaker; therefore he would be justified in devising the means of shooting him by a Spring-gun.
241
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, April 5.
EMIGRATION COMMITTEE.] Mr. Baring
presented the report of the committee appointed to inquire into the subject of emigration. This duty, he observed, had devolved upon him, in consequence of the indisposition of the chairman of the committee. He strongly recommended the report to the attention of the chancellor of the Exchequer, and trusted that the right hon. gentleman would dispose of this important subject as soon as possible. The present was not a final but a special report, and the measure which was proposed in it, he thought it right to state, was recommended unanimously by the committee. It was proper that the question should be quickly decided, either one way or other; as there were, at this moment, a number of poor individuals kept in suspense in consequence of their uncertainty as to the intentions of government.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he was not unaware of the tenor of this report. The hon. gentleman had yesterday communicated to him, that it would be presented in the course of the present evening, and that certain propositions had been founded on the evidence taken before the committee. He could assure the hon. gentleman, that he had lost no time in endeavouring to make himself master of the facts detailed in the evidence. That evidence he had received last night, and he had read himself almost blind, without being able to get through it. Whatever might be the opinion which he had formed upon the subject, he thought the hon. gentleman could not expect him to state that opinion, until the House should be put in possession of the same opportunity which had been afforded to him, of becoming acquainted with the nature of the evidence.
MODE OF TAKING THE POLL AT ELECTIONS.] Colonel Davies rose
to make his promised motion, for a select committee, "to inquire into the Mode of taking the Poll at Elections for Cities and Boroughs." His object, he stated, was to do away, as far as possible, the system of bribery and corruption, of outrage and lawless violence, which frequently prevailed at such elections. Understanding
242
Mr. G. Robinson
seconded the motion. He thought that if the House could lessen the expense attending these elections, it would be conferring a great benefit on the country. For the purpose of effecting that object, he wished the electors who resided at a distance from the city or borough contested, to give their votes at the places where they lived. He saw no other mode except this, by which the immense expense attending those elections could be avoided. As to shortening the time for keeping open the poll, he did not approve of it. If the poll were to close, because, on any given day, a certain number of electors did not vote, it might prevent many individuals from expressing
243
IRISH MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES—MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.] Sir J. Newport,
in rising to propose, that the Irish Estimates be referred to a Select Committee, observed, that if his motion were at all likely to interfere with the bounty of parliament, he would be the last man to bring forward the proposition which he was about to submit to the House. Ireland had, from time to time, received many benefits from the grants that were made in parliament; but while he admitted this, he was sensible that the manner in which those grants were given, and the little opportunity allowed for entering into the details, deserved notice and correction. Care ought to be taken, that what the legislature bestowed should be directly appropriated to the object for which it was intended. Those grants ought, in his opinion, to undergo that examination in a committee above stairs, which it was quite impossible, from the way in which they were introduced, they could receive in that House. The first article he found entered on the estimates was the charter schools. Some years since the report of the commissioners appointed to examine into the state and condition of these institutions, developed abuses of such a nature, as to call down the reprobation of the House; and he then supposed, that it was the determination of parliament to bring those institutions as speedily as possible within a certain prescribed limit. It was then proposed, that the children in those institutions should be apprenticed, and got rid of. This had not been done; though, he believed, they were infinitely beyond the age at which they ought to have remained in these schools. This was an important object for inquiry. And how, in that House, could a proper inquiry take place? It was quite impossible; for, if he got up and stated any particular circumstance relative to any given school, it was met on the other side, by a positive denial, and no opportunity was given for ascertaining the real truth of the matter. This could alone be arrived at in a committee. The sum which was proposed for the Linen Board was 10,000
l
244
l
l
l
Mr. Curteis
seconded the motion. He considered it hard that the people of this country should be taxed to support establishments in Ireland, unless they were clearly shown to be useful. He saw that in the Cork establishment for education there were professors of botany and mineralogy. Now, what on earth, had the poor people of Cork to do with botany and mineralogy.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
admitted that it was of importance to bring all these votes within the narrowest possible compass. He and his right hon. friend, the Secretary for Ireland, had acted upon that principle, and the result was a reduction in the estimates for this year, as compared with those for the last, of upwards of 50,000
l
bonâ fide
245
l
Mr. Spring Rice
was not disposed to give ministers credit for the economy which was professed on the present occasion. He suspected that the estimates were wholly fraudulent. The system was one of gross abuse. The charter schools of Ireland had already cost 1,600,000
l
l
l
246
Mr. Goulburn
denied that he had ever called for any vote in support of the Linen Board, as a permanent measure. The grants for the present year were 100,000
l
Mr. Leslie
Foster was surprised that the hon. member for Limerick should have taken this opportunity of making an attack upon the last report of the commissioners, instead of reserving his observations until the period at which the whole reports would be brought under the consideration of the House. He objected to the motion of the right hon. baronet, because, under the character of a financial inquiry, it would have the effect of prematurely bringing the subject of Irish education before a committee above stairs, when the commissioners had not yet concluded their labours. He objected to introducing theological subjects in that House; but the allusions which had been made to the part he had taken, as one of the commissioners, rendered it necessary for him to make one or two observations. The Belfast Institution was not, at present, upon the list of those institutions which received any thing from the public; but he could assure the hon. member opposite, that there was not one of the commissioners more anxious than himself to see
247
Mr. J. Grattan
maintained the expediency of submitting the grants to a committee above stairs. The Presbyterian system displayed so many advantages in Scotland, that he was happy to see it extended to any other country, and more than any other to Ireland, where he hoped to see it flourish and receive the countenance and assistance of that House. There were many items in the accounts, which deserved quite as much censure as any which the right hon. baronet had mentioned, and he trusted he would see the propriety of making no distinctions among them, but at once determine to move, that the whole be submitted to the consideration of a committee.
Mr. Hume
said, he was anxious to see the Irish estimates reduced as far as was practicable, and would co-operate in any measure with that view, which could be usefully and successfully adopted. He would call the attention of the House to a few of the items of these estimates, and ask if it was prepared to vote large sums of money to be appropriated in the manner proposed. The first item to which he would call the attention of the House, was a charge for the maintenance of one thousand nine hundred and eighty-three children. It was but four years ago, that the Secretary for the Home Department, admitted that the grant ought to be reduced as speedily as possible. Now, let the House observe what were the ages of these "children," as they were called. Of the
248
l
l
l
Mr. Frankland Lewis
objected to any vote that would pledge the House to inquiries which it could not satisfactorily make, until it was in possession of those documents upon which the estimate was
249
250
251
Mr. Brownlow
said, he wished to make one or two observations respecting the institution in the north of Ireland, of which so much had been said, in order to enable the House to judge how far the hon. member for Louth (Mr. L. Foster) was or was not right in the decision he had pronounced. There were in the Belfast Institution several professors, and he would take the liberty to read a list of them. There was a professor of natural philosophy; a professor of moral philosophy, and professors of mathematics; of logic and belle lettres; of anatomy and physiology; of Greek and Latin; of Hebrew; and two professors of divinity. Mr. Cooke and Mr. Haller both declared, that they never knew the professorships of the institution more ably filled than at present, nor its members so little tainted with evangelical principles. The latter gentleman said, that of twenty-eight young men in one class, there was only one who professed the doctrines of Arian. The hon. member, after some allusions to the separation of the Presbytery of Antrim from the general Synod of Ulster, declared it to be his conviction, and he spoke from intimate knowledge, that there never was any institution better suited to the wants and wishes of the people than that school to which he alluded. The people of the north of Ireland were divided into a great many religious sects, and no place of education was better fitted to gratify all their desires; for it ought to be recollected, that the great object to be attained in the choice of professors for such an establishment, was not in accordance with religious opinion, but pure and strictly moral rectitude of conduct. He felt himself bound to support the motion, not only because it went to inquire into the lavish expenditure of the public money, but because it proposed to inquire into the improper expenditure of that money in Ireland—the land of every kind of abuse, corruption, extravagance, and malversation. He hoped the right hon. baronet would not be induced to refrain from pressing for an inquiry.
252
Sir J. Newport
briefly replied, and adverted to the different topics urged in opposition to the motion. It had been contended, that the children were to be maintained in the Charter Schools, because no opportunity occurred of placing them out to trade. But, did the House know why they remained in that manner upon the foundation of the school? Why, because they were so badly educated that no one would take them for apprentices. So that, although the House paid enormous sums for their education, they never received any which could enable them to advance themselves in the world. Was not this a fit subject for inquiry? It was said, that these persons might still be taken as apprentices; but he did not think it very likely that any one would take those young men, at twenty-one years old, whom they had refused at sixteen. The Charter Schools, it ought to be recollected, were already inquired into. The right hon. baronet then alluded to the item for the support of the Society to Discountenance Vice, and observed, that one of the sums of 1,000
l
List of the Minority.
Althorp, visct.
Clements, Visct.
Archdeckne, A.
Clive, E. B.
Barclay, C.
Colborne, N. R.
Baring, A.
Curteis, E. G.
Baring, F
Dawson, A.
Baring, W. B.
Davies, T.
Birch, J.
Davenport, E. D.
Brownlow, C.
Ebrington, viset.
Calcraft, J.
Easthope, J.
Calvert, N.
Euston, earl of
253
Fazakerly, J. N.
Parnell, sir H.
Ferguson, R. C.
Ponsonby, hon. W. S.
Grattan, J.
Ponsonby, hon. G.
Grattan, H.
Portman, E. B.
Grosvenor, gen.
Pryse, P.
Gordon, R.
Price, Robert
Guise, sir B. W.
Rickford, W.
Guest, J.
Robinson, sir G.
Harvey, D. W.
Robinson, George
Heathcote, G. J.
Russell, lord J.
Howick, visct.
Russell, lord W.
Hume, J.
Rumbold, C. E.
Ingleby, sir W.
Smith, J.
Jephson, C.
Smith, W.
Kennedy, I. F.
Stuart, H. Villiers
King, hon. R.
Stanley, hon. E. G.
Lamb, hon. G.
Sebright, sir J.
Lennard, T. B.
Thompson, C. P.
Langston, J. H.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Lombe, E.
Tomes, John
Maberly, J.
Wall, C. B.
Maberly, W. L.
Warburton, H.
Marshall, W.
Webbe, Ed.
Maule, hon. W.
Wood, ald.
Monck, J. B.
$nbsp;
Morpeth, visct.
TELLERS.
Newport, sir J.
Duncannon, visct.
O'Brien, L.
Rice, T. S.
COURT OF CHANCERY.] Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, that it was only within the last five minutes he had been apprised of the intention of the law officers of the Crown to oppose the motions of which he had given notice; and he was at a loss to conjecture on what grounds this opposition could be given. The House would recollect that the bill for regulating the practice of the court of Chancery, had been deferred to the 4th of May, when doubtless a long and important discussion would take place; but he would venture to assert, that no satisfactory result could flow from that debate, in the absence of the information sought for by his motions. It was not to be denied that the proposed bill contained many useful reformations in the practice, and some commendable curtailments in the expenses, of the court; but these were altogether subordinate to the crying evils arising from the delay in disposing of the causes when matured for hearing. It was little consolation to a patient to be brought to the physician's door in a sedan, if he waited for hours before he could obtain a prescription: and how was it possible for the House to provide a remedy, unless it was in possession of the nature and extent of the evil? This information would be supplied by the motions he now intended to make;
254
Mr. Attorney General
said, it was apparent that under the cover of this motion, the real object was to make an attack on the lord Chancellor. The return for which the hon. gentleman moved was not at all calculated to further this object; for even if it should be shown that the lord Chancellor had not disposed of many causes, it did not follow that his time had not been otherwise fully, and to the public, satisfactorily exercised. This subject had already been sufficiently handled by the report of the parliamentary committee, who had stated in the appendix to their report, the business done by the lord Chancellor,
de die in diem.
255
Mr. M. A. Taylor
said, that at that late hour of the evening it was not his intention to go at any length into the subject of the court of Equity, or into any of the momentous matters which that subject involved. Until he, saw the notice of this motion, which was inserted in the order-book of the House, he had received no intimation of it; therefore, as to any attack which was to be made, by means of it, upon the lord Chancellor, he was perfectly guiltless. He begged, however, the attention of his hon. and learned friend the attorney-general, while he said, that if he (Mr. Taylor) was the friend of the lord Chancellor—as he was sure he was not his enemy—the last thing he could have done would have been to rise in his place and resist the motion which had just been made. He thought that if, upon any occasion, a judge was attacked, it was the duty of his friends to bring before the House all the facts relating to his conduct, so that a decision might be formed, whether the attack had been made fairly or unfairly. The motion before the House, without being at all an attack upon the lord Chancellor, was calculated to give the House the knowledge necessary to be possessed by them, before they came to a decision on some questions of great importance, which were about to be brought before them, connected with the court of Chancery. The returns would particularly furnish the House with the means of judging whether the lord Chancellor had or had not more business to do than it was possible for him to perform; and whether the suitors of the court of Chancery had that prompt and satisfactory administration of justice to which they were entitled. The House would then be enabled to say—the subject being fairly placed before them,—whether the lord Chancellor's duties were such as ought to be imposed upon him. There could be no blame imputed to the Chancellor, if it were shown that the delays in his court arose from his having—as he would on some future occasion, show he had—more to do than it was in the power of any human being to dispose of. In this House, he and every other member had a right to know what was the nature of the Chancellor's duties, and the manner in which they were performed. Was there
256
257
258
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he must confess himself a little surprised at the course which the hon. member had taken, and at the
259
260
Mr. Ferguson
denied that the present motion was a personal attack upon the lord Chancellor. He had read the report, with the appendix. If the information now required was not to be found in that report, it ought to be produced ["It is not there," from all parts of the House]. The present motion concluded with a return of the number of cases referred by the lord Chancellor to the Vice-chancellor. This was not contained in the report; and it was most material information for the House to possess. In 1814, the Vice-chancellor's court was established. It was a new jurisdiction, but dependent on the lord Chancellor. The Vice-chancellor was now about to have an original jurisdiction; and was it not most important for the House to have full information upon the business transacted in that court? It was useful to see how the lord Chancellor was drawn away from his business by the vice-chancery court. The report of the commission comprised a body of valuable information; but was it not material to have the means of deciding what part of the judgments of the Chancellor might be transferred to other tribunals? If it should turn out, that nearly all the causes in the chancellor's paper were transferred to the Vice-chancellor, it would be much better that the system should be changed. The number of appeals in the House of Lords was another important subject, which it was necessary to consider before the bill came before the House. He had a high opinion of the lord Chancellor; but he thought the information should not be refused.
Mr. A. Dawson
said, that the motion was not confined to the court of Chancery, but related to five other courts: the sensitiveness of the Attorney General, and his alarm at an attack upon the lord Chancellor, were therefore misplaced. If, as the Secretary of State had said, the information required in the present motion was
261
Mr. Hobhouse
was surprised that so important a motion should be left to the opposition of only two law officers on the ministerial benches, and who differed from each other. The proposed bill was called for by the whole country, to put an end to the great abuses in the court of Chancery; and, considering its contents, he thought that the country had not been dealt fairly with by ministers. It was strange that the Master of the Rolls, who had introduced the bill, and who was responsible for it, should not be present at this discussion. The Attorney-general, instead of meeting the question with argument, had endeavoured to construe it into an invidious attack upon the Chancellor. It was too much for the Secretary of State to tell the House, that it was humiliatory for the lord Chancellor to have his conduct and his purposes questioned. He would tell the right hon. gentleman, that it would indeed be most humiliatory to the nation, if the House forbore to put the questions involved in the present motion. Because members of that House moved for papers calculated to elucidate the abuses of the Chancery court, were they to be told that party motives prompted them against the lord Chancellor? He knew the lord Chancellor only in his connexion with the political history of the country; and he would recognize him as no such man as his friends represented him. He viewed him as intimately connected with all the great political measures, the object of which was to put down the improving spirit of the age. He believed his lordship to be the principal antagonist
262
263
Mr. Secretary Canning
said, he did not know why the hon. gentleman had fixed on him to account for the absence of the master of the Rolls. He could only say, which was as far as he knew, that the learned gentleman was not there. He had, probably, been more agreeably employed, as it was evident the hon. gentleman had, than in attending to the debates of that House [a laugh]. If the hon. gentleman asked him, why the master of the Rolls was not there to propose the second reading of his bill, he must reply, that the second reading had been put off at the express desire of the gentlemen opposite; and, therefore, to ask him why the master of the Rolls was not present to move the second reading, was, of all unreasonable interrogatories, the most unreasonable. The master of the Rolls had objected to putting off the second reading, but he had done it at the request of members opposite. He would not say that that request was a final bargain; but he would say, that it did imply, that, during the interval asked for by the gentlemen opposite, and granted by the master of the Rolls, no motion should be brought forward so very like the second reading of that bill, that it could not be distinguished by the optics of the hon. gentleman. He had not, however, then brought forward
264
Mr. D. W. Harvey,
in reply, observed, that while he would not imitate the vitiated taste of the Attorney-general, in ascribing motives to hon. members, he would remind the learned gentleman, that he was the last man who ought to resort to this hazardous course, for he could not be unmindful that he had been open to very severe misconstruction. At the time when the learned gentleman disrobed himself of his equity apparel, and entered the court of King's-bench as the hired defender of treason, it was remarked, that he had volunteered to be the eulogist of Watson and Thistlewood, to mortify the lord Chancellor for overlooking those high endowments which had since been substantially recognized [hear, hear]. It had been said, that this motion was an attack
265
List of the Minority.
Althorp, viscount
Lester, B. L.
Archdeckne, A.
Lombe, E.
Baillie, J.
Lumley, J. G.
Baring, F.
Maberley, J.
Baring, W. B.
Maberley, W. L.
Birch, J.
Macdonald, sir J.
Calcraft, J.
Maitland, visc.
Calvert, N.
Maitland, hon. A.
Clements, vise.
Marjoribanks, S.
Clive, E. B.
Marshall, W.
Davies, T.
Maule, hon. W. R.
Davenport, E. D.
Monck, J. B.
Dawson, A.
Morpeth, visc.
Dick, Quintin
Pallmer, C. N.
Dickinson, W.
Ponsonby, hon. G.
Du Cane, P.
Ponsonby, hon. W. S.
Duncannon, visc.
Rice, T. S.
Dundas, hon. sir R.
Rickford, W.
Easthope, John
Robinson, sir G.
Ebrington, visc.
Robinson, G. R.
Euston, earl of
Sebright, sir J.
Fazakerley, J. N.
Smith, W.
Fergusson, sir R.
Stuart, H. Villiers
Gordon, R.
Taylor, M. A.
Graham, sir J.
Thompson, C. P.
Grattan, H.
Tierney, right hon. G.
Greene, T.
Warburton, H.
Guest, J.
Western, C. C.
Guise, sir W.
Wilson, sir R.
Heathcote, G. J.
Wood, alderman
Howard, H.
Wood, C.
Howick, visc.
$#nbsp;
Hume, J.
TELLERS.
Kennedy, T. F.
Ferguson, R. C.
Langston, J. H.
Harvey, D. W.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, April 6.
[SPRING GUNS BILL.]
The Report of
266
Lord Ellenborough
gave notice, that he should move, unless some other noble lord did so, upon the third reading of the bill, that nothing in the act should extend to prohibit the placing of Spring-guns in houses or walled-gardens.
Lord Suffield
stated, that when the noble baron brought forward his amendment, he should then think it necessary to oppose it. He now rose for leave to withdraw the clause relative to bringing actions, as it was wholly useless; because, as the placing of Spring-guns was made a misdemeanour by the act, an action at law followed as a matter of course.—Agreed to.
The Marquis of Lansdown
moved to except from the operation of the act, that which he thought ought to be excepted, the inside of houses, because he felt that such exception was in accordance with the principle of the bill; which was, that no individual should be permitted to do that by indirect means which he had no right to do by direct means. But it was lawful to repel by violence every act of violence; and it was an act of violence for a person to break into a man's house. The principle of the bill also went to prevent the employment of Spring-guns wherever innocent persons might fall upon them, and where individuals might go without warning. But if Spring-guns were placed in the inside of houses, it must be supposed that the father of the family would take care to let every person in the House be acquainted with the places where Spring-guns were set. He had not himself been in the habit of setting Spring-guns; but he knew that some persons set them in particular places of the house, which were considered weak points, where the house might be easily entered; and he knew that setting those Spring-guns in those spots had the desired effect of giving protection, by terrifying robbers from attempting them. He had had the assistance of the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, who had drawn up the clause to except the inside of houses from the operation of the act.
Lord Suffield
felt it his duty to oppose the introduction of this clause. He would venture to say, that the noble marquis was wrong in his law, as to shooting at a person in a dwelling-house. He believed that if a person was in the act of forcibly entering the dwelling-house of any man, he
267
The Earl of Abingdon
said, that as the noble lord had so earnestly looked at him, he must say that he had neither shot himself, or been the means of shooting his wife and daughter. But he would tell the noble lord, that if he should attempt forcibly to enter his house, he would shoot him in the attempt, and leave him to prove his intention afterwards [a laugh].
The Earl of Malmesbury
thought it perfectly clear that a man was justified in shooting any persons endeavouring forcibly to intrude themselves into his dwelling-house at night. In fact, they forfeited their lives by the illegality of the act they were engaged in; and he thought there was more danger to be apprehended from keeping loaded fire-arms in the house than from Spring- guns.
The Lord Chancellor
observed, that it was difficult to say what was the weight of judicial opinions with respect to setting Spring-guns; but he believed that wherever due notice was given of their being set, such engines were not illegal.
Lord Ellenborough
agreed with the learned lord, and by way of amendment proposed to except also "hot-houses or other buildings" from the operations of this act.
The Earl of Harrowby
instanced greenhouses, which, as well as hot-houses, might require such protection, and which would, according to the present exceptions, be included within the operation of the
268
The Lord Chancellor
said, it was extremely dangerous to take upon themselves to say what was the law upon such a subject. The law must depend entirely on all the circumstances of the case.
GAME LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.]
On the motion of lord Wharncliffe, that the House should resolve itself into a committee on this bill,
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, that having moved for certain returns, showing the increase of crime within the last few years, and as those returns, in pursuance of their lordships' orders, were now in progress, he should, for the present, postpone delivering his opinion on the subject, especially as he understood that the third reaching of the bill would not be permitted to pass without sonic discussion. The knowledge to be derived from those returns, with respect to the alarming increase of crime of late years in this country, but more particularly in England, as regarded the crimes arising from the practice of poaching, was a subject deserving their most serious consideration, and to which, on the third reading of the bill, he should call their attention.
Lord Redesdale
objected strongly to the first clause, the object of which was to introduce a new system of qualifications for killing game, whereby greater facilities would be afforded for poaching than existed under the present. He had no objection to so much of the bill as rendered the sale of game legal; but he thought it would be advisable to require that every person selling game should I take out a licence for that purpose.
269
Lord Suffield
begged to express his dissent from the view which the learned lord took of this subject. The learned lord had talked of qualifications. Now, he contended, that they were not qualifications, but disqualifications, and that they were replete with injustice, as well as mischief.
The Marquis of Londonderry
observed, that the first clause of the bill went to repeal all the laws that had hitherto been enacted on this subject. Now, it was rather strange that, if those laws had been so destructive in their operation as they had been described to be, there should have been no petitions presented against them. Whatever might have been their effect in producing crime, he considered that the present bill was calculated to increase it. He did not disapprove, however, of the principle, that the sale of game ought to be permitted by law. It would be desirable that those who were at the expense of feeding it, should, when a quantity of it was killed, have those around them who might be at liberty to dispose of so much as was given to them. Indeed, one of the greatest pleasures derived from the possession of game was that of making presents of it to friends or tenants. To that part of the bill, therefore, he was perfectly willing to agree. But the clause now before the committee was so replete with experiments (indeed, this was the era of experiments, for we had experiments in free corn, free trade, and a free system of navigation laws), that he felt himself called upon to oppose it, and he trusted that, like other experiments, it would fail.
Lord Wharncliffe
assured the noble marquis, that he would find himself in a miserable minority in the country, whatever he might here, in his attempt to uphold the present system of qualifications; which were in violation of every notion of common justice. Was it justice that, when game came upon another man's land, and were fed upon it, he was not to have any claim to it? He contended, that the present bill did not give any new rights, but only confirmed those which existed, and quoted lord Coke, and other authorities to show that the old law gave a man a qualified property in the game on his own land.
The Lord Chancellor
did not approve of the existing system of qualifications, but, at the same time, he was not prepared
270
The Duke of Richmond
said, that the present Game -laws were most unjust in their operation. As to the effect apprehended from the bill before the committee, that it would be attended with the destruction of the game, there was just as much reason to apprehend it at present; because any man who now chose to destroy the game, might do so by laying poison in his field, which the law did not prevent him from doing. He considered the whole system of our Game-laws so objectionable, that he would vote for any alteration in them which might be proposed. It was not by law that game was now protected, but by an armed force.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, April 6.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.]
Admiral Sotheron presented a petition from Nottingham, signed by upwards of one thousand individuals, against any further concessions to Roman Catholics.
The Marquis of Chandos
took that opportunity of putting a question to the right hon. and learned gentleman, the Attorney-general for Ireland. Two or three years ago, an act had been passed for putting down the Catholic Association. Now, it was notorious that that body had, in defiance of that act, continued their meetings, and assumed, in all their proceedings, the stamp and character of a
271
Sir William Plunkett
said, that if the noble lord put that question to him, in his individual capacity, as a member of parliament, he would answer it by saying, that the act spoken of was not introduced by him, though it had his full concurrence and support, as well as that of the noble lord himself. When the noble lord inquired of whether or not it was his intention to propose to parliament any additional regulations, or to introduce any new act of the kind, he had only to reply that he had no such intention. If the latter question were put to him as an humble individual, belonging to the Irish government, instead of answering it, he would refer the noble lord to his right hon. friends near him, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the Secretary to the lord-lieutenant of Ireland, who would give to him such answers as they thought proper. The noble lord had been kind enough to apprise him of his intention of putting these questions; and he begged to offer his thanks for that courtesy, but, at the same time, he must say, that the question which called on him to state why he did not carry into effect the act referred to, was a question that implied the affirmation of a distinct proposition, and one which should not come before the House in the form of a question. Whenever the noble lord thought right to bring it before the House in its proper form, and to make a motion on the subject, he should, so far as he was concerned, be prepared to meet it; in doing which he should certainly feel no difficulty. He could assure the noble lord, that if he had to perform the arduous task of instituting, or forbearing to institute, proceedings, he would find abundant occupation, without having to meet every casual question that hon. members might think proper to put. He had only further to observe, that there was no act which he had done or forborne to do, in
272
General Gascoyne
thought, that the answers given by the right hon. gentleman were by no means satisfactory, and trusted that the noble lord would not rest content with them, but would bring the subject under the consideration of the House.
Colonel Trench
said, that the Roman Catholic Association had assumed to itself the powers which belonged to the Crown and government. The Attorney-general of Ireland had not, however, thought it right to take those steps, which, under the authority of the bill in question, would have enabled him to put down the Association. He spoke the opinions of the majority in Ireland, when he said that the bill, if properly carried into effect, was sufficient for the purpose. It had often been stated in that House, that Catholic emancipation was the remedy for all the evils of Ireland. This he denied. He firmly believed that even the discussion of the question would prove a ground of further dispute and contest ["Question! question!"]. He would not trespass upon the House many minutes. He wished to say a few words, because he believed that Catholic emancipation was no remedy for the calamities of Ireland. He would not take more than five minutes. He would shew what were the remedies for the evils under which Ireland laboured. In what state was Ireland? They were told, from the highest authority, that Ireland was in a most disturbed state, owing to the operations of the Catholic Association, and to the violent and inflammatory speeches that were uttered by its members, as well as elsewhere. They had heard a right hon. and learned member of the Irish government say, that Ireland was in a disturbed state. "The state of Ireland," said the hon. colonel, "is this—here lie the combustibles, and there stands the man with the match in his hand" [cheers and laughter, with cries of name, name]. He should use his own discretion as to naming the gentleman to whom he alluded. He bore no personal ill will to any individual in that House; but he was not one of those who could deposit all his feelings, and lay them aside the moment he left the House. They would still cling round his heart. A system of kindness and firmness on the part of government would
273
274
Mr. Secretary Peel rose,
for the purpose of deprecating the continuance of a discussion of which no notice had been given, and the occurrence of which could scarcely have been anticipated on an occasion like
275
276
Sir William Plunkett
observed, that so far as any individual responsibility could be supposed to attach to him, arising out of the question which had been put by the noble lord opposite, or the observations which were made by the honourable colonel, perhaps the House might think that he was relieved from the necessity of saying any thing, by the manly declaration of his right hon. friend, the Home Secretary, and the unequivocal testimony which that right hon. gentleman had borne to the conduct of his majesty's law officers in Ireland. On that topic, therefore, he should not add another word. But the House might think it extraordinary if he were to permit some observations, which had fallen from the hon. member who spoke last but one in the discussion, to go without a reply. The hon. member had thought fit to allude, in a most pointed manner, to a speech which he (sir W. Plunkett) had made about three weeks ago in that House, on the subject of the Roman Ca-
277
278
279
Colonel Trench
said, he had been induced to call the attention of the House to this subject, in order that hon. members might turn their attention to the matter during the recess. When the right hon. and learned gentleman had delivered the speech to which he alluded, upon the Catholic question, he thought he was listening to another learned gentleman in another place. Mr. O'Connell, the learned gentleman to whom he alluded, had lately written a very sensible letter to the Irish Roman Catholics, recommending them to preserve peace and quietness; but the speech of the right hon. and learned gentleman in that House, upon a recent occasion, was, in his view, more deserving of prosecution than was the speech of Mr. Sheill, which the right hon. and learned gentleman had recently been roused to prosecute. He did not know much of the right hon. and learned gentleman, save by the reputation of his eloquence and celebrity as a public man, and the excellence of his character in private life; but he felt called upon as an Irishman and an honest man, to take the course he had done upon that occasion. As to his change of opinion upon this question, he freely avowed it. He admitted that, in 1812, he was a strenuous advocate for Catholic emancipation. In advocating that question he had quarrelled with some of his nearest and dearest friends. But he was not then sufficiently acquainted with the real state of Ireland. He now possessed some property in that country. He had for years been a daily witness of the evils which arose from the system pursued by the Irish Catholics and their ad-
280
CHANGE OF MINISTRY.] Sir. E. Knatchbull rose
for the purpose of making a suggestion to the hon. baronet near him; a suggestion which he hoped would have the effect of inducing him to withdraw his notice of that motion which had excited so much interest in the country. He thought that, when he referred to circumstances which all the world knew, the hon. baronet would see in those circumstances sufficient to justify him in requesting the hon. baronet to withdraw his motion altogether, and that, too, without questioning either the propriety of the motion, or the soundness of judgment which the hon. baronet had exercised in framing it.
Sir T. Gooch
agreed with the suggestion thrown out by the hon. member for Kent; and he trusted that the hon. member for Somersetshire, taking into consideration the circumstances to which allusion had been made, would withdraw his motion. At present, it could not he brought forward either with benefit to the country or to the House. The hon. baronet who had proposed the motion must be aware of what every one else knew; namely, that his majesty was in town, and that, if the new administration had not actually been formed, matters were in a train for settlement.
Sir T. Lethbridge
said, he must confess that what he had heard from his two hon. friends had made some impression upon him. The observations they had made had thrown him into a situation of great difficulty; and he could hardly say at that moment what course he should determine to pursue. He could assure them, that he was always most anxious to submit his opinion to the judgment of others; and if, upon this occasion, he could ascertain the sense of the House, he would adopt it; but he had no means of doing so. No one valued the judgment of his two hon. friends more than he did, but he confessed he could not, on this occasion, at once determine to follow their advice. He entertained a due sense of the nature of the motion; which, he was well aware, involved a matter of great delicacy and importance. Many of his majesty's ministers were now in the House; and, if he could understand from them that there was no necessity for the motion of which
281
Mr. Secretary Canning
said, that if he understood aright the propositions of the hon. baronet opposite, they amounted, in effect, to this, that whereas the hon. baronet had given a notice which, in his discretion, he thought right, for carrying-up to the Throne the opinions of that House, as to the principles on which an administration ought to be formed, he was prepared to withdraw that motion, or at least to desist now from pressing it upon the House, if he learned that an administration either was, or was on the eve of being, formed. Now, as to the fact whether there were any arrangements in progress, he should have thought, that those circumstances which he stated a few days since, and the fact of his majesty's arrival in town that clay, would have afforded a sufficient ground for the exercise of the discretion of any honourable member. But, certainly, he must say, that he was as much at a loss to comprehend the arguments on which the hon. baronet was now prepared to withdraw the motion, as he had before been to comprehend the reasons on which the hon. baronet had been induced to make it. If the hon. baronet really thought the advice of the House was necessary in the formation of an administration, surely nothing short of the actual formation of that administration—nothing short of the fact of his counsel coming too late—could logically and reasonably form a justification for his withdrawing his motion. It was whimsical enough
282
Sir T. Lethbridge
certainly wanted no excuse to withdraw the motion. As the right hon. gentleman had afforded the House no information on the subject, he should feel bound to press his motion.
Colonel Wood
was about to explain the reason which had induced him to present himself to the House, but the cries of "Order, order! Chair, chair!" were so loud as to compel him to resume his seat.
The Speaker
then said, that the House could not fail to observe the inconvenience of proceeding with this discussion. Not only was there no question before the House, but when the hon. member for Somersetshire had been asked, in no very concise manner, to withdraw the motion of which he had given notice, he had distinctly declined doing so; and the hon. member would, therefore, see the necessity of postponing any observations he might have to make, until that motion came regularly before the House.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—THREATENING LETTERS SENT TO MR. SECRETARY PEEL.] The Speaker
said, he had to call the attention of the House to a subject of some importance, inasmuch as it involved deeply the privileges of the House. He had just had put into his hands three letters, addressed by a person signing himself "H. C. Jennings," to the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department; in the first of which, he commented on part of a speech which he presumed to have been made two or three nights ago, by that right hon. member, and in no very courteous terms contradicted its assertions. The second letter was still more violent; and in the third, written this day, he declared his intention of making an answer to the right hon. member from the gallery of the House. Under these circumstances, the House would feel that as soon as the matter came to his (the Speaker's) knowledge, he had but one course to pursue, to acquaint the House with it,
283
"Norfolk Street, Strand, Tuesday Morning.
"H. C. JENNINGS."
"The Right Hon. Secretary Peel."
"18 Norfolk Street, Strand, April 5.
284
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he should perhaps be excused for stating the circumstances under which he had transmitted these letters to the Speaker. As he had received the last of them at four o'clock that day, he thought it possible, from what was therein stated, that a breach of decorum might be committed, and he had therefore deemed it best to send them to the Speaker. He had not had an opportunity of communicating with the right hon. gentleman upon the subject; and he
285
Mr. Hume
said, he had received letters from Mr. H. Jennings, complaining in the same manner as in the letter to the right hon. Secretary of State. His impression had been, that the right hon. Secretary had alluded to Mr. H. Jennings. Now,
286
Mr. Secretary Canning
said, that however painful it might be to proceed against an individual circumstanced as Mr. Jennings was, it was impossible to let the matter pass by quite in the way proposed by the hon. member for Aberdeen. The letters were a manifest breach of privilege; and he should therefore move, that Mr. Jennings be ordered to attend at the bar of the House on Monday next.—Agreed to.
CORN DUTIES BILL.]
On the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill,
Sir T. Lethbridge
said, that considering the feeling which the House had displayed a short time since upon the subject of his motion, he should deem it best now to withdraw it, reserving to himself, at no distant time, the right of bringing the question before the House, not exactly in the same form, but, undoubtedly, in a similar shape.
Mr. E. D. Davenport
said—Sir, having, on former occasions, tried in vain to attract your attention in the earlier stages of this bill, I hope I shall be allowed to avail myself of this opportunity to address the House on a subject to which I have paid of late years much attention, and of which I can scarcely have avoided to acquire somewhat of practical experience; and I am the more desirous to do so, because I take a view of it somewhat different from many of those with whom I have voted. The measure itself has my
287
bona fide
288
Years.
Wheat.
Millions aggregate Currency.
1818
84
46
1819
73
42
1820
65
38
1821
54
34
1822
43
31
1823
52
35
1824
61
39
1825
66
42
1826
57
36
289
Sir C. Cole
hoped the right hon. gentleman would consent to substitute a lower price for that at present contemplated, at which to allow a free importation of foreign grain. In a petition which he had presented to the House, from his constituents, there was a prayer to substitute 70s. for 80s., as was the law at present; but he, himself, thought 64s. would be still more likely to meet the wants and wishes of the country. Such a proceeding would have been but an act of justice towards the agriculturists, to which they were entitled. The supporters of the present bill had advocated it, on the ground that it would afford relief to the poorer classes; but he was of opinion that it would not operate in that way. The moment the price of wheat was reduced, the manufacturers would reduce the rate of wages. At all events, the agriculturists could not continue to pay their labourers at the same rate under the proposed law, as they did under the existing one. The moment the present measure should he adopted, the landed interest would be entitled to call for a considerable reduction of taxation.
Mr. Birch
thought it desirable that it should be clearly understood whether or not the warehousing system would be applicable to corn under the proposed measure: for unless that were the case, it would, in his opinion, be perfectly nugatory.
Mr. C. Grant
begged to offer a very brief explanation of the connection between this bill and the general warehousing system. It certainly was the intention of ministers, that bonding should be applied as well to corn as to all other commodities paying a duty; and by the second clause, he conceived that that intention was carried into effect. The warehousing system was the general law of the land at this moment, and without reference to the particular provisions, it would be applied to grain as a matter of course. In order to render this object more clear, he should propose to leave out the words "imported or," and to leave the clause only with. the words "all corn which shall be entered," &c.
Colonel Wood
wished to know distinctly whether, as far as warehousing was concerned, corn was to be put on the same footing as any other article on which duty
290
Mr. Alderman Atkins
recommended, that the duty should be paid according to the price when the wheat was first imported.
Mr. C. Grant
explained the general nature and object of the warehousing system, and re-stated that the duty upon warehoused articles was calculated according to the price of the day when they were taken out for home consumption. The simple principle adopted in the bill upon the table was, that the duty upon corn was to be fixed exactly like other duties: the only question for the collector ought to be, what was the price on the day when the corn was removed from the warehouse? It was true, that the duty on corn was fluctuating; but the duty on sugar was also fluctuating; and when that was entered for home consumption, the duty of the day attached upon it. The warehousing system had been applied to corn as long ago as the year 1773, when the great corn act was passed. It was provided by it, that corn, grain, flour, &c. should be admitted into warehouse, under the importers' locks, without payment of duty, and that when the importer brought it into home consumption, the duty to be charged was at the rate of the day when it was released from confinement. The duty at that time could not be correctly called fixed, inasmuch as it was 15s. per quarter, when the price was under 53s.; and only 6d. per quarter afterwards. The principle now revived had, therefore, in fact, been in operation fifty years ago.
Colonel Wood
said, he had been desirous of clearly understanding the point; but what had just been stated made it necessary for him to propose, that constant importations of corn should not be permitted under the new system. To effect this object, he would strike out the words "at all times," in order to substitute an amendment. He denied that the Corn-law of 1815 was the only instance of absolute prohibition. There certainly -was in the former Corn-laws a proviso, which, under some circumstances, amounted, in effect, to an absolute prohibition. With respect to fluctuations, it was impossible
291
l
l
Lord Althorp
was decidedly opposed to the principle of prohibition, which always gave rise to the most mischievous speculations. Whenever a prohibition was fixed, the moment the prices approached close to the prohibitory price ruinous speculations were entered into, and tricks played.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
suggested that the amendment had better be proposed at a future stage of the bill.
Sir E. Knatchbull
then rose to propose an amendment, of which he had previously given some intimation. He wished his proposition to stand thus—that the duty taken on all foreign corn should be estimated by the amount of the home price at the time of its importation, and not at
292
Mr. Warburton
said, that his proposal of a fixed duty had been constantly objected to, upon the ground that, in a time of scarcity, no fixed duty could ever be maintained. Now the amendment of the hon. member for Kent, involved a fixed duty of a peculiarly oppressive description. It was possible that corn might be at 80s. or 100s. in the home market, and yet 20s. duty would be charged on the letting into the market of foreign corn, because that corn had been imported when the price was 60s.
Mr. C. Grant
brought up a clause, the object of which was, to give to his majesty in council a power of prohibiting the importation of grain or flour from any country in which higher duties should be levied on the produce and manufactures of this country than on the produce and manufactures of foreign countries, or in which higher duties should be levied on British shipping than on the shipping of that country.
Mr. Hume
objected to the clause, as a departure from the principles laid down by ministers.
Sir H. Parnell
was of opinion that the power of prohibiting the importation of corn might be abused.
Mr. C. P. Thompson
objected most strongly to the introduction of this clause. He objected to it on principle in the first instance, and as contrary to the professed
293
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, April 9.
STATE OF THE MINISTRY.] Lord King
said, that seeing half a dozen of his majesty's ministers present, such as they were, he wished to ask them two or three questions. He would not ask them whether or not the Irish were starving; for about that they knew nothing, and he believed cared nothing. He would not ask them about things nearer home—he would not ask them whether England was prosperous—for that was a part of the government which belonged to none of their departments. He would not ask whether Portugal was safe or not; for one half of them would rejoice if the plan
294
secundum artem
l
l
295
Menus Plaisirs
sine die
SPRING-GUNS BILL.] Lord Suffield
moved the third reading of this bill,
Lord Ellenborough rose
to oppose the motion. He could not, he said, consent to pass an act, which left the law on this subject in its present state of uncertainty, This would be the case as long as the word engine was retained in the bill. That word, in its widest sense, meant any thing which might inflict an injury, and their lordships would be obliged to remove every thing like a spike or a fence from around their houses. In a more restricted sense, if it were understood to mean any thing which only inflicted injury by being set in
296
qui facit per alium facit per se;
Lord Suffield
said, that all the arguments urged by the noble lord had been so frequently answered in former debates, that he would not trespass upon their patience by any further reply to them; satisfied as he was, that they considered the bill a good one, and that they would pass it.
297
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, April 9.
COUNTY COURTS.] Mr. John Smith
presented a petition from the inhabitants of Brighton, complaining of the serious evils which arose from the abuses of the practice of the County Courts. The petitioners alleged, that these courts frequently granted seizures for sums treble the amount of the original debt, and this enormous increase was generally caused by the costs, which swallowed up every thing else. The hon. member stated, that some matters which had fallen within his own experience fully proved the truth of the statements contained in the petition, and among others he mentioned the case of a poor woman, who was sued for a debt of 14
s
s
298
Mr. M. A. Taylor
confirmed what had been stated by the hon. member, and declared, that he believed no persons were
299
Mr. Monck
concurred with the observations of his two honourable friends, and begged to add his testimony, with respect to the evils caused by the abuses of these courts.
DEVON AND CORNWALL MINING COMPANY—PETITION COMPLAINING OF ABUSES] Mr. Alderman Waithman rose
to present a Petition from certain subscribers to the Devon and Cornwall Mining Company, complaining of the transactions of the directors of that company. He observed, that the subject of the petition was one of great importance, inasmuch as it not only involved the reputation of some of the members of that House, but even, as it seemed to him, the character and honour of the House itself. The petition, too, the more deserved their attention, as it did not contain a general complaint accusing any one in vague terms, but consisted of a number of distinct facts, stated in detail. It stated, among a variety of other things, that an hon. gentleman, a member of that House, did, some time in the month of April, 1825, enter into a contract with a Mr. Teed, of Devonshire, for the purchase of certain mines in that part of the country—that the contract so entered into between them was conditional, and not absolute, and was to become void, unless the hon. member who made it should succeed in forming a Mining Company. The purchase money agreed on was about 78,000
l
300
l
l
l
301
Mr. Alderman Waithman
requested that it might be read at full length, as it contained such important matter.
Mr. John Wilks
said, that he too was anxious that it might be read at length, as he had something to say upon it.
302
Mr. Wynn
requested the House to consider whether it would be expedient to adopt this course. The house of Commons was not a criminal tribunal, it was, indeed, one of the chambers of the supreme Court of Parliament, and its duty was to afford redress in cases for which the law had not otherwise provided; but he could conceive nothing more injurious to, or subversive of, the principles on which the law of the land rested, than for parliament to permit itself to determine cases for which that law had given a sufficient remedy. He knew the facts only from the petition; and, as he understood them, the charge referred to an individual who was not a member of the House at the time when the ground of complaint arose. He was accused of having been guilty of certain acts of fraud, for which he might be questioned in a court of justice; and he understood further, that proceedings at law were actually pending [hear, hear!] Was it desirable, then, that the party accused should be called upon to enter into a defence which might prejudice his case hereafter? Unquestionably the House of Commons was competent to enter into any inquiry if it were thought that the public interest gravely required it, and with a view to direct the proceedings to be made by the law officers of the Crown. If the matter, however, did not seem of such magnitude, and if it was actually already pending in a court of law, it would probably be left to the investigation of that tribunal which the parties had already selected. A necessity might exist for stepping out of the ordinary course, but it might be highly inconvenient, in ordinary eases, to require a member prematurely to enter into the merits of his case. He therefore recommended that the Petition should lie upon the table, but that no further publicity be given to it by an order for printing it.
Lord Palmerston
said, that it was a matter of perfect indifference to him how the House proceeded; but, as his name had been mentioned as one of the directors, he hoped to be allowed to state briefly and simply the nature of his connection with the company. In the first place, he had had no concern with any arrangements for the formation of the company; at the meeting for that purpose, alluded to in the petition, he was not present. It was
303
bona fide
304
Mr. Powlett
hoped, that as he also had been alluded to in the petition he might be allowed to address a few words to the House. He knew nothing of the original formation of the company. He entered into it about the same time as his noble friend opposite. He had nothing to do with the purchase of the mines. All the preliminary measures were arranged before he entered into the company. When he received his shares, he paid the deposit which was demanded. He attended very few of the meetings, for he saw in the list of directors the names of two or three bankers, and of other individuals connected with eminent mercantile houses, which he considered a sufficient guarantee for the respectability of the company. He had paid every deposit when called upon, and had not received a single farthing. If any individuals had received money improperly, he regretted that his name should have been coupled with theirs. He hoped he had justified himself in the eyes of the House [cheers].
Mr. John Wilks,
member for Sudbury, rose and said:—
audi alteram partem
305
306
307
l
l
308
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
bonâ fide
309
l
l
bonâ fide
l
310
311
312
313
l
314
l
l
l
l
315
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
316
317
l
l
318
319
l
s
l
s
l
l
l
l
s
l
s
320
l
s
l
s
bonâ fide
321
bonâ fide
l
s
322
bonâ fide
323
l
324
l
l
l
l
325
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
326
bonâ fide
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
327
l
l
l
328
bonâ fide
bonâ fide
bonâ fide
bonâ fide
329
l
l
l
l
330
331
l
332
333
334
335
ex parte
336
Mr. Bankes
said, he had not stopped the hon. member for Sudbury in many of the topics which he had unnecessarily introduced into his speech, only because the hon. member had so deep a personal interest in the question. The short point for consideration was, whether this petition should be printed? There could be no doubt as to the receiving it. But if the hon, gentleman who had presented it moved to have it printed, he should oppose the motion.
Mr. G. Robinson
contended, that the House were, in consistency, bound to go further. They had already entertained a petition, the result of which was before them in the able report then lying on the table. They could not, therefore, refuse to entertain this petition. On the discus-
337
338
Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, that the imputations conveyed by this petition involved an important principle; namely, under what circumstances, and at what period, that House should entertain charges, of whatever kind, against its own members. The right hon. the President of the Board of Control had stated it as his opinion, that the proper period, and the only time, for the House to exercise its high prerogative was, when all other means of inquiry were extinct. If there were any charges against the hon. member for Sudbury, criminal or otherwise, as long as the courts were open those courts, certainly, were the fit places to investigate them. This case was distinct from that of the Arigna Mining Company, which had immediate reference to an hon. member who then filled a distinguished situation in that House. The present question might assume the requisite degree of importance, if, indeed, the hon. member for Sudbury were likely soon to attain official eminence; or if, in the disturbed state of the administration, he should be called to succeed lord Liverpool; and certainly, if the hon. gentleman did not possess the talents, he had, at least, the moral strength of that distinguished individual [laughter]. The hon. gentleman had relied chiefly, and perhaps wisely, upon the success of his actions; for, though nobody doubted his professional dexterity, there were not a
339
340
l
l
Mr. Alderman Waithman rose
to reply. He contended, that if ever there was a case that called for investigation, it was this. The petitioners were men of high and well known integrity. He had before mentioned the name of Mr. Hammond, only to remind the House, that that gentleman was related to a namesake who
341
The Speaker.
—Any member of this House, who uses such language as that towards another member, is decidedly out of order. Whatever the honourable alderman may think, common decency requires that he should adopt a different form of expression.
Mr. Alderman Waithman.
—I have expressed myself strongly; but I submit myself to your correction. The hon. gentleman has charged me with dealing unfairly by him. Now, the fact is, that I deferred the presentation of this petition for a week, in consequence of a letter I received from him, in reply to a communication I made to him. Yet he complains that I shewed him no courtesy. After this instance of his candour, I repeat I should be afraid to say any thing to him but in
342
Mr. John Wilks.
—I rise to order. The hon. alderman is alluding to another matter, in which it is impossible that I can have an opportunity of replying.
Mr. Alderman Waithman
maintained, that the Welsh Iron Company was mentioned in the petition, and that it would be more creditable to the hon. member if he did not seek to throw impediments in the way of discussion. The hon. member for Liverpool had been applied to to become one of the directors of the Welsh Iron Company, but that hon. member refused to lend his name to the scheme, lest it should induce others to engage in a speculation which he could not control.
Mr. John Wilks.
—I rise to order. The hon. member states, that this is mentioned in the petition. Here there is an issue between us. The petition lies on the table; let the House decide.
Mr. Alderman Waithman
resumed. The hon. member for Liverpool refused to lend his name to the scheme, and he did Something more. A check was sent to him——
Mr. John Wilks.
— I rise to order——
The Speaker.
—The hon. member is new to this House; and it will be better if the hon. member relies a little upon others, to see that the House is not in a state of disorder.
Mr. Alderman Waithman
resumed. A check for 100
l
343
l
Mr. John Wilks.
—Name him.
The Speaker.
—Order!
Mr. Alderman Waithman
resumed. Another unfortunate man, who had been ruined by this fraudulent transaction, had cut his throat, and left a wife and eleven children destitute. The wife of another man, who had been ruined by it, had become insane. He was in possession of a number of similar distressing cases.
Mr. Wilks
trusted the House would not allow this libel upon himself and other hon. members to be printed and circulated, pending a legal inquiry into the truth of its allegations.
Mr. Alderman Waithman
said, he was entirely in the hands of the House as to future proceedings, having no personal feeling whatever beyond a desire to see justice done. He would not, however, press his motion now for printing the petition, but content himself with giving notice, that soon after the recess he would move that it be referred for the consideration of a select committee.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—H. C. JENNINGS REPRIMANDED.]
On the motion of Mr. Canning, the order of the day was read for the attendance of Mr. H. C. Jen-
344
The Speaker.
—What is your name?
Mr. Jennings.
—Henry Constantine Jennings.
The Speaker.
—Look at those letters; there are three of them; were they written by you?
Mr. Jennings.
—They were.
The Speaker.
—Have you any observation, or explanation, which you wish to offer, upon having written them?
Mr. Jennings,
in a feeble tone of voice, replied, that he was very ill at the time he wrote them, as the papers which he had in his hand would show, as well as in great anxiety of mind; but upon reflection, he was extremely sorry for having written them.
Mr. Secretary Peel
thought the demeanour of this individual at the bar of the House, and the observations he had made, entitled him to the lenient consideration of the House. It would be extremely painful to the House to visit the offence of this person, who represented himself to be in a state of ill health, with any severe measure of punishment; and he thought the acknowledgment of his error might be accepted as a sufficient atonement for it.
Mr. Secretary Canning
was of opinion, that as this individual had menaced the House with overhanging their debates, and addressing one of their members from the gallery, it would be necessary to take some preliminary steps, before discharging him from further attendance. He should move, therefore, that Constantine Jennings had been guilty of a breach of privilege, and that he be called in and reprimanded by the Speaker.
Mr. Hume
regretted that the right hon. gentleman felt it necessary to make this motion, because it involved a question of considerable importance. If a member of that House should make a statement respecting the character of an individual which was not correct, and should persist in taking no notice of repeated applications made to him to correct it, he really thought, though he did not defend the conduct of Mr. Jennings, that an individual, whose character would be so attacked, would be placed in a situation of considerable hardship.
345
Mr. Secretary Canning
thought it impossible to visit such an offence as that of which this individual had been guilty, however it might be apologised for, or however extenuated, with a less measure of punishment than that which he proposed to inflict upon him.
CORN DUTIES BILL.]
On the order of the day for the further consideration of the Report upon this bill,
Mr. Leycester
said, he thought that the duty imposed upon foreign corn imported into this country was a sufficient protection under ordinary circumstances; but, if there should be a deficient crop, the situation of the British agriculturist would be far from enviable. He differed from those who thought that the duty ought to be lower, because he was satisfied that the consequence of a lower duty would be the sacrifice of the English gentleman to advance the interests of the German baron.
Mr. Bernal
said, he observed, with
346
Mr. C. Grant
said, the object of the clause certainly was, to enable his majesty, with the advice of the Privy Council, to prohibit the importation of corn from Russia, Sweden, or any other foreign nation, which might abuse the generosity of England, by taking all the benefits of our system of relaxation, and imposing higher duties upon our shipping and goods in that country, than were exacted from the subjects of that nation who might import, in foreign ships, foreign corn into this country. In introducing that clause, the originators of the present measure had acted upon the principle which had regulated the measures hitherto introduced for the repeal of duties upon foreign goods imported in foreign vessels. In the year 1822, when his right hon. friend brought in his bill for allowing intercourse with the West Indies, there was inserted a clause, giving to the king in council a power of prohibiting all intercourse with those colonies in any such cases as those alluded to. In 1823, when they had gone a little further, and had done away with all discriminating duties as a principle, did they then deprive themselves of the power of imposing upon foreigners the necessity of adopting a reciprocity of duty, or else of shutting them out altogether? Certainly not. There existed then, as well as now, a clause, giving his majesty's government a power to re-enact those restrictions, and to establish a prohibition, should any foreign power shew a disposition to abuse our generosity. Upon this same principle, it was now proposed to act. The foreigner was told, that we had for our own benefit relaxed our prohibitory system of commerce, but that as he was
347
Mr. Hume
took the clause to be a deviation from the principles on which the bill had set out. He had no objection to the establishment of countervailing duties; but he thought that to recognize a prohibition under any circumstances, was repugnant to the measure before the House. It would place a most offensive power in the hands of the government, and might militate, in a very serious manner, against the shipping interest.
Sir J. Newport
repeated the objections he had urged against that part of the bill which allowed the importation of flour, as it must tend materially to the injury of Ireland; but, as he had already taken the sense of the House upon it, he would abstain from going any further at present. The House having assented to the principle of the bill, he thought it right to allow it a fair trial, and not make it a measure of annual experiment. With this view, he hoped it would be allowed to continue in operation for a fixed period; say three or five years.
Mr. C. Grant
expressed his regret at having been obliged to oppose the right hon. baronet, whose opinions and judgment he highly valued, upon that part of this measure, which affected Ireland; and he sincerely hoped and trusted, that the right hon. baronet would find himself mistaken in the result. As to having this bill fettered down to any fixed period, he thought it would be most injurious, and counteract the object it was proposed to effect.
Mr. Warburton.
opposed the clause, and said he meant to move that it be struck out. It was retracing our steps, and going back from those principles which ministers professed to establish.
348
Mr. C. P. Thompson
seconded the motion. The precedents quoted by the right hon. gentleman were, in his opinion, no precedents at all. All the former acts went on the principle of establishing countervailing duties, but this clause re-enacted the old system of prohibition. He was persuaded, that it would have an unfavourable effect in foreign countries, with whom we must preserve our relations, if we meant to have any commerce at all.
Mr. Secretary Canning
said, he was perfectly satisfied that from the observations made on the clause, gentlemen concurred in the general principle; but he was equally satisfied that the objections which had been made in the course of those observations, arose from a misunderstanding. The first objection arose from confounding two distinct things under the word prohibition. The measure before the House, as had been correctly stated by the hon. member for Aberdeen, did abolish prohibition; but it was a prohibition
quoad
quoad
quoad
349
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, April 10.
COUNTY FIRE OFFICE—REVENUE INQUIRY.] Mr. Hobhouse
said, that in consequence of the notice which he had last night given, he rose to present a petition, signed by one thousand seven hundred persons of most respectable character, some of whom were directors of, and others subscribers to, the County Fire Office: and to the contents of that petition he begged the most serious attention. The case which the petitioners made out was grounded upon a report, got up under the great name and character of the right hon. member (Mr. Wallace) opposite, and others of the commissioners who acted with him. The House was of course aware that some time ago a commission had been formed to inquire into the mode of collecting the revenue of Ireland. The powers of that commission were in a little time extended to Scotland, and ultimately to England also. Several reports were made by that commission; and at length, the fourteenth report, with a voluminous appendix, was presented to the House. He would now state shortly, the grievances under which the County Fire Office laboured, and of which they had such just reason to complain. The County Fire Office was a large and flourishing establishment, which had
350
351
352
primâ facie
353
l
s
s
l
354
l
s
d
l
s
l
l
s
355
l
356
l
357
l
358
l
s
d
l
359
360
361
362
l
363
s
l
s
d
l
s
l
s
364
l
l
l
365
366
Colonel Sibthorpe
said, that, if the charges contained in the Report were true, let them be proved; but, if false, he must declare that there never was anything more unfair or illiberal than to publish them, without affording the accused party the means of contradicting them, and justifying their own conduct. Such a course was, indeed, in his opinion, the last that ought to be pursued; and, unwilling as he might be to use such a term, it seemed to him little better than assassination.
Mr. Wallace
began by observing that, after what had fallen from the hon. member opposite, and the gallant colonel, who had just addressed the House, he should be wanting in his duty to the House, to the commissioners, and to himself, if he did not offer a few observations, in defence of the conduct which the commissioners had pursued. With respect to the presenting of the petition itself, he had no reason to complain. Every subject of this country, who might suppose himself to be aggrieved by any act of persons invested with authority, had undoubtedly a right to make his appeal to the House. The
367
368
subpœnas
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
l
l
Mr. Hume rose
to order. The complaint of the petitioners was, that their conduct had been misrepresented; that the report of the commissioners was not consistent with the evidence annexed to their report. To disprove that allegation, the right hon. gentleman was making a statement to show what had taken place at a subsequent period. He submitted, that this additional evidence should be laid on the table; in order that those members who differed from him should be prepared with an adequate knowledge of the question. It was surely irregular in the right hon. gentleman to bring forward statements not in the possession of the rest of the House, in order to rebut the charges against him.
The Speaker
said, that he did not understand how the statements of the right hon. gentleman could affect the point of order, provided they were relative to the subject of debate. How far that course might be fair, in point of argument, it was not for him to decide; but there could, he thought, be no doubt as to the point of order.
Sir R. Wilson
appealed to the liberality of the right hon. gentleman, who, he was sure, would not persevere in the course ho was following.
377
Mr. Wallace
resumed. One of the views taken by the hon. gentleman was, that the statements of the commissioners must be unfounded, because the frauds produced such a trifling sum. It was to that point that he was replying when he was interrupted. There could be no doubt that all the policies not used ought to have been cancelled within the year; and, when it was found that this rule was not acted. upon, a presumption necessarily arose of great irregularity—not to say fraud. He was pointing out that the amount of the claims actually made showed the unlimited extent to which the practice might have been carried, if it had not been checked. The hon. gentleman had talked, in lofty terms, of this high and honourable Insurance Office; and, for what he knew, it might deserve all the panegyrics bestowed upon it; but, if it was ten times greater and higher than the hon. gentleman represented it to be, still he was not aware of any sanctity which rendered it inaccessible to the inquiries of parliament; nor, in case of the appearance of malversation, was it entitled to escape from just censure. With regard to the other subject to which the hon. gentleman had alluded, he hardly knew how to speak of it with the respect due to the House. In that case, not only himself, but the whole body of commissioners, as well as the entire board of the Treasury, and, indeed, all the members of government, were charged with entering into a conspiracy to protect some inferior officers of the revenue in Scotland. On the very statement of it, this was a charge much too absurd for serious refutation. Neither would he then go into a reply to the Letters which Mr. Sedgwick had published. All he would say was this—that, supposing their contents true in every respect, they would not remove one particle of the charges, either against him or the late Board of Stamps. They would not controvert one of the facts proved in evidence before the commission against that board, as to the dissentions always prevailing amongst them, their contemptuous violation of the orders of the Treasury, and their defiance of the acts of parliament, by which their conduct should have been regulated. Nor would they remove from Mr. Sedgwick. individually the charge of being the proprietor of a newspaper, while he held an office imposing upon him the particular duty of ex-
378
379
Sir R. Wilson
said, that the right hon. gentleman had introduced into his defence matters which were not contained in the report, and which therefore were not in the possession of the other members of the House. The commissioners, he contended, had been too careless in admitting evidence. One of the witnesses on whom they principally relied, had been dismissed from the County Fire Office, and taken into custody for bigamy, and had since fled on a charge of forgery. No engine of oppression could be more dangerous than commissions of inquiry, if they negligently or incautiously admitted evidence of this stamp, and afterwards circulated allegations founded upon it, which, under the sanction of their authority, assumed an important character. He had learned last night, for the first time, that it had been determined to institute an Exchequer prosecution against the County Fire Office. Still, the directors complained, and justly, that no opportunity had been given them to vindicate themselves from the attacks of the commission. They had asked in vain for the names of the parties who had given the false evidence against them; and they contended, with reason, that the commissioners, by refusing those names, gave countenance and protection to their calumniators.
The Attorney-General
said, there had been an account current between government and the County Fire Office, and the
380
Mr. Curwen
adverted to the hardship of keeping these charges suspended over the heads of the County Fire Office for two years, without either putting its accusers to the proof, or giving them an opportunity of vindicating themselves. From all that he had seen and heard, he thought the commissioners ought to have been more cautious in coming to any conclusion upon such suspicious evidence. He had authority for stating, that the County Fire Office courted inquiry; but he doubted whether, in the court of Exchequer, they could do themselves justice.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
thought it but justice to his right hon. friend and the other commissioners, to state his opinion that they had discharged, in a most impartial and unexceptionable manner, a duty of a most arduous nature. They were bound to inquire into the case, and to lay before the House, and ultimately before the public, the result of that inquiry; which certainly did tend to implicate the persons, who presented this petition. Unless they had concealed from the Treasury, and from the public, the information which had been laid before them, they could not but have made the report which tended to implicate those individuals. Enough evidence had undoubtedly been laid before them to justify the opinion, that in the account current between the officers of the County Fire Office and the government, there was a debt due to the government. It was necessary to put that question in a fair course of trial, and he should be extremely glad, and so he was sure would his right hon. friend be, if the Fire Office should be able to remove the imputation which had been cast upon it. He hoped the object of the gentleman who presented this petition would be considered to have been fairly attained; and he presumed the hon. gentleman opposite would not feel himself called upon to take any further proceedings.
381
Mr. Hume
maintained, that the complaint of the County Fire Office did not regard any matters of account between it and the government. What its members complained of was, that they had been charged with having systematically committed frauds upon the government. He must say that the commissioners had, in the course of their inquiry with regard to the County Fire Office, and more especially as it respected Mr. Sedgwick, been led away by some extraordinary influence, the nature of which he was at a loss to account for. Mr. Barber Beaumont had offered to prove that a conspiracy existed among the discharged clerks, upon whose evidence the commissioners had acted; but the commissioners did not think proper to enter into an examination of the alleged conspiracy. Now, he contended, that it was their duty to ascertain whether such a conspiracy existed. The agents of the County Fire Office were charged with having for eighteen years defrauded the public of 2,000
l
l
l
l
Colonel Davies
defended the conduct
382
Sir F. Burdett
said, he thought it was not at all necessary for the House to consider the details of this question at the present moment. The petition was signed by one thousand seven hundred persons; and he trusted the time would shortly arrive when the House would institute an inquiry into the distinct charges made by the respectable individuals who signed it; but he thought the main question for the House to consider was, whether public commissioners, acting upon secret testimony and secret information, were justified in calumniating the character of a body of respectable individuals. Such conduct was contrary to the principles of Magna Charta; and though he was aware that it was the fashion for modern philosophers to laugh at the wisdom of our ancestors, he confessed, for his part, that he thought the few lines in Magna Charta which denounced such invasions of the constitutional rights of the subject worth all the real or pretended discoveries of those modern philosophers. The greatest injury that could be inflicted upon an Englishman was to deprive him of his vested inheritance of the laws of England; for lord Coke had truly said, that an Englishman had a vested right not only in his goods and lands, but in the laws, and in the preservation of his character and reputation. The petitioners had been deprived of the rights to which they were entitled by the laws and constitution of the country. A stain had been cast upon their character; they had been morally assassinated; and they wanted to know who were the assassins who had stabbed them in the dark. They wished those assassins to be brought before a tribunal, where their misconduct might be made as clear as the noon-day sun. The House, he trusted, would never consent to screen those calumniators from justice, and to deprive honourable men, whose characters had been aspersed, of all constitutional means of redress.
The Solicitor-General
wished to bring back the House to the question immediately before them; for he could not help
383
Mr. Hobhouse
observed, that after the discussion which the case had already undergone, and after the very able address of his honourable colleague, he did not intend to trouble the House at any length in reply. Happy would it have been for the petitioners, if their case had been submitted to the examination of the learned gentleman who spoke last. The wise and temperate tone in which he had expressed himself showed that their case would have been safe in his hands; and that, if a little of his spirit had been infused into the report, the petitioners would not then have been before the House, either complaining of injury or praying for redress. The plain and simple fact, however, was, that the petitioners found themselves charged with a series of frauds and peculations, from which they had no means of
384
ARREST FOR DEBT UPON MESNE PROCESS.] Mr. Hume,
in bringing under the notice of the House the subject of Arrest for Debt upon Mesne Process, observed, that, although he wished, by the bill which he was about to introduce, and which introduction he understood would not be opposed, to abolish altogether the right of arrest upon such process, yet he was willing to submit to whatever modifications or alterations the House might think fit to propose. The practice of arrest for debt was of modern origin. He believed, that in Magna Charta, there would be found a prohibition against such a vexatious remedy. The first particular notice of it which appeared on the Statute-book was to be found in the 11th and 12th of William and Mary, when it was enacted, that no process of that kind was to extend to Wales for a less sum than 20
l
l
385
l
l
l
l
386
l
l
387
The Attorney-General
said, that the object of the motion of the hon. gentleman was, as he understood it, to substitute attachment, for arrest upon
mesne
primâ facie,
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, April 11.
CORN LAWS.] Lord King
said, he had a petition to present to the House, which was very numerously signed, and which came from a part of the country which was at present extremely distressed—from Oldham, in the county of Lancaster. He was afraid that this petition could not meet with attention from their lordships, as it came from the lower orders, who, he knew, were in some quarters considered not very much worth attention. The petition came from persons greatly inter-
388
389
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, April 12.
OATHS IN COURTS OF JUSTICE—FORGED PETITION—ROBERT TAYLOR.] Mr. Hume
said, he had a Petition to present from a gentleman of the name of Taylor, who called himself the President of the Christian Evidence Society, to which he wished to call the attention of the House. The House would recollect, that, on the 29th of November last, he had presented to it a petition, purporting to come from this individual, and praying that he might in future be sworn upon the works of nature. He had now to inform the House, that that petition was a forgery, which he had been deceived into presenting. A short time previous to the presentation of it he had received a note from Mr. Taylor, requesting him to present a petition on his behalf. He was, therefore,
390
CHANGE OF THE MINISTRY.] Mr. Wynn
moved that a new writ be issued for the borough of Newport, in consequence of the right hon. George Canning having accepted the office of First Lord Commissioner of the Treasury [loud cheers]. He also moved, "That the House, at its rising, do adjourn to Tuesday, the 1st of May."
Mr. Tierney
said, that before this motion was disposed of—before the House was called on to adjourn for so long a period—he wished to put a question, of considerable importance, to the right hon. gentleman. He was anxious to ascertain, if possible, what progress had been made towards the formation of a new ministry? This question could not be considered premature, as it had been admitted, that forbearance enough had been shewn with respect to this subject, when, a fortnight ago, he had made a similar inquiry. Now that the whole Administration, except one, as he was informed, had thrown up their situations, it was not a little extraordinary, that the members of the House of Commons should at once be required to give up their legislative functions, and to abandon their duties for three weeks, while they were left in ignorance as to the
391
Mr. Wynn
apprehended that it was usual at that period of the year to move an adjournment for a few days. It had always been proposed as a matter of course, and had been always so received. Undoubtedly some difficulties had occurred in the formation of a ministry; but an arrangement was now in progress, and would certainly be completed before the period of adjournment had expired. He hoped the House would afford sufficient time for the completion of so important an object.
Mr. Tierney
observed, that the time for forming an Administration was just two months old. This, in his opinion, and in the opinion of others, was too long a time. He understood that it was only within these few days that a right hon. gentleman had been intrusted with the formation of an Administration. But, instead of its being formed, it was reported, that seven members of the Cabinet had run away; for what purpose, or to forward what scheme or cabal, they best knew; and he was equally at a loss to conjecture in what shape, or at what time, they were likely to come back. He, however, must say, as a member of that House, that he should be guilty of betraying his trust, if he abandoned his duty, by agreeing to so long an adjournment, in the present situation of the Administration.
CORN DUTIES BILL.]
On the order
392
Mr. F. Palmer
said, it was a matter of great satisfaction to him, that on the first occasion of his voting in the present parliament, he was able to give his conscientious support to the measure proposed by ministers. He believed that the bill before the House had been framed upon principles of strict impartiality; and he was inclined to put faith in the correctness of that opinion, when he saw that the measure was alike condemned by the two great interests of the country; namely, the agriculturists and the manufacturers. The agriculturists said that the
maximum
Mr. Warburton
said, that the bill would afford no substantial relief to the country. Our manufacturers would still be obliged to pay for their bread double the price which was paid on the continent.
Mr. Leycester
expressed his apprehension, that large importations would be made from Canada.
Mr. C. Grant
said, that past experience had proved that no extensive importations could be made from Canada to any profitable purpose, so far as the importers were concerned.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, May 1.
The House met pursuant to adjournment, the recent changes in the Administration had excited the liveliest curiosity; and the avenues to the House of Commons were crowded, at an early hour, by persons whose anxiety to see the new
393
NEW ADMINISTRATION—MR. PEEL'S EXPOSITION.]
On the motion, "That a new writ be issued for Ashburton, in the room of the right hon. William Sturges Bourne, who has accepted the office of Secretary of State for the Home Department,"
Mr. Peel
rose, and addressed the House to the following effect:—
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
hortus siccus
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
Mr. Duncombe
said, he was aware that he might incur some imputation by offering himself to the House at that moment, but he was anxious to take the earliest opportunity of stating what he believed to be the decided opinion of the great majority of those whom he represented, and of the country at large; namely, that the secession of the right hon. gentleman was a matter to be most deeply and sincerely regretted. As far as he and many others were concerned, the lengthened explanation of the right hon. gentleman was quite unnecessary. The right hon. gentleman wanted no justification for the honest and manly course he had adopted. He would not attempt to describe that masterly effort, but he would only that it maintained, in all respects, the high character the right hon. gentleman enjoyed from one end of the kingdom to the other, as an eloquent, an honest, and a conscientious minister of the Crown—a valuable and faithful representative of the people—a zealous and active promoter of all that was useful and beneficial—and a watchful and uncompromising guardian of the principles of the British constitution. In the full enjoyment of the confidence and love of the country, the right hon. gentleman had retired from the situation he had so long and so ably filled; but he must take the liberty of expressing his earnest hope, that the retirement would be short, and the return permanent. While out of office, he humbly trusted that the right hon. gentleman would enjoy all the luxury of private life, in the bosom of his affectionate family, and in the circle of his admiring friends. Since he had had the honour of a seat in that House, he had given his decided and unqualified opposition to the Catholic question, and his support to his majesty's government. The right hon. premier (Mr. Canning) had ever supported that question, and it would be but just in that right hon. gentleman to give it now a more decided support: and that course it was to be expected the right hon. gentleman would pursue, as it was understood he had received the aid of those gentlemen who now sat beside him, without any compromise, on their part, relative to that question.
Sir Francis Burdett rose
from his seat behind Mr. Canning, amidst loud cheering, and, after stating that he should not
413
414
415
416
sine qua non,
Sir Thomas Lethbridge
said, he was most anxious at the present moment to declare his opinions respecting the alteration which had recently taken place in his majesty's councils, more especially after the speech of the hon. baronet who had just sat down. Of all the changes which had recently taken place, he thought the change indicated by the hon. baronet's speech the most extraordinary. The hon. baronet, however, while he dwelt on his loyalty to the throne, had adverted to a great leading point or principle, upon which the present cabinet had been formed—a principle which had led to the secession of the late ministers, including the right hon. gentleman who had recently addressed the House. For many reasons he regretted the secession of the right hon. gentleman; and yet, in some respects, he was glad of it, as it would lead the country to a real and just view of the great and leading
417
sine qua non
sine qua non
418
Sir F. Burdett
in explanation, said, he had not stated that the concession of the Catholic question was a
sine qua non;
Mr. G. Dawson
said, he was quite convinced that in the whole of this business the gentlemen who had formerly sat on the opposition benches, and who had now joined the ministry, had only done so from a wish to occupy the ministerial station and authority [a laugh]. He himself did not regret that he had quitted the service of the Crown, since he had done so for the reasons which had been so ably and eloquently stated by his right hon. friend, the late Secretary of State for the Home Department, and who had most honourably preferred the support of his principles to the retaining of the high situation which he had held. The hon. baronet had expressed his hope that the Catholic question would be carried by means of the present cabinet; and it was his duty, entertaining the opinions which he professed, and of those who along with him held those opinions, to insist that the cabinet should propose the granting of the Catholic claims as a government measure; otherwise the hon. baronet and his friends would be parties to the basest coalition that ever was formed [hear! and a laugh]. He repeated, that they would be parties to one of the basest, one of the most unnatural, coalitions that this country had ever wit-
419
420
The Speaker
said that for many reasons it was extremely difficult for him to know whether he steered the proper course on this occasion; but it was necessary he should call the attention of the hon. member to the fundamental principle of all their debates, that, neither directly nor indirectly, the name of the Crown should be used to sway the discussions of the House, or influence its decisions.
Mr. G. Dawson
resumed. When he was interrupted, he was making a statement relative to one of the greatest and most important questions that could engage the attention of parliament, and which, indeed, involved the nature and essence of the constitution itself. He was justified, he contended, in giving his opinion as to the formation of the new government. The House had been called upon by an hon. baronet to support the new government, because that government entertained a certain opinion upon that great question. He therefore said, that if the hon. baronet acted upon this conviction, and was correct in doing so, his majesty and his new ministers were at variance in their opinions upon that great question; and the House had a right to demand some explanation from the right hon. gentleman at the head of the Treasury, before they were required to give their support to any set of men calling themselves his majesty's ministers. He was at a loss to know how he could in a more orderly manner have stated the fact, that the archbishop of Canterbury had declared, that the coronation oath stood in the way of any concession to the Catholics, on the part of a certain distinguished per-
421
Mr. Brougham
then spoke to the following effect:—I rise under the pressure of no inconsiderable, no ordinary anxiety, to address myself to the House; and, permit me to add, in the present, no ordinary, state of the government, to the country also, on the subject of this conversation. I should, perhaps, have done so after my hon. friend, the member for Westminster, had spoken, in order to prevent some sentiments which he uttered from being misunderstood; but having waited to hear, as I did with some surprise, the speech of
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
Mr. Canning
rose, under evident emotion, and spoke nearly as follows:—
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
"Mr. Spencer Stanhope rose
for the purpose of putting a question to the noble lord opposite. He wished to know if it was intended, on the part of the present ministers, that the same policy, in every respect, should be observed by them, in reference to the Catholic question, which has been observed by the administration under the conduct of a late right hon. gentleman?
"Lord Castlereagh
said, that he felt some difficulty in answering the question of the hon. gentleman literally, the arrangements for the new ministry not having been yet fully completed. But as to the spirit of the question, he thought he could be more satisfactory. He could say this, from his knowledge of those employed in forming that administration, that, generally, their sentiments remained the same. Upon a former occasion, they had thought, inclusive even of those who were favourable to the measure, that the present was not
440
441
442
penetralia
443
444
Mr. Peel,
in explanation, observed, that what he had alluded to, in saying, that
445
446
Mr. Canning
said, he did not understand from the lord Chancellor, on the evening of the 10th of April, that it was his intention to resign; and he assured his right hon. friend, that he had received the resignation of that noble lord in the chamber of his Sovereign on the 11th of April, along with the other resignations to which he had adverted.
Mr. Peel,
adverting to the shortness of the period between the 10th of April, when these intimations upon his own part and that of the lord Chancellor were first signified, and the 12th, when their resignations were given in, observed, that that was quite enough to account for their accidental delivery at the moment to which the right hon. gentleman had alluded. I am pretty certain (said Mr. Peel), that the letters were written on the 11th or 12th. Lord Westmoreland's letter was dated the 11th, and lords Bathurst's and Melville's on the 12th. These facts, Sir, I think, will shew that, however extraordinary the coincidence alluded to by my right hon. friend, the time was too short for concert. But, whether the coincidence was extraordinary or not, I pledge my word, as a man of honour, that the answers were not concerted [hear, hear], and that on Thursday, the 12th, no one of my colleagues said to another "my answer shall be the same as yours," or entered into any communication on the subject that could lead to a concerted arrangement, or imply the existence of any doubt
447
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, May 2.
This day, the House met pursuant to adjournment: at about a quarter past three o'clock, the lord Chancellor Lyndhurst (late sir John Copley), arrived in state. He was introduced by lords King and Howard de Walden, and took the oaths and his seat. Viscount Goderich (late Mr. Robinson), took the oaths and his seat. He was introduced by lords Melville and Dudley and Ward. Lord Plunkett (late sir W. Plunkett), was introduced by the marquis of Clanricarde and lord Seaford. Lord Tenterden (late sir C. Abbott), was introduced by lords Bexley and Kenyon, and took the oaths and his seat. His
448
At five o'clock, the lord Chancellor again took his seat on the woolsack, and the business of the House commenced. Here, as in the House of Commons yesterday, most of the Opposition members left the benches which they had been so long accustomed to occupy, and took their seats on the Ministerial side. The marquis of Lansdown and lord Holland were on the ministerial bench. Earl Grey and lord Ellenborough remained on the opposition side. The late ministers sat on the cross benches.
THE NEW ADMINISTRATION—EXPOSITION OF THE LATE MINISTERS.] Earl Grosvenor
(who spoke from the ministerial side) said, that he had two petitions to present to their lordships upon the subject of the Roman Catholic Claims. On presenting these petitions, he would take the opportunity of making a few remarks upon the subject. He certainly thought that this question would not be much longer a subject for the consideration of their lordships. He was quite satisfied that the claims of the Catholics had at least gained something by the change which had taken place in the government of the country. Unfortunately, however, unfavourable prejudices still existed upon the subject. In Ireland those prejudices were almost wholly removed; and in this country he believed—indeed he knew—they had considerably diminished. Still he thought, notwithstanding these circumstances, that the question of the Catholic claims should not be prematurely pressed forward; and he held this opinion, because, as the country had now an administration composed of persons nearly all favourable to the question, and as they formerly had an administration the majority of which was against even entertaining the subject, he thought it would be prudent to pause. The administration was now no longer hostile to the consideration of the subject; for as far as the changes in the government went, they were favourable to the question, but still he should be anxious, under these circumstances, for a little delay before the subject was reconsidered. There was another reason why he wished for delay. It was on account of that circumstance which had been so strenuously urged by those individuals who were hostile to granting
449
Lord Ellenborough
said, that the noble earl might, if he thought proper, make volunteer speeches on the Catholic question whenever he presented petitions, though he could not think that the regular course; but of this he was quite sure, that, so long as the administration was constituted as it now was, there never would be any opportunity of discussing the question of Catholic emancipation with advantage. However important the Catholic question was, there was now another question of paramount importance, for it applied not only to the Catholics, but to the country at large. Since the House had last separated, a re-construction of the
450
The Earl of Eldon
then rose. He said, that his majesty's late servants had been charged with having acted in concert, and that for the unpardonable object of dictating to the sovereign what choice he should make in the selection of his constitutional advisers. After having been so long a member of that House, and so long the steady advocate of principles directly opposed to a doctrine so unconstitutional, he hoped he might be permitted to assure their lordships, that this charge was a base and infamous calumny; so far as he himself was concerned, or so far as it might be supposed to apply to those distinguished persons who had retired with him from office. That it could be supposed that he, who had, for so many years, discharged the duties of his office with an honest sincerity of purpose, through evil report and through good report, should have been guilty of the offence of dictating to his sovereign what persons he should choose to form his government, subject, of course, to the constitutional control of both Houses of parliament, was what he never could hear, without telling those who made the charge, that it was a base and gross falsehood [loud cheers]—[His lordship here became sensibly affected.]—He had felt it right, for the sake of the sovereign whom he had served—he had felt it right, as well out of duty to that sovereign himself, as also out of duty to his royal father, whom he had also served—to state, that he never disguised from him his real sentiments on any proposition that might have been made to him in the relation in which he stood to the Crown. And he must
451
452
453
454
The Duke of Wellington
rose, and spoke as follows:*
455
456
"GEORGE CANNING."
"To his Grace the Duke of Wellington."
"WELLINGTON."
"The Right Hon. George Canning."
457
"GEORGE CANNING."
"His Grace the Duke of Wellington."
458
"WELLINGTON."
I will here leave the question of my retirement from the cabinet. I have no objection, if noble lords choose, to discuss all the reasons stated in this letter; but I believe it is better to avoid such discussion. I will, however, observe, that the events which have occurred in the short space of time which has elapsed since the termination of this correspondence will tend to show that I did not form an incorrect judgment of the matters described in my letter of the 11th of April; and I am much mistaken if experience does not prove hereafter that I was quite right.
459
460
461
462
"Mr. Canning
will, I doubt not, have submitted to your majesty the letter which I have written to him in answer to the one announcing to me, that he had been appointed by your majesty to be at the head of your government.—I have frequently had occasion to express to your majesty my most grateful acknowledgements for your majesty's most gracious favour and kindness towards me; and your majesty can now more easily conceive than I can express, the pain and grief which I feel upon requesting your majesty to excuse me from attendance in your councils; and in consequence thereof, and adverting to the tenor of the letters which I have re-received from your majesty's minister, by your majesty's command, upon asking your majesty's permission to lay at your feet those offices which connect me with your majesty's government."
463
464
465
466
467
Lord Bexley
said, he entirely acquitted the noble duke, and those other members of the late administration who had resigned, of any thing like a conspiracy. The grounds upon which he himself had felt called on to resign were, that he had reason to believe the same latitude would not be given to the members of the new cabinet, in respect of the Catholic question, which had been enjoyed by those who constituted lord Liverpool's ministry. On this subject it, however, appeared, that he had been mistaken; and as soon as he was undeceived, he hastened to retrace the step into which incorrect intelligence had betrayed him.
The Earl of Mansfield
began, by disclaiming the influence of individual feelings. He expressed considerable doubts as to the wisdom of the course pursued by those members of the late cabinet, who professed to advocate the Protestant cause. He believed, that, if their communications had been more unreserved towards their adherents in the country, they would have been ably backed by those adherents, and by a large majority of their lordships' House, to make representations to his majesty, of such weight, as would have induced the king to form a mixed administration, in which Protestant principles should have decidedly predominated. He gave them full credit, for having acted most honourably; but he entertained considerable doubts, whether their conduct deserved to be called judicious. They either foresaw its consequences or they did
468
469
470
471
doubles
472
Viscount Goderich
(late the right hon. Frederick Robinson) rose, and spoke to the following effect:—My lords, I feel called upon, indeed compelled, to address your lordships, upon the subject which has been this evening brought under your consideration; and in doing so, I am free to admit I feel no small degree of anxiety; an anxiety arising, partly from the nature of the subject itself; and partly from the circumstance of my now having to address your lordships for the first time. It were worse than vain for me to deny, or attempt to conceal, the unaffected and undisguised pain with which I feel myself forced to address myself to this subject. I trust it is unnecessary for me to declare, that there does not exist in my mind the most trifling particle of ill-feeling or animosity towards the noble and right honourable individuals in question, for the course which they have thought fit to take on the present occasion. On the contrary, it is with the most perfect sincerity I can say, that I feel for those distinguished individuals as much respect and regard as the greatest of their admirers can do. My lords, I address myself with the greatest sorrow—the most unfeigned regret—to this question; and I am free to confess, that it is not without similar feelings that I have been able to witness the separation from his majesty's government, of men with whom, for years, I have been proud to act, not only as colleagues but as friends. But, my lords, at the same time that I make
473
474
here,
475
476
477
478
479
Earl Bathurst
assigned, as one motive which had induced him to disconnect himself from the existing administration, the fact of his having ascertained that certain individuals, formerly his colleagues, and on whose judgment he placed the most implicit reliance, had resigned. The principle of the earl of Liverpool's government, in relation to the Catholic question, had been one of neutrality, and every minister of the cabinet was at liberty to vote as he thought best. He had approved of this system, which left the government free and irresponsible, and thought that an administration exclusively composed of friends or opponents of the Catholics, was by no means desirable. When, in consequence of the right hon. gentleman's appointment, he understood that the country was deprived of the services of so great a number of his distinguished colleagues, he thought he should not have been justified had he continued to act with the right hon. gentleman. In the present administration there were but three individuals who were supposed to be adverse to the Catholic claims. For these individuals he entertained the greatest respect. He was fully sensible of the great talents and acquirements of the noble and learned lord who now occupied the woolsack. With respect to the noble marquis (Angle-sea) who was understood to entertain similar opinions to those of the noble and learned lord, on the subject of concessions to the Catholics, he could assure his noble friend that he entertained for him great personal regard. For the noble baron (Bexley) he entertained similar feelings, and must ever retain a strong recollection of his important services during the war, as chancellor of the Exchequer. With such colleagues as these, he could have felt no objection to act, had it not been for the retirement of so many noble friends in whom he was accustomed to place the greatest confidence. The noble earl then proceeded to advert to the singular coincidence which occurred in the resignations of so many cabinet ministers, simultaneously—a coincidence the more extraordinary, as it could not now be doubted that it was purely accidental. There was no concert in the steps which those noble individuals had taken. The noble earl concluded by re-stating, that it was im-
480
The Earl of Westmorland
said, that he could not remain entirely silent on the present occasion, although the subject had been so fully explained and so ably argued by his noble friends who had preceded him, that it would not be necessary for him to trespass long upon their lordships' attention. It was frequently a matter of considerable difficulty to estimate the motives which actuated different men under different circumstances. There were often considerations which operated almost insensibly upon a man's own self, and of which therefore it was utterly impossible for any other man to judge. The reasons, however, which had induced him to take the step which he had recently taken were short and clear; and with their lordships' permission he would state them. But, before doing so, he would endeavour to answer the two serious charges which had been preferred against so many of the members of his majesty's late government. In the first place, they were charged with caballing against the government itself; and, in the second place, they were charged with the more serious offence of intending to invade the exercise of his majesty's prerogative. It was certainly a most singular thing that this charge of wishing to invade his majesty's prerogative was advanced by those who were no great friends of the royal prerogative, against those who had always manifested themselves its best supporters. The circumstances Which had already been stated by his noble friends sufficiently proved that the recent occurrences had not arisen from any thing like cabal. For his own part, he thought, with his noble friend on the Treasury bench, that it was unfortunate there had not been something more approaching to cabal; because it was on that account that what had taken place came on every man by surprise. He most firmly believed that every individual concerned had acted from the suggestion of his own feelings, and without the slightest concert with his col leagues. With respect to himself, at least, he most positively denied that he was liable to the imputation which had been thrown out on the subject. With respect to the imputed attack on the royal prerogative, he wished first to know what the prerogative was which they were charged with attacking? That it was his majesty's prerogative to appoint whom he chose to
481
482
ipso facto
483
Lord Melville
begged to be allowed to trouble their lordships with a few remarks. The members of his majesty's late administration, who had resigned their official situations, had been charged with conspiracy. For himself, he declared distinctly, and on his honour, that from the hour of lord Liverpool's illness down to the hour of his resignation, he had not had the slightest communication of any kind or description with any one of his colleagues regarding the formation of a new administration. The right hon. the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Huskisson) had come to him with a message, stating that the right hon. the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had received his majesty's command to form an administration which should be on the principle of lord Liverpool's administration, and should, as much as possible, comprehend the same individuals. His immediate answer was, that provided he was not required to give any pledge respecting Catholic emancipation, and provided that the right hon. gentleman could succeed in keeping his colleagues together, he had no objection to be a member of the new cabinet. He had had no further communication until the noon of the next day, when he had an interview with the right hon. gentleman himself, whom he left with the full impression that the right hon. gentleman would succeed in keeping his colleagues together, with the exception, perhaps, of the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Of the continuance of that right hon. gentleman in office, Mr. Canning spoke doubtfully; at the same time expressing his great regret at the possibility of his secession from the cabinet. In the course of this interview, he repeated to the right hon. gentleman the statement which he had made, in the first instance, to the President of the Board of Trade. He hoped, therefore, that it was quite clear that he had not acted in concert with any one. In fact it was not possible, in the nature of things, that any concert or conspiracy whatever could have existed. On the following Thursday, however, he heard that not only the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department, but the noble duke at the head of the Army, the noble and learned lord on the Woolsack, and the noble earl presiding over the Colonial Office, had intimated their intention to retire, and not to form a part of the new administration. He
484
485
The Marquis Camden
said, that he knew nothing of the transactions which formed the subject-matter of the present discussion, except what he had collected from the statements in the newspapers. Those statements, and the explanations of the noble lords in that House, constituted all the knowledge that he possessed upon the question; and from that knowledge he should say, that, so far from things having gone wrong from any cabal, it appeared to him a matter of surprise that there had been so little communication between the members of the late administration. It seemed to him that there had not been even that ordinary and common intercourse which ought to subsist between members of the same government. If such an intercourse had subsisted, much of what had occurred might have been averted, as it resulted, in a great degree, in his opinion, from a want of a full and perfect understanding between the parties. The noble marquis concluded by expressing his satisfaction at the explanations afforded by the noble lords, of the grounds of their retirement from office.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that he had personally received the most gracious marks of the royal favour, and that never did man feel more than himself, a sincere and ardent attachment to his majesty's person and government. He was not to be put down by insinuations which had appeared in the public papers, stating that he had addressed an improper letter to his majesty, but would openly state, that the moment he heard of the appointment of the present prime minister, he had immediately resigned the office which he held, of lord of the bedchamber. His opinion of that right hon. individual was not formed, for the first time, on the late occasion. So long ago as 1822, when he had the honour of being ambassador at Vienna, he had predicted to his noble friend, the duke of Wellington, and stated to him his conviction, that, if that individual, after the death of his lamented brother, was appointed Secretary for Foreign Affairs, a few years would not elapse
486
487
488
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, that he should have contented himself with listening to the explanations of those noble lords who had retired from government, and of those also who had been appointed to the new administration, had it not been that he and those with whom he acted
489
490
491
492
493
Lord Ellenborough
commenced by observing, that he differed from the noble marquis, who had last addressed their lordships, upon many important points. He was prepared to admit, that certain practical benefits had flowed from the measures adopted by Mr. Canning, but he differed from some noble lords as to the quantity of credit due to Mr. Canning for those benefits. Upon the question of foreign policy, however, he was prepared to shew, that there had been no benefit from his counsels; because Mr. Canning was incapable of inspiring that confidence in the minds of those foreigners with whom he negociated, which could alone enable him to render his measures effectual. Let the House only look to the commencement of the revolution in the Peninsula of Spain. Every attempt was ineffectually made by this country to prevent any foreign power from interfering in the internal regulations
494
495
496
497
The Marquis of Anglesea
said, he was bound by no conditions; he was in every respect free as the air he breathed. However, whether in or out of office, he should feel it his duty to support the Throne—not that he meant to say that it was attacked, but that he considered his majesty to be fully at liberty at any time to form what administration he might think best suited to the wants of the country. If, therefore, any arrangements more conducive to the public good than those which now existed could be entered into, he should retire from office with the most perfect good humour. Before he sat down he must say, with respect to the insinua-
498
The Earl of Winchelsea
should not feel that he did justice to his own feelings if he did not say a few words upon this subject. He thought there never had been an era in our history like the present, since the time of the constitutional Revolution; so complete had been the change in every respect. A coalition, it seemed, had been formed of parties that had long been opposed to each other; and in this preposterous coalition, as he must call it, some one or other of the parties must have compromised his previous political opinions. The noble earl then contrasted the disinterestedness of the noble lords and gentlemen who had resigned their places, with the conduct of those now in office, and especially of the right hon. premier; and observed, that whoever considered the career which that right hon. gentleman had pursued, must be convinced that ambition and love of place had been the pivots of his political life. He believed that none of the supporters of that right hon. gentleman could explain truly, what were his sentiments upon the great questions of the government.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, May 2.
CATHOLIC QUESTION—THE NEW ADMINISTRATION.] The Marquis of Chandos
said, that he had been intrusted with a Petition from Olney, Buckinghamshire, against any further concession to the Roman Catholics; and he could not refuse to avail himself of the occasion of stating, that if any thing like consistency existed among the present ministers, they must unite themselves, in order to carry the Catholic Question. He, for one, was determined to do all in his power to defeat that object; as he could place no confidence in the impartiality of a government which had a Roman Catholic advocate at its head. He was satisfied that the new cabinet would do its utmost to procure concession. In the meantime, it remained for the people of England also to act. In the county to which he belonged, the
499
Mr. Hume
doubted much the assertion of the noble lord regarding the general distrust of the government, merely because it had at the head of it an individual who had supported the claims of the Roman Catholics. If the noble lord and his friends were a criterion of the state of the public mind, certainly the terror and dissatisfaction were great, but did not threaten any very disastrous consequences. He hoped that there was sufficient generosity in the people of England to prevent them from refusing, at that time of day, an equal participation of rights, merely on the score of religious differences. He had too high an opinion of the great mass of the people not to be persuaded, that even if the supposed dislike existed at all, it would shortly be overcome. Whatever change had occurred in the government, the opinion last night delivered by the first lord of the Treasury was no doubt correct; and if so, the peril was not in any respect increased. It was, besides, happily not in the power of any first minister of the Crown to change the constitution of the country. Whatever the right hon. gentleman in his wisdom might determine, and whenever he might again bring forward the subject, he wished him success; and he hoped that, in choosing his time, the right hon. gentleman would consult what was due to his own character and honour, and the welfare of Ireland.
500
Sir C. Burrell
expressed a hope, that if any concessions were made to the Catholics, they would be accompanied by such securities for the Protestant Church and Hierarchy as would allay the fears which might be entertained for the preservation of religious and general liberty in this country. Any minister, let him be who he might, who should come down to that House and propose a relinquishment of the securities necessary for the preservation of the Protestant Church, would do an act which was unworthy of a minister, and disgraceful to a public man.
Mr. Bright
deprecated the attempt to treat this question as one of a religious nature solely. It was nothing of the sort. The deeply-rooted aversion to the Catholic religion which existed in this country arose from a strong conviction, that the prevalence of that religion always was, always had been, and always would be, inimical to civil liberty. It ought ever to be remembered, that the feeling against the Catholic question was not in the slightest degree connected with a spirit of religious persecution. He was desirous that every man should worship God in the manner most agreeable to his own conscience; but, at the same time, it was necessary to guard against the influence of a religion calculated to infringe upon civil rights and privileges. Those were the principles which actuated the great majority of the people of this country, and therefore they contemplated with just dismay the alteration which had lately taken place in the government. The time was come when it became the representatives of great and populous places to speak out. One advantage had accrued from the late change in the administration, ominous as it was in other respects: he meant the advantage which the Protestant cause had obtained in acquiring a leader of such experience and ability as the late Secretary for the Home Department, who had emancipated himself from the trammels in which he had long been held, induced by a conscientious sense of duty to resign the office which he had filled with so much honour, and endeared himself to the whole country. He called upon that right hon. gentleman to come forward manfully, and maintain his opinions; and he was confident that he would be backed by the country, and that an end would soon be put to the Catholic question. Catholic emancipation, which was said to be the
sine quâ non
501
Sir J. Newport
said, that as the hon. member had thought proper to give his opinion on the state of Ireland, he trusted he would permit him who had been four-and twenty years in that House, and for fifty years intimately engaged in connexion with that country, and might therefore be presumed as competent to form a correct opinion of the state of affairs there as the hon. member, to state what he felt on the subject. He had lived long among the people of Ireland, and he might say, without subjecting himself to the imputation of arrogance, that he had devoted his life to their amelioration. He would, then, tell the hon. member, that the degradation of the people of Ireland had, in a great measure, grown out of the proscription of the great body of the people. Whilst the people were excluded from the benefits of the constitution, the evils which prevailed in Ireland would augment, year after year. It was impossible to look
502
General Gascoyne
said, that a more extraordinary assertion than that made by the right hon. baronet, namely, that all the evils of Ireland were attributable to the want of emancipation, he had never heard. With respect to that question, he believed that the idea of its being likely to be carried would spread alarm throughout the country. The people at large were decidedly adverse to concession, and the fact would be proved beyond contradiction, should the present ministry find it expedient to resort to another election. The interest in the Catholic question referred to by the right hon. baronet, prevailed not among the lower orders, but among a better informed and more wily class—he meant the priests—who would not feel much complimented by being placed by the right hon. baronet in a sphere so degraded.
Lord Milton
said, it never had been
503
Mr. A. Dawson
thought there was no rational ground for supposing, that the Catholic question would be immediately carried on account of the change which had taken place in the ministry. The removal of an individual from one office to that of prime minister, could not, as it were by magic, change the sentiments of the two Houses of parliament. He thought that at present there was no cause for exultation on the one hand, or alarm on the other. He was sorry to hear the successful issue of the Catholic question spoken of as a breach of the constitution. Such a topic should not be introduced incidentally on the presentation of a petition. The best way to preserve the constitution was to enlist in its support the descendants of those men who had procured for us Magna Charta. There was nothing in the heart or mind of a Catholic which would dispose him to object to the principles of a free constitution.
Mr. Duncombe
was satisfied that the great majority of the inhabitants of England were hostile to further concessions.
Mr. H. Seymour
said, there could be no doubt that the great majority of the people of this country was opposed to the Catholic question. Even if that question should be carried through the House by means of the brilliant talents which at present supported the government, it would be found impossible to rain it down the throats of the people of England. He declared his intention to support the administration, until that question came to be discussed.
Mr. Portman
thought it unfair to the
504
Mr. O'Neil
defended the Catholics of Ireland from the imputations of violence and seditious feeling, which some gentlemen had cast upon them. It had been said, that they came with the semblance of entreaty to the House, but that they carried a petition in one hand, and a dagger in the other. He denied that there was any foundation for these charges.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, May 3.
NEW ADMINISTRATION—SHIPPING INTEREST.] General Gascoyne
was proceeding, pursuant to notice, to bring forward his motion on the state of the Shipping Interest, when
Mr. G. Dawson
begged that there might be a delay of a short time, as he had a question of considerable importance to ask of the right hon. gentleman now at the head of his majesty's government, whom he did not yet see in his place [cries of "Go on, go on"].
General Gascoyne
observed, that he was in possession of the House, and that his motion had been standing a long time [cries of "Go on"].
Mr. Huskisson
said, that he had not seen his right hon. friend, the First Lord of the Treasury, during that day; but that, if that right hon. gentleman had had notice that the hon. gentleman opposite desired to put any question, he made no doubt that he would have appeared in his place, even although other business had been neglected for it.
Mr. G. Dawson
said, he apprehended that some notice had been given that questions would be asked, because he himself had stated that fact to the right hon. gentleman, previous to the ballot.
505
Mr. Huskisson
replied, that he had stated the cause of his right hon. friend's absence as well as he knew it. Certainly, on receiving the intimation of the hon. member he had not thought it necessary to send for his right hon. friend; but no doubt he would soon be in the House.
Mr. G. Dawson
said, that he wished to ascertain from the right hon. gentleman who had just taken his place, whether any arrangement had been made, or was in contemplation, for filling up the offices of Master of the Mint, Judge-advocate, and Surveyor-general of Woods and Forests?
Mr. Canning.
—Yes [great cheers and laughter].
Mr. G. Dawson
said, he did not quite understand what all the cheering meant. However, to bring the matter to a crisis, he would make a motion upon the subject. He would move, in order to afford an opportunity of making some observations which he was desirous the hon. gentlemen on the other side should hear.—"That an humble address should be presented to His Majesty, praying that copies of the commissions of the Master of the Mint and of the Judge-advocate might be laid before the House." it would have been but fitting, he thought, that, after so long a delay, the House should have been informed who were the gentlemen intended to fill those offices. As nothing was intimated directly, report, as usual, had been busy; and statements had got abroad, that the places in question were to be filled by some of the gentlemen who had lately coalesced with the right hon. gentleman at the head of affairs. If that report were true, this would be the last act of that political farce, which the right hon. gentleman had been carrying on, with wonderful success, for the last five weeks; but, in the plot of that farce there did appear to be one or two very curious circumstances of coincidence, to which he wished, very shortly, to point the attention of the House. He had heard the right hon. gentleman declare, but a night or two back, from his place on the opposite bench, that he had received the resignations of those six ministers who had retired from office, because they were opposed to the measure of the Catholic claims, "In the King's closet." This was the right hon. gentleman's statement, which it was impossible for him to doubt;
506
507
508
sine qua non
509
Mr. Brougham rose
to second the motion [great laughter and cheers]. He said, that he trusted the House would believe, from his seconding the motion of the
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
Mr. Canning
said, he rose for the purpose, and not without the hope of being able to persuade the House to replace his hon. friend in that priority, to which, by the invariable practice of the House, he was entitled. He would take leave to suggest to the hon. gentleman who moved this amendment, that proceedings so irregular brought with them generally their own cure, from the disgust which they never failed to excite [loud cheers]. The trick was too bare; and if he thought himself justified in adopting such means, he must not be surprised, nor would he have any right to complain, if upon a division, he found the House declaring its sense of such proceedings, in an unceremonious and expressive manner. Not only was priority due, by long and undeviating practice, to his hon. friend; but, although the interpolated topics were perhaps more interesting, he must remind the House, that there were large interests at stake upon the decision of the subject fixed for discussion this evening, which ought not to be lightly risked, and which would not fairly admit of postponement. He could assure the hon. gentleman, however, that he felt towards him no personal malice. He was too old a stager not to be able to bear this attack without resentment. He had, indeed, had to endure the assaults of those benches when filled by other persons, of a quality which he
522
Captain Dundas
complained of the harsh treatment of his noble relative by the hon. and learned gentleman. He assured that hon. and learned gentleman, that his noble relative cared neither for his friendship nor his enmity.
523
Mr. Brougham
appealed to the House, whether he had spoken of lord Melville otherwise than in the most good-humoured way. He assured the gallant member, that he was mistaken if he attributed to him any ill feeling towards that nobleman. As to the sentiments of lord Melville towards him, he could only say, that he should be very glad of his lordship's friendship, and that he believed he had not his enmity, and that he did not expect to enjoy either. He was so far from feeling enmity to lord Melville, that he heartily wished to see him back in the government.
Mr. Peel
said:—I admit that it would be more regular to pass to the question to which I expected this evening would be devoted; but I must say that I am very far from being satisfied with the explanation of the hon. and learned gentleman, as to the principles upon which the present coalition has taken place; and yet a proper explanation of those principles involves questions of the greatest importance, and upon the explanation given would depend the degree of confidence which could be properly placed in the present administration. In commenting on the conduct of the gentlemen who now sit on the opposition bench, the hon. and learned member has adopted the same tone of sarcastic remark, which characterised his speeches when he himself sat on that side of the House. He has congratulated the opposition on the new tone of asperity which it has acquired; but I must also congratulate the hon. and learned gentleman on the promptitude and facility which he has displayed in employing that tone of sarcasm in favour of the ministry, which he so lately employed against them—at least against the head of the present ministry. I cannot help congratulating the hon, and learned gentleman on the facility with which he has fallen into the cant by which, as he himself used to say, the supporters of the old administration were so much tainted. But it is a very grave question, whether these gentlemen had not abandoned their principles in the short space of a week, and the subject ought to be treated with another temper. I need not say that I feel no personal animosity against the hon. and learned gentleman. I never did entertain any such feeling towards him, nor do I now. But I am sorry to say that our political differences are as wide as ever, if not wider; for he certainly has not
524
525
526
527
528
Sir F. Burdett
instantly rose to address the House, but gave way to
Mr. Brougham,
who wished to explain a passage in his speech, which had been misunderstood by the right hon. gentleman; who had supposed him to impute the quality of factiousness to the mere common act of asking questions calculated to annoy the government. Now, in fact, he had said nothing that warranted that construction. He did not represent that practice as indicative of faction; but he had said, that it did look something like faction, that when one hon. gentleman had opened a motion, another should interpose with another motion and debate.
Sir F. Burdett
then proceeded.—Though, Sir, the right hon. gentleman has not attempted to answer any one of my hon. and learned friend's arguments, he has thought fit to bring forward a variety of insinuations and personal allusions, and
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
squad
536
537
Sir Edward Knatchbull
complained of the language which had been used to the right hon. gentleman and his friends, as wholly unjustifiable, either from their con
538
539
Mr. Canning
said:—I hope the House will permit me to say a few words in reply to the very didactic speech of the hon. baronet who has just favoured the House with his opinions, and in explanation of my observation upon a former occasion. The speech of the hon. baronet refers principally to the reception which I have given to a question addressed to me in the commencement of this debate. I do not object to that question itself, upon any considerations connected with its object; but I must take leave to say, that I have never known, in the whole of my parliamentary experience, those rules which courtesy permits, and which convenience has sanctioned, to have been
540
541
Sir E. Knatchbull,
in explanation, said, he thought the right hon. gentleman, before he asserted the accusation to be untrue, might as well have examined whether any such accusation had been made. What he had said was, that government, when called upon to explain, did not give any explanation. But he never said, that the right hon. gentleman had referred his explanation to the hon. and learned member for Winchelsea, or to any other hon. member; for he did not believe that that right hon. gentleman would condescend to leave to any one to do that for him which he was so capable of doing himself.
542
Mr. Canning.
—The hon. baronet's explanation makes the case worse than it was. He mistakes, or seems to mistake me, when he supposes that I was denying that I had not answered the question when called upon. My defence begins earlier. I say not, that I did not answer, but that I was not called upon; and I appeal to my right hon. friend (Mr. Peel), whether his observations were not addressed to those members who supported government, and not to the government itself. The proposition is, therefore,
ad invidiam
Mr. Peel
bore testimony to the correctness with which his right hon. friend had stated the effect of his allusions. While, however, he acknowledged that the right hon. gentleman had set his hon. friend right in this respect, he must contend, that he had a fair right to ask those who had accepted office, under the new government, why they had so taken office? He thought, however, that, throughout his speech, he had most particularly implied, that he was satisfied his right hon. friend intended to adhere to his principles; and, acting upon his own views of the interests
543
Lord John Russell
said, he had felt considerable surprise at the irregularity which the late right hon. Home Secretary had committed, in at first saying, that he was about to speak on the propriety of the House proceeding with the motion of the gallant general, and then going into certain charges, at great length, against those who had accepted office under the new government, and giving his own reasons for refusing to do so. Now, as he did not mean to accept office himself under it, he might, perhaps, the more readily be allowed to make a few observations on the speech of the right hon. gentleman, who had said, among other things, that he supposed, if there was any principle of union which bound together the parties comprising the present administration, it was the wish that there should he some change effected in the constitution of parliament. He was astonished at this remark; for the right hon. gentleman might have remembered to have heard the right hon. member for Knaresborough, (Mr. Tierney) but a very few sessions ago, declare his conviction, and from the opposition side of the House, that parliamentary reform never could be a party question in this country. It might be allowed him also to state a fact, which he had, perhaps, better reason to be informed of than the right hon. gentleman, and that corroborated this view of the case. He himself, some few years since, had expressed his wish, that the whole of the party with which he usually voted should unite to promote the cause of parliamentary reform; but it then appeared, not only that most of the leaders of that party were desirous that it should not be made a party question, but that the Whig party, if they should come in as a party, would be opposed to it, or to any other measure having parliamentary reform for its object. This fact he mentioned, to shew that it could not be justly imputed as a crime to any person, with whom he had been in the habit of voting, to have taken office on the present occasion, without having stipulated that parliamentary reform should be made a party question. But, perhaps, the right
544
Mr. G. Dawson,
in reply, began by declaring that he should not divide the
545
546
Sir G. Warrender
expressed his surprise at such a discussion having arisen out of a question, and a reply, which the hon. gentleman who spoke last, seemed, however, to think of so stinging a character. At first, he had expected that there, would be a degree of neutrality, as between the contending parties, in respect of the Roman Catholic question: and he was the more sorry that that neutrality had not been observed, because he could feelingly declare, that the absence of it had very nearly lost him his election. On the present occasion, he must say, that as fair and honest a factious course had been pursued by the gentlemen opposed to the government, as it had ever been his fortune to witness. The right hon. gentleman, late the Home Secretary—for whom he had the highest respect—in the first place, had deprecated the going into a discussion, which would prevent the House from fully entering into the motion of the hon. and gallant general, and then went on, to his great surprise, into almost every irrelevant topic which could be suggested. Seriously, he must thank the gentlemen who had taken so active a part in fomenting this discussion: because it enabled him to perceive what was the course of opposition which they were attempting to pursue in regard to the right hon. gentleman. To that right hon. gentleman, he, for one, should tender—a most inefficient it might be, but certainly a most cordial and zealous, support. He was afraid he had been but an idle member of parliament; but he had had experience enough, as a member, to
547
SHIPPING INTEREST.] General Gascoyne
then observed, that if he were now to bring forward his motion, the House might divide upon it; and he therefore thought it would be adviseable not to carry it further at present. He appealed to his right hon. colleague to say whether or no the question should not be postponed.
Mr. Huskisson
said, he was not prepared to give a decided answer to his gallant friend, as to whether his motion should be pressed at present, or deferred to a future opportunity. The judgment of his gallant friend must decide the question. This much, however, he would offer his gallant friend by way of advice: If he considered the present occasion a fit opportunity for pressing the question to a division, there was no reason why he should not do so.
Mr. Heathcote
hoped that further time would be allowed before the discussion of this important question would again be argued. One thing was certain; namely, that while the question relative to the formation of his majesty's government was open to the observations of hon. members, neither this question, nor any other unconnected with the one at issue, would have the least chance of being fairly and dispassionately handled. Suppose the question were fixed for to-morrow, might not the member for Derry again come down, and in the midst of the discussion bring forward some motion similar to that with which he had favoured the House to-night? There never was a time when the spirit of party was so high as at present; and he might truly add, there never was a question brought before the House which required more temperance and less of party feeling than that which the hon. and gallant general proposed to bring forward. The hon. gentleman concluded, by moving, that this question be now adjourned.
548
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, May 4.
NEW ADMINISTRATION.] The Earl of Winchilsea
said, he would take that opportunity of asking, whether it was the intention of any noble lords opposite, some of whom had recently occupied the places they held in that House, to bring forward any motion on the three great constitutional questions which had been supported ably and strenuously, and, he might add, with firmness and consistency, by some noble lords opposite. The questions he alluded to were, parliamentary reform, abolition of sinecure places, and the repeal of the Test-act. If there was no intention on the part of any noble lord opposite to bring forward any of the questions during the present session, he should think it his duty, under the existing state of affairs, and particularly when he saw the most extraordinary condition of his majesty's government, composed of two different parties, one of which had always constitutionally supported the questions he had alluded to, while the other had always opposed them; to bring under the consideration of parliament those questions, which would put to the test the principles of the present administration. He therefore proposed, on the 11th of June, to bring forward a motion, for the House to resolve itself into a committee to take into consideration the state of the nation. He did not think he was called upon to state the grounds for making this motion, further than what he had done; but he thought noble lords must agree with him in thinking, that either there was an abandonment of principles on the part of the noble lords opposite, or that there was some private cause, which was calculated to influence their public opinion, and produce unanimity among them. One of these two positions must be conceded to him; and he thought it necessary, for the preservation of the national and political character of the country, to bring the question to a decided issue.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that it might be convenient to consider directly what was the real state of the government as it stood at present; for there were reports going abroad that some of the offices of the new government were only provisionally filled up.
The Earl of Harrowby
said, that, as there was no motion before the House, the course pursued by the noble marquis was quite irregular.
549
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, there was a motion before the House. That motion was, that the House be summoned.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that if he had been out of order, the learned lord on the woolsack was there to correct him; but if it were supposed that he would be put down by any noble lord, for broadly stating his opinion on any subject, he could tell that noble lord, that he was addressing himself to a man of very different character and spirit from what he expected. The extreme haste in which the noble lord opposite rose to interrupt him, proved that what he was about to say would not be very agreeable for him to hear. He was confident that he must feel a little awkward. He had heard reports, that it was not certain whether some of the noble lords who now occupied places in the cabinet were ultimately to retain them. Being of that opinion himself, he should like for a little elucidation upon the subject. He had heard that the noble lord who was Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and the right hon. gentleman who at present filled the situation of Secretary of State for the Home Department, were not permanently to remain in those offices; that they only held them provisionally, until other noble lords might find it convenient to launch into office. Those noble lords waited a short time to see to what issue the government might come. Was he to understand, that those noble lords who had gone over to the other side of the House were determined to retain their new offices; or did they look upon those offices as only provisionally held? This question was one of so much importance, that it was highly necessary to come to a right understanding upon it. When he looked at the building which had been erected, he found it divested of all its main pillars, and that it was composed now of a sort of rubbish. The artificer had certainly been dexterous in forming the building; be he questioned with its durability. Could he have found out such a mass of rubbish in any other quarter, formed as it were by the two parties. The artificer had made a dexterous endeavour to un-Whig a part of the Whigs, and un-Tory a part of the Tories. In such a situation was the government now placed. Good God! who could without pain look back for twenty years, and now see the country in such a state, that if one went along the streets he heard every man saying—Good God, what will
550
Lord Goderich
said, he thought he should be wanting in respect to their lordships, among whom he had been so recently introduced, if he abstained from making a few observations, in consequence of what had fallen from his noble friend; for so he thought he must still call him, although he had been pleased to designate him as part of the rubbish of which the government was formed. But if that government was composed of rubbish, still he would not consent to be beaten in detail by discussing incidentally, any subject that might be introduced; especially when a noble earl was prepared to open a strong battery upon the building, which was to blow all the rubbish away. Let that be done. He asked no better; and he cared
551
The Marquis of Londonderry
did not mean to apply the term rubbish to the noble lord. He had formed part of the old administration; and he meant to apply the term to those only who had newly come in.
The Marquis of Anglesea
observed, that he was, in consequence of that explanation, designated as part of the rubbish. After the plain explanation he had given of the motives which induced him to accept the situation which he filled, he should not trouble the House with any further observations.
Lord King
stated, that allusion having been made to a building, he would give an explanation of the word rubbish. Any person who was practically acquainted with building houses must know, that what was sent away from the building was the rubbish. The noble marquis seemed to have a mist before his eyes when he wished to see an end of the present government. The noble marquis thought that it could not stand; but he was convinced that it would stand, in spite of all the efforts that might be made to the contrary. The noble marquis had stated, that the architect found great difficulty in making a foundation; but he thought that the present building, with the scaffolding before it, was much more ornamental and more useful than the old building. As the noble marquis was a general, he would remind him of the answer given by a French general to a German officer, who, after drawing out his battalions, offered to fight the Frenchman. The French general said, that it was his plan never to fight but when it pleased himself; so that the noble lord need not feel surprised, if those persons
552
The Marquis of Salisbury
said, that the present subject had been brought on by the intemperance of one of the cabinet ministers. He had thought that a noble lord, long practised in that House, would not have interfered to put down a noble lord not in the habit of addressing the House. With respect to what had fallen from his noble friend, he had no doubt but that some part of the present cabinet held their offices only provisionally. He understood that the noble lord at the head of the Foreign Department held his situation only provisionally. He was greatly surprised that his noble friend should have taken place. Indeed, they all seemed to feel an anxious desire to retain place at the expense of political consistency. He believed that the hon. gentleman at the head of the government had, from his love of office, placed himself in a dilemma from which he would not easily extricate himself. He was under the necessity of bringing forward that measure, of which he had so long been the distinguished and violent advocate, or else he was deceiving the country. Ambition was his ruling principle. His ambition had deprived the government of those illustrious men, who had so long conducted public affairs to their own credit, and to the great benefit of the country.
The Earl of Harrowby
hardly thought it necessary to say a single word upon his interruption of the noble marquis. He had conceived that the question had been put and carried; and under that impression, he had interrupted the noble marquis. He believed every one would acknowledge it to be impossible for him to interfere for the purpose of preventing any noble lord from stating his views and sentiments, whether they might be more or less pleasant to him. He was happy that the noble lord opposite had given notice of his motion, and that their lordships were to have a full and complete discussion; for he did not like to take up detached parts of a subject. Though he was there in his place, he was not there by his own wish. On the contrary, his wish would have been, at the period of life when his faculties for official duty might be supposed to be diminishing, to withdraw himself from the public service: but he had not hesitated an instant as to the line of conduct which he had to pursue. The reasons which in-
553
The Earl of Winchilsea
withdrew his motion, and said that he would, on Monday, fix the day when he would call their lordships attention to the state of the nation.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, May 4.
NEW ADMINISTRATION.]
On the motion, that the Committee of Supply be postponed till Monday,
Sir T. Lethbridge
said, that he should oppose the going into a committee of supply on that day, as the opinions which he entertained of the title of the New Administration to the confidence of the country were such as would render it impossible for him to acquiesce in any grant which might be proposed. The observations which he was about to make would hardly be agreeable to the hon. gentleman on the other side; and some which he had intended to make he should be compelled to postpone, in consequence of not seeing the first Lord of the Treasury in his place; but, for those remarks which he had to offer, he believed the present was a perfectly fit and competent time. He did not mean to say that, in consequence of what he had to offer, the House might feel itself bound to stop all supplies to his majesty's government, but still he thought, that both the House and the country should look with jealousy to the measures of the present crisis. Report said, that a part of the existing government was merely provisional; if so, the state of things was one
554
555
556
557
558
559
Mr. Huskisson
said, he would not have risen but for the circumstance, that during the very entertaining speech of the hon. baronet the benches had become gradually full. And he now rose to inform those hon. gentlemen what was the real question upon which so extraordinary a speech had been delivered. It was not the question of granting supplies, nor of going into a committee for the purpose of resolving to grant them; but it was, that the Secretary of the Treasury proposed to postpone to another day the motion which stood for this; upon the discussion of which motion, the hon. baronet might have had the very opportunity which, according to the tenor of his speech, he desired. The hon. baronet had alluded to the probability of calling a new parliament. Certainly, his motion might have the effect of placing the government in a disagreeable situation; for if there were no supplies, and the House should prevent itself from going into a committee, which would be the neces
560
Mr. W. Peel
was sorry to detain the House by stating some reasons differing from those of his right hon. relative for resigning his employment. Independent of the feeling which they had in common upon the Catholic question, he saw no reason for confiding in the government of the right hon. gentleman. His confidence was placed in the ministers who had resigned, not in those who retained office. He admired the talents of the right hon. gentleman, and he had no fear, while he was assisted by the cooler heads and more regulated minds of the ministers who had now left him; but, when he saw him surrounded by a crowd of visionary theorists, of political economists, and the professors of what were called the liberal principles of the present day, he could not look without alarm at the dangers to which the country was exposed; nor view wit lout apprehension the perils into which it might be precipitated. He did not think that there ever was a greater delusion attempted on the country than the formation of the present cabinet. Six out of the eleven persons, he would venture to say, would not hold their situations long. If they were really joined by the noble lords whose influence they boasted, why did not those noble lords join them in an unequivocal manner? It might suit the views of those noble lords; but how would it suit the country? Were the affairs of the Foreign and Home Offices fit objects to be trifled with? This was not the way that the country ought to be governed. He was of opinion, that the
561
Sir G. Warrender
said, that he had not been much misunderstood by his hon. friend and colleague. He was quite ready to give his support to the new administration, and he intended to give up dinner and all other amusements which would interfere with that object. On this account he must postpone the agreeable society and comfortable entertainments which he had had the honour to enjoy in company with his hon. colleague, till the end of the session. They would each recover their good humour, and would meet over a good dinner with renewed satisfaction. At present, there seemed to be a little too much soreness among some members of the House for the loss of places [cheers] to allow them fully to enjoy themselves. But, after the session be trusted that their convivial parties would be renewed with mutual satisfaction.
Lord Castlereagh
complimented the hon. baronet on that sound display of truly English feeling which the House had witnessed. He would tell hon. gentlemen opposite, that he sat there as an independent member; aye, as independent as they were when sitting on that side. He hoped more independent, as he would compromise no principle to get over to the other side of the House. He could not reconcile it to that duty which he owed to his constituents, to give any support whatever to such an administration as the present. On one occasion, however, they should have no cause to doubt his cordial co-operation: he alluded to the Catholic question, which he hoped the ministers
562
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, May 7.
CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION.] The Bishop of Chester rose
to present a Petition to their lordships from the city of Chester, against granting any further concessions to the Catholics; and in presenting it he felt himself called upon to say a single word. He had not, on any occasion, felt any great anxiety to vindicate himself from reports; but, on the present occasion, it had been said publicly, that he had been the instigator of the present petition, and he must therefore distinctly and solemnly assure their lordships, that he had not heard of the petition until he had received it to present to their lordships. Though he
563
Earl Grosvenor
said, he had been requested to support the prayer of the petition. It, however, could never be supposed that he approved of its prayer. He was not surprised at his right rev. friend disclaiming all connexion with the getting-up of that petition, after it had been unjustly reported that it had been prepared under his authority. He was also readily disposed to be satisfied with that disclaimer, for he knew that the people of Chester had such a horror of Popery, that it had induced them to send up a second petition to their lordships, during the present session, against Catholic emancipation. He believed there was no place in England where the horrors of Popery pressed themselves on the minds of men, women, and children, in so great a degree as in Chester. Though he did not expect any rapid progress towards the change of that feeling, yet he did expect that, ultimately, a change would take place; for some friends of his residing in Chester, had lately assured him, that they began to entertain a different opinion upon the subject of the Roman Catholic claims to that which they had formerly held.
The Duke of Sussex
said, he held in his hand a petition relating to the same subject. It came from the Roman Catholics of the province of Connaught, praying to be relieved from those penalties under which they laboured, and to participate in those civil rights from which they were now excluded. In presenting this petition, he thought it his duty to say a few words, in the first instance, to support the prayer of the petition; and likewise to state the reasons which had prevented him from presenting the petition sooner. When this petition was first handed to him, he had been prevented from attending to his duties in that House, on account of being engaged upon their lordships' committees; and afterwards an event had taken place, which caused him to delay still longer presenting the petition. But, seeing that so great a number of petitions against the Catholic claims had been presented to their lordships, he thought he should be acting unjustly towards the individuals who had
564
NEW ADMINISTRATION.] The Marquis of Londonderry,
in rising to move for some information, in addition to that moved for by his noble friend a few days before, which would enable their lordships to form a correct estimate of the state of the Foreign Office, spoke to the following effect:—If the noble lords opposite will get up and state, that the present administration is constituted as it is to remain—that it is not, in the view of the noble lords opposite, merely provisional—then I will not persevere in pressing this subject on your lordships, or move for those papers which I now mean to ask for. But, unless they make such a declaration, I shall feel it my duty, not only now, but at every subsequent opportunity, to ask for such information as will enable us to see what is the state of the offices held by the noble lords on the other side. My noble friend said, the other night, he wished for a fair field and no favour; and my noble friend will do me the justice to believe, that I am not a man who wants any thing but a fair fight. I think I have served my country sufficiently long to entitle me to try a little to find out what is going on, and I shall bring forward motions until I see in what state the government stands. Its present posit on is quite a new one. Is it
565
l.
566
567
568
569
en second
570
Lord Dudley and Ward
replied to the noble marquis, but parts of his sentences were inaudible below the bar. We understood his lordship to say, that their lordships would not expect him to follow the noble marquis through the vast variety of topics which he alluded to, and which it would have been much better had he omitted altogether, or at least deferred them until the day when the motion of which his noble friend had given notice should come on. As the noble marquis had thought proper to allude to him, he should beg leave to trouble their lordships with a few words. He should not go into all the charges of the noble marquis, but should confine himself to that one which related to his acceptance of the office he had now the honour to hold.—I accepted it (said his lordship) because I was convinced, by the opinions of those whom I respect, that by so doing I might humbly and honourably serve his majesty at a time when the services of his subjects were more especially required. How long I shall continue to hold the office which I now occupy, depends on his majesty, and on my conviction that I can serve him usefully [cheers]. But, be that continuance longer
571
CATHOLIC QUESTION.] The Earl of Mansfield
intimated his intention of submitting a motion to their lordships, on the subject of Catholic Emancipation, on the 7th of June; for which day he moved, that their lordships be summoned.
Earl Grey rose
to put a question to the
572
The Earl of Mansfield
said, he was ready to give every explanation in his power; but he must be excused if, at that moment, he was unable to detail precisely the form and object of the motion. However, he was able to say, that it was his wish and intention to lay before their lordships a resolution, declaring, that the country was now in a fit state to express their decided opinion with regard to the exclusion of the Catholics from power, and to say whether that exclusion ought to be abolished, or limited, or maintained, in its present state. He should also propose to them to declare, that they approved of the principle of exclusion, and that they considered it to be founded on, and immutably connected with, the principles of the British constitution. And further, it would be his wish to obtain, by means of this motion, a declaration from the Crown, that would allay the alarms of his majesty's Protestant subjects, by making it known, that it was his majesty's intention to resist any encroachment on the ecclesiastical establishments of the country. This was the purport of his motion, although these would not be the precise words of it. Whether he proceeded or not in this motion, would depend in a great measure, on the opinions of those whom he respected. His own opinions with regard to the policy and propriety of exclusion were (he was obstinate enough to say) likely to remain unchanged; but he should not act upon them alone. The motion he intended to submit, was one which, if it succeeded, would, he thought, be attended with general benefit: if it failed, he knew that ridicule would be attempted to be attached to it. All that ridicule he was himself prepared to submit to; but he should not
573
APPEALS—DEPUTY SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.]
The Commission for the appointment of the Master of the Rolls, as Deputy Speaker, was read by the Clerk of the House.
The Earl of Lauderdale
wished, that it should be explained, by some member of the government, whether, by the commission they had just heard read, it was intended to make the learned person therein mentioned the Chairman of the House, for the purpose of hearing and deciding Appeal cases, without, at the same time, creating him a member of the House? If such was the object of the commission, he thought it involved a strange anomaly; since, after having heard the case, and drawn up the judgment, that learned person (for whose talents he entertained the sincerest respect) must put that judgment into the hands of a peer to move that it be received by their lordships. He thought the present administration had been pledged to act upon the principles of lord Liverpool's administration. Now, he wished to know whether this appointment was a part of their performance of the promise? There had been some time since a Deputy Speaker introduced into their lordships' House; but, had the noble earl, then at the head of the government, introduced among them a person who was not a peer to fill that situation? Certainly not: for it had been filled by a noble lord whose decease they had recently had reason to regret. He wished, therefore, upon this subject, to know, what were the intentions of the government.
The Lord Chancellor
[lord Lyndhurst] begged to take upon himself the whole responsibility of the measure now introduced to their lordships' notice. He thought they would be of opinion that, considered as a temporary measure, and with respect to the business of the House and of the court of Chancery, it was both prudent and proper. The noble earl had alluded to lord Liverpool's administration, and had spoken as if there was no precedent for this measure. Now, he might have recollected—and, if he pleased, no
574
575
The Earl of Lauderdale
did not object to the arrangement of the business itself, and did not wish to throw the heavy duties of the court of Chancery and of this House upon the shoulders of the lord Chancellor; but his objection was, that whoever might be appointed to take part in the performance of those duties should be enabled to do so as a member of that House. He was sure there was none more capable, in every respect, than the learned individual whose commission had been now read; but he objected to the anomaly of appointing an individual to try appeal cases there—an employment of the highest confidence—when that individual, after having formed his judgment, must propose it to a peer before it could be received by the House.
Lord Holland
said, that, as a member of that House, he must object to noble lords using expressions, which seemed to convey the idea, that the learned law lords sat in that House to try and decide appeals. The right to try and decide appeals was not limited to any one noble lord, or to any particular peers in preference to the rest; but resided in every member of that House equally. They were all "peers;" and that one word showed that they were all equal. It was the duty of every man in that House, as a lord of Parliament, to sit and insist in the hearing of appeals. If the deputy Speaker or the lord Keeper was, as by the constitution of that House he might be, a com
576
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, May 7.
CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION — NEW ADMINISTRATION] Mr. M. Fitzgerald
begged leave to withdraw his notice of motion which stood for to-morrow, for "recommending that the House of Commons shall take such course as may be best calculated to realize the policy in which the Union of Great Britain and Ireland was recommended to the Legislatures of both Countries."
577
The Speaker
asked, to what day the right hon. member meant to postpone it?
Mr. M. Fitzgerald
replied, that he meant to withdraw the notice altogether.
The Marquis of Chandos
begged to call the attention of the House to the declaration of the right hon. member when he originally gave the notice in question, that it was absolutely necessary that some measure should be adopted immediately for the purpose of restoring tranquillity to Ireland. Having changed his seat, with his seat, the right hon. gentleman seemed to have changed his opinions; but perhaps it might be as well if he would assign his reasons for withdrawing a notice given under the circumstances just mentioned. It seemed, that now certain honourable members had gone over to the other side, they were not allowed the same free exercise of their judgments which they formerly possessed; and he was inclined to think, that this was the true cause why the notice was not merely postponed, but entirely abandoned. He hoped that other gentlemen would not desert their principles as well as the side of the House they had formerly favoured with their presence, and thus teach the country, which once admired the character of an English Whig, to look upon it as disgraced and degraded.
Mr. M. Fitzgerald
said, he should be most anxious, if the forms of the House permitted him, to offer some remarks upon what had fallen from the noble lord. He presumed that in bringing forward his motion, or in abandoning it, he was at liberty to exercise his own discretion, and was responsible to no person. If, however, he was less responsible to any persons than to others, it was to the decided and unqualified enemies of the claims of those, for whose interest he professed to act.
Sir T. Lethbridge rose
to order. The right hon. member, he said, had an undoubted right to withdraw his motion without giving any explanation of his motives for doing so. There was now no question before the House, and any further conversation would be irregular.
The Speaker
said, that the right hon. member was unquestionably out of order; but he ought to have called the noble lord to order in the first instance. His attention, however, was occupied at the time, by some questions proposed by members near the chair, and he did not hear what was passing. The House, perhaps,
578
Lord Belgrave
presented a petition from Chester, against the Catholic claims. The noble lord observed, that the granting of emancipation would, in his opinion, be the most effectual means of diminishing the influence of the Pope in this empire; but he hoped that ministers would not bring the question forward, until the time was favourable for its discussion.
Sir H. Hardinge.
—I rise to take this occasion of remarking on what occurred a few minutes ago. I perceive that the Catholic question is to be sacrificed to a political object. We have recently had repeated instances of the abandonment of motions relating to Ireland, of which notice had been given by hon. members, who used to sit on this side of the House. They have been postponed
sine die;
sine qua non
sine die
579
580
Mr. M. Fitzgerald.
—The House will perceive, that I lent myself unwillingly to the interruption of the regular course of its proceedings. If any hon. gentleman had asked me, in courtesy, out of the House, on what grounds I abandoned my motion, I should have told him, with the utmost pleasure; and I have now no objection to state them in a few words. My reason for withdrawing my motion on the measures expected to arise out of the union with Ireland (which motion I avow was intended to comprehend the whole Catholic question) was simply this—because I consider it would be injurious to the Catholic cause to bring it forward. That I hold to be a sufficient motive; and if I wanted any confirmation of its sufficiency, I find it in the approbation of the Catholic body. At the largest aggregate meeting, representing the feeling of the Catholic nobility, clergy, gentry, and the public, perhaps ever held, there was found only one individual to object to the proposition, that the discussion of the claims should, for the present, be avoided. That is my justification, and an imperative consideration with me, why I should not bring on my motion. That decision I consider completely controlling my opinion upon the subject; and no person professing zeal in the cause can, in common sense, desire at this moment to press it forward. I leave it, then, for those
581
582
Lord Hotham
said, he had never given a vote on the Catholic claims, or on any other question, as a mere party question; but he rose now, to declare, that, after all he had heard and witnessed in that House, since the change which had been effected in the government, he had fully made up his mind to give his support to those gentlemen who had lately been called to office by his majesty. He felt unfeigned respect, at the same time, for those members of the late administration who had gone out, and regretted, that in any allusions to them the word conspiracy, how casually soever, or with whatever qualifications, had been made use of. But, would any body who observed the course which the business of tendering in their resignations had taken get up in his place and say, that there had not been, at least, a previous tacit understanding between those noble persons, as to the conduct which should be adopted by them on a recent occasion? Could any plain, straightforward man really doubt that, between the period of that calamity which deprived the country of the services of lord Liverpool, and the period of their finally retiring from office, those distinguished individuals had acted together, and in concert; and that their ultimate object all along had been, if not to compel his majesty to revoke the nomination he had made of a prime minister, yet to deprive that right hon. gentleman of all the most essential elements, if possible, of the new government, which he was instructed to organize? In the right hon. gentleman whose secession from office was so much a subject of regret on all sides of the House—the late Home Secretary—he, for one, had great confidence; but, as a person qualified to fill the eminent post of head of the administration, he had still more confidence in the right hon. gentleman opposite. He would only add, that that confidence had been much increased by seeing that the right hon. gentleman had the support of several hon. and very eminent individuals, who in times gone by, had fought in the good old cause of public liberty, and had been in the habit of voting from the opposition benches. He saw nothing incongruous in this, at such a time as the present, when party differences had been almost extinguished; and it was surely highly conducive to the best inter
583
Lord Althorp
said:—I feel, Sir, that I should not be doing my duty, if I did not rise on this occasion, to express my opinions on the matters which have been so much alluded to in the discussion. When I first saw the list of the gentlemen, of whom his majesty had been pleased to form his new government, I confess it was my wish, as it was certainly my expectation, that I might be able, generally, to support them. That wish, and that expectation, have been very much increased and fortified, by the discussions that have subsequently taken place in parliament. Some doubts might, in the first instance, have suggested themselves to my mind, from the circumstance of the junction which has been effected between the new government and some of the hon. friends with whom I have usually voted; but those doubts, I am bound to declare, are entirely removed. Indeed, Sir, it is impossible for us not to see, that the time is now arrived, in which we must choose between a government actuated by liberal and enlightened principles, and one of Toryism in its most odious forms. Beyond all doubt, from the right hon. gentleman who has been placed at the head of this government, I differ widely on two most important questions; namely, Parliamentary Reform, and the repeal of the Test acts. I regret to find that here is an administration with which, upon these topics, I shall not agree; but I should be worse than a madman if, on that account, I should either refuse to go along with, or vote for the dismissal of, a government, which, on so many other subjects I may concur with, and which it is obvious we could not replace. Other grounds, I know there are, upon which I must anticipate that we shall not, in some points, coincide; for example, the Catholic question. I think that that ought to be brought forward as a cabinet measure, I think it ought to be so introduced, in consequence of its vast importance; and also from the conviction
584
Mr. R. Colborne
was anxious to declare how entirely he acquiesced in all the observations of his noble friend. No doubt, in the arrangements which had been recently made, there were some things which required explanation, and which it would have been more satisfactory to the public to have found no mention of at all. No doubt, too, if the thing was to be done, "it were well it were done quickly." But, after all deductions made, and after all that had been said to the disparagement of the new government, he must acknowledge, that most of the individuals composing it possessed his entire confidence; and this, his favourable impression of them, had been much strengthened by the tone and tenor of recent debates. He had no blame to impute to those members of the late government who had resigned their situations. He did not care with what motives they had taken that step: he had no doubt their reasons were very sufficient ones; and, at any rate, the House should recollect that they had resigned, and were not turned out. A word before he sat down, as to some charges that he had heard from the other side against the Whigs; as if the Whigs had given their assistance to the right hon. gentleman from a desire of office. He, himself, could not be supposed to have any object of that kind in view; and he must contend, that, for many years past, the Whigs had acted in the fairest and most honourable manner, in the disinterested assistance which they had occasionally rendered to ministers. In the present instance, they had given the right hon. gentleman a very handsome and disinterested support. In conclusion, he must be allowed to express his regret at the tone which had pervaded some of their discussions lately. There was a sort of irritation in them, that he was truly sorry to observe. Whether this arose from a
585
Lord Nugent
said, he was not anxious to prolong the debate; but wished to be allowed to answer for himself, upon some points which, for the party to which he belonged, collectively, had been answered before. Having during the whole of his parliamentary life, until lately, been in opposition, he would explain the causes which now led to his being seen in a contrary situation. His opinions upon the Catholic question, it was unnecessary for him to repeat; but he was not ashamed to declare, that in conformity with those opinions, he had once thought he never could give his support to an administration divided upon that question. He had, at the commencement of the present change, looked to the formation of the new cabinet, and had hoped to see it formed united upon that question; but he found that he looked for such a cabinet in vain. So late, even, as on last Tuesday night, he had intended in fact, in consequence of what had occurred, to change his seat in that House; but when he heard the speech of the right hon. member for the university, that speech had shown him his mistake, and pointed out to him the line of his duty. That speech disclosed to him clearly what the policy of the new administration might be expected to be: that its support might be considered as decided to that great question of Catholic emancipation, which, in the emphatic words of his right hon. friend near him, he felt to be a measure "wise in the name of policy, and just in the name of God." He felt that if the present administration was destroyed, a party would be forced upon the country in its stead, which was systematically opposed to Catholic emancipation, and to every other principle of liberal policy which was calculated to redound to our advantage, or to our honour as a nation. Under such circumstances, and with such a choice, it was impossible for him to hesitate. The hon. gentlemen on the opposite benches, if they questioned this feeling, not only did injustice to the gentlemen who had acted with him, but betrayed a want of knowledge of themselves. They asked, what could be the
586
Mr. Maberly
said, he had come down, on Thursday last, for the purpose of endeavouring, as soon as he could, to avoid those storms which he saw, from the spirit of the times, were likely to arise. Having taken a prominent part in the financial measures of that House, he perceived, when the government was re-modelled, that it might be put to him, why, on their Notice-book, he had no motions outstanding, on a variety of those subjects, the discussion of which he had always thought so important to the country? The explanation which he felt bound to give, after the taunts of a noble lord—after what had been said by a gallant officer—and notwithstanding the recommendation of another hon. member—he should now enter into; lest it should be imagined that he was designated, as the hon. member who had wilfully sacrificed his principles. That any hon. gentleman had wilfully sacrificed his principles, was an accusation which no difference of political opinions
587
588
589
Mr. Canning
said:—Although it was certainly my determination not to be provoked to take any part in this discussion, arising out of extraneous matters, I am yet, not provoked indeed, but induced by the speech of the hon. member for Abingdon to address a few words to the House; more particularly as the attention of the House has been a second time diverted from the business before it, by the speech of my noble friend, as I hope I may still call him. I am pleased, also, with the opportunity of answering the hon. gentleman who spoke last, and answering him on what he is courteously pleased to say, he does not put to me as a question, but as a recommendation only, and in respect to which the House, I think, may probably be glad to hear me state my present intentions. Now, Sir, it is undoubtedly my intention to propose, early in the next session, a committee of Finance, similar to those which were appointed three several times during Mr. Pitt's administration; after him in 1807, during Mr. Perceval's government; and again in 1817, on the motion of Lord Bexley. It is my intention to propose such a committee, and to submit to its consideration the whole state of our revenue. I ought in justice to add, that it was fully the intention, during the last session of my right hon. and now my noble friend (viscount Goderich) to lay before this House such a proposition; and that intention would have been executed, had not public events taken so extraordinary a course, as to drive him, at that time, from his purpose; and, had not the state of the country been subsequently such as to preclude any immediate expectation of bringing such a measure to a successful issue. I am the rather glad that that measure was postponed, because, without desiring, by this statement, impro
590
Lord Milton
said, that notwithstanding, the intimation with which the right hon. gentleman had so properly concluded his speech, he trusted that the House, and that right hon. gentleman, would allow him to detain them for a few moments, in order that he might express his heartfelt satisfaction at what he had just heard fall from him. He was very sure that the country was in a state which loudly demanded that the whole of its financial concerns should be submitted to a committee; for unless his majesty's government, in that committee which the right hon. gentleman intended to propose in the course of the next session, should be able to organize such arrangements as should
591
Mr. Alderman Waithman
had no hesitation in saying, that it was his wish to support the present government, and hoped that their measures would be such as to enable him conscientiously to support them. This much he thought it desirable for him to state, as one of the representatives of the capital of the kingdom.
Sir H. Hardinge
said, he did not understand the mysterious and shuffling manner in which the Catholic question was attempted to be smothered.
CONSOLIDATION OF THE CRIMINAL LAW] Mr. Peel
adverted to what he had stated on a former evening, that he would postpone, from that day, the notices which stood relative to the bills for Consolidating the Criminal Law, in order to give an opportunity to the gallant general opposite to bring forward a question immediately interesting to the Shipping concerns of the country. He was now ready to do as he had promised. He had informed his right hon. friend, who had succeeded him in the Home Department, that he was perfectly willing to take any course with those bills that might be consistent with his wishes. He had told him, that he would either continue the management of them through their remaining stages in that House; or, if his right bon. friend chose to take that duty on himself, he would give him every assistance in his power. His right hon. friend thought that, as he (Mr. Peel) had been occupied several months in preparing the clauses, it would accord better with the public interest, as it would probably meet the general concurrence of the House, if he continued to superintend the bills. He assured the House, that he would undertake with the greatest pleasure, both
592
SHIPPING INTEREST OF THE COUNTRY.] General Gascoyne,
on rising to bring forward his motion for a Committee of Inquiry into the state of the Shipping Interest, observed, that a subject of more importance could not engage the attention of parliament. He was aware of the feverish state of the times; but he denied that this question had any connection with the political events of the day; and those who considered the period when he first gave notice of the motion would, he was sure, acquit him of any intention of inflaming the heated spirit of parties. The petition which he had presented on this subject, from Liverpool, was signed by a numerous body of respectable shipowners; two hundred of the principal constituents and supporters of his right hon. colleagues. [The noise which prevailed in the House, from the commencement of the gallant general's speech, at this time nearly rendered him inaudible.] He was aware that he had, personally, no right to claim the attention of the House; but he trusted they would hear what he had to say, in consideration of the importance of the subject. He had the greatest admiration of the talents of his right hon. colleague, and on any other subject would
593
l.
594
595
596
l.
l.
l.
l.
597
l.
l.
l.
l.
s.
l.
l.
s.
l.
l.
s.
l.
s.
l.
s.
s.
l.
l.
598
599
l.
600
601
602
l.
l.
603
604
605
606
Mr. Liddell,
in seconding the motion of his gallant friend, hoped that the petition of one of the greatest commercial towns in the world would not be opposed by his majesty's government. He had been long aware of the distress and sufferings of the shipping interest; and, feeling the deepest commiseration for their situation, he was determined to lend his feeble aid in endeavouring to procure for the petitioners
607
608
609
610
611
612
Mr. Poulett Thompson
said, that, in rising to oppose the motion of the gallant general, he felt the greatest apprehension lest it should be supposed that he did so from any fear or any doubt of what the result of the labours of a Committee on the subject of Shipping would be. On the contrary, he felt certain that, as nothing but truth could be elicited by such an inquiry, the cause to which he was attached, the liberal principles of policy, as applied by the right hon. gentleman to the shipping of this country, would only be made more manifest, and be more than before confirmed. On this account he should rejoice at the establishment of a committee; because he felt that the principle of the right hon. gentleman would come out lighter than before, after having passed the ordeal of inquiry. Still he was bound to oppose the motion for two reasons, because he conceived that two evils might result from its being granted: one, that it might be construed into something like a doubt, on the part of his majesty's government, of the expediency of the principle: the other, that it would necessarily raise delusive hopes in the minds of the ship-owners and their friends. There was yet another reason which induced him to oppose it—that he did not think a committee should be granted on any subject, unless a sufficient case could be made out; and certainly, in his opinion, the gallant officer had failed entirely in doing so. He thought he should be able to shew to the House, that the hon. gentlemen who had supported the motion were equally unfortunate in their facts and their conclusions. He did not accuse them of having wilfully made mis-statements: all they had done was to believe a little too implicitly what had been stated to them by others. And, certainly, there was nothing in their credulity which astonished him so much as the extraordinary—he might almost call it unblushing—effrontery with which they were supplied with those distorted statements, by those who must have known how much they were so. The same hands which had supplied the gallant general had supplied the documents which were upon their table; and he should proceed to shew in what manner these statements had been compiled.
613
Tons.
Tons.
1819
111,000
1823
85,000
1820
84,000
1824
143,000
1821
74,000
1825
204,000
1822
67,000
1826
178,000
614
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
615
British.
Foreign.
1818
2,457,779 tons.
704,511
1820
2,270,400
408,401
1822
2,390,238
419,694
1824
2,364,249
694,880
1825
2,786,844
892,601
1826
2,478,047
643,922
British.
Foreign.
1821
2,819
6,358
1822
3,097
5,386
616
1823
3,016
6,187
1824
3,540
6,978
1825
5,186
7,974
1826
3,730
7,335
617
l.
l.
l.
l.
618
Sir Joseph Yorke
said, that in endeavouring, as a British admiral, to defend the interests of British commerce, he trusted he should meet with as much patient attention to the two or three brief observations which he had to offer on this question, as he had frequently met from the House, on former occasions when he had risen to address it. The present motion involved matters of the deepest interest to this great island; surrounded as it was by waters which conveyed its commerce to every corner of the habitable globe. Without being at all a party man, he must beg leave to doubt the able and elaborate speech of the young member who had just sat down. That hon. member came from a quarter, which made him suspect the argument he used. He was connected with those northern houses which were enabled to sail ships at a much cheaper rate than the rest of the country could do. When he perceived the brooms at the head [a laugh], not of that House, but of ships—when he saw seamen walking about our ports with their hands in their pockets, and nothing at all to do—when he knew that it was the fashion for brokers to be ranging through our docks recommending an amiable Prussian to one customer, a fine Russian to another, and a sweet Swede to a third, he doubted that the doctrines of the right hon. gentleman below him, though beautiful in theory, were by no means reducible, with safety, to practice. The
619
Mr. Huskisson rose,
and spoke, in substance, as follows:*—
I do not regret, Sir, that, by giving way to the gallant admiral, I afforded him an opportunity of cautioning the House not to be misled by arguments calculated to make "the worse appear the better cause." The House will know how to appreciate the value of the gallant admiral's advice, and to apply it to the speech with which he has just favoured us.
620
Mr. Cressett Pelham rose
to order. He observed, that the right hon. gentleman was out of order, inasmuch as he was alluding to expressions which had been used in debate, in the other House of Parliament.
Mr. Huskisson.
—If an allegation—an unjust and unfounded allegation—be made against me, I must answer it when I can. If my character is attacked and calumniated in another place, in which I cannot
621
622
623
624
ex parte
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
British Tons.
Foreign. Tons.
The amount of tonnage of British and Foreign shipping which entered inwards in the ports of the United Kingdom, upon an average of five years, from 1814 to 1818, both inclusive, was
1,517,918
590,156
The average amount for ten years, from 1814 to 1823, both inclusive, was
1,607,940
539,062
The average amount for three years, from 1824 to 1826, both inclusive, was
1,963,678
804,366
The amount of British and Foreign ships entered inwards in the ports of the United Kingdom, for the year 1826, was
1,950,630
694,116
The increase of British shipping, therefore, in 1826, as compared with the first average of five years, is
Tons
432,712
Ditto of Foreign
103,960
———
Excess of British increase above Foreign
328,752
———
Increase of British on the average of ten years
342,690
Ditto of Foreign
155,054
———
Excess of British increase above Foreign
187,636
———
Decrease of British on the average of three years
13,048
Decrease of Foreign on ditto
110,250
———
Excess of decrease of Foreign above British
97,202
———
635
636
637
638
l.
s.
d.
l.
639
640
641
642
In British Ships.
In Foreign Ships.
The average Nunber of loads of timber imported from the Baltic for five years from 1814 to 1818, both inclusive, was
49,226
61,803
The average Number for ten years, from 1814 to 1823, both inclusive, was
54,190
58,904
The average number for three years, from 1824 to 1826, both inclusive was
100,467
112,483
The quantity imported in 1826, was
87,576
68,501
643
In the year 1823 it was 7,899,602 tons.
In the year 1824 it was 8,101,337 tons
In the year 1825 it was 8,300,756 tons
In the year 1826 it was 8,368,812 tons
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
l.
l.
658
659
660
Free Trade.
"Free Trade."
Free Trade,
fettered Trade,
661
662
Lord Milton
said, he could not add to the detail of those important facts which had been so ably stated by the right hon. gentleman who had just resumed his seat; but his opinion was nevertheless most decidedly formed, and he trusted the House would not concede the motion to the gallant general. He thought the object, or as he might say, the
animus,
663
Mr. Peel
wished to say a few words in explanation of the vote which he should give upon this question. He was opposed to the proposition of the gallant general. He was not prepared to acquiesce in granting that committee, if it was meant by the means of the committee to pronounce the condemnation of a system to which he stood pledged. If this motion had been discussed a month since, at the time that notice of it was first given, he should have voted against it as one of the ministry; and the change of his situation had not changed his opinions. But he should rest his vote on other grounds than those of consistency. He thought that no case had been made out which required investigation; and was of opinion, that the appointment of a committee at this moment would be in itself a great practical inconvenience, without producing any practical benefit. There were already sufficient documents before the House, to enable them to form a more satisfactory judgment than could be formed by any private examination of individuals interested, or who believed themselves interested, in the question. Although he felt bound to admit the existence of the distress of the shipping interest, yet he must say, that he thought it arose from the same causes which had produced distress in the other branches of the manufacturing and commercial classes. In the years 1824 and 1825, a great number of ships had been built, in the spirit of that speculation which then universally pervaded the country; and the proportion built then so greatly exceeded the demand, that the necessary consequence was a langour in the trade in the course of the following year. A full examination of the papers to which reference had been made, had
664
Mr. Curwen
said, that he had pledged himself to support the motion for this committee, and he should therefore do so, if it was pressed to a division; although he must confess that it was utterly out of his power to controvert any one fact stated by the right hon. gentleman opposite. He was convinced, too, that if a committee was granted, its members must feel the same conviction as that to which his mind had now arrived. But, if the gallant general would persist in dividing the House, he must in conformity with his pledge, support the motion, although it would be against his own opinion [hear! and a laugh].
Mr. Ellison,
as the representative of a commercial body, must support this motion. If he could flatter himself, that the statement of the right hon. gentleman would produce in the minds of the people generally that impression which it had done in that House, and in his own judgment, he should vote against the committee; but he knew they wanted an investigation, and in deference to their wish, he should support the motion.
Mr. Baring
said, he had come down to that House with a strong impression of the great importance of affording full protection to the interests of the British shipowners, even as disconnected from any ether class of men in the country. There could be no doubt that the distress they had suffered was extreme. Whether what they proposed was capable of affording a remedy to that distress, or whether it was to be properly assigned to the cause which they supposed, were questions that he did not now intend to discuss. The fact that they did suffer distress was enough to make him wish to vote for a measure to which they looked for a degree of relief. He must, however, say, that he did not think a case had been made out; and he was aware, that even if a committee was appointed, they must be governed by the same proof which was now in the possession of the House; since they could only look to papers, and could not be guided by the speculative opinions of individuals. If they anticipated evils from
665
General Gascoyne
said, that seeing the feeling of the House, and understanding that the session was not likely to last long enough to enable the committee to do any practical good if it were appointed, he should, with the leave of the House, withdraw his motion.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, May 8.
CORN LAWS.] The Earl of Malmesbury
seeing his noble friend, the Secretary of State for Foreign affairs, in his place, would take that opportunity of submitting to their lordships' consideration, a motion to which he did not anticipate the least objection. His object was, to obtain information upon a very important subject, and he was anxious to move for the production of certain papers. He had discovered that a certain correspondence, to which it would be in the recollection of
666
l
l
667
l
l
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, May 8.
VOTE OF THANKS TO THE ARMY IN INDIA.] Mr. Wynn,
in rising to move the thanks of the House to the British Army in India, for their services in the late war, said, he felt no small satisfaction, after the recent discordant discussions, in bringing forward a question, on which he anticipated no difference of opinion. The House had no duty more pleasing than that of acknowledging the merits, and re-
668
669
670
Mr. Hume
seconded the motion, and said, he was happy to be able conscientiously to do so. Indeed, in his opinion, the right hon. gentleman had much underrated the merits of the army and navy, particularly of the troops which had been employed in the Burmese war. No army had ever been in a situation more arduous, or one more calculated to appal brave men. Brave troops would face cannon with carelessness and alacrity; but it was a much more trying effort to encounter with resolution the attacks of disease and privation; and the extent to which the troops had to display this latter species of courage, might be estimated from one instance, in which, out of a regiment of nine hundred men, only fifty, in the course of a few months, were able to do duty. He was particularly happy at the course which the right hon. gentleman had taken, for he could not
671
caveat
672
Mr. Wynn
said, that the officer who had commanded the Arracan troops was dead, and there was no other who could be particularly mentioned; but the thanks of the House would be conveyed to the Arracan troops, as part of the Burmese army.
Sir J. Yorke
was glad that the cause of the army and navy had been kept separate from that of the government, and he thought that captain Chad ought to be specially mentioned in the vote of thanks; as he had been one of the principal means of conducting the troops along the road to the very heart of the Burmese empire. The navy had well deserved the thanks of the House, and he was astonished how any one who knew anything of the matter could have written an account of the operations without doing them justice.
Sir John Bridges
said, that professionally as well as privately acquainted as he was with the brave commander, whose heroic deeds, together with those of his gallant companions in arms, were the subject of communication to the House that night, the few words he should say upon this occasion were dictated more by an indulgence of private feeling, than by any necessity that existed of calling forth due attention (if any thing that fell from him could, in any degree, have that effect) to a just appreciation of the splendid achievement now laid before them. Happily, the feeling and generosity of England never had wanted, nor ever would want a stimulus to acknowledge distinguished services, and to reward deserved merit. In a country peculiarly obnoxious to European constitutions, the war in the Burmese empire had, by the great talents of our commanders, both by sea and land, and the valour of our troops—a handful of brave warriors, opposed to legions of native soldiers, at least ten to one against them—been triumphantly terminated by a glorious victory; and still more, this victory over the enemy had been accompanied with a victory over themselves, the moral effects of which were of no mean consideration. Our gallant troops, passing through an invaded country, had everywhere, and upon every occasion, refrained from pillage, and protected the vanquished. True soldiers, they had felt and verified the maxim—"Parcere subject is, et debellare superbos." Such was the fruit of British discipline grafted on native courage; and which was mainly to be attributed to the admirable regulations established by the
673
General Grosvenor
said, his right hon. friend had performed a gratifying task to himself and the House, and he would add, the country at large, by his proposal of thanks to the officers and troops who had so nobly sustained the honour of our arms in the Eastern part of the globe, and who by their valour and reputation have consolidated our oriental possessions, and raised the name of the British empire to the highest pinnacle of glory. To sir Archibald Campbell and to general Cotton, and lord Combermere, too much praise could not be given; and to the officers and soldiers under their command the utmost stretch of our admiration was due to their valour and perseverance. But, though coming tardily, as the thanks seemingly
674
nem. con
Mr. Wynn,
in rising to move a vote of thanks to those general officers who had so gallantly seconded the efforts of the commander-in-chief in the reduction of that important fortress, and in the accomplishment of the other objects of the government, observed, that he could have wished the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hume) had abstained on this occasion from any attacks upon the government of India. That government had, on the occasion of the late contest, done every thing which the most active and efficient government possibly could do in support of the forces employed. They had provided steam-boats; they had expended large sums upon the material of the army; and had neglected no means of contributing to the wants, or adding to the comforts, of those employed in their service. The reason why sir Archibald Campbell advanced up the country towards the capital with an army of only two thousand men was, that he conceived that number to be quite sufficient for the accomplishment of the objects in view in the then exhausted state of the army of the king of Ava. Another reason which influenced him was, that a larger number of men would have rendered it necessary for him to provide more supplies, and there-
675
nem. con
ELECTIONS REGULATION BILL.] Lord Althorp
said, it would be recollected that, in the beginning of this session, he had given notice of three different motions which he intended to bring forward; one of them he had framed upon the suggestion of a noble friend of his; the other two he had some time since originated. The object of these motions, generally, was to diminish the expense of elections. In the first instance, he had moved for a Committee to inquire into the modes to be adopted for diminishing the expenses of County Elections. The House was kind enough to grant that committee, which had now been sitting for a considerable period, and would, he believed, soon report. The other proposition, and which, up to this time, he had been unavoidably prevented from bringing forward in a more complete shape, was one for diminishing the expenses of all elections generally, but principally those of elections
676
677
Mr. Wynn
observed, that the case mentioned by the noble lord, of the pretended musician-voters, as well as that of the person so exorbitantly paid for shaving the candidate's chin, came clearly within the rule and scope of the old Bribery acts. Still, there were so many considerations attaching to this subject, which might be gone into with advantage, on the introduction of the bill proposed, that he would certainly support the motion.
Sir C. Burrell
hoped, that the operation of the bill was not meant to exclude all persons employed and paid by candidates for their services at elections. It would be hard, indeed, if its effect should be to disfranchise so generally respectable a body of men, for instance, as election agents; whose services were usually very valuable to the candidate, and many other
678
Mr. Brougham
felt himself under obligation to his noble friend, for this endeavour to put a stop to the great, and, as his late election experience proved beyond all doubt, the growing evil of election expenses. Well, however, as he wished the measure, if he thought it was fairly open to those objections which had been stated to it by an hon. baronet, or that it would at all abridge the elective franchise, he should be the last man to support it. But he could not regard it in the same light as the hon. baronet viewed it. If he was to rule, that any person exercising any certain trade, profession, or employment, was not to be allowed to vote at any election, which certain trade or occupation such person used generally, habitually, and independently of the election, and that such person might have voted if he had not been so employed, that would be undoubtedly a disfranchisement. But what his noble friend's bill said was this—to the barber, suppose, who had been alluded to— "if you exercise the trade of a barber generally, habitually, and independently of this election, such employment shall be no bar to your voting; but if, on the morning of the election, you shall shave the candidate's chin, and receive fifty guineas for it, then do I hold you guilty, not of shaving, but of bribery." But, bad and imperfect as the present law was, it did not, in his opinion, require a declaratory clause to explain that such a case as this came within its operation. Nor did he believe, notwithstanding all that he had seen and heard of committees lately—and he had heard accounts of these committees which he should have had great difficulty in believing, if he had not had them from undoubted authority—that any committee appointed under the Grenville act, could entertain a doubt as to such cases. It was very true, therefore, that the law as to such cases was sufficiently explicit; but others had been stated by his noble friend, in principle the same, though perhaps not so obviously so; and, as it might be doubtful whether they were reachable by the present law, it was, at the least, safer to adopt this more comprehensive bill, by which all persons employed at elections, such as musicians, bearers of flags, and all persons who filled such like important and respon-
679
680
681
Mr. Spring Rice
recommended the insertion of a clause, to declare giving cockades and ribbons an act of bribery. These favours, as they were called, formed a large item in the candidates expenses, and answered no other purpose than that of giving greater vigour to the display of party opposition. The practice had been proscribed by the law of Ireland since 1796, and it would be a commendable alteration in the election law of this country.
682
Lord Althorp,
in reply, said, he had no objection to introduce any clauses which would lessen the expenses of elections; but he was afraid of hazarding the success of the bill itself, by tacking upon it suggestions which might not be generally approved of.
Mr. Wynn
said, he had, in the early part of the session, given notice of a bill for next session, which would consolidate all the election law. That bill was postponed, only because he wished to let the committees dispose of the cases arising out of the general election; as by these results many useful hints might be furnished. He was willing either to go on with the bill, if such was the pleasure of the House, or to hand it over to his hon. and learned friend. If he was to give an opinion, he should say that this question would be better discussed by being treated extensively, than by piecemeal.
Mr. Alderman Wood
said, he had been present at almost every ballot that had taken place this session, yet he had not been elected a nominee upon any committee, with the exception of one; and that he had not known the gentleman who had asked him to be his nominee upon that occasion. However, he had succeeded in securing that gentleman's return to parliament. He approved of retaining nominees, as without them he did not think the interests of petitioning parties would be protected.
Mr. H. Twiss
said, that as committees were at present constituted, they acted like juries, without the superintendence of juidicial authority; and perhaps such an authority could not be introduced without introducing also a power that might interfere with the power of that House, which would, perhaps, be productive of greater inconvenience than even the present system. He thought that considerable improvement would be effected, by establishing some mode of determining the validity of questionable votes on the spot on which they were taken, and not of having recourse to the scrutiny before the committee, as at present, where much greater difficulty lay in the way of duly ascertaining and determining them.
BOROUGH OF PENRYN.] Mr. LeghKeck
rose, pursuant to notice, to submit a motion to the House, founded on the late proceedings in the borough of Penryn.
683
684
685
Sir C. Burrell rose
to second the resolutions. The House, he observed, was bound, when a clear case of bribery was made out, to take the most effectual method for its prevention in future. In the present instance, a case had, he conceived, been made out, on which the House were bound to act. This was their duty in the first instance. The second question; namely, to whom the franchise should be transferred or extended, was not of so much importance. He did not see any objection to the plan of his hon. friend in this respect; for it would have the effect of preventing future attempts at bribery, by extending the franchise amongst one thousand five hundred or two thousand electors. But though this was not objectionable in itself, still he thought it a comparatively better mode to give the franchise to some large town which was not at present represented. They had seen the inconvenience of transferring the elective franchise to a large county such as York. At the last election, one gentleman, who was decidedly a favourite with the people, withdrew himself from the canvass, because a contest would have the effect of ruining his fortune; and, on one occasion, it had cost the returned candidates
686
l
Mr. David Barclay
said, that as this was the first time he had had the honour of addressing that House, he claimed their indulgence while he offered a few remarks on the motion before them. In the outset he would observe, that he was not opposed to the principle of the House interfering to punish cases of bribery, where they were satisfactorily made out; but he could not assent to the sweeping proposition, that because bribery had been established in the case of the few, its punishment should be extended to the many. An hon. member had stated, that one candidate had withdrawn at the last election for Penryn, being unwiling to sanction the practices of bribery and corruption, by which only success could be ensured; and the inference sought to be drawn from that was, that the two candidates who were returned had sanctioned those practices. For himself, as one of those members, he must beg most positively to deny the justice of such inference. He had canvassed and been returned; but he declared most solemnly—and he hoped the House would give credit to the declaration—that he had not directly or indirectly given any bribe, or held out any promise of a bribe at any future period. The grounds on which Mr. Grenfell had retired from the contest were, that he had lost the confidence of the independent electors of the borough, and had ceased to be popular amongst them. It was, therefore, unfair to assume bribery on the part of the other candidates from the fact that one had retired. He trusted, then, that on such grounds the House would not consent to deprive five hundred electors of those rights which their ancestors had held for centuries. Such a course was called for, or justifiable only in cases of notorious corruption, which did not exist in the instance before the House. The charges brought by the hon. member were, he contended, too general
687
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
688
l
l
l
l
l
l
689
690
691
Lord Milton
confessed, that the proposition which the hon. member for Leicester had made to the House, involved a question of considerable difficulty. The hon. gentleman who had just concluded had made out a very considerable case, in answer to that which was brought against the Borough. At the same time, he would not say that the charges against Penryn did not deserve a further investigation. Perhaps, the best mode of investigation might be in the committee upon the bill moved by the hon. member for Leicestershire. He, however, was inclined to vote for proceedings at the bar of the House. With reference to the question of Parliamentary reform, it did appear to him, that one of the most valuable parts of the constitution of that House was, the great variety of persons who were intrusted with the elective franchise. In any bills for the disfranchisement of boroughs, great attention ought to be paid, not to disturb the balance which had hitherto existed between the different classes of constituents. Half a century ago, the case of Shoreham had been brought under the consideration of parliament; and at that time, when reforms were new, nothing was more natural, nothing more easy, than to extend the elective franchise to freeholders in the vicinity. What had been done in the cases of Shoreham, Cricklade, and Aylesbury, might not go far to disturb the balance which he wished to see maintained in the representation. But if, in every instance that occurred, the House was to follow the same plan, it would make a great inroad into that relation of the different classes of representatives that had been established. In this point, he entirely agreed with the hon. member who had last spoken. In all reforms, it was necessary not to transfer any portion of the elective franchise from the middle to the higher classes. It was also necessary not to destroy the proportion between the commercial and the landed electors. If, ultimately, a sufficient case were made out against Penryn, he would vote for the measure proposed by the hon. member for Leicestershire; nevertheless, of all plans for the improvement of the representation, it was almost the last he should wish to follow. He had before objected, and he still objected, to giving to the county of York the forfeited franchise of Grampound; because he did not think it right that that county should exclusively possess a double claim to re-
692
Mr. Alderman Waithman
said, he felt the same objection as the noble lord to giving additional votes to men who already enjoyed the elective franchise, while large bodies of men were without that privilege. When the corruption in the borough of Grampound was proved, he had thought that the right of election should be transferred to Leeds, Manchester, or Birmingham, rather than to the county of York. In conformity with that feeling, he hoped that on the present occasion, the elective franchise would not be transferred to places which now possessed that privilege, but to places situated like those to which he had
693
l
l
l
l
694
Lord John Russell
said, it was not his intention to trouble the House at any length in expressing his opinions upon the question under discussion. He agreed almost entirely with his noble friend upon the subject. But he felt, after the reports of 1807, 1819, and of last year, to which he would add the present report, that there was sufficient evidence upon which to bring in the bill proposed by the hon. member; and when that bill went into a committee it would be proper to inquire whether the electors of Penryn had been partially or generally corrupt, and to decide upon the necessary steps to be taken for the prevention or punishment of such practices. An hon. member (Mr. D. Barclay) had distinctly stated, that he had not, by himself, or his agents, offered a bribe in the borough. That hon. member should recollect, that the charge was not against him, but against the other member (Mr. Manning), who had not thought proper to favour the House with a single
695
Mr. Manning
said, that after the personal allusion which had been made to him, he could not avoid throwing himself upon the indulgence of the House, while he said a few words in defence of his conduct. He might, and, probably, should have remained silent, but for the observations of the noble lord. He could assure that noble lord and the House, that his silence had not proceeded from any desire to keep from the knowledge of the House any of the circumstances of the transaction. His hon. colleague, who had already spoken, had declared that he had, neither by himself nor his agents, been guilty of bribery to the electors. He also could
696
Colonel Davies
said, that he was happy to have heard from the hon. member, the decision of the committee, as he had himself the greatest respect for that hon. member. Still, however, he could not avoid believing, that though that hon. member might be free from the imputation of having offered bribes, yet that the place itself was the most corrupt that could be imagined. He should support the transfer of the franchise from Penryn to Manchester; but he trusted that when the transfer was made, care would be taken to put it into good hands there. He believed that corruption existed in all places, populous or not; and that the only difference was, that in a close borough the voter received twenty guineas and kept his word, while in a more populous place, where the franchise was further extended, he received a smaller sum from each of the candidates, and deceived them all in turn.
697
Mr. Wynn
thought, that the case of the Penryn election particularly required further investigation, before any decisive steps were taken upon the matter. He was not satisfied with the course which it was proposed to adopt. He had no doubt that there had been gross and notorious corruption in the borough; but to what extent that corruption existed it was impossible to say. He could not determine, upon the evidence already before the House, whether that corruption affected so large a portion of the voters, as to justify the remedy of disfranchisement. If it should ultimately appear, that a large and material part of the voters had not participated in the corruption, it would be grossly unjust to disfranchise the innocent majority, for the act of the guilty minority. But if, on the other hand, the corruption had been universal, or that a very large proportion of the voters had participated in it, he must say that disfranchisement was the best and most fitting punishment that could follow their offences. At all events, let the questions he had now stated be decided as they might, he was opposed to granting the motion of the hon. member for Leicestershire upon the evidence now before the House. If the borough of Penryn should ultimately be disfranchised, he did not see any strong objection to transferring it to Manchester; but, he thought that, perhaps, the best course would be to let those who were not convicted of having participated in the corruption of the borough retain the votes they now possessed. At present, he did not think the evidence before the House would justify them in disfranchising the borough; and he thought the best mode of ascertaining who were the persons that had been guilty, would be for the House to direct the Attorney-general to prosecute those who now appeared to be inculpated, pending any inquiry the House might think fit to institute, with a view to any ulterior measures. The right hon. gentleman concluded with expressing his wish for further information upon the subject.
Lord Stanley
said, he was in favour of the transfer of the elective franchise from Penryn to Manchester, and was happy to find that the proposal to give representatives to that large and important town was well received by the inhabitants. He read a letter he had lately received from Manchester upon this subject, in which the most respectable inhabitants of that place were stated to be in favour of the
698
Mr. Canning
said, he wished to offer a few words upon this subject, and to state the reasons on which he was prepared to accede to the motion for leave to bring in a bill to prevent corruption in the borough of Penryn. The noble lord who had just spoken was mistaken, if he supposed the object of the bill was to transfer the franchise to another place; for, according to the words of it, it was merely to prevent bribery and corruption at Penryn. That was the point to be judged. He was of opinion, that enough appeared on the face of the report now before the House, to justify the resolutions which had been proposed. But, though he went thus far, he could not say that enough had appeared to justify the House in taking any ulterior measures. He thought that the hon. members for the borough ought to be allowed, before any final decision was taken, to show that they had not
699
Lord Althorp
observed upon the difficulties of proving corruption in the agents, so as to affect the candidates. When the House went into evidence upon this subject, he was certain that a system of great and gross corruption would be proved. He was not inclined to charge the hon. member for Penryn with having been guilty of the bribery; but, though he felt that doubt with regard to the hon. member, he was convinced that such corruption did take place, and that, if it was not practised by the candidates themselves, it was by their imprudent friends and agents, or, at least, by those who acted on their behalf. He had no doubt the existence of
700
Mr. Brougham
thought, that a
primâ facie
701
l
l
702
l
Mr. Charles Barclay
felt himself compelled to address a few words to the House, lest the talent of the hon. and learned member who had just sat down, for ridicule, should lead hon. members to a wrong conclusion, The hon. and learned member had stated—that the hon. member for Penryn, his relative, had no property or influence in Penryn. This was directly the reverse of the fact; for his hon. relative had been introduced there by persons of the highest influence, and had gone down to offer himself upon their assurance, that he might come in upon the most honourable terms. With respect to the observations about Mr. Stanbury, if the hon. and learned member had only looked at the evidence before the House, he would have seen, that to the case of his hon. relative they were entirely inapplicable. He would have found there, that the 1,300
l
703
Mr. Brougham
said, he had certainly laboured under a mistake, and he had no hesitation in at once admitting it. He had supposed Mr. Stanbury and Mr. Sowell to have been general agents for the hon. sitting member for Penryn; but it turned out that they had been agents for the member who had petitioned.
Mr. Legh-Keck,
in reply, moved, that the Report of the Committees on the Penryn elections of 1807 and 1819 be read, and the Resolutions of the House thereon. They were accordingly read by the Clerk of the House.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, May 9.
TRANSUBSTANTIATION—PETITION OF GENERAL THORNTON.] Mr. Hudson Gurney
presented a petition from lieutenant-general William Thornton, formerly a member of parliament for the borough of New Woodstock, referring to a proposition brought forward by the petitioner, in the years 1817 and 1818, for a Committee to consider of the propriety of dispensing with the Declaration against Transubstantiation, which asserts the worship of the Church of Rome to be idolatrous; urging that the oaths of supremacy, allegiance, and abjuration are sufficient security to Church and State, against the influence of the Pope and the church of Rome; and praying, as a Protestant measure, that a law should be passed, to dispense, in future with such Declaration.—Mr. Gurney said, that he considered that the general's motion in a former parliament, had not received the
704
SUSSEX ELECTION BILL.] Mr. Curteis
moved the second reading of the Sussex Election bill, and strongly recommended the taking of the poll at Lewes.
Mr. Huskisson
opposed the second reading of the bill, and rested his opposition to the measure on two grounds:—The first, on the ground of general principle, and the second, because he was a freeholder of the western part of Sussex. It was certainly extraordinary, that the hon. member should bring forward this bill, while the committee, appointed for the purpose of introducing some measure to diminish the expenses at county elections, was sitting. In the course of the session, the House might expect to receive a valuable report, suggesting various modes for taking the poll at county elections with the least possible expense. A noble lord (J. Russell) had suggested the taking of the poll in several places in a county for the accommodation of freeholders; but the hon. member who brought in this bill would remove the election from one part of the county to another. Now, it was not the ordinary way of proceeding, for this House to remove, without some misconduct, some breach, or injury committed, those rights which had been enjoyed for time immemorial. It had not been stated, that Chichester had forfeited this franchise by any misconduct. No proceeding had taken place in that city which could call for the deprivation of that distinction which it had enjoyed ever since it returned members to parliament. On the same principle it might be said, that Cornwall returned too many members to parliameet, and similar measures might be proposed to remove them. If the House were to sanction this measure, they would have to introduce it into all the counties of England. If the hon. member would propose that the poll should be taken
705
Lord G. Lennox
seconded the amendment. The noble lord complained of the hon. member who brought in the bill for having written letters during the late election, to the mayor of Chichester, in which that hon. member complains to the mayor, that his person was in danger from the mob, and threatened to bring him to the bar of the House in consequence. The hon. member had also written to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, complaining that, "he could not take the polls in safety, and that his freeholders were kept back" Now, he (lord G. Lenox) had been on the hustings during the whole of the election, and he could safely say that no riot or disorder occurred. He hoped the House would not gratify the freeholders of the east, at the expense of those of the west.
Sir J. Shelly
supported the bill. He was the advocate for a gradual and limited reform in parliament; and he thought that the best chance of obtaining that reform was to let all, the voters have the benefit of the elective franchise; which, when the election was held at Chichester, they had not.
Mr. W. Burrell
thought the election ought to be held at Lewes for the western part of the county, and at Chichester for the eastern division.
Mr. Davies Gilbert
said, that a committee was sitting up stairs, which would render unnecessary this bill of his hon. friend. He therefore advised him to withdraw it.
Sir C. Burrell
protested against the hon. gentleman legislating for Sussex, on a principle different from that acted on, with regard to any other county.
Mr. C. Pelham
said, that local interests were better attended to under the present system than they would be under the proposed change.
Mr. Curteis
said, he should take the advice of hon. gentlemen and withdraw his bill.
706
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, May 10.
AFFAIRS OF PORTUGAL.] Lord Ellenborough
said, he had acquainted the noble lord at the head of the foreign department of his intention of putting a question to him, and he would take the present opportunity of doing so. It would be recollected by their lordships, that in the month of December last a message was brought down to that House, in consequence of a communication to his majesty, from her royal highness the princess Regent of Portugal, calling for the assistance of British troops, by virtue of a treaty which was in force. These troops, their lordships knew, were sent. At that time, it was perfectly impossible that any papers should be laid before their lordships' House; because it was necessary that the troops should be sent immediately, and there was no time for their lordships to consider the grounds upon which the assistance was asked. It was, however, communicated to the House by his majesty's ministers, that they had ascertained that there were just grounds by the treaty, for the troops being sent. He therefore held it to be admitted by his majesty's government, that it was not sufficient reason for inducing parliament to the performance of that treaty, merely because such performance should be called for by Portugal, but that it was absolutely necessary that his majesty's ministers should have ascertained the justness of such application. Since that period no information had been communicated to the House. That circumstance he attributed to the disorganized state of the government, and not to any intention of withholding information on the subject. However, the present state of things in Portugal was most materially different from that in which it was when troops were sent to that country. The
casus fœderis
non constat
707
Lord Dudley
replied, that it was not the present intention of government to lay any papers before parliament on the subject. The question respecting the withdrawal of the British troops was one of great importance, and was connected with negotiations which were still pending, and which were not in a state to be laid before the public.
Lord Ellenborough
wished to be informed whether the negotiations now pending were carrying on with Portugal or with any other power.
Lord Dudley
said, he must decline answering the question.
NEW ADMINISTRATION—CORN LAWS.] The Duke of Newcastle
presented a Petition against any alteration in the Corn-laws. He said, that he should have thought it his duty to oppose the proposed bill respecting the Corn-laws, even if the noble author of it had continued to form part of the late government. But, if he should have thought it his duty to have done so under those circumstances, when the honourable persons who had been driven out of his majesty's government were in a situation to counsel their colleague, he should think it now to be his duty more particularly to oppose the bill, when those checks and safeguards were taken away. He should therefore oppose the present bill; and he did think that it was the duty of every honest man—the duty of every friend to his country—to stand forward and lend his aid to dispossess of power one who—perhaps he might be using a harsh term, but he knew of no other which would convey his meaning, and he applied it in a political sense—was the most profligate minister that had ever been placed in power. He called upon all those persons of whatever
708
Lord Teynham
presented a Petition from Newport Pagnell against the Corn-bill, He should move to-morrow, that the petition be taken into consideration, in order to afford the petitioners an opportunity of being heard at their lordships' bar.
The Earl of Darlington
said, that after the eloquent speech which had been made upon the presentation of one of the petitions against any alteration in the Corn-laws, that had been laid upon their lordships' table that day, he felt himself called upon to say a few words. With respect to an alteration in the Corn-laws, he had long formed his opinion upon the subject. He had, however, thought it necessary to inquire of some practical farmers, what were their opinions; and he was happy to find that they corresponded with his own. He thought that the bill was a desirable, he would not say a perfect one; but he believed it to be better than any that had been yet proposed; and he would, therefore, give it his support, without deciding upon it as a permanent measure. In adverting to the bill, he could not avoid saying, that he felt astonished and surprised, at the course which had been taken by noble lords upon the opposite benches. He regretted deeply, to see their sudden and violent opposition to his majesty's government; which had arisen, as he conceived, from one of two causes—either from a desire, upon the part of some noble lords, to return to office and to place, or from a desire to dictate to the sovereign in the appointment of a minister. He, for one, thought that both causes were objectionable. It had been observed by a noble earl upon the opposite benches, that he could perceive an approximation between the late government and the late opposition; and he was ready to admit that, when he sat at the other side of the House, he had, in most
709
710
The Earl of Harewood
said, he felt great diffidence in addressing their lordships. He had only come very recently into the House, and had not been present at the commencement of the discussion. He had only heard a very warm eulogium upon the existing government; and really, unless he had been absolutely provoked to say something, he would not have trespassed upon their lordships' attention. But when he heard any thing like blame or opprobrium imputed and attached to those who were not supporters of the existing government, he felt called upon to stand forth, and vindicate himself from any charge of unfair or factious opposition. He trusted that he might, in confidence, appeal to the whole course and tenor of his life, in answer to such a charge. But he confessed that there were circumstances connected with the new administration which he considered strange; and he trusted, that, if he asked a question, his not having given notice of his intention so to do, would not be imputed to him as a want of courtesy. He felt, however, that there was a necessity for his apologising for thus hastily putting the description of question which he proposed to put. He was ignorant of what the existing administration was formed; and he held, that parliament and the country had a right to know, in what hands the business of the nation had been placed, and by whom it was to be transacted. Circumstances of a very extraordinary nature had recently taken place. Several noble lords who had been high in the confidence of his majesty, had suddenly resigned, and the Houses of parliament, and the country in general, conceived that they were entitled to an explanation of the causes which had induced those noble lords to resign; and, accordingly they had, separately, given explanations, which had been, he believed, considered satisfactory. On the other hand, with respect to the new administration, there were circumstances unusual, if not unprecedented. It was the general and undisputed belief, that the government was not then, what it was intended to be at a
711
712
Viscount Goderich
said:—My lords, do not mean to impute any want of courtesy to the noble earl for the questions he has asked; nor do I complain of the doubts which he has so frankly and distinctly expressed, with respect to the present position of the government. But I wish to observe to the noble earl, that he has not accurately stated the circumstances under which my noble friend arose to address your lordships. If the noble earl had arrived in this House at an earlier period of the evening, he would have heard a noble duke upon the opposite benches declare, in the most unequivocal terms, not only his total want of confidence in the administration, but his most unqualified reprobation of the individual whom it has pleased his majesty to place at its head. And then, my lords, I should suppose the noble earl would not conceive it unnatural, that any noble lord, who believed that he was justified in giving his confidence to the government, should rise in his place, and express that confidence to your lordships and the country. I lament, as sincerely as any man can do, that these discussions should be thus, day after day, brought forward, in an indirect and irregular manner; but I do think that if noble lords refuse to bestow their confidence upon the government, the plain and manly course for them to follow, consistently with their own fair fame, and the principles which they profess, would be, to call openly and regularly upon the House to express its sentiments. And it was, therefore, my lords, that I hailed with pleasure the distinct and constitutional motion of a noble earl (Winchilsea); because it would enable us to come forward to your lordships with a distinct explanation, and to submit it to the test of your approbation. And I must say, my lords, that I am no less grieved than surprised to find, that the noble earl has not yet mentioned a day on which he will bring that motion forward. If noble lords will withhold their confidence from the government because they choose to assume that that government is formed in a particular way, I ask those
713
The Marquis of Salisbury
said, it was rather too much to call upon noble lords on his side of the House, to bestow their confidence upon an administration which had not, as yet, performed any act. He had, however, no hesitation in declaring, that he should look with the utmost suspicion upon every act of an administration constituted as the present government was. Some of the noble lords who were in that administration, had positively stated their wish to he out of office; others declared that they had joined it for the purpose of furthering a question which was not to be at all brought forward, at least as a cabinet question. Others, again, had remained in office, as the best means of securing a Protestant parliament to a Protestant king; and all these were united with a body of men who had previously opposed almost every measure they had brought forward. He saw these things with suspicion; and they indicated, he thought, a change in the principles, or in the policy, of those who remained in office. It was far from his wish to have addressed these observations to their lordships if it had not been for the noble earl who had caused the debate [no, no!]. He left it to the judgment of their lordships, whether any thing said by his side of the House could justify the appli-
714
The Earl of Hardwicke rose
to order. He did not think that this sort of conversation ought any longer to be continued. It was irregular to allude to the private opinion of his majesty, although the acts of his majesty's ministers were legitimate ground for observation.
The Marquis of Salisbury
resumed; and after some further observations on the course which he anticipated, concluded by stating, that, he was well aware that such discussions tended to no good; but he could not submit to such imputations being cast upon his noble friends.
The Earl of Darlington,
in explanation, denied that he had used the word "factious," as applied to the Opposition of the noble lords on the other side of the House; though, if he had done so, he could not but think he should have been justified, when he recollected that a noble duke, forming one of the Opposition, had used a term so strong as that of "profligate minister."
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, he did not know why any noble lord was not at liberty to allude, and could not, by the forms of that House, regularly allude, to the transaction, for attempting to speak of which his noble friend had been called to order. If his majesty had thought fit to make any statement, with a view to tranquillise the country, any noble lord was at liberty to ask what it was; and if his majesty had done so, he must have done it on the advice of his ministers, for in that
715
The Earl of Falmouth
said, that the noble earl opposite had accused the opposition with being influenced by a wish to dictate to the king, or by a love of place. The first he utterly disclaimed; professing, as he did, to be as loyal a subject as any in the kingdom: neither was he influenced by a love of place, for he had never sought to obtain it. He did not think, therefore, that the noble earl was justified in attributing these motives to noble lords who disapproved of the government. He did not complain that the noble earl gave his support to the government. All he claimed for himself was, that the noble earl would not interfere with its opponents, and attribute the views they took of the administration to improper motives. He had a right, as well as the noble earl, to give his support to whomsoever he pleased; and he owned that he could not support any administration in which he did not place confidence. There were many accounts on which he was grieved to say he had no confidence in the present administration. Looking at the means and powers it possessed, he did not intend to say that it would not be capable of serving the country, but he must repeat, that he had no confidence in it. Holding those opinions, he could not avoid stating them openly, fairly, and he hoped in no unparliamentary language.
Lord Ellenborough
said, that the noble earl, who had manifested so much surprise at the existence of the present opposition to the new administration, must allow an equal degree of surprise to be felt by those who witnessed his support of it, and who could not give it their confidence. That noble earl's support of the administration
716
717
718
Earl Spencer
said, he could not be silent after such an attack as that which their lordships had just heard; especially when he told them, that it was his intention to support the government. He did not know how the noble lord who spoke last could think of complaining of the language used towards the present Opposition by the supporters of the administration, when he recollected, that it was only a few days since that noble lord had himself put forth a declaration, in the very strongest language, that he would offer nothing but an uncompromising resistance to the present government. That noble lord had spoken of the administration now existing as only provisional. Whether the noble lord was well informed, or not at all informed, upon that subject, it was not for him to say; but he must observe, that unless that noble lord was correctly informed, it did not become him to use such expressions; for mere rumours, or newspaper reports, were not fit subjects to be introduced to their lordships. He should not interfere with the conduct of noble lords who opposed the administration. He would give them that credit, which, by the bye, they did not seem inclined to allow him; and would suppose that they acted from very proper motives. The noble lord opposite claimed the right of placing his confidence where he might think fit. That right he was willing to concede to the noble lord; but then, at the same time, he claimed for himself an equal right to place his confidence where it might seem best to him to repose it. Without wishing to prolong this conversation—he would not stay to inquire how it had arisen—it was his wish to give their lordships a short view of the grounds on which he was prepared to say, that he should support the present government as long as they acted up to the liberal principles which they now avowed. To noble lords who pretended an ignorance of those opinions, he would put the question, where had they lived during the last few years? Many of them, especially those who now supported the administration, had approved of a number of the measures of the late government. From some of those measures they—and he among the number—had expressed their dissent. In
719
720
Earl Grey rose
and said:—It is not possible for me, my lords, to abstain from saying a few words upon this occasion, because I assure your lordships, with the utmost sincerity, that nothing can be so truly painful to me, as to find myself in a situation in which I must explain those differences of opinion that have separated me from those noble friends, with whom I have acted throughout the whole of my political life, and for whom, at this moment, I entertain the most sincere and ardent affection. Before, however, I say one word about those differences, I must, distinctly disclaim any participation in the opinion, that there is the slightest necessity for us
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
sine qua non
732
733
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, May 11.
GAME LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.]
On the motion for taking the report of this bill into further consideration,
The Earl of Malmesbury
said, that his feelings with respect to this bill were very strong, that he wished to state his sentiments to their lordships. He was aware that a strong feeling prevailed against the present system, on account of its being supposed that it promoted the increase of crime. Admitting that there was an increase in the number of crimes, he thought
734
735
s
s
s
s
736
737
738
The Earl of Abingdon
opposed the bill, and observed, that some laws were represented as oppressive and unjust, which, in reality, were not nearly so much so, as those by which it was proposed to amend them. Many noble lords were in the habit of describing the better sport afforded by the pursuit of game in their younger days, than at present; and among these, he believed, he might enumerate the noble and learned lord (Eldon) who lately occupied the woolsack. It was not by the enactment of measures like the present, that sporting could be improved. He was for adhering to those institutions which had stood the test of time, and were found beneficial in their effects. Noble lords might desire to dig a pit, and shovel into it the fruits of by-gone experience; but he would vote for keeping a little experience above ground, and was for throwing the present bill out of their lordships' House—or, if by no other opening, out of the window. He would do so, because he felt convinced that, so far from effecting a decrease in crime, it would go far to complete the demoralization of the country, as it regarded the conduct of the lower classes of the agricultural population.
The Earl of Eldon
wished to say a few words upon this subject, the more especially as, in the days of his youth, he had been, probably as great a poacher as any other person upon the lands of the noble lord who had just resumed his seat, and to whom this was, perhaps, the best moment to offer an apology [a laugh]. He
739
740
Lord Dacre
said, he should give his support to the bill, which he was convinced would go to diminish the amount of crime. He admired the principle of it; which, to his mind, seemed founded in perfect justice—he meant that principle which gave to a man who caught game on his land destroying his property the right to kill that game. That principle admitted a right which he thought belonged as strictly to the poorest cottager in the kingdom, as to the proudest peer in that House. Some noble lords had spoken of the present laws, as if they did not increase the amount of crime. He could assure the House, that returns did exist, which proved, beyond all question, that they had increased the amount of crime. In one year, no less than one thousand three hundred persons had been imprisoned for infractions of the Game-laws; and among them were probably men who were thus introduced for the first time to crime and profligacy. They went in guilty of no other offence than that of poaching; and they were turned out of gaol accomplished and decided thieves. The problem of the unprecedented increase of crime was hardly to be accounted for in any other way than by supposing that the most enterprising youth among the peasantry, induced by the temptation of advantage, and not restrained by the belief that they were violating the laws of property, engaged in the practice of poaching, for which they were thrown into gaol, mixed with the
741
The Earl of Harrowby
fully concurred with the noble lord in the grounds on which the present bill was entitled to support. The returns alluded to, proved two things; first, the comparative increase of crime within the last three years; and secondly, that the positive amount of crime was hardly to be accounted for on any other principle than that of the existence of these laws. The second fact was fully to be accounted for, on the ground stated by the noble lord. With regard to the first, he had carefully examined the returns, and he found that, in the last three years, there had been imprisoned no less a number than four thousand five hundred, committed solely for offences against the Game-laws. Now, upon looking back to the years 1810, 1811, and 1812, the number only amounted to four hundred and sixty. The increase, therefore, had been nearly tenfold within the last fourteen or fifteen years. Great as noble lords might think was the amount of increase in the other branches of crime, he might defy them to prove that it was as great as in this. He thought it was impossible, after the proof thus obtained, that noble lords should hesitate in performing a moral duty, in doing all they possibly could to put a stop to the continuance of those crimes which, he contended, were a consequence of the present system. The crimes to which he alluded were only crimes by the authority of law, and had been created for the indulgence of a particular class
742
The Earl of Falmouth
thought it would be very easy to amend the bill, as to the description of the required qualification; but that was not the only difficulty he felt. He objected to the bill itself; and with respect to what had been said regarding the right of all men to kill game found on their land, he thought it would be most dangerous to acknowledge such a right; which certainly was not required on the ground of compensation, for nobody would deny that it was always afforded to the poor occupier of land by the wealthy man, whose game had injured the other's property. He thought the best mode of preventing the evils now complained of would be, to give to the present possessors of game the right of empowering others to sell it.
Earl Grosvenor
was of opinion, that this bill ought to pass into a law, and that the country owed infinite obligations to the noble lord who had introduced it. He would not say that it would put an end to the evils of the present system; but he believed it would, and he should therefore support it. It was impossible to draw up such a bill without falling into technical errors, and the wonder was, that there were so few in the present bill.
Lord Wharncliffe
acknowledged, that he was not certain that this bill, if passed into a law, would put an end to poaching; but he believed it would have that effect, and the want of certainty in this respect, did not appear to him to be an objection to it. All such laws were matters of speculation, until after their effects had been tried. He thought it would be utterly impossible wholly to do away with poaching. As long as game was to be found there would be poaching, in the same way that as long as there existed property there would be thieves; but it was the duty of the legislature to diminish both as much as possible; and this, he believed, might be effected with regard to poaching, if the House would pass this bill, which he thought to be founded upon just and rational grounds; while he did not hesitate to say, that the existing laws upon that subject were both oppressive and unjust. The technical objections to the bill could be amended in the committee; and it was strange, that,
743
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, May 11.
NEW ADMINISTRATION—TEST ACT—SUPPLIES.] Mr. Beaumont
seeing the Secretary of State for the Home Department in his place, for the first time, wished to ask him whether he considered his appointment only provisional, or in what light he viewed his nomination to the office he now held?
744
Mr. Sturges Bourne
replied, that he held the office of Secretary of State for the Home Department as long as it pleased his majesty to retain him in it.
Mr. Beaumont
expressed himself not at all satisfied at this reply, and stated, that, in consequence of it, he felt himself bound to bring before the House a motion respecting the manner in which the office of Secretary for the Home Department, and other offices were at present held.
Lord J. Russell
said, he was perfectly ready to answer the question which had been just put to him. He had been applied to, by many of those respectable persons who were aggrieved by the Test and Corporation acts to bring forward a motion for the repeal of those acts, which he most willingly undertook to do; and gave notice of a motion accordingly. He had been informed, that, since the late change in the administration, many of the leading men among them were consulting whether it might not prove injurious to the cause of civil and religious liberty generally, to urge their claims at this present moment. He had taken measures to ascertain what were their real sentiments on that head. As yet he had received no regular answer, but he understood that the opinion of the most of them was, that their case should be fairly stated to the House, the public; but that, as to the time when it should be brought forward, they were desirous to consult those who were friends to their cause, in order to ascertain their sentiments about the time which would be best. He thought these sentiments did them the highest honour, since they there by preferred the cause of general liberty to any partial considerations. For his own part, he thought that, even with reference to the cause of general liberty, civil and religious, the point ought to be moved on the day which he had fixed for bringing it forward, and he therefore was perfectly willing to persevere in it on his own responsibility, although he would not proceed without their consent. Unless, therefore, he should hear from them a decided opinion to the contrary, he would bring forward his motion for the repeal of the Test and Corporation acts, on the 7th of June next.
Mr. Herries
moved, that the House re-
745
Sir Thomas Lethbridge
said, that it was his intention to detain the House with only a few words. He would only ask the chancellor of the Exchequer a few questions, which he might answer or not, as he pleased. But, if answer the right hon. gentleman chose to give, he trusted that it would be couched in language conformable to the usage of former ministers on such occasions. He trusted that he would answer in such a tone and manner as became the ministers of the Crown when they were questioned by the members of that House, who felt it their duty to put questions to those ministers from time to time, according to the usage of parliament. He had quite as good a right to put questions to them, as they had, to give, or to refuse to give, answers as they thought proper. His first question had been anticipated by the hon. member who had put a question to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, relative to the terms and conditions on which he held his office. The answer of the right hon. Secretary, if he understood it correctly, was, generally, that he held the office as long as it pleased his majesty to retain him there. It was true, that no man could hold an office of that description on any other terms; but still it was evident, that the answer was by no means what the hon. member who put the question expected. It was certainly of the greatest consequence that some such motion should be brought forward; considering the unprecedented predicament in which those ministers stood, who, as there was reason to presume, held their offices only provisionally. That question, then, having been already put, he had no occasion to say anything further about it. His second question was, whether the office of Secretary of State for the Foreign Department was held temporarily or provisionally, or was intended to last as long as that of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, or the administration which he had formed, or was forming. If the office was held only provisionally, it was surely a circumstance of the most unprecedented nature; and, if the example should be imitated, it would lead to a complete alteration of the whole course of conducting the affairs of government in this country. It was for that reason that he had on a
746
747
748
749
750
751
locum tenens
Mr. Canning
promised that he would
752
753
754
Mr. Beaumont
disowned any association with any other person in the notice which he had given.
Sir T. Lethbridge
said, that the right hon. gentleman had used the words "cast of parts for the exhibition of the evening:" he could only say, that there was no concert between himself and other members as to what he had been doing.
Mr. Canning
said, he meant no offence by coupling the hon. member for Stafford with the hon. baronet. But, since it was displeasing, he would take care, in future, to separate them.
The Marquis of Tavistock
said, that the real question which they had to decide was, should they give a patient hearing and fair trial to the administration formed by the right hon. gentleman, in obedience to the commands of the king? For his own part, he had no inclination for power, nor had he talent for office. In the performance of his duty to his constituents, he had found it necessary to keep as much as possible aloof from political connexions. It had been his anxious wish, in the late changes, to keep out of the way of the negotiations, until the arrangements were perfected; reserving to himself, under any circumstances, full power to adhere to those principles which it had been the business of his whole life to defend. Long as he had been opposed to the late government, and much as he had differed from the right hon. gentleman, he trusted that he never should be led to oppose him or his government, right or wrong, without reference to the nature of their measures. He did not wish to unite himself to either of the great parties; but, when he saw gentlemen so premature in their opposition, so suddenly pledging themselves to plans of hostility and embarrassment so exclusively personal—he had almost said so rancorous, to the right hon. gentleman—not having the patience to wait for measures, nor the decency to abstain from throwing dirt on one who was, for so long a time, their leader—on one under whom they had so lately served—when he saw, as the hon. member for Stafford had well
755
Mr. Peel
said, that he must have extremely misunderstood the noble marquis, if he had not been classed with the two right hon. gentlemen upon whose conduct the noble marquis had commented, not in a very moderate manner, accompanied with personalities and censure, applied to him, because of his separating himself, in
756
757
The Marquis of Tavistock
said, that if any thing which he had said, was offensive to the right hon. gentleman, he was sorry for having spoken it; nothing could be further from his intention. What he wished to have said was, that he was sorry to find the right hon. gentleman descend from that high station which he occupied in the House, to join an Opposition, headed by the hon. baronet, and the late under Secretary of the Home Department. It appeared that he had been mistaken in the views of the right hon. gentleman, and he was glad of the opportunity of having himself set right upon the subject.
Mr. Yates Peel
said, that if any one accused him of being one of a rancorous and factious Opposition, it was an abominable falsehood.
Mr. Maberly
explained the reasons why he had postponed his financial notices for this session, because he placed the fullest confidence in the right hon. gentleman's promise to appoint a committee of finance next session, to enter fully into all the parts of the public expenditure. To suppose that the proposed committee would not be a fair one, would be an insult to the government. In full reliance upon this promise, he should not oppose any of this year's estimates; not even the Penitentiary
758
Sir Joseph Yorke
said, it might be necessary for members like himself to state on the present occasion the grounds upon which they stood with regard to the present government. It was now thirty-seven years since he sat on the Opposition side of the House, and now that the lion and the lamb had lain down together, they ought, in the language of their parliamentary prayer, "to give up all partial affections." He meant to have risen after his amiable and excellent friend sir Thomas Lethbridge. Indeed when he had heard the hon. baronet, he thought, for the moment, that he was under a delusion as to his identity, and that the clerk of the Crown had just struck out the hon. baronet's name, and substituted that of sir Francis Wronghead. He rose, now, merely for the purpose of stating, that the speech of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Peel) was any thing but factious. He thought it displayed a great deal of manly sentiment, couched in language of great perspicuity. He proposed to take that right hon. gentleman for his beacon upon the Catholic question; and, although he intended to give a general support to his majesty's government, he should consider himself led by that right hon. gentleman, as long as the cabinet continued to be composed of men who are not united upon the subject, and who do not choose to come forward
and say, they proposed to make the carrying of the Catholic question a measure of administration. As long as the question remained in that state, he should continue to follow the course of the right hon. gentleman, unless the government came forward and declared that they could not govern Ireland, nor insure the prosperity of the empire, without giving emancipation to the Catholics.
Lord Clifton
said, he felt that, in the present crisis of affairs, every public man was bound to express his opinions. He had given the subject the best consideration in his, power; and, after mature deliberation, he had formed an opinion, which
759
Sir J. Sebright
said, he had been for twenty years a member of that House, and during that time it could never be said of him that he allied himself to any party. He did not mean to disparage, at the same time, those combinations of public men, for the furtherance of what they thought the public good, which went by the name of party. He knew that they had been eminently useful to the country at different times. He had, therefore, always acted independently on
760
genus
761
Mr. E. Wodehouse
said, that in the present state of the public mind, he had felt it would be highly satisfactory to the House, and advantageous to the country, if the subject was fairly brought forward by a motion upon the state of the country. He had accordingly addressed a letter to the right hon the President of the Board of Trade, on the 6th of May, stating that opinion, and he had received an answer from Somerset-house, which he would read to the House. "My dear Sir, when we parted, I think we were agreed that a great deal of good might result, in the present state of the country, from a motion upon the state of the nation, and that the sooner that motion was made the better; but you seemed also to think that it would be a great deal better if that motion came from a decided opponent of the government, rather than from a person who was an avowed friend"—
Mr. Lyttleton
entreated his hon. friend, not to persist in reading the correspond-dence. He had reason to believe that his right hon. friend was averse to the exposure of letters which were intended to be private.
Mr. Huskisson
begged his hon. friend to recollect that the letter he held in his hand was marked "private." As far as he recollected, the hon. gentleman requested the letter to be returned to him; but he certainly did not contemplate the possibility of its being made public.
Mr. Wodehouse
exclaimed, "There sits the right hon. gentleman. I rose to vindicate my character from the foulest calumnies. This very day a gentleman I have known for years, both at Oxford, and while I have been a member of this House, declared to me, that there was no end to the calumnies propagated against me."
Mr. Portman
was confident there was no gentleman who could, for a moment, suppose the character of his hon. friend likely to be affected by anything which had taken place between him and the President of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Huskisson
did not think the hon. member could have any reason to fear calumny, on account of what was contained in the notes. He objected to their being
762
Mr. Wodehouse
said, he would offer only one word more. He did not rise to substantiate private honour, but public honour. He did not so much desire to vindicate his own character, as to defend public men, and to uphold official integrity. For that purpose alone he had offered himself to the House.
Mr. Hume
said, that the right hon. gentleman opposite must see, that the country expected of him a change of principle in financial matters. He concurred perfectly in the opinions which the hon. baronet had expressed in the very manly speech which he had just made, and he trusted that any observations which might now fall from him would not lead any hon. member to suppose that he differed from those opinions. This, however, he felt it his duty to say, that the country expected relief. They were now in the thirteenth year of peace. At the conclusion of the war, the nation had been led to expect relief year after year; but let the House reflect how those thirteen years had passed away. There had been a military establishment, only suitable to a state of actual warfare, constantly kept up, and they were now in a state of utter bankruptcy. In 1821, the expenditure was brought within the income of the government; and he hoped that the same would be done this year. In the last year, the House had agreed to add eight and a half millions to the unfunded debt, under a promise that a similar sum should be taken from the funded debt. That vote he should never have agreed to, had it not been from the unparalleled distresses of the country, and the promises of relief which were then held out. The House might not generally know, that no relief whatever had been given to the country. On the contrary, the expenditure had exceeded the revenue by four millions and a half, and the debt of the country had consequently increased. When the business relative to Portugal was brought forward, he had implored the right hon. gentleman opposite to pause before he took a step which, throwing the political consequences of it altogether aside, must entail great expense upon the country. And, how did matters now stand?
763
Mr. Herries
in the absence of his right hon. friend, would not undertake to enter into any explanation of the topics adverted to by the hon. member, but would submit to his consideration, and to that of the House, that although such an intimation as was adverted to by him might have been given, yet that some circumstances had since taken place which would justify a postponement beyond the period at which his noble friend had expressed his intention of bringing the budget forward. He knew it was his noble friend's intention to have brought it forward; but he trusted the circumstances to which he alluded would satisfy the hon. member why an altered course had been adopted. The estimates which he would that night propose would bear no considerable proportion to the general financial statement which his right hon. friend would bring forward on another occasion: after what had fallen from the hon. member for Abingdon, he did not expect that any opposition would be made to voting the Miscellaneous Estimates, which were brought down to the lowest possible standard.
Mr. Canning
who had just entered the House, said, that if he did not at that moment enter into the explanation which the honourable member re-
764
Colonel Davies
thought, that, considering the arduous duties which the right hon. gentleman had had to perform, he was entitled to the indulgence of the House, but at the same time, he must approve of the course which his hon, friend was pursuing, in requiring every possible reduction. Government ought certainly to bear a great share of the blame for mis-spending the public money; but that House, which was the guardian of the public purse, was more culpable in winking at such extravagance. Millions had been voted away at times when, if the House had been counted, there were not sufficient members present to make a House. If the right hon. gentleman would seat himself upon a basis from which he was not to be shaken, in the hearts of the people, he would do so by reducing the expenditure of the country, and make himself the most popular minister that this country ever had.
Lord Howick
said, that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised, that the House should not be called to vote any more supplies until the general statement had been brought forward, and it was upon that pledge that he rested his opinion. It could not be denied that the right hon. gentleman had many difficulties to contend with; but, at the same time, he did not see why these supplies should not be deferred until he had brought forward his general statement. He was anxious not to throw obstacles in the way of government, but he thought that there ought to be no expenditure, until the means by which that expenditure was to be met had been pointed out; and, upon that ground,
765
Lord Milton
said, that when he gave it as his opinion, that the committee should be gone into, the hon. member for Montrose must not suppose that he meant to desert him in his endeavours to bring about an economical reform. Next to Ireland, he thought the state of the finances of this country the most alarming object that presented itself to the consideration of that House. He could not see without alarm so small a surplus as one million over the expenditure of the country.
Mr. Alderman Wood
said, he was sure the right hon. gentleman opposite would feel gratified when he told him, that a large number of his constituents were satisfied with his government. For his own part, though he continued in his former seat, he would give the right hon. gentleman his support as far as he could [cheers], in spite of the very degrading language which had been used towards him elsewhere. He had often heard severe reflections passed upon the debates of the common council of London. They had been called a set of men, who used nothing but vulgar language. But he must say, that he never heard anything elsewhere which nearly approached the language to which he referred. He hoped his hon. friend, the member for Montrose, with whom he had so often voted, would not embarrass the right hon. gentleman, and drive him to a corner of pounds, shillings, and pence. He had only one complaint to make against the right hon. gentleman, and that was for an express on into which he had been goaded. He hoped that whatever he might say as to parliamentary reform, which he had always opposed, he would not again get up in his place and say, that he would oppose the repeal of the Test act to the last hour of his life [No, no!]. Frequent allusions had been made to the march of intellect. Now, although the right hon. gentleman might have proceeded on this march, even to the very pinnacle, he thought the time would yet come when he would think that the difficulties under which so many thousand Dissenters laboured ought to be removed. He should conclude by observing, that on all occasions where the measures of government were directed to the public good, the right hon. gentleman might be sure of his support.
Sir Robert Wilson
rose to make one ob-
766
Mr. S. Wortley
put it to the hon. gentlemen who were engaged in these irrelevant discussions, whether it would not be more beneficial to the public service, that the House should at once proceed to business.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, May 14.
VOTE OF THANKS TO THE ARMY IN INDIA.] Lord Goderich
in pursuance of the notice which he had given, rose for the purpose of proposing to their lordships to pass a Vote of Thanks to the Army and Navy of England, which had been recently employed in the eastern hemisphere; and if it was now some time since the period when their lordships used to be called upon, almost annually, to testify the sense which they entertained of the invaluable services which the fleets and armies of his majesty rendered to the country, it was impossible that their lordships should not recollect, that the very infrequency of these motions resulted from the peace, which was itself the result of the unparalleled successes, for which their lordships had been called upon to express their gratitude. He felt it to be impossible for him to discharge the duty which he had to-day to perform, of proposing to their lordships to thank the army in India, without recollecting, with no ordinary degree of pride and satisfaction,
767
768
769
770
The Duke of Wellington
said, he did not mean to enter into the details which his noble friend had gone into, but he hoped it would noble deemed presumptuous in him to offer a few words on the occasion, particularly when their lordships considered the relation in which he stood to the officers and troops employed in India. If he had had no other motive for addressing their lordships, he should have been induced to do so by the kind remarks of his noble friend, who had attached more merit to him than his services deserved. With respect to Bhurtpore, his noble friend had acquainted their lordships with that superstitious notion which invested the fortress with impregnability; and he had also informed their lordships of the attack which had been made on it twenty years ago. It was only justice to the
771
The Earl of Carlisle
thought, after the satisfactory testimony which had just been
772
The Earl of Morley
thought that, considering the patient and enduring spirit of the army, it would be difficult to select an occasion upon which the tribute of national gratitude was more deserved. Though he felt, with his noble friend, that it would not be strictly within the usage of parliament to express, in a separate motion, the sense they entertained of the civil government of India, still he thought it would be an act of gross injustice, if he did not advert to the firmness and wisdom of those councils which gave energy to our armies. The votes of thanks were restricted to the operations in Ava and against Bhurtpore; but it did not appear by any thing in those motions, that the one operation was not subsequent to the other, and that the resources of the one were not transferred to the other. Such, however,
773
The Earl of Harrowby
said, that after the observations that had been made, he considered it necessary for some member of government to declare, that the glorious results of the war were not only attributable to the valour of our troops, but to the judgment and discretion of the governor-general. The only reason why the noble lord had not been included in the vote of thanks was, that it was not usual that thanks should be voted to the civil officers of the state. The only occasion in which that usage had been departed from, was in the instance of a noble relative of the noble duke, who had, to a certain extent, adopted the military character, by placing himself at the head of the expedition. He begged to declare, in the most unqualified manner, that great merit was due to the noble lord at the head of the government: for it was not only the valour of our troops, but the firmness and judgment of the noble lord, which had secured to the country such brilliant success. The noble lord had already received from the hand of his sovereign a splendid mark of his approbation; and if any thing could add to the gratification, it would be the sentiments expressed by their lordships on the present occasion, especially by the noble duke.
774
nem. dis.
NEW ADMINISTRATION—Foreign Missions.] The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that, after the debate on Thursday last—after the extraordinary eulogium that they had heard on a right hon. gentleman, —after the unanswerable speech they had heard from a noble earl who sat behind him, detailing the proceedings by which that gentleman had succeeded, and which seemed to amount to a kind of conspiracy, —after all the display of that person's consistency—he felt that he must again claim their lordships' indulgence, while he stated the reasons which induced him to bring forward the motion which he was induced to press; not imputing to the noble lords opposite any improper distribution of the funds intrusted to their charge, not with any view of finding fault with the expenditure, or the persons who had received it, or with any expectation of displacing them, but merely to show the different state of the Foreign Office in the year 1822 and at the present period. If his noble friend opposite would declare, that the present government was to be the permanent government, he would at once cease to press this or any other motion on the subject; but, unless he received some assurance on the point, he felt it his duty to call on noble lords to declare whether they meant to carry on the business of the country to the conclusion of the session, under all its present disadvantages—to call on his noble friend to answer how long that disgusting—for that was the phrase now—that disgusting concubinage was to last. He would ask the reverend bench if they were a party to the settlement of the affairs?—if they were the advisers of the noble marquis, as one of the high contracting parties? He would ask the reverend bench this, as they were the guardians of our morals and our virtues. The noble marquis was an old stager; he was no green-horn in politics; but he would tell him, that before he had brought the victim of his seduction to his embrace, he might be thrown aside, after defaming the character of his victim. He should like to know from the learned lord on the woolsack, if, after such a breach of promise in another place, an action would lie. In point of conscience he would say, the conduct was such as to put it out of the power of the individual to get compensation. He would again appeal to the right
775
"My speech on Canning's master mind Involves a great mistake you'll find. Please to correct this gross misprint, For master mind, read Master Mint."
776
Lord Dudley and Ward
said, that one thing only he could gather from the speeches of the noble lord, and others who had addressed the House in the same strain, on former occasions; namely, that he and they entertained a strong feeling of dislike towards the right hon. gentleman whom the king had been pleased to place at the head of his government. No other fact but that, was he able to make out from the speech of the noble lord. He had sat a good many years in parliament, and had seen many Oppositions—right or wrong, he had taken part in some of them. Those Oppositions were formed on various grounds; but some public principle was always involved in their construction. The present period, however, presented the only example to be found in the history of this country, of an Opposition founded on no one public principle, but merely on personal antipathy to the prime minister. The noble lord had alluded to the peculiar situation in which he supposed that he (lord Dudley and Ward), and some other individuals in the Administration, stood. Upon that point he certainly had no personal desire for concealment. He would willingly—as far as he himself was concerned—tell the noble lord all he knew on the subject; but when he was publicly interrogated, he must, on public grounds, refuse to answer. It was frequently the custom of parliament to address the king to dismiss his ministers on specific grounds, such as their incapacity, or the dangerous nature of their policy; but this was the first time in the history of the country, that any minister had been called upon to declare how long the king, his master, would choose to employ him, and how long he intended to serve his Sovereign. No such question, he believed, had ever been asked before; and most certainly he would not be the first minister to answer it [hear]. With respect to the papers moved for, he had formerly told the noble lord, when he gave notice of his intention to move for them, that there was no disposition on the part of government to withhold any information on the subject. The only doubt which had been entertained was, as to whether the information could conveniently be produced in the shape in which it was called for; and also whether it could be produced consistently with the just prerogatives of the Crown. Having
777
Lord King
said, he agreed perfectly with the noble marquis in the present motion. It happened to be just such a one as he had himself formerly submitted to the House, with a view to obtain information. He had then shown, from the parliamentary returns, that the whole expense of ambassadors formerly amounted to 75,000
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
778
monstrum horrendum informe
The Earl of Malmesbury
said, that in the times to which the noble lord referred, the salaries of diplomatic situations were unequal to the expenses of the office, and those who filled them were obliged to draw upon their private fortunes to meet
779
The Earl of Darnley
was sorry to see the noble marquis continuing that species of attack on the ministry, of which he had intimated his intention on a former night. He was quite sure that the motives which actuated the noble marquis were perfectly pure; but, at the same time, he would recommend to him to wait until the government was guilty of something which should call for parliamentary animadversion. He could not but lament, that another noble friend of his, who ended the discussion on a former night, was not present; because he wished to take that opportunity of making a few remarks, which he could not have attempted after such a speech as that which their lordships had heard from his noble friend, to command their lordships' attention. So long as the opposition to ministers was confined to the bitterness of disappointment, or personal animosity, he thought it ought to have no weight; and, in some cases, it only proved the truth of the assertion, that dulness was the natural enemy of genius. If he had any personal feelings of hostility towards the head of his majesty's government, he would not suffer them to interfere with his duty to his country: but he had known that right hon. gentleman ever since they had been at school together, and had always felt a just pride in his brilliant career. However, he did not stand there to vindicate every passage in his right hon. friend's political life; on the contrary, there were some in it, of which he could not approve. But, feeling the situation into which his sovereign was forced by those who had lately enjoyed his confidence—knowing that his right hon. friend had been called on to form a cabinet—and approving, in common with his noble friends, of those liberal sentiments which that right hon. individual entertained, he had no hesitation in declaring, that he would give him all the support in his power. But there was a wide difference between supporting a minister, and taking office under him; to do the former he had no hesitation;
780
781
The Earl of Longford
said, that the noble earl had described the conduct of the Irish Roman Catholics as being extremely moderate. He should only say, that if they were moderate, they had concealed their moderation under so perfect a mask that he could not perceive it. He had witnessed many acts, on the part of the Catholics, the reverse of moderation. The noble earl had applied the term "factious" to those who opposed the present administration. Now, he could not submit to have such an epithet applied to those who conceived it to be their duty to oppose an administration so constructed. The noble lord had said, that at no time had he witnessed such an Opposition. To which he would answer, that at no time had he witnessed a government composed of such ingredients, and so utterly unworthy of confidence. If a steam-engine of a hundred horsepower were employed to force together the most dissonant particles, and unite them into an administration, it could not produce a more discordant combination of persons, diametrically opposed to each other in principle. Such were the persons by whom they were to be governed; and, because they declined to support them until they knew by which of those Opposite principles they were to be so governed, they were designated a factious opposition. A noble friend of his had dropped the word "rubbish," as applied to this administration. Now, when he repeated the term, he only meant it to describe a mass of materials, heaped together without any common foundation, and formed into a fabric which was only to be held together by the agency of Roman cement. All that could be expected from such a fabric was, that it might please the eye and suit the taste for a little time. Could
782
Lord Melville
observed that, his noble friend had said, that his right hon. friend, the late Secretary for the Home Department, had embarked with his late colleagues in a factious opposition to his majesty's government. He could assure the noble earl that he was misinformed on that subject. That right hon. gentleman, if he could believe that the principles of those individuals who had seceded from the ministry were to be abandoned, would then, indeed, be found opposed to the measures of that government; but, while the government, continued to be conducted on those principles upon which it had heretofore been carried on, his right hon. friend would not be found in the ranks of Opposition.
The Earl of Darnley
in explanation, said, that the right hon. gentleman had certainly exhibited a wish to oppose the present government; but it appeared that he had since become ashamed of his associates ["No, no," from lord Melville.] He was happy to be set right; as he had no wish to misrepresent.
Lord Goderich
said, he was prepared, so far as his own opinion and belief were concerned, to confirm all that had been stated by the noble lord, with respect to his right hon. friend. He had no reason to suppose that his right hon. friend did now contemplate, or ever had contemplated, any thing which merited the name of a factious opposition to the government. Unless he could suppose that his right hon. friend was insincere in all he said, he must believe that he entertained intirely opposite views on the subject. If, however, it should he found that he (lord Goderich), or any of those individuals who now constituted the government, and who had recently not felt themselves called upon to reject the invitation which was offered them to continue to form part of the king's council—if it should be found that they abandoned the principles on which they had hitherto acted—they would indeed abdicate their honour, and cover themselves with disgrace, and would merit not only to lose the confidence of parliament, but to be visited with its disapprobation. If certain individuals, who had watched and approved of the conduct pursued for some years past, not alone by the minis-
783
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, May 14.
CREATION OF PEERS.] Mr. Hume
rose, to ask a question upon a subject of great importance. He did not wish to do any thing which might interfere with the just prerogative of the Crown, but he wished to make an observation with respect to the practice which had grown up, of late years, of creating a great number of peers. If there was any thing more than another requisite to maintain those persons in that state which entitled them to the respect of the other stations of society, it was a due caution that their number should not be too much increased, and that none should be elevated to that rank, whose fortune did not place him beyond the reach of accident, and who should not be able to transmit it with its honours, unimpaired, to his posterity. Abroad he had seen the miserable effects of multiplying the number of the nobility without any attention to their property. There he had seen the whole class degraded, and treated with disrespect by those who ought to have looked up to them as examples for imitation. In this country, too, there was at present no amount of property required for the individual who was to be raised to the peerage; and the consequence was, that the pension-list had been enormously increased by making provisions for the maintenance of the rank of such peers, and their families and connexions. This ought not to be the condition of the class which was to stand between the Crown and the
784
Mr. Canning
said, he was very much at a loss to conceive upon what circumstance, or upon what supicions, or from what rumour or reason, the hon. member had thought proper to come forward upon this occasion; whether with a question, or a motion, or a notice of motion, he could not undertake to determine. The right vested in the Crown, of conferring honours upon its subjects, was a question so solemn, that whenever the hon. gentleman thought proper to bring it forward, he hoped to meet the discussion with all the gravity and decorum which it so justly deserved. This much, however, he might say, that nothing the hon. gentleman could say—no reasons he could urge—would ever induce him to strip the Crown of the most splendid portion of its prerogative, or to deprive the subject of the equally splendid reward of his services.
Mr. Hume
declared, that he had not mentioned the matter from any intention of alluding to what was passing at the present moment, or to what was reported out of doors. The subject was one which had been pressing on his mind for years.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
thanked the hon. gentleman for that information; as he had at first conceived his observations to be founded upon some rumours, as wild as they were mischievous, circulated only to promote delusion, and not possessing one syllable of truth.
l
Sir Joseph Yorke
said, he was not hostile either to the sum, which was small, or to the principle, provided there was any thing in it. Either it was good, or it was bad.
785
Colonel Wood
was sorry to hear his hon. friend cast distrust upon what he was confident was the greatest blessing, not only for this country, but the whole world, which modern study had discovered. That particular cases of failure of vaccination had occurred, he would admit; and the same had happened respecting inoculation for the small-pox itself. He was sorry that his hon. friend should assist in sending forth a prejudice, which might operate most injuriously among the lower orders, in a case so much affecting their interests.
Mr. Peel
wished to caution his hon. friend how he indulged with levity and sarcasm in subjects of this nature. It was perfectly true, that appearances of small-pox had been observed after supposed vaccination; but it was equally true, that the latter, if not a perfect antidote to the former, had greatly abridged the extent and mitigated the severity of the original disorder. Indeed, his hon. friend's argument, drawn from his own children, instead of proving that vaccination had not produced inestimable blessings, only showed that the operation was probably performed by some inexperienced country amateur practitioner. He thought it absolutely necessary that an institution of this nature should exist; and he hoped that the House would not countenance those prejudices against vaccination which existed in many parts of the kingdom. The gentlemen connected with this establishment had inquired into many of the cases in which it had been asserted that vaccination had failed; and their labours had already been productive of considerable benefit.
Sir C. Burrell
said, he had not the
786
Mr. Hume
said, that, only seven weeks ago, he was in a party of gentlemen who had carefully considered this subject, and that they asked him to introduce a bill into parliament, for the prevention of inoculation with small-pox matter altogether, unless the parents of the children so inoculated removed them to some kind of pest-house. He thought that this would be a very salutary measure; and, as the law had already provided against the introduction of diseases which might be brought from abroad, he did not see why it should not be extended to a disease at home, which had been proved to be equally infectious and dangerous.
Sir T. Yorke
said, that his two children had been vaccinated at the age of four or five, and that one of them took the smallpox at the age of twenty-two. He understood it to be admitted by persons who were favourable to vaccination, that vaccination was only safe for about seven years.
SALMON FISHERIES BILL.] Mr. Kennedy
proposed the sending of the Salmon Fisheries bill to a Committee above stairs.
Mr. Beresford
said:—As representative for Berwick, a town whose chief trade consists in the produce of its Salmon fisheries, I feel it my duty to oppose the hon. member's proposition of sending his bill to a committee above stairs; and the reason why I do oppose it I shall state briefly to the House. The Berwick fisheries are those to which the London market looks for a great part of what salmon it has a demand for; and the proprietors of those fisheries have certainly a right to be considered in an arrangement which so materially affects their property. According to the existing law on the river Tweed, the fence or close time does not commence till the 11th of October. By the proposed alteration of the hon. member for Ayr, he would shut the river on the 16th September. Now, Sir, by the averages for the last thirty years there have been caught, between
787
d
l
l
s
s
l
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, May 15.
TURNER'S DIVORCE BILL.] Lord Redesdale
said, he rose to present a petition of more than ordinary importance. It was from Wm. Turner, esq. of Shrigleypark, in Cheshire; and prayed that their lordships would be pleased to allow a bill to be brought in, which should declare the marriage between his daughter, Ellen Turner, a maiden, under sixteen years of age, and Mr. Edward Gibbon Wakefield, to be null and void. With respect to the circumstances under which this marriage had taken place, it would be necessary for him to observe, that the parties concerned in bringing it about, had been lately tried and found guilty "of a conspiracy to carry away Miss E. Turner, and afterwards to compel her, by fraud and intimidation, to marry the said E. G. Wakefield." The case was an extremely novel one; for there had been none such for the last century. The only one of any thing like a similar nature with which he was acquainted,
788
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, that the first thing to be taken into consideration was, whether the marriage was or was not valid; as the marriage must be proved to be valid, before their lordships could proceed to dissolve it.
Lord Redesdale
said, that what the noble earl had just stated, afforded a strong reason for referring the petition to a committee of the whole House; in which all questions falling under their consideration could be discussed.
The Earl of Eldon
said, he did not rise with the intention of giving a judicial opinion upon the subject. He was merely anxious to throw out a few suggestions for the consideration of their lordships. Taking the marriage to be valid, or taking it to be invalid, in consequence of force having been used, their lordships should consider, that before they could proceed to set aside that marriage, they should be satisfied that it was held to be a valid marriage. He apprehended, that the case was one of a very peculiar nature; and that its peculiarity arose from the difficulty of having a decision in the Ecclesiastical Courts, upon a suit brought forward for the purpose of setting aside the marriage. If he had been rightly informed, the difficulty turned upon this circumstance—that the evidence of Miss Turner would not be received; but if that evidence could be received, although not in that court, the question for their lordships would be simply this: whether they would or would
789
v
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, there was still another view which ought to be taken of the subject. He was of opinion, that it would be much better to have a general act passed, to legalize evidence such as that which appeared to be so essential in the present case, than for their lordships to assume a dangerous jurisdiction, and take upon themselves to decide points of law, which did not, in the first instance, fall within their proper cognizance.
CORN LAWS—LORD REDESDALE'S RESOLUTIONS.]
The order of the day being read,
Lord Redesdale
said, he was anxious to make a few observations, in proposing a series of Resolutions, of which he had given notice, with reference to the Corn-laws. The unfortunate event which had prevented the noble earl, who was recently at the head of his majesty's government, from doing that which he had intended to do, had led to one very great inconvenience—the resolutions which had been proposed to the other house of parliament
790
791
792
793
794
l
795
796
s
s
d
s
s
d
l
l
797
798
799
s
s
s
s
800
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
801
s
s
s
s
802
803
Lord Goderich
said, he trusted their lordships would agree with him in thinking, that it would be more convenient to abstain from discussing, on that occasion, either the general principle, or the particular details of the bill which stood for a second reading on Friday next; because, although it was true that many of the topics contained in the Resolutions presented by the noble and learned lord were more or less directly connected with the subject of that bill, yet it was quite clear that if he attempted now to enter into a full exposition of his views on the subject (as he intended to do on Friday), he should undertake a task infinitely beyond his strength and competency at that moment, and more than the patience of their lordships would endure. The resolutions of the noble lord embraced not only the bill before the House in its principle and details, but likewise the largest questions of government—questions of internal policy, and every possible topic connected with the intercourse of this country with foreign nations. All those subjects were of the greatest importance, and, for ought he knew, it was very reasonable they should, at a fit time, be taken into consideration; but, to have them thus mixed up together in resolutions, and voted in a mass, would be inconsistent with the practice of a legislative assembly. The bill, which he should move the second reading of on Friday, was a practical measure upon which their lordships would be called upon to pronounce "ay" or "no;" but the resolutions were, in fact, a series of essays on political economy; and it would be an out-of-the-way course for their lordships to express their approbation of the opinions contained in them by a formal vote. It would, indeed, he thought, be highly impolitic in their lordships to establish by their vote all the propositions contained in the resolutions to be matter of fact. There was one circumstance, too, which would render it impossible for then lordships to adopt any one or more of the resolutions unless they adopted them altogether —namely, that each successive resolution was founded upon the reasonings of the one which preceded it. They must, therefore, take them in the lump, or not at all. If they adopted some and rejected others, there would appear only a skeleton of what was originally proposed. The resolutions would, necessarily, appear on the journals
804
805
s
s
d
s
d
s
"nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri."
806
807
808
809
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, he could not suffer this discussion to terminate, without thanking his noble and learned friend for the talent he had displayed, the great pains he had taken, and the extensive knowledge he had shown in drawing up these resolutions, which, whatever might be their fate that night, must produce a strong effect on the minds of their lordships and of the country at large. Since they had been laid on the table, their lordships had not been assailed with that tissue of calumnies and lies directed against the landed interest, which the House had been in the daily habit of hearing for some time before. Those resolutions being placed on their lordships' Journals, containing as they did the soundest political doctrines, would go down to posterity, and would be read with admiration by future generations. He would have said little more on this occasion, but for the manner in which the noble lord opposite had treated some of the propositions before their lordships. He would deny the assertions of the noble lord opposite, with respect to the argument
810
811
l
l
812
Lord Bexley
contended, from a comparison of the number of enclosure bills, from the Revolution to the year 1773, and from the latter year to 1815, and also from a comparative view of the amount of population in both those periods, that the system which was in force prior to 1773 was not so beneficial as that which had continued from 1773 to 1815. From the Revolution to 1773, the number of enclosure bills was 690; from 1773 to 1815,
813
The Earl of Rosslyn
argued, that the production of the country had been greatly increased under the system recognized by the act of Charles 2nd, and that the people were supplied with corn at a much lower price, in consequence of the protecting plan then introduced. If the noble lord looked to the period during which that act was in force, he would find, that corn was as low in this country as elsewhere. The noble lord had also stated, that while the war lasted, the law allowed practical importation. But, though the law permitted it, were there not circumstances that prevented the country from taking advantage of that permission? Could they, at that time, pay a sufficient price for foreign corn? The noble lord had mentioned the subject of enclosures; but, from what other circumstance did the great number of enclosures take their rise, than from the great demand for corn, which could not be supplied but by the cultivation of the land? Those enclosure bills did not apply to new lands, but to the old; in order that they might be cultivated in a more profitable manner. If the noble lord stated that the wealthy condition of the people, and the doubling of the population, was to be attributed to the alteration of the law in 1773, he was pressing a great many things into his arguments, which would not serve his purpose.
Earl Stanhope
said, that, after the luminous statement which had been made by the noble earl near him, he thought it would be more convenient to postpone any expression of the feelings of the House until the second reading of the bill which had come up from the Commons. The noble viscount opposite had stated, that it was not the fact that foreign corn was paid for in specie. He supposed, therefore, the noble viscount had not read the evidence of sir Claude Scott, given to the committee of that House, who had stated, that he never knew a single instance in which corn was paid for but in specie. He was surprised, too, after all that he had heard said of the liberal system of free trade, which was to pour its benefits on the country, to find that that system had dwindled down into an insignificant plan for protection against smuggling. But, had it that effect? Their lordships knew, on the contrary, that the coast of the
814
Lord Redesdale
said, that, as he had recorded his opinion, by entering his resolutions on the Journals, he should not resist the amendment of the noble viscount for an adjournment.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, May 15.
TRADE WITH INDIA.] Mr. W. Whitmore
rose, pursuant to notice, to move for the appointment of a Select Committee, with a view to extend the trade between Great Britain and India. When the House considered the distress which was on all hands acknowledged to exist among the manufacturing population—the decline of the revenue, which decline, since last year, was not less than four or five millions; and the decline of our export trade, which in the same time amounted to an equal extent—it became important in the highest degree to inquire how those evils could be remedied. He trusted, therefore, that if he could show, that a great increase of employment would result, from extending the trade with India, to the weavers of Scotland and Lancashire, government would lend a favourable ear to his proposition. But it was not on the existence of this distress that he rested the question. That distress might be, and he hoped it was, of a temporary nature. The resources of the country could not be so much reduced as to prevent the return of the prosperity it had heretofore enjoyed.
815
816
EXPORTS FROM GREAT BRITAIN TO INDIA.
Woollens.
Annual average from
1801 to 1810
£273,360
Ditto
1814 to 1822
376,399
Ditto
1823 and 1824
962,061
Cotton Goods
Average of years from
1801 to 1810
£55,461
Ditto
1814 to 1822
568,358
Ditto
1823 and 1824
115,512
IMPORTS FROM EAST INDIA TO GREAT BRITAIN.
Indigo.
lb
Average of years from
1801 to 1820
3,513,053
Ditto
1814 to 1822
5,022,087
Cotton.
Average of years from
1801 to 1810
5,896,300
Ditto
1814 to 1822
23,535,365
Bengal Silk.
Average of years from
1801 to 1810
438,792
Ditto
1814 to 1822
899,507
Sugar.
Cwt.
Average of years from
1801 to 1810
77,325
Ditto
1814 to 1822
124,379
Ditto
1823 and 1824
244,658
817
ad valorem
s
d
s
818
l
l
s
819
820
821
l
l
emporia
822
emporia
823
824
Mr. Slaney,
in seconding the motion, said, he wished, while he consulted the interests of his fellow countrymen at home, likewise to regard those of their fellow-subjects in the East, who were neither really nor virtually represented in that House. The motion before them was well adapted to pave the way for that larger question which they would have to discuss a few years hence, involving the future government of so many hundred millions of human beings who were consigned to their sway. He entreated them to weigh well the value of a moral policy which would leave its enlightening tracks along its course, and mark the remembrance of British benefits, should the Indian empire ever pass from British rule. It was incumbent upon them to remove some blots from their legislative and commercial policy, and to show, that, however extraordinary was the origin of their eastern possessions, the natives had at least largely benefitted from the change. Mr. Gibbon, in referring to their Indian empire, had said, that "the richest and most extensive provinces of the great conqueror of the Mogul empire now belonged to a company of Christian merchants in an island of the northern ocean." It was time they should show the world, that, small as was their executive, they were yet governed by great principles. Their East-Indian possessions had been treated more commercially than morally; but he trusted it was reserved for those who had sowed the first seeds of liberty in America, to introduce, at some future time, the beneficial advantages of their free institutions into the heart of Asia.
Mr. Leycester
said, there were many reasons which induced him to support the motion for a repeal of the high duty on East-India sugar. First, he felt bound to support it from a regard to consistency; for what could be more inconsistent than
825
sine qua non
826
Mr. Huskisson
began by observing, that his hon. friend had formerly introduced this subject to the attention of the House, by a simple proposition for an equalization of the rate of duty on East and West Indian sugars. In this simple proposition, he could not concur; and, if he concurred in the present, the hon. member must perceive, that the object of his former proposition would be as effectively carried as if that proposition were agreed to. With respect to the threat of a non-consumptive agreement of West-Indian produce, referred to by the hon. member, who spoke last, he could assure that hon. member—and he spoke from experience—that non-consumptive agreements of the description alluded to, seldom or ever met with the success which was anticipated from them. Of the produce of British plantation sugar in the West Indies last year, he could say that it had not been less than in any former year. Although it was well known that there was great pressure in trade every where last year, the amount paid in as duty on British plantation sugar imported into Great Britain, covering drawbacks and certain other charges, was 5,500,000
l
827
828
829
830
831
832
Lord Milton
expressed his entire satisfaction at what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman. He had felt exceedingly anxious to support his hon. friend's motion; and if the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade had opposed it, he should have felt himself bound to vote for it. After the fair and candid manner, however, in which the right hon. gentleman had treated the subject, he thought that a postponement of the inquiry would be more conducive to the object which his hon. friend had in view, than its immediate adoption; as he entirely agreed with the right hon. gentleman, that a premature consideration of the question might exasperate conflicting interests, and confirm prejudices which every well-wisher to his country would desire to see weakened rather than strengthened. With respect to the expediency of an inquiry at no distant period, he perfectly agreed with his hon. friend. He thought that the laws which related to the trade with India ought to be taken into consideration as early as it would be advisable to do so, with a view to such an alteration in them as might be advantageous to the general interests. Upon the whole, however, it appeared to him to be better to leave the subject in the hands of a government entertaining just views respecting it, rather than at present to appoint a committee, in which witnesses would be examined on one side and on the other, and the proceedings of which might be calculated to produce considerable irritation.
Mr. Philips
said, he had the satisfaction to state that the manufactures of Lancashire were greatly increasing in activity. In confirmation of this statement the hon. gentleman read extracts from two letters which he had recently received. The first was from a very intelligent individual, who said that the calico printers in Lancashire were doing more than they ever did; that of some descriptions of cloth three times as much could be sold as the manufacturers were able to make; that some of the
833
834
Sir C. Forbes
thanked the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade for the able, fair, and candid, exposition which he had made of his opinions; and congratulated the country and India on the unusual attention which such a question had experienced in that House. In general, the affairs of India, although of such great importance to the interests of the empire, had been sadly neglected; the very name of India clearing the House at once of half its members. He trusted, however, that in future the subject would receive the attention which it deserved. Feeling, as he did, the greatest attachment to India, he trusted that the question of its commercial interests would be left in the hands of the right hon. gentleman, who, he had
835
Mr. Sykes
said, that, although he was quite satisfied with the tone of the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade's speech, and perfectly coincided with him in his general commercial principles, he was anxious that some measures should be adopted, with as little delay as possible, for the purpose of improving and extending the trade with India. He had not heard a single reason which to him appeared cogent for continuing the duties on East-India sugar. He entirely concurred in the sentiments contained in the luminous speech made by the right hon. gentleman. At the same time, he felt deeply for the present depressed situation of the shipping interest. Circumstanced as he was, he had ample opportunites of knowing the extent of the evils which they were enduring; evils of which neither the House nor the right hon. gentleman could have any adequate idea. He had told them, however, more than once, that those evils were not owing to the relaxation of the Navigation laws, or the introduction of the Reciprocity system. He firmly believed, not only that the relaxation of the Navigation laws was necessary at the time at which they were relaxed, but that, if it had not been necessary it would have been wise. And yet, knowing as he did, the distressed state of the shipping interest, he felt that it behoved parliament and his majesty's government to look out for quarters where that interest might obtain employment; and he could not see any opening so likely to be advantageous to the shipping interest as the encouragement of trade with the East Indies. If the duty were taken off East-India sugar, a larger quantity of sugar would necessarily be imported into this country; which, added to the distance from which it would be brought, must greatly increase the amount of tonnage that would be employed. It was principally on that ground that he was disposed to press the speedy consideration of this important subject. He did not see any way in which the shipping interest could be relieved from their present depression, except by increasing the commerce of the
836
Mr. Ross
observed, that the whole of the bounties to which the hon. gentleman, had just alluded, were abolished last year. The whole of the advantage which the West-India planter at present possessed in that respect was, that he was allowed to go into the foreign market, unloaded with those duties to which he was subject in the English, but nothing further. With respect to the surplus supply of sugar that came from the West Indies, the hon. member who had mentioned it had forgot the immense supply from the Mauritius. It ought to be remembered, that we ourselves had encouraged the West Indies to look for a monopoly, by the monopoly in supplying them with the articles they wanted, which we had established for a long time against them in our own favour. How far it might be proper to continue these protecting duties in favour of the West-India colonists, he would not undertake to say; but he thought that the best mode would be for the hon. member to withdraw his motion for the present, and leave the matter to his majesty's government.
Mr. W. Smith
said, that, whether his hon. friend chose to withdraw his motion or not, he could not help observing, that the argument, that the production of the duties on the East-India sugars would do no harm to the West-India sugar-growers, which was one which cut its own throat; for, if that was the case, why retain the duty on the East-India sugars, or why call for an inquiry? This was a proof, that the argument was not confided in, even by those who used it; or, at least, that they laboured under a very great delusion on the subject. If the argument, however, was good for any thing, and if the West-India sugar-growers would really not be injured by the reduction of the duty on East-India sugars, then let the people of England at least have that satisfaction which they craved by five hundred petitions. If the reduction would do no harm to the West-India growers, that was an
837
838
Mr. Bernal
recalled to the recollection of the hon. member for Norwich, that he did not vote with the minority which opposed the exemption of the Mauritius from the protecting duty. He thought his hon. friend evinced rather a prejudiced feeling against the West Indies. He denied that the West-India slave population decreased in proportion to the increase of the cultivation of sugar; and he had expected more candour from his hon. friend, than that he would have encouraged the clamour out of doors against the West-India body. It might possibly be, that the country would derive equal duties from the sugars if brought from other quarters; but at least they ought not to give up a valuable revenue without inquiry. It ought to be recollected, that the West and East Indies stood in a very different situation with respect to this country. Englishmen were not allowed to colonize or hold lands in the East Indies. The case was widely different with respect to the West Indies. Other nations, particularly the States of America, had a longing eye after these colonies; which were considered of more importance than the political economists of the present day seemed to imagine. They had often been the scenes of war between the civilized nations of Europe, and our fleets had frequently met the French fleets in that quarter. The interest of the West Indies was a subject not to be trifled with.
Sir Robert Farquhar
begged to return thanks for the very candid manner in which the hon. member for Rochester had introduced the point of Mauritius sugar. Though that was a question affecting the
839
840
cholera morbus
Mr. F. Buxton
said, that if the hon. baronet alluded to him, he had much better
841
Mr. Brougham
said, he could not but express his high satisfaction at the tone and temper in which a part of this debate had been conducted. He could not but congratulate the House and the country on the manner in which the right. hon. gentleman had expressed his own sentiments and those of his majesty's government, with reference to this most interesting question. Had his majesty's government met the subject in any other spirit—had the right hon. gentleman contented himself by a dry and hard statement of proofs and inferences, instead of openly avowing an inclination to treat the question as it deserved to be treated—then he should have been the last man in that House to have supported the right hon. gentleman; but, agreeing entirely as he did in the opinions expressed that night by the right hon. gentleman, and agreeing with him, that the subject now before the House was one of paramount importance, he must, of necessity, support the same views of this subject as those which the right hon. gentleman entertained. He was the last man who would willingly tender advice; and he was sure that his hon.
842
s
s
843
844
Mr. W. Horton
said, that the late governor of the Mauritius considered himself as an injured man; and it was, therefore, natural that he should defend himself when attacked. He no doubt felt the necessity of repelling that attack the more incumbent upon him, the subject not being regularly before the House, but having been gratuitously brought forward for a purpose not altogether fair.
Mr. Wynn
observed, that as British manufactures had superseded those of India, we were bound, in justice and in sound policy, to extend the trade with that country as much as possible, for the sake
845
Mr. Whitmore,
in reply, said, that he yielded to the recommendation of the right hon. gentleman, and would withdraw his motion, and leave the subject altogether in his hands; as he had the assurance that the right hon. gentleman intended to institute inquiries, with a view to remedy what was objectionable in the existing system. He felt confident the right hon. gentleman would not postpone these inquiries for five years, till the expiration of the Charter of the East-India Company. If, however, he was disappointed, he should feel bound again to call the attention of the House to this important question.
CORNWALL AND DEVON MINING COMPANY.] Mr. Alderman Waithman
on rising to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice, for a Committee of Inquiry respecting the formation and proceedings of the Cornwall and Devon Mining Company, stated that, at that late hour, he would not trespass at any length on the attention of the House. He knew that some hon. members thought there was no necessity for any further investigation of these companies, as the evils attending them, it was supposed, were at an end. But he could assure the House, that this was a great mistake; for, at that moment, hundreds of individuals were suffering severely, on account of their connexion with these associations. One of the directors of the company of which he then spoke, had recently been declared a bankrupt, and another director (Mr. P. Moore), late a member of that House, who had been concerned in many of these projects, was lying in prison on that very account. He had another motive for pressing this inquiry. The character of some members of the House was deeply implicated in it, and he wished to give them an opportunity of vindicating themselves, and their constituents the satisfaction of knowing, that their representatives were free from the foul charges of fraud which
846
Lord Palmerston
said, he wished it to be distinctly understood, that with regard to himself it was a matter of the most perfect indifference whether the House agreed to the committee or not; and, having said thus much, he should abstain from taking any part whatever in the discussion.
Mr. G. Robinson
thought it would be useless for the House to grant a second committee to investigate into this subject, unless they first received a pledge, that when that committee should have made its report, some further steps would be taken, and the recommendations of the report be acted on.
Mr. Wilks
observed, that in the whole course of his life he had never read any fiction or romance that in ingenuity of invention came up to the statements which had been made concerning the subject now under discussion. The whole matter, in fact, had arisen out of personal pique towards himself; and he asserted that the hon. alderman had availed himself of his situation in that House to vilify his character. It was impossible for him to imagine any circumstance to account for the statements which that hon. member
847
Mr. Hudson Gurney
said, the speeches of the hon. member for Sudbury and the hon. alderman, had fully justified the doubt he had ventured to express, of the expediency of the House granting a committee, in the previous debate on the affairs of the Arigna mining company; as not only being out of their competence, but as affording a most inconvenient precedent. No man living could follow those hon. members in their statements of mere matter of account between parties in a private concern. He had no doubt there were practices sufficiently fraudulent. The names of members of the last parliament had appeared in a manner perfectly disgraceful; but it was evidently impossible that the House of Commons could make themselves the auditors of private accounts; and, if the House consented to go into the affairs of the Devon and Cornwall company, it was notorious that there were fifty others that had equal claim on legislative attention. All that the legislature ought to do was, so to revise the law of partnerships, as to obviate the probability of the recurrence of the evil.
Mr. Brougham
thought the House was
848
849
850
Mr. Brogden,
after the frequent allusions made to him in the course of the debate, hoped the House would permit him to make a few observations. He felt bound to vote against that committee and all others like it; because he thought it unfair and unjust, and only to be likened to the Star-chamber inquisitions, in their effect upon the individuals who unhappily came before them. He had been, for the last three months, placed in a state of
851
852
Mr. Robert Grant
observed, that he would not say a single word in answer to what had fallen from the hon. gentleman, but would merely observe, as chairman of the committee which had been appointed
853
Mr. Ward
denied that he had not attended to the proceedings before the committee, and said that if the hon. member would call upon him, he would show him such voluminous notes upon those proceedings, as would prove that he had not neglected his duty.
Mr. Alderman Waithman
declared, that a more honourable committee had never been appointed, or one which had attended more sedulously to the business before them. Although he still thought that the committee for which he had moved might be advantageously appointed, yet, admitting that there was some reason in the distinction drawn by the learned member for Winchelsea, between those who had entered into such speculations before they became members of that House, and those who, being members of the House, entered into them, with the leave of the House he would withdraw his motion.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, May 17.
NEW ADMINISTRATION.] Earl Manvers
hoped he might be permitted to trespass for a few moments on their lordships' time, whilst he stated the motives which had induced him to refuse his
854
Lord De Dunstanville
saw no reason for withholding his confidence from the present ministry. With regard to the question of Catholic emancipation, he thought that the Protestant religion would gain more by conceding than by opposing the claims of the Catholics; that more converts would be made by emancipation than by any other means.
The Earl of Aberdeen
said, that he could not avoid making a few observations on the situation in which the existing administration was placed, and on the transactions which had recently taken place; but he felt it necessary first to declare, that he belonged to no class of opposition, whether factious or otherwise. He differed from the noble earl as to the support which should be given to the present administration, seeing the declaration which had been repeatedly made, that it was formed on the principles of lord Liverpool's government: therefore any resistance to such a ministry must be founded on personal objections,—a course which he decidedly disavowed. The present government had been called a provisional one. He thought that more importance was attached to that circumstance than it deserved. If it pleased the king to engage any portion of his ministry for limited service, as he did his troops, he saw no great reason to complain of such an exertion of the royal prerogative. No man who knew the abilities of the right hon. Secretary for Foreign Affairs so well as he did, could doubt his capacity to discharge the duties of his situation; and that being
855
856
857
The Earl of Abingdon
rose for the purpose of denying what it seemed the intention of the last noble speaker to assert; namely, that the noble lords who sat on that side of the House constituted a factious opposition. Though he spoke from those benches, he trusted he should not be classed as one of a factious Opposition. He had always been the strenuous supporter of a regular government, and entertained a strong feeling of loyalty for his king, and of attachment to the constitution of the country, in church and state. An adherence to those principles had supported the country through all its difficulties, and had procured for it permanent peace and prosperity. A departure from those principles he considered dangerous to the welfare of the empire. Such being his opinion, he found it impossible to give his support to the administration.
Lord Holland
said, that in the discharge of his duty as a peer of parliament, he had always endeavoured, though perhaps he might not always have been successful, to confine the observations which he addressed to their lordships to such points as were immediately under consideration; or at least to such as were likely soon to be brought under consideration. However, since the meeting of parliament, after the recess, it had been greatly the fashion to enter into discussions totally irrelevant to any motions before the House, and, instead of standing upon general principles, to make professions of political faith, not only of the government or the individuals representing it, but of almost every person who sat on that side of the House. As it generally happened that people caught something of the manners of the company amongst whom they sat, it would not be surprising if he should himself indulge in some of those irregular observations of which he had heard so much from others. He, amongst others, had been put on his trial—not for any opinion he had expressed—not for any vote he had given—not for any principle he had abandoned—but only because he had changed his seat. He was called upon to explain why he had changed his seat in that House; and this call, be it
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
Grœcas calendas
866
The Earl of Winchilsea
declared his intention to support any measures emanating from either side of the House, which he conceived to be calculated to promote the welfare of the country. The only means of forming an opinion, with respect to future conduct was, to look at what had been the tenor of the past. What confidence, then, could be placed in an administration which had been formed out of a coalition of the most opposite parties? What security for sincerity—what pledge of uprightness—could such a government give? It had been stated, in the other House of Parliament, that the administration was to be conducted on the principles of lord Liverpool's government. But the noble lord had just informed the House, that the administration was not to be conducted on those principles. For that open and manly avowal, he returned the noble lord his sincere thanks. Their lordships now knew how matters stood. There was now an end of the bone of contention which had existed for so many years. The sacrifice of opinion had not, it was clear, been made by the Whig party. It must have been made, in a certain degree, by the individual at the head of the government. From the observation which he had made of that individual's career, he believed he had made the profession of Tory principles only the stepping-stone to the eminence he had attained. He had no personal hostility to the individual. He had never possessed the honour of his acquaintance. He, however, entertained a strong political hostility towards him, which was founded on a review of some of the principal acts of his public life. Public acts were public property, and formed a fit subject for comment by a British senator, in the discharge of his duty. There were some parts of the public conduct of the present head of the government which had made a strong impression on his mind. There were circumstances connected with the political history of that right hon. gentleman, which were calculated to excite suspicion and alarm. Let the House call to its recollection the conduct of that right hon. individual, on the occasion of an important trial which occupied the attention of that House. There was not that straight-forward, open, and consistent line of conduct observable in
867
Lord Ellenborough
said, that the noble baron opposite had shown a degree of official soreness which he had not expected from him, and which appeared to have no other foundation than the existence of an Opposition, which was usual on occasions like the present, and whose right to question the proceedings of government his noble friend seemed so desirous to control. He hoped, however, that his noble friend would have a better regard for the useful rights of an Opposition, and not apply the term "factious" to those who felt it their duty to stand forward on the present occasion, for no other purpose than simply to ascertain the principles on which his majesty's government had been formed. His noble friend had declared, that he differed from those individuals who had left his majesty's councils, on every topic; and yet he now supported a government, which was said to maintain the same principles on which the late government was founded. Now, he could not exactly comprehend why his noble friend should have opposed the government of the late lord Liverpool, and yet avow his support of the present administration, if the fact were so, that the principles of both were similar. The truth, however, was, that the country was wholly at a loss to know the principles of the present government; and he could not but consider, that it would be highly
868
869
870
prima facie
"Stabant orantes primi transmittere eursum, Tendebantque manus, ripæ ulterioris amore."
871
Lord Goderich
said, that the noble baron who had just sat down had frankly stated his intention of taking every opportunity, convenient or inconvenient, of manifesting to their lordships and the country his determination to carry on that which he had, in the early part of these discussions, described as an uncompromising hostility to the present government. He had plainly avowed, that his object was, by those separate, inconvenient and unsatisfactory, debates, to produce an impression on the public mind. Such might be his object; but, in effecting it, those who were thus put upon their trial had the most unjust imputations cast upon them, and were reviled as men almost incapable of honourable and proper feelings. He complained of this course as most unjust; and he declared that, if fair dealing was intended, it ought no longer to be pursued. If they were to be told that they did not deserve the confidence of the country, for God's sake let a motion be brought before the House for that purpose; he sought for nothing else. It was impossible for those who were engaged in the service of his majesty to do justice to the duties they had undertaken, if they were to be attacked in this way. When those imputations were thrown upon them they were expected to treat them with indifference. For himself; he must declare, that he should meet the decision of such a question, when it came—if ever it did come—with that perfect fearlessness which he had hitherto shown upon political questions; and, if the results should prove
872
873
Lord Ellenborough
observed, that his questions were grounded on admissions from noble lords opposite.
Viscount Goderich
said, that the only admission of which the noble lord could avail himself was, that the right hon. gentleman at the head of the administration had done his utmost to form an efficient and powerful administration, without any sacrifice of public principle.
Lord Ellenborough
agreed with the noble viscount, but still asserted, that that administration could not go on.
Viscount Goderich
said, that that remained to be proved, and he most anxiously desired to have the question solved
874
875
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, he could not but express his surprise and regret at the unexpected discussion which had taken place. He should feel most happy to give the noble lord opposite, or any other noble lord, the fullest explanation on any subject connected with his majesty's government, provided the question was brought forward on proper notice in the regular form; but he must condemn in the strongest manner, these irrelevant discussions. When any question was brought before their lordships that called for inquiry, he should feel no objection to discuss it item by item, but he would not be induced to give any explanation to rumours gleaned from newspapers, and reports gathered from the registers of past times, for the purpose of heaping odium on a government which was framed on principles as honest and as honourable as any that had ever been formed in the country. He should not, however, be betrayed by his feelings—though he left the House to judge what those feelings were—out of that track which he felt most consistent with his own character, and most conformable to the wishes of those with whom he had the honour to act. It was said by the noble lord opposite that the coalition which he (lord Lansdown) and his party had formed with Mr. Canning's government was unworthy the confidence of the country. The noble lord, also, in direct terms spoke of a correspondence carried on for unworthy motives. Such charges he at once asserted to be false. He did not mean, of course, to attach a direct falsehood to the noble lord; but his assertion was certainly one of the most extraordinary proofs of a disposition to believe that which happened to agree with his own views and wishes. He hoped his majesty's government would be judged of by its acts. The characters of public men should not be aspersed by the imputations of unworthy motives. The day would shortly come when those who were connected with that government would be found to have acted from the most disinterested, patriotic, and honourable, motives. If the noble lord who commenced the attack really credited one tenth of the reports to which he had given such ready belief, he would not be doing his duty to the House or to the country, if he did not speedily bring forward a motion, the effect of which would be, to bring the whole question before parliament. The noble lord, who had
876
CASE OF MISS TURNER.] The Earl of Eldon
presented a petition from Edward Gibbon Wakefield. The petitioner stated, that the most material allegations of the petition of William Turner were untrue. He prayed their lordships' permission to be heard personally at their lordships' bar, against any bill that might be introduced to dissolve the marriage between him and Miss Ellen Turner; and he stated in the event of their lordships' allowing him to appear at their bar, that he should be unable to avail himself of that permission, unless by an express order of the House, as he was at present confined in gaol by the judgment of the Court of King's-bench. The order of the day for a committee of the whole House was then moved. The petition of W. Turner was read by the clerk. It contained a statement of the facts relative to the marriage of Miss Turner which were proved on the trial of E. G. Wakefield. The petition of E. G. Wakefield was also read.
Earl Grosvenor
said, he thought much credit was due to the noble and learned lord who had brought this question before their lordships, and he hoped they would do the promptest justice to the unfortunate girl who was the cause of the present proceeding. If it was their lordships' intention to act in the manner in which it was proposed for them to act, every moment was lost, if they did not at once proceed to act in that way. It was impossible for their lordships to conceive the distress and agony of mind of that unfortunate family, in whose favour it was proposed to legislate. With respect to the view he took of the question, he did think that, supposing no precedent could be found to bear upon the case, their lordships ought to go a little out of their way and adopt a
877
ex post facto
878
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, be could assure their lordships that no man had read with greater horror the proceedings of Wakefield than he had. There was no man who wished more sincerely than he did, that the young lady in the present case could be released from the engagement which she had entered into; but, as a member of their lordships' House, he had a duty to perform, superior to that which was dictated by his feelings. It was his duty to guard the law of the country, and to guard the proceedings of their lordships' House; and to prevent any precedent from being formed, which might, in his opinion, be prejudicial to the future welfare of the country. If, in the present case, it was proposed to form a precedent, there was a danger to be guarded against, of making the House pass a precedent upon subjects which went to the feelings of a man. On such subjects reason only was to be consulted. With respect to the question before the House, he begged to say, in the first place, that the case of "Campbell and Wharton" formed no precedent that could apply to the present. The peculiar circumstances of that case were, that the moment marriage had taken place, Mr. Campbell absconded, and therefore was out of the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical court, and it was impossible to render him amenable to any court in this country. This circumstance formed a most material distinction. He desired to know what was the jurisdiction of their lordships' House? In the high court of parliament all injuries which the subject might sustain, and for which he could get no redress in the common courts of justice, would find their remedy; and therefore the high court of parliament was the last resource. There was no court which had the power of divorcing
a matrimonio
879
880
881
Lord Redesdale
thought, he had followed the best course in referring the petition to a committee of the whole House. The present case was certainly one of considerable doubt; and he thought that, in some way or other, relief ought to be given, provided the case could be proved in point of fact. Their lordships were all aware, that, if the cause was argued in the Ecclesiastical court, it might occupy a very considerable length of time. If he mentioned the space of three or four years, he was sure he was stating a duration much shorter than that which such a proceeding might occupy. Their lordships would recollect, that the young lady in the present case knew not whether she was married or not—that her father, her uncle, and, in fact, that all the world were ignorant whether she was married or not. The case of Miss Wharton had been cited. That lady, after her divorce, married a person of the name of Ireland. The principal offender made his escape to France; but one of the conspirators was executed. The act in that case passed in the year 1691, a period when there were in that House, persons every way competent to frame it with effect; persons who had been engaged in the Revolution. The bill came up to their lordships from the other House of parliament; but he thought it preferable that the present measure should originate here, where questions of law and equity were frequently tried, and where their lordships were accustomed to have the assistance of the judges. The proceeding suggested by the noble earl could not be adopted; for their lordships must perceive, that the present case was one which was not provided for by any existing law. In cases of disputed property, delay of judgment would not alter the situation of the parties; but here there was a doubt as to whether the parties were husband and wife. In the event of the death of either of them while the suit was pending, there would be no possibility of annulling the marriage; their respective rights must remain whole and
882
Lord Tenterden
supported the prayer of the petition. He said, that the facts stated in the petition must be assumed to be true, and that the young lady had been taken away by means of fraud and forgery. The learned lord then recapitulated all the particulars of the case, and said, that the principal offender and his accomplices had been convicted of a conspiracy, originating in the basest motives of lucre, and conducted throughout by fraud and force. He thought the House bound to afford the relief prayed. The friends of the unfortunate girl had, by prosecuting the defendants, done all in their power, and now came to the House for that relief which the
883
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, May 17.
ADMINISTRATION OF THE CAPE OF GOOD HOPE.] Mr. Wilmot Horton
rose to move for certain papers relative to the Administration of the Cape of Good Hope, and particularly for the correspondence which had passed on that subject between the Colonial Office and sir Butane Donkin. He would have thought it unnecessary to have said much at present, since it would obviously be much better to postpone all discussion until the whole of the proper documents should be on the table of the House, had it not been for the publication of a pamphlet by sir R. Donkin, which had been widely and very industriously circulated. He would, however, abstain from entering at that time into any discussion of the merits of the administration of the Cape, as the proper opportunity would be afforded, when the motion relative to the coal-administration of the Cape, of which notice had been given for
884
885
locum tenens
886
887
888
locum tenens
889
Mr. Maberly
said, he should not exercise the duty of a friend to justice, if, in seconding this motion, he did not put the House in possession of some facts, which they could not gather from the statement of the hon. gentleman. His gallant friend, sir R. Donkin, had brought no accusation against lord C. Somerset. He had been again and again invited to become a public accuser, and again and again he had refused. In the pamphlet he had published, he had not acted the part of an accuser; but he had been obliged to defend himself from a variety of reports in circulation respecting his own conduct; and his defence was taken to he an accusation of the noble lord. He could state positively, that his gallant friend never intended to be an accuser, nor had offered himself to lord Bathurst in that capacity, It was true, he had offered to communicate with lord Bathurst, but not to lay accusations against any one. In his pamphlet, sir R. Donkin had stated his views as distinctly as possible. The hon. gentleman read some extracts in support of this statement. These passages, he contended, were at variance with the idea of his gallant friend becoming an accuser. His own character had suffered, and he felt bound to offer some explanation. In the beginning of the pamphlet, he stated, that he should not have adopted that course, if he could have
890
Lord Edward Somerset
was not disposed to detain the House upon the present occasion, but he could not avoid expressing the satisfaction he felt in seeing the hon. Secretary lay those papers on the table of the House, which would at last enable it to go into a full and fair investigation of all the charges which had been put forth against his noble relative; and, at the same time, tend to place the character of lord C. Somerset in that honourable light before the public, to which he was satisfied it was entitled. The House would now, perhaps, be able to judge, as well from the observations of his hon. friend, as from the letters and extracts to be laid on the table, in what kind of a spirit, the accusations against hls noble relation had been preferred. They would be able to judge, whether the spirit of the one had been rancorous, or whether the other had fulfilled his duty as a public accuser. The House would now be able to pronounce an impartial judgment upon the conduct of lord Bathurst and his noble relation. There were but two courses which lord Bathurst could pursue, under the circumstances. One was, to believe all the charges to be true, to the prejudice of lord C. Somerset; the other, to disbelieve them, and to call upon the accuser to substantiate them, if it was in his power. Lord Bathurst had called upon sir R. Donkin to maintain his charges, and he had abandoned them. He would not trouble the House with any further observations upon the inferences to be drawn from this conduct. The proper time for remark must be when the House came to consider the nature of the charges; and he would, therefore, beseech the House not to allow
891
Mr. Freemantle
expressed his regret that the charges against the noble lord had been allowed to remain so long hanging over his head. When the subject was last before the House, he was both surprised and pained at hearing the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs state to the House, that his majesty's government had sent out a commission to that noble lord to return home. What could the House or the country conclude from such a statement, but that there was a very strong case, in the opinion of the government, made out against him? It was a thing very much to be regretted, that his hon. friend had not, two years ago, laid these documents upon the table of the House; for if the case against the noble lord was so groundless that the facts of every petition to that House had, upon inquiry before the commissioners, been fully disproved, he thought the noble lord had been very ill used.
Mr. Hume
said, the question was not at present, whether they were to go into the inquiry upon the conduct of lord C. Somerset, but whether certain papers should be laid on the table of the House. When the question of lord Charles's conduct came to be discussed, he doubted not that there were many gentlemen ready to give their opinions, and state the grounds of those opinions. A great deal had been said of the conduct of general Donkin; and he now hoped, that as the hon. gentleman had at last laid the correspondence on the table, he would consent to produce all the papers which might be wanting for a thorough examination of every thing connected with the question. He did not, he hope, misunderstand the hon. member, who asserted that every petition which had been laid on the table of that House, implicating the conduct of lord Charles, had been regularly sent out to the commissioners at the Cape, and made the subject of inquiry. Now, if that was really the case, it was not a little extraordinary that the House had never been put in possession of the result. The hon, member then de-
892
Mr. Brougham
said, he could not avoid making one or two observations upon some expressions which had fallen from hon. gentlemen, with respect to the course he had pursued. It had been said, that he had brought a charge against lord Charles Somerset, and that it had failed. Now, the fact was, that he presented a petition; and he thought it due to the noble lord, who had on that occasion, as well as on every other, when the case had been mentioned, defended his noble relation with the greatest regard to honour and propriety, as well as with the greatest spirit; and it was but fair also to himself, to declare, that he had never taken any step upon the case, except in presenting that petition. He had then stated most distinctly, that he desired not to be under the slightest responsibility for the veracity of any thing contained in that petition—a fact of which he was the more certain, as he had, in addition to his own distinct recollection of the circumstances, even looked into the debates of the period, which he found to be, as they almost always were, exceedingly correct. He had then, he repeated, most distinctly guarded himself, in opening the charges of Mr. Bishop Burnett against lord C., from being considered answerable for one tittle of the allegations; but he had, at the same time, felt himself bound to say, that he had seen the accuser, and examined him upon the facts—that he had, upon the strictest cross-examination he had been able to give him, adhered to those facts—that he had been consistent in his statements, and clear in his answers; and he had concluded by observing, without saying any thing further, that all these circumstances were
893
primâ facie
894
895
SPRING-GUNS' BILL.]
The Order of the day for taking into consideration the Lords' Amendments to the Spring-Guns' Bill having been read,
Mr. Charles Calvert
observed, that, by the amendments which had been introduced into the bill in the House of Lords, it was rendered general; and Spring-guns were prohibited from being set for the protection of any property, except in houses. In houses they might be set both clay and night; which latter permission seemed to him to be an extraordinary one, and calculated to produce accident. Some time ago, at the request of a number of market-gardeners in the neighbourhood of London, he had presented a petition on the subject in their behalf; and, at their further request, he was now prepared to move an amendment to the amendments introduced into the bill by the Lords. It was well known that there were large gardens in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, which, although walled, were accessible; and, to deter from the robbery of which by boys and others, the appearance of spring-guns was the surest means. The market-gardeners declared, that, unless they were allowed to set spring-guns and man-traps, they could not adequately protect their property. He meant, therefore, to move as an amendment to that amendment of the Lords—that nothing in the act should be construed to render illegal the setting of spring-guns or mantraps in houses—the addition of the words, "or in any garden, hot-house, or conservatory, enclosed by a wall seven feet high; due notice being conspicuously given of their being so set."
Mr. W. Bankes
said, that this bill had come back from the Lords, different not only in its details, but in principle. He was one of those who agreed that such deadly engines as spring-guns were hardly justifiable for the protection of game, but he was far from thinking that it was right to carry the principle of their abolition so far as to withdraw them from other and more valuable property. Their very existence inspired a salutary terror in trespassers, and he trembled at the consequences of its being known that they were withdrawn altogether. For these reasons, he should dissent from these amendments.
Mr. Peel
admitted that game, as a
896
897
Mr. C. N. Pallmer
agreed, that, until some other protection was afforded the market-gardeners by a more efficient police, they ought to be allowed to protect their grounds by spring-guns. The subject seemed to have been viewed in rather a curious light in another place, for the only instance in which they permitted the setting of spring-guns was that in which a man was most unlikely to use them; namely, in his dwelling-house. The market-gardens were a species of property especially subject to depredation, from being so near town, and they were therefore entitled to special protection.
Lord Althorp
said, he had supported the bill originally, upon the ground, not that spring-guns were unjustifiable for the protection of game only, but because he would not permit such deadly weapons to be used in any case in which a man would not be warranted in firing a gun from his hand. He did not understand that a market-gardener would be justified in firing upon a trespasser with a gun; and therefore he would not allow the use of spring-guns in such cases.
Mr. Tennyson
denied the validity of the arguments which had been urged by the hon. member for Corfe castle. The principle of the bill had undergone great extension in the House of Lords; and, in his opinion, the improvement was commensurate with the extension. If the House adopted the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Southwark, they would make a material change in the criminal jurisprudence of the country. It ought also to be recollected, that the same amendment had been ineffectually proposed in another place.
898
Mr. Monck
opposed the amendment.
Lord Milton
observed, that the real question for the House to consider was, whether, by disagreeing to the Lords' amendments, they would postpone for a year the advantages to be derived from the bill; or, by agreeing to those amendments, would merely subject the market-gardeners to a temporary inconvenience, which might be remedied next session.
Mr. Frankland
Lewis remonstrated against any allusion to the opinions of the other House. Those opinions ought never to influence the decisions of the House of Commons. By its merits, and by its merits alone, ought the bill under consideration to be tried. It ought to be recollected, that the market-gardens were the property of a very large and industrious class of individuals, who ought to be encouraged to supply the London market as cheaply as possible. It was impossible that they could fence round their extensive grounds so securely as to prevent persons who were determined to get over the fence from doing so; although the fence were such that no person could violate it by accident. That was the distinction between gardens and woods. No case had been made out of any individual having suffered from spring-guns set in these gardens. The only objection to them therefore was theoretical. It would be most unjust to deprive the persons in question of protection, and to put their property in jeopardy without any grievance having been shown to exist. On all these grounds he supported the amendment.
Dr. Lushington
observed, that there was much good sense in taking all the benefits that could be obtained from any measure, when all that it was desirable to obtain could not be secured. He who adhered rigidly to what was called principles, frequently lost opportunities of accomplishing much practical good. He was disposed to assent to the amendments which had been made by the Lords; first, because they were in conformity to the general principles of our law; and, secondly, because they were in conformity to the view which, in his opinion, the legislature should take of the manner in which property ought to be protected. He said "ought;" because he believed the security of property in this country by severe enactments was carried much further than it ought to be carried. Although the acquisition and the just security of property were advantageous to
899
900
Sir C. Wetherell
opposed the lords' amendments, and fully concurred in all the views of his right hon. friend. He contended, that, according to the law of England, protection to property from injury was justifiable.
Lord Sandon
asked, if it was justifiable by the common law, for a person to do that by agency which he would not do by himself. If a person could not shoot a man climbing a wall, could he do so by a spring-gun, or any other engine? He contended, he could not. Such doctrine was alike repugnant to the common law and natural law, which was anterior to it.
Mr. C. Calvert
moved, respecting the setting of Spring-guns in the next clause, that after "continued," there be added, "from sun-set to sun-rise."—Agreed to.
Mr. W. Bankes
moved the next amendment, on the lords' amendment, which rendered the bill general in its operation, with the exception of dwelling-houses; he proposed, with the intention of bringing the bill back to its general form, that instead of dwelling-house, there be inserted, "unless in woods, under-woods, greenhouses," &c.
Mr. S. Rice
urged the inexpediency of altering the lords' amendments, which were, perhaps, made in the very expectation of their being rejected here. He hoped the House would not be seduced to lose the bill altogether, by now negativing some objectionable clauses, but would carry the bill in its present shape, and trust to chance for future improvements.
Lord Milton
concurred in these suggestions. They had no right to look on the amendments made in the bill in the Lords, in any other light than as the amendments of the lords generally; although, out of that House, if he were asked the question, he could point out the author of those amendments. Let the House take the bill as they found it,
901
Mr. C. Calvert
submitted an amendment for permission of spring-guns to the owners of gardens, hot-houses, or conservatories, surrounded by a wall seven feet high, by setting a conspicuous notice on the wall.
Lord Milton
said, that persons who could keep such places, could also keep a watchman to protect them.
Mr. C. Calvert
said, that it was not so; as many of the persons for whose benefit this clause was proposed were market-gardeners, who cultivated the gardens and conservatories attached to large houses which had been dilapidated. The House divided: For the Amendment 23; Against it 40; Majority against it 17.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, May 18.
PORTUGAL.] Lord Ellenborough
said, he was anxious to draw the attention of their lordships to a subject of extreme importance, unconnected with those discussions which had of late occupied the time of the House. The subject which he was at present desirous to bring under the notice of their lordships, was the state of the British troops in Portugal. The answer given some time ago by the noble lord, who was Secretary for Foreign Affairs, to a question which he had asked, had placed him and their lordships in a situation of great difficulty. As his noble friend had stated, that the production of the information for which he had asked would interfere with negotiations which were pending, he should feel great difficulty in moving for information respecting the state of Portugal. He had, however, a clear parliamentary ground for calling for that information; and, by not calling for it at the present moment, he did not express any approbation of those negotiations, which were now pending, because he was kept in total ignorance of the state of Portugal. If he understood the nature of those negotiations, they were most important; and, in the present state of things,
902
casus fœderis
Lord Dudley and Ward
said, that the reason for which he had on a former occasion, declined answering a question similar to the present, which the noble lord had asked, still existed. Undoubtedly his majesty's ministers were acting, on the present important question, upon their own responsibility. They were performing an act, which, in their judgment, was the best they could perform; and when the time for disclosure arrived, they would then see whether that judgment would be confirmed by parliament. In the meantime he would neither confirm nor coatrn-
903
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, May 18.
PENRYN ELECTION BILL.] Mr. Legh-Keck
moved the second reading of the Penryn Election bill.
Mr. Barclay
said, he owed it to his constituents, though he did not oppose the second reading of the bill, to declare that it had been urged on very hastily. He hoped that the House would consider that they were now dealing with the interests of five hundred persons.
Lord Althorp
said, that he had been requested to state, on behalf of Mr. Grenfell, that he had not, as it had been asserted in the House, withdrawn from the election because of his having lost his interest with the electors; but because he felt certain that he could not be returned without resorting to corrupt practices. With the leave of the House, he would read the letter:—
"My dear Lord:
—On perusing the report of what passed in the House of Commons on Tuesday last, when the evidence from the Penryn committee was under the consideration of the House, Mr. Barclay is represented (how correctly I know not) to have stated, that 'I had withdrawn as a candidate from Penryn, not in consequence of any opinions entertained by me injurious to the character of the borough, but because I had lost the confidence of the electors;' and, as it might be inferred from this supposed assertion of Mr. Barclay, if not contradicted by me, that I had done something to justify the electors in withdrawing their confidence from me, I should be much obliged if you could avail yourself of some opportunity of stating, on my behalf, that, although I am satisfied that this assertion by Mr. Barclay can only have been the result of erroneous information, conveyed to him by others, I must, in justice to myself, declare, that nothing can be more incorrect than the assertion itself: for the truth is, that I withdrew from Penryn, not because I had any reason to believe that I had lost the confidence of the electors, but because I felt that the
904
"PASCOE GRENFELL.
"Charles-street, St. James's, Friday, May 11."
Mr. Ferguson
said, it was absolutely necessary for parliament to interfere in defence of the purity of election, against the practices that had prevailed in this borough. On the report that had been presented with respect to the late election, he should have had very considerable difficulty in making up his mind as to the
905
l
906
Mr. H. Gurney
remarked, that the statement of Mr. Grenfell might be reconciled with that of the hon. gentleman (Mr. D. Barclay), by supposing that he had lost the confidence of the small minority whom it was not necessary to corrupt.
Lord Althorp
said, that the only answer to that explanation was, that Mr. Grenfell stated positively, that that was not the case. Mr. Grenfell denied that he had lost the confidence of the respectable part of the inhabitants.
Sir C. Hawkins
addressed the House, but was totally inaudible in the gallery.
Sir C. Burrell
understood that his name had been used by the hon. baronet.
907
Sir E. Carrington
admitted, there could be no doubt that bribery had been proved; but it was by no means clear, therefore, that the
ultima ratio
Mr. D. Barclay
again addressed the House. We understood him to say, that notwithstanding the prejudices which prevailed against the borough of Penryn, he was convinced that its character had been undergoing a gradual change for the better since the year 1807.
908
John Stanbury
was then brought in under the custody of the governor of Newgate, and examined by Mr. Legh-Keck, to the following effect.—He said his name was John Stanbury, and that he received a summons to attend upon the committee appointed to consider the Penryn election petition, but that he did not so attend. He was a resident of Penryn at the time of the last election. He acknowledged that he had taken an active part in the election before the last, when Mr. Weeding was a candidate, and that he had received three several sums of 1000
l
l
l
l
l
l
909
l
l
l
l
910
l
911
l
l.
l
l.
l
l
l
l
l
l.
l
l
l
l
l
l.
l
l
l
l
l
912
l
l
l
l
The Attorney-General
said, he would submit to the committee, whether it was expedient, by continuing the course which his hon. and learned friend had adopted, to go into matters which took place at other elections, when the question before the committee was what had transpired at the election at Penryn. He really thought his hon. and learned friend had, by his questions, brought another issue before the committee, which was in no way essential to the matter before them.
Mr. Brougham
said, he was astonished at what had fallen from his hon. and learned friend. It was both the privilege and the duty of the British House of Commons, when they got within their reach such persons as this, to expose them as much as it was possible they could be exposed, and to hold them and their worthless employers up to the scorn and indignation of the country. He required no other argument—he would seek for no other argument—than this, by which to justify himself in adhering to a practice which all former attorney-generals had rather thought it their duty to sanction than to attempt to stifle by taking technical objections,—a practice which he had always followed, and had never before seen excepted to,—a practice, moreover, in which he was sure he should be upheld and protected by the House, no matter by what authority it might be impugned, even though it should be that of his majesty's Attorney-general [cheers]. He would defy the subtilty of his hon. and learned friend to point out any question of his which did not make for the purpose before them,—which did not involve the credit of testimony. If he were not allowed to put questions to which an intelligible and dis-
913
The Attorney-General
said, that his learned friend had much mistaken him, if he supposed that he meant for a single moment to protect the witness. He felt quite as much indignation at his conduct, as his learned friend could possibly feel. It was not because he felt less than his learned friend, that he had taken a less indignant tone; but because he thought that a temperate discussion was better suited to the purpose of the committee. If any member of the committee thought it necessary to go into these matters, he should be the last man to stop such a course. His only reason for rising was, that many gentlemen around him thought the matter had been pushed a little too far. His object was that of saving the time of the committee. If, however, his learned friend, or the hon. member who had brought the subject forward, thought that it ought to be gone on with, he would cheerfully withdraw all opposition.
Mr. N. Calvert
thought it expedient to enter into a cross-examination, however diffuse, if the truth from such a man could be elicited by such means.
Mr. Wynn
said, that this man being already in Newgate, and having now exposed himself by so many falsehoods,
914
"non habet unde cadat."
Mr. Brougham
said, he perfectly concurred in that view of the matter; and, if that was the impression of the committee, he was perfectly satisfied.
The Attorney-General
said, he was satisfied half an hour ago that no one in the House believed the witness.
Mr. Legh-Keck
heartily thanked the learned gentleman, for the able manner in which he had cross-examined the witness; because he was sure that he had screwed himself up to the sticking place of denial.
Mr. Hume
thought the language which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wynn) had used in speaking of the witness hardly tolerable. It ought not to be said, that a man's character was blasted, unless there was very strong grounds for such an assertion. If it could be proved that his evidence was false, such language might be fairly used; but, until then, he thought it uncalled-for. He had not seen any thing to warrant the language which the hon. gentleman had used.
Mr. Wynn
said, that, in his opinion, the witness had flatly contradicted himself, and was therefore altogether unworthy of belief.
Mr. S. Bourne
thought, that if his hon. friend had known the character of this witness before, it would have been better not to have produced him at all; as no reliance could be placed upon his evidence.
Mr. Legh-Keck
said, that the witness would not appear before the committee, and he was therefore glad that he had been enabled to produce him before the House, in order that it might be satisfied, that what other witnesses had said of him was correct.
Mr. Ferguson
said, there was scarcely a fact sworn to by the witnesses in the evidence which this man had not contradicted; and yet the hon. member for Montrose wished to hear other evidence, before an opinion was pronounced upon the credibility of the witness.
Mr. D. W. Harvey
thought it very important that this man should be farther examined. He had said, that his clerk kept a list of voters, with the sums paid to each marked against their names. It was very desirable that it should be ascertained who paid these sums. Though the evidence of the witness was not worth any thing of itself, yet it might be received, in support of the less questionable evidence of others.
915
John Stanbury
was then re-called.
Examined by Mr. S. Bourne
—He had told them before, that his clerk kept a list of the voters, together with an account of the money paid to each. That money came from Mr. Weeding. The money paid to these voters was in consideration of services performed by them. They had been engaged for the last two years.
By Dr. Phillimore.
—All the money he received was for treating at Penryn. Perhaps three hundred electors might have partaken of this treating. The nature of the treating was eating and drinking. On one occasion, he recollected distributing four bullocks.
By Dr. Lushington
—He never gave, or promised to give, any money to the electors of Penryn for their votes. He kept two banking accounts in Cornwall, and one in London; he kept a banking at Praed's at Truro; at Carnes's at Penryn; and at Barclay's in London. All the sums which he paid did not pass through his bankers' hands. He had some of the bankers' books with him in London. At Penryn, the money he paid passed through Carnes's hands; he had not got that banking book with him. He was at Medlicot's house, at Tregony, when the summons to attend the committee on the Penryn election was served upon him. He did not obey that summons, because he was prevented by illness. His illness arose from carbuncles. He had a certificate to that effect, signed by two physicians. Neither of these physicians resided at Tregony. They both lived at Truro. He had to send ten miles for them. They had not attended him before he received the summons. He sent this certificate up to London, and afterwards petitioned the House. When he left Tregony he went to Barnstaple. He was able to take that journey in spite of his carbuncles. He took no means for keeping that journey a secret. He did not recollect telling any body not to say where he was gone. He did not recollect that he told Mr. Medlicot to keep his journey a secret. He was not shut or locked up in Mr. Medlicot's house, for the purpose of avoiding being served with the summons. The person who served him with the summons, said, that he had a claim upon him for some straw, which he wished to have settled; and when he came into the room he served him with the summons. He did not go away in order to avoid the sum-
916
By Mr. Legh-Keck
—He meant the House to understand him as deliberately stating, that he did not believe any of the voters to have received money for their votes.
Examined by Mr. Legh-Keck
—He had never authorized John Stanbury to pay any money for election debts. He knew two persons of the names of Mallet and Harvey. He did not recollect that these persons ever came to him and told him, that if John Stanbury did not pay the money which he had promised the voters, he (witness) had no chance of coming in. He advanced three sums of money to Stanbury: two sums of 500
l
l
l
By Mr. D. W. Harvey
—The money he advanced to Stanbury was by loan. Stan-bury did not say that any part of the money was to be devoted to election purposes.
By Mr. C. Barclay
—He suspected that there was not a sufficient number of persons who would vote for him without remuneration; and it was for that reason that he went away.
Examined by Lord Palmerston
—Would witness state what sum or sums of money the electors of Penryn expected to receive? Could not say.—How did they express their expectations? In no intelligible form.—Were you informed that the electors were in the habit of receiving money for their votes? No, never.—What led you to suppose that they expected money from you, if they did not expect money from other candidates? They first promised me their votes, and then stipulated for the sums they were to receive for them.—Did you not lose your election from the corrupt practices in the borough of Penryn, or because you could not be returned on
917
l
l
l
Mr. John
Cearn was examined by Mr. Legh Keck. Was a voter of Penryn, and knew Stanbury; was once sent by him for some money to a person named Anderton; went by Stanbury's direction, but did not receive the money; Anderton sent back word that he would see Stanbury in the course of the day. Was not aware that this money was for the purposes of bribery.
James Mallet
was called to the bar, and examined by Mr. Legh-Keck.—Is it not a custom in the borough of Penryn to give a breakfast on the morning of an election, at which the sum of 20
l
Examined by Mr. D. Barclay
—How long since has the practice of giving breakfasts in the borough ceased to exist? I cannot say.—Has it been practised within the last twenty-two years? I do not know.
By Mr. Harvey
—What was the object of the practice? I cannot say.—Was it not understood, that a sum of money was paid for each vote at the breakfast? Witness professed his inability to answer the question. Witness remembered to have heard of "breakfasts," but did not know that they were given within the last twenty-two years.
Mr. Charles Francis Addy
was examined by Mr. Legh-Keck.—Witness is a solicitor, and canvassed the borough of Penryn in 1824 for lord Perceval. He found a great disinclination in the voters to speak out. The general expression was, "I wish you well, Sir; you may have me if you like; you have only to speak to my wife, and it is your own fault if you have not my vote." Witness added, I considered that I had no chance at that time. The ground was wholly in the interest of Mr. Barclay, and it was not considered advisable to proceed
918
l
l
l
l
919
By Lord Milton
—Lord Perceval received seventy or eighty promises in 1825. All those promises were not fulfilled. I myself took up a body of eighteen to vote, and nine of them voted against us. There were four hundred and thirty voted. We were in the Swann party, as many of the lower orders had promised their support to that interest. I did not see the same disposition in the higher classes of voters to take money as in the lower. Some of the higher classes offered votes, for situations in the India House, or other places.
By Mr. C. Barclay
—I do not mean to say that a candidate would have no chance of success if neither party bribed. Mr. Manning's voters divided their second votes with Mr. Barclay; so did lord Perceval's. I do not say that Mr. Barclay was guilty of bribery at the last election. He had no occasion for it.
By Mr. D. W. Harvey
—There was a general system of treating throughout the borough at the last election. Witness was satisfied, that if bribery had not been employed by his opponent, lord Perceval would have carried his election. There were a hundred and seventy-two voters who had promised plumpers to lord Perceval, and many others had promised to vote for him, as soon as Mr. Barclay wassafe. Lord Perceval only polled a hundred and fifty-two votes; and of these a great many were votes split between him and Mr. Barclay. Witness believed that the voters who neglected their promises to lord Perceval had been bought over by the other side. Witness saw Stanbury at Penryn during the election. He believed that a great many
920
l
l
l
By Mr. Peel
—When witness received a promise of a hundred and seventy-two plumpers for lord Perceval, the total number of voters, to the best of his belief, was four hundred and thirty-four. He believed that those persons expected to receive money after the election, but they did not express that expectation to him. They said, that, if they were in the hands of honourable men, they would be satisfied with an understanding.
By Mr. Leslie Foster
—Witness believed that one of the sitting members was not indebted to bribery for his seat. He believed that the other was indebted to bribery for his seat, as his counsel objected strongly to witness's administering the bribery oath. He thought that the payment of 700
l
By Mr. Stanley
—Witness thought that a large proportion of the inhabitants of Penryn could not have taken the bribery oath with a safe conscience.
By Mr. Brougham
—There was treating as well as bribery. Both were carried on very extensively. All the candidates treated. There was an express order issued by me, that there should be no treating; but the public-houses were kept open, just as if such an order had never been given. Every body had just what they liked; and witness never interfered to see whether his order was observed or not. There was no understanding among the candidates, that they would not take advantage of one another for treating. When witness gave the orders which he had just mentioned, he suspected that they would not be complied with.
By Sir J. Graham
—Witness was of opinion, that in every borough in England the non-bribing candidate would have but little chance against the bribing candidate.
By Mr. R. Grant
—Witness believed that half the electors of Penryn, if not more, had voted at the last election from corrupt motives: that at least one half of them had been bribed. His reason for that opinion was, that when he asked them
921
By Mr. P. Thompson
—Witness was never asked more than 20
l
l
l
l
922
Thomas Olive
stated, that he was acquainted with the election of 1824, and with the circumstances of the last election. He knew that considerable bribery and general treating were carried on. He was conscious no candidate could succeed without bribery. Had known several persons in possession of money who could not have obtained it but as bribes. He canvassed the borough for lord Perceval. Several persons told him that they would have nothing to say to him, but he would find their wives at home, and they would do the business. None of the voters ever alluded to the political opinions of the candidates.
Lord Milton
said, he had something of importance to communicate to the House. There were two witnesses, Mallet and Cearn, but certainly there was one, Cearn, who had, in the course of his evidence, stated that he had not seen Stanbury since he came to town; and the turnkey of Newgate was in attendance to prove that Cearn had seen Stanbury in Newgate that day.
Cearn
was then called in, and Harris said he was the person he had seen. The evidence Cearn had before given was read to him, and he was asked if that was the evidence he had given? Yes.—Have you seen Stanbury this day? Yes: I saw him this morning.—How long did you stay
923
Mr. W. Wynn
moved, that the chairman report forthwith, that John Cearn, in the evidence he had given before the committee, was guilty of prevarication and falsehood. The motion was agreed to, and the chairman having reported the resolution of the committee, moved "that John Cearn, for his said offence, be committed to Newgate.—Ordered.
Mr. Legh-Keck
said, he thought the case was sufficiently strong as it was. He should therefore decline calling other witnesses.—The chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Monday.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, May 21.
CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION.] The Earl of Mansfield
said, that agreeably to what he had stated on a former evening, that he would be regulated by the advice of his friends with respect to the motion of which he had given notice for the 7th of June, he should now move that the order for summoning their lordships for that day be discharged. He would also observe that he had no intention of bringing forward the motion at any future period. At the same time he wished it to be distinctly understood that his own opinion on the subject was unchanged. He did not, however, think it fair that he should consult only his own feelings, and his friends concurred with him upon the general principle, but differed from him in the course which he was disposed to adopt. He was not at present inclined to say any thing that would provoke discussion; but if any motion should be brought forward in reference to the subject, with every wish for unanimity, he should exercise his judgment upon it, and give it the un-biassed support of his vote.
The Earl of Harewood
seeing that this motion was disposed of, wished to put a question to a right reverend prelate on a subject of the highest importance. He disclaimed any wish to provoke discussion; all he desired was a plain answer. He was well aware of the delicacy of the question, but it was most important that the House and the country should have a pro-
924
The Bishop of London
said, he felt some difficulty in answering the question put to him by the noble earl. He did not understand the precise import of it; but if it referred to a statement which had appeared in the public papers, respecting an opinion entertained in the highest quarter—a quarter which he was not at liberty to mention—he had no hesitation in saying, that that statement was substantially correct. He should not have presumed to have made it unless upon authority; and if their lordships desired that he should go further, and state what the authority was, he was ready to obey their commands [Loud cries of "order!" and "go on!"].
Earl Spencer
rose to order. There was now no question before the House; and the subject had much better be brought forward in a formal motion, than by irregular and desultory debates. The question was one of the highest importance, and could not be disposed of in this manner.
The Earl of Eldon
said, that if the object was to elicit by the answer of the right rev. prelate the authority upon which he had made the statement, the question ought not to be entertained.
The Earl of Harewood
said, he could state from his own experience in parliament, that it was not unusual to put questions; and he was the more induced to put this one, because no answers were given to some that were recently asked. It was only said by noble lords opposite, that if any motion was made on a question affecting the stability of the government, then the necessary information would be afforded. He had no desire to provoke discussion. All he wanted to know was, what he had now ascertained, that the right rev. prelate had authority for doing what he had done.
The Marquis of Lansdown
wished to make a few observations, in reply to what had been stated by the noble earl. It was merely as a matter of courtesy that ques-
925
Earl Grey
concurred entirely with those noble lords who thought it better to postpone all discussion, until the question assumed some tangible shape. But he wished to say one word as to the situation in which they stood, in consequence of the question put to the right reverend prelate. What his noble friend (the marquis of Lansdown) said, respecting the right of refusing to answer questions was perfectly true; though, by the practice of parliament, they were frequently put. For his own part, he thought it very improper to press for answers, which the parties to whom the questions were put might feel themselves every way justified in refusing to give. But, in the present case it appeared that, to a question of the greatest importance, a distinct answer was given. The right rev. prelate stated, that, if the noble earl alluded to what appeared in the newspapers, that statement was substantially correct; and he understood him, at the same time, to say, that he would not have been so presumptuous as to make it without sufficient authority. Therefore, they were now in this predicament—that a statement was made, under authority, upon a subject of the greatest importance—one which he should not now allude to more particularly; and thus far, at least, ground was laid for the noble earl, or any other noble lord, to bring forward a motion, for taking the opinion of parliament on the proceeding, and on the conduct of the
926
Lord Rolle
said, he had heard with great satisfaction that the statement in question had been made.
The Earl of Harrowby
said, that the answer of the right rev. prelate ought not to be taken in the sense in which it seemed to have been interpreted by the noble earl. Had the House put upon the words the interpretation given to them by the noble earl and others, it was its duty to interfere, and stop the right rev. prelate from proceeding further. He himself was not blind to the importance of the question; he was not blind to the object for which it was put; he was not blind to the impropriety of suggesting a private question to a privy-councillor, in order to ascertain the private sentiments of the individual on whose head the crown might be placed, upon a great question, at a time when that question remained to be discussed. This was destructive of the character, and incompatible with the privileges of parliament: it made it unfit that they should sit there, mocking themselves and the country with the idea, that they were discharging their duty, while they permitted it to be supposed that, on any measure which was pending, or about to be pending, the sovereign had formed a previous determination. No noble lord ought to presume to ascertain beforehand, what might be the private determination of the sovereign of the country, on a subject which must come before parliament, and on which he must take or reject the advice of those who were his confidential servants. This was not the true doctrine of the constitution. If it was, those who had so strenuously endeavoured to establish a free representation had fought and bled in vain. On these grounds, he trusted that the question would never be discussed; and in whatever form it might be brought forward—whether regular or otherwise—that it would meet with a direct and indignant negative.
Earl Grey
said, that if the question was brought forward in the manner which he should propose, he was persuaded it would not meet with a negative; nay, he should even expect the support of the noble earl himself—concurring, as he did, in every sentiment which he had expressed. It appeared to him, however, that the noble earl should have reserved to another occasion the remarks he had made upon a
927
The Earl of Harewood
said, that whatever impropriety there might be in introducing the subject, he was prepared to take all the blame and responsibility upon himself. He knew that the question was one of great delicacy; but, when a communication on the subject was made to large bodies of men, he felt that it was no longer of a private, but public nature.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, May 21.
EMIGRATION.] Mr. Maxwell
said, that he held in his hand a petition connected with the subject of Emigration. The House would bear in recollection, that sometime ago the case of a number of poor people, inhabitants of Renfrew-shire, in Scotland, came before that House, when, being referred to the committee on Emigration, it was taken fully into consideration by them. The case excited the greatest attention, as it naturally ought to have done, not only amongst the members of the Emigration committee, but also amongst those of the Relief committee, who managed the distribution of the fund supplied by public subscription for the relief of the distressed manufacturers. This committee made a proposition to the Emigration committee, which, under the circumstances, was acceded to by the latter. It appeared, that such was the degree of distress which was then experienced by the Scotch manufacturers, that the London committee proposed to apply a sum of 25,000
l.
l.
Mr. Canning
said, he could assure the hon. gentleman, that the question was one which had occupied many anxious hours of the time of his majesty's minis-
928
929
Mr. Baring
was of opinion, that it was of the greatest importance to have the subject of emigration fully considered. He hoped that something permanent might be done for the benefit of the country generally, not only the manufacturing, but the agricultural, districts, particularly Sussex, which was overloaded with a wretched population, living on charity and the poor-rates, in the most miserable condition, and constituting, by their wretchedness, an enormous charge on the cultivators of the land. In the course of the inquiries of the Emigration committee, they had learned that there were cases of distress in Lancashire, Renfrewshire, and Lanarkshire, so urgent, that, in conjunction with the Relief committee, they had recommended them to the attention of his majesty's government, with a view to facilitate the immediate emigration of the suffering individuals. The Relief committee considered the whole matter so important, that they thought they could not better employ their funds than by giving relief, not in the evanescent form of passing charity, but in the shape of permanent provision against future distress, by enabling the sufferers to leave the country. The Emigration committee was disposed, in furtherance of this object, to have advised the expenditure of 50,000
l.
930
Mr. W. Horton
begged to declare, on the part of the Emigration committee, that the pecuniary relief they proposed to afford to those who were disposed to emigrate, was intended solely for a particular description of persons, the hand-loom weavers, and founded upon the peculiarity and urgency of their particular case. Now, as it appeared that that peculiarity of case and urgency of distress had ceased, the committee adopted the course which had been already explained. The report of the whole proceeding would, he hoped, be soon in a state to be laid on the table of that House; and it would be then seen, that the money of the country had been in no instance idly expended.
NEW ADMINISTRATION.] Sir T. Leth-bridge
wished to take the opportunity of asking a question of the chancellor of the Exchequer. What he was now going to address to the right hon. gentleman had reference to a question which he had asked of him some eight or ten days ago, and upon which, not having been then satisfied, he was most anxious to obtain a full explanation. This question was the more necessary, in consequence of what had recently occurred in another place, where statements made by a noble lord, formerly the colleague of the right hon. gentleman, had made it more incumbent than ever on that right hon. gentleman, for the clearing up of the doubts which beset his mind, and that of the country at large, to give some explanation of the circumstances which led to the dissolution of the late, and the formation of the present, administration. His question went to this—whether the right hon. gentleman was or was not in communication with the leader or leaders of his late opponents in that House, and whether or not overtures had been made by those leader or leaders to join and support his measures, if he should be placed at the head of the government of the country? That, he believed, was the substance of the question; and, in the answer, if he understood it rightly, the right hon. gentleman admitted fully, that he had received such a communication from such leader or leaders, or words to
931
Mr. N. Calvert
said, he had been of opinion for some time, that the hon. baronet was taking a course which was irregular, and exceedingly inconvenient; and in this surmise he was strengthened by the conclusion of the hon. baronet's voluminous question. Too much of the public time had been already wasted upon these desultory and useless discussions; and, therefore, if the right hon. gentleman took his advice, he would not make a single observation in reply to the question.
Mr. Canning.
—Sir, I would cheerfully comply with the suggestion of the hon. gentleman who has just addressed you, but for the conclusion of the hon. baronet's speech. I must take the liberty of dividing that speech into two parts; that which related to certain queries which were propounded by him on a former day, and that which comprised the series of questions he has now first suggested. If I should be, however, no more fortunate in my endeavours to convey to his mind my answer to those new questions, than I seem to have been in respect of the old ones, I am afraid I shall occupy the time of the House to very little purpose. Now, Sir, in the first place, I did not, on a former occasion, admit to him what he is pleased to state as the substance of my admission.
932
Mr. Brougham
said, he entirely concurred with the right hon. gentleman as to the propriety of getting back, without delay, to parliamentary usage. He, for one, was of opinion, that questions of this kind, whatever might be the tone and manner in which they were put, were really suggested for the sake of exciting discussions, which could only prove unfair, irregular, and therefore, ought never to be encouraged. This was not the only
933
934
Sir T. Lethbridge
said, he did not wish to provoke discussion, but he had received no answer to the question, upon the subject of the overtures made to the right hon. gentleman. He wished to know distinctly, whether the right hon. gentleman had made his colleagues acquainted with the overtures, or negotiations, which were made to him by the leader of their political opponents. He would ask that House, whether, as a man of honour, the right hon. gentleman was not bound to communicate that overture to his colleagues the moment he received it?
Mr. Canning.
—It may be convenient to the hon. baronet to know, what I have before stated, but which I now repeat with the utmost sincerity, that I will not answer a single question relative to the late transactions, unless it be brought forward as a motion. Not a single one—and I appeal to the House and the country, whether I am not justified in this course? But, in saying that nothing shall induce me to answer another question, I must and do protest against the hon. baronet or any other man's taking advantage of my silence, to put answers into my mouth. That he has no right to do [cheers].
CRIMINAL JUSTICE.] Mr. Peel,
in rising to move the order of the day, for referring the Larceny Laws' Consolidation Bill to a committee, ventured to commit a small irregularity, in first moving for leave to bring in a bill, which it was of great importance to have before the House in the consideration of the amendments in the criminal laws of the country. The bill to which he alluded was designed for the improvement of the administration of Criminal Justice, and was not one to which he anticipated any opposition. It proceeded upon the assumption, that every form in the administration of justice which had become obsolete, and not necessary, might, and ought to be, removed. In all
935
peine forte et dure,
936
peine forte et dure
937
Mr. Wynn
expressed his concurrence in the emendations of his right hon. friend's bill, and the sentiments by which he had introduced it to the notice of the House. It had occurred to him, however, with reference to the clause about prisoners standing mute, that it might happen, that they did really stand mute from the visitation of God; that they might really be incapable of making a defence, from being seized with phrenzy or idiocy prior to their arraignment. He thought it might be as well if a previous inquiry were instituted to ascertain if the party were insane. He was quite sure that the abolition of benefit of clergy would be an advantage; but he was not quite clear that the privileges of the peers were not more largely trenched upon than his right hon. friend had stated; and whether, in cases of bigamy and manslaughter, they had not privileges which would be touched. In the case of the duchess of Kingston, who was convicted of bigamy, the benefit of clergy was claimed; and when the penalty of burning on the hand was to be substituted as the milder punishment, she claimed the privilege of the peerage, and escaped.
Mr. Peel
said, he had introduced a clause empowering the court, in a case of standing mute, to have a plea of not guilty entered or not entered, at their discretion.
938
Mr. Brougham
thought the first suggestion of the President of the Board of Control a good one. If a jury found such a person mute from obstinacy, to enter a plea of guilty, as was the practice at present, was a most harsh proceeding; since the person was punished for obstinacy. It was the old law, that he should under-go the pressure of a heavy stone on his breast, and Mr. Justice Blackstone had very properly considered that alteration of the law, by which so savage a practice was abolished, a comparative improvement in our Criminal laws. Now, if the jury found the prisoner mute by malice, he was put on his trial; but he thought it would be better, in cases where the prisoner was found mute by the visitation of God, to let the law remain as it was, than to give so large a discretion to the court as that proposed by the right hon. gentleman.
Mr. Sturges Bourne
said, that the House and the country were under the greatest obligations to the right hon. gentleman for the attention he had bestowed upon this most important subject; a subject which he should be sorry to see in any but such hands. The abolition of the benefit of clergy would be as important an alteration in the law, and as entitled to be applauded by every one, as was the increase of the punishment for a second offence.
The Attorney-General
concurred in praising the meritorious exertions of the right hon. gentleman. He lamented it as a misfortune, that, owing to his having been on circuit, and to other circumstances, he had been unable to render himself master of the details of the bill. Although the principle of consolidating so many statutes in one act was admirable, yet it was obvious that, if the execution were not good, the whole design must fail. Unless the object in view were accomplished by the most clear, distinct, and intelligible, provisions, instead of saving labour to the judges and the professors of the law, it would very much increase their present toils. He by no means intended to say that such would be the consequence of the present bill. He only wished to guard himself against being considered a party to it, if in its result it should be found not to be so good as was expected.
Mr. Peel
entirely concurred with the hon. and learned gentleman, that, if the execution of the bill were not good, the principle would be useless. He could
939
Mr. Ferguson,
while he admitted that the exertions of the right hon. gentleman were most meritorious, observed, that when a proceeding consolidating a hundred and twenty-seven acts of parliament, was proposed, they ought to know the legal authority on which such proceeding was founded. He thought it would have been very desirable if the Attorney-general had had an opportunity of considering the measure from beginning to end. The best plan would have been to have referred the subject to the consideration of a commission of eminent persons thoroughly conversant with the criminal law, and who would have immediately known what were the precise parts of the existing law which it was desirable to retain. When so many statutes were swept away, the probability was, that, in the new measure, provisions might be omitted which it would be most expedient to preserve.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, May 22.
COURT OF CHANCERY—JURISDICTION IN MATTERS OF BANKRUPTCY.] Mr. M. A. Taylor,
in rising to submit to the House his motion relative to the Separation of Cases of Bankruptcy from the Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, felt himself called upon to occupy the attention of the House at some, though, he trusted, at no very protracted, length. Often as he had advocated this question before the House, he felt that he should be unable to discharge what he considered to be his duty to the public, unless the House would lend him its serious attention. Questions of this nature were not, in general, very palatable to the House, because
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
The Attorney-General
said, that he should not be doing justice to his own feelings, nor to the character of his hon. and learned friend, if he did not acknowledge him to be one of the most zealous, consistent, and persevering, advocates for a revision of, and an alteration in, the practice of the court of Chancery, that had ever appeared in the House of Commons; and though it was not his good fortune to agree with his hon. and learned friend, generally, in his view of the question, yet he thought the public were under great obligations to him, for bringing a subject of this nature before the House, and he doubted not that its discussion would be found advantageous. If he could perceive that any practical object was likely to be gained by the House resolving itself into a committee, he should not be disposed to offer any opposition to the motion. But his hon. and learned friend had not alluded to any specific plan which he meant to submit to the committee; and therefore he conceived the motion, having no clear and distinct ulterior object in view, was unnecessary. If his hon. and learned friend had demonstrated some plan—if he had pointed out some tangible proceeding—which the House was likely to adopt, after it had been examined, that would have been sufficient to induce him to withhold his opposition to the motion; but, as he was satisfied, so far as his own opinion went, that no such thing would emanate from the committee, he felt it to be his duty to oppose the proposition of his hon. and learned friend. His reasons for that opposition were very short. The arguments which he had to offer, and the facts that he had to state, in support of his view of the case, lay in an extremely narrow compass, and he hoped to dispose of them very soon. He had always thought that they ought not hastily to make places to fit particular men, but that they ought to find men to fit particular places. His hon. and learned friend would recollect that this was one of his (the Attorney-general's) arguments against making alterations in the court of Chancery—alterations which had, from their nature, the effect of imposing additional burdens on the public. He had not the honour of being a member of that House at the time the Vice-chancellor's court was the subject of discussion; but the same objection was then made by the learned gentleman who afterwards filled
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
Mr. D. W. Harvey
commenced his observations by complaining of the inconsistency of the professional gentlemen on the other side of the House, who now declared that bill to be utterly worthless and unavailing, which they had formerly praised as calculated to remove most of the delays and grievances to which the unfortunate suitors of the court of Chancery were exposed. He wondered what new light had beamed upon their understanding, and made them see no importance in the various recommendations which had been proposed by the Chancery commissioners. The whole mischief in the administration of the bankrupt laws was now to be got rid of, not by legislative enactments, but by a few regulations, to be made by lord Lyndhurst and the two learned personages who assisted him in that court. He deemed it quite impossible that such a crying grievance could be so removed; and he corroborated his opinion by reference to that of lord Eldon. The real nature of that evil was felt by his lordship when at the bar, and was expressed by him when he took his seat on the bench:—"The lord Chancellor took the first occasion of expressing strong indignation at the frauds committed under cover of the bankrupt laws, and his determination to repress such practices. Upon this subject his lordship observed, with warmth, that the abuse of the bankrupt laws is a disgrace to the country, and it would be better at once to repeal all the statutes than to suffer them to be applied to such purposes. There is no mercy to the estate; nothing is less thought of than the object of the commission. As they are frequently conducted in the country, they are little more than stock in trade for the commissioners, the assignees, and the solicitor. Instead of solicitors attending to their duty as ministers of the court, for they are so, commissions of bankruptcy are treated as matter of traffic. A taking out the commission; B and C to be his commissioners. They are considered as stock in trade, and calculations are made how many commissioners can be brought into the partnership. Unless the court holds a strong hand over bankruptcy, particularly as administered in the country, it is itself accessory to as great a nuisance as any known in the land, and known to pass under the forms of its law." He wished the House to attend to the opinion which lord Eldon
955
l
956
957
958
l
s
l
s
d
l
l
959
960
961
l
l
The Attorney-General
said, he could not have supposed that there was any man whose mind was so weak, and whose judgment was so slender, as to believe that he could have said that a change of men, and not of measures, was all that was required to sweep away the abuses of the present system of the court of Chancery. He had not said that a few regulations would sweep away those abuses; nor had he said, that the aid of the House of Commons would not be asked to effect that desirable consummation. He had never thought of entering that night into the general question of the court of Chancery. He had confined himself simply to the question before the House, and that was—ought the business in bankruptcy to be severed or not from the jurisdiction of the great seal?
Mr. G. Bankes
denied that the commissioners of bankrupt were young men without experience, or old men without practice, or that they were appointed either from parliamentary influence, or from motives of charity. In the list to which he belonged, there had been three vacancies within the last year, and they had all been filled up by individuals, against whom it was impossible to make any exception. He was sorry to say, that, in the warmth of his eloquence, the hon. member for Colchester was accustomed to go a little fur-
962
Dr. Lushington
rose to express briefly his sentiments on this question, and he trusted that the House would allow him to trespass a little on its time, as he could not well avoid taking a part in the debate, considering that he had been a member of that commission which had been alluded to by the hon. member for Durham, not in the most respectable terms. He would state at once, that he rose to give his most decided negative to the present motion. He was convinced that it would not be advantageous to the administration of the bankrupt law, nor beneficial to the interest of the suitor; he was convinced that it would not diminish the expense of clearing away the various difficulties by which this subject was surrounded, if the House were to take from the lord Chancellor his jurisdiction, in the last resort, on this important question, and were to create another tribunal independent of him, and without appeal: for the same cases might come before the commissioners of bankrupt and the lord Chancellor, and thus they might have decisions in the law which were utterly irreconcileable. For these reasons, he could not agree to any plan which had a tendency to destroy what he conceived of infinite importance —an uniformity of decision, on all points relating to the property of the subject. That was his chief reason for dissenting from the hon. member for Durham, who wished to dissever questions in bankruptcy from the jurisdiction of the lord Chancellor.
963
964
965
Mr. Brougham
requested that the original motion might be read from the chair. The motion was read accordingly. He said, he thought that such was the motion of the hon. and learned member for Durham, and he was persuaded, by the able and candid speech with which he had intro-
966
967
968
969
970
971
judices a judicando
judices a non judicando
972
973
Mr. M. A. Taylor
rose to reply. He expressed his surprise at the turn which the argument had taken. He had never spoken of the late lord Chancellor as the cause of the evil of the system. He had always said, that the functions of the office were too various and extended for any man to fulfil them properly, and that the system, which was bad in itself, had been made almost incurably so by the dubious mind of lord Eldon. That opinion he had expressed on former occasions, in common with the hon. and learned gentlemen opposite. Sir S. Romilly had given his opinion rather in favour of separating bankruptcy from the jurisdiction. What harm, in any case, could arise from allowing the subject to go to inquiry? Was there a man in the House who thought so well of the system as that it ought to continue? Would either of the hon. and learned gentlemen opposite, with all their respect for the three new equity judges, like to take a cause of their own into those courts? Then, what was the argument? Oh! there was a new lord Chancellor, of such ability and assiduity, that, if the House would but give him a fair trial, he, together with his coadjutors, would sweep away every thing
974
List of the Minority.
Birch, J.
Maberly, J.
Borradaile, R.
Maxwell, J.
Bright, H.
Osborne, lord F.
Buck, L. W.
Palmer, F.
Clive, E. B.
Ponsonby, hon. G.
Dawson, A.
Ponsonby, hon. F.
Denison, W. J.
Rancliffe, lord
Drake, T.
Rickford, W.
Fane, J.
Russell, lord W.
Fergusson, sir R.
Tufton, hon. H.
Forbes, sir C.
Warburton, H.
Forbes, J.
Webb, colonel
Grattan, H.
Wells, J.
Guise, sir W.
Wilks, J.
Halse, J.
Winn, hon. G. M.
Hay, A.
Wood, alderman
Hobhouse, J. C.
Wood, J.
Hume, J.
TELLERS.
Lombe, E.
Howick, lord
Lumley, J. S.
Taylor, M. A.
COVENTRY MAGISTRACY BILL.] Sir J. Wrottesley
said, he appeared in the performance of his duty, as Chairman of the Committee that had sat upon the Coventry Election, to bring in a bill to give to the Magistrates of the County of Warwick a concurrent jurisdiction with those of the city of Coventry, in regulating the affairs of the elections of representatives. In the present state of the magistrates of that city, the introduction of such a measure was absolutely necessary. It might
975
976
977
Mr. Ward
said, he was the last person to interfere with corporate rights; but in this case he saw no alternative. He trusted that the House would accede to the motion of the hon. baronet.
Lord W. Russell
thought the measure hardly strong enough. He did not see why a step of a preventive nature should satisfy the House, instead of one which should afford a remedy to the persons aggrieved.
Mr. R. Heathcote
contended, that the hon. baronet had not laid any ground for the measure he had introduced. If it passed, sure he was, it would answer any object on earth but that which the hon. baronet had in view. If indeed the corporation of Coventry had been guilty of any of those disgraceful practices that had been brought under the notice of the House—if it had misapplied its funds for electioneering purposes—if it had exercised its powers in any illegal, partial, or oppressive manner, it might have been difficult to oppose the bill. But when no such case had been made out, why was the city of Coventry to be deprived of its ancient and undoubted rights, by so severe a measure as this? If, in the heat of a contested election, some coats had been torn, and some blows struck, surely that was no cause for visiting the whole body with a degrading punishment. The evidence was marked with palpable absurdity. If such facts would justify the interference of the House with privileges which had existed for many centuries, he knew not on what pretences fetters might not be rivetted on the freedom of election in every borough in the kingdom. There would be an end, not only to the charters, but to the liberty of the country. The attack on one corporation led to an attack upon another. The precedent of Nottingham was now to be followed by that of Coventry, on still slighter grounds. In this rage for petty legislation, the spirit of our corporate institution would b absolved
978
gravamen
Mr. Fyler
declared unequivocally, and upon his honour, that he had not received one farthing from the corporation of
979
Mr. Peel
was not prepared to put a stop to all further inquiry, by putting a direct negative on the motion. He should vote, therefore, for the introduction of the bill; though he did not pledge himself to support it in its future stages. He could not help thinking that it would be a hardship on the corporation to visit it with a punishment amounting to disfranchisement. It should be recollected, that the House was acting judicially. He thought they were bound to hear evidence before they proceeded to pronounce a positive opinion on the merits of the case.
Mr. Secretary Bourne
could not concur in opinion, that to give to the magistrates of the county of Warwick a concurrent jurisdiction with those of the city of Coventry would amount to a forfeiture of the ancient charter of that city, or that such a measure would be one of the severest punishments that could be inflicted on it. On the contrary, he thought it one of the mildest invasions of their corporate rights that could be suggested. With respect to the hearing of evidence at the bar of the House, he entertained a different opinion from some hon. gentlemen; for, after the specimen that had been afforded the other night, of the manner in which assertions were made at its bar, he should not be in a hurry to recommend, that recourse should be had to a similar proceeding. Moreover, the House was already in possession of facts deposed to on oath, before the committee, and embodied in its report; and he should protest, as far as the protest of an individual could go, against discussing in that House, the decision of a committee acting under the solemn obligation of an oath.
Mr. Hudson Gurney
said, that however strongly the case might be made out for the necessity of some parliamentary interposition, the project for giving a concurrent jurisdiction to the magistrates of Warwickshire was not one which had the slightest tendency towards abridging the evils complained of.
980
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, May 23.
SALE OF GAME BILL.] The Marquis of Salisbury said,
he had to propose to their lordships a bill to permit the Sale of Game under certain restrictions. He thought it well worthy of the consideration of their lordships, to see whether they could not, by some measure, not interfering with the principle of the Game-laws, put a stop to the increasing crime of poaching. He thought the bill which he held in his hand would have such an effect. The bill proposed to legalize the sale of game, and to do so in the most extended manner, by giving a power to all persons qualified by law to kill game, to take out a certificate, empowering them to sell game to licensed dealers. He thought it but fair, that those who had as much land as qualified them to kill game for their own use, should be allowed to make a profit by the sale of game. If that were allowed, it would have the effect of diminishing the crime of poaching. The bill was introduced as a temporary measure. Its operation would expire at the end of three years; and then their lordships might consider whether any better system could be established. If he succeeded in making the sale of game legal, he thought the temptation to the poacher to commit crime would be greatly reduced; as he would be met in the market by a competitor, who would not. be liable to any of the consequences to which the poacher was subject. He had another reason for introducing the present measure. Some few years ago, the poulterers of the metropolis came to the resolution of discontinuing the sale of game to their customers. What was the consequence? The poulterers lost their customers, and some of them were nearly ruined. They were at last forced to give way, and again resort to illegal means to obtain game. He was convinced that, however great might be the determination of their lordships to prevent the sale of game, they could not, by any legislative enactment, effect their purpose. In consequence of the abolition of the use of spring guns, much greater facilities would be afforded to the poacher in his illegal practices than he before enjoyed. If game was to be preserved at all, it must be by men, and men alone; but it was very difficult to get any men who would attack the
981
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, May 23.
SMALL DEBTS' BILL—ARRESTS UPON MESNE PROCESS.] The Solicitor General
rose to move for leave to bring in "a Bill to prevent Arrests on Mesne Process for Debt under 20
l
l
l
l
l
s
l
l
l
l
982
Lord Althorp
approved of the proposed bill, and only doubted whether the sum was carried quite far enough. He strongly condemned the present expensive practice of recovering small debts; which cost so much money as to amount to a denial of justice, and to make one almost wish, that debts under 10
l
ROMAN CATHOLICS' LAND-TAX.] Mr. George Bankes,
in rising to propose the introduction of a measure, having for its object the exemption of the Roman Catholics from a double assessment of the Landtax, hoped that he should meet with the support of the House. It could not be unknown to those whom he addressed, that many Roman Catholics were doubly charged with land-tax; and, by virtue of the same law by which they were originally so assessed, Protestants who had succeeded to their estates were obliged to pay the same tax as the Catholics from whom they inherited. The act by which Roman Catholics were doubly charged with land-tax was passed in the 4th of William 3rd, and continued in force by the enactment of annual bills, until the 33rd of the late king. The bill of William, which was passed at a time when this country was it war with some of the European powers, enacted, that Roman Catholics should, in future, pay a double land-tax; that was to say, that Catholics should pay 8
s
s
983
The Solicitor-General
rose merely to say, that he should offer no objection to the measure proposed by the hon. gentleman; but he would not pledge himself to give it his future support.
Mr. Herries
was happy to find, that the hon. gentleman had taken up this subject; because it would relieve the Treasury of proposing a similar bill.
REGISTRATION OF FREEHOLDS.] Lord Althorp
moved for leave to bring in a bill for the Registration of Freeholds in England and Wales. In introducing the bill, the noble lord observed, that it was not his intention that it should be discussed this session.
Mr. Hudson Gurney
said, that from what had yet proceeded from it, he had a considerable jealousy of the noble lord's
984
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, May 25.
SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.] Lord Wharncliffe
said, he had a petition to present to their lordships, on a subject which was well worthy of their attention. The petition was signed by the inhabitants of the western portion of the metropolis. They stated, that the water taken up from the river Thames, at a certain spot, for their use was charged with the contents of the great common sewers and the refuse of hospitals and slaughter-houses; and they prayed their lordships to appoint a committee of inquiry. He was not, however, certain that the best mode of effecting the wishes of the inhabitants would be by appointing a committee. At present, he should only move, that the petition be read, and on Monday he would call the attention of the House to the subject.
CORN BILL.] Lord Goderich,
on rising to move the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill, said, that if he asked, on the present occasion, for their lordships' patience and indulgence, he could assure them that he did so, not as a mere matter of form, because, independently of the intrinsic importance of the question itself—independently of the great interest which it was calculated to excite in all classes of the community—independently of the vehement feelings, he might almost say passion, with which the present proposition was regarded by its friends and by its opponents—independently of the extravagant views of benefit foreseen on the one hand, and of danger apprehended on the other—independently of all these considerations, he could not but recollect in whose place it was his lot to stand. For if, by the infliction of Providence, his noble friend who had lately been at the head of the king's government had not been rendered unable to take part in their lordships' discussions, upon him would long since have
985
986
987
988
989
à priori
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
The Earl of Malmesbury,
after expressing his deep regret that the noble earl, recently at the head of the Treasury, was not present to prosecute the measure he had introduced, declared that no party spirit should govern his conduct. He entreated the House to look upon the present, not as a party, but as a national, question, which embraced the interests of all classes of the community. As to the coalition between noble lords on one side of the House or the other, he was certainly not disposed to express any opinion; but, if he had been, this was not the moment he should have selected. When the bickerings and heart-burnings of the present day had subsided—when the events of the last six weeks, which had attracted so much attention, had been forgotten—when the individuals who were concerned in them were mouldering in their graves, the country would deeply feel the effects of the system now attempted to be established. The moment the legislature departed from the great principles which ought to govern what was commonly called the Corn-question, the country sooner or later must suffer the consequences of the deviation. He had hoped that the opinion of the House would have been taken, before the plan was embodied in a bill; and, for this reason, also, he regretted that the resolutions of lord Liverpool had not, in the first instance, been brought forward. He now opposed the bill on principle, which had its true origin in a speech delivered by the President of the Board of Trade, in March, 1825. Then it was that Pandora's box had been opened—then it was that the doctrines of free trade had been broached, and those doctrines had been applied to grain. He dated the measure now offered from that period; and wished, in the outset, to be informed why the noble viscount, who supported the bill of 1815, now abandoned it; and why he objected at present to the restrictions he then advocated? He was not a stickler for the existing law. He had been willing to meet the noble viscount, and to adopt such changes as would render the system more perfect; but, if all the evils the noble viscount had detailed existed in 1815, and had been continued until 1822, why in 1822 had he persevered in the principle of the objectionable measure of 1815? All
1000
versus
1001
1002
"noli me tangere;"
1003
1004
1005
1006
a fortiori
The Earl of Rosebery
was desirous of expressing his sentiments on a subject so important as that of the Corn-laws. He thought that there were errors on the side
1007
1008
1009
The Earl of Mansfield
rose, for the purpose of stating his objections to the bill. He was ready to admit, that some alteration of the Corn-laws was desired by all classes of the community—by the commercial and manufacturing interests, for reasons which were sufficiently known; and by the agriculturists, because the protection promised by these laws was not attended by the intended effects. Their repeal was desired by the labouring classes generally; because, from it they looked for a reduction in the price of bread, without a corresponding reduction in the rate of wages. The objections of the agriculturists were not directed against the principle, but against the operation, of the law; and, for its defects, they conceived an adequate remedy might be found. He objected to the present bill, because it did not afford proper protection to the agriculturist. He thought the best protection for the British agriculturist was to be found in the exclusion of foreign grain, except in times of scarcity—that scarcity to be denoted by the price of corn in the home market. What he proposed, he was satisfied would be beneficial to all classes of the community. There were two defects in the bill of 1815, which re-
1010
1011
The Duke of Somerset
said, that the unfortunate situation in which this country had been placed by the Corn-laws, had caused a division between the agricultural and the manufucturing interests, and had formed the nation into two great parties. Steps had been taken which never should have been taken, and which could be but slowly retraced. In 1815, he opposed the introduction of those laws, perceiving their pernicious tendency, though not to its full extent. In the last session, he advocated their immediate revision. Subsequent events had shown the necessity there was for such a measure, as the distresses of the country had obliged government to do, by an Order in Council, that which might more beneficially have been done by enactment. It was at last proposed to afford, by enactment, a relief to one part
1012
1013
1014
Earl Stanhope
said, that the time at which it had been attempted to introduce this measure was most unfortunate; for the agricultural interest was labouring under a heavy pressure of taxation, which was aggravated by the late change in the currency. A noble lord had designated the agricultural association which assembled in London, an Agricultural Parliament. He wished the parliament of the empire had displayed as much wisdom as that association. The law of 1822 had never come into practical operation. No foreign corn had been introduced, until the violation of that law took place. The principle of the present bill was completely subversive of that of 1822, which was adopted by parliament, after deliberate investigation. The present measure went to allow importation at all times subject to a fluctuating duty. The state of uncertainty in which the agricultural interest would be kept under such a system, must be productive of great evil. Farmers would providently reduce their expenditure to the lowest possible scale, and employ no more labourers than were absolutely necessary. The consequence would necessarily be, an augmentation of the poor-rates. It never could happen, except under extraordinary circumstances, that 60s. would prove a remunerating price. Let their lordships, then, consider what would be the consequence on admitting the importation of corn, subject to a duty of 20s., when the price reached 60s. Two witnesses had
1015
1016
Lord Bexley
said, it was extremely unjust to call this measure one of confiscation. It was no more a measure of confiscation than the measures of 1815 and 1822. A noble earl had said, that corn had been imported at 22s. per quarter. It was true, that some corn had been imported at that price; but it was of bad quality, and greatly damaged. It was proved, before the agricultural committee, that the foreign growers had been reduced to despair by the resolutions adopted by this government. Very extensive seizures had been made by the foreign government, to compel the repayment of advances which they had made to the merchants, and the sellers had consequently been compelled to send corn of any description to this country. In all the laws on this subject, prohibition had proved merely a snare for the consciences of people—a net for frauds and perjuries. This measure, without going the length of prohibition, afforded as great protection as the grower could require. With respect to Ireland, the change in the system had been sensibly felt. In the three years ending 1816, the average exports had amounted to 3,012,000l.; for the last year, they amounted to 7,000,000l. The present measure was calculated to extend these advantages; and, by promoting agriculture, to improve the condition of all the other manufactures, on which the prosperity of that country mainly depended. As to the effect on the woollen-trade, he wished the House to keep in mind the fact, that wool was not here, as it was in other countries, the principal part of the produce of the sheep, or the chief source of the grower's profit. In 1822, previous to the reduction of the duty, Southdown wool sold for 16d. a pound, which made
1017
The Marquis of Salisbury
said, he should feel very happy if he could take the same view of the state of the farmers, with respect to their sheep, as the noble baron who had preceded him. He was convinced that prices such as the noble baron described would produce a material effect upon rents, if such prices could be realized. The noble marquis proceeded to animadvert upon the inconsistency of the noble viscount (Goderich), and contrasted the opinions of that noble lord in 1822, with those he had expressed that night. He characterized the opening of the ports last year as a robbery upon the landlords, and an almost irreparable injury to the farmers. The agriculture of the country was able at that time, as at all others, to supply all consumption at a moderate rate. No objection had been made by any party; and the course then pursued could only be considered a wanton meddling with the interest of agriculture. When it was known that a farthing in the pound produced a difference of nearly 30s, an acre to the agricul-
1018
Lord Ellenborough
agreed with the noble viscount who opened the debate, that the present bill was susceptible of considerable improvement; but he couldnot go so far as the noble lord who had spoken last but one, that it was one of the most perfect productions of the human intellect. He was obliged to consider the bill as one brought there for amendment and improvement. It was not his intention now to propose the alterations which he thought necessary; but he should postpone, until it was in the committee, the design he had formed for making the bill what it ought to be. In its present shape, it would have his most determined opposition; and also at the third reading, unless he should succeed in introducing the improvements he alluded to, and of which, as the noble viscount said, it was so susceptible. If the noble viscount had known this House better; if he had been better acquainted with its quiescent nature, its sedative habits on all subjects, he would have known that, on no occasion whatever, was the acrimony of party feeling allowed to
1019
1020
1021
1022
The Marquis of Lansdown.
—After the full, able, impartial, and convincing statement laid before your lordships by my noble friend (viscount Goderich), of the grounds upon which he calls upon your lordships to assent to the commitment of this bill, and more especially after the intimations which you have had from the noble baron who has just sat down, and the noble marquis who preceded him, of their intention to acquiesce in the motion before your lordships, I should think it unpardonable in me, at this late hour, to occupy your lordships' time for more than a few minutes, with any statement or argument in support of the course which you are now called upon to adopt. I shall, however, in the first place state, that the noble baron who spoke last did very much misrepresent my noble friend, when he said that my noble friend adverted to the state of the manufacturing districts, and made it the foundation of the measures which he proposed. When my noble friend spoke of the manufacturing districts, and of the distress which has unhappily prevailed among them, although now fortunately diminished, he adverted to it only as a ground—if he wanted any ground—for the interference of parliament upon this subject. He did not, however, bring them before your lordships for the purpose of arguing, that the interests of the agricultural classes of this country ought to be sacrificed to the commercial.—No. My noble friend knows the importance of that class too well to contemplate such a project. The noble baron has observed, that there is no difference between this measure and those of 1815, and 1822; and he has asked, why those measures might not be tried, rather than enter upon any new and unknown project? But, my lords, there is a great difference. Those bills held a prohibition to be absolutely necessary in every case short of famine; while the present measure permits importation under a graduated scale at all times, and yet affords effectual protection to the British agriculturist. I am ready, however, to admit the principle laid down by the noble baron, that this country might depend upon other countries for support; and I am ready to contend, that the richest country in the world ought, in some degree, to depend upon other countries for some of the
1023
1024
1025
The Earl of Rosslyn
contended, that the country would be exposed to great danger if it depended for its supply on the produce to be derived from a foreign state; and that we ought, upon principle, to draw as few supplies as possible from abroad; and only when corn was at an unusually high rate at home. He regretted that so much had been said and done to excite the manufacturing classes, and to induce them to petition against the Corn-laws. His objection to the measure was, not that it would greatly affect the agricultural interests of the country, but that it would tend to discourage agricultural labour, and to make the arrangements between landlord and tenant more unsatisfactory than ever they had been. It would also, in his opinion, materially discourage the employment of capital in agriculture.
Lord Redesdale
said, that the measure before the House would produce the most
1026
The Earl of Carnarvon
supported the bill, and denied that the country ran any danger from drawing its supplies of corn from foreign states. As soon as we created an open trade, the people from whom we purchased wanted our market as much as we could want their grain. He supported the bill, because he was convinced that even the price of 60s. was one which, under existing circumstances, the country would not be able to sustain. Sixty shillings would be a higher price at this moment than 80s. was a short time ago.
The Earl of Darnley
supported the bill, and was of opinion that it gave competent protection to the agriculturist.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, May 25.
SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS—PETITION OF THE WESTERN PORTION.]
Sir Francis Burdett presented the following Petition, and gave notice that he would, shortly after the recess, call the attention of the House to the subject:—
1027
1028
NEW ADMINISTRATION—SUPPLY.]
On the order of the day for going into a committee of Supply,
Sir T. Lethbridge
rose to avail himself of this opportunity to state his opinions upon the general situation of the country. In doing so he felt he was only discharging his duty. With this impression, he trusted he should be excused for stating the reasons why he thought that House ought not to go any further with the supplies to his majesty. He was well aware, that any reasons which he could offer would not so far weigh with the House, under existing circumstances, as to induce them to come to the same opinion which he held: yet he had a right to state the reasons why he would not, if he had the power to prevent it, allow any further operations of his majesty's administration. He was fully convinced that the operations of that administration would end in great disappointment, if not in serious injury, to the empire. The right hon. gentleman had addressed him, the other night, in language highly poetical, but which, nevertheless, partook somewhat of the nature of prose; because that right hon. gentleman had taken the liberty of altering the passage which he meant to apply to him, in a manner which was neither very courteous, nor fitting in a prime minister. Although that right hon. gentleman might threaten to "sear his eyes, and blast his heart," such language should not prevent him from persevering in the line of duty. If he thought proper, he could "show his (Mr. Canning's) eyes, and grieve his heart" with what the real opinion of the country was, with regard to his administration. When he looked at the manner in which that coalition had been formed, he knew it was directly at variance with the principles entertained by the highest authority in the state, and he was justified in saying, that he had no confidence in it; and having no confidence, he would not, if he could prevent it, suffer the operations of government to go on for another day. In looking at the present administration, he would first look to the mode and manner in which it had been formed; and he must take the liberty of saying, that, viewing the matter with the most candid eye, there had been a coalition of opposite principles and characters, such as he would not trust himself with words to describe. They had seen coalitions before, but never such a coalition as this. He was firmly
1029
1030
Sir W. W. Wynn
said, he must call the hon. baronet to order. He thought that there was nothing more disorderly than to allude to a subject which the hon. baronet was now touching upon. The hon. baronet had said that he would confine himself within the prescribed limits, and he (sir W. Wynn) thought he ought to do so.
Sir T. Lethbridge
knew how very difficult it was to describe the opinion which he had to describe; especially after the marked disapprobation which had been expressed to the course which he had taken; but he was not to be deterred from the point which he was coming to. It he could not arrive at it by the limits which were set to the debates in that House, he would take the liberty of supposing a case by which he hoped to make himself understood. Suppose, then, there was a country not far from Great Britain, the monarch of which—
Mr. Wynn
rose to inform the hon. baronet, that that was not a point of etiquette, but the very essence of the constitution, on which the separation of the different powers of the state, and the freedom of debate in that House depended. He called upon the Speaker to inform the hon. baronet, that he was not at liberty to do that indirectly which he could not do directly, and that there were no means by which he could, consistently with the orders of that House, arrive at that point which he was evidently labouring to reach.
The Speaker
said, he took it to be perfectly clear that that which could not be said directly, could not, in order, be stated by any circuitous means. If he had distinctly arrived at the meaning of the hon. baronet as soon as the hon. gentleman who had called him to order, he should have interfered before. The hon. baronet must understand, that it was not allowable, by any hypothesis, to introduce any mention of the king, which would interfere with the freedom of debate, or control the opinions of that House. The use of the king's name for any such purpose in that House was not constitutional.
1031
Sir T. Lethbridge
continued. He could only say again, that when he looked at the situation in which the government was placed, and at the discordant materials of which it was composed, he was convinced that it could not stand long. The right hon. gentleman had described what passed between himself and his sovereign; and it would not be forgotten under what circumstances his majesty invested him with full power to form an administration. But what sort of an administration? Why, an administration on the grounds of he late administration. But that right hon. gentleman had formed an administration on principles directly opposite to his own, and one which could not possibly go on without a considerable compromise of principle. The House saw a considerable portion of those who had been accustomed to sit on the Opposition side now sitting on the other; and the leader of them had nevertheless declared that their principles were unchanged. Upon what were they agreed? Upon one question only, and that, too, a question which they dared not touch. But, could that question be carried now? No. He must not allude to it; but they knew very well the reason why it could not be carried. Who, then, were deceived? Why both the Protestants and the Catholics. If there was any sincerity in what all of them had said, Ireland must be in a most perilous state as long as this question was hung up and laid aside in the most shabby manner. He would say that this was not constitutional—it was not parliamentary—it was not like a prime minister; and he would tell those hon. gentlemen, that whatever their talents might be, if they were destitute of political integrity, their talents would weigh but as a feather in the estimation of the country. He was convinced that the time would come when the march of intellect [laughter]—they had heard a great deal about the march of intellect, and it now turned out to be only a matter of merriment [laughter]—the time, however, would come when considerable disgust would be raised in the public mind if they saw any compromise of principle. Was it, then, nothing for the people to look upon any body of men with contempt? To this the country must soon come, if they saw any compromise of public principle. He would contend, that this was a sufficient reason for every man to stand up and oppose the continuation
1032
Mr. Curwen
did not think the hon. baronet had conducted his opposition with discretion. If he were anxious to root the present administration in the affections of
1033
Lord Castlereagh
begged leave to disclaim all that savoured of personal hostility. The basis of his opposition was, that, surrounded by opponents to the Catholic claims, and, deserted by its supporters, he considered himself almost in an isolated situation. He could not help thinking that the Catholic question had been sunk for ever. It was true that, in the present cabinet, there were twelve in favour of that question, and only three against it; but then there was that—though he must not allude to it—which would make those twelve as dust in the balance. When he looked at that question, he could not conceive how it could be carried through, by controlling or by perverting the established opinions in the highest quarter of the state. He wished to see it carried; but he did not see any hope. They had been told that a day-spring from on high had visited Ireland; but he was more inclined to look upon it as the glare of an unwholesome marsh meteor, which betrayed the traveller to destruction, and which would leave them in a state of greater Cimmerian darkness than before. He saw, on the other side of the House, great authorities for a contrary opinion; and he hoped that he was wrong. For his own part, he was unable to see how the question had been, in the slightest degree, advanced. On the contrary, he thought he might congratulate the Protestants on the decisive vantage-ground which they had gained; and he must, therefore, offer a decided opposition to a government under which the Catholic question was less likely to be carried than before.
1034
Mr. Lindsay
said, he could not give his confidence to the ministry until he had seen more of their measures. They were told, as an excuse for gentlemen taking seats on the other side of the House, that they had long agreed on almost every question with his majesty's ministers. But, if this were so, why had they remained on the Opposition side of the House so long? and why had so many divisions taken place on various questions in the course of the last few years? Were not the gentlemen who had gone over separated in opinion from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the question of the Test act, Parliamentary Reform, and the Abolition of Sinecure Places? With respect to the finance of the country, were they not decidedly opposed to ministers? He, certainly, on some points, agreed with those who were now in office; but his support must remain in abeyance until he found whether they did or did not mean to adhere to those principles which they had formerly possessed.
Mr. Birch
thought it his duty to support a ministry whose principles were manifestly more liberal than those by which several of the late ministers were actuated. As an advocate for liberal principles, he would give his cordial support to the present administration.
Mr. Winn
said, he meant to give the ministry his support, until their actions caused him to withhold it. They ought, in his opinion, to be tried by their actions before they were condemned. Nothing could be more ridiculous than to declare a want of confidence in those who had, as yet, done nothing to forfeit that confidence. At the same time he must say, that he looked with great surprise at the conduct pursued by some of the gentlemen belonging to the Whig party. They had entered into a coalition with ministers; and, as it appeared to him, they had thrown the Catholic question, as well as parliamentary reform, overboard. Brilliant hopes had been held out to the Catholics; but those hopes must he disappointed, when their most strenuous advocates were found united with individuals, several of whom were decidedly opposed to it.
Lord Sandon
said, that those who had joined the ministry had not abandoned the Catholic claims. Any individual might, even now, bring it forward; but he considered it a question which, under
1035
Mr. J. Grattan
was perfectly convinced, that no line of conduct could better serve the Catholic cause than that of strongly supporting his majesty's present ministers. He would call the attention of the House to the fact, that those who were most decidedly opposed to the Catholic claims were also the most decidedly opposed to the new administration.
Lord J. Russell
thought it would be unfair and unjust, on entering into a committee of supply, to call on a new government to state what retrenchments they meant to make. He should, however, reserve to himself the right, next year, to oppose any item of expenditure which, after the labours of the finance committee had been completed, he might deem improper.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, May 28.
WOOL. TRADE.] Mr. Portman
presented a petition from the Wool-growers of Dorsetshire. The hon. member entered into a statement of the past and present condition of the wool-growers. He observed, that they had, at that moment. in their warehouses, a stock equal to three years' produce, without the slightest hope of a market. Since the chancellor of the Exchequer had reduced the duty on foreign wool, there had been, in one year, no less than forty-three million, eight hundred and thirty-seven thousand pounds
1036
Mr. Huskisson
did not think it necessary, after the judicious opening of the hon. gentleman, to detain the House long upon this subject. The hon. gentleman had very fairly stated, that he attributed the existing depression to the inordinate importation of 1825, and to the reduction in the duty on foreign wool. He (Mr. Huskisson), however, looked to another source for the distress of the wool-growers, and that was the pressure on that manufacture, of which the article of wool formed the raw material. Now, if the pressure arose from that cause, it would be an odd way—he had almost said an Irish way—of attempting to remove it, by raising the price of the raw material. Yet, this was the remedy proposed by the petitioners. The progress of the present depression was easily traced. In 1825 there was a great importation of the article of wool. This led to a stagnation in the home market—the invariable consequence of a glut; hence proceeded a fall in prices, and the subsequent distress of the growers. And this distress, he was confident, they would considerably aggravate, if they were to take away the only chance which the wool-growers had of an improvement; namely, the foreign demand for the manufactured article. It could not he questioned, that
1037
s
d
d
s
s.
s
d
d
d
1038
d
d
s
s
s
1039
1040
Colonel Davies
reprobated the petition, as originating in the selfishness of a class seeking to place upon others the burthens which they ought to bear themselves.
Mr. Calcraft
did not concur in the prayer of the petition; but, he must say, that he believed his gallant friend was the only member who would assert, that the petition deserved reprobation. His gallant friend reprobated the petitioners because they called for an additional tax on wool, which they conceived would serve their interests. They, however, were not singular in that. The fact was, that every class of persons was so heavily taxed in this country, that each man was endeavouring to throw his own burthen on the shoulders of his neighbour. With respect to the price of wool in Dorsetshire, he would contend that there was no price. The growers could not sell the article at present; and that at a time when they had the expectation of another crop coming on their hands. Still, he knew not how they could be assisted. This was but cold comfort; but he was persuaded, that the individuals most interested would be more satisfied to hear the fact, than to have any delusion practised upon them.
Mr. G. Bankes
said, it would have been more considerate on the part of his gallant friend, if he had waited till the petition was read, before he passed so decided a censure on the petitioners. If he had waited, he was sure his censure would have fallen more lightly. He could not but regret that an hon. member had made any
1041
Lord Milton
said, he would not make any remarks on the speech of the hon. member for Corfe Castle, because it was quite clear that the speech had not been intended for that place. So far were the petitioners from having any right to complain of the course which had been taken by the member for Dorsetshire, that his hon. friend was entitled to their gratitude; and especially for the elucidation of the subject which he had drawn forth from the right hon. the president of the Board of Trade—an elucidation which every candid man must allow was satisfactory.
Mr. Western
expressed his doubts, whether it would be a wise policy to allow of the importation of wool from all parts of the world, free of duty. He thought that a committee ought to be appointed to inquire into the causes of the depression under which the agriculture, manufactures, and commerce of the country were labouring.
Mr. Baring
said, that the speech of the President of the Board of Trade had been so clear and convincing, that it had set the question completely at rest, To im-
1042
PENRYN ELECTION BILL.]
On the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill, Mr.
Manning
Mr. Legh-Keck
said, he would have called Sowell to the bar, but for the disinclination of the House to hear evidence at the late hour to which the examination had been protracted. He, however, had not any expectation of getting much information from him. In 1819 the House laboriously endeavoured to elicit from him evidence, but in vain. The hon. member for Penryn had declared, that this Sowell
1043
Mr. Ferguson
said, that if this was not a case in which parliament ought to exercise its power of disfranchisement, it would be utterly impossible to conceive circumstances in which that mode of proceeding ought to be adopted. He could not agree with the hon. member for Penryn, that nothing was proved against the borough. It was fully established, that an agreement for the sale of the borough had been signed by a member of that House, who had stipulated to give each voter twenty-four guineas for voting for an hon. baronet. Mr. Swan had given each voter 5
l
l
Mr. J. Denison
said, there never was a grosser case of bribery and corruption than the present, The borough of Penryn
1044
Mr. A. O'Neill
objected to the course pursued with respect to Penryn. Allusion had been made to what took place in that borough in 1807 and in 1819. Now this, he thought, unfair. Were they to keep a paltry running account against this, that, and the other, borough? He called upon the House to put out of their recollection the details of what took place in 1807 and in 1819, and to decide upon the evidence now before them.
Sir C. Burrell
said, that the evidence now before the House was conclusive; although it would be rendered more satisfactory in the other House, as their lordships could examine witnesses upon oath. It was a singular anomaly, that a Select Committee of the House of Commons should have power to examine witnesses upon oath, and yet that the whole House possessed no such power. This, he thought, was a matter which called for immediate alteration.
Mr. D. Barclay
said, that the present electors of Penryn were about to be punished for the acts of those who had gone before them. He admitted that, at former periods, much corruption prevailed in Penryn, but a great reform had taken place in the borough since that period. It was too bad to condemn this borough upon hearsay evidence, and not upon that which was established before them. If the process of disfranchisement was employed
1045
Lord Milton
thought the borough of Penryn had been so well defended by its present member, that, at first, he really believed the favour of the House had been transferred from the hon. gentleman who had just sat down to the borough itself. But that effect had been weakened by further consideration of the case. He did not think it proper to look merely to a few recent elections; but at the general history of the borough. If, from such an examination, all the elections, or nearly all, were found to have been purely conducted, it would be an act of injustice to disfranchise the borough for one accidental offence. But the examination would prove exactly the reverse: and he did think that, after the gross corruption proved against the Borough in 1807, its repeated practices of bribery ought not now to be overlooked. In that instance, a committee on behalf of the electors and sir C. Hawkins, now a member of the House, actually entered into an agreement, counter parts of which remained in possession of the respective parties. In the present instance, the bribery had been as real, though it was not conducted with the same formality. It was said, that there were five hundred voters; but it should be recollected, that of these, one hundred and fifty came in from the neighbouring parts on the approach of an election, attracted by the 24
l
1046
Mr. Van Homrigh
said, he had been one of the members of the committee, and he thought it his duty to declare, that no act of bribery was proved against the two gentlemen who represented that place. Boroughs were not always corrupt; for he could distinctly declare, that he owed his election to the unbought, unsolicited, suffrages of the town he represented. He thought it would be a most extraordinary act to disfranchise a borough, when there was no proof of corruption against its two representatives.
Lord Althorp
thought the argument of the hon. member was a very extraordinary one; and the more so, as that hon. member must have recollected, that, although the committee exonerated the two members from the charge of corruption, they had unanimously decided, that gross bribery had been practised in the borough. He felt that the House ought to revert to the former acts of the borough. The case of a borough was not like that of a man on trial for a particular crime; when it would certainly be most unjust to set the former acts of life in array against him. The case of a borough was to be determined on its constant practice; and, in the present instance, there was a practice of corruption for the course of twenty years. As a member of the committee, he must declare it as his opinion, that Penryn furnished a gross case of corruption.
1047
Lord John Russell
stated, that, after what had been said about Manchester being introduced into the discussion to prejudice the question, he should think it the more convenient course to declare; first, that Penryn ought to be disfranchised; and then, when the bill was again in the committee, the proper time would arise for considering the place to which its franchise should be transferred.
Lord John Russell
proposed, by way of amendment, that in the first clause of the bill the following words should be introduced—"That the borough of Penryn be hereafter excluded from the privilege of returning burgesses to serve in parliament." The question of disfranchising the borough would depend upon the House being, or not being, satisfied that great corruption had taken place. He thought that, after the evidence given before the committee, there could be no doubt upon that subject. The abuse of the elective franchise had been sufficiently great, to justify the House in taking it away from the borough. The next question to be determined was, to what place it should be transferred? Some members had intimated, that it should be transferred to a large town now unrepresented; while others had proposed, that it should be given to the inhabitants of the adjoining hundreds. It would aggravate the defect to give the franchise to the hundred; as it would throw the right of election into the hands of a few large proprietors. This mode of reforming corrupt boroughs in fact created little counties, and did not tend to the general extension of the right of election. It had often been said, that trade and manufactures were not sufficiently represented in parliament; and, when cases of this kind occurred, advantage ought to be taken of them, to afford representatives to large and industrious masses of the population. A remedy would thus be gradually supplied to the acknowledged defect of the House. He therefore proposed by one bill to deprive Penryn of the elective franchise entirely; and by another, to transfer that franchise to Manchester. He moved, "That the borough of Penryn, hereafter, be excluded from returning Burgesses to parliament."
Mr. Legh-Keck
observed, that the present bill was the same as that passed by the House in 1819, and thrown out by the
1048
Mr. C. Barclay
advised his hon. relative not to press the question to a division, seeing that it was undoubtedly the opinion of the committee that Penryn should be disfranchised. He should give his support to the proposition of the noble lord; as he was satisfied that to transfer the right to Manchester, under certain restrictions, would be highly beneficial. One limitation he wished was, that no person should have the power to vote for a member who was not rated to the support of the poor to a certain amount. In Southwark, which he formerly represented, this plan was found to work well, for there, by certain local acts, on all houses under 20
l
Lord Milton
said, that, by the disfranchisement of Penryn, a vacancy in the representation would be occasioned, which vacancy might be supplied upon two principles; population and taxation. With reference to both it might be urged, that a large and wealthy district of the metropolis was unrepresented—the parish of Mary-la-bonne; and he thought that it
1049
Mr. G. Philips
believed, that the feeling in Manchester was, that the right of voting should be given to such only as were rated to the poor, for houses of the annual value of 15
l
l
Lord Althorp
put it to the hon. member for Leicestershire, whether it would not be better to agree to the disfranchisement of Penryn absolutely; leaving it to the House to determine hereafter to what place the representation should be transferred.
Mr. Warburton
thought, that to extend the elective franchise to the adjoining hundreds, would be throwing the power of returning the members into the hands of the landed interest.
Mr. Alderman Waithman
expressed his approbation of the principles which had been mentioned by the noble member for Yorkshire. He fully concurred with him, that, according to the true constitutional system, representation and taxation ought to be combined as much as possible; and that the influence of the lower classes in that House ought not to be diminished, but placed beyond the reach of corruption, by the numbers to whom the elective franchise was extended.
Mr. Canning
said, that, looking to what had on this, and on former occasions, occurred, he thought, that, although the de
1050
1051
Mr. Hobhouse
observed, that when he saw a
primâ facie
Mr. Wynn
said, that, of all the cases which had been brought before that House, there were few in which bribery had been brought home to so small a number of individuals. At the same time, there was clear moral evidence of a much greater system of bribery having been carried on, than had been brought home. One gentleman had told them, that he left Penryn, because his impression was, that he could not procure a sufficient number of votes without paying for them. Nor could he dismiss from his mind the events which had taken place at other elections at Penryn; from which it was clear, that the bribery was not casual, but systematic, and that it could be removed by nothing but the interposition of parliament. They might, perhaps, have indulged a hope, that the punishment of individuals would put an end to this practice. That experiment had been tried, but still the system
1052
Lord Sandon
thought it would be a pity to neglect so good an opportunity of enabling large towns to send members to parliament. If the principle which some hon. gentlemen had insisted upon was allowed to prevail, the number of Cornish members sent to that House would be as numerous as ever. He should therefore vote for the proposition of the noble lord.
Mr. Wood
of Preston, said, that, if the hundreds were to be taken in, he would not vote for the disfranchisement of the borough; for, upon that plan, the paramount influence would be given to two great neighbouring proprietors, lord De Dunstanville and sir J. St. Aubyn. He regarded the influence of the great landed proprietors, who sent the rich members into the House, with as much contempt as he did these corrupt boroughs.
Mr. W. Marshall
said, that, if he understood the proposition rightly, it was to allow those persons who had acted in so unconstitutional a manner to keep their votes, but to increase their numbers. He thought that, if any change was made, it ought to be on constitutional grounds, and not a half measure.
Mr. W. Lamb
adverted to the strange change of opinion which had taken place among the parliamentary reformers; for they now cried out against increasing the influence of the landed interest, and the great object of their general plans of reform had before been always stated to be to increase that influence. Such had been the alleged object of the hon. baronet, the member for Westminster, and others; and yet they now appeared to be averse to the extension of the influence of the landed interest. He should support the original motion.
Alderman Waithman
opposed the throwing open the franchise of Penryn to the adjoining hundreds. He would prefer having the abuses of the representation left in their hideous deformity, to the delusive farce proposed to be played off.
Lord Rancliffe
was glad of an oppor-
1053
Sir J. Newport
said, if ever there was a case that called for the intervention of that House, it was the case before them. Penryn had been proved to be thoroughly corrupt; not at the late election merely, but for a series of elections. Considering the anterior practices, and the evidence of their continuation, he saw no other mode of dealing with the corruption of the borough, than that of rooting, it out, by transferring the elective franchise to some wealthy town at present unrepresented.
Mr. Brougham
said, that in the course of the debate, both sides had assumed the guilt of Penryn. The only question was, whether that guilt should be punished by letting in the hundreds to share the elective franchise, or by transferring it absolutely to some other place? The latter mode implied a greater degree of guilt; but the former was not consistent with guiltlessness. It was clear there must be some fault in Penryn, else why sluice them with the hundreds? If the electors of Penryn were innocent, why all of a sudden let in on the two hundred voters, who, for the purposes of bribery and corruption, had been made four hundred voters, the two thousand voters of the neighbouring hundreds? That form of punishment assumed that they were condemned, though not so deeply as by the other. The difference of these forms to them would, however, in effect, be very slight. The skilful voter, who looked at the property with an eye to borough objects, and regarded his vote only with a view to sell it—one of the Stanburys and Sowells—would not thank the House for the mitigated form which would let in upon him the two thousand voters in his neighbourhood. Men of that stamp did not love their neighbours as themselves. They would rather continue the monopoly of votes. He believed firmly that Sowell or Stanbury would just as lief have the borough wholly disfranchised, as retain their votes, if they shared them with their neighbours. What would they sell their votes for when they were only one of twenty-five hundred? He thought, therefore, that the disfranchisement was as complete by letting in the hundreds, as by transferring the elective franchise else-
1054
1055
Mr. S. Bourne
said, that, if he could believe with his hon. and learned friend, that a verdict of guilty had been pronounced against the borough of Penryn, he would at once agree in the propriety of stripping the borough and transferring its right to some more deserving place. He felt that the question was one of great difficulty; and, if any means could be devised by which those who were guilty could be adequately punished, he would vote for that punishment. But he did not conceive that it would be fair to disfranchise a whole borough for the misconduct, however gross, of not more than half the voters in that borough. If any gentleman could point out any way in which the guilty could be punished without injuring the guiltless, he would willingly adopt that course; but he could not make up his mind to punish both parties alike—a proceeding which, he conceived, would be contrary to every principle of justice.
List of the Majority and of the Minority.
MAJORITY.
Althorp, visc.
Baring, W. B.
Archdeckne, A.
Baring, sir T.
Barclay, C.
Birch, J.
Baring, F.
Benett, John
1056
Bentinck, Lord W.
Maxwell, J.
Blackburne, J.
Millbank, M.
Bright, H.
Milton, visc.
Brougham, H.
Monck, J. B.
Brougham, J.
Morpeth, visc.
Burdett, sir F.
Munday, F.
Calcraft, J.
Newport, sir J.
Calvert, C.
O'Brien, L.
Calvert, N.
Ord, W.
Campbell, C.
Osborne, lord F.
Carter, J.
Palmer, C. F.
Cave, R. O.
Pelham, J. C.
Clements, visc.
Philips, G. sen.
Colborne, N. R.
Ponsonby, hon. F.
Corbett, P.
Ponsonby, hon. W. S.
Cradock, S.
Ponsonby, hon. G.
Crompton, S.
Poyntz, W. S.
Dawson, A.
Price, R.
Davenport, D.
Proby, hon. G.
Davenport, E. D.
Protheroe, E.
Davies, T.
Rancliffe, lord
Duncannon, visc.
Rice, T. S.
Dundas, hon. T.
Rickford, W.
Ducane, P.
Robarts, A. W.
Denison, W. J.
Robinson, sir G.
Downie, R.
Rowley, sir W.
Easthope, J.
Russell, lord J.
Ebrington, visc
Russell, lord G. W.
Euston, earl of
Russell, lord W.
Fazakerly, J. N.
Russell, R. G.
Fergusson, R. C.
Russell, John
Fitzroy, lord C.
Robinson, G. R.
Folkestone, visc.
Rumbold, C. E.
Fitzgerald, J.
Sandon, lord
Graham, sir J.
Sebright, sir J.
Grosvenor, hon. R.
Shelly, sir J.
Gordon, R.
Slaney, R. A.
Guise, sir B. W.
Smith, W.
Guest, J. J.
Sotheron, Admiral
Heathcote, G. J.
Stuart H. V.
Heron, sir R.
Stanley, lord
Hobhouse, J. C.
Stanley, hon. Ed.
Howard, H.
Tavistock, Marquis
Howick, visc.
Thompson, C. P.
Hume, J.
Townshend, lord
Hurst, R.
Tufton, hon. H.
Jephson, C. D. O.
Tynte, C. K.
Kekewich, S. T.
Waithman, alderman
Kennedy, T. F.
Warburton, H.
Labouchere, H.
Webbe, Edw.
Lamb, hon. G.
Western, C. C.
Lester, B. L.
Whitbread, S. C.
Leycester, R.
Wood, alderman
Lloyd, sir E. P.
Wood, C.
Lombe, E.
Wood, John
Marryatt, J.
Wrottesley, sir J.
Marjoribanks, S.
Wilson, sir R.
Marshall, W.
TELLER.
Martin, J.
Lord John Russell
MINORITY.
Acland, sir T.
Buck, L. W.
Arkwright, R.
Buller, C.
Barclay, D.
Butler, C.
Batley, C. H.
Burrell, sir C.
Binning, lord
Bourne, rt .hon.S.
Bonham, H.
Brown, J.
1057
Carrington, sir F.
Lambert, J. S.
Canning, rt. hon. G.
Lamb, R. hon. W.
Chichester, A.
Lascelles, hon. W.
Chaplin, C.
Lowther, lord
Clerk, sir G.
Macauley, gen.
Cockburn, sir G.
Manning, W.
Croker, J. W.
Martin, sir B.
Curteis, E.
O'Neil, A. John
Davis, R. H.
Palmer, R.
Dottin, A.
Pallmer, C. N.
Douglas, W. R. K.
Palmerston, visc.
Duff, general
Petit, I. H.
Drake, T. T.
Phillimore, Dr.
Eliot, lord
Planta, J.
Farquhar, J.
Saunderson, A.
Fellowes, W. H.
Scarlett, sir J.
Fitzgerald, rt. hon. V.
Sibthorpe, C. D.
Forbes, sir C.
Somerset, lord G.
Foster, J. L.
Spottiswoode, A.
Gordon, John
Talmash, hon. F. J.
Grant, sir A.
Tullamore, Lord
Grant, rt. hon. C.
Twiss, H.
Grant, R.
Tyndal, sir N. C.
Halse, J.
Van Homrigh, P.
Herries, J. C.
Vernon, G.
Hill, sir G.
Wynn, rt. hon. C.
Horton, R.W.
Wyndham, W.
Holmes, W.
Irving, John
TELLER.
King, hon. H.
Legh-Keck, G. A.
ELECTION EXPENSES BILL.]
Lord Althorp moved the third reading of this bill.
Mr. Calcraft
rose at that late stage of the bill, to give his strenuous opposition to a measure, which, as far as he was aware, had never yet undergone discussion. He thought it necessary to warn the House what this bill was intended to do. It disfranchised every voter who was employed as an agent by a candidate at an election, and thus threw a stigma upon all the profession of the law. It could not be supposed that the fees which attorneys and barristers received for lending their services to the candidate who employed them, could ever act upon them so far as to induce them to give him their votes corruptly, when they were hostile to his political principles. He was sure that, in point of pecuniary emolument, all professional men were losers by being employed in elections [a laugh]. He was convinced that the case was as he had stated it. That part of the bill which prohibited the use of music, ribands, and party symbols during the election, would destroy all the fun, and spirit, and gaiety of an election, and make them the most dull, monotonous, methodistical, and puritanical spectacles that could be imagined. In
1058
Mr. Hudson Gurney
said, it was his intention to move, that this bill be read that day six months. All the malpractices which it was intended to prohibit by this bill, were, under heavy penalties, prohibited in Ireland; and every one of them were either evaded, or something worse substituted. He had just been on a long Irish election committee, and the witnesses whom it had been his lot to hear examined, proved the point he had asserted beyond possibility of dispute. In the election to which he alluded, there were whole legions of lawyers employed, not as lawyers, for that was one thing petitioned against, as it would have vitiated the return; but as active and zealous friends—for which he had no doubt but that these active and zealous friends were, in the end, well paid. If the House prevented the candidate from paying his agents regularly and openly, it could only go to his paying them through a third hand, more lavishly than he would otherwise have done, when the election was over. As to the clause which prevented any voter from wearing ribands or other mark of distinction, nothing could be more absurd, and, indeed, injurious. It was a specimen of Irish legislation, which went to put down forceably any insignia of the thousand varieties of party association, which made faction harmless, and to divide a nation into two parties having each to other the most deadly hatred: and from Irish legislation, and Irish peace, and Irish tranquillity, and Irish elections, he trusted in heaven, that England would be delivered! They could not break English custom, do what they would; and, in almost all the places in England, half the electors voted for a riband; and it was an idle folly to suppose that, by a bill like the present, the House could make an English election as demure as a Method-
1059
l
Mr. Spring Rice
defended the provisions of the bill; and declared that there was nothing contained in it which could possibly disfranchise a single individual. It provided merely that no canvasser, fiddler, flagman, or messenger, was to be employed for money; but he might engage himself in any of those capacities for the benefit of the candidate, if he chose to do so without demanding any recompence.
Sir R. Wilson
observed, that the member for Newton was rather unfortunate in his statement, that the hoisting of ribands prevented the necessity of swearing in an additional number of special constables. The exact contrary was the fact; as might be seen by a reference to the late proceedings at Coventry. Ribands, it was known, were very liberally distributed in that city; and yet the most violent proceedings took place there at the last election.
Mr. R. Gordon
thought the bill an instance of very petty legislation, which would tend to increase rather than de-
1060
Lord Althorp
defended the bill, and said he knew several instances of the employment of seven hundred constables at an election. He had heard no reason which could induce him not to press the bill to a third reading.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, May 30.
REGULATION OF WAGES—PETITION FROM NORWICH.] Mr. W. Smith
presented a Petition from the operative manufacturers of Norwich, praying that the House would devise some means for settling, by law, the rate of wages in that city. He also presented a similar petition from certain of the master manufacturers. The first petition was signed by upwards of ten thousand weavers, who were in a state of distress, and were of opinion that they might be relieved, if the House would take their case into consideration. The master manufacturers concurred with them, and were equally anxious for the experiment of passing a law, with respect to the rate of wages, which should be binding upon both parties.
Mr. Hume
objected to the prayer of these petitions. The relief which was asked for could not be granted by the legislature. The master manufacturers ought to have been above the folly of demanding a law to regulate the rate of wages; as they must be aware that if such a law were passed, various circumstances might happen which would compel them to break through all its provisions.
Mr. Peel
said, that the operative weavers of Norwich had requested him to superintend the presentation of these petitions; and he had great satisfaction in acceding to their request, in consequence of the orderly conduct which they had hitherto
1061
Mr. Hudson Gurney
said, that, in addition to what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman who had preceded him, he might recall to the recollection of the hon. member for Norwich, that, in point of fact, the only disturbance that had happened there, was from the country weavers taking in work at a lower price than those in the city—an evil which the measure prayed for would go directly to increase.
Mr. John Wood
said, he had received a petition of a similar import from the manufacturing classes of Preston. He was convinced that their prayer was such as the House could not accede to; and to produce that conviction in the minds of his constituents, he had sent them copies of the reports made by the committees which had already examined into this subject.
Mr. C. Grant
admitted, with his right hon. friend, the intelligence displayed by
1062
Mr. W. Smith
said, that if a temporary bill for one session would satisfy the petitioners, he should have no objection to allow it to pass. He did not expect that it would be of much advantage; but he was anxious to have it tried, in order that their minds might be quieted.
Dr. Lushington
hoped it would not go forth to the public, that the House had the slightest intention to approve of such a proposition. Such a measure would, if passed, be delusive to the petitioners, and destructive to the interests of the manufacturers at large.
DISSENTERS' MARRIAGES BILL.] Mr. W. Smith
moved, that the bill be read a second time.
Mr. Hudson Gurney
said, that he saw no reason for confining the Bill to Unitarian Dissenters, but thought all Dissenters from the church should be included; as, otherwise, the House would have application after application of the same nature.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, May 31.
PUBLICATION OF LIBELS—MOTION FOR REPEAL OF ONE OF THE Six ACTS.]
1063
Mr. Hume
said, he rose, pursuant to notice, to move for the repeal of one of those acts which were passed in the year 1819, commonly known by the title of the "Six Acts." It was his intention to have moved for the same thing during the last session; and, when he contemplated the changes which had taken place in the ministry, he could not help hoping that the delay would prove a fortunate one for the question which he now advocated. The House would doubtless recollect, that when these acts were passed, there reigned throughout the country great discontent, occasioned by distressing want which induced the people to assemble in large numbers; and they were, for this, accused of wishing to upset the government. The House then thought, that certain regulations were necessary to prevent the physical force of the country from destroying the established institutions, and to prevent anarchy and disorder resulting from such meetings. Of the acts then passed, that which was called the "Seditious Meetings' Prevention Act," expired in 1824, and the ministers of the Crown, by allowing it to expire, admitted that there was no further necessity for the continuance of it. But then the ministers and the Attorney-general, by whom these acts were introduced, contended, that they must be taken as a whole; and, if this were true, they ought all of them to have been repealed, or no one of them ought to have been allowed to expire; especially as they were admitted to be infringements upon the liberties of the subject, and justifiable only by the existing circumstances. Another of these acts, which allowed persons to search for arms, had also expired. Those of the six acts which still remained in force were,—first, "An Act to prevent the training of persons to the use of arms," and that he thought to be one of the most objectionable nature, in a free country, where every one ought to be intrusted with arms for the defence of his rights; but he did not mean to press the repeal of that act at present: secondly, "An Act to prevent delay in the administration of justice in cases of misdemeanor," which was not of a very important nature; thirdly, the eighth chapter, "An Act for the more effectual prevention and punishment of blasphemous and seditious libels," which contained one of the most obnoxious clauses in the whole of the acts—he meant that clause which made trans-
1064
1065
1066
The Attorney-General
said, he supposed that the hon. gentleman's motion was brought forward in the hope of discovering, that, with the new government, a new system upon these subjects would be introduced. Now, if this was the feeling of the hon. gentleman, he had adopted that course of proceeding, which was, of all others, the least adapted to his purpose. The very circumstance of that government having been so recently formed, would have prevented any man of ordinary judgment from mooting such a question. His hon. friend, however—and he must suppose him sincere in the declarations—
1067
1068
1069
Mr. Peel
said, that no person who had listened to the speech of the Attorney-general could have any reason to complain of the course which he had pursued. It was infinitely more manly to take the straight-forward course which the learned gentleman had taken, than to follow the example of the other hon. gentlemen, who were now absent from their places,
1070
1071
1072
The Attorney-General
complained of the misrepresentation which the right hon. member had given of his speech. What he had stated was this: that all the clauses of this bill were not opposed by the party with whom he had the honour of acting; and he had referred to a speech made by his right hon. friend, the member for Knaresborough (Mr. Tierney) who was now absent from indisposition, to show that he had approved warmly of those
1073
Lord Milton
said, it was difficult to ascertain, from the speech of the right bon, member for Oxford, whether his object was, to exculpate the conduct of his late colleague, the marquis of Londonderry, or, under pretence of exculpating his conduct, to inculpate the conduct of other individuals. It was of little consequence which of these two objects he had in view; for in both of them he had signally and lamentably failed. What, in point of fact, had been the defence which the right hon. gentleman had made for his late colleague, the marquis of Londonderry? Neither more nor less than this—that because, in the year 1827, his Majesty's Attorney-general thought proper to resist a motion for the repeal of one act out of six, to the passing of which he had been hostile in 1819—an act too, be it remembered, which was confessedly that to which the slightest opposition was made—he was therefore to be considered as approving of the whole mass of the measures which had been opposed, not only by himself, but by most of his hon. friends who were now present, as also by those who were absent, and on whose absence the right hon. gentleman, for some purpose which he did not understand, had commented with great severity. For himself, he hoped, that those of the six acts which were unrepealed would not long remain so; and, in making that remark, he particularly referred to the bill which rendered an individual twice convicted of libel, subject to transportation. He confessed that a great deal of his confidence in his majesty's government would depend on the manner in which they dealt with that act—an act which he should ever deem fatal to the liberty of the subject and the freedom of the press. With regard to the repeal of this particular bill, after his learned friend's declaration, that he wanted time for inquiry into the practical results of it, he must say that it was matter of little moment whether it were
1074
Mr. Peel
—I did take credit for not renewing them.
Lord Milton
—That gives me the very point which I wish to make out against the right hon. gentleman. If the right hon. gentleman takes credit to himself for not renewing certain acts, it could not have been very creditable to him to have originated those acts.
Mr. Peel
—The acts in question were merely temporary.
Lord Milton
—If the right hon. gentleman did not think it expedient to renew them, it is quite evident that the measures, though temporary in their enactment, were not such has he could have had either pleasure or credit in enacting. The measures, for which the right hon, gentleman seemed to think that he bad that night made a most triumphant defence, were infringements on the liberty of the subject, and inconsistent with the spirit of the constitution. The bill which the hon. member now sought to repeal was so perfectly unimportant, that he did not know whether he should give himself the trouble of waiting in the House to see the determination to which it might come.
Mr. Lennard
thought it was a little unfair, on the part of the right hon. gentleman, to attribute to the Attorney-general approbation of the whole six acts, because he had not expressed unequivocal disapprobation of one of them. He begged to recall to the House, that he had himself moved for the repeal of two of those acts. He had not included the act under consideration in his motion, because he did not at that time, nor did he at present, think that its total repeal was necessary.
1075
Sir R. Wilson
said, that, whilst he admired the motives which had induced the right hon. member for Oxford to pass his laboured eulogium on the memory of his colleague, the late marquis of Londonderry, he could not think that the passing of such an eulogium was in the best taste; seeing that it must almost inevitably provoke a discussion, which, for various reasons, it was advisable to avoid. This was the first time, since the event of lord Londonderry's death, that he had ever heard any discussion raised in parliament on the merits of his political character. There had been a delicacy observed on the subject, arising out of feelings to which he would not further allude. The noble lord who had spoken from the other side of the House, had said, and with truth, that the right hon. member for Oxford, in his exposition of his conduct on a former night,
1076
1077
Mr. Canning
said, that although his hon. and learned friend, the Attorney-general, had already disposed of the question before the House, he was anxious to explain the reasons why he resisted the present motion. If it were contended, that every gentleman in that House was bound, by any vote he might chance to give in the progress of a measure, to continue to oppose or to uphold that measure, as the case might be, for all time to come, when it was passed into a law, the inevitable consequence would be, as in the present instance, to debar individuals from the free exercise of their judgment. The hon. member who brought forward this motion had observed, that a partial change of ministers ought to produce a partial change of measures. But if this principle were pursued to its utmost extent—if it were true, that every man, because he had supported or opposed a measure in its progress, was bound to continue to support or oppose it after it had passed into a law, the consequence would be, as the hon. member contended in the present instance, that a partial change of govern-
1078
1079
1080
1081
Lord Howick
expressed himself surprised at the remarkable discrepancy between the sentiments uttered by many gentlemen on this occasion, and those which they had been in the habit of expressing so strenuously before they had quitted the Opposition side of the House. He thought it essential that the House should assent to the motion. He could not agree, that this was a measure of little importance. The act was productive of great mischief. The clause which enacted banishment was disgraceful to the character of the country; and it pressed equally upon proper and improper works; for no man could guide himself clearly by the law of libel as it then stood.
Sir J. Newport
said, that the restraints with respect to small publications, which it was the object of the hon. member to remove, applied equally to newspapers; and if he did not maintain, that the restraints with respect to newspapers should also be removed, he had no ground to stand upon.
Mr. Warburton
observed, that at an early period of the session, the learned member for Winchelsea expressed a hope that this measure would be repealed. He was sorry that, instead of a bill for the repeal of this act, the motion had not been for a bill to amend it. He, however, should support the motion, because it was not sufficient to state, that no practical inconvenience
1082
Mr. Hume,
in reply, observed, that his gallant friend had said, that he was ready either to oppose an open enemy, or an insidious friend. He hoped the gallant officer would always do so; but he could assure him, that neither of the terms applied to him. In bringing forward the motion he had not broken any pledge. He was ready to have abandoned the motion, if the Attorney-general had promised that he would introduce it next session. He had committed no breach of faith; for he had fairly stated that he should be compelled to submit his motion to the House, unless the Attorney-general promised to take the subject up. He would read to the House his letter to the Attorney-general, and then they could judge whether he had acted fairly. The hon. member then read the letter, in which he stated, that "he must bring the motion forward, unless the Attorney-general consented to take it out of his hands, by moving for the repeal himself, and thereby securing to the new administration that popularity which such a measure would produce." Was there any thing unfair in this? His conduct in that House, or any where else, should always be such as would bear investigation. He argued the question on general principles; and, if general principles were not to be considered in discussing a measure of this kind, it was impossible that acts of parliament could ever be debated. He saw no part of this bill which the Attorney-general could fairly maintain, if he held those principles which he entertained when he sat on the Opposition side of the House; for all its enactments trenched on the liberty of the subject, and restricted the freedom of the press. The bill went, in fact, to maintain a strict censorship. It was ridiculous to say, that few persons, except himself, were cognizant of the existence of this measure; but, if it were true that the people and parliament of England had forgotten it, still he should pride himself, as the only man in the country, who had adhered to his opinion, and kept the subject in view. He believed, however, that the right hon. gentleman moved in a circle where public opinion was not known, and which was frequented by those who rather wished to pamper his vanity than to give him useful information. He should take the sense of the House
1083
Lord W. Russell
said, he must oppose the motion, although with regret, as it gave a seeming contradiction to that which had been the tenor of his whole life—the support of public liberty in its most extended sense. He was not in that House when the six acts were passed; but he was opposed to them; with the exception of the one under discussion; and that he was friendly to, because he felt that blasphemous publications ought not to be circulated.
List of the Minority.
Dawson, A.
Pelham, C.
Ferguson, sir R.
Warburton, H.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Wood, John
Howick, lord
Lombe, Edward
TELLERS.
Maitland, capt.
Hume, J.
Monck, J. B.
Wood, alderman
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, June 1.
NEW ADMINISTRATION.] The Earl of Winchilsea,
understanding that parliament was likely to be prorogued in a few weeks, considered that he should not be acting with courtesy to their lordships, and in particular to the noble marquis, who had expressed a wish to be informed whether it was still his intention to bring forward the important motion of which he had given notice—if he allowed the House to adjourn without giving an explicit answer on the subject. When he gave notice of that motion, he did so with the strong conviction, that his majesty's government, formed as it was, by the coalition of two opposite parties, was such as did not present that uniformity of feeling which entitled it to the confidence of the country. From that consistency and integrity which he had marked out as necessary to the political character of an individual, he certainly conceived it impossible that those individuals could abandon those political opinions which they had for so many years warmly advocated, as the country supposed, from a strong feeling that they were necessary to the welfare of
1084
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, that the noble earl had, with a great deal of candour, declared his intention of abandoning, the motion of which he had given notice, and which was to have been brought forward for the purpose of eliciting from him an answer to particular questions, in reference to recent proceedings. It was not for him to inquire what might be the motives which induced either the noble earl or any other noble lord to bring forward or abandon a motion of this description. He was, however, justified in the hope, that, as there was nothing either irregular or unconstitutional in the course which the noble earl had taken, but, as that course was both regular and constitutional, that at least the noble earl saw good reason for abstaining from a proposition which, if his views were adopted, he thought might convey a vote of censure on the government. The noble earl, however, abandoned the motion, and it would ill become him to enter upon a subject which the noble earl himself did not consider as furnishing ground for a parliamentary proceeding. He well knew that, if the noble earl con-
1085
1086
The Earl of Carlisle
said, that, in accepting the office which he held, he was not conscious of having forfeited any pledge, or abandoned any principle. With this statement he should rest; as he felt it unnecessary to go further after the speech of the noble marquis.
CORN BILL.]
On the order of the day, for going into a committee on this bill,
The Earl of Westmoreland
said, he felt it his duty fairly to take his share of responsibility, however serious it might be, for the principle of this measure. It would not be necessary for him to enter at large into a defence of the bill, as that had been done ably by his noble friend (lord Goderich). It would be extremely improper in him to follow his noble friend in the same line of argument. It would be sufficient for him to say, that he generally
1087
1088
1089
s
Earl Stanhope
moved, that the words "meal" and "flour" be omitted.
Lord Goderich
said, with reference to the amendment, that the law as it now stood between Great Britain and Ireland, prohibiting the importation of flour, was an act of the Irish parliament. That prohibition had not been altered by the acts of 1804, 1806, 1815, or 1822, and the amendment, if adopted, would not be beneficial to any class. By documents, it appeared that the importation had never amounted to any degree of importance, except when the harvests all over
1090
Lord Ellenborough
supported the amendment, as an Englishman looking to the interests of Ireland. There was a large capital sunk in that country in the corn and flour trade, and he would give Ireland a monopoly, up to a certain extent, to protect the capital invested in that trade.
Earl Stanhope
was at a loss to know on what principle they could refuse the benefit to the people of that kingdom, which they derived from the existing laws. Their lordships were well aware that, if flour was in a good state, it would bear the longest voyages.
The Earl of Harrowby
could not think that, for the sake of the millers of Ireland, their lordships ought to exclude all foreign meal and flour from this country. The principle of the Corn-laws had always applied equally to flour as to wheat. But even were it otherwise, would their lordships, particularly under present circumstances, impose a prohibition on the importation of that article which constituted the most considerable of the exports of the United States, and thus deprive them of the principal means by which they were enabled to purchase our manufactures.
The Marquis of Salisbury
supported the amendment. It had always, he said, been the object of the legislature to encourage the Irish miller.
The Earl of Malmesbury
said, he wished to see Ireland a wheat-growing country, and there was no expectation of seeing that, unless it became a consuming country. He could not agree that flour and wheat ought to be placed on the same footing. Flour was a manufactured article, and, as a manufactured article, it ought to be protected beyond a raw article. As to the United States, their conduct towards us had exemplified any thing rather than a feeling of sympathy.
Lord Redesdale
supported the amendment, and argued against the principle of the bill. The system on which it proceeded was, that the farmers were not to receive a
1091
s
Lord Ellenborough
said, that many Irish lords seemed disposed to vote for this bill under a mistaken impression. They thought they derived an advantage under this bill, in having a concession made to them with respect to oats. Now, he entreated them not to separate the interests of that country from those of England; for, whenever they did so, it would turn out to their prejudice. But did this bill afford them an advantage over the bill of 1822? It was true that, under the present bill, when oats continued for three months at from 28
s
s
d
Earl Bathurst
objected to the words "at all times." He contended, that these
1092
s
s
s
The Earl of Harrowby
said, that the chief merit of the bill lay in fixing the prohibitory duty at such a point as would satisfy all parties.
The Earl of Malmesbury
disliked the bill, because it was a clumsy plan of prohibition. He pointed out the hazards with which the native growers were threatened by speculations in foreign grain; and asked, why the government should not, instead of the bill, protect the agriculturists by a plain prohibition? He would move the substitution of 64
s
s
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, it was impossible for him to have stated that it was desirable for this country to be dependent upon others, for any considerable portion of her grain. What he had said was, that it was in the nature of things that a rich country should be so dependent on others, and that this tendency could not be checked, without injuring the wealth
1093
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, that the object of the bill was to lower the prices of grain; and, as high prices argued an increased state of enjoyment, and a better remuneration to all the operative classes, low prices were any thing but desirable.
Viscount Goderich
said, that they were justified, by the experience of a century, in concluding that this country must, from time to time, be dependent upon others for a supply in times of scarcity. He admitted that, in some sense, they must have prohibition; because, for reasons of state, the native grower could never be allowed to have the full benefit of high prices, and therefore he must be protected from the effects of very low prices; the supply of the food of the population having to depend upon the agricultural classes. He had never contended for an entirely free trade, even in other commodities, without paying any duties; but he thought it desirable to modify the duties, according to the reduction of expenses in manufactures, especially as many of those duties had operated as prohibitions, though never intended to be such by the legislature. The House had only to reflect, that many of those duties were mere exigencies, to which the government had been driven by the expensive operations of the war.
Lord Ellenborough
advised ministers to hold several cabinet councils, and agree upon some understanding of certain terms of political economy commonly in use, such as those of prohibition and free trade. He thought that the view held out by the noble marquis, and those who acted with him, was the most mischievous that could be entertained. Were there no other considerations besides wealth, in the practice of government? This country was an agricultural as well as a commercial coun-
1094
maximum
s
s
1095
Lord Ellenborough
then rose to move an amendment to the effect which he had just stated. The words which he wished to have inserted were taken from the bill of 1815. His motion was, that after the words "for home consumption," should be inserted the following words—"whenever the average prices of the several sorts of British corn, made up and published according to law, shall be at or above the prices herein after mentioned."
Viscount Goderich
was desirous to know to what price the noble lord's scheme of prohibition was meant to extend.
Lord Ellenborough
said, that if the House sanctioned the principle of his amendment, the question of price could be settled afterwards.
The Earl of Farnham
proposed an amendment, by which the prices of Irish and Scotch grain should be embodied in the averages. It was difficult, he said, to know how to deal with the measure before the House, from the uncandid manner in which it had been introduced, detached from another bill which was now in progress through the other House, and with which it was closely connected.
Lord Goderich
said, that the introduction of the prices in Ireland and Scotland would alter the rate of duties affixed by other parts of the bill.
Lord Ellenborough
spoke in favour of the amendment.
The Earl of Stanhope
said, that the course pursued by ministers had been neither fair nor candid. The measure which was fraught with such bitter consequences to the agriculturist, appeared to him to be merely the precursor of other measures of a similar tendency. It would have been more frank to have embodied at once all that was meant to be proposed.
The Earl of Rosebery
defended the mode of taking the averages; which was conformable to the system of 1815 and 1822.
The Earl of Lauderdale
observed, that the proposed mode of taking the averages would be a fraud upon the public.
The Bishop of Bath and Wells
was of opinion, that the effect of the bill would be to throw a large portion of poor land out of cultivation, and thus to deprive numbers of the labouring classes of occupa-
1096
The Earl of Malmesbury
said, that, whenever an importation should take place, foreign corn would be sold in our markets. How, then, could this be called "British" corn? It would be better to leave out this word.
Lord Goderich
said, he had no wish to set up his opinion against the sense of the House.
The Earl of Rosslyn
moved, "That the several rates of duties specified in the table to be affixed to grain imported into the United Kingdom should be charged and collected at the time of such grain being entered for home consumption."
Lord Goderich
observed, that the effect of this amendment would be, to annihilate the warehousing system. Now, if corn were not warehoused here, it would be warehoused at the nearest foreign ports. The state of the markets here could, by the rapidity of the present communications, be conveyed to Ostend, Flushing, or Antwerp, in little better than twenty-four hours; and this would lead to a sudden and enormous glut, which would be better guarded against by the preservation of the warehousing system in this country.
The Duke of Wellington
said, he must object to the clause proposed by the noble earl, because he should always feel disinclined to place the warehousing system—a system in which property to a considerable amount was embarked—on any other than a secure foundation. Having attended the committee on the corn trade, and having carefully read over the evidence taken before that committee, it appeared to him absolutely necessary, that something should be done, to prevent the warehousing system from being made a pretext, and converted into a means, of practising those frauds which, it not only appeared from the evidence, were carried on, but which he challenged any noble lord who had attended the committee to say how they could possibly prevent while the present system was continued. He had reason to believe that his noble friend (lord Goderich) would not be indisposed to accede to another measure which he
1097
s
Lord Goderich
said, that his noble friend had very much misunderstood him, if he supposed that he had ever expressed himself in favour of such a clause. The fact was quite the reverse; for he was of opinion, that if the clause of the amendment were adopted, its introduction must, as a necessary consequence, lead to the rejection of the bill altogether [Cries of "no, no," and laughter, from the Opposition benches.] He was somewhat at a loss to know what noble lords intended by these expressions of merriment; but this much he would say, that those noble lords should not laugh him out of his opinions. He felt it his duty to oppose the amendment of the noble duke, because he felt that it was at direct variance with the principles of the bill, and would tend at once to encourage that prohibition which the bill was calculated to remove. It was somewhat singular that his noble friend, who had had ample opportunities, should not have discovered the imperfections of this bill until the present occasion [hear, hear].
The Duke of Wellington
explained. He had never been a party to the framing of the bill, which he never saw until it was printed. He had supported its general principles, with a view to the good of the country, but without pledging himself to support all its clauses.
Lord Goderich
said, he wished to stand fairly with his noble friend. He understood his clause to be this—that no corn in bond, in warehouse, or on shipboard, should be taken out of bond, until the average price of corn amounted to 66
s
The Duke of Wellington
expressed his assent, and added a few words in explanation, which were inaudible below the bar.
Lord Rosslyn
withdrew his amendment. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw; and shortly after, the result of the division to which their lordships had come to was announced by the loud cheers of that side of the House in favour of which it had taken place. Their lordships continued in
1098
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, June 1.
THE BUDGET.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee of Ways and Means, to which the accounts of Surplus Ways and Means and Monies and Out-Cash in the Exchequer were referred,
Mr. Canning
rose, and addressed the committee as follows:—
1099
l
l
1100
l
l
l
l
l
1101
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1102
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1103
l
l
l
l
l
l
1104
l
l
l
l
l
1105
l
l
l
1106
1107
s
l
l
l
l
1108
l
l
l
l
1109
1110
Army
£.
8,194,466
Navy
6,125,850
Ordnance
1,649,972
Miscellaneous
2,275,034
Interest on Exchequer Bills
650,000
———
Total
£.
18,895,322
———
l
l
Surplus Ways and Means
£.
88,044
Military and Naval Pension Money
4,155,000
East India Company
100,000
1111
Duties on Sugar, Personal Estates &c.
3,000,000
Grant out of the Consolidated Fund
11,600,000
£.
18,943,044
Exchequer Bills to answer Vote of Credit
500,000
———
Total
£.
19,443,044
l
1112
1113
1114
Mr. Hume
said, that the right hon. gentleman had taken a very wide and extensive view of the condition of the country; and had very properly concluded it by admitting, that there was a considerable deficiency in the income of the country as compared with its expenditure. The right hon. gentleman had added, that that was a circumstance which did not create in his mind any despondency. In that sentiment he so far agreed with the right hon. gentleman, that he was persuaded we might call out resources, and make efforts, commensurate with any difficulties which we might be required to meet. The great difference of opinion between the right hon. gentleman and himself was on the question whether, after the experience of twelve years' peace, we were to go on for another year cherishing those delusive expectations by which we had hitherto been deceived. Year after year, since the termination of the war, the House had been assured, that the prosperity of the country was increasing; and year after year had that assurance been falsified by the event. Going back to one of the periods to which the right hon. gentleman had adverted, the year 1792, let the House look at the difference between the financial condition of the country at that period, and at the present moment. In 1792, the debt was only 223,000,000
l
l
l
l
1115
1116
l
l
l
l
1117
l
l
l
l
l
l
1118
l
l
1119
Lord Althorp
said, that, although he was afraid that the right hon. gentleman was too sanguine in the expectations which he had that night opened to the House, still he could not agree with the hon. member for Montrose, in thinking that it was the duty of parliament to force the right hon. gentleman to take into immediate consideration the multifarious abstract questions to which he had alluded in his speech. It would not be fair to the right hon. gentleman to force him at present, new as he was in his present office, into an examination of them all in detail. He thought that, even if the House had the power, it would be bad policy to force him into it, so far as the mere question of economy was concerned. If the right hon. gentleman were permitted, during the prorogation, to examine into the financial situation of the country, he would find that, the more he examined, the greater power he had to reduce the public establishments without injury to the public service. If the right hon. gentleman were compelled to begin his examination immediately, he would be too cautious in the reductions he proposed; and the consequence would be, that the country would have less hopes than ever of obtaining any material relief. The right hon. gentleman had stated, that it was the intention of government to appoint a financial committee next year. This was a proceeding of which he entirely approved; because he believed that, in making this proposition, it was not intended to form a committee that would be a mere delusion on the public. To that committee he confessed he looked forward with great hope; for, if he did not expect, and if he should not hereafter find, that it recommended the strictest economy in every branch of the public expenditure, it would be impossible for him to give his support to the administration. Whatever other advantages the country might gain by possessing the present ministers, he thought it right to state, distinctly and positively, that, if great economy were not introduced into all the estimates of the next year, he should feel himself obliged to withdraw his support from the government. If the proposed finance committee were properly and fairly
1120
Sir Henry Parnell
said, that he was not one of those members, the hon. member for Aberdeen alluded to, as having withdrawn their support from his opposition to the sinking fund; for he had voted against all his motions for abolishing it; not that he thought it of any use as a sinking fund to pay off the national debt, but because he was of opinion, that in each year there ought to be a considerable surplus provided for, over and above the actual expenditure. The events of this year proved the policy of having such a surplus; because, in consequence of it, the great falling-off of the revenue had not been attended with any public inconveni
1121
1122
1123
Colonel Davies
said, that, unless ministers were determined to support every reduction that could be effected in the public expenditure, it was impossible that the country could go on, or that its commerce and manufactures could attain the high situation at which they would unquestionably arrive, if the active industry of the people was left unimpeded. He did not feel disposed to adopt the tone of censure towards the right hon. gentleman, which had been used by his hon. friend. In his opinion, the right hon. gentleman had made a very fair and candid statement. They were not to expect from the chancellor of the Exchequer a disadvantageous exposition of the finances of the country. The right hon. gentleman, by taking a straight-forward course, and meeting the difficulties of the country boldly, would do more to strengthen his power, and to secure an honourable popularity, than he could possibly effect by resorting to those miserable expedients which other ministers had been weak enough to adopt.
Lord Milton
said, he could not arraign ministers as the hon. member for Aberdeen had done, because they had not come down with some specific plan of finance; because, if there were any time when it was less possible to do so than another, the present was that time. Although the country was beginning to recover from that state of prostration to which it had been reduced for more than two years, yet it had not regained that tone of calm tranquillity that would enable the government to enter immediately into an extended revision of its resources, and to propose such measures as they might confidently call on parliament to sanction. When he looked back to what had taken place within the last few years, he felt it was greatly to be deplored, that the public expenditure had not only not been greatly decreased, but had been considerably augmented. For this, however, that House was quite as much to blame as the government. As to the right hon.
1124
Sir J. Newport
said, that, from the appointment of a finance committee, it might be confidently expected, that the public expenditure would be diminished, and the revenue be rendered more productive. With respect to Portugal, if there were only one man in the House to support the right hon. gentleman in the course he had taken, he would be that man. It was impossible that we could have taken any other course, consistently with honour and good faith.
Mr. Brougham
confessed that, after the most minute attention he was capable of giving to it, he was perfectly satisfied with the mode in which the chancellor of the Exchequer was about to provide for the exigencies of the year. He could not, therefore, concur entirely in what had fallen from his hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen; and he was the rather unable to concur with him, because he had not been fortunate enough, with all the attention he had paid, to follow his hon. friend, with that certainty as to his hon. friend's conclusions, which he had generally been able to do, when his hon. friend had favoured the House with his luminous
1125
l
l
l
1126
s
l
l
s
Mr. Hume
—Yes; but he receives the difference when he sells again.
Mr. Brougham
—Aye, when he sold out again; that was if he knew as well as his hon. friend when to sell out; and if he knew as well as his hon. friend what he was to get when he did sell out. But the seller, in such case, could not be supposed to be possessed of as much knowledge as his hon. friend [a laugh]. He was perfectly satisfied with the promise of a finance committee in the ensuing year. He looked to the Report of that committee for the greatest and most important information with respect to the debt, the taxes, and the public expenditure. If, as was the case, some good was derived from the finance committee of 1817, as well as from that appointed in Mr. Pitt's time, he hoped he was not too sanguine in expecting much more benefit from that of next session, when he took into account the better light, on matters of trade and finance, which had broken into that House, and diffused itself throughout the country, since the appointment of the former committees. When he recollected the great errors which had been recently swept
1127
1128
1129
1130
FRIVOLOUS ARRESTS BILL.]
Mr. Hume moved the second reading of this Mesne Process bill.
The Solicitor-General
opposed the bill,
1131
Mr. Hume
expressed his surprise that the learned gentleman should oppose his bill, whilst he was introducing another bill on precisely the same principle, but which, being limited to sums under 20
l
The Attorney-General
remarked in terms of some severity, upon the ignorance, both of the Scotch and English law, displayed by the hon. mover. The bill itself had scarcely a single clause which could be called intelligible, and seemed to be the composition of some writer of the signet, rather than of a lawyer possessed of experience adequate to such a difficult task. The difference between simple and specialty debts, and between arrest on mesne process and execution after final judgment, were every where confounded. He was quite ready to admit that he thought the amount of debts for which arrest should be permitted ought to be extended. He even thought that 100
l
ARRESTS UPON MESNE PROCESS BILL.] The Solicitor-General
moved the second reading of this bill.
Mr. Hobhouse
said, he had received notice of a petition which his constituents were about to entrust to him, against the bill. He hoped, therefore, that an opportunity would be afforded to allow their sentiments to be heard. The bill made a most serious alteration upon the subject. If the hon. member would consent to take the discussion upon it in the committee,
1132
The Solicitor-General
consented to adopt that course.
Mr. Hume
observed upon the absurdity displayed by the Solicitor-general in supporting this bill, and objecting to the one just thrown out.
Mr. J. Wood
hoped the Solicitor-general would turn his attention to the evils resulting from that expensive writ, the special original. He had lately heard of a gentleman who was compelled to pay 17
l
l
Mr. Hudson Gurney
said, he was one of those whom the hon. member for Bodmyn, and his Majesty's Attorney-general would find difficult to convince, that a poor man was not as much entitled to a legal remedy against persons withholding a small sum due to him, as a rich man was against the debtor to a larger amount.
COVENTRY MAGISTRACY BELL.] Mr. Secretary Bourne
presented a petition from Coventry, in favour of the bill for giving concurrent jurisdiction to the Magistrates of Warwickshire in regulating the elections for that city.
Mr. Hudson Gurney
said, he was perfectly convinced the introduction of the Warwickshire magistracy was a wrong manner of dealing with the question, and that the only proper step to be taken against the recurrence of the violences which had so frequently occurred in Coventry, would be the restoration of its ancient charter, in the place of that of James the 2nd, and giving votes to those freeholders who were now deprived of their elective franchise, by having been transferred from the county of Warwick to the city of Coventry.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, June 6.
1133
TURNER'S NULLITY OF MARRIAGE BILL.]
A bill "to declare void an alleged marriage between Ellen Turner, an infant, and Edward Gibbon Wakefield" being brought from the Lords,
Mr. Peel
said, he rose to move the first reading of a bill which had come down to that House from the Lords, the object of which was, to afford a very unusual remedy for a wrong of, he was happy to say, very rare occurrence. The object of the bill was, to declare null an alleged marriage between Miss Turner and Edward Gibbon Wakefield. The circumstances of this case were so notorious, that it would be unnecessary to enter into a detail of the arts, the fraud, the forgery, and the villainy, which had been practised; and, in consequence of which, the peace of a most respectable family had been, for a time, disturbed. This, it was well-known to most who heard him, had not been done to gratify any other passion than avarice—to gratify the basest avarice by the basest means. The chief agent in this detestable offence, was then enduring a punishment by no way adequate — entirely disproportioned—to his offence. The sentence which had been pronounced on him was a strong proof of the imperfection of human legislation. Three years imprisonment fell very short indeed of the punishment which ought to follow such a crime. Hundreds of delinquents, much less guilty than Wakefield—without the advantages of education which he possessed—had been convicted of capital felonies, and had forfeited their lives. The object of the measure sent down by the Lords was, to prevent further injury from being sustained by that family which had already so cruelly suffered; and he was persuaded there would not be the slightest hesitation on the part of the House in assisting to make the only reparation which the injured parties could receive, by clearing up all doubts on the subject at issue. In point of fact, the circumstances of the case were such, that nothing but a legislative proceeding could fully relieve them. Miss Turner could not appear in an Ecclesiastical court; because she could not be allowed to give the evidence necessary for the establishment of her suit. On the trial of Wakefield her evidence was admissible; because that trial was a criminal, proceed-
1134
1135
l
GRAND JURY PRESENTMENTS OF IRELAND.] Mr. G. Dawson
rose to call the attention of the House to the subject of Grand Jury Presentments in Ireland. The enormous levies of money by grand juries in Ireland had increased from year to year, until they had arrived to an extent which required the attention of parliament. From returns made to the House, it appeared that, in 1803, there was levied, under the Grand Jury laws in Ireland, no less than 470,106
l
l
l
1136
s
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, June 7.
Secret Service Money.] Lord Ellenborough
said, that, from the account of Secret Service Money laid on the table, it appeared that, during the last four years, 203,000
l
l
l
Viscount Dudley and Ward.
—My noble friend ask me to explain the cause of
1137
1138
The Marquis of Londonderry
asked the noble viscount, whether he had any objection to distinguish between the portion of secret service money expended abroad, and that appropriated to the public service at home?
Viscount Dudley and Ward
said, he was restrained, by a sense of public duty, from answering the question. It, upon his silence, the noble marquis founded any inference unfavourable to the right hon. gentleman at the head of the government, he could only say, that his suspicions were most unjust and unfounded. He would not be the minister to answer, for the first time, a question calculated to cast an imputation upon the government to which he belonged—an imputation which not even the utmost violence of party could justify.
Viscount Strangford
said, he had been so entirely unconnected with politics during the whole course of his public life, that he should be the last man to obtrude any observations upon their lordships, in any matter which had reference exclusively to party considerations. He might, however, be allowed to say, that an experience of nearly five-and-twenty years, passed in the king's service in almost half the courts of Europe, had given him something like a
1139
quid pro quo.
Corn Bill.] Lord Goderich
moved that the House resolve itself into a committee on the Corn Bill.
The Marquis of Londonderry
wished, before the House went into a committee, to ask the noble lord, whether, since the majority which had recently taken place on a clause in this bill, certain noble lords had received intimation, that if they did not alter their votes, and conform to the wishes of ministers, they would not be allowed to remain in his majesty's household? The House and the country ought to understand whether, during the progress of this bill, steps had been taken to intimidate noble lords from discharging what they felt to be their duty to the country, and especially to the agricultural interest.
1140
Lord Goderich
believed the noble marquis had exhibited the first instance ever known, of calling upon a minister of the Crown to state what advice he had given with respect to persons holding offices under the Crown, before such advice had been given and taken. He, for one, would not compromise what was due to the king's prerogative by answering the question. It was competent to the king to appoint whom he pleased to situations in his household, and to remove whom he pleased from those situations; and he did not conceive it to be at all a part of the duty of the government to state, why his majesty had exercised his undoubted prerogative. He thought he could refer the noble marquis to a case in which no such explanation had been given.
Lord Delawar
owed it to their lordships and to himself to state, that, in consequence of the vote he had given on the question of the amendment of the noble duke (of Wellington), he had felt it his duty to follow up that vote, by resigning the situation he held in his majesty's household. But he had taken that course, without receiving any intimation from any person whatever.
The Earl of Malmesbury
referred to a suggestion which he had thrown out on a former night, of admitting foreign corn by instalments. He thought it would be very possible to admit monthly instalments, to be regulated by the price. For example, if the price were 66
s
s
Earl Stanhope
said, that as it was admitted that the object of the bill was prohibitory, the suggestion was perfectly consistent with it. According to the opinion of sir Claude Scott, no importation of corn was necessary for the consumption of this country; which could grow enough for its own necessities. Whatever quantity of foreign corn, therefore, was imported, would put so much British corn out of the market.
1141
Lord Ellenborough
remarked, that there was one mode in which the difficulty might be obviated, but it was a mode which no political economist would approve, though it had been adopted with advantage by several of the smaller states on the continent, and some even of the larger. That mode was, to make the state the sole depository of foreign corn. The necessary regulation would be, that it should be lawful for government to buy always at a certain low price, and sell always at a certain high price, until the market price was reduced below it. This mode would obviate all the difficulties attendant on the admission of foreign corn, and it had the recommendation of having been uniformly successful wherever it had been tried.
Lord Holland
said, that those who were connected with the land would doubtless feel much obliged to the noble baron for his suggestion. For his own part, he could imagine no project more subversive of their independence. If it were adopted, there would be an end of any body deriving his income from the land venturing, under any circumstances, to vote against the government. All their chance of receiving any rent would depend on their conduct towards the government. He could not understand how any noble lord could reconcile it to his notions of the constitution, to throw out a suggestion so directly subversive of the liberties of the people.
Lord Ellenborough
complained, it was exceedingly convenient for any noble lord to take only one half of a speech made by another, and to mistake a suggestion for a proposition. If the power of sale was limited by the average price, and the time of sale also, he believed no danger could accrue to the landed interest. Without trading in corn, surely the noble lord was aware, that government had other means of securing votes in parliament.
The Earl of Westmorland
rose, also, to suggest a proposition. We were now, he said, within two months of the harvest; the season was a promising one, both here and on the continent: wool was in a state of depression, which must naturally lower the price of corn. Now, under such circumstances, if six hundred thousand quarters of wheat in bond were introduced into the market, and all the ports of Europe thrown open at the same time, he was apprehensive that the bill would be injurious, unless the admission of corn at
1142
Lord Goderich
feared that the proviso of his noble friend, if adopted, would be encompassed with technical difficulties. It would postpone the period for admitting corn to he imported on payment of certain duties, and so keep those duties which were granted by the bill out of his majesty's Exchequer during that interval.
The Earl of Malmesbury
wished to know from the noble lord opposite, in what way it was proposed to secure to the agriculturists a remunerating price for their commodities? Taking 60
s
s
s
Lord Goderich
felt, that nothing was so difficult as to demonstrate at what particular sum corn ought to be imported. It was also evident, that nothing could be more difficult than to demonstrate what was or was not a remunerating price. The noble earl wished to know whether 60
s
s
s
1143
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, he looked on the bill as a juggle, and warned noble lords of its dangerous tendency. It contemplated as a principle the necessity of this country depending for its supply of grain upon other countries. From the beginning of time down to this day, there was no instance of a country doing that, for a continuance, with impunity. It was that which brought the Roman empire to decay. They would find in Cicero and Columella the proofs of that gradual decay of native agriculture, which had brought the use of the plough down to the least profitable occupation of the lands of Italy. The abundance of Sicily and Egypt proved the bane, after being the sustenance, of the Romans. Let their lordships look at the fate, very similar, which had overtaken Spain. The progress of this decay, arising from depressed agriculture, was strongly marked by laws passed to prevent importation, and to stimulate native agriculture.
The Earl of Darnley
was of opinion, that the agriculturists ought to have a protection against the corn now in bond. If the amendment carried by a noble duke a few evenings ago went further than this, it went too far. He therefore intended to move, when the report was brought up, by way of amendment to the proposition of the noble duke, "that the corn now in bond should not be brought out for home consumption until the price reached 66
s
The Marquis of Bute
said, that his impression of the speech of a right hon. gentleman on this subject in another place, was, that the bill was intended to afford a fluctuating price of between 55
s
s
s
s
Lord Redesdale
was firmly convinced, that, if this bill passed into a law, it would have the effect of degrading the agriculture of the country to the greatest degree. He denied that the price of provisions affected the manufacturers, whose wages were nearly double those of the agriculturists. A voice had gone forth from another place, saying, that the landed interest must be put down; but he could only characterise it as the language of conspiracy, or revolution. The whole plan of the bill was radically wrong. It was
1144
The Earl of Harrowby
said, that the accusation that this was a measure of revolutionary tendency, was misplaced; and, with respect to the expression which the noble and learned lord had alluded to, he would not believe that it had ever been used, until he was told by that noble lord that he had heard it; and he refused to believe it, because he thought that a general cry of indignation would have followed the expression of such a sentiment. This measure was not one by which it was sought to attempt to disturb the operations of nature, but to endeavour, as far as could be effected by legislature, to procure an equable supply of corn, at as undeviating a price as possible. The old law could never effect this: the prices under it had been proved to be extremely fluctuating, and, during the last six years, the depression of agriculture had been very great. The measure was not the offspring of a prurient desire of reformation, but one that had forced itself upon the government. The noble earl, after commenting at some length upon the existing regulations respecting the corn trade, said, that if they persisted in these regulations, he must warn them how they endangered a recurrence to a paper currency; which he conscientiously believed would be the consequence. He was not one of those who had wished to abandon so hastily the paper currency; but now that it had been done, he could never wish that those steps of difficulty and danger should be retraced.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, June 7.
King's Message Respecting Portugal.] Mr. Canning
presented at the bar of the House the following Message from his Majesty:
"George R.
"His Majesty, deeming it expedient to provide for any additional expenses which may arise, on account of the continuance of his Majesty's forces in Portugal, and
1145
Mr. Canning
moved, that his majesty's message be taken into consideration in the committee of supply to-morrow—Ordered.
Corporation And Test Acts.] Lord John Russell
said:—In rising to present several petitions for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, I deem it my duty to explain to the House, as clearly as I can, my reasons, for the unusual course I am about to pursue on that important question. Ever since I have been a member of this House, my votes have been guided by the principle, that the subjects of these kingdoms ought not to suffer any civil penalty, any civil hardship, any civil inconvenience on account of their religious belief. Directed by this principle, I have voted for removing the disabilities imposed by law on the Roman Catholics from whatever quarter, and in whatever shape the motion appeared. But if I gave the full benefit of this principle to the Roman Catholics, whose religion has been mixed even at this day by some of its more extravagant professors, with the most objectionable, and the most slavish political doctrines, I could not refuse to extend it to the Protestant dissenters, who have ever been attached to the free constitution of this country; if I admitted to all the privileges of that constitution, those who, during the last century, had been the adherents of the house of Stuart, I could not but grant the same admission to the Protestant dissenters, who have ever been the zealous, persevering, constant, and active, friends of the house of Hanover.
1146
1147
1148
Mr. W. Smith
said, it would be ungrateful in any one connected with the Protestant dissenters, not to thank the noble lord for the part he had acted on the present occasion. The dissenters very naturally thought their interests were connected with those of the state. It was true there were differences of opinion amongst the body, as to the question of bringing on their case in the present session; but the majority, in deciding for its postponement to the next, hoped that by that time their situation would be better known, that the prejudices against them would be removed, and that they would stand better with parliament. It was a gross fallacy to suppose, that the grievances of the Protestant dissenters were only theoretical; was it not a practical grievance, that a dissenter could not be a member of Oxford university without declaring his assent to the thirty-nine articles? —that he could not take his seat as a magistrate, without the sacramental test, if any person chose to insist on it? He trusted, that the justice of parliament would soon put an end to these disabilities.
Mr. J. Wood
was favourable to the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, and contended that their existence were practical grievances to the dissenters. It was a practical grievance, that many of that class, who were men of immense wealth, should be shut out from all influence in the corporation of Liverpool.
1149
Bank Of England—Circular Respecting Country Banks.] Sir J. Wrottesley
rose, in pursuance of notice, to move for the production of the letter alleged to proceed from the Bank of England, and tending to cast doubts on the solidity of the country bankers. Perhaps the House would think he ought to be satisfied with the unequivocal denial of one of the directors of the Bank, that the letter in question had originated with their body. Certainly he would have abandoned his motion, had it not appeared to him, that the letter was intimately connected with other circumstances, which induced him to believe, that, although that letter was not the result of any consultations of the Bank directors, it was still written and circulated, with their knowledge, by one of their number; who, having been employed to inspect the branch banks in the country, had shown it to several persons in his travels, and that it had thus found its way to the public. Under the present circumstances of the country, he hoped the House would examine into the motives which had produced that letter; for he could not conceive that, at a time when there was every hope of a progressive amelioration in the prospects of the industrious classes a more mischievous event could have happened, than the publication of a letter, which tended to cast discredit upon a class of persons, on whom the manufacturing operatives must depend for the advance of those wages which the promising condition of trade would soon enable them to earn. Another reason for bringing forward the motion was, that the extraordinary conduct of the Bank of England was not confined to the production of this solitary letter. There appeared in their proceedings a rooted determination to keep up a circulation of their notes equal to that which prevailed during the war. It had been difficult; nay, almost impossible, for them to accomplish that object; but, because they could not keep up their circulation to its former extent, and no longer realize the large profits which they formerly enjoyed, it was not justifiable in them to attempt to bring into disrepute other establishments similar to their own, and to build their own credit upon the ruin of that of their competitors. In the course of last session, he had endeavoured to bring the condition of the
1150
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1151
l
l
1152
1153
1154
Mr. Pearse
said, that the author of the letter was a director of the Bank. He was certain that individual would be extremely sorry, if any mischief had resulted from the publication of it. A more honest or well-intentioned person did not exist. With respect to the plan itself, when its author had asked him his opinion of it, he had told him he thought it a very foolish one. The manner in which the letter got into circulation was this.— The person who drew it up caused about a dozen copies of it to be made, for the purpose of giving to his particular friends; and one of those copies found its way into a public journal. He could assure the House that the plan had met with no encouragement from the directors; to whom, indeed, it had never been submitted in any shape whatever,
1155
Mr. Canning
said, that after the explanation which had been given by the hon. Bank director, he felt it unnecessary to do more than to state, that the plan of which the hon. baronet complained had not proceeded from any suggestion of government.
Penryn Election Bill.]
On the order of the day, for the third reading of this bill,
Mr. Charles Barclay
said, that his hon. relation, one of the members for Penryn had successfully shown that that borough was not only not so corrupt as other places that had been disfranchised, but that since the complaints respecting it in 1807 and 1819, the conduct of the electors had much improved. It was shown that Penryn was not so corrupt as other places; and that only a small portion of the electors could be suspected of corrupt practices. The corruptions alleged were such as were hardly provable in a court of justice. As to the evidence of Stanbury, Cearne, and others, it would be to waste the time of the House to comment on it. The evidence of Mr. Ady, the agent of lord Percival, was also not entitled to much weight, when it was considered how such individual was circumstanced, willing to make the best of his own case. Much stress had been laid on the electors' answers "to see their wives," or to "call again:" but that was the common answer. He had represented Southwark, a place, the independence of which would not be
1156
Mr. Manning
seconded the amendment, and observed, that no case had been made out to justify the House in passing the bill.
Mr. C. Calvert.
—I cordially agree in all that the hon. member has said about the independence of the borough of Southwark. I have stood five contested elections for that borough, and to gain my return I never spent one farthing. I wish all other members could say the same thing. To be sure, I was always at the head of the poll. When I called to solicit votes, I was not told, to "call again to-morrow;" their reply was, "All's right—strong beer for ever." The "call again" at Penryn, I rather suspect, was a different sort of thing; and I am so persuaded of the gross corruption existing in that borough that the noble lord shall have my vote for its disfranchisement.
Mr. Ferguson
said, that if the hon. member had misunderstood the vote of the other night, he must have imagined the proposition before the House to be a very foolish one; namely, who should have the spoils of Penryn, before they had decided whether it was to be disfranchised. The existence of gross corruption at Penryn had been proved; and he was not to be told that its former delinquencies formed no part of the case against it. The evidence was
1157
Mr. C. N. Pallmer
was an enemy to corruption, but he would not get at it through injustice. A case of corruption proved against fifteen or sixteen individuals was not sufficient to warrant the disfranchising of a whole borough.
Lord Milton
contended, that the borough of Penryn should be dealt with as a community; and that, looking to its history up to the present time, there was a sufficient case made out to justify its disfranchisement.
Sir E. Carrington
forcibly re-stated his objections to the bill, contending on grounds of justice and general policy, that no adequate case for so strong a measure had been made out.
Mr. Secretary Bourne
said, he had felt it his duty to oppose the second reading of this bill, although he was friendly to its principle. He had opposed it, because he wished to transfer the elective franchise to the neighbouring hundreds. The House, however, had decided against him; and it was not his intention to dispute that decision. He could not forget the report of the committee of 1819, when this borough was under its consideration; and he should therefore vote for the third reading.
Lord Palmerston
thought that no person who had read the evidence, and heard the witnesses at the bar, could hesitate as to the necessity of parliamentary interference. Although he should have liked the bill better in its former state, yet, as the House seemed to prefer it in its present, he should cordially support the third reading.
Mr. Goulburn
was decidedly of opinion that, although the guilt was not so general in the borough as it had been represented to be, yet, that it was sufficiently so to call upon him to mark his sense of the existing corruption. He would therefore vote for the bill.
1158
Lord Binning
could not help considering this question judicially, and he was therefore inclined to come to the decision, that the great majority of voters at Penryn, not having been found guilty of any crime, should not be visited with a punishment due only to a guilty few.
Lord J. Russell,
in answer to the arguments which had been urged, said, that where corruption was extensive, the guiltless voters were those alone who derived no benefit from the franchise. When the greater portion were thus degraded, they became idle and profligate. By accounts which he had received from Grampound, he was assured, that the town had taken a start, and was increasing in prosperity, since the means of corruption were taken away.
Sir Charles Forbes
rose, to oppose the bill. What, he asked, was the crime for which Penryn was to be punished? Was it anything else than the crime of being discovered? This was its offence. In the city of Canton a man's handkerchief might be taken from his person; and if dexterously abstracted, the lookers on only smiled so long as it was undetected. But if discovery ensued, then down came the spectators on the unfortunate delinquent. Just so was it with Penryn. The moment that its acts became known, down came the majority of that House—to do what? To punish a crime which confessedly was practised by wholesale among themselves. Let those who wished to dispute this assertion, lay their hands on their hearts, and reply, whether or not that which he said was the truth. Whenever questions of this description came before the House, he invariably voted against them. He opposed them, because he could never bring himself to punish partial, petty cases of alleged corruption, and leave the more enormous ones untouched. If the House were prepared to enter upon a thorough reform of parliament, a measure which would equally affect all parties—and if they were further prepared to say to what extent they would carry that reform, and what they exactly meant by it—then they were doing a fair, intelligible thing. But he could conceive no greater example of injustice, than for the House to come down with all its tremendous power to overwhelm an individual borough, for an offence which all knew to be extensively prevalent in the country. What! was it fair, was it honest, to con
1159
l
l
Mr. David Barclay
approved of the argument of the hon. baronet, which resembled that of the hon. member for Westminster on the Grampound case, when he expressed his detestation of hypocritical cant. He declared that the electors of Penryn were not the corrupt body they were represented to be.
Mr. Van Homrigh
contended, that the evidence in this case went no further than to show that it was Stanbury who practised the corruption; and as he was not a candidate, he had committed no offence against the law by spending his
1160
Sir C. Forbes
hoped he might be permitted to inquire, what new light had suddenly broke in upon ministers, that they all at once abandoned a position which they maintained on a former night? Were they, in truth, afraid of being again discomfited? Were they alarmed at the prospect of being a second time left in a minority? Had they really altered their opinions? If so, let them openly acknowledge the change. Let them act in future consistently with the vote of that night. Let them follow up this partial act of correction by broader measures. Let them at once declare themselves the partizans of reform [hear].
List of the Minority.
Astell, W.
Keck, G. A. L.
Arkwright, R.
Martin, sir T. B.
Barclay, C.
Maxwell, H.
Batley, H.
Penruddock, J. H.
Belfast, earl of
Perceval, S.
Binning, lord
Petit, L. H.
Borradaile, R.
Rae, sir W.
Carrington, sir E.
Saunderson, A.
Chaplain, T.
Seymour, H.
Clerk, sir G.
Sibthorpe, col.
Clinton, F.
Townshend, hon. J.
Drake, T. T.
Van Homrigh, P.
Forbes, sir C.
Vivian, sir R.
Forbes, J.
Wyndham, W.
Grant, sir A.
TELLERS.
Hastings, sir C.
Barclay, D.
Irving, J.
Manning, W.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, June 8.
KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING PORTUGAL.]
The order of the day being read, for taking His Majesty's Speech into consideration,
Viscount Dudley and Ward
said:—Although I cannot anticipate any difference of opinion with respect to the subject on which I have the honour to address your lordships, I deem it more con-
1161
1162
1163
1164
casus fœderis
Earl Grey
—It is not my intention to offer any opposition to the present motion; but I feel it necessary to state shortly, the terms upon which I assent to it, and to make some reservation as to the opinions which I may consider it my duty to declare, at a period better suited to discussion. In the sentiments expressed by the noble viscount at the conclusion of his speech, I have to declare my unqualified concurrence. I certainly think it would not be right to press ministers for the production of any papers, under the circumstances which he has stated. It is quite sufficient to satisfy the House of the impropriety of any such production, to state that there are negotiations pending, of the amicable termination of which a strong hope is entertained, and which might be interrupted or defeated by producing documents of a hostile character. I am, therefore, not one of those who would press the noble lord for any documents of this description; but I may regret, that after so long a period has elapsed since the adoption of the measure of sending troops to Portugal, no greater progress has been made in the work of pacification, and that ministers are not prepared to state, that this great and salutary object has not been accomplished. If I before felt some degree of disappointment, that
1165
l
l
1166
casus fœderis
1167
1168
nem. dis.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, June 8.
CAPE OF GOOD HOPE—PETITION FOR A REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT.] Mr. Baring
rose to present a Petition, signed by the majority of the most respectable residents of the Cape of Good Hope, complaining of the maladministration of the affairs of that colony, for some years past. When the House considered that this colony was gradually growing into
1169
1170
Mr. W. Horton
was far from thinking that the prayer of the petitioners was undeserving of attention; but he must, in the outset, protest against what seemed to be assumed by the hon. gentleman, that up to the present moment, nothing had been done to ameliorate the condition of the inhabitants at the Cape, and that now, and now only, some steps for that purpose were commenced. This mode of dealing with the question was, he considered, extremely unjust to the late administration of the colonial department. The colony of the Cape was, it should be recollected, ours by conquest, and from the commencement was governed by laws, wholly different from ours; but it had been the endeavour of the colonial department gradually to assimilate them to ours. In 1822, he himself moved in that House for the appointment of a commission (which was now mentioned as if it was heard of only for the first time) to make inquiries into several departments of government at the Cape. That commission was, for a considerable time, in active employment, and much of the result of its labours were already before the House. Was it not, then, most unfair to state, that now for the first time steps were taken by the colonial department to improve the condition of the colony? It had been said by the hon. member, that a kind of legislative assembly or representative government should be given to the inhabitants of the Cape. Were not hon. members aware, that the Mauritius, Ceylon, New South Wales, Van Dieman's Land, and other British colonies, were without representative governments, though it was well known that some of them were inhabited almost exclusively by Englishmen, or their descendants? But, even to this point the attention of the colonial government had been given. He would
1171
1172
Mr. Maberly,
in reference to what had fallen from his hon. friend (Mr. Baring) respecting the alleged maladministration of the colony for fifteen years, observed, that such a sweeping charge would unjustly include the government of the colony during the administration of sir R. Donkin. It should be borne in mind, that at the time sir R. Donkin left the Cape, he received the most marked testimonials of the approbation of the colonists. He had also the entire approval of his majesty's government at home. There was no ground, therefore, for including his government in the administration spoken of. He had found the finances of the colony in a very embarrassed situation; but he had so improved them, that at his departure he left 125,000 rix dollars in the treasury. With respect to the pamphlet, he did not advise, or approve of, its publication; for he agreed that it was a very inconvenient mode of discussing the merits of a public question: but he must say, that sir R. Donkin was at all times ready to state his disclosures, provided an opportunity were given to him. This was fair; and all that could be expected from the gallant officer.
Mr. Hume
said, there were great difficulties in the way of sir R. Donkin's bringing forward a public accusation, which, if he were anxious to undertake the task, he would be unable to surmount, without the aid of the colonial department. The heads of that department owed it to the colonists to institute an inquiry, where their interests were concerned, and when important charges were offered to be proved. As it was acknowledged, that the colonial department had long been aware of the disclosures which sir R. Donkin could have made, it reflected strongly on them, that they had not instituted some inquiry on the subject.
1173
Mr. Canning
asked whether any department could pursue a course more fair than that which had been taken by lord Bathurst on this occasion? A gallant officer came forward and stated, that he was in possession of information which would be the ruin of the head of one of the colonial governments. What could lord Bathurst imagine from that, but that the individual making the offer was prepared to bring forward his charge? So far from thinking that the noble lord had not gone far enough in giving him the opportunity, he was of opinion that he had gone rather too far. If it were his own case, he would say, that it was not unfair to call on the individual making the offer (approver or informer he would not call him) to bring forward his statement. He would have gone further and asked him to give his information in writing. It would never, for a moment, have entered into his head to have received his disclosures at a private interview, and to leave the question, as to the nature of the information given, to depend afterwards on the veracity of him or his informant. He would never have admitted him to such interview, unless a third party was present, to take down all that was communicated. Instead, therefore, of believing that any ground of complaint existed, on the score of the information having been rejected, he thought a question might arise, that it was too easily admitted. But did the noble lord, then at the head of the colonial department, stop there? On the contrary; he made inquiry at the Cape into the matters which, from other sources, were known to constitute the offered disclosures, and the result of that inquiry would, in a short time, be laid before the House. Now, whether the conduct of sir R. Donkin was too rash at first, he would not say, as that was not the proper time or place for entering into the affair; but he must observe, that as the head of a department, the conduct of the late colonial secretary was throughout unexceptionable.
Mr. Hudson Gurney
said, that he thought it must be sufficiently difficult, even for the government itself, to appreciate the truth of these conflicting allegations. Those in the employ of government would hardly venture to give very perfect information; whilst it was notorious that, amongst the Dutch inhabitants, there was that terror of the local authorities, that however loud their complaints to indi-
1174
Mr. Baring
said, that let the colonial department ask any of the inhabitants, not actually in office there, and they would find them unanimous in their opinion of the maladministration by which the colony was so long afflicted. As to the commission which had been sent out, he believed it was agreed on all hands, that its chief results were increased charges and salaries, without any practical benefit to the colony. Was it not well known that there was no such thing in the colony as the liberty of the press—that the judges were removable at the will of the governor? And he would ask the veriest Tory in that, or, what was worse, in the other House of Parliament, was that a state of things under which Englishmen ought to be allowed to continue? It was said, that other English colonies had no representative government. So much the greater disgrace to the government at home, if they were in a condition to receive it. If the right hon. gentleman refused to give a representative government until the colonies were ripe to receive it, he would tell him that they would never be ripe until they got it. If he treated them like children, and never set them on their legs, they would never be able to walk like men. If the right hon. gentleman withheld constitutions from the colonies, until they were fit to receive them, he would tell him that, if he lived ten centuries, he would never see them in a proper state to receive them. He meant to cast no aspersions on the government of sir R. Donkin. He knew nothing of it. As to that of lord Caledon, he believed the noble lord did as much as any man could do to make despotism
1175
KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING PORTUGAL.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee of Supply,
Mr. Canning
rose. He said, that on a former evening, when he had brought forward his statement of the financial condition of the country, he had informed the committee that he should have to ask it for an additional vote of credit of 500,000
l
1176
l
Mr. Bankes
said, that, as he had had the misfortune, when the question was formerly before the House, to differ from a large majority of the members, and as nothing had happened since to alter his opinion, he should trouble the committee with a very few words. No further communications had since been made by government to the House, and therefore, individuals like himself knew no more upon these affairs, than what was supplied by the common sources of public information. But from all that had been related, it did appear to him, that the
casus fœderis
1177
l
l
Colonel Davies
was astonished at many of the statements and arguments of the hon. member. He was surprised that he could maintain the present not to be a
casus fœderis
1178
Colonel Lindsay
said, that the declaration which Mr. Canning had made, that, if the Portuguese constitution were attacked, he could let loose all the passions of Europe in support of it, had caused it to be viewed with great jealousy by foreign powers. He condemned the sending of our troops to Portugal; which had placed the peace of the country in a very precarious situation. All the despotic governments of Europe looked upon us with fear and distrust, in consequence of that measure. He wished the right hon. gentleman would inform him whether our troops were kept in Portugal to repel foreign invasion or to support the present constitution. That constitution was unpopular among all classes of Portuguese, and ought not to be thrust down their throats by British bayonets.
Sir James Mackintosh
said, he did not altogether feel himself called upon to address the House, after so long a silence, by what had fallen from the gentleman opposite. He was, however, desirous of taking an opportunity, which he regretted he had not had on a former occasion, of declaring his opinion to the House, or to such at least as thought his opinions worthy of attention. He considered the prompt and vigorous succour given to our old ally Portugal, at the moment of
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
cito peritura
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
Mr. Hume
expressed a doubt, whether the treaties which had been referred to were binding on this country; and he was sorry that the learned gentleman who had just spoken had left the House. He trusted, however, that the learned gentleman would hereafter state his opinion on that subject. It appeared that a tripartite treaty had been entered into between Holland, Portugal, and England. It was there stipulated on the part of Holland and England that in case the Portuguese territory was invaded, by France or Spain, then, and then only
1191
Mr. H. Twiss
said, that the hon. member having put a question to a learned friend of his not now in his place, he was anxious to answer for him. The question put by the hon. member was, whether, in the event of a treaty between two powers to protect a third, their ally, from an invading party, and one of those contracting parties withdrawing from that engagement, the other was not absolved from any obligation to fulfil it? If such were the case, any one party had only to withdraw, in order to absolve the other, and then leave the invaded country open to its opponents. He was anxious to prevent such an opinion from going forth to the prejudice of our national faith.
COVENTRY MAGISTRACY BILL].
The House went into a Committee on this bill. The counsel, Mr. Harrison and Mr. Taunton, were heard against the bill. After they had withdrawn,
1192
Mr. R. Heathcote
opposed the bill, as nothing less than the partial disfranchisement of an ancient and loyal city. The measure was the result of an erroneous impression, unfounded in fact and in direct opposition to the principles of justice. If some of the electors of Coventry had violated the laws, they were amenable to the ordinary tribunals of the country, and might be punished; but it was most unjust to inflict a punishment, such as this bill would inflict, on the whole community of Coventry, and to confound the innocent with the guilty.
Mr. Hudson Gurney
said, the two questions for the House were—first, whether such a case had been nude out, as justified legislative interference; and secondly, whether the provisions of the present bill were such as went to remedy the evils complained of. Now, he must fairly own, that he thought the degree of rioting which took place at the last election, regarded as an isolated case, presented rather a weak one; whilst the provisions proposed by the present bill had not the slightest tendency towards making better arrangement for the future. They had heard much from the honourable members for Coventry, and from the learned Counsel at the bar, against the projected violation of the ancient chartered rights of that city. They had quoted the charters of Edward 3rd, and Richard 2nd, as if now in operation; but the fact was, that the last charter of James 1st had deprived the citizens of Coventry of their ancient franchises, under the pretext of increasing their privileges—had changed the qualification of the electors, and rendered the corporation a close body—and the measure which he should rather suggest would be, not to infringe on the ancient charters but to restore them—According to Browne Willis, the electors of Coventry, under the charters of Edward the 3rd and Richard the 2nd, were citizens paying scot and lot. Henry 6th, in 1451, granteda new charter; taking in a large district previously in the county of Warwick, and including it in the jurisdiction of the city and county of Coventry, giving the writ to the sheriffs of Coventry, instead of to the sheriff of Warwick, "the Mayor and Bailiffs of the said city to be for ever elected, in the same manner and form, as they had used to be in the reign of king Edward 3rd." By the charter of James 1st
1193
Mr. Fyler
admired the impartiality of hon. members, who could shut their eyes to cases of corruption "as clear as the sun at noon-day," and direct their vengeance against Coventry. He was not behind any man, in or out of the House, in his hatred of corruption; but he would never, in a moment of intemperate innovation, lacerate the sound and healthy parts of the system. He contended, that the principle of the bill was unwise, unconstitutional, and unjust. If the House
1194
quid pro quo
Mr. C. Wood,
as one of the committee, defended the report, and read extracts from the evidence, to prove the disgraceful scenes of rioting which had taken place, with the countenance of the magistrates. He was convinced that the magistracy of Coventry were not fit to be intrusted with
1195
Lord Rancliffe
thought the hill an invasion of the rights of corporations, and expressed his determination to oppose it.
Sir C. Wetherell
observed, that, until the Nottingham case occurred, there was no instance of the interference of the House, in the way in which it was now proposed that it should interfere. In the Nottingham case, Mr. Fox opposed that measure, in a speech of great eloquence, and contended, that that House ought not to interfere where a remedy was provided, by the ordinary process of law in the tribunals of the country. There was no analogy between the Nottingham case and the present. Whoever was of that opinion would find himself greatly mistaken. In short, it would be absurd to adopt the Nottingham case, as a ground of proceeding in the present. His opposition to the bill was an independent and conscientious one. He opposed it, uninfluenced by a knowledge of either the winning or losing candidate, or any local circumstance whatever. The House ought rather to exercise a conservative power, for the preservation of charters, than lend itself to the uncalled-for confiscation of them.
Mr. S. Rice
contended that the bill would, by no means, have the effect of disfranchisement. The case made out against Coventry was much stronger than that of Nottingham; and even if such a measure was not adopted in the case of Nottingham, it ought to be adopted in the present. For the last fifty years, there had not been an election at Coventry at which riots had not taken place.
Mr. Goulburn
argued against the principle of the bill, which, he contended, was destructive of chartered rights.
Sir J. Wrottesley
warmly defended the bill.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, June 11.
SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS—GRAND JUNCTION COMPANY.] Lord Wharncliffe
presented a petition from the Grand Junction Water Works Company, praying for inquiry. His lordship stated, that he had formerly presented
1196
1197
Earl Grosvenor
supported the motion, as equally necessary for the reputation of the Grand Junction Company as the good of the inhabitants. The company, he understood, had found it impracticable to purify the canal water, which had induced them to have recourse to the Thames. By employing several reservoirs, which they were then constructing, they expected to purify the Thames water, so as to make it fit for all domestic purposes.
The Earl of Lauderdale
completely concurred with the noble mover in all his observations. He had no doubt that a commission would, in the first instance, be the best method of inquiring; but he would not say, when the Report of the commission was laid before them, that their lordships ought not then to institute an inquiry. When the Water Companies had come to parliament to ask for their exclusive privileges, they had all asked them on the ground of competition being beneficial to the inhabitants; but they had scarcely got their charters, when they entered into an agreement to divide the metropolis into districts, and allotted one to each company. This proceeding his lordship characterised as a gross fraud on parliament, and the public. Since this arrangement had been made, the charge for the supply of water had been increased fourfold, and the supply had become a great deal worse.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, June 11.
SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS—GRAND JUNCTION COMPANY.] Mr. Whitmore
presented a Petition from the Grand Junction Waterworks Company, setting forth, "That the Petitioners were incorporated by an Act of the 51st of
1198
1199
l
Sir F. Burdett
said, he was glad that the petitioners had no objection to the inquiry which he meant to propose.
1200
EAST RETFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT.] Mr. Western
in rising to move the order of the day for the consideration of the Special Report from the East Retford Election Committee (of which he had been chairman) lamented, that his state of health was such as to prevent him from bringing forward this subject; a duty which he would otherwise have been bound to discharge. It was, however, a satisfaction to him, that it would fall into the hands of his hon. friend, the member for Blechingley, who, haying undertaken it in compliance with his wish and that of the committee, would, he was confident, do ample justice to the case. He would not anticipate any thing that his hon. friend might have to say, but content himself by stating, that the Special Report was voted unanimously by the committee, and in his judgment deserved and required the immediate and serious attention of parliament.
Mr. Tennyson
said, that he should no do justice to himself if he did not, in the first instance, express his unfeigned and unqualified regret, that a subject of so much importance would not have the full benefit of the talents and experience of his hon. friend, the member for the county of Essex, on whom, as chairman of the East Retford Election Committee, it would naturally have devolved. He regretted it still more, on account of the cause assigned by his hon. friend; namely, the condition of his personal health, which must always deeply interest those who had enjoyed any opportunity of appreciating his public or private worth. Circumstances, rather than any imagined qualifications of his own for the task, had cast it upon him. He should have declined it, under the apprehension that he could not do it justice, if he had not been assured of the kind assistance of his hon. friend, and of the support of the committee. For the aid and co-operation he had received from them he was grateful; but still he must entreat the indulgence of the House for the imperfect manner in which he should lay before it those grounds, which induced the committee to arrive at an unanimous con-
1201
1202
1203
gravamen
losing your election
Samuel Buxton,
p. 69, apparently between sixty and seventy years of age, said, "He had voted at four preceding elections, but not at the last." On being asked, whether he got any thing at those former elections, he said, "he did." On being asked, whether it was "all right" at those elections (which was an expression shewn by the evidence to apply to the due payment of the election money), he
1204
l
l
l
Thomas Giles,
a shoe-maker, pp. 74, 78, stated, "That the inducement held out to him, and, in his presence, to George Palfreyman, another voter, by Thornton, the agent for Mr. Wrightson, was, that if they would vote for him (Mr. W.), they would be sure of their money; but as to sir Henry Wilson, he was a mean man, and if they voted for him, they would get nothing." On being asked the sum he was to have, he replied, "In fore times they used to have forty guineas."
George Palfreyman,
shoemaker, p. 85, confirmed the last witness; for he deposed that "Thornton said to him, he (P) was on the wrong side; that sir H. Wilson was a very mean man; that he would never get any thing for his vote; that he was sorry he should be led away, this being his first election; that if he promised Mr. Wrightson, he would be sure of his money, and that he (Thornton) would ensure it." When asked, why he desired Thornton to book him? he replied, "Because he thought there would be the money for his vote."
Samuel Hindley,
another shoemaker, p. 95, stated, that "He received forty guineas after the election of 1818; that Thornton in his presence canvassed the witness's journeymen in these terms: 'He asked them for their votes, and said he would assure them of their forty guineas; but that sir Henry Wilson was a shabby old man, and would give them nothing.'" The witness said, "That Thornton repeated this many times."
William Baker,
another shoemaker, p. 104, said, "He had been eighteen years a freeman; had never voted, but had been applied to for his vote, at three prior elections; that it was 'all right' at those
1205
l
l
Mr. Foljambe,
a banker at Retford, who was evidently reluctant to speak of this practice, p. 120, said, "He had witnessed four elections, including the last, admitted, that it was reported to be the notorious practice of the place, that the burgesses who voted for the successful candidate, received a sum of money for their votes after the election. That 20
l
Mr. Fox,
clerk to Mr. Foljambe, who was also a witness obviously very unwilling to depose on this matter, said, "He had witnessed four elections at Retford." At first he said, with reference to the practice in question, "He had very little doubt such things had been done; he thought there was no doubt." Then he is asked, whether he had ever heard of any election where it was omitted? he replied, "Yes." Q. "When was it?"—"About fifteen or sixteen years ago, I heard there was a member came who never paid any thing." Q. "What member was that?"—" Mr. Marsh." He mentions, "Forty guineas as the sum said to be usually paid at Retford upon elections."
Mr. Foljambe,
being recalled, said, "He recollected Mr. Marsh being a candidate for Retford. He had heard that he had not paid his election money; that Mr. Marsh had not offered himself again for Retford." And on the witness being asked, "Whether Mr. Marsh would have had any chance if he had so offered himself?" he replied, with a smile, "I think not."
William Jackson,
a smith, p. 133, said, "He had voted at three elections, including the last, and that at the two former elections he had received forty guineas, which was the understood price
1206
l
l
l
l
Mr. Thomas Bigsby,
a respectable solicitor at Retford, and partner with the town clerk, spoke of the practice at first with some reluctance, like Foljambe and Fox. He spoke of it accordingly, by reference to general rumour, but said, "He had no doubt of it. Now and then a candidate escaped. Mr. Osbaldeston in part" (which the hon. gentleman said he would afterwards explain), "and Mr. Marsh altogether. The reputation was, and he presumed, that at quiet elections the voters received bribes of that kind, and he had heard of no distinction between quiet elections and others in that respect. That he should think very nearly all the electors availed themselves of the custom, and that forty guineas was the sum he had heard of, as that received by the voters."
1207
Francis White,
p. 181, and some other witnesses, spoke to the same effect, but the hon. member thought it would be an unnecessary waste of the time of the House, to make any further quotations from the minutes. In his conception, there was amply sufficient to justify the House in any proceeding it might think fit to take. Upon the evidence he had stated, there could not remain the shadow of a doubt, that the practice referred to in the special Report had long existed at Retford, and that the great majority of the burgesses were corrupted by it. After much diligent inquiry he had only discovered five burgesses who had not accepted this remuneration for their votes; and they were persons who had moved in a higher sphere than the rest. Although the payment of head-money was not strictly and distinctly bribery, yet it had the same result. If not bribery, in some respects it was much worse; for it operated more steadily and uniformly—with a corrupt and demoralizing general influence upon the whole body of the electors, and not merely upon specific and selected individuals. It operated silently and without any effort, or overt-act, on the part of the candidate; the necessity for which, and the danger thence arising, in ordinary bribery, must obviously limit its extent. The practice clearly offered to the elector an inducement to vote for the strongest party, without regard to the qualifications of the candidate; and it had been so employed in the present instance. A body thus corruptly dealing with their franchises could not be a proper or safe depository for the constitutional trust reposed in them. Their limited number and inferior condition in life left them still more open to the mischiefs of which he complained. In all there were about two hundred voters, of whom about one half only were inhabitants of Retford; the remainder residing in London and other parts of the kingdom. The resident voters were of the very lowest class in society. There was not amongst them even a single tradesman of the higher order. They were chiefly inferior shoemakers and shoe-menders, and other minor artizans. The body did not comprise an individual who could, with any sort of propriety, be named as proper to exercise the local magistracy. If ever there was a case for admitting the county magistracy
1208
1209
1210
1211
uno flatu
1212
1213
Mr. Ferguson
thought it was impossible for the House to refuse to go into the inquiry; but with respect to transferring the franchise, his mind was not made up on that point. He had certainly a moral conviction of the guilt of the borough, but he had not that judicial knowledge which would enable him to vote for transferring the franchise to another place.
Alderman Waithman
thought the evidence quite sufficient to warrant the disfranchisement of East Retford. The country was greatly indebted to the hon. member for his motion.
Mr. Wynn
thought, not only that a case was made out for inquiry, but that the evidence was sufficient to carry a sentence of disfranchisement, if the electors of East Retford did not clearly disprove it.
Mr. D. Barclay,
said, he had opposed the disfranchisement of Penryn, because he thought the proof of corruption had failed, and he would support the present bill, because he thought the evidence was sufficient, if uncontradicted, to justify that measure.
Sir J. Mackintosh
concurred, that the evidence given before the committee formed sufficient ground for the introduction of a bill of disfranchisement, unless that evidence should be rebutted.
Lord John Russell
agreed that the evidence would be sufficient to pass the bill,
1214
Mr. Goulburn
said, he would not oppose the bringing in of the bill, but would reserve his opinion as to whether the borough should be disfranchised, until he should have heard evidence at the bar. He would also refrain from giving any opinion as to the place to which the franchise ought to be transferred.
Sir C. Wetherell
would not oppose the bringing in of the bill, but was decidedly of opinion, that the House ought not to rest upon the evidence given in the election committee, but that it was incumbent on those who brought it in to prove their case at the bar of the House. Those who originated the measure of disfranchisement ought, in the first place, to make out a case at the bar, and then give leave to the corporation to answer it.
Mr. Ferguson
said, that before the bill passed, evidence ought certainly to be given at the bar, in the only way in which the House could receive evidence. But he thought the jurisdiction of the House very lame, while it remained without the power of taking evidence on oath.
Mr. W. Smith
complained of that perversion of constitutional doctrine which required the same nicety in establishing the line of evidence, in the case of electioneering corruption and in the case of a criminal accused for a breach of the laws. What comparison could there be between the crime and punishment of an individual offender against the law, and the disfranchisement of a borough on account of corruption and bribery? The offence and punishment of a private man concerned himself; but a public body held its privileges as a trust to be used beneficially for the public; and, in taking them away for abusing them, no injury was done to any one. These electors were entitled to very little sympathy; for, if the respectable part of them found that the election was carried by corrupt practices, they should have petitioned parliament themselves to correct such practices; instead of which,
1215
Mr. Charles Ross
said, that if it was an affair of the gravest importance to bestow the right of voting upon a place which had it not before, it could not be of less importance to take it away from one which now possessed it. Even if the case of corruption should be proved, he did not see why the House should depart, in punishing it, from that practice which had always prevailed, except in one case.
Mr. O'Neil
objected to this too rapid progress of reform. He thought that these forced marches would prove counter marches. He would oppose the bill in all its stages, as he had done that of Penryin; and for the same reasons he had resisted "the march of intellect" in the Coventry bill.
Sir Charles Forbes
was of opinion, that by far the greater number of the members of that House—he believed nine tenths—obtained their seats by money or by money's worth; and that, if they did not pay in meal, they paid in malt. He who paid his money down for his seat was the most independent member, because he was under no obligation, if otherwise independent, to vote contrary to what he conscientiously thought to be the most proper course. He was perfectly free to vote for those measures, which he himself approved, without consulting the wishes or the views of any person or party. Many of those who got their seats in another way, were bound to vote as they were directed by others; as in the case of Treasury boroughs, and others which were held upon much the same tenure. The consequence was, that when they were called upon to vote on some important questions, they found themselves obliged to resign, because they could not screw their courage to the sticking point of voting in direct contradiction to the dictates of their consciences. Many of his friends had been under the necessity of accepting the Chiltern hundreds, from the cause which he had stated. Boroughs which were represented in that manner were by far the worst. He believed that, in the time of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox, a proposition had been suggested, that so much of these boroughs should be struck off on the one side, and so much on the other. As to parliamentary reform, he did not understand what was meant by it. If it meant, that no members were to be
1216
l
1217
Lord Palmerston
said, he was not at all prepared to sanction the free trade in votes, which the hon. baronet seemed to contend for. He asked, whether anything could more contribute to the views of those who so eagerly contended for theoretical reform, than that the House should be so unwise as to maintain such abuses as this? The evidence before the committee established a
primâ facie
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, June 12.
CORN BILL.]
On the order of the day for bringing up the report of the committee on this bill,
Lord Colchester
said:—Upon the question which comes now immediately before the House, namely, the second reading of these amendments, I wish to state briefly to your lordships, the reasons which will govern my vote, with respect to the bill itself, and with respect also to the course of our proceedings.
1218
s
1219
1220
1221
s
Viscount Goderich
said:—I feel it to be my duty to address a few observations to your lordships upon the subject of this clause. I am sure that my noble friend, who proposed it, will do me the justice to believe, that I would not call upon the House to reconsider its decision, if it were not the sincere conviction of my mind that the amendment of my noble friend is not calculated to produce the result which he anticipated; but that, on the contrary, it will have the opposite tendency. But before I proceed to state the grounds upon which I have come to the conclusion that such will be the practical effect of this clause, I hope I may be permitted to make a few remarks upon the misconception under which my noble friend has introduced this clause. I shall make them, in order that my right hon. friend, the President of the Board of Trade, and myself, may be set right in your lordships' opinion, as to the share we have had in giving rise to the misapprehension. At the time my noble friend introduced the clause, there were objections to it which were not expressed, perhaps not felt, by my right hon. friend; but, I can distinctly state to your lordships, on the part of my right hon. friend, that he never did intend to convey to my noble friend near me any acquiescence in
1222
1223
s
s
pro hac vice
s
pro hac vice
1224
pro hac vice
1225
1226
s
s
1227
s
s
s
s
s
s
1228
au fait
1229
The Duke of Wellington
said, that, being the person who had proposed the clause under consideration, and because of the allusions made to him by the noble lord who had just sat down, he felt it necessary to claim their lordships' attention for a short time. In so doing, however, he had no complaint to make of the manner in which these allusions had been made, nor was it his intention to enter into any verbal criticism, or to controvert the interpretation which the noble lord had put upon the letter of his right hon. friend; neither would he now defend the misconception under which he had proposed the clause. Adopting as he did and being responsible as he undoubtedly partly was for the resolution upon which this bill was founded, he was bound to say, that he received without distrust the explanation given by the noble lord of the intentions of his right hon. friend (Mr. Huskisson) as expressed in his letter. But, though he approved of the principle of the measure, still there appeared to him to be something objectionable in the mode in which that principle was to be brought into operation; and it was in order to supply that defect that he had proposed the clause in question. Allusion had been made by the noble lord to the first and last paragraphs in the letter of his right hon. friend. With respect to the subject referred to in those paragraphs of his right hon. friend's letter which had been alluded to, he felt it to be a delicate one, and therefore, he thought, in the committee, that it was a point upon which it was better not to enter into a discussion, and that it would not be proper to read to the House the letter of a member of the other House of Parliament upon a subject of that nature. But, as regarded the measure which he had introduced, he thought, if he understood his right hon. friend correctly, that, considering his great knowledge and experience on this subject, and the situation which he filled in his majesty's government, there could be no doubt as to the expediency of a measure recommended by him. When his noble
1230
1231
s
s
d
s
s
d
Lord Holland
said, that the provisions of this clause were so completely at variance with the resolutions on which the bill had been founded, and the principles on which it rested, that he was surprised the committee should have adopted it. Were it not for the quarter from which the measure had proceeded, he should have thought it was intended as an indirect mode of getting rid of the bill. But the noble duke said, he had been actuated by no such motive, and that he was responsible for the principle of the bill, although not for the bill itself. Now, he confessed that this somewhat scholastic distinction was rather too nice for his apprehension. As a legislator, he was too much of a plain, downright materialist, to enter into the notion of separating the measure from the principle. He was not sufficiently Platonic in his ideas to separate the soul from the body of the bill. It reminded him of some verses which he had read, in a dialogue between a soul and a body:
"These distinctions so nice can be scarce understood;
Those who wish to divide us can mean us no good."
1232
s
pro tanto
pro tanto
1233
1234
Earl Bathurst
contended that there was no substantial difference between the amendment, and the proposition of the President of the Board of Trade. The right hon. gentleman's proposition was, that no corn should be taken out of warehouse, for home consumption, until the average price in the home market reached 66
s
1235
The Earl of Falmouth
thought the bill, as far as regarded the averages, in the highest degree unnecessary, impolitic, and unjust.
The Earl of Darnley
thought that if the amendment of the noble duke were adopted, it would subvert the principle of the bill. At the same time, he should have no objection to apply that amendment to the corn at present in bond; and would move an amendment to that effect.
Lord Goderich,
thought the proposition of his noble friend liable to considerable objections. The effect of it would be, that all corn warehoused after the passing of the act, or entered for home consumption, would be subject to the regulations of the bill; but that the corn now in bond would be excluded, until the averages had reached 66s.
Lord Calthorpe
thought that the bill, though not the best that might have been framed, would yet be productive of some good. He was decidedly opposed to the amendment of the noble duke.
The Earl of Harewood
said, he would vote for the amendment proposed by the noble duke, in the discharge of his public duty. He voted for it as a means of restraining the warehousing system, which at present he thought to be inexpedient, and because he was desirous of giving the agriculturists a greater protection than was afforded by the bill. He was anxious to provide, in adverse seasons, a compensating price for a diminished production.
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, he had heard a good deal of the necessity of altering the title of the bill, to make it better suit the real object of its framers; all he should say was, that no alteration in the title would have facilitated that great alteration in the substance, which would have justified the amendment of the noble duke. Let their lordships consider what was the title of the bill, and what the proposed amendment. The object of that amendment, as stated by the noble duke, differed most materially from the reasons assigned by several noble lords who had given it their support. As the amendment came from its noble author, it was perfectly consistent with his avowed support of the principle of the warehousing system; others
1236
1237
1238
Lord Redesdale
supported the amendment, not because it was a sufficient protection for the landed interest, but because it was the only protection which they could hope to obtain, instead of the prohibition to which they were entitled, after the legislature had gradually destroyed the value of the wool, cheese, butter, and all other agricultural produce, except grain.
Lord Goderich
said, he should waive, in the present stage of the bill, any further opposition to the other amendments.
The Earl of Lauderdale
asked, if ministers intended to acquiesce in the amendments on the third reading of the bill, or to oppose them?
Lord Goderich
said, he must have more time to consider, before he could make up his mind as to what course he would take.
Lord Clifden
said, that he was not responsible for the bill, nor one of his majesty's ministers; but, if he were one of them, he would throw away the bill at once, and leave all the popularity of such a proceeding to the noble lords opposite.
List of the Majority, and also of the Minority.
CONTENT.
Abergavenny, earl of
Audley, lord
Abingdon, earl of
Aylesford, lord
Ailsa (Cassilis), lord
Bath and Wells, bishop
Anson, lord
of
Arbuthnot, lord
Bathurst, earl
1239
Beaufort, duke of
Kerr (Lothian), lord
Bedford, duke of
Lauderdale, earl of
Beauchamp, earl
Malmesbury, earl of
Bolton, lord
Mansfield, earl of
Boston, lord
Manvers, earl
Bradford, earl of
Melville, viscount
Brownlow, earl of
Montagu, lord
Brodrick (Midleton),
Newcastle, duke of
lord
Napier, lord
Bute, marquis of
Northumberland, duke
Balcarras, earl of
of
Camden, marquis
Ponfret, earl of
Cashell, archbishop of
Poulett, earl
Chichester, earl of
Powis, earl
Clannrassill (Roden),
Redesdale, lord
earl of
Richmond, duke of
Carbery, lord
Rochford, lord
Colchester, lord
Rodney, lord
Dartmouth, earl of
Rolle, lord
Dacre, lord
Rosslyn, earl of
De Lawarr, earl
Rutland, duke of
Digby, earl
Salisbury, marquis of
De Clifford, lord
Salisbury, bishop of
Eldon, earl of
Saltoun, lord
Ellenborough, lord
Sidmouth, viscount
Falmouth, earl of
Shaftesbury, earl of
Farnham, lord
Sheffield, lord
Feversham, lord
Somers, earl
Fisherwick (Donegal),
Strathalian, lord
lord
Stanhope, earl
Fitzwilliam, earl
Tadeaster (Thomond),
Gage, lord
lord
Glasgow, earl
Talbot, earl
Gordon (Aberdeen),
Tankerville, earl of
lord
Teynham, lord
Grey, earl
Vane (Londonderry),
Grantley, lord
earl
Harewood, earl of
Wellington, duke of
Hill, lord
Westmoreland, earl of
Howe, earl
Willoughby de Broke,
Kenyon, lord
lord
Killaloe, bishop of
Winchilsea, earl of
PROXIES.—CONTENT.
Ailesbury, marquis of
Hawke, lord
Albemarle, earl of
Jersey, earl of
Bagot, lord
Kellie, lord
Breadalbane, earl of
Le de Spencer, lord
Buckingham, duke of
Lonsdale, earl of
Belhaven, lord
Longford, earl of
Beresford, lord
Lorton, viscount
Carrington, lord
Mount Edgecumbe,
Clancarty, earl of
earl of
Carlisle, bishop of
Mount Cashel, lord
Clogher, bishop of
Northampton, marq. of
Churchill, lord
Nelson, earl
Cardigan, earl of
Northwick, lord
Dorset, duke of
Plymouth, earl of
Ely, bishop of
Prudhoe, lord
Forester, lord
Queensberry, marq. of
Graham (Montrose),
Rivers, lord
earl
Romney, earl of
Gwydyr, lord
Stradbroke, lord
Gray, lord
Strange (Athol), earl of
Hay (Kinnoul), lord
Sinclair, lord
Hertford, marquis of
Sherborne, lord
Harris, lord
Stowell, lord
1240
Stamford, earl of
PAIRED-OFF.
Tweeddale, marquis of
Errol, earl of
Wicklow, earl of
Orford, earl of
Wodehouse, lord
Verulam, earl of
Warwick, earl of
NOT CONTENT.
Anglesey, marquis of
Harrowby, earl of
Auckland, lord
Hilsborough (Down-
Belmore, earl of
shire), lord
Bexley, lord
Holland, lord
Bolingbroke, lord
Hood, lord
Braybrooke, lord
Howard de Walden,
Bristol, marquis of
lord
Bristol, bishop of
King, lord
Calthorpe, lord
Kingston, earl of
Carlisle, earl of
Limerick, earl of
Carnarvon, earl of
Lake, lord
Cawdor, lord
Lansdown, marq. of
Chancellor, the lord
Leinster, duke of
Chester, bishop of
Llandaff, bishop of
Clifton (Darnley), lord
London, bishop of
Clinton, lord
Lucan, lord
Colville, lord
Lynedoch, lord
Cowper, earl
Macclesfield, earl of
Cornwallis, earl
Mendip (Clifden), lord
Charlemont, earl of
Monteagle (Sligo), lord
Darlington, earl of
Montford, lord
Dawnay (Downe),lord
Morley, earl of
De Dunstanville, lord
Ormonde, marquis of
Delamere, lord
Plunkett, lord
Devonshire, duke of
Portland, duke of
Ducie, lord
Rosebery, earl of
Dudley, viscount
St. David's, bishop of
Dundas, lord
St. Vincent, lord
Dynevor, lord
Saltersford (Courtown)
Essex, earl of
lord
Farnborough, lord
Say and Sele, lord
Ferrers, earl
Seaford, lord
Fitzgibbon(Clare), lord
Somerhill (Clanri-
Gower, earl
carde), lord
Glocester, duke of
Spencer, earl
Glocester, bishop of
Suffolk, earl of
Goderich, lord
Sussex, duke of
Gosford, lord
Sydney, viscount
Grantham, lord
Thanet, earl of
Grosvenor, earl
Wharncliffe, lord
Hardwicke, earl of
York, archbishop of
PROXIES.—NOT CONTENT.
Bangor, bishop of
Grafton, duke of
Buckinghamshire, earl
Grenville, lord
of
Granville, lord
Byron, lord
Hereford, vise.
Chichester, bishop of
Howard of Effingham,
Crewe, lord
lord
Clarence, duke of
Home, lord
Carrick, earl of
Lichfield, bishop of
Carysfort, earl of
Leeds, duke of
Conyngham, marq. of
Lincoln, bishop of
Caledon, earl of
Minto, lord
Duncan, lord
Maryborough, lord
Derby, earl of
Marlborough, duke of
Denbigh, earl of
Norwich, bishop of
Erskine, lord
Northland, lord
Foley, lord
Ponsonby (Besbo-
Fortescue, earl
rough), lord
1241
Peterborough, bishop
St. German's, earl of
of
Suffield, lord
Sondes, lord
Waldegrave, earl
Scarborough, earl of
Winchester, marq. of
Selsey, lord
Wilton, earl of
Somerset, duke of
PAIRED-OFF.
Stuart, of Castle Stuart, lord
Alvanley, lord
Stafford, margins of
Clarendon, earl of
St. Alban's, duke of
Fife, earl of
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, June 12.
RATE OF WAGES—PETITION OF SPITAL-FIELDS WEAVERS.] Mr. E. Davenport
presented a Petition from the operative Silk-weavers of Spitalfields, praying for relief from the greatest grievance under which any portion of the community could labour; namely, inadequate remuneration for their labour. They prayed, that an inquiry might be instituted into the cause of their distress. It might be that it was not in the power of that House to relieve them: but as persons who were drowning caught at the slightest things to save them, so the petitioners were anxious to seize every possible means of remedying the evils under which they laboured. They admitted that there was an improvement in the trade generally; but expressed their doubts of its continuance, and their conviction of the little benefit which that improvement would occasion to the working classes, while the masters, by combination, had the power of diminishing the rate of wages. They solicited parliament to enact a law, making agreements with respect to wages between the masters and the journeymen duly convened, imperative on both parties. For his own part, he thought that any measure of that kind would be a palliative, and not a corrective of the evil; which, in his opinion, principally resided in the state of the currency. He could never understand how it was possible to withdraw a considerable portion of the currency in the manner in which it had been withdrawn, without paralysing all the industry of the country. The act providing for the abolition of one-pound notes had already produced the greatest distress; and eighteen months were still to elapse, before the whole of the evil which it was calculated to create would be rendered manifest. If that evil were not neutralized by some measure of a counteracting tendency, he was persuaded that it would arrive at a most alarming height. It was
1242
PEOPLE OF COLOUR IN THE WEST INDIES.]. Dr. Lushington,
in rising to make his motion respecting the People of Colour in the West Indies, observed, that he was sure when the House became acquainted with the circumstances of the case, they would be of opinion with him, that it was one deserving the most serious consideration. There were few members of that House, except those who had local connexions with the West Indies, who had any idea of the number, wealth, and importance, of the description of individuals whose Petition he was about to present, and whose cause he meant to advocate To those members who were locally connected with the West Indies, this was well known. By those who had sons, daughters, brothers, friends, among the petitioners, he trusted he should be supported, in endeavouring to rescue from a state little short of slavery, individuals thus attached to them by the dearest ties of blood and in-
1243
1244
l
l
l
l
l
l
1245
1246
1247
l
1248
s
s
d
1249
Mr. C. N. Pallmer
said, he felt as anxious as the learned gentleman to see
1250
Mr. Brougham
said, he felt no small degree of disappointment from the speech which he had just heard. He was ready to acknowledge, that the long residence in Jamaica of the hon. member, gave considerable authority to what he said; but still, that authority had not the weight of facts. But, without taking nice distinctions between the value of his authority and the weight of established facts, he would come to the point with him.—Were the brown population in the habit of receiving substantial and practical justice? Were there not thirty or forty thousand of the king's free and meritorious subjects who received neither justice nor fair deal-
1251
1252
1253
Mr. Wilmot Horton
expressed his satisfaction at the general tone in which the debate had been conducted, for if the great object in view were to be carried into effect through the intervention of the Colonial Legislatures, it was expedient, as much as possible to abstain from irritation; never forgetting the complicated circumstances which led to the disabilities under which the Africans laboured, nor the difficulties of removing them at all, much less with any degree of rapidity. Time was necessary to remove an evil which centuries had completed. He could not admit that the colonial assemblies had shewn no desire to promote the interests of the slaves; but he nevertheless wished the House to stamp its opinion, that it was the true interest of the whites of the West Indies to remit the existing disabilities. In his view, it was far wiser to wait until gradual improvement in education and property among the negroes had produced its influence on the colonial legislatures, than to call upon those bodies peremptorily to change their system at once, and to threaten them with the vengeance of parliament at home, if they did not
1254
Mr. W. Smith
said, that the hon. member for Surrey had complained of the injustice of referring to circumstances which had occurred half a century ago. He should have entirely agreed with him, provided the act of 1761 had been repealed or materially amended in many of the islands; but the fact was, that, till very recently, that act had scarcely been at all altered for the benefit of the negroes. It was urged, that time ought to be allowed; but, had gentlemen forgotten, that it was now forty years since this question had been first agitated before the British legislature? He admitted that some amelioration of the condition of the men of colour had recently taken place; but, if it went on no faster than it had hitherto done, he feared that the present, and even the next, generation would pass away before the object was effected. The hon. gentleman concluded, by reading an extract of a letter from a British officer in one of the colonies, giving a familiar account of a marriage between a man of colour and a white woman, whom he was said to have "bought." This phrase referred to the disparity of circumstances between the parties, and it was held by all persons in the colony, as one of the greatest acts of atrocity that had ever been perpetrated in the West Indies. He could, if it were necessary, adduce a multitude of other instances to show the degradation which the difference of colour occasioned in the colonies, out of which arose the impossibility to the coloured race of obtaining impartial justice.
Mr. Canning
said, that, as no question had been raised to excite a difference of opinion, this debate might have closed with the remarks in reply of the hon. and learned mover, who had so fairly and temperately introduced the subject. In justice to the hon. member for Surrey, he felt it necessary to say, that his speech had not left the impression upon his mind, which it seemed to have made upon that of the learned member for Winchelsea. He did not understand that hon. member as defending, but as lamenting the system—not as contending that it ought to be permanent, but regretting the slow pro-
1255
mésalliance
"You have among you many a purchas'd slave, Which, like your asses and your dogs and mules,
You use in abject and in slavish parts,
Because you bought them. Shall I say to you, Let them be free—marry them to your heirs?"
1256
POOR LAWS.] Mr. Slaney
regretted, that a subject of so much importance as that to which his motion had relation, should have fallen into hands so incompetent as his own. He had vainly waited, however, for some member of greater weight than himself, to undertake it; but finding that no hon. gentleman was likely to do so, he could no longer forbear submitting his views of a question, in which the welfare and happiness of a large portion of the community were bound up. The poor-rates and pauperism had gone on, frightfully increasing, for many years. By the report of the Poor-laws' committee, dated May 1825, it appeared, that for England and Wales, the amount of poor-rates was in 1748, 689,000
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1257
1258
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, June 13.
CORN BILL.] Lord Goderich
said, he had been asked last night to explain what course government meant to pursue with respect to the Corn bill, in consequence of the decision which had been come to by their lordships. He had been asked, if it was his intention to propose, in any other stage of the bill, that the amendment should be rescinded; and on what day he meant to move the third reading. He did not then feel himself at liberty to answer those questions; but it was fit he should now do so. He felt that, after the decision which the House had come to, for the second time, on the amendment, any attempt on his part to induce their lordships to depart from that decision would be quite out of the question. He must now consider that the bill, as amended, had received the sanction of their lordships; and he had last night stated the grounds on which he thought the clause not only objectionable, but fatal to the measure. Under these circumstances, it was not possible for him to undertake to propose the third reading of the bill; and he, therefore, wished it to be understood that it was not his intention to proceed with it.
The Earl of Malmesbury
could not regret that the measure had been abandoned; but he was still ready to meet his noble friend in furthering any project for amending the existing system. He should be glad to see the act of 1822 brought into
1259
s.
Lord Ellenborough
thought that this suggestion of his noble friend deserved the serious attention of government. He feared, however, that the bill of 1822 was purposely kept suspended over them, to force parliament to adopt a worse and more objectionable measure.
Lord Goderich
said, that the bill of 1822 was so much opposed to the present measure, that government could not bring it into operation.
The Duke of Wellington
wished to know if there was any motion before the House? Though his noble friend had expressed his intention not to bring on the third reading on Friday, still the order was not discharged.
Earl Grey
was desirous to state the motives by which he was actuated in the course which he had felt it his duty to pursue. It was perfectly at the option of the noble lord, if he thought the amendment vicious, to abandon the bill; but he wished to observe, that he did not support the amendment, as being opposed to the principle of the bill. He would never lend himself to the unworthy purpose—and he was quite sure the noble duke would not—of opposing indirectly that which he supported directly. He had voted for the amendment, thinking it to be an improvement; as tending to check the abuses which arose under the bonding system. Thinking, as he did, that the manner in which the bill was introduced, in a season of clamour, was highly objectionable— thinking, also, that the government was much to blame in listening to that clamour—thinking, too, that for the last six years corn had never risen too high—it appeared to him, that no case was made out for the immediate interference of the legislature. But, while he felt that many objections might be urged to the manner and time in which the bill was introduced, it became a question with him, whether he could give it his sanction, without too great a sacrifice of that interest which he was anxious to uphold. However, he acquiesced; but never with the most remote idea that, in any of the stages of the bill, the deliberative powers of that House should not be exercised; and, therefore, it was that he voted for the amendment of the noble duke. There was danger of a glut of corn in the market, and the amendment was intended
1260
s
s
1261
The Marquis of Lansdown
rose merely to answer the question of the noble duke. There was no question now before the House, and therefore any discussion on the subject was irregular. His noble friend had only wished to state his reasons for not moving the third reading of the bill on Friday; but as the order was not discharged, it was competent to any other noble lord to move it if he thought proper.
CRIMINAL LAWS.] Lord Tenterden,
in rising to move the second reading of five bills which had come up from the other House for amending the Criminal-laws, said that they had originated with a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Peel), whose ability and exertions in bringing them forward could not be too highly commended. It was fortunate for the country when a gentleman of comprehensive mind, not bred to the law, turned his attention to the subject, for those who were bred to the law were too often, by habit, dull to its imperfections. He could not help thinking that the bills would be most valuable to those who were engaged in the administration of justice in the country.
Lord Ellenborough
doubted not that these bills would be a very great improvement in the criminal laws of the country; but he thought it would be impossible, at that late period of the session, to go into an examination of their merits; as there were not less than one hundred and thirty acts which it would be necessary to look over. He therefore thought it would be necessary for the House to have an assurance from the learned lord, that he had consulted those acts, and felt satisfied of the expediency of the measures now proposed.
Lord Tenterden
said, it would be presumption in him to give such an assurance; but a paper had been put into his hand, re-
1262
The Lord Chancellor
said, that the bills had long been under the anxious consideration of his right hon. friend, who had been assisted in his labours both by the learned lord, by himself, the late Attorney-general, and the present Solicitor-general.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, June 13.
PAUPER LUNATICS OF MIDDLESEX.] Mr. R. Gordon
called the attention of the House to the motion of which he had given notice, respecting the state of Pauper Lunatics in Middlesex. He particularly referred to the dreadful state of misery in which the Pauper Lunatics of the parishes of Mary-la-bonne and St. George's were situated. When the overseers of the parish of St. George visited Dr. Warburton's asylum, they found, in a room eighteen feet long, sixteen cribs, with a patient in each crib, some of them chained and fastened down, and all of them in a state of great wretchedness. On one occasion, a visitor having gone there, and reported that there was nothing objectionable in what he had seen, went again the next day, and discovered five rooms, in which the patients were in a most horrid state of misery. This he found out, although, when he was there the day before, he was informed that he had seen every thing. The unfortunate persons placed in these cribs were kept there from Saturday until Monday; their food being administered to them while in them. The infirmaries were another subject of just complaint. When a medical person visited them, the patient was brought into another room, and put on a decent bed; for the infirmary was kept in so shocking a state, that the keepers were unwilling that it should be seen; but, as soon as the medical person was gone, the patient was reconducted to the crib.—He spoke of this asylum previous to the 26th of February, when it was visited by lord Robert Seymour. A temporary change for the better might have been since made; but what security had the House for its continuance? On the facts that he had stated, and others which showed still more the extreme wretchedness of the condition of the pauper lunatics of Middlesex, he
1263
Colonel Wood
thought the hon. gentleman was entitled to great praise for having
1264
Mr. Secretary Bourne
thanked the hon. mover for having brought this interesting subject underthe consideration of the House. The only doubt on his mind was, whether, instead of moving for a committee, it would not be better to proceed to legislate by bill at once; for the information which the hon. gentleman had collected was evidently of the best description. In fact he could himself confirm part of it.
Mr. Liddell
approved of the motion, and complimented the hon. member for his exertions on the subject.
Mr. Spring Rice
highly approved of the motion. He was persuaded that it would be found, that the present establishments were calculated only for the custody of lunatics, and by no means for their cure.
Mr. Alderman Thompson
was desirous, if possible, that the report of the committee might be made in the present session. The rumours afloat, many of which, he had no doubt were exaggerated, demanded inquiry.
Mr. S. Bourne
believed that some of the reports respecting Mr. Warburton's establishment were much exaggerated.
Mr. R. Colborne,
while he admitted that some of the reports in circulation were perfectly true, must say that others were much exaggerated. Mr. Warburton had always been ready to give every information in his power. He believed the only effectual way of remedying the evils complained of would be by building a county lunatic asylum.
Mr. M. A. Taylor
declared that, in his opinion, there was not a chance for an individual confined in these asylums becoming convalescent. Many of them were sent to them by overseers of parishes, who bargained for the cheapest terms; and in some cases gave only 8
s
1265
Mr. Estcourt
wished the hon. gentleman would move for a general bill; which, having been introduced, might be circulated through the country during the recess; the result of which step would be the production of much more information than could be obtained by any parliamentary inquiry during the present session.
Sir F. Burdett
declared that, in his opinion, there was no subject which more loudly called for interference than this. No persons stood in greater need of legislative protection than the unfortunate individuals under consideration. Being paupers as well as lunatics, they had a double claim on general humanity. He highly approved of his hon. friend's proposition; but he thought that the more extensive it could be made the more advantageous it would prove. Not only was it necessary to look to the manner in which pauper lunatics were treated in the establishments in question, but it was also highly expedient to place some check on the manner in which they were put under restraint. It appeared to him, that something more than alienation of mind ought to be required. It should be proved, that the aberration was one of a dangerous character.
Mr. R. Gordon
said, he wished the House would permit him to pursue his original plan. That great mismanagement existed in lunatic asylums, was notorious. He would give a proof, in which one lunatic employed to take care of another actually scooped out the eye of the man upon whom he was employed to attend. If the committee were appointed to-morrow, he would submit to it by Monday the outline of a bill which he wished to introduce.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, June 14.
DISTRESS OF THE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIOUS CLASSES OF THE COMMUNITY.] Mr. E. D. Davenport
rose and said:
*
* From the original edition printed by J. Ridgway, Piccadilly.
1266
primâ facie
1267
1268
1269
*
* The public are not aware, that previous to 1798 silver was a legal tender to any amount; Mr. Vansittart tells us, in his speech (1811), "that the whole Interest of the National Debt might previous to 1798, have been paid in crooked sixpences."
1270
s.
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
s
s
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
hors de combat
1282
*
* See Mr. Huskisson's Speech, early in 1826.
1283
1284
Mr. Thomas Attwood,
also, in his correspondence with sir J. Sinclair, gives a good account of the inconsistencies by
1285
1286
ORDNANCE.—FULL PAY.
1792.
$nbsp;
1822.
Secretary to the Board
£.510 …
£.1,693
Chief Clerk to Surveyor-General
437 …
1,135
Assistant Ditto
200 …
825
Chief Clerk to Clerk
300 …
1,035
Ditto to Principal Store Keeper
200 …
935
Ditto to Clerk of Delivery
200 …
935
Ditto to the Treasury
200 …
737
Ditto to Board of Ordnance
200 …
1,177
1287
Mr. Leicester
rose to second the motion, because he considered an inquiry most necessary; whether he regarded the true cause of the distress, or the many supposed causes to which it had been ascribed. In his judgment the distress was attributable to the viciousness of our pecuniary system—to the faultiness of the law, in inundating the country with a profusion of small notes—to the faultiness of the law, in not checking the mismanagement of the Bank of England—to the faultiness of the law, in calling into existence a sinking fund. If he was right in attributing the prevalent distress to these sources, it was consolatory to reflect that, by a change of the system, the evil might be remedied. One judicious correction had been already made; namely, the suppression of one and two pound notes. But three essential improvements remained to be effected. First, the five and ten pound notes should be placed under some restraint; secondly, the Bank should be compelled, under a penalty, to contract its issues, in proportion to the state of the exchanges; and thirdly, the
coup de grace
Mr. King
trusted, that, if a committee were appointed, the deplorable condition of the population of Ireland would not be overlooked. Much of the distress of the country generally was to be attributed to the measure which had been called a return to cash payments—a course which amounted to little else than a robbery upon the purse of every man in Great Britain. He congratulated the country upon the late change of administration, which he considered to have been, not the triumph of any party, but of principle and of public opinion.
Mr. Fyler
said, that the real remedy for the distresses which existed was a wise regulation of the Corn-trade. High prices of corn made high prices for every thing else. He deeply regretted the manner in which the Corn-bill had been treated in
1288
Sir F. Burdett
observed, that the subject was of the very greatest importance; and, if it were necessary to enter upon the consideration of it without delay, he should not think that it was a good objection, that the proposition came at so late a period of the session; for, if it were of paramount importance to enter upon the consideration of the subject immediately, the duration of the session ought to be extended, in order to afford the opportunity. But, whether the matter should be taken up this session or not, the hon. gentleman who had brought forward the proposition had done good by calling the attention of the House, and the ministry, particularly, to the subject. He did not concur in the opinions which had been expressed by his hon. friends who had spoken on the question; but that was only an additional reason for entering upon the inquiry. It was a great fallacy to imagine that the question had been set at rest. The evil had been brought upon us by mal-legislation; and the question would never be set at rest, until the matter should be settled on the true and right basis. The subject had been at first taken up by Mr. Horner, and several other persons of great talent and industry. An elaborate report had been produced, and upon the whole, there had been no want of attention to it. It, nevertheless, still required examination. When the bill of 1819 was under discussion, it was said, by several persons, that it was impossible the Bank could pay in gold. But he had then stated, that the question was not whether the Bank could pay in gold, but whether the country could bear that it should. It now appeared that it could not at that time immediately resume the cash payments without great injury to the country. It appeared that the resumption was a great deal too sudden. There was a period during the war, before the death of Mr. Pitt, when the cash payments might have been resumed without injury to the country; but that period had not been taken advantage of. Mr. Pitt, like many others, was in a great error on this subject, and thought that the question depended on the balance of trade, and that cash payments could never be safely resumed till a period of peace. These notions bad been now exploded; but, such being Mr. Pitt's opinion, that
1289
1290
Mr. Maberly
was of opinion, that no sound system of currency could be established, while the Bank of England had
1291
Mr. Pearse
said, he had no apprehension that the Bank would be obliged to suspend cash payments. The circumstances which led to the restriction in 1797 could not take place in peace, when the balance of trade would necessarily be in our favour. He maintained, that the circulation of the Bank had never been either more or less than the wants of the country required.
Mr. Huskisson
said, that the motion was for a committee to inquire into the causes of the difficulties which had affected the industrious classes of the community during the last and present year; and, in making that motion, the hon. member had gone into almost every topic of political economy which could afford matter for discussion, there, or in any other place. To these topics every other gentleman who had addressed the House had added almost every other topic which could by possibility engage the attention of parliament. One of the subjects adverted to by the hon. mover was, the measure passed by parliament, which went to the abolition of one and two pound notes. The hon. seconder praised that measure. On many other points the opinions of the hon. mover and seconder were wide as the poles asunder. Another hon. gentleman speaking of Ireland, wished this committee, on the 14th day of June, to inquire into the state of the population of Ireland—into the relations between the landlord and tenant in that country—into the mode in which the landlord oppressed the tenant. The question of emigration, in all its branches, was also to occupy the attention of this committee. Another question which was to be submitted to it, on the 14th of June, was, whether it would be expedient to abandon the Canadas, and separate them from the dominion of the Crown? The Sinking Fund, the Catholic question, and every
1292
1293
1294
Mr. Western
defended the course which he had taken in 1822, and at other periods, with regard to the currency. He attributed all the difficulties of the country to the measure of 1819, by which the currency was erroneously said to be settled. The currency had not been settled by the measure of 1819, it was still in a fluctuating state; and he was satisfied that the prosperity of the country would never be permanently restored until parliament retraced its steps.
Mr. Attwood
said, it had not been his intention to offer any observations on the present motion, nor should he have done so, except for the unsatisfactory grounds on which the right hon. president of the Board of Trade had rested his opposition to it, and the inconsistency and want of candour which marked that opposition. The right hon. member said, that a motion similar to the present was proposed in 1822, and rejected by a considerable majority, and therefore he called on the House to reject the measure now before it. But he also stated, in almost the next sentence of his speech, that, at an earlier period, in 1810 or 1811, on this same subject of the currency, he had himself voted in a minority; and the opinion declared by the majority on that occasion, he treated as preposterously false. The argument of the right hon. gentleman, therefore, amounted to this: that when an opinion of a majority of the House fell in with his own, it must be received as an authority; it was to guide their future proceedings; but when an opinion so expressed differed from his, did not in fact suit his views, it became no authority at all, and was fit only to be treated with contempt. Many members cheered the right hon. president when he adduced the authority of a majority in 1822 as a ground for their present vote, and he (Mr. Attwood) therefore thought it necessary to point out to them, what was the value of the argument they so approved, even in the opinion of him who resorted to it, and the consistency of the guide they followed.
1295
l
s
d
1296
l
s
d
1297
1298
1299
Mr. Huskisson
said, he never had, as the hon. member had accused him of doing, treated the majorities of that House with contempt. He would, however, treat with sovereign contempt the tissue of misrepresentations which made up the speech of the hon. member, and would not trouble himself to contradict them.
Mr. Attwood
retorted upon the right hon. gentleman the expressions which he had applied to his observations, desiring to assure the right hon. gentleman, that there was no degree of contempt which he had thought proper to express, that he (Mr. Attwood) did not equally feel towards the statements of the right hon. gentleman.
Mr. E. Davenport,
in reply, said:—It is rather hard that I should be reproached by the ministers for a delay which has only occurred in compliance with their special request, and to be taxed with recommending a reduction of the standard; whereas I merely showed that the abuses of the system, expressly guarding myself against making any remedial proposition, it being matter of perfect indifference to me, personally, whether the system of the standard, or the ratio of taxation is changed, and one or other must be. The member for Coventry says, high-priced corn caused the distress of the people, but he seems to forget, that all the working classes were in full employment in 1825, when, although wheat was 15
s
1300
PRESTON BOROUGH ELECTION BILL.] Mr. Stanley
moved for leave to bring in a bill to regulate the taking the poll at elections for Preston. At present it was impossible, that all the inhabitants could be polled. His object was, to supply a specific remedy to this evil. He did not mean to press it at present, but only to ask leave to bring it in, and have it printed, in order to submit it to the parties most interested.
Mr. J. Wood
said, that he and his hon. colleague were fully agreed upon the subject. The suffrage at Preston was very extensive, and many voters, in consequence of the custom adopted, were unable to come up to the poll. The intended bill was no innovation: it was founded upon two bills, one in force in Ireland, and another in Westminster. Instead of circumscribing the rights of the electors, it would increase
1301
Mr. Hume
enforced the priciple of election by ballot.
Mr. N. Calvert
hoped never to see the day when that demoralizing principle should be introduced into elections [loud cheers]. The lower order of voters must necessarily be influenced, when few, by bribery, and when numerous by cajolery of some sort or other. Their only remedy, in cases of ballot, would be hypocrisy, promising the vote one way and giving it another.
Mr. Monck
thought the suggestion entitled to consideration.
Mr. P. Thompson
said, it was much more easy to make assertions, than it was to meet one argument by another. The argument of the hon. member for Aberdeen was, that the exercise of undue influence would be prevented by a system of ballot; and the member for Hertfordshire met this by hoping that he might never live to see the day when such a system would prevail. The surest way to prevent the exercise of bad passions, worse than hypocrisy, was to take away the occasion of calling those bad passions into operation, and leaving the voter to the exercise of his own free will; which, in the case of the poor, could only be properly effected by ballot.
Mr. V. Fitzgerald
contended, from the example of those countries where the mode of election was by ballot, that such a mode was not free from influence, and by no means favourable to liberty.
Lord Rancliffe
said, that he knew that many of the voters of Nottingham had been deterred from coming to the poll by the fear of losing their places.
Mr. Warburton
thought the suggestion worthy of consideration.
Mr. Stuart-Wortley
recommended the leaving the matter to the general measure which was in the hands of a noble lord.
Mr. A. Dawson
saw no reason why a man voting by ballot should not declare for whom he voted. The principle was said to be unfavourable to liberty; but let the House look to America, where every man voted according to his conscience, without bribery, alehouses, or the 120,000
l
Sir C. Forbes
said, that in all elections an allowance of from twenty to twenty-
1302
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, June 14.
SALE OF GAME BILL.] The Marquis of Salisbury
moved the third reading of the bill for authorising the Sale of Game.
The Earl of Rosebery
did not rise to oppose the bill, though he thought their lordships had lately rejected a better bill; but to explain that, it would be of no use to extend its provisions to Scotland. In that country, there already existed a law, which authorised duly qualified persons to sell game.
The Earl of Winchilsea
opposed the bill, on the ground that it would grant facilities to poachers, and that it was unjust to limit the power of selling game to qualified individuals. He moved that it be read a third time that day three months.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, June 18.
CORN TRADE.] Mr. Canning
rose for the purpose of giving notice for to-morrow of a motion on the subject of the Corntrade. He said, he was prepared, on the part of his majesty's government, to submit to a committee of the whole House certain resolutions relative to the Cornlaws; but the course he should pursue must, in a great degree, depend upon the course which the hon. member for Essex meant to pursue with respect to his motion. If the hon. member meant to persevere in
1303
Mr. F. Lewis
implored the House not to lose a moment in considering this great question. It was not right that they should delay altering the appalling position in which the country was placed by the failure of the late bill.
Mr. Western
observed, that nothing had occurred to induce him to alter the course which he proposed to pursue. His intention was, to propose a committee of the whole House, to consider of the acts of 1815 and 1822, respecting the Corntrade.
Mr. Western
said, he should confine himself to a very few observations in submitting his first resolution. It should be observed, that he had given his notice ten days ago. He had, upon giving that notice, shortly explained the object he had in view, and it was really confined to a simple proposition; namely, to remove the suspensive clause from the Corn-bill of 1822, and allow all its other provisions to come into full operation. It was necessary to recollect, that in 1822 there was a committee appointed, to take into consideration the distresses under which the agricultural interest were labouring; that committee sat for months. The late lord Londonderry attended it with patience and perseverance; and he afterwards introduced this act to regulate the introduction of foreign corn. It might appear that he (Mr. Western) was acting inconsistently, in now proposing to bring into operation an act, the passing of which he strenuously opposed in 1822. But this seeming inconsistency was easily explained, by stating that he opposed it as versus the bill of 1815. He preferred the act of 1815, as it gave a more decided protection to the grower, than that of 1822; and because he thought it extraordinary, on the part of the House, to diminish the price of agricultural produce, at a period when the agriculturists were labouring under the greatest distress. Well, the act did pass, and it appeared strange to him, that there should be inserted in it the clause to which he alluded—a clause
1304
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.,
s.
s.;
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.,
1305
1306
Mr. Canning
rose and said:—Sir, the first observation I shall make upon the speech of the hon. member is, that I consider the tone and manner with which lie has introduced his motion exactly suited to the discussion of a great question involving so deeply the interests as well of the agriculturists as of the community at large. I beg to assure the hon. member, that I shall address myself to the question in the same spirit; and whatever may be the future opinion I may feel it right, in justice to myself, to others, and to the king's government, to express, I shall abstain from all allusion to what may have taken place. This, however, I will say, not because I do not feel the provocation, but because I do not think this the most proper time for doing so. I can conceive no species of faction more inexcusable, more blameable, or more wicked, than that which would make a subject touching the vital interests, and involving the prosperity of the whole community, a ground for exciting party feelings, or exasperating political animosities [cheers]. Sir, the next observation I have to make is, that the proposition of the hon. gentleman is one to which, as he has laid it down, I cannot entirely accede, and which I think, even according to his own view of the subject, and the reasons he has given for its adoption, is one he cannot hope to see carried into effect. I do not think that his proposition is one at all calculated to meet those circumstances of the country, which he seems to think render some proposition necessary, and which he also supposes call for the adoption of his particular resolution. His reasons seem to me to amount to this—that as the old corn bill, I mean that which was first passed, has introduced a system, that every one agrees requires alteration; and as the bill that has lately passed this House, and which would have afforded the required alteration, has, through no fault of ours, been lost in another place, we should now turn to account another bill passed some few years since; which bill, however, he is forced at the same time to acknowledge, possesses so many defects in principle, that it has never been brought into operation; and which contains among others that clause which I will call the deterring clause, namely, that which prevented the introduction into our markets of foreign wheat, until our own wheat had attained the price of 80
s.
1307
s.
ergo,
s.,
s.,
1308
s.
s.
1309
1310
1311
1312
s.;
s.
minimum
Mr. Peel
said, that the only circumstance
1313
s.
1314
1315
Mr. Whitmore
said, that, in rejecting the bill lately presented to them, the lords had manifested greater ignorance than he ever before witnessed in any body of legislators. He concurred, though with some reluctance, in the resolution of the right hon. gentleman; and he begged to guard himself most distinctly against being supposed, by that concurrence, to convey an approbation of the temporary measures by which it was attempted to palliate the evils inherent in the existing system of Corn-laws. It was too much that the people should be obliged to look to the government, year after year, for the supply of food. This was the third temporary measure of this kind that had been adopted; and he now felt it right to state, that if a similar measure should be proposed on any future occasion, upon whatever alleged grounds of expediency, he should give to such a proposition his decided opposition.
Colonel Wood
thought, that both the proposition of the hon. member for Essex and that of the right hon. gentleman, might with perfect propriety be adopted by the committee. The proposition of the right hon. gentleman was very good, so far as it went, but that was not far enough. In the event of the country being afflicted with a wet harvest, as it was in 1816, the admission of six hundred thousand quarters would not prevent the price from rising. He therefore thought it a very reasonable proposition to admit corn when the price
1316
s.
Mr. Benett
did not think that the proposition of the right hon. gentleman was called for by the circumstances of the case. For his own part, he had no apprehensions of a wet season. He rejoiced that the bill had been abandoned in the Lords, because he objected to its principle. He believed that the effect of that bill would have been, to diminish employment, by throwing out of cultivation a great portion of the poor-lands. It appeared to him that the only fair principle to be adopted with respect to the trade in corn, was that of a fixed duty, to commence at a price which would secure the agriculturists of this country from the injury which they must sustain, if compelled to compete with other nations who did not bear the same pressure of taxation.
Sir J. Newport
thought it was impossible for the House to entertain the proposition of the hon. member for Essex, seeing that they had already passed a resolution which was equivalent to a repeal of the act of 1822. How could that House send up to the Lords an amendment of that act, when there was at present on their lordship's' table an act for its repeal? The principle of prohibition, as applied to the trade in corn, ought not to be entertained. It had been said, that the act of 1822 had never come into operation. He rejoiced that it had not. That act prevented the importation of corn until a famine-price was attained; and then the effect of opening the ports must have been to inundate the country with foreign corn. The country had been placed in an embarrassing situation, by the manner in which the bill agreed to in that House had been treated in another place. That, however, was no fault of the House of Commons, but of those who had attempted to destroy the measure, under the guise of amendment. Those persons only were to blame who, having originated the measure as part of the king's ministers, turned round upon the principle which they had sanctioned, and, for purposes which he would not attempt to designate, produced a result which was calculated to excite feelings of exasperation throughout the country. He repeated, that those persons only were to be blamed who had carried into the discussion of a question connected with the supply of the principle article of food of the whole population, the principle of hos-
1317
Sir E. Knatchbull
regretted that the proceedings in another place had not been commented upon in a manner likely to produce that spirit of conciliation which it was desirable should prevail between the two branches of the legislature. He was quite surprised how the right hon. baronet could have felt himself justified in resorting to a strain of almost personal abuse, when he alluded to the fate of the other bill. For his own part, he should have long hesitated before he could have brought himself to have treated a political opponent in the harsh terms which had been used on the present occasion; and this, too, after the declaration of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Peel), of the utter impossibility of the duke of Wellington's having been influenced by party views in proposing his amendment. How, then, the right hon. baronet could have brought himself to have so violently impugned the motives of the illustrious duke, and to have done so of all days on the 18th of June [cheers], the anniversary of his greatest glory, he was at a loss to conceive. He could not concur in the principle laid down by the government in the proposed resolutions, but preferred that of the bill of 1822, upon which his hon. friend had framed his present resolutions; and for the latter, if pressed to a division, he should certainly vote.
1318
Mr. Baring
said, that, in reference to the question more immediately before them, the measure suggested by government was of a simple and temporary character, and only intended to reach the next year, when he hoped parliament could be brought to the main consideration of the Corn-laws, with that calmness which their discussion and adjustment so imperatively called for. At the same time it was intended, that the temporary measure should be in the same spirit, and on the same plan, as that which had already received their sanction. There was this advantage in adhering to that course, in preference to the adoption of a resolution like his hon. friend's (Mr. Western's); namely, that they were adhering to a plan which had been carried after mature deliberation, instead of sanctioning at once and crudely an entire deviation from it, thereby implying that they had been misled, and had spent their time idly in their recent debates upon the general question. He had besides, this further objection to the amendment of his hon. friend—that, by fixing the price at 70
s.
s.
1319
1320
1321
s.,
s.,
1322
Mr. Peel
said, he was at a loss to reconcile the whole tenor of the hon. member's speech with the declaration with which he had prefaced it, of the veneration which he felt for the illustrious duke, and the indelible sense he professed to entertain of the immense debt of gratitude which his country owed him. What violence, then, must not the hon. gentleman have done to those feelings, when, so soon after their expression, he could on the anniversary of the battle of Waterloo, have suffered himself to have attempted to cover the noble duke with ridicule, for an act which he had done in the honest discharge of what he felt to be his public duty. He conceived it to be no part of his duty, on the present occasion, to vindicate the duke of Wellington's clause in the corn bill. What he had stated earlier in the evening was, that he was prepared to vindicate the illustrious person himself from having been actuated by any party feeling in the step which he had taken; and this he was prepared to do, not because the noble duke could not have taken any step he pleased without his concurrence, but because he was on such terms of confidential intercourse with him, that he knew the duke would not have done a formal political act, without at least having apprized him of it, were it intended as a party proceeding; and he had never heard of the introduction of this clause, until the morning after it had been submitted as an amendment. But really, when the hon. member thought fit to exercise his talents for ridicule, he should have taken care that when he meant to heap it upon the noble duke, he did not, in an equal portion level it at his right hon. friend who sits under him (Mr. Huskisson). The history of this proceeding must, however, be known, to remove this attempt to cast obloquy upon a public character who had achieved such glorious services for his country, and who on this day at least, if on no other, ought to have been spared the necessity of requiring such an explanation. The duke of Wellington had been a member of a committee which had sat to inquire into the price of grain for shipment at foreign ports, and the price at which it could be imported into the home market. The result of that
1323
s.,
1324
Mr. Baring
said, it had been with the most unfeigned reluctance that he had felt himself compelled to speak of the noble duke, whose great qualities he was quite as ready to acknowledge, as the right hon. gentleman could possibly be. For his own part, he perfectly believed, that the noble duke had been misled by persons who were much more cunning and artful than he was. He must also add, that he did not think it quite fair, that the discussion of the question before the House should be obstructed, merely because that day was the anniversary of the battle of Waterloo.
Mr. Huskisson
said, that he had to beg the indulgence of the House in the performance of a very painful but imperative duty. He certainly could have wished that honourable members had confined themselves to the motion before the House, and that the discussion had not taken the turn which it had taken. His right hon. friend the member for Oxford, had said, that the ridicule and blame which had been lavished upon the amendment of his noble friend attached in an equal degree to him (Mr. Huskisson) as it attached to his noble friend. He would tell his right hon. friend, that however great that ridicule might have been, he would rather have borne with it, had it been twenty times as great, than that the amendment should have received the sanction of that House, and worked all the mischief, all the disadvantages, and all the distress, which it must inevitably have produced. At the same time, however, he must deny that any part of that ridicule attached to him. He was answerable neither for the merits nor the demerits of that amendment. It had been said, that he had suggested the amendment; but it was quite clear that the noble duke had entirely mistaken the suggestion which he had made to him; and, as certain documents connected with this subject had been alluded to there and elsewhere, he hoped the House would al-
1325
"London, May
"WELLINGTON."
The clause which his noble friend inclosed ran as follows:—
s.
1326
"Somerset-place, May
one
veto
his
s.
one
old
s.
all
after the passing of the present Bill
s.,
1327
no quantity beyond that now in bond
"W. HUSKISSON."
Now, what he meant to state was simply this,—that, up to the price of 66
s.,
s.
pro hoc vice,
1328
"Somerset-place, June 2, 10 a.m.
consented
private
1329
public
had not
private,
"London, June 2, 1827.
1330
"Somerset-place, June 2, 1827, 11 p.m.
s.,
thenceforward
once
s.
such
at no time
s.
s.
once
1331
at all times,
proviso pro hac vice,
according to all probability,
permanent enactment
even in principle
"W. HUSKISSON."
In answer to this letter, he received one from his noble friend, lamenting the mistake into which he had fallen, and saying that he could only regret that he found himself bound, in duty, to persevere in the course which he had taken. He had now discharged a very painful duty, which he had been called upon to perform, in consequence of the public discussion which had taken place on what had passed between him and his noble friend. He would only add, that the high respect which he entertained for his noble friend, and the many personal acts of kindness which he had received at his hands, prevented the existence of any other feeling, on his part, than that of variance of opinion with his noble friend upon this point. He trusted that nothing else existed on the part of his noble friend.—He would now make a few observations on the propositions before the committee.—He should never have ex-
1332
s.
s.,
s.
s.
s.;
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.?
s.
s.
s.
s.
1333
s.
s.,
s.,
s.
s.
s.
1334
1335
Lord Morpeth
observed, that in the measure which had failed elsewhere, the agricultural interest, though not perfectly satisfied, had obtained more than they expected, whilst the commercial classes, in fact, all the consumers—were content.
1336
Mr. Western
shortly replied. He said, he was glad to learn from the chancellor of the Exchequer, that he did not propose his measure with a view of ruining the agriculture of the country—that he did not contemplate the putting the bad lands out of cultivation—and that he wished to secure to the country a sufficient supply, without depressing the agriculture of this country. He and the right hon. gentleman were now agreed in their views of the importance of agriculture, and neither wished to see it diminished. These, however, were not the impressions circulated by those publications which advocated the repeal of the Corn-laws. They wished to promote the manufactures of this country at the expense of our own agriculture, and by encouraging the agriculture of foreign countries. To this system he was opposed. He preferred his own measure, because the resolutions proposed by the right hon. gentleman would only allow the corn now in bond to be taken out, and then the country would
1337
Mr. Canning
begged to say a few words in reply to the only objection offered to his resolutions. He should begin by answering a question which had been put by the hon. member for Essex. He did consider that it was the bounden duty of the House to support the agricultural interest; but he did say, that the course which had been pursued, for a series of years, with regard to this subject, was not calculated to promote the interest of the agriculturists, and that in no instance was it plain and clear, their real interests had been consulted. He blamed not those who were the authors of the measures he referred to; it was by mere accident that, in the years 1815 and 1822, he was not a party to them. But there had been a great and grievous mistake throughout in respect to the agricultural question. He considered that the bill which had been sent up to the Lords afforded protection to the agricultural interest in one point, of all things most desirable; it was not highness or lowness which it was calculated to effect, but steadiness. The country would not have had to go through the ruinous fluctuations of former years, which pressed with equal violence on opposite, and sometimes conflicting, but consentient interests. He did think that the bill in the House of Lords, if it had been allowed to pass, would have gone as far towards accomplishing the object in view, as any thing he could think of, or as had been proposed by others. On that ground, the bill had his concurrence; and such a bill should have his support if introduced in the ensuing session. To the principle of protecting duties instead of prohibition, he was decidedly favourable: it was advantageous to the corn trade at home; it enabled growers and importers to go on amicably together, assisting, and not running counter to, each other. Upon these principles the bill was founded. The hon. member for Essex asked, whether there was a difference between a prohibition and a prohibitory duty? He answered yes; there was the same difference in respect to the corn trade, as in respect to other trades: and was there any other trade to which the question could apply? Under a non-prohibitory system, the trade would be going on, whereas under a pro-
1338
1339
COVENTRY MAGISTRACY BILL.]
On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill,
Mr. Fyler
opposed the third reading of the bill, declaring that it was founded on a principle unconstitutional and unjust. He moved as an amendment, that it be read a third time on that day three months.
Lord W. Russell
thought that other remedies ought to be applied to the evils which were visible in the management of the Coventry jurisdiction. In his opinion, the bill inculcated a principle highly dangerous to a free constitution; namely, that
1340
Mr. Birch
opposed the bill, and contended that the magistrates of towns had, on the occasion of the Luddite riots, and at various other times, shown themselves prompt and active in the execution of their duty, while the county magistrates were either inactive, or at too great a distance to render any assistance.
Mr. Van Homrigh
insisted that a bill of this kind, uncalled for and unsupported by any evidence, was
ex post facto,
Lord Sandon
said, that instances of perjury at the election had been adduced, which not only proved the vice of the individuals, but the vice of the system. No attack had been made upon corporate rights, generally: a single remedy had only been applied to a single grievance.
The Attorney-General
said, he saw nothing unconstitutional in the proposed measure. From the statements which had been made, he thought that legislative interference was necessary in this case. When assaults were proved to have been committed with impunity; when persons were not allowed to go up freely to poll; there was evidently a want of authority in the magistrates that ought to be remedied. Mr. Fox had very justly said, that chartered privileges ought not to be invaded by law, unless a very strong case were made out. In this doctrine he fully agreed. Those privileges were given to particular bodies, not for themselves, but for the public benefit; and, when the public benefit was not secured, then the legislature had a right to remedy the evil. With these impressions he should vote for the bill.
Mr. Peel
thought the present extensive measure of redress altogether uncalled for by the alleged grievance. The remedy was worse than the disease. What was the case with respect to Coventry? A committee had been appointed to inquire into the validity of the election of the members, and they decided that those two members were duly elected; but then they turned round and found the magistrates guilty upon an indictment which had never been preferred. He called upon the House to consider the nature of the present bill before they passed it. By that bill they were about to give to the magistracy of the county of Warwick a concurrent jurisdiction, not
1341
Dr. Phillimore
defended the committee, and contended, that, having had the rioting, and other improper conduct, during the election, submitted to them, they would have been guilty of a breach of duty if they had neglected to represent the case as it actually stood. It was clearly proved, that the most serious riots had taken place at the late election; but such disturbances were not confined to this recent period; for it would be found, that similar complaints, with respect to Coventry, were entered upon their Journals so far as a hundred years back.
Mr. Stanley
supported the bill, upon the ground that the local magistrates were unequal to the duties imposed upon them upon such occasions.
Mr. Bankes
thought the law adequate to the punishment of the offenders, without resorting to this bill.
Mr. C. Wynn,
after recounting various instances of abuse which had occurred under the present system, during the last century, the right hon. gentleman contended, that it was impossible that these evils should be remedied, unless some measure like the present were adopted. He did not feel the same apprehension, with regard to the admission of the county magistrates, as his right hon. friend had expressed. The House ought to support the present measure, as the one by which similar riots at Coventry could be effectually put an end to.
1342
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, June 19.
PRIVATE BILLS.] Mr. Hume,
pursuant to notice, rose to move a series of Resolutions for the future regulation of proceedings on Private Bills. He stated, that it was not his intention to do any thing more than move the assent of the House to them during this session; but that, early in the next, he would move for their regular adoption. The hon. member then moved the following Resolutions:—
Mr. Wynn
said, he would not be pledged to the adoption of the resolutions, though he had no immediate objection to urge to
1343
Mr. Hume
said, that that was the very thing he had proposed to the adoption of the House.
DISSENTERS' MARRIAGES BILL.] Mr. W. Smith
moved the third reading of this bill.
Sir T. Acland
regretted that his hon. friend had, in the present bill, departed from the principle of his former bill. His hon. friend had introduced a clause, the effect of which was to make marriage altogether a civil contract. To this he could not consent; and he wished him to postpone the third reading for a day or two, to give time for devising some remedy. By the present bill, Dissenters about to contract matrimony, after publication of bans and other preliminary forms, might go before a magistrate and there complete the contract, the magistrate's certificate being forwarded to the parish church. He should propose that, after the parties had made a declaration of their intention before the magistrate, the latter should authorise them to be married in a Dissenting place of worship. It was with no motive of hostility to the bill, that he moved that the third reading be postponed till Thursday.
Mr. W. Smith
contended, that this bill merely restored the marriage law to what it was before the passing of lord Hardwicke's act in 1752, when the ceremony of marriage between Dissenters was a civil contract. He should be happy to accede to the proposal of the hon. baronet, if he thought that by postponing the consideration of the subject to Thursday he could ensure its success.
Sir C. Wetherell
opposed the bill as a measure which made marriage a mere civil contract, and placed the people of this country, and of these times, under the revolutionary law of Cromwell and of Petion. He thought, too, that any attempt to make marriage a ceremony which might be arranged in a police-office, would increase the number of clandestine marriages.
1344
Mr. Hudson Gurney
said, he was still of opinion the bill ought to include all Dissenters; not but that he thought the best thing they could do, would be to repeal the Marriage Act altogether. He thought the law of Scotland much better than that of England, as it now stood, and believed that there were as few imprudent marriages under their system, as there were under ours.
Dr. Phillimore
supported the bill. Why, he said, not give to all classes of Dissenters, the same privileges which were enjoyed by the Jews and Quakers? In those Catholic countries in which the decisions of the council of Trent were not admitted, marriages by civil contract were considered valid, without the intervention of a priest. Adverting to the four different modes in which his hon. friend had introduced this subject, he observed that the present was preferable to any of the others. He could not see how, consistently with their former decisions on the subject, the House could refuse to agree to the present bill.
Mr. Estcourt
maintained, that the alterations which had been introduced into the bill, while they secured liberty of conscience, also protected the rights of the establishment. He was apprehensive, however, that it was too late in the session to press it forward.
Mr. R. Grant
eulogised the patience which had been exhibited by his hon. friend, the member for Norwich, on this important question. He was at a loss to conceive why all the Dissenters should not be entitled to the same privileges, with reference to the marriage ceremony, as the Jews and Quakers, and the Dissenters and some classes of Catholics in Ireland. With respect to the latter, he could not learn that any inconvenience had resulted from this partial practice of exemption from the Marriage Act, and allowing the parties to celebrate the ceremony according to their own rites. He could not help lamenting that, on all occasions, when a measure of this kind was brought forward, although a wish to do every thing to consult conscientious scruples was professed, yet the spirit of objection always started up, and contrived to defeat the object in view. He thought all the members who were friends to toleration must be friendly to the bill; and it was as a friend to toleration that he would give the measure his support.
Mr. W. Smith
said, he felt no disposition
1345
Mr. Canning
said, that the different objections which had been made to the bill, by the different objectors, were of such a nature, that they proved to him, that the objectors were all agreed as to the principle of the measure. The arguments of the learned gentleman (sir C. Wetherell) were the most unfair he had ever heard used, and were pushed more
ad invidiam
1346
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, June 20.
ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS.] Mr. Warburton
presented a petition from the Royal College of Surgeons, complaining of the regulations of the College. After which, the hon. gentleman proceeded to make the motion of which he had given notice, respecting the Royal College. He observed, that all the evils which usually resulted from a close corporation of any kind had manifested themselves in the institution in question. The interests of the many were sacrificed for the benefit of the few. The enactments of the corporation of which the commonalty complained were as follow: In 1796, a former corporation, out of which the present grew, was, in consequence of some irregularity, dissolved. In 1797, an application was made to parliament for the purpose of establishing the corporation anew; and a bill was brought in for that purpose, granting the proposed corporation many powers, among which was the extraordinary one of monopolizing the Lecturing on Surgery in London; although at that very time many schools of surgery were in existence in the metropolis. After the bill had passed through the Commons, and through several stages in the Lords, great secrecy being observed with respect to its provisions, this strange clause was discovered, and the bill was immediately scouted. In 1800, the College of Surgeons obtained their present charter from the Crown. It was true, that that charter did not contain any such power as the one involved in the clause which he had just described; but the College endeavoured by means of bye-laws, to obtain a similar authority. The evil was, that the individuals of whom the Council of the College consisted were, more or less, connected with the hospitals, and with the lectures delivered in those hospitals; and therefore had a direct interest in framing the bye-laws in question. By those bye-laws it was declared, that the only regular Schools of Anatomy and Surgery were the hospitals of London, Dublin, Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Aberdeen; that no certificate of a pupil could be received unless he had studied in one of the above, containing a hundred patients, for a year; or in a Provincial Hospital, containing the same number of patients, two years. It was well known, that in the Provincial Hospi-
1347
1348
Mr. W. Smith
said, that the subject was by no means new to the House, as similar petitions had been presented upon former occasions. It would be found, that the petitioners were not aggrieved as to the points of complaint, and that the College would have no difficulty in making its case good. It was unfair, in the interim between the present time and the ensuing session, that the College should lie under these heavy charges, especially as many of them arose out of personal pique. It was true, that there was no catalogue of the Hunterian Museum, and that many of the manuscripts of the late Mr. Hunter had been improperly destroyed. Mr. Cliff, however, was sedulously preparing a catalogue.
Mr. Peel
said, he was bound to declare, in justice to the heads of the College, that he had found them willing to remove every evil of which the petition complained. With respect to the refusal to admit the members to enter through the private door, he had advised that the cause of complaint upon that point should be removed, and
1349
1350
Sir Joseph Yorke
said, that the supply of healthy dead bodies, such as of persons executed, was not the only object; it being material for surgeons to obtain the bodies of those who had died of peculiar diseases. He did not see why there might not be introduced into the bill which the right hon. gentleman spoke of, a clause to render it legal for any person who died in poverty previously to dispose of his body. He thought it an evil, that whilst Scotland possessed three schools of medicine and surgery, England and Ireland should possess but one each.
Mr. Hudson Gurney
thought there would be a great evil in giving over the bodies of criminals for dissection, inasmuch as it would go towards increasing the prejudice which existed so inconveniently already. If it were possible, he thought they ought to repeal Mr. Jodrell's Resurrection act. As things stood, the magistracy ought to endeavour to let things pass as silently as they could, instead of exerting any uncalled-for activity.
SMALL DEBTS RECOVERY BILL.] Mr.Peel
rose and said:—Mr. Speaker; I had, yesterday, the satisfaction of performing the last act which was necessary to give effect, so far as the Houses of parliament are concerned, to the bills introduced by me, which had for their object the amendment and consolidation of the law relative to offences against property. Having concluded my labours with respect to those bills, I avail myself of the first opportunity of calling the attention of the House to another subject, connected with our domestic jurisprudence—of minor interest,
1351
1352
1353
s
s
1354
l
1355
1356
1357
l
1358
Mr. Secretary Bourne
thought, that the thanks of the country were due to his right hon. friend, for the various bills he had introduced to amend the laws, and for none more than for that to which he had now called the attention of the House. He was happy to give his cordial support
1359
The Attorney-General
was also disposed to give his full support to the proposition, and agreed, that it was the part of true wisdom rather to amend the deficiences of the old institutions, than to attempt the introduction of new forms of law. He thought that the alteration of the law, with respect to the amount of the debt to be recovered, was such as the change of circumstances required; since 10
l
s
Mr. Hobhouse
trusted that the bill would be passed into a law during the present session. He thought that, with regard to the recovery of small debts, the laws at present existing were a great practical evil, and that the bill to limit Arrests on Mesne Process, which had recently been brought in by the Solicitor-general, and passed with so much haste, rendered the present measure more particularly necessary. The bill of the Solicitor-general went to deprive the creditor of a part of the remedy he had previously enjoyed; and that loss ought to be made up to him by the advantage of at once giving him a greater facility in recovering small debts. He was no advocate for continuing the practice of imprisoning debtors, a practice which he should be happy to see abolished altogether; but his opinion was not that which was generally entertained; and he did, therefore, think, that when the legislature proposed to deprive the creditor of an important part of his remedy, they should afford him an equivalent for it. That equivalent was to be found in in-
1360
Lord Althorp
wished, as much as his hon. friend, that the bill might be passed this session, but he feared it would be impossible. They could never hope to pass the bill without the compensation clause; which could not be satisfactorily settled, in the short time that would elapse between the present period and the end of the session. He did not hesitate to avow, that the present bill was an improvement on that which he had himself introduced. He believed that, if once the machinery of the county courts could be properly put into action, one year of experience would enable them to suggest more improvements than they could hope to discover by the debates of many years.
Mr. Hume
was happy to hear the Attorney-general make admissions which, on a former occasion, he had seemed to disavow. He alluded to that learned gentleman's sentiments upon the subject of imprisonment for debt. In listening with pleasure to the opinions which that learned gentleman had just expressed upon that subject, he could not but recollect how that learned gentleman had treated him, when he had proposed the very same measure which the right hon. member had now introduced. When he had proposed it, the learned gentleman had treated it as wild and theoretical; but now it came from the right hon. gentleman, it was a proposition very fit to be considered. He saw, from this circumstance, that men and not measures were regarded by the learned gentleman; since to that which he had before treated very cavalierly, he was now ready to afford his approbation.
The Attorney-General
said, that the bill introduced by the hon. member for Aberdeen, and the present, were far as the Poles asunder. If he approved of the bill now offered, it was not because it was brought forward by a different individual, but because the right hon. gentleman knew more of the laws of the country than the hon. gentleman. He must say, that the hon. gentleman knew little or nothing of the laws of England. He might be a good arithmetician; he might be able, as had been said by a predecessor of his, to calculate the compound interest of a guinea for a century, on his thumb nail; but he might nevertheless be neither a Solon nor a Lycurgus.
1361
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, June 21.
REAL PROPERTY IN INDIA.] Mr. Fergusson
rose pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to a matter which he deemed of great importance as connected with the administration of the law in his majesty's courts in the East-Indies. His object was, to obtain a select committee, to whose consideration three points would be submitted. The first related to the law affecting landed property belonging to British subjects residing within the jurisdiction of those courts; he used the term "landed" in preference to "real" property, because it had been made a question, and it was one to which he meant to draw the attention of the House, whether a British subject could hold real property in India. For himself, he had no doubt upon the subject; for, to go no further back than the charter of the late king, granted to the supreme court of Bengal, it appeared that that charter gave power to the court to try all actions, real, personal, and mixed, against British subjects, and enabled the sheriff to seize and sell, for the satisfaction of the judgments of the court, the lands, houses, and effects, real and personal, of a defendant being a British subject. But doubts had certainly obtained on this subject, and the supreme court of Calcutta had been divided upon it, in a case which happened whilst he (Mr. Fergusson) practised at the bar; then one of the learned judges holding that such property was a chattel and not real estate in the hands of British subjects. The judgments of the court of Bengal had been, however, uniform in establishing the point, that such property was real estate, modified by the charter, which made it saleable under writs of execution, and so far in the nature of a chattel; it had also been at all times held in the supreme court of Bengal, that lands and houses were assets in the hands of executors and administrators of British subjects deceased, for the payment of their debts generally. On this point no doubt had ever existed till lately, nor was there any difference of opinion upon it amongst those who considered property in lands and houses to be real estate, and those who deemed them to be a chattel interest only. In a late case, however,
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
Mr. Wynn
expressed himself hostile to a motion which embraced such an extent and variety of objects. It was introduced at the very close of the session, when it was obviously impossible, if the committee were appointed, that it would be enabled to report on any one of the subjects which were comprised in the motion. But if it had been brought forward at the commencement, instead of the close of the session, still he could not have agreed to it. Amongst other things, the committee was to declare its opinion "whether landed property belonging to British subjects in the territories subject to the East-India Company, was liable, in the hands of administrators or executors, for the payment of simple contract debts." This was a question of law—a question for the decision of the law authorities; and the learned gentleman himself had stated that a difference of opinion existed amongst the judges in India on that point. The chief justice, it appeared, was of one opinion, and the two puisne judges held the same opinion as the learned gentleman. But if the party against whom the decision was given felt himself aggrieved, an appeal to the privy council was still open to him. When a question of this kind was actually pending, was it regular to come before parliament, and to call for the judgment of a committee on the law? There were some points connected with the law which a committee might ascertain, and on which they might decide; but it was not their province to state what the law was. To declare what the law ought to be—to point out how it might be reformed—was a very different thing. With respect to the meaning of the law, as to its operation on landed property, that was a fit subject for the consideration of the courts. As to the criminal law, it was a question of great importance, and it was highly desirable that a greater degree of uniformity should be introduced into it; but he did not think it by any means desirable that a committee of the House of Commons should be called on to effect that object. He should like to see the law altered and simplified, but that, perhaps,
1368
Mr. Fergusson,
in reply, said, that the case decided in Calcutta, which had been referred to, might never come under appeal, and if it did, would not decide many other questions of great importance, and of some doubt, respecting the law of landed property in India; for instance, whether the widow was entitled to dower, and whether such dower was to have the preference or not over debts. Besides, this case, if decided upon appeal, would be a decision for the presidency of Bengal only, whereas, it was his (Mr. Fergusson's) wish that the same law should be declared for all the territories subject to the different presidencies, and that a uniformity of decision should be ensured in all the courts, on this and on every other point connected with the administration of the law in India. He (Mr. Fergusson) was not satisfied that any great change in the system of administering the law could be best effected by the exertion of individuals; he thought it could be better done by a committee or commission, with power to examine witnesses, than by private and personal intercourse only, although the latter would no doubt also be very valuable. At the late period of the session, however, as little progress could be made if a committee were to be appointed, he would, for that reason, and for that only, abstain from pressing his motion, with a full determination, however, to bring the matter forward early in the next session, should it not be taken up by some person more competent to do it justice. As far as depended on him (Mr. Fergusson) he should not cease his endeavours for that end, until he saw the administration of justice in India made as perfect—he trusted it was as pure—as at home.
NAVAL PROMOTIONS.] Mr. Hume,
in rising, pursuant to notice, to move an address to his majesty, on the subject of Naval Promotions, adverted to the great importance of the subject. He had, on two occasions, called the attention of the House to it; and he had proved by facts, that the government bestowed this patronage through motives of personal favour, or with reference to parliamentary influence. The service of the country did not warrant in any degree the extent of those promotions. Some ex-
1369
l
l
1370
l
l
l
l
Sir G. Cockburn
said, that if the navy was not occasionally supplied with young officers, we should, in the event of a war, be left with a complement of officers, who, from age, would be unable to fight the country's battles. There were two descriptions of promotion; the one was the rewarding existing officers for particular services, and the other the bringing forward of younger men. The objects of the latter promotion were, in great part, the sons of meritorious officers in the army and navy. The desire to obtain promotion was the
1371
Sir J. Yorke
said, the question was one which bore materially upon the finances of the country, and he should consider that he was shrinking from the performance of his duty, if he did not state that it was necessary to exercise a considerable degree of caution with respect to promotions. Some check should be put to the immense patronage which was placed at the disposal of the different branches of the public service. If the chancellor of the Exchequer would endeavour to apply some check to that patronage, he would be the strongest minister that had ever conducted the affairs of the nation. If he did not adopt that line of conduct, he would soon sink to the level of the ministers who had preceded him. It might be the means of checking promotion in the navy to have them gazetted. He had proposed that course to the hon. Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Croker); but he had objected to it, in that mysterious manner which he sometimes adopted, without, however, giving any reasons for the objection.
WAREHOUSED CORN BILL.]
The House having gone into a committee on this bill,
Sir E. Knatchbull
said, he doubted very much whether the mere admission of the corn in bond, upon the terms proposed, would not so affect the market, as to prevent the home agriculturist from obtaining a remunerating price. The best point about the measure was, that it would answer as an experiment; and the result might guide the House in their view of what should be the permanent measure next year. He doubted whether the late measure could fairly be called lord Liverpool's. That noble lord might have been favourable to the principle of the bill, but he did not think that he had been the author of all its details.
Mr. Canning
said, that his first speech
1372
Mr. Bankes
said, that 60s. might have been tolerated as a medium price; but, under the provisions of the late bill, it would have been likely to become a
maximum.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, June 22
CORN AVERAGES BILL.]
Their lordships went into a committee on this bill.
Lord Farnham
said, he wished the averages of towns in Ireland and Scotland to be taken, and therefore intended to
1373
s
Lord Goderich
did not see any conclusive objection to the principle of including Scotland and Ireland, but he thought there was a good objection to adopting the amendment in the present bill. This was intended as a permanent bill, but it was so intended in concurrence with another measure, which had not become law; and there would be a difficulty in introducing the amendment into the bill, except in concurrence with that other measure, as the law now stands. If Scotland and Ireland were introduced, it might have the effect of lowering the averages, and might materially affect the period at which, under the present law, the importation price would be reached. He thought it was unreasonable to introduce such a measure into this bill, seeing that the Corn-laws might be revised next session. It would have an effect on the present law not contemplated by those who framed it. He could not consent to introduce Scotland and Ireland into the present bill, and should oppose the amendment. It would be impossible to know what would be the effect of such an amendment.
The Earl of Malmesbury
said, that unless the proposed extension took place, it would almost be better not to persevere in the bill.
Lord Goderich
said, he had no objection to drop it.
Lord Ellenborough
was not disposed to conclude that the admission of Ireland and Scotland would tend to raise the averages. On reference to the returns of
1374
s
The Earl of Harrowby
entered into a detail of the present mode of taking the averages, and urged the necessity of their lordships' agreeing to the proposed alteration. It was impossible to take the averages to the extent proposed by the amendment, unless an account was taken of every bushel of corn that was sold.
The Duke of Wellington
said, it was impossible that the averages, as proposed to be altered, could be made applicable to the bill now in progress elsewhere. The present Corn-law was that of 1822; the present averages were made applicable to that law, and the newly-proposed mode of taking the averages could not be made applicable to it. But, with a view to any entire permanent measure that might hereafter be introduced upon the subject of the Corn-laws, he thought it highly desirable that the fullest information should be furnished, as to the state of the b averages throughout the country. There would be less chance of fraud, by having that extensive knowledge which it was the object of the amendment to arrive at.
Lord Goderich
said, he did not, on principle, see any great objection to extending the present mode of taking the averages to the inland towns of England and Wales, and, perhaps, subsequently to Ireland and Scotland; but he did not see the necessity of the immediate extension of it, as proposed by the amendment.
The Earl of Harrowby
suggested, whether it would be worth while to set on foot so expensive a system for so short a period, merely for the sake of experiment. The salaries of inspectors amounted to 70
l
l
The Earl of Belmore
thought that, if the measure was extended to Ireland, it would only embarrass the system. It would be
1375
The Marquis of Salisbury
considered the important point in this question was, to adopt that mode which would give the averages most correctly. He supported the amendment, and said that this was the proper time to make the experiment.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, June 22
EAST RETFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.] Mr. Tennyson,
in moving the second reading of the bill, said, that he had postponed it to that late period to allow time for the burgesses of East Retford to petition to be heard by counsel; but no such petition had appeared. There was a petition from the aldermen, containing a sort of protest, but not denying their participancy in the corruption, or praying to be heard. He did not propose to proceed further then, but wished for the second reading, as an assurance that the House would support him in the next session, and would not, in the mean time issue the writ to Retford. He should think it his duty to prepare himself with the local details connected with Birmingham, that would enable him to submit to the House, when parliament re-assembled, a bill with such provisions as would secure to that town the benefits of representation without the evils too frequently attendant upon it. He should provide for a summary mode of taking the poll; for a registration of votes to prevent disputes, and other matters, so as to preclude, if possible, the tumult, demoralization, delay, and expense which might otherwise convert what he intended for a highly beneficial privilege, into an infliction and a curse. All he
1376
Mr. Bankes
opposed the further progress of the measure, on the ground that the case of corruption and bribery had not been sufficiently established. He objected, also, to the further suspension of the writ until the next session.
Mr. Dundas
adverted to a petition from the electors, in which they prayed to be heard by counsel, and asserted their innocence.
Lord Ebrington
said, that no reasonable doubt could be entertained of the corruption of the borough, and that a sufficient case had been made out for its disfranchisement.
Lord Lowther
recommended, that the whole subject should be deferred until next session.
Mr. Wynn
was of opinion, that a
prima facie
Sir C. Wetherell
complained that the bill had been printed with the town of Birmingham substituted for East Retford. It might hence be concluded out of doors, that the House had decided that point before it had even determined to disfranchise East Retford.
Mr. Fergusson
agreed with the general object of the bill, but contended that the evidence already adduced was not sufficient. If the case opened were established, it was more gross than that of Penryn.
Mr. N. Calvert
thought the case of general corruption quite sufficient, and that it was the duty of the House to confer the elective franchise on some place, where it would be exercised with more fidelity.
Sir C. Forbes
saw no reason why the bill should be read even a second time, if it was intended afterwards to postpone it until next session. If they wanted to put
1377
Mr. J. Stuart
said, that if the bill were read a second time, it would appear as if the House had pledged itself to transfer the franchise to Birmingham. Now, he was not prepared to say, even if East Retford were to be disfranchised, that the franchise should be transferred to Birmingham. He might think that it would be better to transfer it to one of the unrepresented Scotch counties, where there was neither bribery nor corruption. He would therefore move as an amendment, "That the bill be read a second time this day three months."
Mr. Ross
supported the second reading, since all the proper amendments might be made in the committee.
Mr. Wynn
would consent to the second reading, only in order to see what the proposition of the hon. mover was. But he wished to guard himself against giving any opinion as to the place to which the franchise should be transferred.
Mr. Ferguson
was desirous to guard himself against giving any opinion now as to what might be his ultimate conclusion, either as to the propriety of the disfranchisement of the borough, or the place to which the franchise should be transferred.
Mr. Bankes
saw no use in allowing this bill to be read a second time just now, when it was well known that it could not stir another stage this session.
Sir C. Wetherell
concurred in that opinion. In such cases as the present, the bill ought to be read only a first time. It was improper to raise expectations in the inhabitants of Birmingham, which might be ultimately disappointed. There had been no discussion as yet, as to the place to which the franchise should be transferred, and he therefore did not think it proper that the bill should be read a second time with Birmingham inserted in it.
1378
Mr. Tennyson
in reply, observed, the he had introduced the bill transferring the franchise to Birmingham with tin deliberate sanction of the House. Manchester and Birmingham offered themselves as the most desirable cases for representation; and Manchester having been appropriated by a noble lord (J. Russell), he had adopted Birmingham; and having done so he could not and would not abandon it. The intelligence had been received at Birmingham with gratitude and satisfaction, and had created a great sensation there [hear, hear, from sir C. Wetherell] His learned friend cheered, but he begged to inform him, that the satisfaction and excitement he alluded to was amongst all the leading inhabitants of the place, as would appear from the copy of a requisition in his hand, signed by almost all the intelligent and wealthy merchants and manufacturers, by five bankers, and generally by gentlemen of importance at Birmingham. The requisition was for a public meeting, from which, no doubt, a petition would emanate, and be presented to the House before the prorogation. After this he should think he acted most unfairly if he consented to the substitution of any other place [hear, hear]; and if the transfer were to be made to a town, he saw no ground for change, for no place required distinct representation more than Birmingham. He wished for the second reading chiefly as a pledge from the House, that it would proceed with regard to East Retford in the next session; when he should move to re-introduce the bill. For the present session it would necessarily drop. As to the nature of the franchise to be established at Birmingham, it undoubtedly required great deliberation. He had applied himself diligently to the subject, but it was one for future consideration. His object was, to establish a franchise which would furnish a constituent body limited in point of numbers within convenient bounds; but one also which, comprising a portion from all classes, would bestow upon the mass of the inhabitants the satisfaction of feeling that they were represented, while at the same time due weight would be given to the commercial interests and property of the town. In the bill he had endeavoured to indicate a franchise with these qualities; and if it had been committed
pro forma
1379
ABUSE OF CORPORATE FUNDS TO ELECTION PURPOSES.] Mr. Maberly
rose, to withdraw the notice of his intention to move a Resolution concerning the application of Corporate Funds to Election Purposes. His attention, he said, had been drawn to this subject, in consequence of the
dictum
1380
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, June 25.
WAREHOUSED CORN BILL.] Lord Goderich
in rising to move the second reading of this bill, said it was not necessary for him to trouble their lordships at any length, by going into observations on the general subject of the Corn-laws; a subject so often discussed, and upon which the views of their lordships were so well known. He wished, however, to offer a few remarks explanatory of the ground on which his majesty's ministers had proceeded; first, as to the bill which had not been read a third time; and, secondly, as to this measure, which had recently come up from the other House. With respect to the former bill, if he considered that the alteration which their lordships had made in it was of small importance—if he considered it an alteration with regard to which any reasonable doubt could be entertained of its affecting the whole measure, he should have been most unwilling to abstain from letting it pass into a law; but, having stated what appeared to him to be convincing grounds against the propriety of adopting the clause introduced by his noble friend, he did not feel it possible for him to call upon the other House to say whether or not they would acquiesce in it; and he conceived that the course he had taken was the least likely to produce any inconvenient or unpleasant collision. On the fullest reflection, he felt persuaded that he had not taken any other course than that which was most consistent with his own duty, and most conducive to the public benefit. In the mean time, he also felt that it was impossible to leave the
1381
1382
The Earl of Malmesbury
said, that his noble friend misunderstood his recommendation as to the bill of 1815. What he had proposed was, to withdraw the restrictive clause, so as to allow the bill of 1822 to come into operation; for it had never yet been in operation. He had recommended it, supposing it was the intention of government not to bring forward any other measure this year; and he supposed it would be better under the bill of 1822, without the clause, than as we were at present. What his noble friend said, as to barley being imported in August, might be correct; but why not bring in a bill to apply only to barley; and why bring in a bill which applied to wheat? His noble friend had good ground for his measure as to barley; but he had no ground whatever for his bill as it applied to wheat. It appeared, that there were upwards of six hundred thousand quarters of wheat in bond, and there was also a quantity of flour.
Viscount Goderich.
—Seventy six thousand hundred weight of flour.
1383
d
1384
The Duke of Wellington
said, he could not agree with his noble friend that it would be right to throw upon the government the responsibility of admitting foreign corn for consumption. On the contrary, he fully agreed with ministers, that it was expedient that some measure of the kind now proposed should be agreed to after the disappointment which had been experienced relative to the other mea-
1385
1386
"London, June
1387
1388
"WELLINGTON."
"
Eartham, Petworth, 5th, June,
1389
1390
"W. HUSKISSON."
His Grace continued to say, that he only entered upon that correspondence, in order to prove beyond any possibility of cavil, the reasons and the motives which had influenced him in the cause he had pursued. Any feeling of party, or of faction, or of the least desire to embarrass, he utterly and entirely disclaimed: nor had he any other than the one view of making the measure more palatable to the country; as he believed would have been the case, had his amendment been agreed to.
Lord Goderich
disclaimed any intention of uttering a syllable which could, by the remotest possibility, impute to his noble friend any but the best motives for his conduct; and he was sure, on the other hand, that his noble friend would do him the justice to believe that he had opposed the clause which had been proposed by his noble friend on no other ground but his conviction that it would not effect the purpose required. It was undoubtedly true, that before the committee on the bill his noble friend had communicated to him the
1391
Earl Grey
said:—My Lords, it is not my wish or intention to prolong the discussion of a subject which has already been too much agitated in this House and throughout the country. I am the more unwilling to do so from the tone of moderation—if not of apology—adopted by the noble viscount who introduced the bill; and, in imitation of his example, I am anxious to abstain from any expression
1392
1393
1394
1395
in pari materiâ."
1396
1397
1398
Lord Goderich
wished to be allowed to make one observation with respect to an expression which fell from the noble earl. The noble lord, in alluding to the tone in which the motion had been brought before the House, said that it conveyed something of an apology. He must take leave to tell their lordships and the noble earl, that he made no apology. He made no apology, because he did not think there had been any offence. If, however, their Lordships should ever find him deviating from that course of duty and respect, which he was equally bound as a peer and as a member of his majesty's government to observe towards their lordships, then they would be entitled to call upon him for an apology, and then it would be his duty to make that apology. In this case, he repeated, he made no apology; because, whether the measure which he proposed might prove right or turn out to be wrong, it was his duty to bring it before their lordships; and he claimed the privilege of maintaining his opinions and his measures with the same earnestness as the noble earl or any other member of their lordships' House.
Earl Grey
said, he did not intend to offend the noble viscount by the use of the word apology. Perhaps he ought rather to have said the noble viscount made an apologetic explanation; for such it might be called. He repeated, however, that he did not mean to use the expression in any way which the noble viscount might deem offensive; and although he was not a person in the habit of retracting what he had once uttered on such occasions, yet he would say, that if any expression which fell from him had offended the noble viscount, he was sorry he had used it.
Lord Goderich.
—I have not a word more to say.
1399
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, June 26.
FOREIGN OFFICE.] The Marquis of Londonderry
said, he was anxious, if not inconvenient to the House, to take that opportunity of saying a few words respecting the papers on their lordships' table, which he had moved for, relative to the Foreign Office. In making these observations, he felt great diffidence and some reluctance; for it would give him great pain if it were supposed that he had been induced by personal motives to make any observations on those papers. He also felt great reluctance in bringing forward this affair, because circumstances had induced his noble friends, who had given notices of motions in a substantive form, to abstain from pressing them forward. Still, though he felt much reluctance in pursuing, the course he was about to follow, he did not shrink from doing so, because his noble friend opposite had intimated, that touching upon these matters in no specific form was something like faction. Faction was a school he had never been brought up in; and he trusted that he never should be guilty of faction. Whatever he might have to urge in their lordships' House, he should always state openly and distinctly. The government had been formed by manœuvre and intrigue, and fostered by delusion, and could not stand. That was his firm opinion. He wished his noble friends had gone on with the motions of which they had given notice. The sense of the House would then have been long ago taken on them, in such a way as would have placed the noble lords opposite in such a state of embarrassment as would have made it difficult for them to extricate themselves from. He thought the government was formed without any principle at all. The noble lord opposite had said, that they should be the basest of all men if they did not act on the principles of lord Liverpool. A noble lord, who had great weight, had said, that the government was not formed on the principles of lord Liverpool, and he must therefore infer that the
1400
l
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1.
l.
l.
quid pro quo
quid pro quo
1401
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1402
l.
l.
Lord Dudley and Ward.
— Do you intend to make any motion on the subject?
The Marquis of Londonderry.
—None.
Lord Dudley and Ward
said, he thought the noble marquis had adopted a most extraordinary course, after he had called for papers which had been laid upon the table a considerable time.
The Marquis of Londonderry.
—The last only yesterday.
Lord Dudley and Ward
resumed. The noble lord, after much note of preparation, had come down to the House to make a desultory speech, inculpating a particular department of his majesty's government, without giving any public notice, and without ending with any specific proposition. He felt that, under these circumstances, he was not justified in giving any answer to what he must say (without intending any offence to the noble marquis) must be considered, according to the practice of parliament, unfair remarks. Their lordships would remember, that when the papers to which the noble marquis alluded were asked for, they were moved for with considerable pomp, as if some delusion had been practised—as if they were to preface some important motion—and as if some great discovery had been made. The noble lord said, he wished to place before parliament and the country an account of the vast patronage of the Foreign-office, and to contrast the expenses of that department of the government in the years 1822 and 1826; that was, speaking plainly, to contrast the expenses of the administration of the late marquis of Londonderry with that of Mr. Canning. The papers which the noble marquis moved for had been produced; and what was the result after all? Why, it appeared that there had been hardly any increase of expenditure in the Foreign-office, except that which was satisfactorily accounted for by the increased expense in the consular department℄ an arrangement that had re-
1403
l.
1404
The Marquis of Londonderry.
— The noble lord had better say "through the medium of the Foreign-office."
Lord Dudley and Ward.
— The noble marquis said, it had been made public through the Foreign-office. He should like to know how the noble marquis could know it without a most scandalous breach of trust—a most scandalous breach of duty on the part of some person in that office [hear, hear]. He would repeat— how could the noble marquis have known it, but through a most scandalous breach of duty on the part of that person from whom the noble marquis had derived his information? On the noble marquis's application, lord Liverpool had written, in pencil, the words— "This is too bad." And he had seen them himself. There was no breach of confidence in stating this; he had no motive in so doing; but when he was told, that the noble marquis had been calumniated by the returns from the Foreign-office, he could not allow noble lords to go away under the impression, that something very unjust had been done to the noble marquis. Now, with respect to the breach of confidence, as it had been termed, although the fact must have come from the Foreign-office, yet he protested he had no knowledge by what means, or through what channels, it had reached the newspapers. He was now only speaking of the transaction, as an instance of extraordinary breach of confidence on the part of the individual through whom the knowledge of it had escaped to the public. He did not want to bring any censure on the noble marquis: the transaction itself was one upon which he wished to be understood as expressing no opinion whatever. The noble marquis had adopted a course which he thought was suggested by his duty. How far he was right in so thinking, it was not for him to say. He was bound to suppose that. the noble marquis had acted under a conscientious sense of duty; and he was not attempting to draw down any censure upon the conduct he had thought proper to pursue. The observations of the noble marquis,
1405
l.
l.
l.
The Marquis of Londonderry
hoped that he should be excused for again trespassing upon their lordships, after the extraor-
1406
Holderness-House, May
(Signed) "VANE LONDONDERRY."
The answer of the noble lord opposite was a complete denial; and he consequently
1407
Holderness-House, May
l.
(Signed) "VANE LONDONDERRY."
Now, what he complained of was, that an anonymous publication of this description should go forth, for the purpose of injuring his character, after the lapse of time which he had mentioned. With respect to the noble lord, he felt obliged to him for the kindness he had shown him in bringing forward this subject on the present occasion. He was desirous, however, that the whole correspondence which had taken place upon it should be shown to the public; for there was no act of his life, either public or private, of which he had ever felt ashamed.
DISSENTERS' MARRIAGES BILL.] The Marquis of Lansdown,
in moving that the House should go into a committee on this bill, said he wished to avail himself of that
1408
1409
1410
1411
The Earl of Eldon
regretted the absence of the right reverend prelate on this occasion, because it was his misfortune to differ with him in the view which he took of this subject. He wished, in the first place, to separate from the consideration of the question every thing which had been said with regard to the Jews and the Quakers. In his opinion, the state of the Jews had no possible connection with the subject before their lordships. It might, perhaps, be different with regard to the Quakers; and he would here take leave to make an observation upon what had fallen from the noble marquis, when he spoke of a doubt having been thrown out respecting the validity of a Quaker's marriage. If that doubt related to any thing which had fallen from him, he must have been completely misunderstood; for he had distinctly given it as his opinion, that the marriage was perfectly valid. He was the more anxious to say this, because he was aware that doubts might have been raised, from the nature of the law on that subject. In 1661, they would find that the result of a proceeding at law admitted the validity of such marriages. In 1730, in another proceeding at common law, A doubt was cast upon the legality of a Quaker marriage, although its validity was afterwards confirmed upon a rehearing of the cause. The 7th and 8th of William and Mary contain, however, a clause which decides
1412
lex loci;
lex loci
1413
1414
1415
1416
l.
l.
1417
Lord Calthorpe
said, he was inclined to think that the great practical grievance was what the church itself laboured under, as long as the law continued in its existing state. With reference to the arguments used by the learned lord about the bill being a measure of partiality to the Unitarians, as a sect distinguished from all other Dissenters, he had overlooked, that no distinction existed between the Unitarians and all other religionists, except, perhaps, the Jews. Upon this ground alone, the Unitarians might not have any claim upon the consideration of parliament; but the public had strong claims that the legislature should relieve the established church of the blasphemy committed by its ministers in being called upon to pronounce, in the most solemn manner, the doctrine of the Trinity, to persons who did not believe in it, and to exact from such persons an assurance of faith which they did not possess. He did not imagine that human ingenuity could
1418
Lord Farnham
said, he was ready to grant as much relief to the Unitarians as was consistent with the interests of the established religion; but their lordships should proceed in this measure with caution, as it was, he believed, the first attempt made to divest marriage of the solemnities of religion. The relief which he was inclined to give to the Unitarians would be to allow them to be married by clergymen of their own persuasion. To the present bill, however, he had that objection, which must be made to all bills on important subjects introduced in the last week of the session, that it could not at that period be hurried into a law, without containing many defects.
The Lord Chancellor
observed, that it was with considerable diffidence he addressed the House, after the very able
1419
per verba de presenti
1420
1421
1422
The Earl of Eldon
in explanation, said, that his noble relative, lord Stowell, was disabled by illness from attending the discussion. Inadvertence alone had prevented his noble relative from attending by proxy against the measure; so strong was his aversion to the bill.
The Bishop of Chester
said, he felt himself bound to offer a few words in support of the bill, in conformity with the pledge he had given. He agreed with the learned earl opposite, that some alterations were necessary; but he thought with the learned lord on the woolsack, that those alterations could be easily made in the committee. He would not go at length into the details of the bill; but he thought their lordships would do wisely to acknowledge its principle, by which they would give satisfaction to a numerous body of Dissenters, by shewing them that the legislature was ready to afford them all the assistance compatible with the integrity of the church,
1423
1424
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, June 29
FREE PEOPLE OF COLOUR.] The Earl of Harrowby
rose for the purpose of presenting a petition from the Free People of colour in Jamaica. If this petition proceeded from that class of persons which generally addressed their lordships, calling their attention to the common topics to which it had been usually directed, he should not think it necessary to say a single word on the subject of the petition, and would leave it to speak for itself. But, in presenting this petition from a class of persons who had never before appeared before their lordships, and with the peculiar circumstances of whose situation he believed many of their lordships were unacquainted, he should feel it necessary to request their indulgence while he stated the present situation of the petitioners, and the nature of that which they desired. The petitioners were entitled to the attention of their lordships on account of their number, their wealth, and their good conduct; and the petition itself was entitled to attention, from the temperate terms in which the petitioners described the grievances they laboured under, and the moderate nature of the requests which it contained. These persons were the offspring, in different degrees of remoteness, of the black and the white population. It appeared from Mr. Edwards, that, at the time he wrote his History of the West Indies, the population consisted of 30,000 white people, 240,000 slaves, and 10,000 free people of colour. What was the state of the population at present? The number of whites from 30,000 had diminished to 25,000; the number of free people of colour was 30,000—10,000 of whom were blacks; and the number of the slaves from 240,000 had increased to 320,000. The petitioners were, therefore, as far as number was concerned, sufficiently numerous to attract attention. A population of 30,000 complaining of one common grievance, deserved to have that, grievance considered. They were persons, however, who had been under a singular state of degradation from not being allowed to in-
1425
l
l
1426
Lord Ellenborough
supported the prayer of the petition, though he understood that the lower class of the petitioners were not in a situation to enjoy the civil rights they prayed for.
Lord Seaford
supported the petition, and bore testimony to the respectability and good conduct of the petitioners. Still he thought it would not be wise to interfere with the subject at present. It was a case of great difficulty, for which there was no parallel in the history of the world. The noble lord, after taking a review of the different measures which, at various times, had relieved the petitioners from several of the disabilities under which they laboured, concluded by stating, that the colonial legislature were now more favourably disposed to them, and he was therefore anxious that the question should be left in its hands, lest the agitation of it should produce a re-action.
Lord Calthorpe
was not disposed to place the same confidence in the local legislature that his noble friend did. He thought it incumbent on their lordships to attend to the prayer of the petition.
DISSENTERS' MARRIAGES BILL.] The Marquis
of Lansdown moved that the report of this bill be brought up.
Lord Tenterden
suggested the introduction of some verbal amendments; which, after a desultory conversation, were agreed to.
The Marquis of Lansdown
moved, that
1427
The Bishop of Chester
said, he had been assured, that the clergy of the church of England had no objection to the principle of the bill. They were quite willing to publish the bans and to register the marriages when the certificates were sent to them, provided they were exempted (as this bill would exempt them), from the painful duty of assisting personally at the performance of the ceremony.
The bill was then, pro forma,
ordered to be read a third time this day fortnight. It consequently stands over till next session.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, June 29>.
CAPE OF GOOD HOPE—CONDUCT OF LORD CHARLES SOMERSET.] Mr. Wilmot Horton
presented certain papers relative to the Cape of Good Hope, pursuant to the order of the House.
Lord E. Somerset
immediately proceeded to address the Chair; but the place from which he spoke, being directly under the gallery, rendered it impossible to collect his observations. The first sentence of his lordship's speech which reached our ears related to a Letter concerning certain proceedings that had taken place at the Cape which had been recently published, and which reflected on the conduct of Parliament. He did not rise to propose that the author of that letter should be called to the bar of the House for a breach of its privileges; but he adverted to it, for the purpose of showing the invariable system of misrepresentation which existed with respect to subjects connected with the Cape of Good Hope. His noble relation had, for a considerable time, been subject to the grossest abuse, which was circulated not only through the public papers, but through every channel that could be employed for that purpose. Two years had now elapsed since the petition of Mr. Bishop Burnett had been presented to the House. That petition contained charges against the conduct of his noble relation, of so serious a character, that he deemed it necessary to come to England for the purpose of meeting his accusers, and of justifying himself in the face of his country. A voluminous report had been made by the commissioners appointed to inquire into the proceedings at
1428
1429
Mr. Maberly
deprecated an incidental discussion of this sort. He begged, however, to state, that the gallant officer to whom allusion had been made, was ready to come forward and to prove every one of his assertions, whenever his majesty's government thought it necessary to have the statements made by him inquired into. It was unfair to assert, that the gallant officer had published a series of calumnies, when he was anxious to come forward and substantiate his statements. When such was the true state of the case, he was not ready to join in an acquittal of the noble lord whose conduct had been impugned. There was, in his opinion, much to be inquired into. It was the imperative duty of parliament to investigate closely and narrowly the charges that had been made. He denied, in the most decided manner, that they were calumnies which his gallant friend had sent forth. He had nothing to do with the motives which had induced the hon. member for Arundel to let the motion, of which he had given notice, drop. It was a question of a most serious nature; and he did not think it was just towards the noble lord for the hon. member to have abandoned the motion.
Mr. Brougham
said, he could only observe on this occasion, as he had had the satisfaction to observe on a former one, that nothing could be more proper than the spirit, the temper, and the amiable feeling, which had been manifested by the noble lord, whenever the painful charges against his noble relative had been alluded to. It was certainly true, as the noble lord had stated, that he was the person
1430
1431
s
l
l
s
l
l
1432
1433
1434
Mr. Wilmot Horton
observed, in reference to what had fallen from his hon. and learned friend, that government had not lost sight of the principle of sending out persons to administer the law in the colonies, who were thoroughly imbued with the principles of English law. On a recent occasion, two of the judges sent out came precisely within the description of those persons whom his hon. and learned friend was desirous of seeing placed in such situations; but it was at the time thought necessary, and, indeed, it was recommended by the highest authorities in this country, to send out a gentleman acquainted with the practice of the civil law; it being likely that questions might arise, in which his knowledge of that branch of jurisprudence would be of the greatest utility. Now, with respect to the question immediately before them, the House must be aware, that the case of the noble lord had now been before it for two years; that paper after paper had been laid upon the table; and that extreme expense had been incurred by retaining commissioners at the Cape, to sift into the charges preferred against the noble lord. It must also be in the recollection of the House, that the hon. member for Arundel, after pledging himself to bring forward a specific accusation, had, for reasons with which he was utterly unacquainted, abandoned that intention. The House, likewise, would not forget, that on two separate occasions he had appealed to the hon. member for Arundel on the principles of justice and courtesy, to inform him what were the charges which he intended to prefer against lord C. Somerset, in order that the noble lord might be prepared to defend himself, and that he (Mr. W. Horton) might be enabled to collect the information which might be necessary for that purpose. The session had now approached its termination, and the hon. member for Arundel had neither brought his charges forward, nor communicated the nature of them. Without implying that
1435
Mr. Hume
said, that having been one of those who had presented to the House petitions impugning the government and conduct of the noble lord (Somerset), he felt called upon to defend the petitioners against the imputations cast upon them. So far from these petitions having been the work of combination or conspiracy, no set of persons in the colony were more detached from or independent of each other, than the different bodies from whom these petitions had emanated. Each had separate and serious complaints. For his part, he regretted as much as any man that no inquiry had taken place. It ought to be recollected, that the report of the commissioners had only been laid before the House during the present session. His opinion was, that it was the bounden duty of government to institute
1436
Mr. F. Palmer
said, he understood that sir R. Donkin had stated to the head of the colonial department, that he had a charge to make against lord C. Somerset, and that lord Bathurst declined to entertain it. He had himself seen a letter, signed by the right hon. secretary, telling sir R. Donkin that lord Bathurst did not wish him to bring forward his charge. That fact ought to be set at rest. He spoke in the presence of the right hon. secretary, who could contradict him if he stated that which was incorrect. As the character of sir R. Donkin was, in some degree, affected by what had passed, it might not be immaterial to put the House in possession of the fact, that he had filled the office of governor of the Cape for two years all but five days, in such a manner as to obtain for him the thanks of his majesty, of every public department at the Cape, and of the inhabitants of the Cape generally. These marks of approbation were bestowed upon sir R. Donkin not at a time when he was in power, but when he was out of office, and had left the colony. Whilst sir R. Donkin acted as governor he effected some extensive improvements. Amongst other things, he reduced the expenditure to the extent of half a million. When he left office, the expenditure was 300,000 rixdollars; and in 1823 it was augmented to 1,300,000. He could not consent to give a general verdict of acquittal in behalf of lord C. Somerset, because one charge had proved to be without foundation. He had hitherto seen only one report from the commissioners; but he understood there were nine. Was he to suppose that because the first report contained heavy matter against the noble lord, the remaining eight would acquit him of all blame? It was indispensably necessary that the whole case should be fully inquired into. One thing was clear; namely, that the inhabitants of the Cape and the people of England would not acquit his lordship, until an investigation had taken place. He would say one word in the way of apology for the hon. member who had not brought forward a motion, in reference to this subject, of which he had given notice. It had been stated from good authority, that so long as there was a prospect of lord C. Somerset's return to the Cape, the inhabitants of the colony would be afraid to come forward to substantiate any charge
1437
Mr. W. Horton
felt it necessary, in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. member, to repeat what he had said on a former evening. Sir R. Donkin stated in the first instance, that he could make disclosures which would cover lord C. Somerset with ruin. That declaration was very naturally construed into a charge by lord Bathurst; and he thought the House would be of opinion, that when one public man spoke in such terms of another, it was not forcing the meaning of the English language to put that construction upon them. Sir R. Donkin, however, disclaimed the intention of bringing forward a charge against the noble lord. He said, he meant nothing of the kind, That being the case, lord Bathurst told him finally, that as he did not mean to bring forward any charge, the colonial department would not call upon him for any further information, because they had other means of arriving at a knowledge of the facts of the case. He left it to the House to decide whether sir R. Donkin had not retracted his charge. With respect to putting the House in possession or all the reports of the commissioners, he must say that he could undertake to do no such thing. Many of the reports would refer to local points wholly unconnected with the subject under discussion. If it should appear proper to lay any of the future reports upon the table of the House, he would do so; but he would not pledge himself to any precise course. It was sufficient that government acted on their responsibility, and would be prepared to defend themselves when called upon.
Mr. Baring
said, he could not conceive a graver responsibility than that incurred by any hon. gentleman who put his name upon the order book of the House to bring forward a serious charge against an individual, and who afterwards left it uncompleted, as had been done by the hon. member for Arundel in the present case. No doubt that hon. member might have
1438
Lord F. L. Gower
said, that after so long a time, and such ample opportunities had been suffered to pass by, the noble lord had a right to be absolved from all personal charges which had been made against him and abandoned. His intimate conviction was, that all such charges were utterly groundless. He would be the last man to stand in the way of what might be conceived to be improvements in the government of the colony, but there were questions upon which every gentleman and man of honour had a right to constitute himself a judge; and on these points he was satisfied that there was no ground for imputation against lord C. Somerset.
EAST RETFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL—PETITION FROM BIRMINGHAM.] Mr. Lawley
presented the following petition, signed by three thousand inhabitants of the town of Birmingham:—
The humble Petition of the Inhabitants of the Town of Birmingham, in the county of Warwick, being Rate Payers of the said town,
"Sheweth;—That your Petitioners have observed with grateful satisfaction the introduction into your Honourable House of a Bill for enabling the town of Birmingham to return Representatives to Parliament.
1439
Mr. Littleton
said, it was not Birmingham only that was interested, but the neighbouring towns which engaged in manufacture. The population in that neighbourhood was exceedingly numerous, and possessed strong claims to have the elective franchise conferred on them.
Mr. Tennyson
said, that those great manufacturing towns were by no means indifferent to the right of returning representatives. In order to show this feeling in a strong light, he wished to have the petition read at length. It was his intention, at the commencement of next session, to move the renewal of that bill which had been read a second time in that House.
CASE OF MR. GOURLAY.] Mr. Hume
said, he had to present a petition from an individual from whom he had frequently presented petitions before; he meant Mr. Robert Gourlay, now a prisoner in ColdBath-fields prison. The hon. gentleman then re-stated the case of this individual, and said, he considered it a very hard one. Mr. Gourlay had been in prison three years on the charge of an accuser whom
1440
Mr. Brougham
said, that what had fallen from his hon. friend made it necessary that he should trouble the House with a few words respecting an individual whom he always thought to be mad, and whom he believed now more than ever, after hearing this petition, to labour under insanity. There never could be a doubt as to who was Mr. Gourlay's accuser. His accuser was the Home Department—the department of the Police.
Mr. Hume.
—Mr. Peel has denied this.
Mr. Brougham
—Well, then, the police themselves must have been his accusers. At all events, the assertion that he was the person who had charged Mr. Gourlay at the Police-office was utterly groundless, absolutely and altogether false. So little ground was there for such a representation, that when he was sent for, to go and appear against this poor man, he had refused to have any thing to do with him. But, whether interference could fairly be charged upon him was quite of another description. He had applied to Mr. Maule, the solicitor to the Treasury, who informed him that this poor man could procure his own enlargement upon offering the slightest amount of surety. This was all that was necessary—this was what the magistrates must require—this was what would be exacted from any one of the fourteen million of subjects of these realms, if he committed, or—as was the case in this instance—if he attempted to commit, a breach of the peace; for the poor man really did no more than shake his cane or whip, or whatever it was he held in his hand, over his (Mr. B's.) head in the lobby. A person so trespassing could not, in fact, be let off by a magistrate without surety. The law was peremptory, and the magistrate would violate his duty, who let a man off so circumstanced, without the necessary amount of security. But it was a mistake to suppose that Mr. Gourlay was charged publicly with madness. That he laboured under mental derangement he firmly believed, not only from what he knew of Mr. Gourlay himself, but from the opinion of two physicians, the most experienced in cases of lunacy of any in London, one of whom was sir George Tuthill. He had even asked Mr. Gourlay's counsel what he thought of him, and that gentleman had
1441
1442
1443
Mr. Hudson Gurney
professed himself not satisfied with the statement of the hon. and learned gentleman, as to the mode in which this man had been detained in custody; and, as he understood, by the order of that House.
Mr. Brougham
repeated, that there had been no detention of this man by the authority of that House.
Mr. Perceval
said, he understood that the hon. member for Aberdeen and other persons were willing to give the necessary security for this individual, but that he refused to accept it, until a commission had been appointed and made their report.
1444
Lord Palmerston
could not help thinking that the refusal of the offer of the hon. member for Aberdeen indicated something very like mental aberration in the petitioner.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, July 2.
THE KING'S SPEECH AT THE CLOSE OF THE SESSION.]
After the royal assent had been given, by commission, to several public and private bills, an end was put to the session. The following is the Speech of the Lords Commissioners:
1445
1446
APPENDIX.
FINANCE ACCOUNTS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED 5TH JANUARY, 1827.
CLASS.
I.
PUBLIC INCOME.
II.
PUBLIC EXPENDITURE.
III.
CONSOLIDATED FUND.
IV.
PUBLIC FUNDED DEBT.
V.
UNFUNDED DEBT.
VI.
DISPOSITION OF GRANTS.
VII.
ARREARS AND BALANCES.
VIII.
TRADE AND NAVIGATION.
FINANCE ACCOUNTS:
No. I.—An Account of the ORDINARY REVENUES and EXTRAORDINARY RESOURCES, IRELAND, for the Year
HEADS OF REVENUE.
GROSS RECEIPT.
Repayments, Allowances, Discounts, Drawbacks, and Bounties of the Nature of Drawbacks, &c.
NETT RECEIPT within the Year, after deducting REPAYMENTS, &c.
Ordinary Resources.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
Customs
20,582,924
11
8¾
1,019,951
10
0½
19,562,913
1
8¼
Excise
22,541,969
14
6¾
1,915,342
18
2
20,626,626,
16
4¾
Stamps
7,101,503
18
6
261,473
11
7¾
6,840,030
6
10¼
Taxes, under the Management of the Commissioners of Taxes
5,030,028
18
8
6,519
12
1
5,023,509
6
7
Post Office
2,392,272
2
7¾
95,870
6
9¼
2,296,401
15
10½
One Shilling in the Pound, and Sixpence in the Pound on Pensions and Salaries, and Four Shillings in the Pound on Pensions
49,587
16
9¾
-
-
-
49,587
16
9¼
Hackney Coaches, and Hawkers and Pedlars
74,370
7
9
-
-
-
74,370
7
9
Crown Lands
278,088
0
10¾
-
-
-
278,088
0
10¾
Small Branches of the King's Hereditary Revenue
9,343
0
0
-
-
-
9,343
0
0
Surplus Fees of Regulated Public Offices
69,160
14
11
-
-
-
69,160
14
11
Poundage Fees, Pells Fees, Casualties, Treasury Fees, and Hospital Fees
9,594
10
8¾
-
-
-
9,594
10
8¾
TOTALS of Ordinary Revenues
28,138,843
17
2
3,299,157
18
8½
54,839,685
18
5½
———
Other Resources
Money received from the East-India Company, on account of Retired Pay, Pensions, &c. of his Majesty's Forces serving in the East Indies, per Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 71
60,000
0
0
-
-
-
60,000
0
0
From the Commissioners for the Issue of Exchequer Bills, per Act 57 Geo. 3, c. 34, for the Employment of the Poor
117,000
7
2
Money received from the Trustees of Naval and Military Pensions
4,380,000
0
0
-
-
-
4,380,000
0
0
From several County Treasurers, and others in Ireland, on account of Advances made by the Treasury, for improving Post Roads, for building Gaols, for the Police, for Public Works, Employment of the Poor, &c.
156,581
8
11¾
-
-
-
156,581
8
11¾
Imprest Monies, repaid by sundry Public Account ants, and other Monies paid to the Public
184,974
15
7¼
-
-
-
184,974
15
7¼
Payment of the Balance settled by Treaty to be due from the King of the Netherlands
100,000
0
0
-
-
-
100,000
0
0
Repayment on account of Money advanced out of the Consolidated Fund, in the year 1825, for Silver Coinage
206,365
14
10
-
-
-
206,365
14
10
From the Bank of England, on account of Unclaimed Dividends
64,581
12
2
-
-
-
64,581
12
2
TOTALS of time Public Income of the Unite Kingdom
63,408,347
15
11
3,299,157
18
8½
60,109,189
17
2½
Whitehall, Treasury Chambers, 24th March, 1827.
CLASS I.—PUBLIC INCOME.
constituting the PUBLIC INCOME of the United Kingdom of GREAT BRITAIN and ended 5th January, 1827.
TOTAL INCOME, including BALANCES outstanding 5th Jan. 1826.
Charges or Collection, and other Payments out of the Income, in its Progress to the Exchequer.
PAYMENTS into the EXCHEQUER.
BALANCES and BILLS outstanding on 5th january, 1827.
TOTAL DISCHARGE of the INCOME.
Rate per cent for which the Gross Receipt was collected.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
20,083,083
10
8⅛
2,221,985
15
7
17,280,711
19
3¼
580,385
15
9⅞
20,083,083
10
8⅛
7
9
4½
21,791,369
0
6¾
1,617,251
3
8⅛
19,172,019
13
0¾
1002,098
3
99⅞
21,791,369
0
6¾
5
13
7¾
2,510,799
3
2¼
747,018
0
11¼
1,570,000
0
0
193,781
2
3
2,510,799
3
2¼
28
8
11¼
52,731
15
4¼
1,186
11
7
48,427
10
6¼
3,117
13
3
52,731
15
4¼
2
7
10
74,376
9
1
9,843
1
1
64,151
10
0
376
18
0
74,376
9
1
13
4
10
315,945
8
1
291,168
13
10¼
-
-
-
24,776
14
2¾
315,945
8
1
15
16
2
13,698
17
5¾
3,572
18
8
6,325
8
7
3,800
10
2¾
13,698
17
5¾
14
15
10
69,160
14
11
-
-
-
69,160
14
11
-
-
-
69,160
14
11
—
9,594
10
8¾
-
-
-
9,594
10
8¾
-
-
-
9,594
10
8¾
—
57,202,756
1
1⅝
5,387,384
15
2⅝
49,625,485
11
6
2,189,885
14
5
57,202,756
1
1⅝
6
18
7¾
60,000
0
0
-
-
-
60,000
0
0
-
-
-
60,000
0
0
0
—
117,000
7
2
-
-
-
117,000
7
2
-
-
-
117,000
7
2
—
4,380,000
0
0
-
-
-
4,380,000
0
0
-
-
-
4,380,000
0
0
—
156,581
8
11¾
-
-
-
156,581
8
11¾
-
-
-
156,581
8
11¾
—
184,974
15
7¼
-
-
-
184,974
15
7¼
-
-
-
184,974
15
7¼
—
100,000
0
0
-
-
-
100,000
0
0
-
-
-
100,000
0
0
—
206,365
14
10
-
-
-
206,365
14
10
-
-
-
206,365
14
10
—
64,581
12
2
-
-
-
64,581
12
2
-
-
-
64,851
12
2
—
62,472,259
19
10⅝
5,387,384
15
2⅝
54,894,989
10
3⅝
2,189,885
14
5
62,472,259
19
10⅝
—
FINANCE ACCOUNTS:
No. II.—An Account of the ORDINARY REVENUES and EXTRAORDINARY the Year ended
HEADS OF REVENUE.
GROSS RECEIPT.
Repayments, Allowances, Discounts, Drawbacks, and Bounties of the Nature of Drawbacks.
NETT RECEIPT within the Year, after deducting REPAYMENTS, &c.
Ordinary Revenues
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
Customs
18,551,702
1
5
953,538
10
11¾
17,598,163
10
5¼
Excise
20,784,819
18
1¼
1,854,440
2
4
18,930,379
15
9¼
Stamps
6,634,891
3
6¾
251,781
6
6¼
6,383,109
17
0½
Taxes, under the Management of the Commissioners of Taxes
5,030,028
18
8
6,519
12
1
5,023,509
6
7
Post Office
2,184,514
15
8
74,074
17
7
2,110,439
18
1
One Shilling in the Pound, and Sixpence in the Pound on Pensions and Salaries, and Four Shillings in the Pound on Pensions
49,587
16
9¼
-
-
-
49,587
16
9¼
Hackney Coaches, and Hawkers and Pedlars
74,370
7
9
-
-
-
74,370
7
9
Crown Lands
278,088
0
10¾
-
-
-
278,088
0
10¾
Small Branches of the King's Hereditary Revenue
9,343
0
0
-
-
-
9,343
0
0
Surplus Fees of Regulated Public Offices
69,160
14
11
-
-
-
69,160
14
11
53,666,506
17
9
3,140,354
9
6
50,526,152
8
3
———
Other Resources.
Money received from the East India Company on Account of Retired Pay, Pensions, &c. of his Majesty's Forces serving in the East Indies, per Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 71
60,000
0
0
-
-
-
60,000
0
0
From the Commissioners for the Issue of Exchequer Bills, per Act 57 Geo. 3, c. 34, for the Employment of the Poor
117,000
7
2
-
-
-
117,000
7
2
Money received from the Trustees of Naval and Military Pensions
4,380,000
0
0
-
-
-
4,380,000
0
0
Imprest Monies repaid by sundry Public Accountants, and other Monies paid to the Public
164,586
18
11
-
-
-
164,586
18
11
Payment of the Balance settled by Treaty to be due from the King of the Netherlands
100,000
0
0
-
-
-
100,000
0
0
Repayment, on Account of Money advanced out of the Consolidated Fund in the year 1825, for Silver Coinage
206,365
14
10
-
-
-
206,365
14
10
From the Bank of England on Account of Unclaimed Dividends
64,581
12
2
-
-
-
64,581
12
2
TOTALS of the Public Income of Great Britain
58,759,041
10
10
3,140,354
9
6
55,618,687
1
4
Whitehall, Treasury Chambers, 24th March, 1827.
CLASS I.—PUBLIC INCOME.
RESOURCES constituting the PUBLIC INCOME of GREAT BRITAIN, for 5th January, 1827.
TOTAL INCOME including BALANCES outstanding 5th Jan. 1826.
Charge of Collection and other Payments out of the Income, in its Progress to the Exchequer.
PAYMENTS into the EXCHEQUER.
BALANCES and BILLS outstanding on 5th January, 1827.
TOTAL DISCHARGE of the INCOME.
Rate per cent for which the Gross Receipt was collected.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
18,028,749
12
2½
1,729,271
9
8
15,766,763
10
10¼
532,714
11
8¼
18,028,749
12
2½
6
7
6¾
19,947,827
1
11¼
1,292,384
3
7¾
17,749,273
18
10½
906,168
19
5
19,947,827
1
11¼
5
0
8¾
6,698,593
8
5¾
154,220
14
10½
6,277,014
14
8
267,357
18
11¼
6,698,593
8
5¾
2
6
5¾
5,115,044
16
5¼
309,141
0
0¾
4,702,743
12
6½
103,160
3
10
5,115,044
16
5¼
5
14
9¾
2,274,150
11
5
631,770
3
1
1,496,000
0
0
146,380
8
4
2,274,150
11
5
26
15
4½
52,731
15
4¼
1,186
11
7
48,427
10
6¼
3,117
13
3
52,731
15
4¼
2
7
10
74,376
9
1
9,848
1
1
9,848
1
1
64,151
10
0
376
18
0
74,376
9
13
14
10
315,945
8
1
291,168
13
10¼
-
-
-
24,776
14
2¾
315,945
8
1
15
16
2
13,698
17
5¼
3,572
18
8
6,325
8
7
3,800
10
2¾
13,698
17
5¾
14
15
10
69,160
14
11
-
-
-
69,160
14
11
-
-
-
69,160
14
11
—
52,590,278
15
4¾
4,422,563
16
6¼
46,179,861
0
11½
1,987,853
17
11
52,590,278
15
4¾
6
3
6¼
60,000
0
0
-
-
-
60,000
0
0
-
-
-
60,000
0
0
—
117,000
7
2
-
-
-
117,000
7
2
-
-
-
117,000
7
2
—
4,380,000
0
0
-
-
-
4,380,000
0
0
-
-
-
4,380,000
0
0
—
164,586
18
11
-
-
-
164,586
18
11
-
-
-
164,586
18
11
—
100,000
0
0
-
-
-
100,000
0
0
-
-
-
100,000
0
0
—
206,365
14
10
-
-
-
206,365
14
10
-
-
-
206,365
14
10
—
64,581
12
2
-
-
-
64,581
12
2
-
-
-
64,581
12
2
—
57,682,813
8
5¾
4,422,563
16
6¼
51,272,395
14
0½
1,987,853
17
11
57,682,813
8
5¾
—
FINANCE ACCOUNTS:
No. III.—An Account of the ORDINARY REVENUES and EXTRAORDINARY ended 5th
HEADS OF REVENUE.
CROSS RECEIPT.
Repayments, Drawbacks, Discounts, &c.
NETT RECEIPT within the year, after deducting REPAYMENTS, &c.
Ordinary Revenue.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
Customs
2,031,222
10
3¾
66,412
19
O¾
1,964,809
11
3
Excise
1,757,149
16
5½
60,902
15
10
1,696,247
0
7½
Stamps
466,612
14
11¼
9,692
5
1½
456,920
9
9¾
Post Office
207,757
6
11¾
21,795
9
2¼
185,961
17
9½
Poundage Fees, Pells Fees, Casualties, Treasury Fees, and Hospital Fees
9,594
10
8¾
-
-
-
9,594
10
8¾
TOTALS of Ordinary Revenues
4,472,336
19
5
158,803
9
2½
4,313,533
10
2½
Other Resources.
From the Provost and Fellows of Trinity College, on Account of Advances made by the Treasury for completing the North Square of the said College, per Act 54 Geo. 3, c. 67
1,107
13
10
-
-
-
1,107
13
10
From several County Treasurers, and others:
On Account of Advances made by the Treasury for improving Post Roads in Ireland, under Act 45 Geo. 3, c. 43
1,107
13
10
-
-
-
1,107
13
10
On Account of Advances made by the Treasury for improving Post Roads in Ireland, under Act 45 Geo. 3, c. 43
7,632
2
6
-
-
-
7,632
2
6
On Account of Advances made by the Treasury for building Gaols, under Act 50 Geo. 3, c. 103
23,788
13
2¼
-
-
-
23,788
13
2¼
On Account of Advances made by the Treasury, for Police in proclaimed Districts, under Acts 54 Geo. 3, c. 131 and 180, and 3 Geo. 4, c. 103
98,513
18
4¼
-
-
-
98,513
18
4¼
On Account of Advances made by the Treasury for Public Works and Employment of the Poor, under Acts 57 Geo. 3, c. 34 & 124. and 3 Geo. 4, c. 112, and 3 Geo. 4, c. 84
25,539
1
1¼
-
-
-
25,539
1
1¼
Imprest Monies repaid by sundry Public Accountants, and other Monies paid to the Public
20,387
16
8¼
-
-
-
20,387
16
8¼
TOTALS of the Public Income of Ireland
4,649,306
5
1
158,803
9
½
4,490,502
15
10½
Whitehall, Treasury Chambers, 24th March, 1827.
CLASS I.—PUBLIC INCOME.
RESOURCES, constituting the PUBLIC INCOME of IRELAND, for the Year January, 1827.
TOTAL INCOME including BALANCES outstanding 5th Jan. 1826.
Charges of Collection, and other Payments out of the Income, in its Progress to the Exchequer.
PAYMENTS into the EXCHEQUER.
BALANCES AND BILLS outstanding on 5th January, 1827.
TOTAL DISCHARGE of the INCOME.
Rate per cent for which the Gross Receipt was collected.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
2,054,333
18
5⅝
492,714
5
11
1,513,948
8
5
47,671
4
1⅝
2,054,333
18
5⅝
17
8
7¼
1,843,541
18
7½
324,867
0
0⅝
1,422,745
14
2¼
95,929
4
4⅞
1,843,541
18
7½
13
6
6¼
468,358
6
1¾
31,991
14
10¾
425,335
17
2½
11,030
14
0½
468,358
6
1¾
6
17
1¼
236,648
11
9¼
115,247
17
10¼
74,000
0
0
47,400
13
11
236,648
11
9¼
46
1
11
9,594
10
8¾
-
-
-
9,594
10
8¾
-
-
-
9,594
10
8¾
—
4,612,477
5
8⅞
964,820
18
8⅜
3,445,624
10
6½
202,031
16
6
4,612,477
5
8⅞
16
0
2
1,107
13
10
-
-
-
1,107
13
10
-
-
-
1,107
13
10
—
7,632
2
6
-
-
-
7,632
2
6
-
-
-
7,632
2
6
—
23,788
13
2¼
-
-
-
23,788
13
2¼
-
-
-
23,788
13
2¼
—
98,513
18
4¼
-
-
-
98,513
18
4¼
-
-
-
98,513
18
4¼
—
25,539
1
1¼
-
-
-
25,539
1
1¼
-
-
-
25,539
1
1¼
—
20,387
16
8¼
-
-
-
20,387
16
8¼
-
-
-
20,387
16
8¼
—
4,789,446
11
4⅞
964,820
18
8⅜
3,622,593
16
2½
202,031
16
6
4,789,446
11
7⅞
—>
FINANCE ACCOUNTS:
No.I.—ACCOUNT of the TOTAL INCOME of the REVENUE of GREAT BRI-Repayments, Allowances, Discounts, Drawbacks, and Bounties of the nature DITURE of the United Kingdom, exclusive of the Sums ap-
HEADS OF REVENUE.
NETT RECEIPT as stated in Account of Public Income.
———
ORDINARY REVENUES.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
Balances and Bills outstanding on 5th January 1826
-
-
-
2,363,070
2
8⅛
customs
19,562,973
1
8¼
Excise
20,626,626
16
4¾
Stamps
6,840,030
6
10¼
Taxes
5,023,509
6
7
Post Office
2,296,401
15
10½
One Shilling and Sixpenny Duty on Pensions and Salaries, and Four Shillings in the Pound on Pensions
49,587
16
9¼
Hackney Coaches, and Hawkers and Pedlars
74,370
7
9
Crown Lands
278,088
0
10¾
Small Branches of the King's Hereditary Revenue
9,343
0
0
Surplus Fees of Regulated Public Offices
69,160
14
11
Poundage Fees, Pelts Fees, Casualties, Treasury Fees, and Hospital Fees
9,594
10
8¾
———
54,839,685
18
5½
57,202,756
1
1⅝
Deduct Balances and Bills outstanding on 5th January 1827
-
-
-
2,189,885
14
5
TOTAL Ordinary Revenues
-
-
-
55,012,870
6
8⅝
OTHER RESOURCES.
Money received from the East India Company, on account of Retired Pay, Pensions, &c. of his Majesty's Forces serving in the East Indies, per Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 71
60,000
0
0
From the Commissioners for the issue of Exchequer Bills, per Act 57 Geo. 3, c. 34, for the employment of the Poor
117,000
7
2
Money received from the Trustees of Naval and Military Pensions
4,380,000
0
0
Money repaid in Ireland on account of Advances from the Consolidated Fund, under various Acts for Public Improvement
156,581
8
11¾
Imprest and other Monies paid into the Exchequer
184,974
15
7¼
Payment of the Balance settled by Treaty to be due from the King of the Netherlands
100,000
0
0
Repayment on account of Money advanced out of the Consolidated Fund, in the year 1825, for Silver Coinage
206,365
14
10
From the Bank of England, on account of Unclaimed Dividends
64,581
12
2
———
5,269,503
18
9
60,282,374
5
5⅝
Balances in the hands of Receivers, &c. on 5th January 1826
2,363,070
2
8⅛
Ditto on 5th January 1827
2,189,885
14
5
Balances less in 1827 than in 1826
173,184
8
3⅛
Surplus Income paid into Exchequer over Expenditure thereout
1,009,448
8
0¼
Actual Excess of Income over Expenditure
836,263
19
9⅛
Whitehall, Treasury Chambers, 24th March, 1827.
CLASS II.—PUBLIC EXPENDITURE.
TAIN and IRELAND, in the Year ended 5th January 1827, after deducting the of Drawbacks; together with an Account of the PUBLIC EXPEN-plied to the Reduction of the National Debt within the same Period.
EXPENDITURE.
—
—
PAYMENTS OUT OF THE INCOME
in its progress to the Exchequer:
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
Charges of Collection
4,030,337
7
2⅞
Other Payments
1,357,047
7
11¾
TOTAL Payments out of the Income, prior to the Payments into the Exchequer
-
-
-
5,387,384
15
2⅝
PAYMENTS OUT OF THE EXCHEQUER:
Dividends, Interest, and Management of the Public Funded Debt, four Quarters to 10th October 1826, exclusive of 5,591,231
l
s
d
27,245,750
14
0
Interest on Exchequer Bills
831,207
6
3
———
28,076,958
0
3
Issued to the Trustees of Naval and Military Pensions, per Act 3 Goo. 4, c. 51
2,214,260
0
0
Ditto - - - Bank of England, per Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 22
585,740
0
0
———
2,800,000
0
0
Civil List
1,057,000
0
0
Pensions charged by Act of Parliament on Consolidated Fund, four Quarters to 10th October 1826
364,268
6
3¾
Salaries and Allowances
69,115
13
5
Courts of Justce
150,590
15
11½
Mint
14,750
0
0
Bounties
2,956
13
8
Miscellaneous
204,064
7
9
Ditto - - Ireland
301,427
10
6½
———
2,164,173
7
7¼
Advance on account of the Wet Docks at Leith
240,000
0
0
For the purchase of the Duke of Athol's Interests in the Public Revenues of the Isle of Man
150,000
0
0
Towards rebuilding London Bridge, per Act 7 Geo. 4, c. 40
120,000
0
0
———
510,000
0
0
Army
8,297,360
15
8½
Navy
6,540,634
9
2
Miscellaneous
1,869,606
9
8¼
———
19,274,365
6
0
Lottery Prizes
69,802
5
10
By the Commissioners for issuing Exchequer Bills, per Act 3 Geo. 4, c. 86, for the Employment of the Poor
443,300
0
0
Advances out of the Consolidated Fund in Ireland, for Public Works
546,922
2
6½
———
1,060,024
8
4½
TOTAL
59,272,925
17
5⅝
Surplus of Income paid into Exchequer, over Expenditure issued thereout
1,009,448
8
0¼
60,282,374
5
5⅝
FINANCE ACCOUNTS:
No. II.—An Account of the Nett PUBLIC INCOME of the United Kingdom of the Expenditure thereout, defrayed by the several Revenue Depart-exclusive of the Sums applied to the Redemption
INCOME.
Applicable to the Consolidated Fund.
Applicable to other Public Services.
Income paid into the Exchequer.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
Customs
17,270,311
19
9¼
10,400
0
0
17,280,711
19
3¼
Excise
19,172,019
13
0¾
-
-
-
19,172,019
13
0
Stamps
6,702,350
11
10½
-
-
-
6,702,350
11
10½
Taxes under the management of the Commissioners of Taxes, including Arrears of Property Tax
4,702,743
12
6½
-
-
-
4,702,743
12
6½
Post Office
1,570,000
0
0
-
-
-
1,570,000
0
0
1,570,000
0
0
One Shilling and Sixpence Duty on Pensions and Salaries; and Four Shillings in the Pound on Pensions
48,427
10
6¼
-
-
-
48,427
10
6¼
Hackney Coaches, and Hawkers and Pedlars
64,151
10
0
-
-
-
64,151
10
0
Small Branches of the King's Hereditary Revenues
6,325
8
7
-
-
-
6,325
8
7
Surplus Fees, regulated Public Offices
69,160
14
11
-
-
-
69,160
14
11
Poundage Fees, Pells Fees, Casualties, Treasury Fees, and Hospital Fees
9,594
10
8¾
-
-
-
9,594
10
8¾
TOTAL Ordinary Revenue
-
-
-
-
-
-
49,625,485
11
6
Mint repayments on account of Silver Coin
206,365
14
10
-
-
-
206,365
14
10
Money paid by the King of the Netherlands.
100,000
0
0
-
-
-
100,000
0
0
Money repaid in Ireland, on account of advances from the Consolidated Fund, under various Acts for Public Improvements
156,581
8
11¾
-
-
-
156,581
8
11¾
Imprest and other Monies paid into the Exchequer
184,839
19
11¼
134
15
8
184,974
15
7¼
By the East India Company, on account of retired Pay, Pensions, &c. of his Majesty's Forces serving in India, per Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 71
-
-
-
60,000
0
0
60,000
0
0
By the Trustees of Naval and Military Pensions, &c.
-
-
-
4,380,000
0
0
4,380,000
0
0
By the Commissioners for issuing Exchequer Bills for Public Works
-
-
-
117,000
7
2
117,000
7
2
Money paid by the Bank of England, on account of Unclaimed Dividends, &c.
-
-
-
64,581
12
2
64,581
12
2
50,262,872
15
3
4,632,116
15
0
54,894,989
10
3
Whitehall, Treasury Chambers, 8th February, 1827.
CLASS II.—PUBLIC EXPENDITURE.
GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND, in the Year ended 5th January, 1827, after abating
ments, and of the Actual Issues or Payments within the same period, of Funded Debt, or for paying off Unfunded Debt.
EXPENDITURE.
Nett Expenditure.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
Dividends, Interest, and Management of the Public Funded Debt, four quarters to 10th October 1826, exclusive of 5,591,231
l
s
d
27,245,750
14
0
Interest on Exchequer Bills
831,207
6
3
———
28,076,958
0
3
Issued to the Trustees of Naval and Military Pensions, per Act 3 Geo. 4, c. 51
2,214,260
0
0
Ditto Bank of England 4 Geo. 4, c. 22
585,740
0
0
———
2,800,00
0
0
Civil List, four quarters to 5th January 1827
1,057,000
0
0
Pensions charged by Act of Parliament, on Consolidated Fund, four quarters to 10th Oct. 1826
364,268
6
3¼
Salaries and Allowances Ditto
69,115
13
5
Courts of Justice Ditto
150,590
15
11½
Mint Ditto
14,750
0
0
Bounties Ditto
2,956
13
8
Miscellaneous Ditto
204,064
7
9
Ditto - Ireland Ditto
301,427
10
6½
Advance on account of the Wet Docks at Leith
240,000
0
0
For the Purchase of the Duke of Athol's Interests in the Public Revenues of the Isle of Man
150,000
0
0
Advanced towards rebuilding London Bridge, per Act 7 Geo. 4, c. 40
120,000
0
0
———
2,674,173
7
7¼
———
TOTAL
-
-
-
33,551,131
7
10¼
Army
8,297,360
15
8½
Navy
6,540,634
9
2
Ordnance
1,869,606
9
8¼
Miscellaneous
2,566,783
11
5¼
———
10,274,385
6
0
Lottery Prizes
69,802
5
10
By the Commissioners for issuing Exchequer Bills, per Act 3 Geo. 4, c. 86, for the Employment of the Poor
443,300
0
0
Advances out of the Consolidated Fund in Ireland, for Public Works
546,922
2
6½
———
1,060,024
8
4½
TOTAL
53,885,541
2
2¾
Surplus of Income over Expenditure thereout
1,009,448
8
0¼
54,894,989
10
3
FINANCE ACCOUNTS:
No. III.—An Account of the BALANCE of PUBLIC MONEY remaining in the
to the FUNDED or UNFUNDED DEBT, in the Year ended 5th January, or paying off the Unfunded Debt, within the same period; and
£
s.
d.
Balances in the Exchequer on 5th January 1826
5,305,638
11
11
Contributions towards funding 8,000,000
l
4,500,000
0
0
MONEY RAISED
In the Year ended 5th January 1827, by the creation of Unfunded Debt:
£
s.
d.
Exchequer Bills issued per Act 6 Geo. 4, c. 70
6,743,700
0
0
Ditto 7 2
10,000,000
0
0
Ditto 7 50
8,866,800
0
0
Ditto Poor Bills 3 Geo. 4. c. 86
443,300
0
0
Ditto Church Bills 58 Geo. 3, c. 45
149,900
0
0
———
26,203,700
0
0
TOTAL
36,009,338
11
11
Surplus of Income over Expenditure thereout
1,009,448
8
0¼
37,018,786
19
11¼
CLASS II.—PUBLIC EXPENDITURE.
EXCHEQUER on the 5th January, 1826; the amount of Money raised by additions 1827; the Money applied towards the Redemption of the Funded, the Money remaining in the Exchequer on the 5th January, 1827.
APPLIED BY
£
s.
d.
The Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt in the Redemption of Funded Debt.
£
s.
d.
Sinking Fund, Unredeeméd Funded Debt
5,000,000
0
0
Interest on Redeemed Ditto
591,231
16
2
———
5,591,231
16
2
Bank of England, to pay off £.5 per cent Annuities 1797 and 1802
30,000
0
0
Applied towards the Redemption of Funded Debt
5,621,231
16
2
UNFUNDED DEBT.
Issued to the Paymasters of Exchequer Bills, to pay off Unfunded Debt
26,278,000
0
0
31,899,231
16
2
Balances in the Exchequer at 5th January 1827
5,119,555
3
9¼
37,018,786
19
11¼
N.B.—The Sum of £.5,591,231 16
s
d
£
s.
d.
By Purchase of Stock
1,712,397
3
10
By cancelling Exchequer Bills issued to pay £.4 per cent Dissentients
3,250,000
0
0
By Interest on Exchequer Bills charged on Sinking Fund
62,565
10
4
By Life Annuities
566,269
2
0
5,591,269
16
2
FINANCE ACCOUNTS:
No. I.—An Account of the Income of the CONSOLIDATED FUND arising in the 1827; and also of the Actual Payments on account
£
s.
d.
The Total Income applicable to the Consolidated Fund
50,262,872
15
3
50,262,872
15
3
Whitehall, Treasury Chambers, 8th February, 1827.
No.II.—An Account of the MONEY applicable to the Payment of the CHARGE of the 1827, and on the several CHARGES which have become due thereon, charged upon the said Fund, at the commence
£
s.
d.
Income arising in Great Britain
46,640,278
19
0½
£
s.
d.
Add the Sum paid out of the Consolidated Fund in Ireland, towards the Supplies, in the Quarter ended 10th October 1825
437,321
18
4½
Ditto 5th January 1826
218,119
14
½
4,278,035
9
0½
£
s.
d.
Deduct the Sum paid out of the Consolidated Fund, towards the Supplies, in the Quarter ended 5th day of January 1827
246,417
10
4
246,417
10
4
4,031,617
18
8½
Total Sum applicable to the Charge of the Consolidated Fund, in the Year ended 5th day of January 1827
50,671,896
17
9
Exchequer Bills to be issued to complete the Payment of the Charge, to 5th day of January 1827
5,703,718
11
0¼
56,375,615
8
9¼
Whitehall, Treasury Chambers, 8th February, 1827.
CLASS III.—CONSOLIDATED FUND.
United Kingdom of GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND, in the Year ended 5th January,
of the CONSOLIDATED FUND within the same period.
HEADS OF PAYMENT.
———
£
s.
d.
Dividends, Interest, Sinking Fund, and Management of the Public Funded Debt, 4 Quarters to 10th October, 1826
32,836,982
10
2
Interest on Exchequer Bills issued upon the credit of the Consolidated Fund
61,207
6
3
Trustees for Naval and Military Pensions, per Act 3 Geo. 4, c. 51
2,214,260
0
0
Bank of England per Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 22
585,740
0
0
Civil List, 4 Quarters to 5th January 1827
1,057,000
0
0
Pensions charged by Act of Parliament upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 10th October, 1826
364,268
6
3¼
Salaries and Allowances do.
69,115
13
5
Officers of Courts of Justice do.
150,590
15
11½
Expenses of the Mint do.
14,750
0
0
Bounties do.
2,956
13
8
Miscellaneous do.
714,064
7
9
Do. Ireland do.
301,427
10
6½
Advances out of the Consolidated Fund in Ireland, for Public Works
546,922
2
6½
38,919,285
6
6¾
SURPLUS of the CONSOLIDATED FUND
11,343,587
8
8¼
50,262,872
15
3
CONSOLIDATED FUND of the United Kingdom, in the Year ended 5th January, in the same year, including the Amount of EXCHEQUER BILLS
HEADS OF CHARGE.
———
£
s.
d.
Dividends, Interest, Sinking Fund, and Management of the Public Funded Debt, 4 Quarters to 5th January, 1827
32,852,371
14
2¾
Interest on Exchequer Bills issued upon the credit of the Consolidated Fund
67,212
5
7
Trustees for Naval and Military Pensions, per Act 3 Geo. 4, c. 51
2,214,260
0
0
Bank of England 4 Geo. 4, c. 22
585,740
0
0
Civil List, 4 Quarters to 5th January, 1827
1,057,000
0
0
Pensions charged by Act of Parliament upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 5th January, 1827
370,336
17
0
Salaries and Allowances do.
70,006
9
10¼
Officers of Courts of Justice do.
139,696
12
4½
Expenses of the Mint do.
14,750
0
0
Bounties do.
2,956
13
8
Miscellaneous do.
762,271
14
11
Do. Ireland do.
300,181
19
5¾
Advances out of the Consolidated Fund in Ireland, for Public Works
546,922
2
6½
38,983,706
9
7¾
Exchequer Bills issued to make good the charge of the Consolidated Fund, to 5th January, 1826
5,548,817
9
7
44,532,523
19
2¾
SURPLUS of the CONSOLIDATED FUND
11,843,091
9
6½
56,375,615
8
9¼
FINANCE ACCOUNTS:
An Account of the State of the PUBLIC FUNDED DEBTS of GREAT BRITAIN
the Debt incurred by
DEBT.
———
1. CAPITALS.
2. CAPITALS redeemed and transferred to the Commissioners.
3. CAPITALS UNREDEEMED.
GREAT BRITAIN.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
Debt due to the South Sea company at £3. per cent
3,662,784
8
6½
-
-
-
3,662,784
8
6½
Old South Sea Annuities do.
4,574,870
2
7
572,000
0
0
4,002,870
2
7
New South Sea Annuities do.
3,128,330
2
10
282,500
0
0
2,845,830
2
10
South Sea Annuities, 1751 do.
707,600
0
0
52,500
0
0
655,100
0
0
Debt due to the Bank of England do.
14,686,800
0
0
-
-
-
14,686,800
0
0
Bank Annuities, created in 1726 do.
1,000,000
0
0
437
10
9
999,562
9
3
Consolidated Annuities do.
369,103,390
12
6¼
8,373,012
10
1
360,730,378
2
5¼
Reduced Annuities do.
132,776,009
5
6
4,304,079
11
10
128,471,929
13
8
TOTAL at £.3 per cent
529,639,784
11
11¾
13,584,529
12
8
516,055,254
19
3¾
Annuities at 3½ per cent
15,083,949
13
9
599,641
0
0
14,484,308
13
9
Reduced Annuities at do.
73,406,921
12
9
5,838,417
10
2
67,563,504
2
7
New 4 per cent Annuities
145,550,336
13
6
108,171
9
10
145,442,165
3
8
Annuities created 1826, at 4 per cent
8,560,000
0
0
-
-
-
8,560,000
0
0
Great Britain
772,240,992
11
11¾
20,130,759
12
8
752,110,232
19
3¾
In IRELAND.
Irish Consolidated £.3 per cent Annuities
2,279,960
16
7
11
17
10
2,279,948
18
9
Irish Reduced £3. per cent Annuities
931,123
3
9
2
10
0
931,120
13
9
£.3½ per cent Debentures and Stock
14,156,204
10
1
672,861
16
6
13,483,342
13
7
Reduced £,3½ per cent Annuities
2,140,321
13
7
366,957
1
11
1,773,364
11
8
Debt due to the Bank of Ireland at £.4 per cent
1,615,384
12
4
-
-
-
1,615,384
12
4
New £.4 per cent Annuities
10,593,165
16
3
205
0
3
10,592,960
16
0
Debt due to the Bank of Ireland at £.5 per cent
1,015,384
12
4
-
-
-
1,015,384
12
4
Ireland
32,731,545
4
11
1,040,038
6
6
31,691,506
18
5
TOTAL United Kingdom
804,972,537
16
10¾
21,170,797
19
2
783,801,739
17
8¾
STOCK.
£
s.
d.
Note
484,526,784
1
7
CLASS IV.—PUBLIC FUNDED DEBT.
and IRELAND, and of the CHARGE thereupon at the 5th January, 1827, including 7,500,000
l
CHARGE.
—
IN GREAT BRITAIN.
IN IRELAND (In British Currency.)
TOTAL ANNUAL CHARGE.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
Sinking Fund.
The Annual Sum of 5,000,000
l
4,840,000
0
0
160,000
0
0
Annual Interest on Stock standing in the names of the Commissioners
628,104
16
10¾
36,402
5
10½
Long Annuities do
8,350
18
8½
—
5,476,455
15
7₼
196,402
5
10½
Due to the Public Creditor.
Annual Interest on Unredeemed Debt
24,513,592
14
1
1,169,419
17
9½
Long Annuities, expire 1860
1,332,301
0
0
—
Life Annuities payable at the Exchequer, English
25,827
8
7½
—
Do. Irish
35,473
18
7
7,038
0
9
25,907,198
1
½
1,176,457
18
6½
Annual Interest on Stock transferred to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, towards the Redemption of Land Tax under Schedules C. D. 1 & D. 2, 53 Geo. 3, c. 123
9,089
18
11¼
—
Management
278,269
6
2½
797
10
½
The Trustees of Military and Naval Pensions and Civil Superannuations
2,800,000
0
0
—
TOTAL CHARGE, including Sinking Fund and Pensions
34,471,013
2
0½
1,373,657
14
6½
35,844,670
16
7
FINANCE ACCOUNTS:
ABSTRACT.
———
CAPITALS.
CAPITALS transferred to the commissioners.
CAPITALS unredeemed.
ANNUAL CHARGE.
Due to the Public Creditor.
MANACEMENT.
SINKING FUND.
TOTAL.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
Great Britain
772,240,992
11
11¾
20,130,759
12
8
752,110,232
19
3¾
25,916,288
0
2¾
278,259
6
2½
5,476,455
15
7¼
(a)
Ireland
32,731,545
4
11
1,140,038
6
6
31,691,506
18
5
1,176,457
18
6½
797
10
1½
196,402
5
10½
—
804,972,537
16
10¾
21,170,797
19
2
783,801,739
17
8¾
27,092,745
18
9¼
279,066
16
4
5,672,858
1
5¾
—
The Trustees of Military and Naval Pensions and Civil Superannuations
2,800,000
0
0
—
—
—
29,892,745
18
9¼
279,066
16
4
5,672,858
1
5¾
35,844,670
16
7
Non-assented £.4 per cents, vested in the Commissioners as £.3½ per cents, 5 Geo. 4, c. 45
6,149,245
17
4
Purchased with the Sinking Fund
11,659,756
7
6
Transferred for Life Annuities
2,308,584
0
0
Stock unclaimed, 10 years and upwards
209,713
9
0
Purchased with Unclaimed Dividends
540,500
0
0
Transferred for Redemption of Land Tax, under Schedules C. D. 1, and D. 2
302,998
5
4
TOTAL transferred to the Commissioners, as above
21,170,797
19
2
(a)
s
d
Also with the Payment of £.509,245 17
s
d
s
d
National Debt office, 7th February, 1827.
CLASS V.—UNFUNDED DEBT.
An Account of the UNFUNDED DEBT of GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND, and
of the Demands outstanding on 5th January, 1827.
———
PROVIDED.
UNPROVIDED.
TOTAL.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
Exchequer Bills, exclusive of £.459,000 issued for paying off £.4 per cents, the payment of which is charged on the Sinking Fund
772,650
0
0
23,793,200
0
0
24,565,850
0
0
Sums remaining unpaid, charged upon aids granted by Parliament
3,282,828
3
8¼
-
-
-
3,282,828
3
8¼
Advances made out of the Consolidated Fund in Ireland, towards the Supplies which are to be repaid to the Consolidated Fund, out of the Ways and Means in Great Britain
246,417
10
4
-
-
-
246,417
10
4
TOTAL Unfunded Debt, and Demands outstanding
4,301,895
14
0¼
23,793,200
0
0
28,095,095
14
0¼
Ways and Means
4,383,649
15
0¼,
—
—
SURPLUS Ways and Means
81,754
1
0
—
—
Exchequer Bills to be issued to complete the Charge upon the Consolidated Fund
-
-
-
5,703,718
11
0¼
5,703,718
11
0¼
Whitehall, Treasury Chambers, 8th February, 1827.
FINANCE ACCOUNTS:
An Account showing how the MONIES given for the SERVICE of the United Kingdom of GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND, for the Year 1826, have been disposed of; distinguished under their several Heads; to 5th January, 1827.
SERVICES.
SUMS Voted of Granted.
SUMS Paid.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
NAVY
6,135,004
6
10
5,511,069
0
10
ORDNANCE
1,754,403
0
0
1,260,000
0
0
FORCES
7,711,629
3
11½
6,813,403
2
2
Civil Contingencies, for the year 1826
300,000
0
0
228,697
0
3½
Royal Military College
13,135
11
10
13,135
11
10
Royal Military Asylum
25,545
18
9
14,000
0
0
Salaries and Allowances of the Officers of the Houses of Lords and Commons
23,000
0
0
17,000
0
0
Expenses of the Houses of Lords and Commons
20,300
0
0
20,300
0
0
To make good the Deficiency of the Fee Fund in the Departments of the Treasury, Home Secretary of State, Foreign Secretary of State, Secretary of State for the Colonies, Privy Council, and the Committee of Privy Council for Trade
98,217
0
0
71,828
18
11
Contingent Expenses and Messengers Bills in the Departments of the Treasury, Home Secretary of State, Foreign Secretary of State, Secretary of State for the Colonies, Privy Council, and the Committee of Privy Council for Trade
72,680
0
0
67,479
17
4
Salaries of certain Officers, and Expenses of the Court and Receipt of the Exchequer
6,700
0
0
6,700
0
0
Salaries or Allowances granted to certain Professors in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, for reading Courses of Lectures
958
5
0
958
5
0
Salaries of the Commissioners of the Insolvent Debtors Court, of their Clerks, and the Contingent Expenses of their Office; and also of the Expenses attendant upon the Circuits
15,870
0
0
8,935
9
6
Salaries of the Officers and the Contingent Expenses of the Office for the Superintendence of Aliens, and also the Superannuations or retired Allowances to Officers formerly employed in that Service
4,872
0
0
4,872
0
0
Usual Allowances to Protestant Dissenting Ministers in England, poor French Protestant Refugee Clergy, poor French Protestant Refugee Laity, and sundry small Charitable and other Allowances to the Poor of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, and others
6,112
7
10
2,887
13
6
Expenses of Works and Repairs of Public Buildings
38,000
0
0
28,333
14
2
Expense of the Works at the Royal Harbour of George the Fourth, at Kingstown (formerly Dunleary)
43,000
0
0
13,000
0
0
Expense of Printing Acts of Parliament, and Bills, Reports, and other Papers, for the two Houses of Parliament
109,300
0
0
38,625
14
4½
Expenses incurred in 1826, for Printing, by order of the Commissioners for carrying into execution the Measures recommended by the House of Commons, respecting the Records of the Kingdom
7,500
0
0
1,813
0
10
Expense of providing Stationery, and of Printing and Binding, for the several Public Departments of Government
102,060
0
0
72,690
0
0
Extraordinary Expenses of the Mint in the Gold Coinage
34,000
0
0
34,000
0
0
To make good the Loss upon the Irish Silver Tokens already re-coined, and to be re-coined
23,000
0
0
23,000
0
0
Extraordinary Expenses that may be incurred for Prosecutions, &c. relating to the Coin of this Kingdom
5,000
0
0
—
Extraordinary Expenses in the Department of the Lord Chamberlain of his Majesty's Household, for Fittings and Furniture, to the two Houses of Parliament
8,700
0
0
8,700
0
0
Expense of law Charges
12,000
0
0
8,000
0
0
Expense attending the confining, maintaining, and employing Convicts at home and at Bermuda
92,100
0
0
84,000
0
0
To pay Bills drawn from abroad by his Majesty's Governors and others, for the Expenses incurred under the Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade; and in conformity to the Orders in Council for the Support, &c. of Captured Negroes, Free American Settlers, &c.
35,000
0
0
24,000
0
0
Bills drawn or to be drawn from New South Wales
120,000
0
0
—
The following SERVICES are directed to be paid, without any Fee or other Deduction whatsoever:
For defraying the CHARGE of the CIVIL ESTABLISHMENTS undermentioned; viz.
Of the Bahama Islands
3,119
0
0
3,119
0
0
Of Nova Scotia
11,529
0
0
5,764
10
0
Of New Brunswick
5,247
0
0
—
Of the Island of Bermuda
4,102
10
0
1,000
0
0
Of Prince Edward Island
2,900
0
0
1,500
0
0
Of Newfoundland
11,135
0
0
5,700
0
0
Of New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land
11,942
0
0
11,942
0
0
Of Sierra Leone
15,462
5
0
11,000
0
0
Of the Civil and Military Establishments of the African Forts
45,110
10
3
18,000
0
0
To make Compensation to the Commissioners appointed by several Acts for inquiring into the Collection and Management of the Revenue in Ireland, and the several Establishments connected therewith, and into certain Revenue Departments in Great Britain, for their assiduity, care, and pains, in the execution of the Trusts reposed in them by Parliament
5,675
0
0
5,675
0
0
Compensation to the Commissioners for inquiring into the nature and extent of the Instruction afforded by the several Institutions in Ireland, established for the purpose of Education, for their assiduity, care, and pains, in the execution of the Trusts reposed in them
7,000
0
0
7,000
0
0
Expense of the Penitentiary House at Milbank, from 24th June, 1826, to 24th June, 1827
20,000
0
0
10,000
0
0
Charge of the Allowances or Compensations granted or allowed as Retired Allowances to persons formerly employed in Public Offices or Departments, or in the Public Service
16,506
5
4
2,568
16
3
To enable his Majesty to grant relief, in 1826, to Toulonese and Corsican Emigrants, Dutch Naval Officers, St. Domingo Sufferers, and others who have heretofore received Allowances from his Majesty, and who, from Services performed or Losses sustained in the British Service, have special Claims upon his Majesty's justice and liberality
15,120
0
0
8,300
0
0
National Vaccine Establishment
3,000
0
0
3,000
0
0
Institution called "The Refuge for the Destitute"
5,000
0
0
5,000
0
0
Relief of American Loyalists
6,000
0
0
4,000
0
0
Expense of confining and maintaining Criminal Lunatics
3,306
10
0
3,306
10
0
Expense of Works carrying on at the College or Edinburgh
10,000
0
0
10,000
0
0
Expense of sundry Works executing at Port Patrick Harbour
16,750
0
0
16,750
Expense of sundry Works executing at Donaghadee Harbour
19,980
0
0
14,990
0
0
Expenses of Buildings at the British Museum
25,000
0
0
5,412
8
11
Expense of the New Buildings at the Offices of the Privy Council, and of the Committee of the Privy Council for Trade
15,000
0
0
9,386
5
10
Expense of Repairs and Works to be executed at Windsor
70,000
0
0
—
Expenses incurred by the Commissioners for the Improvement of the Streets and Places near to Westminster Hall, and the two Houses of Parliament; from 1821 to 1826
3,526
3
10
3,526
3
10
Expense of Works on the Roads and Harbours of Holyhead and Howth, and the Charges of the Establishment employed under the Commissioners of those Roads and Harbours
11,109
4
10
11,109
4
10
Purchase of Bangor Ferry, in lien of which a Bridge has been erected over the Menai Straits
26,394
7
6
26,394
7
6
Expense of improving and rendering more safe the Navigation of the Menai Straits
5,000
0
9
5,000
0
0
For completing the building of a Bridge over the River Conway, and for the purchase of Conway Ferry
14,994
3
9
14,994
3
9
For his Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services
56,000
0
0
55,000
0
0
Expense of forming an Index to Twenty Volumes of the Journals of the House of Commons, commencing with the first Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and extending to the end of the Reign of his late Majesty and the Accession of his present Majesty, and also the Expense of incorporating the Indexes of the subsequent Volumes of the Journals of the House of Commons, to the close of the Session 1824
10,180
0
0
10,180
0
0
To pay in the year 1826, the Salaries and Incidental Expenses of the Commissioners appointed on the part of his Majesty, under the Treaties with Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands, for preventing the illegal Traffic in Slaves, and in pursuance of the Acts for carrying the said Treaties into effect
18,000
0
0
—
Expenses of the Missions and Special Commissions to the New States of America
60,000
0
0
45,998
14
10
Salaries and Contingent Expenses of his Majesty's Consuls General, Consuls and Vice-consuls in Spanish America
40,000
0
0
19,365
15
0
To provide for the Salaries of his Majesty's Consuls General and Consuls abroad, for 1826; for all contingent Charges and Expenses connected with the Public Duties and Establishments of such Consul General and Consuls, and also to pay the amount of Superannuation Allowances granted to retired Consuls
52,370
0
0
24,390
0
0
Expense of certain Colonial Services
2,442
10
0
2,442
10
0
Expense of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in several of the Colonies of his Majesty, and for the Ecclesiastical Board
16,832
0
0
16,669
10
0
Expense of improving the Water communication between Montreal and the Ottawa, and from the Ottawa to Kingston
15,000
0
0
—
Charge of providing Stores for the Engineer Department in New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land; Bedding and Clothing for Convicts, Clothing and Tools for the liberated Africans at Sierra Leone, and Indian Presents for Canada
49,763
0
0
47,780
2
0
For the purpose of defraying the Expense of the British Museum
13,992
0
0
13,992
0
0
For the Purchase of Pictures for the National Gallery
9,000
0
0
9,000
0
0
For defraying the CHARGE of the following Services in IRELAND for 1826; which are directed to be paid Nett in British Currency.
Protestant Charter Schools of Ireland
19,500
0
0
19,500
0
0
Society for Discountenancing Vice
9,000
0
0
8,000
0
0
Society for promoting the Education of the Poor of Ireland
25,000
0
0
25,000
0
0
To be applied in aid of the Funds, either under the direction of the Society for the Education of the Poor in Ireland, or for such other purposes of Education as may appear to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland most advisable
5,000
0
0
5,000
0
0
Foundling Hospital in Dublin
31,000
0
0
31,000
0
0
House of Industry, Hospitals and Asylums for industrious Children in Dublin
20,050
0
0
15,000
0
0
Richmond Lunatic Asylum in Dublin
7,200
0
0
7,200
0
0
Hibernian Society for Soldiers Children
7,500
0
0
7,500
0
0
Hibernian Marine Society
1,600
0
0
1,600
0
0
Female Orphan House in Dublin
1,600
0
0
1,600
0
0
Westmorland Lock Hospital
4,000
0
0
4,000
0
0
Lying-in Hospital in Dublin
2,282
0
0
2,282
0
0
Dr. Steven's Hospital in Dublin
1,663
0
0
1,663
0
0
Fever Hospital and House of Recovery
4,210
0
0
4,210
0
0
Hospital of Incurables in Dublin
465
0
0
465
0
0
Establishment of the Roman Catholic Seminary in Ireland
8,928
0
0
8,928
0
0
Cork Institution
1,563
0
0
1,563
0
0
Dublin Society
7,000
0
0
7,000
0
0
Commissioners of Wide Streets in Dublin
10,000
0
0
10,000
0
0
Farming Society of Ireland
2,500
0
0
2,500
0
0
Royal Irish Academy
300
0
0
300
0
0
Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests in Ireland
700
0
0
700
0
0
Linen Board of Ireland
19,938
9
2¾
19,938
9
2¾
Board of Works in Ireland
24,150
0
0
12,841
16
8½
Printing, Stationery, and other Disbursements of the Public Offices in Dublin Castle, of the Deputy Pursuivants and Messengers attending the said Offices, and also of Superannuated Allowances in the Chief Secretary's Office
15,886
0
0
12,218
11
9½
Expense of publishing Proclamations and other Matters of a public nature in the Dublin Gazette and other Newspapers in Ireland
6,000
0
0
4,483
16
0
Expense of printing Statutes for the use of the Magistrates and Public Officers in Ireland
4,615
0
0
3,505
2
8½
Criminal Prosecutions, and other Law Expenses in Ireland
35,935
0
0
35,935
0
0
Nonconforming, Seceding, and Protestant Dissenting Ministers in Ireland
13,972
12
3
9,619
7
9
Salaries of the Lottery Officers in Ireland
1,072
12
4
1,072
12
4
Expense of the Establishment, and for the Maintenance of Inland Navigation in Ireland
5,299
0
0
5,299
0
0
Police and Watch Establishments of Dublin
25,000
0
0
25,000
0
0
Salaries and Expenses of the Commissioners for inquiring into the Duties and Fees of the Officers of Courts of Justice in Ireland
7,324
0
0
5,324
2
3
Salaries and Expenses of the Commissioners for inquiring into the Land Revenue of the Crown in Ireland
1,635
0
0
851
10
10½
Salaries and Expenses of the Record Commissioners in Ireland
3,500
0
0
2,750
0
0
Expense of carrying on certain Public Works in Ireland
36,000
0
0
33,000
0
0
17,942,964
18
6¼
15,183,541
1
1¾
To pay off and discharge Exchequer Bills, and that the same be issued and applied towards paying off and discharging any Exchequer Bills charged on the Aids or Supplies of the years 1825 and 1826, now remaining unpaid and unprovided for
30,500,000
0
0
23,296,400
0
0
To pay off and discharge Exchequer Bills, issued pursuant to several Acts for carrying on Public Works and Fisheries, and for building Churches, outstanding and unprovided for
271,650
0
0
48,714,614
18
6¼
38,479,941
1
1¾
FINANCE ACCOUNTS:
PAYMENTS FOR OTHER SERVICES,
Not being part of the Supplies granted for the Service of the Year.
—
Sums Paid to 5th January 1827.
Estimated Miscellaneous
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
Grosvenor Charles Bedford, Esq. on his Salary for additional trouble in preparing Exchequer Bills, pursuant to an Act 48 Geo. 3, c. 1
150
0
0
150
0
0
Expenses in the Office of the Commissioners for inquiring into the Collection and Management of the Revenue
4,000
0
0
Expenses in the Office of the Commissioners for issuing Exchequer Bills, pursuant to Acts 57 Geo. 3, c. 34 & 124, and 3 Geo. 4, c. 86
4,000
0
0
Expenses in the Office of the Commissioners for issuing Exchequer Bills for building additional Churches, per Act 58 Geo. 3, c. 45
3,000
0
0
Expenses incurred in the passing of the Act 5 Geo. 4, c. 90, for building additional Churches in Scotland
1,320
17
6
Bank of England, Discount on the Contributions towards funding £.8,000,000 in Exchequer Bill; anno 1826
—
33,067
1
3
Ditto for Management of the above
—
3,200
0
0
By Interest on Exchequer Bills; viz.
£.15,000,000 per Act 5 G.4, c. 115, charged on Supplies, 1825
96,429
18
0
20,000,000 per Act 6 G. 4, c. 2 ditto 1826
500,000
0
0
10,500,000 per Act 6 G. 4, c. 70 ditto
173,570
2
0
782,470
17
6
36,317
1
3
782,470
17
6
TOTAL Payments for Services not voted
818,787
18
9
Amount of Sums voted
48,714,614
18
6¼
TOTAL Sums voted, and Payments for Services not voted
49,533,402
17
3¼
WAYS AND MEANS
for answering the foregoing Services.
£
s.
d.
Trustees for the Payment of Naval and Military Pensions, and Civil Superannuations, per Act 3 Geo. 4, c. 51
4,320,000
0
0
East India Company, per Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 71
60,000
0
0
Sums to be brought from the Consolidated Fund, per Act 7 Geo. 4, c. 1
5,000,000
0
0
Ditto ditto 7 Geo. 4, c. 79
8,600,000
0
0
Surplus Ways and Means, per Act 7 Geo. 4, c. 79
257,931
13
1
Interest on Land Tax redeemed by Money
14
17
10
Exchequer Bills funded, pursuant to Act 7 Geo. 4, c. 39
8,023,228
5
0
Repayments on account of Exchequer Bills issued pursuant to two Acts of the 57th year of his late Majesty, for carrying on Public Works and Fisheries in the United Kingdom
100,000
7
2
Unclaimed Dividends, &c. after deducting Repayments to the Bank of England, for deficiencies of Balance in their hands
62,542
7
5
26,423,717
10
6
Exchequer Bills voted in Ways and Means; viz. 7 Geo. 4, c. 2 £.10,000,000 0 0
7 Geo. 4, c. 50 13,200,000 0 0
23,200,000
0
0
TOTAL Ways and Means
49,623,717
10
6
TOTAL Sums voted, and Payments for Services not voted
49,533,402
17
3¼
SURPLUS Ways and Means
90,314
13
2¾
Whitehall, Treasury Chambers, 8th February, 1827.
CLASS VIII.—TRADE AND NAVIGATION.
CLASS VII.—ARREARS AND BALANCES.
[This Head, which occupies 108 folio pages in the Finance Accounts, is here omitted, as not being of general utility.]
TRADE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.
An Account of the VALUE of all IMPORTS into, and of all EXPORTS from, the United Kingdom of GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND, during each of the Three Years ending the 5th January, 1827 (calculated at the Official Rates of Valuation, and stated exclusive of the Trade between Great Britain and Ireland reciprocally).
YEARS ending 5th January.
VALUE OF IMPORTS into the United Kingdom, calculated at the Official Rates of Valuation.
VALUE OF EXPORTS FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM, calculated at the Official Rates of Valuation.
VALUE of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom Exported therefrom according to the Real and Declared Value thereof.
Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom.
Foreign and Colonial Merchandize.
TOTAL EXPORTS.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
1825
37,558,176
4
10
48,730,466
4
7
10,204,785
6
4
58,925,251
10
11
38,390,403
14
0
1826
14,208,907
7
0
47,150,689
12
11
9,169,494
8
3
56,320,184
1
2
38,870,945
11
11
1827
37,714,021
15
1
40,965,030
14
0
10,079,627
8
1
51,044,658
2
1
31,536,833
10
11
FOREIGN TRADE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
An Account of the VALUE, as calculated at the Official Rates, of all IMPORTS into, and of all EXPORTS from, GREAT BRITAIN, during each of the Three Years ending the 5th January, 1827; showing the Trade with Foreign Parts separately from the Trade with Ireland; and distinguishing the Amount of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom Exported, from the Value of Foreign and Colonial Merchandize Exported:—Also, stating the Amount of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom Exported from GREAT BRITAIN, according to the Real and Declared Value thereof.
TRADE OF GREAT BRITAIN WITH FOREIGN PARTS:
YEARS ending 5th January.
VALUE OF IMPORTS into Great Britain, calculated at the Official Rates of Valuation.
VALUE OF EXPORTS FROM GREAT BRITAIN, calculated at the Official Rates of Valuation.
VALUE of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom Exported from Great Britain, according to the Real and Declared Value thereof.
Product and Manufactures of the United Kingdom.
Foreign and Colonial Merchandize.
TOTAL EXPORTS.
1824
36,146,448
0
0
48,024,951
13
6
10,188,596
9
2
58,213,548
2
8
37,568,020
16
9
1825
42,661,054
8
11
46,453,021
17
1
9,155,305
5
0
55,608,327
2
1
38,077,330
9
0
1826
36,069,999
12
1
40,332,104
6
0
10,069,188
1
2
30,401,292
7
2
30,847,638
7
4
Inspector General's Office, Custom House, London, 24th March, 1826.
TRADE OF IRELAND.
An Account of the VALUE of all IMPORTS into, and of all EXPORTS from, IRELAND; during each of the Three Years ending 5th January 1827 (calculated at the Official Rates of Valuation, and stated exclusive of the Trade with GREAT BRITAIN); distinguishing the Amount of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom Exported, from the Value of Foreign and Colonial Merchandize Exported:—also stating the Amount of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom Exported from IRELAND, according to the Real or Declared Value thereof.
———
VALUE of Imports into IRELAND, calculated at the Official Rates of Valuation.
VALUE OF EXPORTS FROM IRELAND, calculated at the Official Rates of Valuation.
VALUE of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom, Exported from Ireland, according to the Real or Declared Value thereof.
Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom.
Foreign and Colonial Merchandize.
TOTAL EXPORTS.
YEARS ENDING
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
VALUE exclusive of the Trade with GREAT BRITAIN.
5th January 1825
1,411,728
4
10½
705,517
11
0¾
16,188
17
2¼
721,703
8
3
822,382
17
3
1826
1,547,852
18
1½
697,667
15
10
14,189
3
3
711,856
19
1
793,615
2
11½
1827
1,644,022
3
0
632,926
8
0
10,439
6
11
643,365
14
11
689,195
2
11½
Inspector General's Office, Custom House, London, 24th March, 1827.
CLASS VIII.—TRADE AND NAVIGATION.
NAVIGATION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.
NEW VESSELS BUILT.—An Account of the Number of VESSELS, with the Amount of the TONNAGE, that were built and registered in the several Ports of the BRITISH EMPIRE, in the Years ending the 5th January 1825, 1826, and 1827, respectively
———
1825.
1826.
1827.
Vessels.
Tonnage.
Vessels.
Tonnage.
Vessels.
Tonnage.
United Kingdom
799
91,083
975
122,479
1,115
118,363
Isles Guernsey, Jersey, and Man
38
2,136
28
1,550
24
2,171
British Plantations
342
50,522
536
80,895
383
58,486
TOTAL
1,179
143,741
1,539
204,924
1,522
179,020
VESSELS REGISTERED.—An Account of the Number of VESSELS, with the Amount of their TONNAGE and the Number of MEN and BOYS usually employed in Navigating the same, that belonged to the several Ports of the BRITISH EMPIRE, on the 30th September in the Year 1824, and on the 31st Dec. 1825 and 1826, respectively.
———
On 30th Sept. 1824.
On 31st Dec. 1825.
On 31st Dec. 1826.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
United Kingdom
20,803
2,321,953
149,742
20,087
2,298,836
146,703
20,469
2,382,069
149,894
Isles Guernsey, Jersey, and Man
477
26,361
3,806
508
28,505
3,773
499
29,392
3,665
British Plantations
3,496
211,273
15,089
3,579
214,875
15,059
3,657
224,183
14,077
TOTAL
24,776
2,559,587
168,673
24,174
2,542,216
165,535
24,625
2,635,644
167,636
Inspector General's Office, Custom House, London, 22nd March, 1827.
FINANCE ACCOUNTS.
NAVIGATION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM—continued.
VESSELS EMPLOYED IN THE FOREIGN TRADE.—An Account of the Number Of VESSELS, with the Amount of their TONNAGE, and the Number of MEN and BOYS employed in Navigating the same (including their repeated Voyages) that entered Inwards and cleared Outwards, at the several Ports of the United Kingdom, from and to all Parts of the World (exclusive of the intercourse between GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND respectively) during each of the Three Years ending 5th January, 1827.
SHIPPING ENTERED INWARDS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM,
Years ending 5th Jan.
BRITISH AND IRISH VESSELS.
FOREIGN VESSELS.
TOTAL.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
1825
11,731
1,797,089
108,686
5,655
759,672
42,126
17,386
2,556,761
150,812
1826
13,503
2,143,317
123,028
6,981
959,312
52,722
20,484
3,102,629
175,750
1827
12,473
1,950,630
113,093
5,729
694,116
39,838
18,202
2,644,746
152,931
SHIPPING CLEARED OUTWARDS FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM,
BRITISH AND IRISH VESSELS.
FOREIGN VESSELS.
TOTAL.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
1825
10,156
1,657,270
103,085
5,025
746,729
38,782
15,181
2,403,999
141,867
1826
10,843
1,793,842
109,657
6,085
906,066
47,535
16,928
2,699,208
157,192
1827
10,844
1,737,425
105,198
5,410
692,440
37,305
16,254
2,429,865
142,503
152,931
Inspector General's Office, Custom. House, London, 22nd March, 1827.
INDEX
INDEX TO DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
Appeals, 573
Appeals from India, 152
Breach of Privilege, 34
Catholic Claims, I, 82, 111, 562, 571, 923
Clarence, Duke and Duchess of; Grant to, 86
Coiners, Petition of, 35
Corn Laws, 120, 387, 665, 707, 789, 984, 1086, 1139, 1217, 1258, 1372, 1380
Criminal Laws, 1261
Dissenters' Warriages Bill, 1407, 1426
Fees on Private Bills, 152
Foreign Missions. 774
Foreign Office, 1399
Free People of Colour, 1424
Game Laws Amendment Bill, 268, 733
India; Appeals from, 152
India; Vote of Thanks to the Army in, 756
Ireland; Select Vestries in, 82
Ireland; Poor Laws in, 128
Ministry; State of the, 293, 448, 548, 564, 707, 774, 853, 1083
Poor Laws in Ireland, 128
Portugal, 706, 901, 1160
Private Bills; Fees on, 152
Roman Catholic Claims, 1, 82, 111, 562, 571, 923
Sale of Game Bill, 980, 1302
Secret Service Money, 1136
Select Vestries in Ireland, 82
Spring Guns Bill, 235, 239, 265, 295
Turner's Nullity of Marriage Bill, 787, 876
Vauxhall Coiners; Petition of, 35
Vote of Thanks to the Army in India, 766
Water; Supply of to the Metropolis, 984, 1195
INDEX TO DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Army in India; Vote of Thanks to, 667
Arrests upon Mesne Process, 384, 981, 1131
Bank of England, 1149
Breach of Privilege, 3, 7, 282
Budget, The, 1098
Cape of Good Hope, 883, 1168, 1427
Carlisle Election, 200
Catholic Claims, 270, 498, 576, 982
Chancery, Court of, Bill, 4, 253, 939
Commercial Distress, 1265
Corn Laws, 7, 78, 95, 132, 174, 286, 345, 391, 1302, 1371
Corporate Funds, 1379
Coventry Magistracy Bill, 974, 1132 1191, 1339
County Courts, 297
County Fire Office, 349
Criminal Laws, 591, 934
Devon and Cornwall Mining Company, 299, 845
Dissenters' Marriages Bill, 1062, 1343
East Retford Disfranchisement Bill, 1200, 1375, 1438
Election Expenses Regulation Bill, 675, 1057
Emigration, 241, 927
Financial State of the Country, 67
Foreign Relations, 39
Freeholds; Registration of, 983
Frivolous Arrests Bill, 1130
Galway Election, 7
Game Laws, 117
Gourlay, Mr.; Case of, 1439
Imprisonment for Debt, 223
India, Army in; Vote of Thanks to, 667
India; Trade with, 814
India; Real Property in, 1361
Ireland; State of Churches in, 208
Ireland; Grand Jury Presentments of, 1135
Irish Miscellaneous Estimates, 243
Libels Act; Motion for Repeal of, 1062
Lunatics; Pauper, 1262
Ministry; State of the, 157, 280, 390, 393, 498, 504, 553, 576, 743, 930, 1028
Naval Promotions, 1368
Oaths in Courts of Justice, 389
Orange Processions, 133
Pauper Lunatics of Middlesex, 1262
Peers; Rumoured Creation of, 783
Penryn Election, 6, 682, 903, 1042, 1155
Poll at Elections, 241
Poor Laws, 1266
Portugal, 1144, 1175
Privilege, Breach of, 3, 7, 282
Preston Borough Election, 1300
Private Bills, 1342
Protestant Dissenters, 12
Registration of Freeholds, 983
Roman Catholic Claims, 270, 498,576, 982
Royal College of Surgeons, 1346
Salmon Fisheries Bill, 786
Small Debts Recovery Bill, 1350
Shipping Interest, 504, 547, 592
Spring Guns Bill, 19, 106, 895
Sussex County Elections Bill, 199, 704
Test and Corporation Acts, 12, 743, 1145
Tobacco and Snuff Duties, 36
Transubstantiation, 703
Turnpike Act Amendment Bill, 108
Turner's Nullity of Marriage Bill, 1133
Vote of Thanks to the Army in India, 667
Wages; Regulation of, 1060, 1241
Water; Supply of, to the Metropolis, 1026, 1197
West Indies; People of Colour in, 1242
Wool Trade, 1035
Writ of Right Bill, 88, 172
INDEX OF NAMES—HOUSE OF LORDS.
Aberdeen, Earl of, 854
Abingdon, Earl of, 267, 738, 857
Anglesea, Marquis of, 497
Bathurst, Earl, 87, 479, 1091
Belmore, Earl of, 85, 132, 1374
Bexley, Lord, 467, 812. 1016
Buckingham, Duke of, 2
Bute, Marquis of, 1143
Calthorpe, Lord, 1417
Camden, Marquis 4, 85
Carbery, Lord, 117, 129
Carlisle, Earl of, 771
Carnarvon, Earl of, 35, 238. 1026
Chester, Bishop of, 113, 562, 1422
Colchester, Lord, 1217
Dacre, lord, 1740
Darlington, Earl of, 708
Darnley, Earl of, 128, 779, 1143
De Dunstanville, Lord, 854
Delawar, Lord, 1140
Dudley and Ward, Viscount, 570, 707, 776, 902, 1136, 1160, 1402
Eldon, Lord, 34, 237, 268, 450, 738, 788, 876, 1411
Ellenborough, Lord, 131, 266, 295, 449, 493, 706, 715, 867, 901, 1018, 1091, 1093, 1136, 1141, 1261, 1373
Enniskillen, Earl of, 130
Falmouth, Earl of, 715, 742
Farnham, Lord, 1372, 1418
Goderich, Viscount, 472, 550, 712, 766, 782, 803, 871, 984, 1089, 1093, 1140, 1221, 1258, 1373, 1374, 1380, 1390, 1398
Grey, Earl, 571, 720, 925, 1164, 1259, 1391
Grosvenor, Earl, 448, 563, 742, 876, 1197
Harewood, Earl of, 710, 923
Harrowby, Earl of, 152, 155, 552, 741, 773, 926, 1144, 1374, 1424
Holland, Lord, 82, 114, 130, 240, 575, 857, 1141, 1231
King, Lord, 1, 2, 86, 111, 293, 387, 551, 777
Lansdowne, Marquis of, 153, 240, 266, 268, 488, 924, 1022, 1084, 1092, 1235, 1407, 1426
Lauderdale, Earl of, 573, 575, 714, 878, 1143, 1197
Limerick, Earl of, 129
London, Bishop of, 994
Londonderry, Marquis of, 485, 549, 564, 774, 1139, 1399, 1405
Longford, Earl of, 84, 781
Lord Chancellor (Eldon), 34, 237, 268
Lord Chancellor (Lyndhurst), 573, 1418
Lyndhurst, Lord Chancellor, 573
Malmesbury, Earl of, 237, 267,665, 733, 778, 999 1092, 1140, 1258, 1382
Mansfield, Earl of, 467, 572, 923, 1009
Manvers, Earl, 853
Melville, Lord, 483, 782
Morley, Earl of, 772
Newcastle, Duke of, 707
Redesdale, Lord, 130, 268, 787, 789, 881, 1025, 1143
Richmond, Duke of, 270
Rosebery, Earl of, 1006, 1302
Rosslyn, Earl of, 813, 1025
Salisbury, Marquis of, 552, 713, 980, 1017, 1375
Seaford, Lord, 1426
Somerset, Duke of, 1011
Spencer, Earl, 718
Stanhope, Earl, 113, 813, 1014, 1140
Strangford, Viscount, 1138
Suffield, Lord, 235, 239, 266, 268, 296
Sussex, Duke of, 563
Tenterden, Lord, 882, 1261
Wellington, Duke of, 454, 770, 1196, 1229, 1374, 1384
Westmorland, Earl of, 480, 1086, 1141
Wharncliffe, Lord, 238, 268, 742, 984, 1195
Winchilsea, Earl of, 498, 548, 866, 1083, 1302
INDEX OF NAMES—HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Abercromby, Hon. James, 4
Acland, Sir Thomas, 194, 1343
Althorp, Viscount, 8, 34, 79, 291, 583, 675, 699, 897, 903, 906, 982, 1046, 1060, 1119, 1360
Atkins, Alderman, 290
Attorney General (Sir C. Wetherell), 94, 172, 229, 254, 387, 1340
Attorney General (Sir James Scarlett), 938, 947, 961, 1066, 1072, 1131, 1359, 1360
Attwood, Matthias, 1294
Bankes, Henry, 195, 336, 1176
Bankes, William, 895
Bankes, George, 961, 982, 1040
Barclay, Charles, 27, 82, 702, 1048, 1155
Barclay, David, 686, 903, 1044, 1159, 1213
Baring, Alexander, 9, 80, 108, 109, 173, 241, 664, 929, 1041, 1168, 1174, 1318, 1324, 1437
Beaumont, T. W. 744, 754
Belfast, Lord, 106
Belgrave, Lord, 578
Benett, John, 1316
Beresford, Marcus, 786
Bernal, Ralph, 90, 173, 345, 838
Binning, Lord, 1158
Birch, Joseph, 289, 1034, 1340
Blandford, Lord, 25
Bourne, Right Hon. Sturges, 938, 979, 1055, 1157, 1264, 1358
Bridges, Sir John, 672
Bright, Henry, 500
Brogden, James, 850
Brougham, Henry, 421, 509, 523, 528, 678, 700, 841, 847, 892, 912, 932, 938, 965, 1053, 1124, 1250, 1429, 1439.
Brownlow, Charles, 133, 251
Burdett, Sir Francis, 382, 412, 418, 528, 1265, 1288
Burrell, Sir Charles, 118, 500, 677, 685, 1044
Buxton, Thomas Fowell, 840
Calcraft, John, 36, 230, 1040, 1057
Calvert, Nicholson, 913, 931
Calvert, Charles, 895, 1156
Canning, Right Hon. George, 39, 76, 164, 169, 263, 281, 286, 344, 348, 428, 505, 521, 539, 542, 589, 751, 754, 763, 784, 931, 934, 1049, 1077, 1098, 1173, 1175, 1254, 1302, 1306, 1337
Carrington, Sir E. 30, 1157, 1345
Castlereagh, Lord, 561, 1033
Chancellor of the Exchequer (Right Hon. Fred. Robinson), 9, 37, 68, 79, 171, 241, 244
Chandos, Marquis of, 270, 498, 577
Clerk, Sir George, 9
Clifton, Lord, 758
Cockburn, Sir George, 1370
Colborne, N. R. 31, 584, 1264
Cole, Sir C. 289
Copley, Sir John,
see
Cripps, Joseph, 105, 110
Curteis, E. 177, 244
Curwen, John Christian, 380, 664, 1032
Davenport, E. D. 286, 1241, 1265, 1299
Davies, Colonel, 3, 241, 381, 696, 1040, 1123, 1177
Davis, Hart, 3
Dawson, A. 260, 503, 1301
Dawson, George, 418, 505, 544, 1135
Denison, W. J. 33
Denison, J. E. 1043
Duncombe, W. 29, 412, 503
Dundas, Captain, 522
Ellison, C, 664
Estcourt, T. 118, 1265, 1344
Farquhar, Sir R. 838
Fergusson, Sir Ronald, 33
Fergusson, R. C. 93, 172, 260, 904, 939, 1043, 1156, 1213, 1361, 1368
Fitzgerald, Maurice, 577, 580
Fitzgerald, Right Hon. Vesey,
Forbes, Sir Charles, 834, 1158, 1160, 1215, 1301, 1376
Foster, J. L. 246
French, Colonel, 28
Fyler, T. B. 978, 1287, 1339
Gascoyne, Isaac, 272, 502, 592, 665
Gilbert, Davies, 10
Gooch, Sir Thomas, 198, 280
Gordon, Robert, 110, 1059, 1262
Gordon, Captain, 190
Goulburn, Right Hon. Henry, 138, 213, 246, 1157, 1214
Gower, Lord F. L. 1438
Graham, Sir James, 200, 207
Grant, Right Hon. Charles, 78, 132, 174, 178, 289, 346, 1061
Grant, Robert, 852, 1344
Grattan, James, 28, 107, 212, 247, 1035
Grattan, Henry, 223
Grosvenor, General, 673
Gurney, Hudson, 703, 847, 906, 979, 983, 1058, 1061, 1062, 1132, 1173, 1344, 1350, 1443
Hardinge, Sir H. 578
Harvey, D. W. 12, 18, 88, 234, 253, 265, 338, 954
Heathcote, R. 977
Heron, Sir Robert, 29
Herries, J. C. 763
Hobhouse, John Cam, 228, 261, 349, 382, 1051, 1131, 1359
Horton, R. Wilmot, 844, 883, 930, 1170, 1253, 1434, 1437
Howick, Lord, 764, 1081
Hume, Joseph, 17, 72, 73, 95, 223, 234, 247, 285, 344, 347, 381, 384, 389, 499, 670, 762, 783, 786, 891, 1060, 1063, 1082, 1114, 1172, 1190, 1342, 1360, 1368, 1435
Huskisson, Right Hon. W. 505, 559, 619, 704, 761, 826, 1036, 1291, 1324
Irving, John, 79, 100
Knatchbull, Sir E. 197, 280, 291, 537, 541, 553, 1317, 1371
Legh-Keck, A. 682, 1042, 1047
Lennard, T. B. 1074
Lennox, Lord G. 705
Lethbridge, Sir Thomas, 108, 174, 280, 286, 415, 745, 754, 930, 934, 1028
Lewis, Frankland, 110, 248, 898
Leycester, Ralph, 345, 824, 1287
Liddell, Hon. H. T. 606
Lindsay, Colonel, 1178
Littelton, E. J. 117
Lushington, Dr. 92, 151, 898, 962, 1242
Maberly, John, 67, 586, 757, 889, 1172, 1290, 1379, 1429
Mackintosh, Sir James, 1178, 1213
Manning, W. 695, 1042, 1156
Marshall, John, 100
Marshall, W. 1052
Master of the Rolls (Sir John Copley)
Maxwell, John, 927
Mildmay, P. 27
Milton, Lord, 502, 590, 662, 691, 765, 832, 898, 1041, 1045, 1048, 1073, 1123, 1157
Monck, J. B. 233
Morpeth, Lord, 1335
Musgrave, Sir P. 202
Newport, Sir John, 38, 80, 146, 208, 243, 252, 501, 1053, 1081, 1124, 1316
Nugent, Lord 585
O'Neill, A. 1044, 1215
Palmer, C. Fyshe, 392, 1436
Palmer, R. 191
Pallmer, C. N. 897, 1157, 1249
Palmerston, Viscount, 302, 846, 1157, 1217
Parnell, Sir Henry, 102, 1120
Pearse, John, 1154, 1291
Peel, William, 560, 757
Peel, Right Hon. Robert, 17, 25, 91, 94, 119, 148, 205, 221, 231, 257, 274, 284, 393, 444, 523, 542, 591, 663, 755, 785, 895, 934, 938, 979, 1060, 1069, 1133, 1312, 1322, 1340, 1348, 1350
Philips, George, 193, 832, 1049
Phillimore, Dr. 1341, 1344
Plunkett, Sir William, 142, 218, 271, 276
Portman, E. B. 196, 503, 1035
Powlett, W. 304
Rancliffe, Lord, 19, 1052, 1195
Rice, Spring, 107, 142, 220, 245, 681, 1059
Robinson, Right Hon. Frederick,
see
Robinson, G. 242, 336
Ross, Charles, 836, 1215
Russell, Lord John, 11, 14, 19, 543, 694, 744, 1035, 1047, 1145, 1158, 1213
Russell, Lord William, 977, 1339
Sandon, Lord, 29, 900, 1034, 1052, 1340
Saunderson, A. 29
Scarlett, Sir James,
see
Sebright, Sir John, 10, 117, 759
Seymour, H. 503
Shadwell, Launcelot, 94, 173
Shelley, Sir John, 23
Sibthorpe, Colonel, 366
Slaney, R. A. 824, 1258
Smith, William, 12, 16, 28, 836, 1060, 1148, 1214, 1254, 1343, 1344, 1348
Smith, John, 216, 233, 297
Solicitor General (Sir N. C. Tindal), 172, 234, 382, 981, 1130
Somerset, Lord Edward, 890, 1427
Speaker, The (Right Hon. C. M. Sutton), 4, 6, 7, 282
Stanley, Lord, 697
Stanley, Hon. E. G. S. 1300
Sutton, Right Hon. Manners,
see
Sykes, D. 835
Tavistock, Marquis of, 754, 757
Taylor, M. A. 6, 255, 298, 939, 973, 1264
Tennyson, Charles, 19, 897, 1200, 1375, 1378, 1439
Thompson, C. P. 8, 292, 348, 612, 1301
Tierney, Right Hon. George, 157, 169, 390, 391
Tindal, Sir N. C.
see
Trench, Colonel, 272, 279
Twiss, Horace, 174, 682, 1191
Van Homrigh, P. 16, 1046, 1159, 1340
Vivian, Sir H. 34
Waithman, Alderman Robert, 299, 340, 591, 692, 845, 853, 1049, 1213
Wallace, Right Hon. Thomas, 366
Warburton, Henry, 16, 105, 292, 347, 1049, 1081, 1346
Warrender, Sir George, 546, 561
Western, C. C. 185, 1200, 1294, 1303, 1336
Wetherell, Sir C.
see
Whitmore, W. 89, 104, 170, 191, 814, 844, 1315
Wilks, John, 304, 342, 846
Wilson, Sir Robert, 15, 18, 233, 379, 765, 1059, 1075
Winn, Hon. G. 1034
Wodehouse, E. 194, 761, 762
Wood, Alderman Matthew, 233, 765, 682
Wood, John, 1052, 1061, 1132, 1148, 1300
Wood, Charles, 1194
Wood, Colonel, 79, 282, 289, 290, 785, 1263, 1315
Wrottesley, Sir John, 11, 71, 118, 974, 1149
Wynn, Right Hon. C. W. W. 6, 32, 302, 391, 667, 674, 677, 682, 697, 844, 937, 1051, 1213, 1341, 1367, 1376
Wynn, Sir W. W. 197
Yorke, Sir Joseph, 618, 672, 758, 784, 1350, 1371
END OF VOL. XVII.
T. C. Hansard, Printer, Paternoster-row Press.